Talk:2013 German federal election

Introduction
The intro to this article needs a re-write. Far too many brackets and long sentences, making it very difficult to understands. I'm also uncomfortable with the third paragraph of the introduction as it implies a highly subjective observation as factual. Either it needs to backed up with hard evidence or it needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmcs005 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Polls
Steinmeier:Merkel = 42:43 Steinbrück:Merkel = 42:43 Gabriel:Merkel = 31:50

Quelle: DasErste, Infratest dimap

Source: http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/index.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.193.70.250 (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * you can't average polls from different institutes which use different methods to gather information. what you did was WP:OR. please provide proof that "TGS Polling" even exists. So far you, 93.193.*, are the only one who knows about that institute. proof can't be found. b l u N t . 19:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * TGS Polling pulishs his polls in the Westerwälder Zeitung (I read it), but not in the internet. What should I do? Scan it or what??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.193.107.249 (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC) ; In the last election it predicted 34.0 for the Union and 23.0 for the SPD, which was exactly correct - you will see, after the state elections of the 27th March the other polling institutes will correct their numbers in the area of TGS Polling (sorry my English is bad cause i'm from germany ;)
 * I don't believe one word you write. You claimed that TGS uses online panels to conduct its research, but they are nowhere to be found online. Than you claim they publish in the "Westerwälder Zeitung", which coincidentally doesn't have an website as well or even doesn't exit. There is a "Westerwälder Zeitung" as a regional division of the "Rhein Zeitung", but they don't use the not existing "TGS polling".
 * Ich glaub dir kein Wort. TGS Polling ist eine reine Erfindung von dir. Ohne nachvollziehbare Belege, dass es die Firma und die Umfragen gibt, wirst du keine Zahlen von denen mehr in Wikipedia-Artikeln veröffentlichen. b l u N t . 16:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * TGS Polling was wrong. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.193.122.147 (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What was wrong about TGS polling? Their numbers or you making up an institute? -- b l u N t . 19:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Es war nur ein Versuch... Kommt nicht wieder vor. Hey. Ich arbeite seit fünf Jahren an politischen Artikel mit und habe nie Ärger gehabt; ich wollte nur mal sehen, ob ich richtiger liege :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.193.122.147 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Um zu wissen ob du richtiger liegst, musst du keine erfundenen Zahlen veröffentlichen? Wohl nicht, da reicht es sie dir aufzuschreiben. Dir ist schon klar, dass du viel Kredit mit der Aktion verspielt hast? Witzig ist das nicht. -- b l u N t . 19:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ich werde dafür ab sofort umso seriöser arbeiten. Versprochen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.193.122.147 (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ich finde das ganz schon Scheiße was du da abgezogen hast. Erfindest Umfragen, ein Institut und eine Quelle. Wenn du schon so lange dabei bist, dann lerne wenigstens mal das signieren. b l u N t . 20:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Have there been no polls since May 2011? Circumspect (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * http://wikiumfragen.wikia.com/wiki/Umfragen_zur_Bundestagswahl_in_Deutschland#Bundesweite_Parteienpr.C3.A4ferenz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.15.119.20 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Pictures
Could we please get a consensus on whom we consider as the parties' poster kids? While the chancellor when running should be pictured for her party, we should be able to agree on whether the parliamentary party chairpersons (Steinmeier; Brüderle; Gysi; Künast, Trittin) or the party chairpersons (Gabriel; Rösler; Lötzsch, Ernst; Roth, Özdemir - plus, just to be complete, Seehofer for the CSU) are pictured for the other parties. I personally would prefer the party chairpersons (until the formal head candidates are confirmed!) without Seehofer since the CSU is Merkel's CDU's sister party and won't challenge the common candidate in the federal election. Regards. --EBB (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * After nobody showed interest in this issue, I have reinstated Sigmar Gabriel as the SPD party chairman, as all other parties have their party chairpersons in the "Leaders" entry. --EBB (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You were entirely right to do so, but in the meantime somebody, without giving any justification, changed it to Peer Steinbrück - maintaining the text ssaying that he is leader since 2009, which is obviously nonsense. I wouldn't mind if all pictures were changed to head candidates, but then (a) we would have to wait until this is confirmed for Rösler, and (b) it would be convenient to replace "leader" by "head candidate". -- Aflis (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, in this specific case I do think it is the best way to include those people who have been determined as chancellor/head candidates as such, and for parties which have not yet done so (or which are not [yet] expected to expressly do so) to include their party chair(wo)men. This means, for the SPD I would like Steinbrück to stay, and for the other parties, to keep their chairpersons for now. Of course, any 2009 date for Steinbrück is wrong, and I would prefer to have his official nomination on 9 November to have in the article once it has happened. But as I understand that we should display reality, he de facto already is the SPD's candidate. If what I said makes any sense to you, you must have misunderstood me ... --EBB (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Polling
For reasons that defy logic, someone has simply deleted polling at the end of any given year. I have fixed this foolishness by salvaging the data and putting it, together with 2012, in a new article called Opinion polling for the next German federal election. This is what is done when the tables get too long. In any event, someone might want to double check that no polling at the end of 2010 and 2011 was omitted. -Rrius (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Article name
I suggest to change the name of this article to [German federal election, 2013] since even if Angela Merkel immediately would initiate a motion of confidence, the poll would be held in 2013. ChryZ MUC, 11:48, 12 November 2012


