Talk:September 2015 Greek legislative election

Two MRB polls listed for exactly the same fieldwork

There are two MRB polls listed for exactly the same fieldwork (17-18 Sept) an but the give quite different results. The poll which gives SYRIZA the lead is well sourced (using the video broadcast where the MRB president is explaining the poll). However, the poll which gives ND the lead only appears in secondary sources, some of which are questionable (e.g. partisan blogs). Given that:

1. The 17-18 Sept poll that gives ND a lead does not appear in the MRB website

2. The extensive discussion of the MRB which analyzes their last poll before the election (fieldwork 17-18 Sept) see does not make ANY reference to the alleged MRB poll that gives ND a lead

I suggest to remove the reference to the MRB poll of Sept 17-18 giving ND a lead as dubious. Discog79 (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I contacted the president of MRB by email to ask him about this issue. He was kind enough to call me and he confirmed the following (also by email just in case anyone wants the proof of his word):

-There was no poll conducted by MRB on 16-17 Sept.

-There was a poll conducted on 17-18 Sept with the results as they appear in the Star Channel broadcast, where SYRIZA has a lead of 0.5% where the undecided are excluded.

-The screenshot that was published by parapolitika and reproduced by other online media was part of the 17-18 Sept MRB poll and NOT a separate/independent one. This screenshot does not give the plain vote intention in the whole sample, but the vote intention only among those who answered in another question that they are "certain" that they will go to vote. MRB found the results of this additional analysis spurious and decided not to broadcast them in the Star Channel news. They only broadcasted the voting intention on the whole sample (5% lead to SYRIZA), and the final projection which gave 1.1% lead to SYRIZA. However, the slide with the analysis among the "certain voters" was leaked, and parapolitika falsely claimed that this was a totally different poll.

Based on the above, I will remove this non-existent/fake poll from the list. Discog79 (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

But which one are you removing? From what I understand from your comment, the "wrong" poll (which wouldn't be fake anyway, only just that it shows vote intention among "certain voters" and not over all voters as all other polls do) would be the one showing a 0.1 ND lead. If what you say is true, then that is the one that should be removed.

I comment and highlight this because you previously kept on removing the other poll, the one showing a 1.1 SYRIZA lead, so as no confusion is given and to know this time exactly what is going to be removed and why. If this is true, then yes, I agree that the 17-18 poll projected over "certain voters" (that is, the one showing a 0.1 ND lead which was published by Parapolitika) should be removed from the table, as it is data not comparable with other polls which are calculated over "all" voters. But that one only and for these reasons given. Impru20 (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

What I did is to remove the poll listed for 16-17 and correct the one listed for 17-18 in the official figures as given in the broadcast (after the calculations excluding the undecided). Discog79 (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Fake polls, beware of your sources

It came to my attention that (at least) one of the polls previously reported in this page was fake. The MRB poll for 17–18 Sept did not report a tally of 0.1 in favour of ND as previously reported, but 0.5 (adjusted to 0.6 for the undecided) according to the source given in the company website. I would caution the wikipedia editors working on similar pages not to use data from unverifiable sources such as the "dexiextrem" partisan blog ([1]) which was previously used as a source in this case.

I also removed what appeared as an MRB poll for 16-18 Sept. The video linked was identical to the one for the MRB poll listed for 17-18 Sept and clearly stated that the fieldwork took place on 17-18, not 16-18. The numbers reported for the poll that was supposedly conducted on 16-18 were the same as the one for 17-18 but used a different method to adjust for the undecided (using the rallying of voters indicators in addition to the rule of three). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discog79 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your edits, because:

1. This link you posted for the 17-18 Sep poll did not show any data at all for the voting intention in 17-18 Sep. It only shows exit poll data and some various other data, but the data you show is nowhere to be found. The link that was before you made your change did show an image of the voting intention from the polling company itself, namely this: http://www.iefimerida.gr/sites/default/files/mrb_1.jpg I don't know if "dexiestrem" is a partisan blog or not, but I know that the image is taken from iefimerida.gr, which I don't think is a partisan blog.

