Talk:Riksdag

message: Riksdag = "Diet of the Realm"?
I'm from sweden and in modern swedish i would say that it means "Day of the country"
Or is this some kind of really old swedish that I don't understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.231.137 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 21 November 2005   
I agree with you, "Diet of the Realm" seems strange as a translation. But on the other hand, the English word Diet, in the meaning of a legislative or administrative assembly, could historically be translated into Swedish as församling or riksdag. So Diet is actually a translation of riksdag in itself. The word realm, in the meaning of a domain ruled by a king or queen, might be translated into Swedish as kungarike, so maybe that is what "of the Realm" is referring to. But as far as I understand, riksdag comes from a word for country, rike, and the word for day, dag. So the word for word translation should be something like: the country’s day. And the historic meaning of the word riksdag: a gathering of representatives of the country for deliberation and decision-making concerning the country’s affairs. For more info about the word riksdag in Swedish, see SAOB.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Burman (talk • contribs) 15 December 2005
Riksdag is going back longer, to the middle-ages where all lords (adelsmän) and the king meet to establish national and foreign affaires. This meeting were held when needed, so it could be several years in between. Like the Arboga Riksdag och Västerrås Riksdag in 1527. I think it should be added that the word is going back, before a parliament was established. 
The german Reichtag, where Tag means day, but also in medieval german could mean meating. And since the swedish word "dag" is related to "Tag" (but in german the 'd' became a 't' through a Lautveschiebung) so it would probably mean the same. I hope this can be to some help or shed some light on the issue.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.243.98 (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Earlier sweden had 350 seats in the riksdag, an even number - as opposed an uneven number, like in many other countries. After an election sweden faced a situation where both the left and the right had exactly 175 seats in the parliment. During this period of rule - the riksdag had to resolve a limited number of issues by drawing lots. After that, they changed the constitution and now we have 349 seats. Maybe this is something worth mentioning in the article? --Mailerdaemon 17:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lottery Riksdag 

message: see Members of the Swedish Parliament 2006-2010. --Soman 15:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The name riksdag is not exclusive to the Swedish parliament. The page should therefor be moved, and the article riksdag should be made into a disembiguation page, with links to both the parliament of Sweden and the parliament of Finland as well as other uses of the word. E.G. 16:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 09:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move (2007)

message: Someone is screwing with the coat of arms, flag and the three crowns. They are distorted and should be deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.185.111 (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  someones screwing with the coats 

message: Any particular reason why the 2006 election results are posted in their entirety while the 2010 results are tucked away on their own page without any mention of the actual outcome? Or is it just a case of "no one has fixed it yet"? - Alltat (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election results 

message: The parliament of Sweden does not have a name. In Swedish, it is just called riksdagen, which just means "the parliament" and is not even written with a capital r. It should therefor not be listed as "Riksdagen" or "the Riksdag" in Wikipedia. To do so is a missconception and missunderstanding of the Swedish constitution. The same term is also used for the Finnish parliament, as far as I know. Railie May (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look a bit above to the headline “Requested move (2012)” you will see that the move from Swedish Parliament to Riksdag was discussed and there was a formal consensus to move it. You should not override that consensus. Please move the page back again. You would have to request a Move review or start a new discussion and get consensus for your point of view if you want to move Riksdag to Swedish Parliament. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the current title was decided through a requested move discussion. As such, the article should not be moved without another discussion. Cúchullain t/c 15:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As I can see, the move was done in 2007 to parliament of Sweden. To overrun this is wrong. Railie May (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I performed the move to Riksdag from Parliament of Sweden on December 20, 2012, after a consensus was established in a lengthy community discussion above. That's the process; if you think another title is better you'll have to start a new discussion and seek consensus from other editors in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.Cúchullain t/c 16:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the parliament 

message: I've reverted this recent move as there was no discussion and obviously no consensus for that name. I've also established move protection as the article has been the subject of move wars from various editors unhappy with the current name. The article should not be moved without another RM establishing consensus for a different name.--Cúchullain t/c 12:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent move