 * Not necessarily, the elections would then have to be held within 60 days, but there is no lower limit on the timespan between dissolution and new elections. Also, there is the theoretical possibility of postponed elections due to war (or, more realistically, a constitutional change prolonging parliament's term). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I support renaming the article. 2013 is upon our doorstep. And war ... well, I guess that's always possible, and so is the end of the world ... but is highly unlikely. German federal election, 2013 is more descriptive and also is parallel to the naming of United States presidential election, 2016. --Cryout 00:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryout (talk • contribs)
 * The argument about parallelism is wrong. It is standard for parliamentary elections to be named "Next..." until it becomes impossible for an election to be held in any but one year. It would be nice if we knew what the deadlines in a German campaign were (close of nominations and the like), because that is often what we use to made these determinations. In the absence of that, I say we wait until about the 15th, at which point just printing the ballots would become impossible, or nearly so, to do in time for a 31 December election. -Rrius (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I support making the move now. I don't know about formal nomination deadlines, but I don't know any German election that was organized in less than a month, plus there are no more school-holiday-free Sundays left (by convention, elections are never placed within holidays when avoidable). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternative for Germany (Alternative für Deutschland)
can we add Alternative for Germany on the list of political parties who participate in the elections? 81.58.144.30 (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Commonscat Bundestagswahl2013
For up-to-date pictures (Shot by a community projekt see:

Greetings from Berlin, Germany --Sven Volkens (WMDE) (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Apparent and alleged as references to antisemitism are violations from neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.75.126.92 (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Majority government.....
In the header of the article and in news articles I have seen it mentioned that Merkel will have to form a grand coalition with the SPD or form a coalition with the Greens. The assumption seems to be that Merkel will definitely remain as Chancellor. But why is this? Isn't it possible that the SPD could form a coalition with the Greens and The Left to get 317 seats and thus a majority?72.27.113.117 (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Peer Steinbrück has made it pretty clear before the election that the SPD won't join a coalition with The Left, shunning their ultra-left positions. So I'd say it's unlikely that we'll get a red-red-green government. But who knows? De728631 (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's quite possible that the Left party will support the SPD/Green coalition outside of government.Ericl (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Unlikely. It's been attempted in the state of Hesse a few years back. That resulted in a rebellion by SPD backbenchers and effectively ended the political career of Andrea Ypsilanti. Steinbrück will not try that route. The enmity between The Left and the SPD runs too deep. 86.171.30.141 (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm....but there is a SPD/Die Linke coalition in Brandenburg now is there not? And is there not a possibility that there could be a minority SPD/Greens government with Die Linke backing much like what happened in North Rhine-Westphalia in 2010 where a CDU/FDP coalition ended up being out of government even though individually the CDU gained the plurality of votes (and along with the SPD gained a plurality of seats; both got 67 seats)? Back in 2010 Der Spiegel was quoting the Financial Times Deutschland as saying that the SPD/Greens minority government was doomed to failure, yet in a 2012 snap election the SPD/Greens coalition won a majority. And at the time a CDU/SPD grand coalition was also thought to be the most likely option for NRW.72.27.0.7 (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. I'm sure Steinbrück and the SPD will much prefer being the junior in a stable grand coalition with the CDU than risk leading a shakey coalition with the Greens and Die Linke. Alandeus (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In the United States, its fairly typical to go to individual members of other parties and to offer up various concessions and deals to get their votes. Is such an arrangement possible in Germany?  Could the CDU/CSU find maybe four or so members from other Parties and offer them patronage positions or concessions in other areas to secure their support or abstentions?  I would really like to know if this is possible>  108.66.9.85 (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Theoretically there is no party discipline in Germany when it comes to votes in parliament because all representatives are supposed to vote according to their own responsibility and conscience. In reality however, there is often a strong internal party discipline, and potentially insecure voters are often urged to follow the course of the party or faction. Apart from that, the representatives in Germany are not so much obligued to the people and lobbyists who voted them in but to the party who nominated them in the first place. So to get re-nominated in the next voting period requires you to be largely in line with your party. Stray voters in parliament may even be excluded from their political faction if it turns out later that they damaged their own party by not voting in line with the rest. So, while there have been successful attempts of influencing candidates from the opposition for individual key votes, building an entire government on a few stray votes wouldn't work. De728631 (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Results by states?
It would have been interesting to have a list with results by states, like in the article about the 2009 election. --Oddeivind (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Done :) - Nbpolitico (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Oddeivind (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

