Jump to content

Talk:2015 Myanmar general election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Can we have a Burmese-reading editor add a link to the official vote counts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comtebenoit (talk • contribs) 12:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The title is must revisied

[edit]

Burma (myanmar) must burmese (myanma). thank you Akuindo (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The editor who moved it has been asked to stop doing so. Number 57 12:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why?--Batmacumba (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He keeps moving articles from "Myanma" to "Burma", ignoring the fact that the main country article has been moved Myanmar. Number 57 13:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Akuindo (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend further revision of title Great that Burma is obsolete and Myanmar is used pretty much universally here and by media. Do not recall seeing "Myanma" except for this page. It may be there, but what I see is what I expect, Myanmar. Exception is Aung San Suu Kyi's page (Myanmar used 75 time, Myanma zero, Burma "more than100") --- Myanma may be correct, but it is not user friendly. Took me longer to initially find this page since was looking for Myanmar elections. Myanmar is longer, hence search doesn't pick up Myanma unless search excact title. Seldom know that while searching. --- If there's a time to change, it's now with the election this Sunday. Please change title to "Myanmar general election, 2015." At least temporarily through Nov. 18th during expected high usage period. Thanks ------ P.S. I like consistency. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I really don't buy the claim that it took you longer to find. Typing "Myanmar election 2015" or "Burma election 2015" into the search bar both give this article as the top hit. Myanmar general election, 2015 is also a redirect to the article. Number 57
What is Myanma? And how does it differ from Myanmar? Why Myanma election? 118.136.11.178 (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mynanma means "of Mynamar" – it's what "Burmese" is to "Burma". Number 57 11:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion poll

[edit]

Please add pesults of Opinion poll--Kaiyr (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately none exist that are reliable. Hence they are not included and live results do not exist either. Though the USDP has conceded victory to the NLD and official results are expected Tuesday morning.

