Knowledge (XXG) talk:In the news/Recurring items/Elections

2814:

regular control and would avoid red timers as often. ITNR can decide a minimum time to keep the election up, something well discuss but i think 4-5 days ebefor and after should do it (well need to discuss when to start the day count) + I suppose it would need a prelim nomination but would be straightforward, this is to remind admins to post it if hey are not following the calendar. + update woudl change of course but only somewhat, since if we post BEFORE the election then it only need be a decent article (these days i often increase stubs by Nightstallion, he then gets final confirmation sources, etc and templates) + no confusion as such, as it works right not the titles are only by past conention for parliamentary/legislative/general (Which needs standadising) + but royal succession is the "change in head of state" which is ITNR, guess we can move that here too. So as to add ALL changes in govt? + highlighting would occur when ITNC adds a blurb. Of corse all this would need some wider consensus, but at this point were just generating ideas. (must say great progress in a little over 2 days)

1978:

respectively). In the first case, where the framework is democratic but dominated by one party, precisely because of that system the significance of the electoral results should be sought in other facts: Did the support for the ruling party increase or decrease or stay the same? Did opposition groups make any significant breakthroughs, or none at all? (Both would be significant facts.) In the second case, where the underlying system is undemocratic, it should be recognized that elections serve a symbolic role rather different to the one they serve in liberal democracies, and even if there is no effectively non-single-party grouping at all—like North Korea but unlike China—they provide a very important component of the state's symbolic narrative that is important to analyse. In neither case is the election just an irrelevance, and in neither case is it legitimate to simply say that the results were known "all along": elections have more aspects than just the fact of who won. --

3176:- where the conclusion is indeed that there was no consensus to change the status quo. Claiming that the status quo "won" was probably a not very neutral way of mine to formulate it - sorry for that. For me, it's important that this alternative is submitted to the vote of the whole community before being implemented - and indeed editors here should be aware that there may be no consensus again. Therefore, if you all want to make sure that the Election Ticker is accepted by the "skeptics", make sure that indeed the specifics are hashed out in detail, and that the end result is appealing also from a visual perspective (i.e. not cluttered with too many elections; at the same time not too empty either; maybe also considering some chronological element as discussed above, etc.). Else, the end vote may again be a "victory" for the status quo (i.e. "no consensus to implement the Election Ticker"). 2108:

Nigeria. Any limitation will be artificial - why ignore the 20 smallest? Why not the 19 smallest, the 30 smallest, the 42 smallest? Why focus on the OECD, the G20, or any organisation other than the UN? Another argument from my point of view (biased, admittedly) is that including news on elections of small countries is one of the things which makes Knowledge (XXG) INT unique and noteworthy. I don't need INT to necessarily tell me that Barack Obama or Mitt Romney has been elected - all news sites on the Internet will tell me that immediately after the elections. The info that Taur Matan Ruak has been elected in East Timor (with the link to background infos on what has happened beforehand and what this may mean in the wider East Timorese - and indeed in the regional South East Asian context) is on the contrary a unique service that Knowledge (XXG) INT can provide me.

437:

line drawn below country twenty-one was a fair way to conduct policy. To a degree, I understand the problem with the idea. However unlike many of the points raised, both specifically at my proposal and generally elsewhere, I disagree with the attitude which says "all elections can be considered notable." Whilst I accept Knowledge (XXG) can be a window on the world, and specifically democracy, that does not match up with the attitude surrounding the nomination of stories at ITN/C. We have been very tough on a number of otherwise sound nominations, but seem to melt into nothingness when faced with an election. I think this attitude needs to be curtailed, which is why I considered it right to add the 20 smallest nations, by population, to the existing list of "exceptions to the rule".

1788:

world having an "In the news" section which is frequently a week or more out of date). The sum of your contribution was to imply that those who successfully get elections onto ITN are unprofessional. No-one even tried to refute my points about regional interest from massive countries. Nor did anyone try to counter the fact that all national politicians, be they from upstanding democracies or tinpot dictatorships with token elections, take/veto/rubber stamp/follow the party line on decisions which can have life or death implications for thousands or millions of people (on military action, capital punishment, healthcare and so on). —

1813:

life-death decisions, but a lot of them do not. In a lot of countries powers are devolved - US states make capital punishment decision, while Canadian provinces oversee health care and education. Apparently those are not 'sovereign' enough to be considered notable. This is not to mention the importance of judicial authorities, which in many countries have equal status constitutionally as the executive. It would be foolish, then, to not include something like a US Supreme Court nomination, which has much greater implications over a much greater number of people, over an inconsequential 'election' in the Gambia. And not to

2408:

election results, and that's where the usual problems we've all experienced in ITN/C will jump up again. If it's not done properly, we could have a situation whereby the election ticker has a link to the Anywhere Election, 2012, that everyone knows caused riots and deaths, whilst the ITN box has no mention of the Anywhere Riots 2012 because there's a hold-up debate while we all count our Oppose and Supports. It is so often like herding cats but we're going to have to co-ordinate ourselves if the ITN + Ticker combination is going to hold any credibility across the community as a whole

1961:

straightforward criterion of reporting every election in a sovereign state by default. For all its flaws, the current policy is the least bad option, since it's easily comprehensible and has no international prejudice. If elections are taking up too much space (and I don't personally think they are), I would certainly favour producing more news items in other fields rather than suppressing coverage of elections. I also note Lihaas' unexplained statement that elections in "Sudan and Saudi would not be " as another example of this bias. --

1488:

vague to the extent that you can argue for almost anyone - but they do provide a framework for discussion that directs debate away from less profitable channels and generally allows consensus to emerge in a reasonable time span. I see no reason why a similar "elections criteria" could not be developed, hopefully one richer and less vague than the death criteria, that would similarly channel debate into a finite number of issues that can be explored relatively quickly and a consensus reached in a reasonable time frame.

1890:

notion - sovereignty is by definition sacrosanct - nobody can tell the people of Seychelles what to do except its own government. I agree that global power equations necessarily have a bearing on what the Seychelles government will likely tell its people to do, but that does not take away from the sovereign power - we are all aware of some countries that defy the global power hierarchy (although mostly to its own detriment).

2482: 3249:

Sovereign state elections would quality automatically, as would the 'special candidates' described above. But any sub-national or other 'special' elections should be separately nominated at ITN/C for the ticker, and the threshold of consensus should be lower, given that the election ticker is more fluid and takes less room. As for the number, I would say 5 is a happy medium?

1066:. To me, an election is not consequential when it is dominated by a single political party (PAP of Singapore as an example, the Congolese Labour Party in Congo-Brazzaville, or even the LDP in Japan prior to 2010), when it is stage-managed and the results are predictable, but does not stir significant international controversy (in the case of Algeria, Gabon, Belarus, China). 35: 954:. I believe this approach is in line with our mission - which is "ITN supports the central purpose of Knowledge (XXG)—making a great encyclopedia." I propose this as a good starting point for all editors involved given the impasse that we've faced in previous discussions, and I am hopeful that we will reach a consensus on this issue. 2220:

concludes - and it is always in the dogmatically stringent format of "X wins a majority in Y's country's parliament". Moreover, this ticker would also lend some coverage potentially to non-sovereign entities whose elections may be considered of 'wide interest'. Examples of this would include the recently concluded

3127:

In the last discussion, the status quo "won", so it seems a bit rushed to claim that almost all the alternatives are preferable to the status quo... :-) Also: primaries in major states can still appear on the ITN section, if I understood the process correctly, if enough people can be convinced that a

2939:

I'm a non-admin, but would suggest that the increase in workload would be trivial. I say this because these articles are already eligible for ITN, and the same basic principles would apply: admins would still check that an article is ready (as quality is the only requirement), and would still post if

2376:

The ticker sounds like a workable solution. This will ensure representation of elections of all sovereign states without taking up too much space. Of course, only those articles that are nominated and which are sufficiently updated (usual procedure for any ITN story) should be featured in the ticker.

2360:

I like the idea about a ticker, though it appears we would all have to concede that every debate we have here would need to be mothballed. There would also need to be a wider debate amongst the community, wouldn't there? It could ultimately conclude with a front page redesign if it is taken forward.

2207:

I was initially a bit cynical because of the effect this might have on the turnover of stories. But having thought about this, an election can be accurately described as "recent" for far longer than most events can be reasonably characterised as "news". Thus, having a line for recent elections should

1734:

I like the status quo. Partly because I consider all national elections to be significant. Partly because it's simple, and fair in the sense that it doesn't discriminate against countries based on arbitrary criteria. ITN is usually not awash with updates (most of the time we can only dream of a three

1474:

Has the result been unusual in other respects? We could assert that if the former ruling party is completely wiped out at the elections (i.e. zero seats, which has happened) that is notable. Similarly if extremist far-left or far-right parties make significant gains that could be considered notable

972:

Firtly thought this discussion was clearly not about support/oppose but to generate dicussion on some criteria FOR inclusion as ITNR. What id your suggestion in this regard? Are you saying to abolish all elections from ITNR? Its not a bad suggesting. Perhaps if thats it we can add it to the quicklist

482:

The mathematical (and, to me, very logical) perspective: If we have a problem because the possible 200 election items each year is seen as far too many, 180 isn't much of an improvement. For some reason unclear to me, I couldn't raise a discussion on this at the most recent, ill-fated RfC, but if 200

3384:

I think we need to do some sort of 'pilot run'. Limiting to four or five elections is fine - ideally a single line on a normal computer monitor. I don't think we need to define how many of these need be 'special' or regional. Should be totally dependent on the circumstances. The time period deserves

2916:

As you will all notice above, I outline some of the drawbacks of this plan in detail. I do not pretend that this is a perfect solution, but I am still of the view that it is the closest we have come to addressing the concerns of all the parties. That said, we welcome all constructive comments on how

2798:

That looks very good. I like how 'streamlined' you have made it. Maybe we should look at making it clear that the elections are listed in date order? This avoids any doubt as to the selection of countries available and the order in which they're listed? That aside I am leaning ever more towards this