List order
What is the basis of the order of the minor candidates? It doesn't seem to reflect number of votes in either category, nor is it alphabetical. 211.225.33.104 (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean the order of parties that didn't win seats in the results table? They're listed in the order of the "party list" votes they received as many of these parties run few candidates in constituencies, that is the most apples-to-apples comparison. I see though that one party is not in the right order, I will move them. - Nbpolitico (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Links
*[http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/12/greece-leading-way-new-european-crisis-201312765311280476.html >> Is Greece leading the way to a new European crisis? ](Lihaas (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)).

Infobox images
The constant changing of the candidates' images shown in the infobox is becoming disruptive because it makes the article unstable. So instead of experimenting back and forth in the live article, could you please discuss which version looks best? I suggest we create a sandbox subpage for this article to test various layout versions of the infobox and gain consensus. Anything else is rather counterproductive imho. De728631 (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Add AfD into the infobox
Is there anyway that AfD could be added into the infobox, it only finished a fraction of a percent behind the FDP in terms of votes and they both achieved the same number (0) of MP'sGuyb123321 (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's good idea. The FDP was voted out of parliament and is therefore significant enough to be displayed in the infobox as a former government party that failed to return. The Alternative für Deutschland (not to be confused with Articles for deletion), however, didn't play any significant role before the elections and neither did they enter the Bundestag afterwards. Putting them into the infobox would lend them undue weight. De728631 (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Map of direct districts
The caption of the map of direct districts won by party is wrong. The dark blue doesn't mean CSU. Blue is CDU/CSU combined. The darker the color, the bigger the margin of victory. Since the CSU generally dominate in Bavaria, the CSU districts are darker then the CDU districts, but this isn't by design, but an added information.

I did not find a short, succinct descritption, but I thought it should be at least mentioned.

134.99.182.27 (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC) Max


 * Dark blue does in fact indicate a CSU-only district. Please check the original source and you will see that there is the same distinction between "dark blue"/CSU and "blue"/CDU. I think this choice is a bit unfortunate because at a quick glance with all those different shadings you don't really know where CDU begins and CSU ends. But then there is no CDU in Bavaria anyway for reason of historical Bavarian "autonomy" (Focus article in German) so there is always the geographical limit to keep in mind. The CDU/CSU union does appear as a one faction in the Bundestag but the constituencies in Bavaria did not have any CDU candidates nor were there CSU candidates outside Bavaria. De728631 (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Turnout in infobox
, as per comment "Again reverting to standard election infobox turnout format – A PERCENTAGE. Don’t want to start some argument here, but there’s no need for that extra info like the number of voters; meaningless & already in the detailed results section below."

First, there is not an standard on this I think. Some election articles show number of voters, other show it the format you put it, and others not even use the turnout field at all. Some other argument could be used to remove this, but sincerely, not because of an "standard", since there's none on this. EDIT: Furthermore, on your revert of my edit on the 2009 article, you used a different "standard" than the one you want to use for the 2013 election, further strengthening my view that there is no established common "standard" to use as argument.

Secondly, by your same reasoning we could very well remove popular vote results for each party, as they are all in the table below, and just show percentages. We would agree that popular vote is a useful data, however, and that is why it is there; yet, if popular party vote is shown, it only makes it more useful to have total voter turnout numbers in the infobox too, to show relative to what number are those votes shown (it it's not the same 18 out of 44 million than 18 out of 144, for example), without necessarily forcing the reader to go all the way to the detailed results table below. It doesn't occupy much space, neither (the turnout field is actually pretty empty otherwise), so I don't find such a need to remove it. Also, the current format (the one I defend) has not caused any major trouble to users, since it wasn't removed since I introduced it on 30 November until now.

