This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tunisia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Tunisia. For more information, visit the project page.TunisiaWikipedia:WikiProject TunisiaTemplate:WikiProject TunisiaTunisia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world 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.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
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 articles
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I think, for the sake of consistency, we should decide whether to change this article to Tunisian Constituent Assembly election, 2011 or change the article Tunisian Constituent Assembly election, 1956toTunisian Constitutional Assembly election, 1956. If no one disagrees, I will change this article's title in a week.
That makes perfect sense, thanks. Do you know how many constituencies there are, and how many seats in each one? (The importance of this is that it determines how proportional the election is) -- Cabalamat (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
For the number of seats per constituency, you could check this link. It's in French but the info is well presented in a table ;) That link is the source I used for the hidden table summarizing the results per constituency that you can find under the Polls section. From the various news I read in the past months, I remember each constituency is given approximately one seat per 60,000 citizens. However, less populated area such as the southern regions are allocated more seats than there populations would allow so as not to be under-represented (I think there's a minimum of 4 seats per constituency but I'm not sure since I haven't found reliable up to date information). As for the number of constituencies, from the link I sent you, we can see there are 33 constituencies, of which 6 are for the diaspora. Unfortunately I haven't found any official document that explains and summarizes all this coherently. — abjiklam (talk·stalk) 02:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
So since most constituencies have ≥5 seats, parties gathering at least 10% on average (corresponding to ≥0.5 seats per constituency) will be essentially proportionally represented in the Assembly, while smaller (nation-wide) parties suffer from regularly being rounded down to zero seats. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
no results, but Infobox with "First Party, Second Party ..."
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
As far as I can see, at the moment there are no results yet, at least none are mentioned in the text. However, the infobox orders several of the parties under headers "first party", "second party" and so on! I don't understand this nonsense!--93.104.105.168 (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
At the moment, the infobox cannot display the results, but only show the main parties that have contended. The order of the parties is not the order of their actual shares of the votes. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Now that most "international" results are in [1], we could "preliminarily" sort the parties according to their successes there in the infobox, until national results come in. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Following the actual results, in the section on "Parties", I have removed the description of the PDP as the "second largest party", as in the event they came in fifth place in the election. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
InKebili both Nahda and CPR won 2 seats each. I do not think that the map should show Nahda as the only winner in Kebili - Nahda and CPR are head to head. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Me and the guy who colored it -- who said he didn't care if he was attributed or not, but I give 'im a shoutout in the metadata -- found some sort of discrepancy in the data, where the results seemed to leave a few seats out. We assumed they were disqualified seats, or something. If someone could edit it if we were wrong, that'd be lovely. MNrykein (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Ghanoushi is the Nahda party leader, even if he is not being named to the post of Prime Minister, and should probably be changed back in the infobox. --Fjmustak (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The head of the party may have asked for a withdrawal from all seats [2], I think we should wait before removing anything since there was no official decision yet and the elections committee still considers that Aridha won 19 seats. --Tachfin (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the transcription of Arabic names and words is usually inconsistent, but does follow certain rules. The vowels are fluid, and the "a" and "e" are often in effect interchangeable. What is fixed is that the honorific definite article "al" (or "el") should change to "an" (or "en") before words starting with an "n", and make similar modification before words starting with certain other consonants. Whether or not the hyphen is included is often a matter of personal choice, but I think it aids clarity. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An image used in this article, File:Hachimi.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
as per convention and as cited in the edit summaries the parties section comes BEFORE the result, this is precedent here on a host of election articles. Readers are not stupid that they cant see the result and decide for themselves per [3]Lihaas (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I understand your point. But still, it is not necessary to stress that it was the second party beforehand. You are right, that readers are not stupid, still a superficial reader could be confused for a moment. Please don't be stubborn and just keep it as it is now. Regards --RJFF (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
instead of arguing with each other and going to NPA's with stubborn accusations we should accomodate, the "second largest party prior to the election" or somethingof the sort, that then adds more context to the change after the election?Lihaas (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
It was just the second largest party according to most opinion polls before the election, but opinion polling in a post-revolutionary country with a still speedy developing party system is very difficult. So, we should not give too much weight to this "second largest party". I do not see why this should be very important. You cannot compare this to an established democracy, where it would indeed be notable if the second party (according to the last election) finished fifth. But this is not the case here. Some opinion polls (of questionable reliability) are not the same as a previous election. Maybe you could try not to get worked up about this half sentence. Regards --RJFF (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thats synthesis and OR we dont judge, we cite by RS. It was added 9by another) NOT me, and removed without due explanation. To repeat we DO NOT makde judgement calls, if thre is something about the RS that is dubious then it should be on RSN.,Lihaas (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I removed the map under the infobox for two reasons: 1) it is outdated now that Aridha regained 7 seats; 2) from the map it looks as though it's only Ennahda that won seats in the blue districts. A map like this would be good if there was only one representative per district, but since each district has many representatives the map misleading. — ABJIKLAM (t·c) 15:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
I don't feel strongly either way for or against keeping the map. I have to disagree with the first reason. It is not outdated, as I have updated it to show that Aridha gained the most number of seats in the Sidi Bouzid district (dark green). I agree with your second point that it could be misleading. A district is colored by the party with that won the most seats. It could be colored according to the party that received the highest percentage of the votes (in which case Nahda would get all the districts except Sidi Bouzid). I'm not how countries with similar electoral procedures are handled... --Fjmustak (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yes you're right I saw you've updated the map. But we agree it is misleading. Even colouring according to highest percentage of votes wouldn't be representative of the actual outcome of the election so I think it is better now if we don't include a map. — ABJIKLAM (t·c) 04:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
File:Docteur Moncef Marzouki.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Tunisian Constituent Assembly election, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
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.