2204:

them per se, simply giving them a concise mention. This is a good compromise: it strikes the balance between giving small countries recognition, whilst at the same time not devoting an amount of space to them that other people are uncomfortable with. Given that all elections would have to go to ITNC

2188:

While this may sound nice, there is an intrinsic problem - many election articles don't make it to ITN because the updates are not sufficient. Putting them in a ticker wouldn't help, as we don't want to feature bad articles on the Main page. So we'd still have to go through all the ITNC process. And

2142:

If notability is the criterion, I'm a bit apalled about the current ITN section - the train wreck in the Netherlands? Still? Please... :-) But I've highlighted this somewhere else already. Maybe I'm a supporter of "microstate centrism" as you call it, I'm not ashamed of it. I simply don't think that

2084:

User Tyrannus, I think I have exhausted all my substantive arguments, and we are talking in circles. I am confident that the case to strike down the status quo is very strong, so I won't bother repeating what we have already outlined. If you continue to hold that change is unnecessary, I am happy to

1812:

The issue with this argument is that it assigns some intrinsic value to sovereignty and embeds this deeply flawed notion that all 'sovereignty' is equally exercised amongst states - and that we assign this sovereignty purely to general elections and changes in heads of state. Conceded, some can make

1787:

I thoroughly explained my basic reasons in the previous discussion. Art Lapella attempted to use hit counts to sidestep the primary arguments, with limited success. Oh, and described us as a laughing stock (whilst failing to acknowledge the hilarity of one of the most highest traffic websites in the

1504:

This was a thoughtful response to a real and serious issue. I had previously suggested a criteria-based approach (see above), but I use a set of negative tests (rather than positive criteria), which I noticed overlapped with a lot of your suggestions. I fully stand behind the position that elections

1286:

I like the idea of being radical, though this might end up being more trouble than its worth. I suspect (or fear) that we'd be bogged down in arguments about what rules to apply to nominations in a new rule-less context. This is one of those situations where it would be better to agree on putting up

1158:

most definitely notable even before the LDP system disintegrated in the mid-1990s (they several times returned LDP minorities or reordered the factions within the LDP significantly). Regarding elections in "dominant party" systems as irrelevant produces significant problems of subjectivity and NPOV.

72:

The debate has also raised important questions about the purpose of ITN, ITNR and notability of elections and politics related articles in general. Should the discussions here lead to a new consensus and the establishment of new principles, it may well have an impact for other items in ITNR as well.

3561:

I just want to put this out there, given that I am not the only one that feels uncomfortable with having so many elections take up space on the main page, in the intervening time frame from now until we reach some sort of consensus on this issue, is it still considered acceptable (a golden rule, if

2999:

For most readers outside of a given country, the precise mechanism of the election isn't the most significant bit. Of more interest is whether that country has undergone a significant change in the balance of power, or whether the election signals an extension of the status quo. That holds even for

2943:

I would suggest yes, because we can always do with an extra few eyes for article quality. Not nominating at ITN/C would probably be bad for admins, who would then have to find the elections, unilaterally decide if the quality is up there, face the prospect of defending any unilateral decisions that

2425:

One interesting result of the elections ticker is that, in this case, widely followed special elections, such as those recent by-elections in Burma, would be posted, as would say, the Minnesota senate election of Al Franken (which generated significant controversy both in and of itself as well as a

2123:

Yes, microstates have disproportionate power in the UN, which is one of the reasons the UN gets bypassed for major decisions. Any limitation will be "artificial" in the sense that every post/don't post decision is artificial. If you like In The News because it provides news you won't see elsewhere,

1694:

Really?! This would be unworkable for numerous reasons. There natural conclusion would be a European and Asian bias, perennial arguments about which countries could be 'credible exceptions', and a dedicated sub-team of editors would be needed to handle debates off the ITN/C pages. This would not be

436:

I agree that twenty countries might have been perceived as a "western bias" approach to the problem of elections and ITN/R. That was not my intention. I chose twenty as a fair and reasonable cut-off point from where to begin the debate. People who responded to the proposal could not accept that the

2813:

Looks good (though id add we have to cut down to incorporate a sports ticker too). Suppose we would stick to the UN-status or possibly other sovereigns with the exceptions added (Taiwan/alestine) but for sub-national would still run through ITNC to add to the ticker. Dont suspect it needs too much

2147:

as basis, the 20th least populated country is Saint Lucia (if I counted correctly); Samoa, Vanuatu and Barbados would make the "cut" however. This will lead to people questioning why an election in Samoa or Vanuatu is still highlighted (probably with people referring to other population data/other

2107:

I'm also in favour of keeping the status quo. Like it or not, within the United Nations, every sovereign member state has the same power (with the exception of the 5 veto powers) - so who's in charge in the Seychelles may ultimately be as important as who's in charge in Slovakia, in Cambodia or in

1977:

Another point – arguments have also been advanced that the mere fact that the outcome of an election is certain makes it non-notable for our purposes. I'm not convinced at all by this. There are two cases to consider here, dominant-party systems and single-party systems (e.g. Singapore and the PRC

1442:

It is clear that there are concerns about minor countries featuring so prominently, and it is equally clear than there are understandable concerns about any cliff-edge dividing line between less notable and more notable countries. I don't necessarily share those concerns but can easily understand

1415:

This discussion has demonstrated that there is no consensus on the elections issue. If that's the case, they should all just be taken off ITN/R. It does not "waste time" to wait the few hours to get a few people to say "support" -- most of the time, we're waiting for the article to be ready rather

442:

If we accept that ITN/R does not include disputed territories and dependent countries, then we accept that some elections are more notable than others. As a natural conclusion, we accept that ITN/C should not give the nod and wink to every country which comes its way. I propose that we continue to

68:

This uncomfortable status quo has led to repeated conflict amongst editors over time, and, according to those seeking change, demands a consensus that is workable to all parties. Editors should work in the spirit to seek common ground amongst all those involved - rather than polarizing the debate,

60:

The inclusion of the elections of UN-recognised "all sovereign states" in the recurring items of In the News has often been challenged in recent years. Generally these discussions spring up when an election of a small country gets posted on the main page, next to what are perhaps stories that some

3292:

I am vehemently opposed to any set number of elections. If an election is ticker-worthy it should be posted, and otherwise it shouldn't. I see no need for a limit. However, if it were to get too cluttered or too empty we could deal with that case by case. In addition, I support Colipon's proposal

1889:

I concede that some elections are more notable than others. Elections in the US are more notable than elections in Greecec which in turn are more notable than elections in Seychelles. But does that mean elections in Seychelles are not notable at all? The sanctity of sovereignty is not a perceived

1487:

Any solution the complex nature of these factors can't be expressed in a very digitial the-condition-is-met-or-it-isn't manner as needed for ITNR. However, we have a template for an alternative mechanism to look at in the form of the death criteria. These are not perfect - they are possibly too

1136:

The idea is that there wouldn't be a cut-off because I am of the view that editors will generally come to a consensus on whether the election is notable or not. They can borrow on the criteria above to make their case, as a matter of principle, but in the end, it, like every other ITN/C decision,

1044:

the criteria. If an election falls into one of those three categories, the nominating editor cannot invoke ITNR and must independently make a case for its inclusion in ITN. This does not preclude them from an ITN posting, obviously, because they will still be nominated via ITN/C. I think the East

2033:

I'm sorry, but given the level of opposition that arises every time one of the smaller states is nominated, this is unworkable. We've had examples where countries get posted despite overwhelming opposition, and that should show that the current system is flawed. Granted a lot of the people who

1045:

Timor election would be an example of this - the country straddles the line between 'small' and 'mid-size', but the nominator made a good case about international coverage, young democracy, plus article was good. So it deserves to be posted. But they cannot invoke ITNR in the nomination process.

1674:

this is another plausible accomodation to incorporate the X (say 5?) biggest states in each continent? We could also scale the number down for both the Americas and Oceania to 2/3? With others on ITNC. Or perhaps organise it by the UN regional groupings with the largest in each getting the cut.

2965:

Again, we're not abolishing ITN/C. If consensus is that a specific election is significant enough to merit a blurb, it should remain eligible to have one. In those circumstances that country's election wouldn't be added to the recent elections section until the blurb fell off the bottom of the

2219:

I agree with user WFC that an election's 'notability span' may well last a longer period of time than a conventional ITN posting. For example, the French presidential election has been of 'wide interest' for about a month now, but we can't post anything about it in ITN until after the election

3248:

My suggestion would be for the administrators who usually post articles - Tariq, BorgQueen etc., to also have oversight over the election ticker. Basically they would just look at the annual elections calendar and post the two most recent concluded and two most immediately upcoming elections.

2407:

Good question. I guess we will have to be careful in separating the 'administration' from the consequence, if I can put it like that. Elections themselves are fairly dry and procedural - ballot papers are marked, counted and results declared. What is not so pretty is the aftermath of specific

1768:

Argument wise, you will have to think of something better than "I consider all national elections to be significant". Why? It's been shown above that some of them are not of wide interest, others are inconsequential. The only argument I've heard is that there is some attachment to a perceived

1483:

These and countless other factors could legitimately affect the opinions formed by a contributor at ITN/C. Similarly there are other enumerable factors that can't be anticipated in advance because they are a one-off unique situation, but may affect one's assessment of the significance of any

430:

This was the proposal I put forward a few days ago. Two main points were raised in opposition to the amendment. The first problem people had was the arbitrary nature of the cut-off, implying that the cut-off was somehow inherently biased or NPOV. The second problem was the accusation that the

2264:

I completely agree. That would filter out more 'marginal' and 'regional' events like NCAA, Grey Cup, AFL grand final, and Hurling (which, granted, get great viewership in their countries of origin but almost nowhere else) from occupying a sentence of prose in that box, but still retain their

1120:

Definately true (and in Gambia and most of Central Asia except Kyrgyz)...BUT what is your suggested criteria. If its the 3 above i dont think that will hold, particularly #2. What im trying ot say is what would the cut off be? anti-incumbency? constitutional role (though that would take some

1004:

I'm open to the idea of abolishing ITNR for elections altogether and stick to a criteria-based approach. That said, I also don't mind maintaining ITNR and have a set of 'negative criteria' that would disqualify editors from invoking ITNR when the election falls into one of the aforementioned

64:

To remedy this issue, numerous suggestions for amendments have been made, the majority of which involve a 'cut-off' for which countries should be on ITNR, and which countries should not. Evidently this approach has failed because editors cannot agree on a cut-off line, which by its nature is

2422:

The 'shock results' question is extremely relevant. Having an election ticker, in my view, ups the threshold for a 'regular' ITN post involving elections - it would have to involve significant, widespread controversy (Iran 2009, US 2000) or have triggered some other, bigger event, such as a

330:

We are talking about such inherent notability here that general election in the country is automatically notable. If rules are to be tightened participation in some kind of recognized international organization could automatically merit notability, but wouldn't have to automatically exclude

1960:

Having considered the proposals advanced above and commented on a couple, I'm led to agree with this stance. The problem I noted with regards to the example of Japan suggests to me that there is more danger of aggravating systemic bias, like you point out, in attempting to do away with the

1005:

categories. The reason being that, per David Levy, ITNR's election coverage does encourage articles about otherwise underreported events and addresses the issue of systemic bias. It's just that, you know, I prefer that we post an underreported election in Senegal rather than one in Tuvalu.

