Talk:Q7654987

successful candidate (P991)

This election was about seats in riksdagen, not an election of a prime minister, "successful candidate (P991):Stefan Löfven (Q2740012)" therefor looks strange. Löfven I Cabinet (Q18176361) was a direct consequence of this election. But I have no idea about how to connect them yet. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it is just incomplete as he was elected along with 348 other MPs on equal seats. But I agree that it doesn't make sense to use successful candidate (P991) for the resulting prime minister in a parliamentary system. Someone has added the resulting prime minister successful candidate (P991) to all general elections at least since 1970 (I didn't go back further) and they should all be removed.

The appointment of a cabinet isn't directly related to the election, but it could perhaps make some sense to link the resulting cabinet with a special property (e.g. "resulting cabinet", perhaps with start dates and end dates).

Having all the elected candidates listed here is likely too demanding, but we could perhaps do something like successful candidate (P991):list of members of the Riksdag, 2014-2018 (Q18169811) and list them all there, with constituencies, member of political party (P102) and start time (P580) as qualifiers. Väsk (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

To use list-items in that way, sound like a good use of them! Otherwise, I have heard suggestions that we should use statements like: Ämbete: Riksdagsledamot 2014-2018 in the items related to each person to identify who has been elected. But we do not know when or even if that solution ever will be useful inside Wikipedia. It is maybe useful in Wikimedia labs already today, but I am not interested in asking people to look there!

In re-election of Båstad municipal council, 2015 (Q19958381), I have added successful candidate (P991):Moderaterna/number of seats in assembly (P1410): 5 in elected candidate. I am not fully satisfied with that solution. But identify each kommunfullmäktigeledamot and list them sounds like a terrible job to do, and is completly impossible for the 1919 municipal elections. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As you noticed, I tried a different solution here. I don't have a firm preference, but I think it makes some sense having both votes, seats and vote percentage listed together.

In this instance, I don't see a conflict in having MPs listed in both the item about the particular parliamentary meeting and as position held (P39) in the article about the person. Redundancy isn't necessarily evil. en:110th United States Congress has some nice ideas about how you could structure items about legislative meetings. Väsk (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Neither do I think redundancy have to be something evil. I think your solution with adding number of seats in assembly (P1410) already to candidate (P726) makes sense. Since percentage of votes in official statistics could be calculated relative to "total number of votes", "total number of eligible votes" or "total num of votes to eligible candidates", it can be correct to add percentage here according to the official records.

number of seats (P1342) is, from what I know, supposed to be used in the item about the legislative body. The sum of all seats is not necessary the same thing as number of seats (P1342) since seats can be empty. Derive it from the item about the legislative body can in cases when the number of seats changes, be difficult to handle in a template/LUA-module.

One of the large problems here is to make it scalable. Well-notable administrative units (like US) can have WP-articles both about the legislative body, every meeting in that body, each seat in that body and all MP's since the founding of that body, and all the position held (P39) related to that body. Local, less WP-notable entities like small municipalities in Sweden have no other articles than about the municipality itself, and I think a few municipalsamhällen are still missing own items. I can see that local political parties, are very common in historical records. I saw in one city-municiplaity F(olkpartiet) had candidates and votes both in a coalition with H(ögerpartiet) and one in a coalition with B(ondeförbundet). Try to describe that in a way that makes sense! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Were those coalitions formal valteknisk samverkan? We do have an item for Centre (Q10444848), perhaps such items can be created for those municipal elections as well?

I don't really see the scalability problem. You need one item for the elected body and additional items for each election. It will take a lot of work, but it's not unmanageable. Väsk (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The scalability-problem is that in some cases you have one article for every meeting. In Swedish municipalities we do not even have articles about the legislative bodies. We can create such items, so also items about every election. But why create items about every meeting from 1919 to 2015 for ever single municipality? A Swedish "kommunfullmäktige" meet 6-7 times a year today. Did they meet more than once a year in 1860? From what I know about Västernorrlands landting, they did not.

I have not fully understood the system they used for these "valteknisk samverkan". It looks like there is a three-level-system. One on party-level (samlingslista), one on list-level (different group of names) and one on individual level (like a [B] beside the name on the list). The political parties sometimes isn't revealed until the third level. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I remembered later that Sweden starts a new riksmöte every year, so linking items about the meetings with the elections isn't appropriate (at least not in the context of P991). I don't know if we have proper terminology for this, but having P991 link to some sort of list item containing everyone elected seems to be the best solution.

Perhaps we shouldn't be too bothered with P991 for municipal and country elections. It was clearly made with first-past-the-post systems in mind, shoe-horning it in for other systems will never be completely satisfactory. If someone creates lists of everyone elected to various municipalities and countries in different elections, then great, but there's no great harm in leaving it blank if no such lists exist. The plain results (votes, seats and percentages) listed under one property should be fine in most cases. Väsk (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

One question related to "valteknisk samverkan" is how we should connect for example "Mittenpartierna (c+fp)" in Gotland 1970-73 with the main items about C and FP? This (i.e. c+fp) is probably the most common type of active cooperation between political parties. The cooperation between S & K was probably more common, but it was a passive one-sided cooperation, since K didn't have candidates everywhere. They recommended their members to vote for S instead in those cases. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

another option

another option is to have 'successful candidate (P991):Löfven I Cabinet (Q18176361)'. Or maybe winner (P1346):Löfven I Cabinet (Q18176361)? Filceolaire (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Then I prefer winner (P1346), since it's not the general election that votes for a new goverment. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yet another option: (I think this is my favourite) Let's ban the use of successful candidate (P991) on items for general elections and state that it is only to be used on item for elections in individual constituencies (which they don't have in Sweden). OK? Filceolaire (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

And maybe in direct Mayor- and President-elections, where only one (or in rare cases a few, like in San Marino) is elected. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

P1346 is only slightly better than P991 and I don't really see the distinction in this case. This election is a good example, as it didn't really have a clear winner.

My preferred solution would be to use has immediate cause (P1478) which seems to be the clearest way to express these relationships (2014 Swedish general election (Q7654987):has immediate cause (P1478):Löfven I Cabinet (Q18176361)). Väsk (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

And maybe has immediate cause (P1478):2014 Swedish government crisis (Q18603494)! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

New property needed for coalitions

I just proposed a 'participating team' property for sports events where you need to record the results for teams as well as results for individual 'participants. We need something similar for coalitions.

1. A 'participating coalition' property to list the various coalitions taking part, with qualifiers for numbers of seats, votes etc.

2. A 'member of coalition' property to be used as a qualifier to 'participant' to identify what coalition that party is part of (similar to 'member of sports team (P54)).

What do you think? Filceolaire (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting alternative. There are of course many different kinds of coalitions. CDS/CDU cooperate to such extent that they never compete in the same constituency (ie Bayern). Same thing can sometimes be seen in India.

The problem here is if V should be considered as cooperating with S+Mp or be described as independant. A passive support from V have made S-goverments possible since WW2. I guess the best way of describing the situation is to describe them as a part of that "team", even if nobody ever imagined that they should get any seats in the new Goverment.

Another thing @Väsk: and I have discussed (somewhere) is when two (three or four) political parties technically cooperate, not only as a team but also share lists in the elections. When we have discussed it, we have thought that these "cooperations" should be described as separate political parties. Centre (Q10444848) is already an item about such a "electoral alliance (Q388602)". It was a cooperation between C and K in 1985 Swedish general election (Q2178539). It was then limited to the national level, not to other local parliaments. (The result was that K got their first candidate into the parliament.) -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)