Template:Did you know nominations/Ako Bicol Political Party
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Carabinieri (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Ako Bicol Political Party edit
... that Ako Bicol Political Party, which won the most votes in the 2010 Philippine party-list election, was disqualified for the 2013 election for being not a marginalized people's representative?
Created/expanded by Howard the Duck (talk). Self nom at 15:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The hook is very awkward and the term "marginalized people's" as it applies to Filipino politics is not likely to be familiar to most readers (though I understood after reading the sectoral representation article linked in the lede). It also contradicts the article, which suggested disqualification was overturned by the Supreme Court. Intelligentsium 04:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- It hasn't been overturned; the court just prevented the execution of the order once it hands out a final decision on the case. As for marginalized people's representative, I'll edit it later. –HTD 04:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
ALT1: that Ako Bicol Political Party, which won the most votes in the 2010 Philippine party-list election, was disqualified for the 2013 election?–HTD 12:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- This removed the reason why it was disqualified, which would be impossible to explain with a short hook. –HTD 12:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Date and length
check out. However I am still concerned about the hook - even though the disqualification has not been overturned, it has been forestalled pending review and the outcome is not yet known. The hook implies that they definitely have been disqualified, which is not accurate. (Furthermore, "won the most votes in the ... election" is ambiguous, and to readers used to a two-party system might imply a majority, which is far from the case; "won a plurality" is more precise). How about:
ALT2: ... that the Ako Bicol Political Party, which won a plurality in the 2010 Philippine party-list election, may be disqualified from fielding candidates for the 2013 election?
- Intelligentsium 23:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't object the changes, but elsewhere at the Main Page, there had been movements to depreciate the use of "plurality" (mostly British English speakers) since it supposedly means different to them. I even considered using the word "topnotcher", but that word is even harder to understand in some English dialects. As long as the hook has the main points that it had the most votes, and was disqualified (they still are, BTW, but the commission is prevented from acting on it), there should be no opposition from me. –HTD 04:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I was not aware of that, and I can certify as one of those "British English speakers" that I understand plurality just fine in context (though NB I've lived in the States for quite a number of years). Thinking about it again, though, if you don't know what a party-list system is it might appear to suggest that now AKB have control of the government which is even worse! I think we need a
third opinion. Intelligentsium 22:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- I guess that's the kicker in the hook. In most countries, the "winner" of the party-list election wins majority of the seats, and is not even considered to be disqualified for the next election. In this case, it just won 3 seats and was disqualified, pending via final judgment. –HTD 03:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, my understanding is that party-list roughly equals proportional representation, as opposed to the first-past-the-post system we have in the UK and in the US. They are two subtly different concepts; FPTP refers to the election of a single candidate and party-list refers to, well, a list (clearly; if candidate A receives 40% of the vote for a single seat and candidate B 60%, you are not going to cut 40% of A and 60% of B to form a Frankensteinian MP). As I said, it's not particularly confusing to a UK reader if you keep in mind that this was a general election and not the election for a single spot, since in the UK a party can win a plurality yet still have to form a coalition to govern. Intelligentsium 03:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- I was not referring to a UK reader being confused if a party won, it's on the use of the term "plurality". Later today, the Israeli election results would be revealed, and the winning party would almost certainly win a plurality of seats and the vote (it's proportional). WP:ITN might have a discussion on whether to use the term "plurality" at all, as it is a apparently a North American construct. They'd argue that all parties that won more than 1 seat had a won a "plurality". (See also Plurality (voting) and its talk page.) –HTD 11:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, my understanding is that party-list roughly equals proportional representation, as opposed to the first-past-the-post system we have in the UK and in the US. They are two subtly different concepts; FPTP refers to the election of a single candidate and party-list refers to, well, a list (clearly; if candidate A receives 40% of the vote for a single seat and candidate B 60%, you are not going to cut 40% of A and 60% of B to form a Frankensteinian MP). As I said, it's not particularly confusing to a UK reader if you keep in mind that this was a general election and not the election for a single spot, since in the UK a party can win a plurality yet still have to form a coalition to govern. Intelligentsium 03:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- I guess that's the kicker in the hook. In most countries, the "winner" of the party-list election wins majority of the seats, and is not even considered to be disqualified for the next election. In this case, it just won 3 seats and was disqualified, pending via final judgment. –HTD 03:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I was not aware of that, and I can certify as one of those "British English speakers" that I understand plurality just fine in context (though NB I've lived in the States for quite a number of years). Thinking about it again, though, if you don't know what a party-list system is it might appear to suggest that now AKB have control of the government which is even worse! I think we need a
- I don't object the changes, but elsewhere at the Main Page, there had been movements to depreciate the use of "plurality" (mostly British English speakers) since it supposedly means different to them. I even considered using the word "topnotcher", but that word is even harder to understand in some English dialects. As long as the hook has the main points that it had the most votes, and was disqualified (they still are, BTW, but the commission is prevented from acting on it), there should be no opposition from me. –HTD 04:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Date and length
- Any updates on the holdup? –HTD 16:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Given various issues with "plurality" and the definitiveness of the disqualification, perhaps a new hook is in order placing the "won the most votes" phrase from ALT1 into ALT2 in place of "won a plurality", which I'm proposing as an ALT3 to get things moving again (and striking the three earlier hooks since all had objections lodged against them):
- ALT3: ... that the Ako Bicol Political Party, which won the most votes in the 2010 Philippine party-list election, may be disqualified from fielding candidates for the 2013 election?
- New reviewer needed for ALT3 hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
for ALT3. New enough (based on nomination date), long enough. No close paraphrasing with check of 4 sources. However, two issues for me to give this a tick: 1. For this hook, the sentence that starts "AKB emerged as the surprising winner..." needs to have a cite directly after it. It has one later in the paragraph now, but for Alt3, I think it needs to be right after it (even if it just duplicates one later in the paragraph). The 2013 potential disqualification is good. But this leads me to...2. Electoral performance section needs to have some sources. And I'm concerned because the 2010 election result listed for Ako Bicol Political Party is about half a million short from the partial tally at the main source for this here. It seemed odd that a partial total would be half a million short of the final total. I assume there are final numbers that these tables are based on but they weren't clearly referenced. These problems are interrelated and could be easily solved with a few sources added in. Finally: 3. Am I missing a QPQ review in this discussion. I find the hook (and the process to figure it out) highly interesting, so actually want to change the no to a yes and will watch the pages appropriately. Thanks. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's because results for Camarines Norte can't be found. It seems most of the missing votes came from there. The official result for the entire country isn't on that website you linked, but on the election commission website (LOL it's down), but that's also incomplete as the presumably Camarines Norte results are already factored in there, results from Lanao del Sur haven't, but that should be like a few thousand votes. As for QPQ I'd do that. –HTD 04:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Reviewed Airlink (helicopter). –HTD 05:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- QPQ done, everything else seems to be in order. AGF on editorial decision (with a note in article content explaining the issue) to go with the numbers on electoral performance. Hook right length and interesting. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)