2265:

prominence in the main page for their wide viewership. This would also prevent semi-notable deaths, like that of Dick Clark, from becoming too contentious. My ultimate 'vision' is that a ticker or 'sticky box' will just incorporate 5-10 of the most notable stories in the news recently

448:

Lihaas is correct to describe a 20 country cut off as "arbitrary", as that is the very word I used from the start. However I disagree with "not NPOV". I don't agree that a bias exists in this proposal because, ultimately, the twenty counties would be treated in exactly the same way as

3017:

Would it make sense to split the Elections ticker in two - Recent and Upcoming? In the current setting, I wouldn't know whether e.g. the Timorese election has taken place or not. Some users may only be interested in the end result, so they could find those under the "Recent" section.

3354:

Absolutely. But at some point down the line, an old election will need to be replaced by a new one, hence the need for a rough limit of how many elections we display at a time. It would simply be a "newest comes in, oldest goes out" policy, precisely as we do with ITN at the moment.

98:, to be followed at some point by "support" or "oppose" for change, as that hinders generation of a multitude of ideas and quickly degenerates into a stalemate of the status quo, shuts the discussion and opens another one in a few weeks. The idea of this discussion is to try and 1083:

Well I think it would be a little hard to get consensus on something subjective. But to give something concrete, if i were to parahprase (And correct me if im wrong) you suggecst elections that result in an incumbent victory should not be ITNR? Perhaps thas a proposal in

443:

look at ways to differentiate between those countries whose elections (and election articles) are of a degree/standard that front page prominence is sensible, and those countries where an election is not an important development in the news cycle of any given day or week.

2857:

Good question. To answer: weve also suggested for sports (politics and sports being too representative on ITN) it delineates the overcovergae of small states with emphasis/. Its like a sticky on election with mention for the current elections and orotating every week or

3309:

I can see where you are coming from,. but per the calendar there are several doxens o elections, so where do we draw the line as to hat is on the tickerr at any given moment? Thats what i meant by how many at a time (with the constant changes to remove old and add new,

3142:

Thanks for your input. There has been a lot of discussion on this topic, and it is not true that the status quo 'won' the previous discussion, just so we are all clear. You can read the discussion from the links above, particularly the comments from the closing editor.

2392:

One question I have is, where an election story has elements of notability other than the election itself - shock results, landmark changes, electoral violence, etc ... do they still feature in the ticker only or can editors discuss at the ITN/C page for a full blurb ?

3604:

Would someone experienced in wikicode provide for a way to get rid of (either through archives but preferably through a "show/hide" option) discussion topics that have lost steam or unpopular and unlikely to generate more discussion? This page is getting too large.

3339:

Well, if the purpose of this is to solve the problems of elections being given undue weight on ITN, I think that preventing them from being allowed on ITN should mean that we'll be free to add elections to the ticker that may have been objectionable before.

2958:

For an international audience I don't think it particularly matters. Internationally, the interest is usually in the balance of power, and the focus usually on the people who hold power in the relevant parties, whether they were involved in the election or

1438:

to get stories posted that otherwise would not be: that is an abuse of the facility, but regretably it is the way it has tended to be used, probably due in principal to the fact ITNR has a lot less involvement and attracts a lot less scrutiny than ITN/C.

1433:

I have to say that I've given a lot of thought to this and I conclude that it is the only realistic option. As has been noted previously it is clear that there is no consensus for the current arrangements: therefore they must go. The purpose of ITNR is

1318:

Oh no, not at all, sorry if that's how it reads. I think we're in an odd situation where the guidelines aren't working, reform isn't popular and abandoning all rules isn't appreciated. I'd prefer to have guidelines than none, that's my starting point.

3128:

piece of news concerning a primary is relevant enough for a global audience. I find the idea of having an Elections ticker is quite interesting too, but I'm not fully convinced it's better / more relevant / more informative than the status que...

596:

Sounds least discriminating. 1 million is a nice round number, just saying ;) .. It would drop about 39 sovereign countries from eligibility, which is pretty much about 20% of all countries. With 7 million population, Israel is well above 1 mil'.

515:

Yeah. You're right. Sorry. I stuffed up. I guess it's maybe 50 a year. So then leaving out the smallest 20 would reduce that to 45. Hardly worth it. And no, I don't have a suggestion. I regard this whole proposal as misguided, big-is-bestism.

2842:

give them undue weight? Why shouldn't other events get their own subsections (sports events e.g.)? Secondly, how does this avoid giving microstates undue weight when all states continue to be listed on an equal footing in this approach?

1738:

The one credible argument for change that I can see is if more than a couple of elections were on the template at the same time. I therefore suggest that a two-at-a-time clause would be a better solution than changing ITNR itself.

2248:

In the same vein, we could have a posrts ticker too except for more notable bigger events. Granted this would cut down the number of stories BUT with a ticker taking up about 2 lines we wont need to worry about filling psace as

1885:

While I appreciate the sincere efforts made by editors above to arrive at a new criteria, and while some of the arguments made do make some sense, I would still like to support the existing criteria of all sovereign states.

463:

Perhaps we can use this discussion to come out with a non aritrary figure instead of getting bogged down in the one suggestion to support/oppose. Lets collate a multitude of probable ideas first, debate the merits and then

530:

Then what should we do? If regform is needed and called for what direction should we go in? Its one thing to condmn other ideas, but quite another to move in no direction but keeping hitting a wall. You support the status

1466:

The nature of the assembly - are elections to rubber-stamping legislative assembly (e.g. China or Cuba) that provides only a thin veneer of democracy as notable as an election to an assembly holding real decision-making

2727:

Special elections includes but is not limited to regional elections, significantly notable by-elections, party congresses/nomination contests, referenda, elections for religious figures, and elections in non-sovereign

1025:

Also, whil #3 is objective (to abolish indirect elections except on case by case basis (i suspect Hungary's may election would pass)), #2 is completely subjective (how to define "inconsequential"?) and #1 is somewhat

331:

non-members. One other possibility that springs to mind is OECD. It avoids one loophole that comes with G20: as EU holds the chair for all its members, are even the smallest EU countries also automatically notable? --

3222:

As we're moving on there are issues we need to suggest and then discuss to get a conclusive plicy. how many elections to post at once, how to formalise, who has oversight, how to nominate and more (feel free to add)

3086:

I would like to suggest moving forward on this, since there is some semblance of consensus here and otherwise the discussion seems inactive. Is it safe to assume that everyone is more or less comfortable with this

2447:

Id also imagine that the link can stay in the ticker longer (ie- day before/da OF election) and could conceivably be added for the non-UN sovereigns. More so in months like this with few elections (quit boring for

1333:

Gotcha. I think one of the problems of having guidelines (besides they're all automatically in or not) is that we'd spend too much time arguing over the minute details, similar to what happened with your proposal.

357:

is almost enirely europe alone which would means Estonia and Luxembourg get\ a pass while Brazil, South Africa, Egypt and India are held back. (only japan, south korea, chile, mexico and israel would be the global

1637:

Legislatures also have a popular mandate, and the mere fact of the legislature appointing the president rather than the people means very little as far as notability goes. A more logical option would be to remove

921:

heads of state in the British Commonwealth - i.e. the Governors General, we should not be doing so for ceremonial heads of state elsewhere - who can be of dubious importance, even in large countries, such as the

1478:

If the election pioneering in some respect - for example the first election after a period of a lack of democracy, or the first election after a change in the voting system or some other relevant constitutional

1615:

Not sure of the top of my head but the commonwealth countries would be excluded as well as many europen states. Indirect would be, as said above here, not popularly elected (ie- by the legislatures and not the

581:

Another option was countries below X population level which was more npov, however he Vatican and israel are noteworthy enough while something like Sudan and Saudi would not be as notale in its effect/global

634:

The implication is that this would include countries like Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus etc. etc. Many of these elections are inconsequential, some are purely of ceremonial value.

1470:

Does the election result in a change of government, i.e. is an election that results in a second or subsequent term for the existing administration as notable as one that results in new leadership for the

65:

subjective and arbitrary. Thus we have arrived at an impasse, which has been summed up aptly by one user as "guidelines aren't working, reform isn't popular and abandoning all rules isn't appreciated."

1462:

themselves. The country is undeniably one key factor that may affect our assessment of notability but not the only one. There are many other factors we may or may not consider relevant including:

2151:

I'm actually warming more and more to the Election Ticker proposal below - this may be a good compromise. Important elections could then still be highlighted further via the "normal" ITN process.

1099:

In some countries, elections aren't even important to the country itself. Like in the case of Cuba. The average person does not care or know who their legislative representative is, and they know

2743:(e.g. US presidential primaries) to gain exposure without too much unnecessary debate, while also allowing an easy 'in' for elections in countries with unfavourable systemic bias (Uttar Pradesh). 1245:

to remove all the other nonsense that we see on ITNR, like the posting of the annual Ireland Hurling championships over NCAA's "March Madness", then it truly does a service to the encyclopedia.