Finally, it's very unpolite to try to push forward your view without opening a discussion. Discuss the issue here, and abstain from reverting the edit before discussion is over. I don't want to engage in an edit war. You don't need to be so rude as to keep overriding my opinion as if it didn't matter, just on the basis that "it's not needed". On that basis we would not even have an "infobox", since all info is in the tables anyway. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I did emphasise that I did/do NOT want an edit war, that isn’t my goal – should be mentioned. It just annoys me that that one election differs from the others. After all, it wasn’t me who wanted to reinvent the wheel (since you replaced Danmaybp’s contribution in November 2014). “It’s very unpolite to try to push forward your view without opening a discussion”, I appreciate that and apologise if I came across as being rude by ‘pushing’ it forward, but my intentions were clear: match the 2013 one to the other 42 (counting ’09) Bundestag elections that share the same format. Admittedly, the pp-based change is quite interesting, so that might indeed be a good idea to include. Finally, you’re right in saying that there are different formats scattered around, but for German elections it was/is just the percentage; if one would want to change that, one should discuss it on the talk page – ‘opening a discussion’, as you say. —Sean Clark (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

—Sean Clark (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, fair enough. Then, if you don't want an edit war, go on and discuss the issue. Don't just go on and keep reverting my edits everywhere (on both 2009 and 2013 election articles) because that's not the way to avoid an edit war, obviously. If there's an issue, then we go on and discuss it, that's the way issues are solved here.
 * "it wasn’t me who wanted to reinvent the wheel (since you replaced Danmaybp’s contribution in November 2014)" First, this is Wikipedia. If I find an edit to be more useful than other, I can re-edit it. That's not reiventing the wheel, but how things work here, as per WP:WIP: Wikipedia is a work in progress, and as such it is never finished. And obviously, the fact that an article was written in a way before does not mean that it must always be kept that way. Furthermore, since November 2014 several users have edited the page and no other did find my edit controversial, so we can, at least, accept that it has had some acceptance. That does not mean it must be kept in the way I put it, but there are ways and ways to defend a change or revert.
 * Then, about most of the idea you are going around, remember WP:PERFECTION; applied here, if a format is used for a German election, it does not mean it necessarily has to be applied to the other ones (though it would be obviously prefered). But definitely, it can't be argued that one person can't edit a section of the infobox just because all other articles use a different format, and it's also obvious than that person doesn't need to open a discussion for every change he/she wants to make, but only if that change is disputed (in this case, at the time I did it in November 2014, it wasn't, and as such it wasn't discussed then). Even so, the "same format" argument would still remain very feeble even if we skipped that; I see that German elections use, for the turnout field in the infobox, the "[%] (voting eligible)[link]" figure (not just the percentage)... yet it is the only field of the infobox that seemingly keeps the same format from '49 to '05 (I changed '09 and '13, but these used the same format before). As you would see, everything else in the infobox changes from one article to other: pic size, text boldness, "seats_before" and "leader_since" fields (some do use them and others don't)...
 * This said, I'm open to discuss the format to apply, on the basis of usefulness and notoriety of the data. But definitely not on the grounds that "other articles use a different format", since 1. Format is not consistent for all fields within the infoboxes and 2. An "established-format" can be modified, and as such can vary. To defend mine, I applied it because it's the one I use for Spanish elections (I'm used to it, I do recognize), is informative to the readers without being overburdening to them with data and has not generated controversy (but that may also be because the Spanish election-section was kind of abandoned...). Also because French and Spanish wikipedias usually include such data in their election infoboxes, with fairly satisfactory results. Impru20 (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I’m happy to discuss the subject; I suppose my reaction to your edits wasn’t exactly constructive. So, that said, I’m happy to discuss the subject, since we both have arguments for and against the two layouts, and I’m sure some compromise can be reached.
 * It only seems reasonable to me. So I would divide the turnout field in several sections, so as to discuss them separately. That would be:
 * Percentage figure: This one is obvious that doesn't create any issue, so I will skip this one.
 * Percentage point (pp) figure: You say it is "quite interesting", so in the end we may not have much conflict with this. On my opinion, this is a logical and I'd say even necessary addition if you want to add the turnout field. I mean, in the infobox you have the percentage point variations of each party's vote share, yet the turnout variation wasn't shown? It is probably one of the most interesting data of an election, aside of the main parties' results themselves, and when a large drop or a large rise in turnout happens, it is usually strongly covered in the media (specially if it wasn't predicted in opinion polls).
 * Number of actual voters: Probably this is the most disputed section, from what I have seen in the edit logs. On my opinion it is also an interesting data, in the sense that it allows for a quick comparison of each party size relative to the total voter turnout (something that vote shares are not able to fulfill, as turnout percentages are not calculated using the same figures than vote shares do) within the infobox itself. Specially for the case Germany, this would be extremely useful (if implemented in all German election articles) to show the electorate's growth in 1990 after the incorporation of East Germany (i.e. in 1987 the CDU/CSU obtained 16,7 million votes and 44% of votes, yet in 2005 it obtained 16,6 million and just 35% despite turnout being considerably lower (84% in 1987 to 77% in 2005)). It also doesn't occupy much space (I at least don't find it overburdening), and also avoids having a lot of blank space near and around the turnout field within the infobox (in other articles this is partly avoided by the addition of the "(voting eligible)" expression. However, I find it to be particularly obvious that turnout, on average, refers to those voting eligible except for those cases where confusion may need this to be highlighted (such as in US elections, where full turnout figures are usually more difficult to find, if ever). As such, I think this partly accomplishes the remove-some-blank-space function, but is unnecessary otherwise and provides no additional info). Of course, this figure would also appear to the eventual reader on the full tables shown in the "Results" section, but really, so do all of the other data shown in the infobox.
 * Awaiting for your view on this. Impru20 (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Percentage figure: As you say.
 * Pp figure: Yeah, I found it interesting seeing the development in figures and indeed quite handy, since you don’t have to check the previous election and compare them. So why not add it?