111.68.54.77 (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 November 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. A number of supporters of this move pointed out that the demonym, 'Myanma', is obscure in English. This goes against the objective of guiding the reader quickly to the article they are probably looking for. Opponents of the move quote the guideline which wants the demonym to be used. The supporters of this move are more numerous, and both sides make reference to valid concerns, which unfortunately can't be achieved simultaneously. 'Burmese' is well understood in English, so if consensus ever decides to switch Myanmar back to Burma, it is likely that the 'Burmese' demonym will get used when referring to elections. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Myanma general election, 2015 → Myanmar general election, 2015 – Was moved without consensus. Wikipedia article for the country is at Myanmar. Should be moved back for consistency. Adabow (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about that all the Elections for Canada used Canadian despite the fact that the main article used Canada. We Also use French Presidential Election over France Presidential Election meaning that the election page needing to be consistent with the country name does appear to be common practice.--65.94.253.102 (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to all Wikipedia election article titles being changed to the correct adjectival form (correct by gender and number) of the national language (or languages) of the respective country: Deutsch, Françaises, Rossiiskie, Polskie, Ellinikes, Españolas etc etc. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The English-language adjectival form is Myanma, so we should probably use it. "Burmese" isn't a serious option because we don't need another round of Myanmar-related edit wars. ONR (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're about to get them, because today the Burmese people are voting overwhelmingly for the NLD, which continues to call the country by its correct English name, Burma. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This decision should be put on hold until the result of the election is known and the new government makes clear its policy on the English name of the country. The NLD has never recognised the switch from Burma to Myanmar. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that discussion is more appropriate at the Myanmar page. This page's name is based on the location of the main country article. Number 57 12:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Note that Wikipedia says "German election" and "Greek election" not "Deutsch election" or "Ellinikes" election. That's because "Germany" and "Greece" are the English words for Deutschland and Ellas respectively. Likewise, "Burma" is the English word for Myanmar, which is why we should go on using it. It's not within the prerogatives of the Burmese government (particularly when it is an unelected one) to change the English language. If Wikipedia wasn't infested with obsessive linguistic pedants you wouldn't have to have silly arguments about what are the correct adjectival forms of Burmese words. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that discussion is for the main Myanmar article, not here. If you want to suggest the article is moved to Burma, then please do. Once that happens, this can be moved back to "Burmese". Number 57 22:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait and see what Aung San Suu Kyi does, as should you. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I literally thought this was just a misspelling of "Myanmar." I've never seen this word before in English (whereas I'm much more familiar with "Côte d'Ivoire" being used in English language sources, and that page got moved because of being "not English"). Principle of least astonishment. 169.231.54.192 (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you suggesting ignorance is a valid reason to avoid conforming to a naming guideline? And let's be honest, no-one is going to type "Myanmar general election, 2015" into the search box - as this is a formulaic naming pattern, it's not a common name issue. Number 57 10:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose guideline states that it should use the adjective form, which is pretty widely used. Myanmar over Burma, as Wikipedia article uses the term Myanmar. Jolly Ω Janner 06:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • support although the correct usage is to use the demonym, there already seem to be at least several examples of violation of that usage, often, it would seem, where use of the demonym might create confusion due (as in this case) to its obscurity Rpot2 (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is there confusion? Again, this seems to be a suggestion that ignorance is an excuse for misnaming. What examples of "violations" that are not explained by other reasons such as disambiguation? Number 57 00:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • support... One of the best examples that I can find for my support of using Myanmar over Myanma is the United Kingdom general elections as the standard-bearer in contrast to British general elections, which becomes redirected to United Kingdom general elections. Even the Wikipedia auto-correct dictionary (at this juncture) doesn't know what Myanma is... I actually find Myanma general election to be rather confusing, in contrast to my mental expectation of it being Myanmar general election. Being an English speaker I do not refer to, nor is there any precedent that I see used in publications as well (as a standard reference for its proper use) to refer to natives of Myanmar as Myanma... While it may be correct in formal terminology, it is apparently an unfamiliar term in the context of actual use. Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "United Kingdom" has been used instead of British because of Irish nationalist editors who have claimed that the word "British" cannot be used because the elections also take place in Northern Ireland. We have a very clear naming guideline WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums that states the demonym should be used; there are a tiny handful of cases where it isn't and it's rather depressing that these are being wheeled out as examples as why we don't have to use "Myanma" without any context to why the demonyms are not used in those cases. Number 57 21:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. We should use the common name in English-language sources, which is not "Myanma." Neutralitytalk 02:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait and see. My feeling is that the form Myanma is rare to the point of being pedantic in educated English writing. I would expect more even something like the construct Myanmari and, indeed, Burmese. But my immediate response is wait and see - for is there the possibility that the new government will accept the name Burma being used in English once again? And one can find this article by using the form Myanmar, making the issue not worth concern. TomS TDotO (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Common name is not an argument that supports the use of "Myanmar". The guideline specifically requires the use of a demonym – the two options here are Myanma and Burmese (Myanmar is not a demonym) – see the infobox on the Myanmar article. Number 57 12:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RNP in State/Region Hluttaw

[edit]

To editor IwaizumiOikawa HajimeTooru: According to [10], ANP (=RNP) has no seats in this chamber yet. I checked your source [11], but I can see no figures in the Region / State tab. Petr Matas 13:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Akuindo: May I ask you for your input? The dispute concerns with diff/690126208. Petr Matas 14:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arakan is now (after 2014) nahhhh Rakhine is past (before 2014). ANP = RNP. so the story. :) :) Akuindo (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Akuindo: But the problem is that I can't see any figures for any party in the map for State/Region Hluttaw. Petr Matas 17:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Affairs Ministers

[edit]

I know none have had electoral results released yet, but can someone with more knowledge flesh out a section on the 29 ethic affairs ministers and what their legislative role actually is? Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • On top of this, does anyone know what the 2010 results for ethnic affairs ministers were? Without knowledge of who the incumbents are, I can't write on the seat changes. It would be nice if the seat changes were there. Maswimelleu (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Previous State/Regional Assembly Figures

[edit]