837:

Both countries' elections generate international interest and have wide-ranging ramifications. They are likely to get posted every time they are nominated, thus they clearly meet ITNR criteria.

1842:, although I note it would that ITN stories take even longer to go from top to bottom and off the template, because this unbearable quantity of elections would no longer be part of that system. 94:

As we have had many discussion on creating a criteria for ITNR elections that end up inconclusive, closed and then re-opened, this page is intended as an open-ended discussion on proposals and

117:

debate of inclusion or exclusion instead of ritual discussions that lead nowhere only to be reinitiated soon enough. This could perhaps create a policy as well through consensual discussion.

933:

An argument can be made for monarchical succession for ITN/R, but they occur so rarely that it is not really any 'extra work' to simply nominate at ITN/C and judge on their individual merits.

2955:

Absolutely not, and I don't see this as posing a problem. Elections are stand-alone articles which get updated as the news comes in; update-wise deaths are usually the most contentious area.

2245:

Good idea. I suppose theyd all be nominated as usual and those without explicit support that oly have the requisite updates would be in the ticker and only a full blurb if consensus decides.

2173:

This suggestion seems to have garnered some interest, I personally seem to like it. We could put perhaps 2 concurrent references to ongoing elections and more easily and quickly replace it?

656:

the latter 2 are almost always notable internationally, the former 2 being notable particularly for the first after recognition (which failed ITNC). But that could be an arguement for ITNC.

2377:

Like many other editors suggested above, I'm also keen on seeing a template/format for the ticker. Also, will this require a larger consensus since its altering the main page appearance ?

1454:

I also note that any concrete proposal to narrow the current ITNR criteria made so far is one step removed from the actual subject, in that proposals so far have tended to focus on the

2756:

Does it still require editors to nominate elections to the ticker through a special process akin to ITN/C (particularly if we go forth with the idea of including 'special' elections?

3173: 164: 154: 897:. This assumes that there is some inherent 'holiness' to the idea of sovereignty and ignores the differences (by several orders of magnitude) between large countries and small ones. 1593:

Joking aside, I don't think there would be much practical relevance to this. I do think that something like the Hong Kong Chief Executive elections are notable - that is indirect

987:

Thanks. Yes, I'll add it to list above. This is meant to be a starting point, and I'd like to hear more ideas from editors before moving forth to 'support' and 'oppose', I agree.

1821:

that you mention above, so you will have to extend your argument some more for it to hold water in that regard (current ITNR provisions includes all changes of heads of state).

302:

I dont think this is the best idea as it is highly pov to limited perceptions of political bodies based on a status quo set-up. An encyclopaedia should be neutral and inform.

1619:

True abou the US, but it is somewhat mandated by a popular vote as opposed to many head of state elections. But then again even as ITNC i think all the examples would pass

973:

above and then discuss that idea. But lets stay away from votes/supports for now as that quickly boils down to failure ans shuts down convesation again hindering progress.

3402:

Correct me if im wrong, but it seems a minimum of four is agreed an dup to five, with the subnational at ITNC to add as a possible 5th? (or replace if a national is 5th?)

866:

A news item should only be ITN/R if it is likely to be nominated at every occurrence, and it can be reasonably expected that editors will agree to its posting every time.

2633: 2753:

Will this require too much upkeep for constant updating? Who determines when an election should be put up and when it should be taken down? What standards will be used?

1928:

No, systemic bias would be relevant when comparing Google hits for India elections vs. the U.S., but not when comparing Karachi or Tokyo to Andorra, a Western country.

1671: 1173:

Also the problem here is that what definiition would be used as "inconsequential" and a microstate? What would the ITNR elections be and what will the ITNC election be?

3385:

special mention: the French presidential election, for example, has been in the news for several months. It might not be a bad idea to keep it there for the duration.

2616: 2205:

for quality approval anyway, a full blown hook for massive countries/shock results/otherwise unusual elections would remain an option if there was consensus to do so.

1642:

where the head of state is disempowered, but I'm not sure that would be a very good idea as even those elections tend to have considerable symbolic significance. --

1893:

Determination of notability on the basis of google hits / page hits on Knowledge (XXG) only seek to reinforce systemic bias. I can once again take the example of

1551:

This should be a simpler call to cut down criteria. Non-popularly elected (hence predic\table) elections can be removed, with ITNC discussions for special cases.

1209:

This might seem too radical, but why not remove all elections from ITNR? This way, we're not discriminating against countries based on population or what not.

2721:

Places widely followed elections with significant readership interest right on the main page for easy access without it being 'cycled through' over a 5-day span

2646: 688:

I would suggest that this line is not included in the final policy draft. We would be opening up far too much trouble with this, as Colipon has already stated.

868:

Therefore, since we have established that a cutoff is impractical, my view is that in order to move forward, we must ditch the "cutoff-approach" and embrace a

169: 21: 61:

believe are significantly more notable. The editors who nominate these election articles cite ITNR for its inclusion, but a debate usually ensues anyway.

3628: 1301:

Unless I'm reading something wrong, are you suggesting that allowing people to reach consensus on the merits of each election individually is a problem?

449:

disputed/dependent territories, allowing for a full examination of the article and its standard, respecting the election and the electors in the process.

2148:

size criteria); at the same time "microcentrists" complaining about why an election in St Lucia was not highlighted even though the last Samoan was, etc.

2947:

2.1 Not unless it becomes absolutely necessary. Dividing a page that wasn't too long in the first place achieves nothing other than lessening scrutiny.

49:

Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the

2600: 2085:

take the above-mentioned arguments be scrutinized against the case for change, and let admins or whoever else has oversight to judge for themselves.

1622:

Im inclined to support this initiative as an accomodation, though theres so far been no comment on the cutoff plausabilities as to what line to draw.

3624: 2621: 2221: 1766:

that it occupies on the page but still maintain 'equal coverage' without lending undue weight to one country or another, or to elections in general.

1451:

be clear and unambiguous if ITNR is to serve any point at all lest it becomes counterproductive as debates ensue as to whether ITNR applies or not.

3109:

Agree. Almost all of the alternatives are preferable to the status quo: listing microstate elections but not major country primaries for instance.

619:

Most neutral to me as its not limited to the controlling nature of who gets into the UN (Palestinian and Taiwanese elections being a case in point)

159: 2144: 2444:

Well im not sure those would get posted, more so over this, but thats for ITNC. We discussed above that ITNC can still open blurbs per consensus.

1735:

day news cycle), so I don't see an intrinsic problem with a small country getting its proverbial 15 minutes at the expense of a week old story.

875:

It should be stated that the purpose of ITN is to "direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current

3091:, but we still need to hash out the specifics (how many elections to post at once, how to formalize, who has oversight, how to nominate etc) ? 2657: 2653: 936:

This does not preclude the inclusion of such head of state changes provided that they have a great impact or are of "wide interest" - say, if

1709:

No, it would just be the set for ITNR (possibly 5 largest) with the others being ITNC. BUT that said seems like the ticker idea is gaining.(

50: 2985:

Could you possibly explain point 5 in a bit more detail, as I'm still not clear on why it wouldn't matter for an international audience? --

2604: 3293:

that posting admins can post national elections from the electoral calendar and special elections should go through a nomination process.

3230:

Wed then need to run it though ITNC talk or generate more debate here. But then again we cant wait forever if people dont want to discuss.

1154:

Colipon's response above concerning dominant party systems demonstrates some of the problems of this approach, because elections in Japan

3529:

Prior to any "vote" a summation of criteria can be listed here based on discussion above. As of today, it seems these ideas are popular:

2612: 767: 1750:

What do you think of an 'elections ticker', or an 'elections box' to form part of ITN. It would be in the format of "Recent elections:

2608: 2518: 796: 2200:

Your point about ITNC is correct Tone, although I guess the point of relegating elections to a single line is that we are no longer

2595: 2324: 498: 1992:

The statement was only under said criteria, which was also a reason not to do so. But your 2nd aguement is certainly very sound.

670:

Notable yes, though acceptable as nominees by the wider community? I fear that implementing this rule would be inviting trouble

431:

amendment would somehow dilute the importance we attach to elections through the ITN process and Knowledge (XXG) more generally.

3655: 2879:

is it an accommodation? It lists all elections on an equal footing, therefore it clearly privileges the pro-microstate view. --

2861:

Its an accomodationg between multiple views of globalising all sovereign sates and only listing the sujectively important ones.

785: 3356: 3001: 2971: 2627: 2583: 2307: 2225: 2209: 1853: 1849: 1789: 1740: 879:". A large number of elections fail the spirit of ITNR criteria and the 'test' outlined above. And for different reasons: 1400:

election comes up, rather than having a series of fixed guidelines that can be applied uncontroversially in most cases. --

127:

of the article, regardless of ITNR, is still the prerequisite to posting. The issue discussed here is what should be ITNR

3547:

This list is a preliminary one that will be updated as discussion progresses. Some ideas may be removed and others added.

3227:

So i would suggest (as above) upto 4 concurrent elections, with 3 for national level elections and 1 local/supranational.

3000:

the very big countries. If we're not expanding on the result, it seems very odd to expand on the mechanism of election. —

17: 2935:

On the practical issues identified in the initial post (I've numbered them in the order the bullet points were posted).

2398: 2382: 1947: 1916: 1484:

particular case. How can any number of factors such as these be taken into account on ITNR? It's simple: they can't.

2718:

Can include elections prior to voting day, as well as after the vote has taken place, if the story continues to develop

1396:

This is a fairly unhelpful approach in my eyes since it simply delays the question and forces it to be asked each time

3582:

No i dont think so. Wihout consensus it will be bold and unpopular to remove it. We have to stick to it in the interim

3174:

Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Archive_5#Elections_of_very_small_countries_.28originally_.22Kiribati.22.29

2817:

Also everything requesting a blurb would need to be individually discussed at ITNC, ITNR would be for the ticker alone

2724:

Easily includes 'special elections' without giving them undue weight and avoids discussions over sovereignty criteria

1062:

WRT #2 being "subjective", you are absolutely right. It is hard to 'define' this as black and white, so we do have to

165:

Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Archive_5#Elections_of_very_small_countries_.28originally_.22Kiribati.22.29

2124:

microstate-centrism is one way to accomplish that, but does that mean our stories don't have to be notable any more?

