Template talk:Political parties in Sweden

I made the following criteria when updating the template.

• The party exist. (and)
  • The party is represented in the Riksdag or the European Parliament. (or)
  • The party received atleast 1000 votes in the last general election (at the moment
    Swedish general election, 2002
    ). (or)
  • The party has atleast 1000 party members.

If you find these criteria unreasonable in some way, please voice your opinion. Martin Ulfvik 09:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the first criterium. Feminist Initiative is not a party anymore, and therefore fail that criterium. However, they are represented in the European Parliament... Plrk (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following was copied from User talk:Plrk in order to continue the discussion here. Plrk 23:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have some questions/objections about your changes, but thought we would talk it out instead of me perhaps reverting something that turns out you had valid arguments for.

The template used to have sort of random parties listed (among the minor ones), so I put up critera on the talk page in order to get consistency for the parties listed.

You are perfectly correct when stating there are more than one communist party in Sweden, though I did not and do not know the other one (

(for parliament at least). If it meets the criteria anyway, then all is well, but would be great if you could source it on the templates talk page since atleast for me that info is not easily verified.

If you think the criteria atm are unreasonable, just suggest on the talk page what you think. Main point is so one knows where to draw the line and from there include all relevant parties. Ofcourse, the line should be set so one doesn't get a rediculous amount of small parties listed.

In regard to Folkpartiet, as you can see the leading name (not page name) of the party in the article was changed to

since it is supposedly the name they use internationally (claimed on the talk-page) and it is definitely the name Folkpartiet themselves use on their official webpage.

Not reverting anything atm though since as I said, maybe it is you who are more enlightened than me in these issues and can correct me. Martin Ulfvik 23:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to Folkpartiet, nothing can be said except: You're right. Although this leads to another question, why is the article named Liberal People's Party, the translation People's Party the Liberals and the name used throughout the article Liberal Party of Sweden? This is no discussion to be taken here though, let's revert it to Liberal Party of Sweden for now.

Further, the confusion about our dear Communists is odd. I was under the impression that Kommunistiska Partiet, former KPML(r), was by far more well-known than the other, Sveriges Kommunistiska Parti.

On the contrary,

the election results

says otherwise, which indeed is confusing.

But fear not! I have found the reason. Kommunistiska Partiet (Communist Party (Sweden), to avoid confusion) does not participate in nation-wide elections, further stating that this is not because of political reasons but rather tactical and economical. The Swedish wikipedia article further states they gained a total of 10 923 votes in the municipal elections of 2002. I have no idea what SKP (Communist Party of Sweden) gained in said elections, but they gained 1 182 votes in the general elections of 2002, which may or may not provide a basis for a comparison.

All in all, I do feel both Communist parties should be included, according to the criteria listed above - even though the larger (I think) did not participate in the general elections. With regards, Plrk 23:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, according to the critera above KP wouldn't be listed. I propose that the criteria rather would require 1000 votes on any single level of the last held elections - or, perhaps, more than 1000. 2000? Plrk 23:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck that criteria and shit... The current inclusions makes more sense! Lord Metroid 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]