 * Actual voters: This is indeed my main objection, since it seems a bit too much to include with the turnout row without having the full picture. Not that it isn’t interesting in some elections, like in Germany’s case the 1990 post-Reunification election, but I just don’t see the point in including with every election on its own. Maybe if we had a separate section for the total electorate, however, we get a clearer picture. That brings me onto my idea of modifying the template to include the electorate/registered voters – one could even compare that to the previous election with a percentual change – and placing that before the Turnout row, in order to relativise that figure. This would then also reflect certain social changes, like the lowering of the voting age in Germany in 1970, which contributed to the electorate increasing by roughly 2m in 1972 and turnout by 4m, and of course German Reunification. So you would get something like:
 * {| style="text-align:center"


 * GERMAN FEDERAL ELECTION, 1972
 * Registered voters || 41,446,302 7.2%
 * Turnout || 38,225,294 (91.1%) 4.4pp
 * }
 * Now I might – ironically – be trying to reinvent the wheel, but it could be a decent compromise. You create some symmetry and it helps getting a broader picture of the election, without having to read the entire article; like you initially said, “it awards interesting info to the reader in the infobox”.
 * Espero su respuesta. —Sean Clark (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * }
 * Now I might – ironically – be trying to reinvent the wheel, but it could be a decent compromise. You create some symmetry and it helps getting a broader picture of the election, without having to read the entire article; like you initially said, “it awards interesting info to the reader in the infobox”.
 * Espero su respuesta. —Sean Clark (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, so we can fairly agree that consensus has been reached on the pp figure. Your idea of having an additional section for the total electorate would be interesting. I had toyed with the idea in the past, but obviously didn't implement it as the possibility wasn't there (something I missed, since in the Spanish and French wikipedias there are fields allowing for this...). And it would indeed give also useful info (such as the actual electorate's growth as a result on an increasing population or, as you say, the lowering of the voting age (this happened in Spain between the 1977 and '79 elections, and for '86 the electorate was much larger than supposed to be due to it including people of 16 and 17 years old who, however, weren't able to vote (resulting in a lower turnout)). We could add it (I don't think any conflict would raise from adding an additional field), though I would slightly modify your model to this (on my opinion, of course):


 * {| style="text-align:center"


 * GERMAN FEDERAL ELECTION, 1972
 * Registered voters || 41,446,302 7.2%
 * Turnout || 38,225,294 (91.1%) 4.4pp
 * }
 * Turnout || 38,225,294 (91.1%) 4.4pp
 * }
 * }