289:

This is a discussion of criterion, NOT a vote for support. If at some point a timeline is decided and a "vote" set,

3640: 3617: 3591: 3574: 3519: 3497: 3454: 3436: 3411: 3397: 3378: 3360: 3349: 3334: 3319: 3299: 3281: 3261: 3242: 3212: 3185: 3155: 3137: 3118: 3103: 3071: 3048: 3027: 3005: 2994: 2975: 2929: 2911: 2888: 2870: 2852: 2829: 2808: 2792: 2639: 2457: 2438: 2417: 2402: 2386: 2370: 2337: 2311: 2301: 2283: 2258: 2240: 2213: 2195: 2182: 2160: 2133: 2117: 2097: 2078: 2064: 2046: 2019: 2001: 1987: 1970: 1951: 1937: 1920: 1875: 1857: 1833: 1807: 1793: 1781: 1744: 1718: 1704: 1688: 1651: 1631: 1609: 1578: 1560: 1534: 1517: 1497: 1427: 1409: 1390: 1371: 1346: 1328: 1313: 1296: 1274: 1257: 1236: 1221: 1182: 1168: 1149: 1130: 1115: 1093: 1078: 1057: 1035: 1017: 999: 982: 966: 849: 831: 807: 775: 760: 746: 728: 697: 679: 665: 647: 628: 606: 591: 558: 540: 525: 510: 492: 473: 458: 423: 396: 382: 367: 340: 325: 311: 861: 2736:

Avoids debates over blurbs and subjective evaluation of what one-liner best describes the outcome of an election.

2495: 113:

choosing something so as not to get bogged down in nitty-gritty. Hopefully, this can then lead to a fruitful and

2055:

Do you think there won't be overwhelming opposition to whatever compromise gets made in the "back room" here? --

1798:

But it isn't that complicated. Microstate-centrism and globalism are more opposite than synonymous. That's all.

2990: 2884: 2848: 2780:

Please lend your thoughts. Someone who has more coding experience can probably improve on the format a little.

2060: 1983: 1966: 1873: 1647: 1584: 1405: 1164: 1063: 751:

But woul these non national election be ITNR or ITNC on case-by-case including the EU as a supranational body(

2899:

Looks pretty awful. If we're not including info on the results on the blurbs, I'd be pretty opposed to it.

2394: 2378: 1943: 1912: 771: 1639: 1493: 906: 799: 792: 3482: 3445:

concurrent national election this Sunday to ;) Test should appease people too and then see how it fares.(

2709: 1814: 1227:

Its the most npov solution, BUT that would open a can of worms over sports (and the minor sports at that)

893:

The counter-argument on this issue is the 'equality' between states insofar as their ability to exercise

3114: 2679: 2129: 2015: 1933: 1803: 909:

of Singapore is expected to win every election; Cuban legislative elections have no impact, on anything.

2764:

General resistance to changing status quo, and involvement from wider WP community to approve proposal.

2740: 864:

I mentioned the following principle for elections (and every other item) that would fit ITNR criteria.

42: 34: 3269:

not sure about a lower threshold for consensus (no probs with me but others probs would have concerns)

1287:

scaffolding rather than either demolishing the whole building or just putting up some fences and tape

2490: 1447:

to be such a definite cliff edge - it is only a matter of where the line is drawn. ITNR definitions

923: 3365:

Exactly, and thats objectively based on the list at the calendar (which are all sourced)...we could

917:

Presidential elections for countries with largely ceremonial positions. We do not post elections of

890:

Such events do not make the news anywhere except for in its country of origin (and Knowledge (XXG)).

3208: 2986: 2880: 2844: 2804: 2557: 2413: 2366: 2056: 1979: 1962: 1867: 1700: 1643: 1505:

and changes in government should be judged on their own merits, rather than the country of origin.

1401: 1324: 1292: 1160: 950:

fall into the above categories can have its rightful place in ITNR. This is similar to the current

693: 675: 454: 321: 3369:

automatically incluse one subnational election or leave an open slot for it to be added via ITNC.(

2481: 2271:

Though, this population of editors has shown extreme resistance to any changes to the status quo.

3533:

Addition/Removal of special candidates and supranational elections (Taiwan, Palestine, UN and EU)

3325:

This would also cut down the number of ITN slos that are so depesterae to be filled subjectively.

927: 3197:

I'm certainly in favor of it, although I didn't comment above, so it seems like we can move on.

1865:

I like the idea of having a small sub-section for elections, that would take care of the issue.

803: 77: 3266:

Couple of issues, dont think an admin is going to be monitoring the calendar, bit much to ask.

2770:

Confusion over which elections are general elections and which ones are presidential elections.

1905: 3612: 3569: 3492: 3432: 3392: 3345: 3256: 3150: 3098: 2924: 2787: 2433: 2296: 2278: 2235: 2092: 1828: 1776: 1604: 1512: 1489: 1252: 1144: 1110: 1073: 1052: 1012: 994: 961: 844: 789: 741: 642: 549:

You asked "If reform is needed..." I'm not convinced it is. I'm not sure how many others are.

373:

I mostly meant this as a component in the "combination" option, alongside e.g. APEC or G20. --

3481:

I'm sure there's going to be a lot of users crying foul... but at least we demonstrated that

1262:

Agreed, only concern is that until that happens this option is likely not to get any support.

912:

such events do not make the news (except on Knowledge (XXG)), and are not "of wide interest".

734:

I would say UNGA and EU would work well towards the ticker idea. World Bank I'm not so sure.

3636: 3587: 3515: 3450: 3407: 3374: 3330: 3315: 3277: 3238: 3110: 3044: 2866: 2825: 2453: 2333: 2254: 2178: 2125: 2074: 2011: 1997: 1929: 1898: 1799: 1714: 1684: 1679:

Im now very much in favour of this idea so as to globalize the ITNR while cutting down too.(

1627: 1556: 1530: 1418: 1386: 1367: 1270: 1232: 1178: 1126: 1089: 1031: 978: 827: 756: 724: 661: 624: 602: 587: 554: 536: 521: 506: 488: 469: 419: 392: 378: 363: 336: 307: 69:

editors should seek to understand all arguments presented and seek an integrative solution.

2289:

Another plus is that this can save us the energy from coming up with a 'blurb' every time.

951: 876: 82: 3181: 3133: 3067: 3023: 2156: 2113: 1522:

How about abolishing ITNR period and taking ALL maters on case-b by-case including sports?

937: 2069:

Thats why we have a consensus iscussion. Granted consensus can cahnge bt not every month(

3623:

You could move the older unpopular ones not listed above this section to something like

3204: 2800: 2673: 2587:

on NATO's headquarters, foreign embassies, military bases and the country's parliament.

2409: 2362: 2007: 1696: 1588: 1320: 1288: 689: 671: 450: 317: 3649: 2902: 2545: 2037: 1894: 1569: 1337: 1304: 1242: 1212: 2759:

If so, should a new talk page be started for candidates purely for elections ticker?

2306:

Could someone do a mock-up of an ITN box, to show how multiple tickers might look? —

1566:

How many countries would this effect? And how would you define indirect election?

3606: 3563: 3486: 3417: 3386: 3341: 3294: 3250: 3198: 3144: 3092: 2918: 2781: 2427: 2290: 2272: 2229: 2086: 1822: 1770: 1598: 1506: 1246: 1138: 1104: 1100: 1067: 1046: 1006: 988: 955: 838: 766:

No to all, it's a giant can of worms. ASEAN, OAS, SCO, FIFA, where does it stop? --

735: 719:

Possible addition here as the UNGA, World Bank and EU are considered notable enough

636: 1362:

of US Presidential elections. It's a pointless option. Won't happen. Drop it now.

3416:

Sounds right. I am ready to move on to put this into effect as soon as possible.

160:

Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_32#Minimum_population_for_elections_on_ITN.2FR

3632: 3583: 3511: 3446: 3403: 3370: 3326: 3311: 3273: 3234: 3040: 2862: 2821: 2820:

I would also suggest limiting to 3 state and 1 non-state (sub or supra national)

2704:

Removes undue weight given to elections (and politics in general) on ITN, while

2574: 2541: 2449: 2329: 2250: 2174: 2070: 2034:

oppose aren't "regulars" and won't be bothered weighing in on this discussion.

1993: 1710: 1680: 1623: 1552: 1526: 1382: 1363: 1266: 1228: 1174: 1122: 1085: 1027: 974: 823: 752: 720: 657: 620: 598: 583: 550: 532: 517: 502: 484: 465: 415: 388: 374: 359: 332: 303: 1381:

legible0). as said here time ang adain the discussion is for ITNR not ITN/ITNC.

1022:

All good ideas...but can you suggest a negative criteria to invoke revocation?

3177: 3129: 3063: 3019: 2553: 2526: 2152: 2109: 884: 1848:

became a moving ticker. But a Main Page redesign is at least a decade away. —

822:

to the current ITNR criteria as they are notable enough despite UN exclusion.

501:

is no whee near that. But do you have any suggestion that could be discusseD?

2561: 2499: 2191: 3203:

02:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Ditto. I think we're finally getting somewhere.

2776:

Cannot highlight the articles of candidates themselves or announce winners.

2667: 1852:— 03:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Striking part having thought about this. — 1377:

That is NOT what the option syas, the options says it wont be ITNR (ie-

2578: 73:

This page is meant as an open-ended discussion on how to move forward.

2773:

Does not solve problem of royal succession - those are not 'elections'

1525:

And we need to reove google hits as a criteria for supporting/opposing

2514: 1583:

I will seize this tongue-in-cheek opportunity and point out that the

86:

so as to induce a constructive debate for all parties and all views.