If you read the document carefully you will see that it links to a youtube file which has a news broadcast. In this broadcast the voting intention of the poll is mentioned. See also: [2] The data reported by dexiextrem/iefimerida are most likely fake as they do not appear in the company website or the media which has commissioned this poll. Therefore the data for this poll needs to be corrected. The MRB website/video and eklogika is more credible compared to the screenshot posted in dexiextrem/iefimerida which is most likely photoshopped.

Then use the link from the video and not the PDF which provides no information regarding vote intention on the date you say.

Eklokiga does not include all opinion polls. And the MRB website does only include the early September polls, not the ones conducted later. In fact, the last poll in the MRB website is from 3-4 Sep, but that does not mean all later ones do not exist. For instance, your own data is not in the MRB website; is it fake because of that? This is an inconclusive argument, and such should not be considered.

Saying that the screenshot is "most likely photosopped" is no argument. Prove it. The screenshot is from iefimerida, which is a Greek media. And the screenshot includes fieldwork data and the source. Prove that it is indeed photoshopped.

2. The poll you removed for 16-17 Sep (and not 16-18, as you said) is listed in the Eklogika website section regarding opinion polls: http://www.eklogika.gr/gallops So it does exists, and it is not a duplicate. Impru20 (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There was a poll listed for 16-18 which did not appear anywhere. The link for this poll was actually identical to the credible poll for 16-17 as I change it above. Please have a careful look at the sources I listed (MRB website, eklogika) and you will see for yourself that my edits are correct.

You did not remove any 16-18 poll. Check the history section. There wasn't any MRB poll for 16-18 Sep in the table before your edits (check it). On the MRB and Eklogika websites issues, I repeat what I said above: those do not include all polls that are conducted. So a poll not appearing there does not mean that poll does not exist.

Furthermore, the video you post do not show the data you are keeping adding. It says "SYRIZA 31.7%, ND 30.6%, XA 6.6%, Potami 6.0%, KKE 5.7%, ANEL 3.2%, PASOK 5.7%, EK 3.9%, LAE 4.0%". Yet you removed that data (which was in the table before you removed it) and added a "supposed" poll to which you provide no link and whose data is nowhere to be found. I'd say that you are trying to add unsourced and fake data to the article, so I'm reverting your edits outright. Impru20 (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: The 17-18 MRB is also mentioned here, here, here, here or here, to name a few. If you think the link to dexiextrem is not suitable, it can be changed to one of these if you like. Maybe the Parapolitika one, which does show the image and the full data and I think can't be regarded as a partisan source or blog. Impru20 (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's take it one by one. You list an MRB poll for 16-17 Sept and give this [3] link. Have you actually watched the video? The president of MRB clearly states that the poll mentioned in the broadcast was conducted on the 17th until the morning of the 18th. Unless you have another source for the MRB poll which was supposedly conducted on 16-17 Sept, it needs to be removed. Right? Discog79 (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Where does he say that? 2. Why would that (even if true) result in the removal of the poll? It is sourced and was broadcast live on TV. What would be the reasoning behind its removal? Please, elaborate. You are removing data from the article saying that it is fake, but showing no proof that those are indeed fake (indeed, those are pretty well sourced) and even adding data that does not appear anywhere. Impru20 (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

1. He says so in the very beginning of the broadcast when he is asked to give the details of the poll. He says that the poll was conducted on the 17-18 with a sample size of 1022 respondents. Clearly this cannot be used as a source for the poll on 16-17. Now, can you give me a source for the poll of 16-17? If not, it needs to be removed as an unsourced claim. Can you answer this please before we move to your point 2? Discog79 (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