Hey, all. I've taken the number shown by The Myanmar Times infographics here to help come up with gain/loss figures for the chart, but they didn't include Kachin (whose results were not final until today) or Ayeyawady and Sagaing (for some reason?), for a total of 168 district seats and 8 ethnic seats (that is, barring any boundary changes to district or population change to ethnic seats that occurred in-between). Therefore, for those seats, I've resorted to using our articles here on Wikipedia for the district seats, but their 8 ethnic seats are still totally unknown. Including the 13 cancelled seats, I get 650 seats, which I don't know is right or wrong. 13 district elections are shown as cancelled in Shan, unknown about the three missing assemblies. If anyone can find sourced figures for the three assemblies the Times missed, let me know and I can make adjustments. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

District seats

[edit]

Ethnic seats

[edit]

Vacant seats in local assemblies

[edit]

To editor Therequiembellishere: As indicated in Myanmar general election, 2015#Preparation, first the UEC established 644 = 660 − 16 constituencies, and only after that 14 of those were cancelled due to insurgencies, resulting in 630 elected seats. Therefore I think that it is wrong to subtract the 14 cancelled seats from the 660 total in the Results section. Petr Matas 09:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't noticed that! But I'm still a bit confused: why are these 16 considered vacant? It seems these districts don't exist at all. Where are we getting 660 from in the first place? Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is 75% of the 880 total, as 25% is reserved for the military. Petr Matas 09:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But why an 880 total? Without the 16, isn't it 864? Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Search for 660 at http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/election-2015/live-blog.html. Petr Matas 09:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That only brought up a single result from the live blog from 12 November (4:15 local time) saying, "So far, 243 (+7 cancelled) of 330 Pyithu hluttaw seats have been cinformed, 116 out of 168 Amyotha seats, and 380 (+ 14 cancelled) out of 660 State/Regional hluttaw seats." So couldn't they have made a mistake? Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since the full released results only add up to 630 (plus the 14 cancelled). It seems like the 2010 election was run with 660 elected seats (with 13 cancelled) and this was run with 644. If that's true, mentioning it like that in the article makes more sense than "Vacant seats", since that makes it sound like 30 seats could be elected in by-elections later in the term (instead of 14). Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right. What is the number of military appointees then? Petr Matas 09:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we'll have to wait until the new parliament is seated in January/February? Unless the military gives a press release sometime prior including the names of their representatives. My question is whether their 25% is given out of the total possible members of the body, or out of the total elected members (that is, minus the 14 cancelled in Shan State Assembly and the 7 in the House of Reps). Also, regarding the Local Assemblies, am I correct in thinking the 25% appointees are out of the individual parliaments, and not out of the total (644/630)? If so, the total number may be a little off 25% for them all combined. Oh, and are the 25% including the ethnic ministers (either per state/region, or of the combined total--673/659)? Ugh, this is even more confusing! Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.eods.eu/library/101115-ps-myanmar_en.pdf is the only document I have found on it. It says people were electing 644 [i.e. including cancelled and excluding ethnic ministers] of 860 members. 75% of 860 is 645, so we are pretty close. Petr Matas 09:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in some of the local assemblies the number of seats is not a multiple of four, which could explain the one-seat discrepancy. Petr Matas 09:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I imagine that's the final tally then, and the imperfect number comes from the appointees being apportioned per each assembly's numbers vs their combined total. And that the tally probably only comes from the total district seats, not including the ethnic seats. This is similar to how the NLD's "magic number" for an absolute majority in the National Assembly (329) is actually one fewer than the total number needed for a simple majority in each chamber (217 in the Nats and 113 in the Reps = 330. All minus the 7 cancelled seats in the Reps, of course, which still gives us 333 needed for the total and 113+221 = 334).
Also, regarding the 660 number, which seems to entirely come from that single post on The Myanmar Times live blog we all slavishly watched, I think the number is even more off given the seats I listed above only add up to 650. Therequiembellishere (talk)
Wait, that's actually wrong. I think. I thought I'd gotten up to 650 before but when I just tried I got up to 629 (plus 13 cancelled for a 642 total). Since we don't have figures for the ethnic seats from 2010, that number only adds up to 19. But assuming they elected the same numbers in those states/regions as this time (which was eight), we only get up to 27, so something is wrong somewhere. Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Summing the elected and cancelled seats from rev. 691659725 gives me 644, which seems correct to me. Petr Matas 10:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I made some edits regarding results and the scope of the NLD's control. Some of their local assembly majorities are razor thin after the military appointees come in (Chin, Kachin and Kayah especially) and will like be affected (possibly greatly) by the vacancies that arise out of the various government formations that bar anyone from serving in both executive and legislative roles (with the exception of ethnic ministers, who are both by nature, and I believe can be given an additional ministerial portfolio), but I pointed out the explicit lack of control over Rakhine and Shan. Perhaps undue emphasis, I leave it to others to decide. The vacancies after ministerial appointments will affect every parliament (state/regional and the national houses) but I'm not sure how to mention this upcoming shakeup before we know the scope of it (since ministers are able to be appointed from outside parliament, at least for the national government) until it actually happens. This also means almost inevitable by-elections (I believe local chief ministers actually have to be selected by the president from the majority) by 2017, so the parliaments are sort of still in a state of flux by nature. This is all assuming I skimmed the Constitution correctly that one time. Therequiembellishere (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Results by Constituency

