Talk:2022 Serbian general election/Archive 1

Archive 1

January 2021

This page is unnecessary. There will be both presidential and parliamentary elections in 2022. Those should be separated by two pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xuexu (talk • contribs) 18:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Standard practice is to have a single article on national elections held on the same day unless the article becomes too large and needs to be split. See (e.g.) 1990 Serbian general election or 1997 Serbian general election. Number 57 17:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

@Number 57: Hey, do you know why is the "seats_for_election" and "majority_seats" bolded in the infobox? --Vacant0 (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

There were some changes made by Frietjes, which included (possibly accidentally) removing the plain text instruction for those rows. There was another issue that wasn't apparent here, but removing the 100% width parameter meant that the legislative infobox appeared off-centre when embedded at articles like 2021 Peruvian general election. I've fixed both. Cheers, Number 57 23:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright cool, thanks for fixing it! --Vacant0 (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57: Hey again, is it possible to add nowrap to "Party" and "Leader" without manually adding {{nowrap}}? Aleksandar Vučić is nowraped in the infobox although SNS coalition isn't. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure that would be a good idea as I'm sure there are a few cases out there where very long names are used and should be allowed to split over two lines. Cheers, Number 57 16:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

For comparison, the 2020 Serbian parliamentary election infobox does not have this problem even though {{nowrap}} templates aren't present. I don't know what's causing this problem on this one. Vacant0 (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's because the legislative election infobox is embedded in this article; normally when used as a standalone infobox it has a defined width, so no nowrap is needed; however, when it's embedded in another infobox, it has no defined width and shrinks to the width of the master infobox. Once a couple of presidential candidates are added the infobox above will stretch wider, and so the wrapping issue will probably disappear. Cheers, Number 57 21:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright thanks! It has been fixed somehow, I'm still not sure what caused it. Vacant0 (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I fixed it by adding an nbsp to the shortname module. Cheers, Number 57 19:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Vacant0 (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Opinion polls

@SRofSerbia: I'm writing this because I don't want to leave you confused with my revert. Partisan opinion polls are also common in other countries, and we generally do not include them because those opinion polls tend to be biased towards some party. This isn't the first time SSP published a poll on their own without stating the commissioner, and we didn't include their previous polls here because they aren't reliable, it's clearly biased towards the party itself, and the opposition too. --Vacant0 (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@178.220.183.1, 24.135.97.230, and 79.140.150.0: The results for the parliamentary poll can be found on the fifth slide.

• SNS: 49.5%
• SPS: 7.4%
• SSP+NS+PSG+DS+PZP: 16.61%
• Ćuta+NDMBGD+ZZS: 7.73%
• DSS+POKS: 2.39%
• DJB: 2.5%
• Dveri: 1.2%
• Zavetnici: 2.8%
• SRS: 0.6%

Those numbers clearly do not add up with the numbers on slides 6,7,8 and 9, and the numbers on the fifth slide are more precise. --Vacant0 (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Miša Vacić, Sandulović

Do we really need options for Miša Vacić and NIkola Sandulović and the similar bunch in the opinion polls? They just make the polls hard to follow because there are TOO MANY names there, and most opinion polls don't even consider them when they ask people who they're going to vote for. Those 3.000 votes they're going to get aren't really worth it. --WikiNameBaks (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll delete them for now, although if they get mentioned in future polls, they can be re-added back. Vacant0 (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Stop deleting polls

I am adding a most recent polls published by the SSP. Stop deleting it. 87.116.164.246 (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Your range has been blocked from editing the article. Please see previous discussions about this. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

SSP has previously published multiple polls, which were self-commissioned, and none of them are on the page. This was already settled down last year. If we do not include partisan-published polls for other countries, then we should also not do it for Serbia. Vacant0 (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Other countries are not like Serbia when it come to polls

Push polls (oh, yeah, you have an article on Wikipedia about that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll) are very strong in Serbia. And you can empirically verify their presence if you check your articles about Serban elections again!

So stop participating in censorship and let the people know the other side od the story! 87.116.164.246 (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Please have consistent criteria

You have repeatedly deleted poll results from coalition United for the Victory of Serbia, but you have included the results from the Moramo coalition.