What?! Your own video, minute 2:35, shows the poll data. Have you even seen the video yourself? Can you explain why you use the video as a source and then want to remove from the article the poll that does appear in that video? Btw, can you answer to my question below? Why do you want to add data that is the average of two polls as a single poll, when it is not sourced anywhere? And you have not answered any of my questions above, regarding the motives of you wanting to remove sourced content. Impru20 (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

1. There is no MRB poll for Sept 16-17. There is no source, and it will be deleted unless you can prove otherwise. 2. The video used as a source for the alleged poll of Sept 16-17 is actually the source for the poll listed for Sept 17-18. Therefore the data for Sept 17-18 need to be changed according to what is presented in the video. Any problems with that? Discog79 (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The source is the one you posted. If the issue is the date, then it can be fixed without any issue. That's not a reason for removing sourced content. And yes, I have one problem. Firstly, of you being unpolite in this discussion, not even answering any questions and saying that you are going to do what you like with no justification. Secondly, by coming here, unwillingly to give any explanation about the source of your alleged data (which I just found out is an average of the two polls listed in the article, yet you don't answer why you did this) and wishing to impose that on others. If you proceed with doing that, knowing that it is sourced and knowing that you're intentionally removing sourced data, I'll have to consider that as disruptive editing. You can't just remove sourced data; if you think the date fieldwork is wrong, be bold and fix it yourself, but by no means that does justify the removal of the entire opinion poll, which does exist. Impru20 (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Pay attention to what I am saying and doing. The poll given for Sept 16-17 has NO SOURCE. The source which you consistently keep putting back there belongs to a poll conducted on Sept 17-18. Discog79 (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Pay attention to what I am saying. The source for the poll given for Sept 16-17 is YOUR VIDEO, minute 2:35. If you say it is from Sept 17-18 and not from Sept 16-17, then it's just a matter of a wrong date, which has been fixed. But the poll DOES APPEAR in your own video, again, at minute 2:35. Where is the issue, then? You should not only pay attention to what I am saying, but also to your own sources, since it seems you have not even seen the whole video and are, thus, speaking without knowing about what you're talking about. Also, can you please explain what was that data that you kept putting in the table that was an unsourced average of the two latest MRB polls? Impru20 (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: I have just noticed that the data you have been adding (SYRIZA 31.9%, ND 31.3%, XA 6.9%, Potami 5.7%, KKE 5.7%, ANEL 3.0%, PASOK 5.8%, EK 3.6%, LAE 3.7%) seems to be a near-perfect average between the MRB polls currently listed as 16-17 and 17-18 Sep. What's the point of removing two sourced polls and replacing them by a non-sourced average of them both? Has no sense to me. Impru20 (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I also removed the E. Panas poll reported here [4]. If you read closely what data is reported, you will see that the poll was conducted only at 3 out of the 13 regions in Greece and therefore is neither representative, nor comparable to the other polls reported here.Discog79 (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sortability of the Opinion Polls Table

The Table of the Opinion Polls is no longer sortable. But its sortability has certain advantages. For example:
(1) Comparing the opinion polls of the same company
(2) Calculating the minimum and the maximum percentage of each party over all opinion polls
(3) Finding out in which opinion poll the absolute difference between the two leading parties was the minimum.
RegardsSoSivr (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Further Polls

http://www.electograph.com/p/special-greek-legislative-election-20.html --77.6.245.34 (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

11 Sep -- ProRata: Transformation of the values is still not correct!

1nd: The sum total of the values within the line at issue of the wikipedia table is 97.5 % (not about 100 % as it should be).

2rd: The individual values are incorrect as well (e.g. for SYRIZA it must be 34.5; not 30 %). The correct recalculation is there:

http://theoriealspraxis.blogsport.de/images/EfSynUmfrage_20150911__1238.png / http://theoriealspraxis.blogsport.de/2015/09/11/neue-umfrage-in-griechenland-sowohl-lae-als-auch-anel-um-3-nur-schwache-verlust-fuer-syriza/

and there:

http://www.electograph.com/2015/09/greece-september-2015-prorata-poll.html --95.119.34.21 (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC) / Updated --95.119.34.21 (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

For doing the calculation correctly cfr. next section. --95.119.34.21 (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

How to recalculate the raw data?