[edit]

I suggest we spin off the results in each constituency into a different article or place them in collapsible boxes. As it stands the list is very long and takes up a large proportion of the article, despite perhaps not being the level of information people are looking for on the page. Having individual collapsible lists for each type of Hluttaw or a spun off page for these results might make the article easier to navigate. It would also look nicer if the results could be colour coded by party. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they should be collapsible or split (I prefer the former), and think they should be made sortable again. I'm going to look into filling in the missing people based on the results aggregated by the live blog and the last few unveiled here. I think I remember trying to do this last week and having trouble matching the constituencies listed here with those on the spreadsheet, so if someone with more knowledge of the area gets to this before I do, their help would be great. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you know how to make the box collapsible then would you be able to do it? I'm not sure how to do it. I noticed there are missing results, and I've also picked up some errors people have made when transposing the State Hluttaw results to the relevant State Hluttaw pages. As all the individual members are added it is important that we cross-reference them with other pages to ensure the list is accurate and consistent across Wikipedia. One of my newest frustrations is that people are conflating parties like Shan Nationalities Democratic Party and Shan Nationalities League for Democracy. Maswimelleu (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've also made them sortable again, I removed that functionality by mistake. Maswimelleu (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the states/regions should be alphabetical, yes? Right now it's really confusing and I don't know why they're ordered that way. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't touch the order when I colour coded them. I believe some constituencies have an official number which I think should take priority over having them alphabetical by constituency name. Maswimelleu (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full results

[edit]

ASSK gave an interview to WashPo on 19 November where she says,

LW: Soon you’ll discuss the transition with the president and the commander in chief?
ASSK: They say they are going to meet me after the election commission has finished its work. I’m not quite sure what that means.
LW: So they haven’t given you a date?
ASSK: No. Not yet. I suppose it means that they will wait 45 days. It is not very specific.