3629:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:In the news/Recurring items/Elections/Unpopular

2316:

I dont know the coding but ill call attention to this section for a

946:

Ergo, my view is that all elections and heads of state changes that

316:

I agree. Excluding non-G20 nations would make a bad situation worse

2006:

Microstate-centrism is no more fair/unbiased/unprejudiced than the

2739:

Allows obviously notable elections in countries with a favourable

2509: 259:

Maintain the status quo of all sovereign states by UN recognition

2328:, with the link changing on 1 Jan every year. (or even end Dec)( 483:

is far too many, 180 cannot possibly be OK. It makes no sense.

414:

As discussed previously, this is an arbitrary line and not npov.

354: 245:

Continental representation by X number of states per continent (

2952:

That's out of our hands. All we can do is try to convince them.

3625:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:In the news/Recurring items/Elections/Old

2566: 1666:

Continental representation by X number of states per continent

940:

were named President of Germany. That should go through ITN/C.

155:

Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Archive_1#Elections

29: 2524:

American broadcaster, television producer and music promoter

2322:

Also a thought that just came to be was to permanently link:

1443:

them. However, if we invoke ITNR at all for elections there

2838:

Two things: How does giving elections their own subsection

2691:

An "elections ticker" would look something like this box.

2474: 856:

Discussion on a principles-based (criteria-based) approach

170:

Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items#EU_elections

3510:

combination of the above policies per discussion here.

387:

Oh sorry, ill move this as a subesction of the above.(

1881:

Retention of existing criteria (all sovereign states)

3233:

Process should be the same (ie- quality of article)(

818:

As i proposed above, Taiwan and Palestine should be

41:

This page is currently inactive and is retained for

3272:

5 overall or any seperation beteen the variations?(

3039:

the current one and list them all chronologically?(

2731:

Can include elections for World Bank, EU, UNGA etc.