Correct is:

Raw value of an individual party x 100 : sum total of the raw data of all parties together.

Use LibreOffice Calc or MS Office Excel and everything is fine. :-) --95.119.34.21 (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Voice news

Voice news "polls" seem weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apo-p (talk • contribs) 14:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

New Pulse Polls

Pulse (4)

http://www.electograph.com/2015/09/greece-september-2015-pulse-rc-poll-4.html

Pulse (3) --95.119.63.125 (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

http://www.electograph.com/2015/09/greece-september-2015-pulse-rc-poll-3.html --95.119.227.67 (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for new section "2.4 In-depth-analyses"

Maybe a new section "2.4 In-depth-analyses" should be inserted. There e.g. is an analysis of the exchange of electorate between the parties.

More questions than only party preferences are explored e.g. there (in Greek):

http://www.megatv.com/megagegonota/article.asp?catid=27371&subid=2&pubid=35098943

and there (in Greek):

http://www.topontiki.gr/article/141361/dimoskopisi-tis-pulse-rc-gia-pontikigr-eimaste-mono-stin-arhi

and there (in English):

http://www.bridgingeurope.net/nationwide-poll-towards-snap-elections-in-greece---september-4-2015.html --95.119.227.67 (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Link-mistake / missing source

4 Sep - VoiceNews and 2 Sep - VoiceNews: Both lines link to same source --77.6.228.74 (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Two new polls, published on Friday, 4th

Bridging Europe: http://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/983513.umfrage-sieht-syriza-deutlich-vorn.html

Metron Analysis: http://www.ekathimerini.com/201200/article/ekathimerini/news/new-democracy-pulls-ahead-of-syriza-opinion-poll-finds --77.6.228.74 (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Calculation of the table is not correct (at least line 2, 3 and 4)

At least the lines 2, 3 and 4 are not correct:

++ 4 Sep -- VoiceNews does not mention others, but the sum of the values, which are mentioned it only 98,5 %. Therefore the raw value for the other parties should be 1.5 % and the entire line must be calculated again.

++ 1–2 Sep -- Pulse RC: There are some small mistakes.

++ 31 Aug–2 Sep -- GPO: The value for the other parties is to high. It confuses the Others alone with the sum of Blanks, Invalids and Others. The value for the Others must be estimated (because it is not mentioned within the source), and than the entire line must be calculated again.

Cfr. (table in English; text only in German): http://theoriealspraxis.blogsport.de/images/WikipediaUmfragen_KORR_20150904__1341.png and http://theoriealspraxis.blogsport.de/2015/09/04/wikipedia-rechnet-falsch-wahlumfragen-in-griechenland/ --77.6.228.74 (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Again regarding 31 Aug–2 Sep -- GPO:

@ 12:24, 4 September 2015‎ Impru20 "(→‎Opinion polls: Blank+Invalid around 2% for GPO (not shown in original presentation))"

The estimation 4.2 % for Others, but only 2 % for Blank+Invalid seems still not realistic to me. I guess, the other way around (4.2 for Blank+Invalid and 2 for Others) would me more appropriate.

Cfr. Pulse: 2 % Others, 6 % Blank+Invalid.

Alco: 3.5 % Others, 7.2 % Blank+Invalid.

Metron: 3.3 % Others, 12.4 % Blank+Invalid.