So sometime in the next month and a half, I believe the UEC is supposed to release full voting results. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How much detail do you want to go into when we obtain these results? If we have full results by constituency then we chart the old and new holders of each individual consistuency as well as the percentage swings. On the other hand we could simply use the data to update the tallies to each Hluttaw. I can imagine plenty of people are interested in reading the kind of vote swings involved, as well as many votes successful USDP candidates obtained. I've also been looking at the Indian General Election page, which has a short graphical summary for each state. It'd be interesting to have those, especially for fiercely contested areas such as Shan and Rakhine State where things didn't go as well for the NLD. Maswimelleu (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that's too much. This article should probably be limited to putting the total votes per party on the national scale (for the Nats, the Reps, the local district seats and the local ethnic seats). If you (or anybody) wanted to include more detailed information, it would probably require creating individual articles for each constituency (as the US and the UK do), at least for the Reps and Nats. The issue is making the case for notability, since there is a Western-bias (based on established records and the number of users whoa are competent in both the native and English languages) and since all these assemblies are so new. None of them existed before 2010 and at most have had three officeholders. The argument would get harder for all local seats, but some of the larger US state congress district and Scottish parliamentary constituencies have done so. Or at least a single article for the whole legislative body (say Bago Region or Shan State). The quirk of the ethnic seats being what they are may be enough for a standalone article of all 29 put together regardless. I'm talking a lot out of my ass here in forecasting obstacles, and I don't mean to discourage anyone making these articles themselves because we definitely do need people to put in the work to make Wikipedia less Western-centric if it is to be more comprehensive. I'm certainly not one of those people, but if you're willing to try, I'd be happy to try and lend a hand where I'm able, when I'm able. Does anyone else have a take on this? Maybe less cynical and more established than I am? Therequiembellishere (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting points, I've occasionally contributed to articles on local politics in the United Kingdom and I can see where you're coming from in terms of Western-bias on notability. I'll respond to your points one by one:
  • Spun-off pages: You're right, it would be too much on one page. It may be worth having a spin-off article which shows results in Region/State tables with the winner and the losing incumbent (if applicable). Otherwise the winning vote share would be nice.
  • Constituency Articles: Creating individual articles for each constituency (generally done in the Anglosphere or apparently translated from other active language Wikis) would be extremely time consuming as I have no knowledge of Burmese. So if a Burmese editor wishes to do so, they may be able to do it more competently.
  • State Hluttaws: If we did create constituency articles then the State/Regional Hluttaws could simply have a single page tabulating results for each of their constituencies, or a drop down box if there are relatively few to include. That said, a country like Canada has comparably sized states (in terms of population and seats), yet does have individual articles for state level constituencies (Kilbride (electoral district)|example]]). It'd probably be down to the editor, but 660 seats (excluding military appointees) would be very time consuming and possibly difficult for a reader to navigate since we're unlikely to have anybody looking for one constituency in particular.
  • Amalgamated articles: One article for an entire legislative body is probably what we want to have. Other Asian politics pages seem to do something similar. Generally a good use of graphics and colour (within reason) makes it a more accessible article, so long as somebody searching for a particular constituency or seats held by a particular party can do so easily.
  • Ethnic affairs ministers: Ethnic seats warrant their own article explaining their role and how they work within their relevant state. As I understand, they are a type of MP in their respective states, with special privileges including the ability to sit on an executive as well as being a legislator (usually impossible due to separation of powers in Myanmar) and their accountability solely to an ethnic electorate. This seems to mean that very small or dispersed groups such as the Akha people are able to elect an ethnic affairs minister in Shan State despite not having the clout to elect an MP in a geographic constituency. Honestly I think there's sufficient notability to make 29 pages, one for each respective electorate. If the Union Election Commission releases that data then it might make for some interesting reading.
  • Workload: I've been adding quite a bit each day, and the cynicism hasn't kicked in yet. Once we get the full results I can let you know what I could use help with and can hold off on making over a thousand articles for all these Hluttaw constituencies until we have the data for seat changes and vote percentages mapped out on existing pages. I think one of the first ways we can address a Western-bias is to present the data we have in a clear and accessible way, in a format that can later be spun off into individual pages if we wish. It just occurred to me that we already have pages for most of the townships represented in the House of Representatives, so we could potentially use those articles to show the election data instead of giving them a separate page. House of Nationalities seem to be in numbered constituencies, so those would probably require specific pages. I have no idea what the electoral system to the House of Nationalities is - it's somewhat unclear whether it's also First-Past-The-Post like in the Reps, or whether it's something else entirely.
That turned out to be a very long response. Hopefully this is presented in a way that is clear to anyone else joining this discussion. Maswimelleu (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gain/Loss figures

[edit]