1840:As for the ticker, I've no objection in principle. 573:Exclusion of countries with a population less than 194:Exclusion of countries with a population less than 1358:This option says that ITN will contain no mention 1137:will have to rely on some degree of subjectivity. 200:All states recognised by at least 1 member state ( 2143:an artificial limit will really help. Taking the 887:has little to no impact outside of that country. 353:Im not in favour of this as its another POV. Its 207:Supranational elections (EU, World Bank, UN, etc) 3441:Lets go with this, timing is perfect as we have 2799:option as some form of solution to our problems 2564:announces re-nationalisation of the oil company 615:All states recognised by at least 1 member state 2767:Do article 'update length requirements' change? 2748:Some practical issues/drawbacks would include: 2701:Solves the "undue weight" issue of microstates 1265:Also the timer gets red very often these days. 220:"Principles approach" with negative criteria ( 1844:As an aside, I think it's high time that ITN 8: 3562:you will) to invoke ITNR to post elections? 2189:we gain almost nothing... Just a thought. -- 1695:practical way to deal with the issue at all 1904:Please also read David Levy's arguments in 1587:is in fact an indirect election, and so is 2269:the style of "top stories" of Google News. 545:I think you've asked a key question there 409:Exclusion of the 20 least populated states 191:Exclusion of the 20 least populated states 3172:I arrived at this discussion from here: 2222:Hong Kong Chief Executive election, 2012 2208:decrease the number of stale stories. — 2145:List_of_countries_by_population_in_2005 784:How about wording it as "Elections for 547:(assuming you also made a simple typo.) 293:we could put it to "support"/"oppose." 1475:even if they fall short of a majority. 497:200 a year? where did that come from? 149:need the original BOLD posting to ITNR 1817:but a lot of heads of state exercise 1416:than waiting for supports anyway. -- 7: 3062:Yep, sounds like a good option too. 2715:really for both sides of the debate) 106:its viability and work through oher 902:Election that are inconsequential. 2519:intercontinental ballistic missile 279:Feel free to add further proposals 28: 2480: 1675:(though thats largely the same) 499:National electoral calendar 2012 33: 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:In the news 2708:their main page exposure (this 2512:successfully test launches the 1458:holding them as opposed to the 786:intergovernmental organizations 2226:Alberta general election, 2012 1589:this closely followed election 814:Addition of special candidates 1: 2426:subject discussed on ITN/C). 1762:" etc. This would reduce the 1585:world's most notable election 708:Supranational elections": --> 2478: 1942:Sorry, you are right there. 1205:All elections taken off ITNR 2962:We're not abolishing ITN/C. 2917:to tweak/change this plan. 2695:Advantages of this approach 1769:'sanctity of sovereignty'. 870:"principles-based approach" 808:12:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC) 269:Combinations of the above ( 184:G20 states/OECD countries ( 3672: 3520:22:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 3350:22:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC) 3335:20:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC) 3320:08:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC) 3300:22:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC) 3282:20:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC) 3262:13:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC) 3243:13:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC) 3213:07:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC) 3186:22:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC) 3156:03:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC) 3138:21:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC) 3119:20:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC) 3104:19:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC) 3072:21:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC) 3049:09:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC) 3028:22:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC) 3006:01:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC) 2995:20:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2976:20:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2930:18:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2912:14:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2889:17:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2871:12:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2853:10:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2830:09:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2809:05:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2793:05:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2476: 2458:09:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2439:04:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2418:03:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2403:02:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2387:02:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2371:01:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2338:00:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2312:20:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 2302:20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 2284:20:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 2259:18:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 2241:17:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 2214:17:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 2196:13:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 2183:09:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 2161:21:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC) 2134:00:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC) 2118:20:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC) 2098:19:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC) 2079:12:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2065:10:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2047:16:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 2020:14:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 2002:09:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1988:07:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1971:07:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1952:02:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 1938:14:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1921:06:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1876:08:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1858:21:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1834:03:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1808:03:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1794:03:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1782:00:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1745:22:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 1719:09:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 1705:01:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 1689:21:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 1652:05:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1632:21:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 1610:21:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 1579:21:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 1561:19:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 1428:18:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC) 1410:05:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1391:23:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 1372:23:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 1347:22:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 1329:22:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 1314:20:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 1297:19:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 1275:19:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 1258:19:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 1237:19:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 1222:18:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 1183:09:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1169:05:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1150:00:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1131:21:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 1116:21:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 1094:21:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 1079:20:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 1058:20:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 1036:19:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 1018:18:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 1000:18:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 983:18:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 967:15:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 850:15:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 832:07:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 761:09:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 747:04:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 729:07:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 698:19:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 680:07:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 666:19:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 648:15:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 629:07:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 607:19:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 592:07:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 559:21:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 541:08:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 526:05:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 511:23:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 493:23:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 474:13:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 459:13:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 424:07:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 397:09:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 383:09:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 368:00:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 341:20:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 326:07:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 312:07:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 135:automatic posting on ITN. 3600:Bloated discussion topics 3503:Combinations of the above 800:Random Picture of the Day 3641:12:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC) 3618:17:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 3592:12:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC) 3575:17:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 2502:, Pakistan, killing all 1535:12:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC) 1518:17:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1498:17:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 776:19:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 131:to a quality update and 3498:13:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC) 3455:08:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC) 3437:23:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC) 3412:22:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC) 3398:19:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC) 3379:19:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC) 3361:06:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC) 1640:parliamentary republics 1040:The three things above 877:events of wide interest 704:Supranational elections 213:of special candidates ( 3656:Inactive project pages 2680:More current events... 1064:exercise some judgment 252:Two at a time clause ( 227:Remove all elections ( 3557:Current ITNR criteria 2944:were challenged etc. 907:People's Action Party 3631:for archival reasons 3542:Remove all elections 3483:consensus can change 2649:(Republican Primary) 2552:Amid a dispute with 2540:North Korean Leader 2491:Bhoja Air Flight 213 1730:Two at a time clause 952:approach at 'deaths' 924:President of Germany 142:Previous discussions 2584:coordinated attacks 2558:government of Spain 2549:for the first time. 180:Proposals include: 2581:insurgents launch 2531:(pictured in 1990) 2395:Chocolate Horlicks 2379:Chocolate Horlicks 1944:Chocolate Horlicks 1913:Chocolate Horlicks 1872: 1819:none of the powers 1815:mention this again 928:President of India 582:coverage/interest. 83:comment on content 3616: 3573: 3496: 3396: 3260: 3154: 3102: 2928: 2791: 2689: 2688: 2661: 2650: 2643: 2546:delivers a speech 2437: 2318:mock up of coding 2300: 2282: 2239: 2224:and the upcoming 2096: 2010:problem of 1832. 1866: 1832: 1780: 1608: 1516: 1256: 1148: 1114: 1077: 1056: 1016: 998: 965: 848: 745: 646: 548: 262:Election ticker ( 150: 58: 57: 3663: 3610: 3567: 3490: 3429: 3426: 3423: 3420: 3390: 3254: 3148: 3096: 2922: 2910: 2907: 2906: 2785: 2659: 2648: 2641: 2536: 2533:dies at the age 2505: 2484: 2475: 2431: 2294: 2276: 2233: 2090: 2045: 2042: 2041: 1899:Ba Chuc Massacre 1870: 1869:Around The Globe 1826: 1774: 1602: 1577: 1574: 1573: 1510: 1424: 1421: 1345: 1342: 1341: 1312: 1309: 1308: 1250: 1220: 1217: 1216: 1142: 1108: 1071: 1050: 1010: 992: 959: 842: 739: 716: 715: 711: 640: 546: 358:representatives) 148: 54: 37: 30: 3671: 3670: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3662: 3661: 3660: 3646: 3645: 3602: 3559: 3554: 3536:Election ticker 3527: 3505: 3427: 3424: 3421: 3418: 3220: 3211: 3084: 2904: 2903: 2900: 2875:My question is 2807: 2685: 2534: 2503: 2494:crashes on its 2486: 2485: 2473: 2416: 2369: 2171: 2169:Election ticker 2039: 2038: 2035: 1906:this discussion 1883: 1868: 1732: 1703: 1668: 1597:non-sovereign. 