 * Having the % variation of the electorate smaller (to differentiate it better from pp changes) and to one side instead of below (I usually include turnout variation below to avoid having all three actual voters count, turnout % and pp variation all in a single row and to keep in line with the rest of the infobox; but % variation being different from pp, and having more row space, would allow for it). Impru20 (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, I see what you mean by differentiating the pp from %, and I agree. Regarding the template, could you modify it? I’m not that familiar with editing those types of pages, hopefully you are. In any case, I’m glad we were able to reach a compromise. I’m willing to help you update the German infoboxes, if that’s your plan; just give me a shout. —Sean Clark (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I will know how to modify the template, but I'll give it a try, so let's what happens. I'll edit it and make a few tests, to check how it looks, and will notice you; but yes, probably it will be helpful some help to start implementing the same format to all German election infoboxes. Impru20 (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I got it right. Check the 2013 article and give your opinion; but I believe it looks nice. Impru20 (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Completely agree, looks good. Is it an idea if I start with the 1871 election, and you start with the 2009? We’d work towards each other. —Sean Clark (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Add AfD to infobox
I understand the arguments about giving the AfD undue weight, but since this election the party hasn't faded away and has been polling at, or above the 5% threshold needed to enter parliament, surely it makes sense to include them here, plus it does look a little messy to have a blank box when it could be filled by a party which took virtially the same number of votes as the FDP. Guyb123321 (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that this should be given a review in light of recent regional election results since 2013, and specially throughout 2016, as well as consistent polling numbers since 2015. I think that by now it would be difficult to understand that adding AfD would be giving them undue weight, specially since the 2013 German election was pretty much the beginning of the party's growth and many people (such as myself) could come to this article to seek early electoral information about this party. Impru20 (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Cristiano Toàn (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)If Germany applied separatist threshold between Western and Eastern states, AfD could pass eastern threshold and FDP could pass western threshold

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German federal election, 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003143005/http://main.omanobserver.om/?p=17145 to http://main.omanobserver.om/?p=17145

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Chancellor Candidates
this section is very out of date. CDU/CSU, SDP and Greens have announced candidates. The Greens in Germany obviously have a Chancellor-Candidate for this election.

on train to work, right now. so if no-one else redrafts that section... 120.16.68.101 (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

ooops I thought this was 2021! hahaha. please ignore. 120.16.68.101 (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Summarize history section
I have been co-authoring the history section for quite a while now, but I think it is getting a bit over board. All the years prior to 1998 were put into a summary and in contrast it only makes limited sense to describe the last twenty-two years in excruciating detail.

My proposal is to structure as follows: - Prior to 1998 - Red-Green Coalition from 1998-2005 - The Merkel Years from 2005-2021 - Current Government

Since this is quite a large change to the article, I invite any constructive feedback. Mebeingyou (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

FDP Inclusion
I'll calling all of you as to why FDP shouldn't be included. Going by other parties who have won seats, but aren't represented in TIE, like the 1961 German election. In the case here, yes, I understand that the FDP is a long-standing party, but it lost all its seats. Could someone clarify the reason, beside it being a major party, as to why it is stated here? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 09:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * they were in government and went from their best-ever result to the worst, imo important enough Braganza (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't exactly understand what is the issue here, Valencia. The article had no edit warring issues or anything like that. You came, edited the FDP out of the infobox, were reverted, then come here asking what the issue is. Possibly none? They 1) are a long-standing party and were in government; 2) had seats going into the election and lost them; 3) Scored fifth and are shown fifth in the infobox. What's the issue?  Impru 20 talk 11:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering why. Is that a problem? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what I am asking, actually (I am serious, I am trying to comprehend what the actual issue is here, and I am doing that since you pinged me and I guess you wanted my opinion).  Impru 20 talk 11:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I second what Impru said. Vacant 0  (talk &bull; contribs) 12:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would instead replace TIE with TILE, the best template for parliamentary elections. --Checco (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on that. However, I think those who prefer TIE have a point, as it's used to summerise elections. I've suggested for Japan, Korea and Thai switch to using TIE, but with thresholds (those inline with the nation's thresholds, or 5% (which cuts out quite a number of minor parties)). At least Impru seems to see some sense in using TILE for results pages, like I've done for Japanese elections. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We should have a joint discussion somewhere and I support the usage of TIE for presidential or single-seat elections and TILE for parliamentary elections. --Checco (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is this page. I've adapted a version of TIE for the 2023 Thai election that a user created. They said that using TIE doesn't clearer summarise the election (which I agree, as it only uses PR votes). ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

What does the TIE/TILE discussion have to do with this thread? However the infobox should only include parties that won seats, so I support the removal of the FDP, even if it is an important party.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)