Anyway, the table needs a footnote, which explains, that this value is an estimation only. --77.6.228.74 (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

And again regarding 4 Sep -- VoiceNews:

The critique was not correct (confusion of 12,8 % and 14,3):

http://theoriealspraxis.blogsport.de/images/Verwechslung_143__128_20150904__1528.png

However it is strange, that this poll displays 0 % for Others - maybe one reason, why it displays that relatively high values for GA, KKE and LAE (compared with the other polls). --77.6.228.74 (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Table "Opinion polls": Parties to mention / Election Alliances / Parties, which not contest

Election Alliance: Potami & DRASI

"Pro-business party Drasi has decided to back centrist Potami in the upcoming elections. Drasi announced on Thursday that some of its members would run as candidates on Potami’s ticket, while Drasi leader Theodoros Skylakakis would be included on Potami’s state list of candidates." [5]

DRASI results in May and June 2012: 1.8 and 1.6 % [6]

Election Alliance: ANTARSYA & EEK

"Antarsya is going to common electoral list with the Workers Revolutionary Party (EEK)!“ (Kostas Skordoulis, cfr. "Kostas Skordoulis, a leading member of OKDE-Spartakos" [7]; OKDE-Spartakos = one of member organisations of ANTARSYA [8])

ANTARYA results in May 2012 and Jan. 2015: 1.2 and 0.6 %; Regional Elections 2010 and 2014: 1.8 and 2.3 % [9]

EEK results between 0.04 and 0.12 % [10]

Poll results for ANTARSYA: 1.4 % (Metronanalysis: 28. Aug.) and 1.3 % (Alpha, [11] - not yet listed within the table?!)

LAOS doesn't contest

„Popular Orthodox Rally (LAOS) became the latest party to announce it will not run in the September 20 elections. Ultranationalist LAOS was part of the interim government led by ex-central banker Lucas Papademos between November 2011 and February 2012. However, it did not enter Parliament in January and the party suggested in a statement that the timing is not right for it to run in the snap polls. [….]. Stylida Mayor Apostolos Gletsos, an actor, also said this week that his Teleia party would not participate in the polls.“ [12]

LAOS results in May and June 2012 and Jan. 2015: 2.9, 1.6 and 1.0 [13]

--77.6.228.74 (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Did they endorse anyone this time? --Dorpater (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

KIDISO will not contest

Papandreou party KIDISO will not contest: http://www.ekathimerini.com/201108/article/ekathimerini/news/papandreou-party-will-not-contest-in-snap-vote

and it formed also no coalition with PASOK: http://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/982833.konstantopoulou-macht-bei-volkseinheit-mit.html --77.6.228.74 (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

New coalition formed: PASOK + DIMAR

As of 30th of August, Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) and Democratic Left (DIMAR) formed a coalition for these elections under the name Δημοκρατική Συμπαράταξη (Democratic Coalition). News in Greek. Jimmys Cybertroll (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Opinion polling

It seems that opinion polling has started and results of the (one of the) first opinion polling can be seen here. 94.253.179.62 (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Cfr.: http://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/982828.sieben-umfragen.html and

++ for EfSyn: http://www.efsyn.gr/arthro/aifnidiasmeno-kai-se-stasi-anamonis-eklogiko-soma

++ for Briding: http://www.bridgingeurope.net/nationwide-poll-towards-snap-elections-in-greece---august-2015.html

++ for MRB: http://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/982709.griechenland-umfragen-umfragen-umfragen.html

Cfr. further:

http://www.zougla.gr/politiki/article/ka8eti-ptosi-siriza-ke-anel --77.6.228.74 (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC) - +++ not yet listed within the table?! +++ --77.6.228.74 (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Further poll: http://www.newsit.gr/politikh/Dimoskopisi-Alco-Ekloges-2015-Sto-0-4-i-diafora-SYRIZA-ND/427706 via http://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/983232.umfrage-vorsprung-von-syriza-schmilzt-weiter.html; cfr. http://www.ekathimerini.com/201120/article/ekathimerini/news/syrizas-lead-shrivels-ahead-of-election --77.6.228.74 (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

EK percentage in Marc (19 March) poll

EK percentage in Marc poll of 19 March 2015 is 1,4%, not 1,8%

Quantis (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

New poll by Palmos Analysis (20 March)