How comes?! 87.116.164.38 (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The data from our poll are presented incorrectly and are damaging for our reputation

Dear,

In the last section of this article, where you were presenting various polls, you also mention the Spring Insight survey. Under the presidential candidates surveys, our data are presented incorrectly, and it can be very damaging for reputation. Please remove this from your website, as we did not measure the support to presidential candidates, but their favorability among population, and that is a completely different thing. WE have taken the screenshot of this problematic part. Bottom line - we have never noted the 16% support for Milica Djurdjevic, or 8.5% for Bosko Obradovic.

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.213.106 (talk)

Hello and thanks for requesting an edit. I realize that I'm relying on translated information from the source given on the article, but one part of the text in the source says this (translated in English):

"Respondents were also offered a list of presidential candidates they spoke out about in response to a question about how likely it is to vote for these candidates in the presidential election. Respondents could have come up with several candidates."

The source then lists the percentages of this and these were (accurately) added to the article.

From these observations, it seems to me that at least the source was properly interpreted by the editor making the addition to the article (unless translation is wrong as I said, in which case do tell)

It could of course also be the case that the source cited is wrong, in which case, could you please provide other sources to back up your claim that you did not poll likelihood to vote for a presidential candidate?

Thanks in advance. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 19:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Vučić's infobox image

@Elserbio00 and @Vacant0.

Hey guys! Look, from what I am aware, the consensus that was reached last year was regarding Vučić's infobox image and I absolutely respect that, but not his election one. For example, there is consensus for Putin's current image in his infobox, but completely different images have been used for the presidental elections he took part in. If there is an actual consensus regarding Vučić's election image, then my bad, but that would also just be weird haha. It's good to use images closer to the date of the election as it shows that the person, which has been for a longer time in office, aging while serving their duty, and many election infoboxes have this, including the Bosnian ones which I mainly edit. However, I will not edit and put Vučić's recent cropped image of him to this article if both of you don't agree with me. I respect that. Bakir123 (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I would support changing the picture to a newer one if we actually had better ones on the Commons. The ones that were proposed in the consensus are still the best ones that we have now at the moment, and I still think that the current image outweighs the one that you have had added. I'll try searching for a newer and better picture this weekend, and if I do find one, I'll post it here first. Cheeers. Vacant0 (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Different results

Why are the results listed on top different from the ones in the polling section? Labonio (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Which results and what poll in the polling section? Vacant0 (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

If you're talking about the results in the infobox, I've just fixed them. Vacant0 (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Map of results

Can someone make a map of results by municipalities for both elections. There is no official data of results by municipalities, but from the media we can draw the following conclusions. So in the presidential election Vučić has won in all municipalities except Stari Grad, Vračar, and Savski Venac who voted for Ponoš. In parliamentary election, SNS was victorious in all municipalities except those listed below: Stari Grad, Vračar, Savski Venac- won by UZPS; Kanjiža, Senta, Ada, Bačka Topola- won by Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians; Jagodina and Surdulica- won by SPS; Preševo and Bujanovac- won by Albanian Coalition of Preševo Valley; Čajetina- won by Sovereignists; Sjenica- won by SPP; Tutin- won by SDA; Sandman1991 (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll create one by the end of this week. Vacant0 (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Added. Vacant0 (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Infobox image

Which image should be used in the infobox for Vučić? The A one is of Vučić in 2019, while the others of him are from 2022. I am personally for the images from 2022, specifically image B. My reasoning is as the election was held in 2022, an image of Vučić from 2022 would be suitable, much like many other world leaders have images of them from the same year that the election happened, such as Emmanuel Macron from both the 2017 and 2022 French presidential elections, or Angela Merkel from all the German elections she participated in as chancellor. --Bakir123 (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• 
  A (current image)
• 
  B
• 
  C

I would go with A, and strongly against B. He hasn't changed at all, so the more neutral pic should be chosen. It' s not a good idea to use a pick in which the photographed look bad for an election infobox. It doesn't feel neutral. --Aréat (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• As I've said on Vučić's talk page, his appearance has not changed since 2019, therefore I'd prefer to keep the current image. Even though it is not from 2022, it is far better than the ones we have from 2022. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Vacant0 and @Aréat I understand that, but the same could be said for Macron from 2017 and 2022. It's just common use that individuals get their images changed to the ones from when the election takes place. I'm not going to dwell further on the topic as I've voiced my opinion enough. --Bakir123 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

French presidential election's photo concerns belong on its talk page. Here we're talking about the serbian one, and as said above, when the individual look the same, using a photo in which they happen to look goofy isn't neutral. There's no upside to using a particular year's photo, and a clear downside.--Aréat (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)