The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the results of any national or sub-national election, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway
@Μαρκος Δ: I'm not entirely up to date on Norwegian politics, which I presume you're rather more familiar than I am with. Has a coalition including KrF yet been formed? The article doesn't yet specify anything about post-election coalition formation. Mélencron (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Christian Democrats will, at this point, certainly not enter government. They made an explicit pledge during the 2017 campaign to not prop up any coalition that contains the Progress Party; the current situation is essentially one in which the Christian Democrats will not actively work to topple the Conservative-Progress coalition, but there is no formal confidence and supply agreement as there was in the 2013–17 term, meaning that the government could theoretically lose power at any point. The Liberals seem to be going the same way. The point is that there is currently no such thing as a "H+FrP+KrF+V" coalition, and a four-party majority for them won't guarantee that they form the government. The same goes for the center-left, which has largely loosened up as it's become more fragmented. — Μαρκος Δ18:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does there not still exist a looser notion of red-green and "bourgeois" party groupings, though? Since simple addition doesn't necessarily imply that they'd necessarily govern in coalition. Mélencron (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's correct. But it's more complicated than that. The "socialist" parties are Ap+SV+R; the "bourgeois" (a.k.a. "non-socialist") parties are actually H+FrP+Sp+V+KrF. Only since 2005 has the Center Party instead been aligned with the center-left, while V+KrF have had a formal alliance with H+FrP since 2013 – splitting the bourgeois bloc. In 2017, the Christian Democrats have, as I mentioned, announced that they will not support a government in which the FrP is a component (so they're not just refusing to participate in it, they actually won't support it at all), thus I think it's pretty clear that to group those two together makes little sense.
The Danish coalition duopoly is far more clear-cut and permanent, and I understand that to a non-Norwegian, the Norwegian coalitions could seem just as fixed, but they aren't really. Whereas in Denmark, a "blue bloc" victory all but guarantees a blue bloc government in some shape or form, a Norwegian "bourgeois" majority from the 2017 election in no way guarantees a bourgeois government, unlike in 2013. For example, in 2021, we could very well see Labor teaming up with the Christian Democrats, or it could go the other way completely. The main reason why all four of the opposition bourgeois parties were able to come together during the 2013 election, is that they were all determined to eject the Red-Greens from power; it was mostly an ad hoc thing, though with obvious roots in historical alignments. That doesn't make their alliance permanent. The issue is that the coalitions are shifting, meaning that grouping them together in two distinct, permanent columns is borderline misleading. It works for the Danish article, but not the Norwegian one. If you still insist, we could always add coalition columns closer to 2021, when we actually have some idea of what the coalitions will look like. Though that should be done in a separate table, as in the 2013 polling article. — Μαρκος Δ21:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. It has been made perfectly clear that Norway does not have a bipartisan coalition system as of 2017. It never had one before around 2005, as I've explained above, and it does not have one now. The 2013 election remains the one and only exception. — Μαρκος Δ19:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much on Norwegian politics, but it seems that, if the electoral reform report was expected to come out by 2019, is the paragraph outdated? At least, it should include information if the report was delayed or cancelled or whatnot. —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions)11:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The reform of the counties and municipalities came into effect on 1 January 2021 and resulted in a reduction in the number of counties from 19 to 11"... If I'm not completely misunderstanding the section this sentence refers to the no:Regionreformen i Norge. It came fully into effect on 1 January 2020, not 2021. --CaroFraTyskland (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone knows that the above user loves the boxy new style, and he has been sneak-introducing it to articles for years at this point. I agree with OP, let's go back to the old one. The new, grey and boring infobox is useless, as it is basically just an uglier replica of the one found in the results section further down in the article anyway. We should revert to the old version. Μαρκος Δ13:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disappointed (but not surprised) to see the language used above. The infobox was changed by FellowMellow rather than myself, and clearly some other editors were in agreement with it, as PLATEL has been upgrading some other Norwegian election articles to use it.