New poll introduced today (20 March 2015) by Palmos Analysis

Quantis (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 07 July 2015

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: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Next Greek legislative election → 66th Greek legislative election – “Next” sounds weird to readers. – 76.14.51.178 (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@76.14.51.178 and Jenks24: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Would need to go to a full discussion. "Next" is the format generally in use across Wikipedia, see for example Next United Kingdom general election, Next Australian federal election, etc. Jenks24 (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: "Next" is the usual format generally used in Wikipedia. Numbering is only done when sources in that country do so (as per WP:RELIABLE). So far, no source actually points to the 2015 election being the 65th Greek legislative election, or the June 2012 being the 64th one and so on. Impru20 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose per Jenks24 and Impru20. --Article editor (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

Popular Unity should be third

In my opinion Popular Unity should be third in the infobox. I'm not sure as to what's normally done and perhaps this should be on another talk page but to me it seems illogical that they are listed eighth. Why are they listed by votes not MPs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.136.168 (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox, when the election has not yet taken place, shows parties ordered by the result they got in the previous election, not their current seat allocation. Popular Unity did not contest the January 2015 election and did not exist back then, but were created afterwards as a split from Syriza. As a result, its current seat count does not reflect electoral strength as it does for other parties, as it does not come as the result of popular vote but, rather, as a result of the MPs' decision to join the new party. Placing them as the 3rd political force in the country without it having yet stood in any election and without proving its true electoral strength could possibly be WP:UNDUE, so the more neutral approach of placing them last after all other parties with seats that did contest the previous election is taken. Impru20 (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Could someone add a picture of Nikolaos Michaloliakos?

I think there should be a picture of the leader of the Golden Dawn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvarogomez99 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Alvarogomez99, we cannot use images that 'belong' to someone, this includes most images that are posted on the internet unless they CLEARLY state that they are not 'copyrighted'. Pincrete (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Opinion polling graph

Could someone make a graph like File:ElectionMonthlyAverageGraphGreece2015.png for opinion polls for this election? It would be nice to have a graphical representation of the data in table(s). 46.234.78.168 (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I did a first try Wykx (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox election template too wide

The 'Infobox election' template is too wide on small screens. It is okay when there are only two parties side by side, but three makes it take up over 50% of the width. Not sure how best to fix.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Reducing the picture size is usually the best way to reduce width. However, I personally would recommend using {{Infobox legislative election}} seeing as so many parties are listed – this would be much smaller. Number 57 14:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. Bondegezou (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it, though some of the info in the infobox still has to be adjusted so it shows up. Here's a link to the template documentation: [14]. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I see @Impru20: has reverted the change, presumably having missed this discussion. Number 57 18:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't see the discussion here on the issue. I can understand the issue, but I don't agree with the use of the other template, for several reasons:

• The most obvious one, that the current infobox template is the standard used in most elections. It would look just weird for this one to use a different template than others.
• Secondly, the proposed infobox template omits much valuable information, such as party swings (it only shows seat variations), previous election results, the date in which each leader/candidate arrived to the office and, in the case of Greece, the leaders' seats. It also prevents the use of images for political leaders, which has become somewhat of a custom and also a nice feature in many different Wikipedias' election articles (including the English one, too). It also deprives other info such as the total number of seats to be elected, or the seats required for winning a majority, the number of registered voters or a quick redirect to the Opinion polling section/article. And it also seems to have problems with color schemes (i.e. PASOK-DIMAR coalition is shown no colour despite an specific colour being set up).
• I personally find the proposed template worthless in its function. I mean, if the point of that template is just to show a list showing party votes and seats, we already have the full detailed results table for that, with much more information. The point of the infobox is that it's to be a summary of results, but also to be catchy and visible, and distingisheable from the full results section. If it's just a table much like the table shown below, with the additional disadvantage that it lacks data that the full table shows, then just remove it altogether, because that purpose is already fulfilled by the full-fledged table in the "Results" section.
• On the "three parties side by side" issue, well, it has been like this for a lot of years on almost every election article on the Wikipedia, and it has not caused noticeable issues on that time. It was already designed like this when Windows XP was still commonplace, and back then it used to look a lot worser (and when I say a lot, I mean that it made up over 75% of the article's width if three parties were added side by side, and that on large screens). It now ideally spans around 30-40% of the article's width using Windows 7 or over and on a large screen. Maybe for small screens it may span a bit more, up to 50%, but I believe it's something manageable (as I said, before we were used to it being even wider than now), and that it's worth the additional data it allows to introduce compared to the table-like template.