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Riksdag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141008133940/http://www.riksdagen.se/Global/dokument/dokument/laws/the-instrument-of-government-2012.pdf to http://www.riksdagen.se/Global/dokument/dokument/laws/the-instrument-of-government-2012.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130201001248/http://www.riksdagen.se/Global/dokument/dokument/laws/the-riksdag-act-2012.pdf to http://www.riksdagen.se/Global/dokument/dokument/laws/the-riksdag-act-2012.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110110085245/http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____5562.aspx to http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____5562.aspx
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101010000254/http://www.riksdagen.se/Webbnav/index.aspx?nid=45&sq=1&ID=qoitoj7DA_A_4 to http://www.riksdagen.se/Webbnav/index.aspx?nid=45&sq=1&ID=qoitoj7DA_A_4
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Riksdag. 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/20140328105108/http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm to http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If the current government is a minority, which parties are supporting it? If all the other parties were really in opposition, the government would already have fallen as a result of losing a budget or non-confidence vote. Therefore, some parties should be displayed as 'support parties' as in other countries with minority governments (e.g. New Zealand and Denmark).Thorbecke2012 (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree since the opposition does not support the government, it only does not put forth their own budget. Rikskansler (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's no different from a confidence and supply agreement, which is what I'm talking about.Thorbecke2012 (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The opposition does not support the government, only allows it to stay in order to avoid new elections. Not actively voting against doesn't mean they support it. See 2014 Swedish government crisis for more. Rikskansler (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I really feel like you are not really listening. Did you even look at the article I linked? I quote: "A confidence and supply agreement is an agreement that a party or independent member of parliament will support the government in motions of confidence and appropriation (supply) votes by voting in favour or abstaining" (my emphasis). This is not a matter of your or my or anyone's opinion, this is *by definition*. By having a different standard, the article on the Riksdag is currently inconsistent with Wikipedia's own definition on this issue.Thorbecke2012 (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The opposition terminated the agreement that fits your description. They would offically disagree with that description, so it would not be right calling it an agreement or them supporting parties. Rikskansler (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it should say there's an agreement, I said it should say they are giving confidence and supply, whether it's by agreement or not. They are allowing the government to remain, that's literally what confidence and supply means... So you're saying we should always defer to what parties agree with? That simply is not sound encyclopedic policy.Thorbecke2012 (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, change it then, i'm just saying that there is no official agreement regarding it anymore. Rikskansler (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to change it back, simply because there is no agreement. By your definition, any minority government would have an implied confidence and supply agreement. I think there needs to be consensus on the talk page before making that change. I also note that the Swedish article :sv:Sveriges riksdag has the Alliance in the opposition. Sjö (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. Looking back at my previous comments and precedents I thought I could point to you may have a point. I am worried, however, that the page shows a majority of parties as being in "opposition", yet gives no explanation whatsoever about how the current government remains in office or passes its budgets. Someone more competent than me and with better access to Swedish-language sources should correct this, or the article will remain somewhat misleading and biased in favour of parties who tacitly support the government (ad hoc rather than formally - substantively though, this makes virtually no difference), yet still retain the label 'opposition'.Thorbecke2012 (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition/support parties 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Riksdag. 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/20090303215553/http://www8.umu.se/soc/personal/Jenny%20Hanssons%20avhandlingsarbete.%20Presentation%20samt%20.pdf to http://www8.umu.se/soc/personal/Jenny%20Hanssons%20avhandlingsarbete.%20Presentation%20samt%20.pdf
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) 00:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: All the votes has not been counted. The preliminary mandates just recently changed. They can still change again. And the new parliament has not gathered yet. The old parliament still exist. – GeMet [gemet|ʇǝɯǝƃ] 17:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. , please stop. There is no hurry in updating this. Postal votes, some 150-200 thousand of them, are still coming in, which may well change the distribution of seats. The final result will be announced on Friday the 14th.--Hegvald (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  No final result yet  

message: When looking att the picture in the article than is said to show the former room of the Second chamber something is wrong. I think this is a picture taken in the room of the former First chamber. When googeling pictures the artwork in the roof is not the one in the Second chamber. --Leffe00 (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture from Second Chamber  

message: In the infobox, there is something that seems to be wrong. That is that Nina Lundström (the abstaining Liberal) is placed in Confidence and supply. I believe that this is wrong. She voted to abstain because she feared a weak goverment dependent on the Sweden Democrats. This doesn't mean that she supports Lövfen or his government, like Amineh Kakabaveh did. Therefore the infobox should say that all Liberals should be in the opposition, with a footnote explaining why one Liberal MP abstained.--Der under Smurf (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's why it's under confidence and supply. Just because she abstained during the voting does not mean she supports the government, but tolerates it. Swedish Wikipedia seems to have adapted this change, and therefore I think that the English Wikipedia should also adapt it. Also not to mention the fact that her vote made a huge difference and the fact that it's going to stay this way until the next vote in the Riksdag occurs, most likely next election. And the fact that the results in the Riksdag showed up as 60 in parliamentary confidence, 173 against and 116 in favor. She abstained during the voting session not because she feared a weak government, but because she did not want to a government that would cooperate with the Sweden Democrats. Has nothing to do with it being a weak government. I understand where you're coming from, but I believe that your opinion and way of thinking is still wrong and should not be adapted. Twistedaxe (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstaining Liberal is not Confidence and supply 

message: Mp left the coalition but only because the right-wing budget passed. There MUST be a new motion because the original coalition break apart. Braganza (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: i think its the best to delete the whole opposition & coalition thing Braganza (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Braganza Okay, if Centre Party and Left Party are counted as confidence and supply, then the Green Party is that too. They still want Magdalena Andersson as Prime minister, and will oppose the rest of the opposition. Yes, we don't know if there'll be an exact deal between the two parties, but they are still in the same team. And sure technically they all are part of the goverment support. Edcba109 (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

text: good idea Braganza (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  MP support or opposition