Where do the Gain/Loss figures come from? For example, NLD had 5 seats in the old House of Nationalities, which gives Increase 130... Petr Matas 14:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Petr Matas: The NLD didn't win any seats in the 2010 elections (this is what the gain/loss should be compared to), so they should be shown as 100% gains. Number 57 14:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that they did not participate in the 2010 election, but in Amyotha they gained 4 seats in the 2012 by-election and 1 seat with an NDF MP joining NLD. Petr Matas 14:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Petr Matas: We don't count by-election results when doing the +/– figures. See the infobox for the United Kingdom general election, 2015; the +/– is compared to the 2010 elections rather than the number of seats held directly before the elections. Number 57 15:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Table format

[edit]

It seems that CentreLeftRight definitely wants to use the template-generated table and I think that Maswimelleu and Number 57 will have something to say about it. Petr Matas 06:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are:

  • If we want to display full party names, that can be done by adding a parameter to the template.
  • Rendering problems in some browsers are a technicality to fix, not a reason to abandon the templates.
  • I think that the column heads should include references to make clear which source each column is based on. We should also clarify which data the Gain/Loss is calculated from (see #Gain/Loss figures). In my oppinion, a footnote link in the column head is the best way to do it, because it is easiest to find.

Petr Matas 06:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The template generated table is fine so long as the line break above total is fixed to show up properly on all browsers. I personally think we should show acronyms with party links, so that people who are interested can click through. Since 90% of them are ethnic parties, I'm not sure people care much beyond reading about the NLD and the USDP. I'm not sure whether we're misusing the templates, or whether the template itself is flawed and required a change on its own page to fix the browser specific issues. I feel like trying to change a whole template would be opening a can of worms. I agree that we should have numbered references at the top, and I personally think that's better than having a single source at the bottom. Would be best not to overload every single table with individual sources and footnotes, however. Maswimelleu (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a template for the totals. I hope the rendering is OK now... Petr Matas 12:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Petr's format is miles better and is consistent with previous years and wider usage on other countrys' articles. The current format is awful (we should never have a table that only uses acronyms), and CentreLeftRight's comments are unacceptable and wrong. They do not own the page. Number 57 17:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template

[edit]

I have removed the template format and replaced it with our standard table, which is preferable (IMO) as it presents the data in the usual order (party, votes, %, seats) and uses far less coding (almost 5kb less). Are there objections to this, and why? Number 57 11:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The advantage of the templates is that the data are separated from the formatting and some values are calculated automatically, so no need to recalculate them on each update. If we decide that we want to change the order of columns, add/remove one, etc., we can just modify our {{Election summary Myanmar}} template (I am going to create it) or modify one parameter, and leave all the data intact. All Myanmar articles will be consistent like a charm. The increased code size comes from the parameter labels in the Items - That they offer an advantage of documenting which value is which. Petr Matas 12:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with using a template is that often they are not flexible enough to accommodate certain situations. For example, several results table will not have the seat change column as there is no previous election to compare with (this applies to the 1990, 2010 elections for instance). Number 57 12:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then a parameter should be added to make the template do what we need. The template is flexible in that it can be modified and parametrized. Petr Matas 12:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can it be done? I looked into doing this several years ago and couldn't find a function that would make a column disappear. The only way it could be done was to create a whole separate set of templates for that scenario.
Another potential scenario is given in Gibraltar general election, 2015#Results, where a template would need to be able to run over two rows. I'm sure if you made even more templates it could be done, but I'm of the opinion that it's easier in the long run to simply use Wikitables rather than create x number of templates to deal with different things. Number 57 12:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can be done, thanks to the new {{Item}} framework. You will just add nochange nonet=yes at the top and the column disappears. It will be possible to make the alliance with nested items. Petr Matas 12:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now we can continue this discussion at Template talk:Election summary Myanmar ;-) Petr Matas 14:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vote tallies

[edit]