Just my opinion. Impru20 (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks looking into the width, I'll have a look at the picture sizes.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I've made template pictures narrower (170x170px -> 140x140px), this has made the template a little narrower. Its roughly 50% of the width now which is better.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

But you said it was already around 50% before. So the change has not that much of an effect. I believe this issue should be more thoroughly and carefully discussed, not just for this article, but as something more directed to a general standard to all election articles, because we have ones like the UK election articles that use 200x200px images to others that use 150x150px images (i.e. Irish elections). Personally, I find that other articles use larger image sizes and cause no issue. But smaller pic sizes however tend to make the infobox longer (as space for long names is reduced and they take up more space to be shown , whereas slightly larger images help to avoid text-wrapping in a natural way). I'm not in favour of making changes that are only made to help a very particular and specific case in a specific article, as we should try to avoid aesthetical divergences with other articles whenever possible. Impru20 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I said was over 50% with pics at 170x170px and around 50% with pics at 140x140px.

Here's the difference, at 170x170px:

At 140x140px:

Its possible the standard is 160x150px, as that is used in the examples. Anyhow, I've started a discussion on the template's talkpage at Template talk:Infobox election#Template too wide for small screens. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Which operative system are you using? That was the way it used to look back in the Windows XP days. I had it until recently and had to cope with it for years (and surely many users had to do it too), and I acknowledge that it caused me some problems regarding the screen width (and I have not changed my screen then and now). I now use Windows 7 and it looks like this to me:

As you notice, this is about half of what it looks to you, and it is already 170x170px. And by resizing the pics to 140x140px, it only gets smaller and can potentially create complications with the infobox text. I understand your issue, but I don't think it is such a big one. I mean, when the infobox was created, people were used to see it in the way you see it now. Since it is likely an operative system issue (and I assure you it is not the only one) you may consider to update your operative system instead. That would solve your issue not only for this election article, but for every article you come across, and it will also prevent you from having width issues with other aspects, such as tables (let's say, opinion polling tables, or election results tables). Impru20 (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

ITN Nomination

Hi everybody. I just wanted to drop a quick line and remind the editors working on this article that it has been nominated to be featured on the WP:MAINPAGE as part of WP:ITN. At this point referencing is the principal hold up to the article being posted there. There is quite a bit of unsourced material on here. If/when that is fixed I think the nomination will move along fairly quickly. Thanks to everybody working to improve the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

LAE should be removed from the election infobox

After discussion on the infobox election talk page, only parties which gained seats after the election should be in the infobox. Unless someone has a specific reason not to, I'll remove LAE from the infobox. Orgyn (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greek legislative election, September 2015. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130217164234/http://archive.enet.gr/online/online_text/c=112,dt=12.06.2004,id=20721500 to http://archive.enet.gr/online/online_text/c%3D112%2Cdt%3D12.06.2004%2Cid%3D20721500

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Footnote "PASOK+DIMAR"

@ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ: Now that you've restored the footnote, the article has a "Notes" section containing only a big red error message. If you think the footnote is useful, could you work out where to call it from? -- John of Reading (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. •ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ• 15:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nikólas Michaloliákos.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nikos Michaloliakos - Golden Dawn party leader.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)