1571: 1570: 1567: 1549: 1422: 1419: 1339: 1338: 1335: 1327: 1306: 1305: 1302: 1295: 1243:set a precedent 1214: 1213: 1210: 1207: 938:Michael Ballack 858: 816: 717: 713: 709: 707: 706: 696: 678: 617: 578: 457: 411: 351: 324: 299: 297:G20 states only 287: 178: 144: 92: 48: 26: 25: 24: 22:Recurring items 12: 11: 5: 3669: 3667: 3659: 3658: 3648: 3647: 3644: 3643: 3601: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3558: 3555: 3553: 3550: 3544: 3543: 3540: 3537: 3534: 3526: 3523: 3504: 3501: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3270: 3267: 3231: 3228: 3219: 3216: 3207: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3122: 3121: 3083: 3082:Moving Forward 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 2987:Tyrannus Mundi 2968: 2967: 2963: 2960: 2956: 2953: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2941: 2933: 2932: 2914: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2881:Tyrannus Mundi 2859: 2845:Tyrannus Mundi 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2818: 2815: 2803: 2778: 2777: 2774: 2771: 2768: 2765: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2754: 2745: 2744: 2737: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2729: 2722: 2719: 2716: 2702: 2687: 2686: 2684: 2683: 2664: 2647:United States 2619: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2571: 2550: 2538: 2522: 2507: 2496:final approach 2479: 2472: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2445: 2412: 2374: 2373: 2365: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2320: 2287: 2246: 2170: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2149: 2137: 2136: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2082: 2057:Tyrannus Mundi 2050: 2049: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2008:rotten borough 1980:Tyrannus Mundi 1974: 1973: 1963:Tyrannus Mundi 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1882: 1879: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1810: 1731: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1699: 1667: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1644:Tyrannus Mundi 1617: 1548: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1523: 1481: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1431: 1430: 1402:Tyrannus Mundi 1394: 1393: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1323: 1291: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1263: 1206: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1171: 1161:Tyrannus Mundi 1060: 1038: 1002: 944: 943: 942: 941: 934: 915: 914: 913: 910: 900: 899: 898: 891: 883:Election of a 857: 854: 853: 852: 815: 812: 811: 810: 782: 781: 780: 779: 778: 705: 702: 701: 700: 692: 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 674: 651: 650: 616: 613: 612: 611: 610: 609: 577: 571: 570: 569: 568: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 561: 479: 478: 477: 476: 453: 445: 444: 439: 438: 433: 432: 427: 426: 410: 407: 405: 403: 402: 401: 400: 350: 349:OECD countries 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 328: 320: 298: 295: 286: 283: 282: 281: 275: 274: 267: 260: 257: 250: 243: 232: 225: 218: 208: 205: 198: 192: 189: 177: 174: 173: 172: 167: 162: 157: 152: 143: 140: 138: 91: 88: 56: 55: 47: 38: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3668: 3657: 3654: 3653: 3651: 3642: 3638: 3634: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3614: 3608: 3599: 3593: 3589: 3585: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3571: 3565: 3556: 3551: 3549: 3548: 3541: 3538: 3535: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3524: 3522: 3521: 3517: 3513: 3509: 3502: 3500: 3499: 3494: 3488: 3484: 3456: 3452: 3448: 3444: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3434: 3430: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3409: 3405: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3394: 3388: 3383: 3382: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3358: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3347: 3343: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3323: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3298: 3297: 3283: 3279: 3275: 3271: 3268: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3258: 3252: 3247: 3246: 3244: 3240: 3236: 3232: 3229: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3217: 3215: 3214: 3210: 3206: 3202: 3201: 3187: 3183: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3157: 3152: 3146: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3100: 3094: 3090: 3081: 3073: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3050: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3007: 3003: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2973: 2964: 2961: 2957: 2954: 2951: 2946: 2945: 2942: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2931: 2926: 2920: 2915: 2913: 2909: 2908: 2898: 2897: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2841: 2837: 2836: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2816: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2789: 2783: 2775: 2772: 2769: 2766: 2763: 2758: 2757: 2755: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2742: 2741:systemic bias 2738: 2735: 2730: 2726: 2725: 2723: 2720: 2717: 2714: 2713: 2707: 2703: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2696: 2692: 2682: 2681: 2676: 2675: 2674:Recent deaths 2670: 2669: 2665: 2663: 2662: 2655: 2651: 2644: 2642:(by-election) 2636: 2635: 2634:Uttar Pradesh 2630: 2629: 2624: 2623: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2599: 2597: 2593: 2592: 2586: 2585: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2569: 2568: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2548: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2532: 2529: 2528: 2523: 2520: 2517: 2516: 2511: 2508: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2492: 2488: 2487: 2483: 2477: 2470: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2446: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2435: 2429: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2359: 2356: 2355: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2326: 2321: 2319: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2298: 2292: 2288: 2286: 2285: 2280: 2274: 2268: 2263: 2262: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2247: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2237: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2211: 2203: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2194: 2193: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2168: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2099: 2094: 2088: 2083: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2048: 2044: 2043: 2032: 2029: 2028: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2004: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1976: 1975: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1959: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1909: 1907: 1902: 1900: 1896: 1895:Mass Effect 3 1891: 1887: 1880: 1878: 1877: 1874: 1871: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1830: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1811: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1791: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1778: 1772: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1756:Guinea-Bissau 1753: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1742: 1736: 1729: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1693: 1692: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1673: 1672:WP: Globalize 1665: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1636: 1635: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1620: 1618: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1606: 1600: 1596: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1576: 1575: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1546: 1542: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1514: 1508: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1485: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1461: 1457: 1452: 1450: 1446: 1440: 1437: 1429: 1426: 1425: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1379:automatically 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1348: 1344: 1343: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1311: 1310: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1285: 1282: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1254: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1219: 1218: 1204: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1157: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1146: 1140: 1135: 1134: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1112: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1097: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1075: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1059: 1054: 1048: 1043: 1039: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1024: 1023: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1014: 1008: 1003: 1001: 996: 990: 986: 985: 984: 980: 976: 971: 970: 969: 968: 963: 957: 953: 949: 939: 935: 932: 931: 929: 925: 920: 916: 911: 908: 904: 903: 901: 896: 892: 889: 888: 886: 882: 881: 880: 878: 873: 871: 867: 863: 855: 851: 846: 840: 836: 835: 834: 833: 829: 825: 821: 813: 809: 805: 801: 798: 794: 791: 787: 783: 777: 773: 769: 768:98.203.99.251 765: 764: 762: 758: 754: 750: 749: 748: 743: 737: 733: 732: 731: 730: 726: 722: 712: 703: 699: 695: 691: 687: 681: 677: 673: 669: 668: 667: 663: 659: 655: 654: 653: 652: 649: 644: 638: 633: 632: 631: 630: 626: 622: 614: 608: 604: 600: 595: 594: 593: 589: 585: 580: 579: 576: 572: 560: 556: 552: 544: 543: 542: 538: 534: 529: 528: 527: 523: 519: 514: 513: 512: 508: 504: 500: 496: 495: 494: 490: 486: 481: 480: 475: 471: 467: 462: 461: 460: 456: 452: 447: 446: 441: 440: 435: 434: 429: 428: 425: 421: 417: 413: 412: 408: 406: 398: 394: 390: 386: 385: 384: 380: 376: 372: 371: 370: 369: 365: 361: 356: 348: 342: 338: 334: 329: 327: 323: 319: 315: 314: 313: 309: 305: 301: 300: 296: 294: 292: 284: 280: 277: 276: 272: 268: 265: 261: 258: 255: 251: 248: 244: 241: 237: 233: 230: 226: 223: 219: 216: 212: 209: 206: 203: 199: 197: 193: 190: 187: 183: 182: 181: 175: 171: 168: 166: 163: 161: 158: 156: 153: 146: 145: 141: 139: 136: 134: 130: 126: 122: 121:As a reminder 118: 116: 112: 109: 105: 101: 97: 89: 87: 85: 84: 79: 74: 70: 66: 62: 52: 46: 44: 39: 36: 32: 31: 23: 19: 3603: 3560: 3546: 3545: 3528: 3507: 3506: 3480: 3442: 3366: 3295: 3291: 3221: 3199: 3196: 3088: 3085: 3036: 3016: 2969: 2934: 2901: 2876: 2839: 2779: 2747: 2746: 2711: 2710:should be a 2705: 2694: 2693: 2690: 2678: 2672: 2666: 2660:(Referendum) 2638: 2632: 2626: 2620: 2594: 2582: 2565: 2544: 2530: 2525: 2513: 2489: 2424: 2375: 2357: 2323: 2317: 2270: 2266: 2206: 2201: 2190: 2172: 2106: 2036: 2030: 1910: 1903: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1864: 1845: 1841: 1818: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1737: 1733: 1669: 1594: 1592: 1568: 1550: 1544: 1490:Crispmuncher 1486: 1482: 1459: 1455: 1453: 1448: 1444: 1441: 1435: 1432: 1417: 1397: 1395: 1378: 1359: 1357: 1336: 1303: 1283: 1211: 1208: 1155: 1041: 947: 945: 918: 894: 874: 869: 865: 859: 819: 817: 790:Presidentman 718: 618: 574: 404: 352: 290: 288: 278: 270: 263: 253: 246: 239: 235: 228: 221: 214: 210: 201: 195: 185: 179: 137: 132: 128: 124: 120: 119: 114: 110: 107: 103: 100:elicit ideas 99: 95: 93: 81: 75: 71: 67: 63: 59: 51:village pump 40: 3111:Art LaPella 2617:El Salvador 2575:Afghanistan 2542:Kim Jong Un 2126:Art LaPella 2012:Art LaPella 1930:Art LaPella 1800:Art LaPella 1101:who is boss 895:sovereignty 355:member base 285:Discussions 238:elections ( 96:discussions 3552:Procedural 3539:Status quo 2706:increasing 2654:World Bank 2601:East Timor 2527:Dick Clark 2504:127 people 1760:East Timor 1241:If we can 1121:research)( 1026:subjective 905:E.g., the 885:microstate 862:WT:ITNRSCE 115:conclusive 76:Please be 45:reference. 43:historical 3525:Summation 3296:—Bzweebl— 3218:Specifics 3200:—Bzweebl— 2966:template. 2658:Slovenia 2622:Hong Kong 2596:Elections 2562:Argentina 2506:on board. 2500:Islamabad 2471:A mock-up 2325:Elections 2202:featuring 1547:elections 1460:elections 1456:countries 176:Proposals 3650:Category 3367:possibly 3035:e could 2905:Hot Stop 2728:entities 2668:Wikinews 2605:Kiribati 2556:and the 2040:Hot Stop 1911:Thanks. 1897:and the 1572:Hot Stop 1545:indirect 1471:country? 1340:Hot Stop 1307:Hot Stop 1284:Disagree 1215:Hot Stop 1084:itself.( 926:and the 919:de facto 860:Over at 804:Talkback 797:contribs 236:indirect 211:Addition 20:‎ | 3607:Colipon 3564:Colipon 3487:Colipon 3387:Colipon 3342:Bzweebl 3251:Colipon 3205:doktorb 3145:Colipon 3093:Colipon 2919:Colipon 2801:doktorb 2782:Colipon 2712:win-win 2628:Alberta 2613:Finland 2579:Taliban 2448:me ;))( 2428:Colipon 2410:doktorb 2363:doktorb 2358:Neutral 2291:Colipon 2273:Colipon 2230:Colipon 2087:Colipon 1823:Colipon 1771:Colipon 1697:doktorb 1616:people) 1599:Colipon 1543:Remove 1507:Colipon 1479:change. 1321:doktorb 1289:doktorb 1247:Colipon 1139:Colipon 1105:Colipon 1068:Colipon 1047:Colipon 1007:Colipon 989:Colipon 956:Colipon 839:Colipon 736:Colipon 690:doktorb 672:doktorb 637:Colipon 451:doktorb 318:doktorb 234:Remove 129:subject 125:quality 108:options 104:discuss 90:Purpose 3633:Lihaas 3584:Lihaas 3512:Lihaas 3447:Lihaas 3404:Lihaas 3371:Lihaas 3327:Lihaas 3312:Lihaas 3274:Lihaas 3235:Lihaas 3041:Lihaas 2940:it is. 2863:Lihaas 2822:Lihaas 2640:Burma 2609:France 2554:Repsol 2515:Agni-V 2450:Lihaas 2330:Lihaas 2251:Lihaas 2249:often( 2175:Lihaas 2071:Lihaas 2031:Oppose 1994:Lihaas 1846:itself 1752:France 1711:Lihaas 1681:Lihaas 1624:Lihaas 1553:Lihaas 1527:Lihaas 1467:power? 1423:abjotu 1383:Lihaas 1364:HiLo48 1267:Lihaas 1229:Lihaas 1175:Lihaas 1123:Lihaas 1086:Lihaas 1028:Lihaas 975:Lihaas 948:do not 824:Lihaas 753:Lihaas 721:Lihaas 658:Lihaas 621:Lihaas 599:hydrox 584:Lihaas 551:HiLo48 533:Lihaas 518:HiLo48 503:Lihaas 485:HiLo48 466:Lihaas 464:"vote" 416:Lihaas 389:Lihaas 375:hydrox 360:Lihaas 333:hydrox 304:Lihaas 123:: the 111:before 3310:etc)( 3209:words 3178:Khuft 3130:Khuft 3064:Khuft 3020:Khuft 2805:words 2535:of 82 2510:India 2423:coup. 2414:words 2367:words 2153:Khuft 2110:Khuft 1701:words 1420:tariq 1325:words 1293:words 820:added 788:"? - 694:words 676:words 455:words 322:words 78:civil 16:< 3637:talk 3613:Talk 3588:talk 3570:Talk 3516:talk 3493:Talk 3451:talk 3443:four 3433:talk 3408:talk 3393:Talk 3375:talk 3346:talk 3331:talk 3316:talk 3278:talk 3257:Talk 3239:talk 3182:talk 3151:Talk 3134:talk 3115:talk 3099:Talk 3089:idea 3068:talk 3045:talk 3037:bold 3024:talk 2991:talk 2959:not. 2925:Talk 2885:talk 2867:talk 2849:talk 2826:talk 2788:Talk 2454:talk 2434:Talk 2399:talk 2383:talk 2334:talk 2297:Talk 2279:Talk 2267:a la 2255:talk 2236:Talk 2192:Tone 2179:talk 2157:talk 2130:talk 2114:talk 2093:Talk 2075:talk 2061:talk 2016:talk 1998:talk 1984:talk 1967:talk 1948:talk 1934:talk 1917:talk 1829:Talk 1804:talk 1777:Talk 1764:text 1715:talk 1685:talk 1670:Per 1648:talk 1628:talk 1605:Talk 1557:talk 1531:talk 1513:Talk 1494:talk 1449:must 1406:talk 1387:talk 1368:talk 1360:ever 1271:talk 1253:Talk 1233:talk 1179:talk 1165:talk 1156:were 1145:Talk 1127:talk 1111:Talk 1090:talk 1074:Talk 1053:Talk 1032:talk 1013:Talk 995:Talk 979:talk 962:Talk 845:Talk 828:talk 793:talk 772:talk 757:talk 742:Talk 725:talk 710:edit 662:talk 643:Talk 625:talk 603:talk 588:talk 555:talk 537:talk 531:qup? 522:talk 507:talk 489:talk 470:talk 420:talk 393:talk 379:talk 364:talk 337:talk 308:talk 291:then 80:and 3627:or 3508:Any 3381:). 3359:— 3357:WFC 3322:). 3245:). 3004:— 3002:WFC 2974:— 2972:WFC 2877:how 2840:not 2573:In 2567:YPF 2498:in 2310:— 2308:WFC 2261:). 2212:— 2210:WFC 1908:. 1901:. 1856:— 1854:WFC 1850:WFC 1792:— 1790:WFC 1743:— 1741:WFC 1691:). 1634:). 1595:and 1445:has 1436:not 1398:any 1133:). 1096:). 1042:are 763:). 271:new 264:new 254:new 247:new 240:new 229:new 222:new 215:new 202:new 186:new 133:not 3652:: 3639:) 3590:) 3518:) 3485:. 3457:). 3453:) 3435:) 3428:bl 3425:ee 3422:zw 3410:) 3377:) 3348:) 3333:) 3318:) 3284:). 3280:) 3241:) 3184:) 3136:) 3117:) 3070:) 3051:). 3047:) 3026:) 2993:) 2887:) 2869:) 2858:so 2851:) 2843:-- 2828:) 2697:: 2677:– 2671:– 2656:, 2652:, 2645:, 2637:, 2631:, 2625:, 2615:, 2611:, 2607:, 2603:, 2577:, 2560:, 2460:). 2456:) 2401:) 2385:) 2340:). 2336:) 2257:) 2228:. 2181:) 2159:) 2132:) 2116:) 2081:). 2077:) 2063:) 2018:) 2000:) 1986:) 1969:) 1950:) 1936:) 1919:) 1806:) 1758:, 1754:, 1721:). 1717:) 1687:) 1650:) 1630:) 1559:) 1533:) 1500:. 1496:) 1408:) 1389:) 1370:) 1273:) 1235:) 1181:) 1167:) 1159:-- 1129:) 1103:. 1092:) 1034:) 981:) 930:. 872:. 830:) 806:) 795:· 774:) 759:) 727:) 664:) 627:) 605:) 597:-- 590:) 557:) 539:) 524:) 509:) 491:) 472:) 422:) 399:). 395:) 381:) 366:) 339:) 310:) 102:, 3635:( 3615:) 3611:( 3609:+ 3586:( 3572:) 3568:( 3566:+ 3514:( 3495:) 3491:( 3489:+ 3449:( 3431:( 3419:B 3406:( 3395:) 3391:( 3389:+ 3373:( 3355:— 3344:( 3329:( 3314:( 3276:( 3259:) 3255:( 3253:+ 3237:( 3180:( 3153:) 3149:( 3147:+ 3132:( 3113:( 3101:) 3097:( 3095:+ 3066:( 3043:( 3022:( 2989:( 2970:— 2927:) 2923:( 2921:+ 2883:( 2865:( 2847:( 2824:( 2790:) 2786:( 2784:+ 2598:: 2570:. 2537:. 2521:. 2452:( 2436:) 2432:( 2430:+ 2397:( 2381:( 2332:( 2299:) 2295:( 2293:+ 2281:) 2277:( 2275:+ 2253:( 2238:) 2234:( 2232:+ 2177:( 2155:( 2128:( 2112:( 2095:) 2091:( 2089:+ 2073:( 2059:( 2014:( 1996:( 1982:( 1965:( 1946:( 1932:( 1915:( 1831:) 1827:( 1825:+ 1802:( 1779:) 1775:( 1773:+ 1739:— 1713:( 1683:( 1646:( 1626:( 1607:) 1603:( 1601:+ 1591:. 1555:( 1529:( 1515:) 1511:( 1509:+ 1492:( 1404:( 1385:( 1366:( 1269:( 1255:) 1251:( 1249:+ 1231:( 1177:( 1163:( 1147:) 1143:( 1141:+ 1125:( 1113:) 1109:( 1107:+ 1088:( 1076:) 1072:( 1070:+ 1055:) 1051:( 1049:+ 1030:( 1015:) 1011:( 1009:+ 997:) 993:( 991:+ 977:( 964:) 960:( 958:+ 847:) 843:( 841:+ 826:( 802:( 770:( 755:( 744:) 740:( 738:+ 723:( 714:] 660:( 645:) 641:( 639:+ 623:( 601:( 586:( 575:X 553:( 535:( 520:( 505:( 487:( 468:( 418:( 391:( 377:( 362:( 335:( 306:( 273:) 266:) 256:) 249:) 242:) 231:) 224:) 217:) 204:) 196:X 188:) 151:) 147:( 53:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:In the news/Recurring items/Elections - Knowledge (XXG)

Index