The UEC has apparently released voting tallies but I can't find the actual data anywhere, just some commentary on it. Does anyone know where a link might be so we can try to fill in the results tables more? Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Five weeks from the election and the only figures findable online are the vote totals polled by the winning candidate in each seat, which were in New Light in the week of the election. The UEC has released nothing since. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC's correspondent has tweeted about some form of results here and here. Do you have any more insight on what this is about? Therequiembellishere (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are available here (House of Nationalities) and here (House of Representatives). The problem is that they are in Burmese! Number 57 23:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to do a bit of analysis on the House of Representative file, but it's pretty difficult as the Burmese text does not copy across properly. What I've effectively got is a list of parties (unnamed) and their vote totals. Using a pivot table (and correcting for what appeared to be some typos) I got 82 parties running (one line may be for independents) and a total of 21,951,803 votes cast. The top two parties were 12,473,406 (56.82%) and 6,180,040 (28.15%), presumably being the NLD and the USPD respectively. The 56.82% and 28.15% matches Fisher's report of 57% of the vote for the NLD and 28% for the USPD, but are not exactly the same as the figures given by Richard Hornsey. I'll try and work out what the parties are by manually comparing the Burmese in the pdf to their respective articles at some point in the near future. Number 57 17:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's brilliant. Kudos for all of that, it's way more than I would have thought to do! Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When filling in the data, you don't need to bother with the percentages - the template will calculate them for you, if you fill in the totalvotes parameter of the main template. I have filled in the data you supplied above to provide an example. However, you can still use the votes % parameter to override the calculation. Petr Matas 11:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are available here (House of Nationalities) and here (House of Representatives). When I click these links I get a blue dinosaur telling me the pages are not available. Is this just because I'm in Thailand using shaky hotel wifi, or is there some other problem? Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I get it too. They seem to have disappeared... Number 57 08:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it seems they have changed the URLs. They are now here: Nationalities and Representatives. Number 57 08:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Full constituency results now available at Psephos: http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/b/burma/ Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Intelligent Mr Toad 2: I've added up the totals for the individual constituencies (so I could see the result for every party), and the total figure I get is 22,423,629 whereas the total figure given in the summary figures is 22,200,195 (i.e. 223,434 different). I've gone over it a few times, and can't find any double counting. I've started going through each state, and am also getting different totals each time; for example
  • For Ayeyarwaddy Region the constituency total is 3,100,309 but the total is 3,099,151.
  • For Bagao the constituency total is 2,377,293 but the summary total is 2,373,643.
  • For Mandalay, the constituency total is 3,062,604 but the summary total is 2,876,808 (this state accounts for the majority of the difference – 185,796)
  • For Magway, the two match
Do you have any idea where these discrepancies are coming from? Number 57 20:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haste, no doubt. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Intelligent Mr Toad 2: Is it likely that the total of the constituency figures is correct? (BTW, this wasn't meant to be a criticism of your work – you've done an amazing job!). Number 57 12:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When were they published? As I recall a few announcements of results were painfully slow, something over a week. One could have gone out without cross-checking to see if everything is there. Also, were any results challenged? I know one USDP candidate was declared not elected following a challenge, and the NLD candidate was declared winner instead. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The constituency figures are taken from the tables at the UEC website, which you linked to above on 7 January. I don't know when the UEC first posted them. I used the candidate lists published in English at the Myanmar Election Resources Information Network website (http://www.merin-online.org/english-resources/ now offline). I soon discovered that these contain many errors (wrong party, wrong candidate order, etc), so I had to check each of them against the Burmese tables as I went. I then matched these to the voting figures given in Burmese at the UEC website, having learned to read the ten Burmese numeral symbols. Since there are 323 constituency results with an average of six candidates per seat, and since I was working from tables in a foreign alphabet, and since not all of the tables added up correctly even in the Burmese version, no doubt there are many errors in my results. Having spent three weeks on this, I'm not inclined at present to go back and recheck them all, although I may do so eventually.

The mismatch you have spotted between the totals in my state/region tables and the totals derived by adding the totals of the constituency results must arise from errors in my addition. I will have to go back and recheck all these. Thanks for spotting this problem.