Objectively, the new infobox is clearly a more effective summary – with the old format you could only see the results of the first six parties on the initial screen, while with the current one you can see all parties (and as there are now ten, not all of them would fit into the old one). What massive pictures of party leaders adds to infoboxes I'll never understand. Number5713:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believed that all parties should fit in, meaning all parties who received at least 1 mandate. I changed it because typically when there are more than 9 parties entering parliament during an election, the old format doesn't fit all parties. Saying something is grey and boring does not mean it's useless. FellowMellow (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the new infobox is too small and cramped together, the old infobox in my opinion is superior and should be returned to the article. No discussion was ever taken and all other Norwegian election articles use the older infobox. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many parties now to use the old infobox, unless one is left out. The other articles can also be changed to use it (and in fact some were but reverted with a rather spurious reason). An infobox is meant to be as small as possible – are people not familiar with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE? "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article... The less information [an infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". Why do we need pictures of the party leaders? They are not a key fact and do nothing but bloat the infobox, making it far less easy to identify the actual key information (how many seats the parties won). Number5721:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To add my view, there's no set consensus, but I think list-style should be implemented for situations like this with a large number of parties (in this case, 10) or where the leaders/candidates are largely irrelevant (legislative elections in Presidential democracies, for example). Portraits of leaders have their use, but in cases like this I think it's more important that readers quickly understand that there's little difference in size between the "major parties", and the others. JackWilfred (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree a lot with JackWilfred's points here. We should tailor the usage of different styles depending of the country's electoral circumstances. While the simpler list infobox will help when there's a large number of parties elected, information such as leaders' portraits and seats are crucial in parliamentary democracies. That being said in this case, this will need to be balanced with the box size. Maybe we should have a new, middle-ground version of the infobox to cater this? Stv59 (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaders' portraits are absolutely central in Wiki election articles, whether it be presidential or parliamentary. It gives the reader a quick idea of who is who without having to click a million links to find that relevant politician they saw on TV and got curious about, but whose name they couldn't remember. The current infobox literally contains less info than the traditional one and we should revert to that one. Μαρκος Δ09:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They really aren't – people are electing parties, not party leaders. If any image should be shown, it should arguably be the party logo (although that in many cases would be a copyvio). And again, less information is not a problem – as cited above, infoboxes are more effective with less information. Number5723:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It depends on the system. In multi-party parliamentary systems people aren't electing leaders but parties, there could be a case for the party symbol over the leader picture or nothing at all if it is cluttered with many parties. For systems with personal elections, like the US presidential elections, voters do elect leaders and leader pictures are more appropriate. This isn't a one size fits all situation. --Kathy262 (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt people will take much heed of this comment as it's taking place many months later to those above, but my opinion is that Patient Focus is not a true political party in the same sense as even the smaller parties such as the Christian Democratic or Green Party in Norway are. Instead, it is merely a label used by what would be referred to as an Independent Candidate in Irish politics. This is reflected in the massive gap in votes between Patient Focus and every other party that was elected. I think, although I'm not sure, that Patient Contest only contested one singular seat, and that it only had one serious candidate available on its list, which again places it as simply an election vehicle for what would elsewhere simply be called an Independent candidate. The reality is that this election resulted in 9 "true" political parties in the Norwegian parliament rather than 10, and if the old style of infobox was used, the one used in most other Norwegian general election articles, this would be fine, if not better, than what is currently in use. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know that years have passed since the beginning of this talk, but I agree with the last edit which removed the use of the legislative info box. The last time it was put on this page (when someone else removed it to use the actual format) the reason of the edit was “per talk” while it was clear that no consensus was reached in the talk in any way. Siglæ (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davide King:@Impru20: Hi Impru20, big fan of your work! Anyhow, I saw some edits were made about the map in the infobox. I originally changed it since the last one, in fact, does not show electoral districts. You can for example see in the image's own description that it's "former counties" and there is a difference in the borders between Møre og Romsdal (the dark blue district) and Sør-Trøndelag (north of dark blue) electoral districts. I've gone ahead and boosted the text size, if that was the big problem?. I just wish for all projects on Wikipedia to have the most accurate information possible, as I'm sure you do as well. Let me know what you think! --Avopeas (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HiAvopeas! Sorry if I may have missed something, but both maps look the same to me. With the difference than the one previous to the change has the same formatting than the maps used in previous articles, which makes it consistent with them (and should, thus, remain the preferred choice). Impru20talk18:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Impru20! I can understand if you missed it, since the difference is very slight, though still there. Norway recently underwent a municipality reform where several municipalities merged. One such merge was between Hemne municipality in former Sør-Trøndelag county and Halsa in Møre og Romsdal county, creating the new Heim municipality within Sør-Trøndelag electoral district, or the new Trøndelag county. Effectively transfering the area of Halsa from Møre og Romsdal to Trøndelag. With this the borders have changed since the last election and the former counties aren't consistent with the current electoral districts. If you want I can upload a picture focusing on the differences? As to why the formatting is different, I created the map for 2017, but I like to keep up to date with the current colours that English Wikipedia presents the parties in, so I chose those instead. Looking forward to a response! --Avopeas (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So I went ahead and examined the electoral district differences and found several I didn't think of at first, so I made a map to more easily illustrate. The left one is 2017 and the right one is 2021. I hope this helps. --Avopeas (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