I don't have any sources on challenges. The Burmese tables may reflect changes after the election as a result of challenges, or they may not - I have no way of knowing. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now checked the first mismatch you cited, in Ayeyarwaddy. There is a discrepancy of 1,538 votes. This is because I omitted the 1,538 votes received by the single United Dem Party candidate in Ayeyarwaddy. I hope the others are that simple. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Using a more rigorous method of counting and checking, I've now corrected counting errors and a few omissions in Ayeyarwaddy, Bago, Chin, Kachin and Kayah. The rest will follow. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Intelligent Mr Toad 2: Great – those states all add up to the combined totals I have worked out now! Number 57 11:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've now checked and corrected all except Shan, Taninthyeri and Yangon, which I'll do tomorrow. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now all done. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Intelligent Mr Toad 2: Excellent, it all seems to match up now. Just one last quibble (sorry) – I have different party totals for the NLD (12,805,655 as opposed to 12,794,561) and Shan National Democratic Party (122,392 as opposed to 133,486) [both of these are 11,094 different, so assume an SNDP candidate has been classed as NLD (or vice versa) somewhere?]. Also, I only have 5,097 as the total for the Kokang Dem and Unity Party (as far as I can see from the constituency totals, Yan Kyinn Kan in Kunlong (Shan State) was their only candidate). Number 57 10:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Myanmar general election, 2015. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Military appointees

[edit]

In Diff/701767779, Phyo WP changed the number of state/regional military appointees from 216 to 220 and sourced it with UEC announcement 3/2016, but I cannot find that figure in the source given. Can you specify the exact location in the source? This change also led to the total number of seats in state/regional hluttaws being changed from 860 to 864, which contradicts the source "European Union Election Observation Mission. Myanmar, General Elections, 2015. Preliminary Statement" (PDF). Petr Matas 10:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, EU Observation Mission Statement contradicts UEC announcement. Sorry for adding non-English source. I cannot find English translation of the announcement so far. The UEC announcement was published in 19 January State-run Myanmar Alin & Kyemon newspapers. Please count page 9&10. [12]
  • Kachin State Hluttaw - 1 to 13
  • Kayah State Hluttaw - 1 to 5
  • Kayin State Hluttaw - 1 to 6
  • Chin State Hluttaw - 1 to 6
  • Sagaing Region Hluttaw - 1 to 25
  • Taninthayi Region Hluttaw - 1 to 7
  • Bago Region Hluttaw - 1 to 19
  • Magwe Region Hluttaw - 1 to 17
  • Mandalay Region Hluttaw 1 to 19
  • Mon State Hluttaw - 1 to 8
  • Rakhaing State Hluttaw - 1 to 12
  • Yangon Region Hluttaw - 1 to 31
  • Shan State Hluttaw - 1 to 34
  • Ayeyarwady Region Hluttaw - 1 to 18

Any opinion? PhyoWP *click 11:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I did not realize your source is the list of military appointees. Summing the figures following "1 to" above really gives 220. I will explain it in the article. Petr Matas 13:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you translate the title of the reference "uec3/16" and fill in its parameter trans_title? Petr Matas 13:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statement No. (3/2016): Defence Services Personnel Representatives for State or Regional Hluttaws
  • ALT1: Statement No. (3/2016): Military appointees for State or Regional Parliaments

Thanks. PhyoWP *click 14:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: President and State Counsellor

[edit]

The current format of the infobox footer looks confusing to me. I think it should use a table like the infobox body does:

before election   designate
President Thein Sein
USDP 		Htin Kyaw
NLD
State
Counsellor 		Aung San Suu Kyi
NLD

It is probably going to need a modification of the template. Pinging CentreLeftRight and 97.90.36.47. Petr Matas 05:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have no idea how to tweak templates as large and complex as the Template:Infobox election, so I won't be much help or have any real say on what should be done. I'll leave the decision of what to do to you and other fellow contributors.
- CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the State Counsellor as you just did is a good solution as well. Petr Matas 09:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_Myanmar_general_election&oldid=1196689820"