This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Although I understand why the box was enlarged to separate colonial- and independence-era elections, it does make the box overly large and complicated.
Plus I would argue that the logic is not consistent. If you want to separate Rhodesian and Zimbabwean elections based on the fact there "was no such country as Zimbabwe before 1980", then surely you would also have to create seperate boxes for Southern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia as part of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Rhodesia, Zimbabwe Rhodesia and Zimbabwe. This would end up ridiculously large, and was the reason the flags were included in the template as a shorter way of showing the country's status at the time of the elections.
I included all the elections under the name Zimbabwe, as although the name has changed, the country is the same territorial terms. I don't think it would be appropriate to split templates based on name changes (would Sri Lankan/Ceylon elections have to be separated?) or colonial status. Perhaps a more subtle marker (asterixes or the flags) is better.
Anyway, please respond before reverting and perhaps another compromise solution can be found. Number 57 10:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
PS. Although referendums has somehow found its way into common usage as the plural of referendum, the correct term is indeed referenda (as it is a latin word, it has a latin plural as is the situation with words like cactus (cacti) and datum (data)).
I will revert anyone who suggests that there was a Zimbabwean election in 1899. Ridiculous, absolutely stupid. Anyone who says it is manifestly bonkers. Fys. Ta fys aym. 19:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This template already has a compromise to show former incarnations of the country (the flags), which is not needed on any other. Why can't you accept this? Number 57 19:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
As if that makes your case. Pathetic. I'm completely unmoved. Fys. Ta fys aym. 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It does show your destructive tendencies and ignorance about the subject in sharp relief though, which is why I mention it. Fys. Ta fys aym. 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I write about elections, you write templates. Well done. Next you'll be arguing that you ought to be PM because you've washed the windows at 10 Downing Street. Fys. Ta fys aym. 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well bollocks to you then. Fys. Ta fys aym. 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
If it takes a mediator to tell you you're in the wrong, then take it there, I don't see why I should participate. Rhodesia is still not the same as Zimbabwe and nothing you can do will make it so. Fys. Ta fys aym. 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Your 'standardization' of templates has not the blessing of any degree of consensus. It's simply your preference which you're trying to claim as policy. I said absolutely nothing about South Africa (which merely changed the franchise in 1994) nor Poland (which ceased to be Communist in 1989, not 1990). Would you put the Palestinian Legislative Council in the same template as the Israeli Knesset, pray tell? I will listen to people like Bob Scarlett on this but not to you. Fys. Ta fys aym. 20:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the argument of legal continuity and succession of states is still valid in this context. We have the elections for the different German states in a single template. We have the elections for Myanmar in the same template, which fundamentally changed its political system and its name. I do not claim that your way of seeing it is wrong, but I'd prefer to arrive at some common point which we then could employ in all templates of countries with similarily complicated historical issues. — Nightst a llion (?) 10:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Number57, the current version is fine. — Nightstallion 12:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, to clarify my argument: We're doing it with all other countries which changed names and systems multiple times, and it does not at all confuse people, so why should Zimbabwe be different? — Nightstallion 02:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I got to the article on the 2008 election through Wikinews, and when I saw this template at the bottom, I thought "I didn't know Zimbabwe was around in 1899, let's see what this says", whereupon I was brought to a page on an election in Rhodesia. Clearly, the country did not exist as such at the time, and while I would consider it lying, it is misinformative - no real sources are going to say that Zimbabwe existed in 1899, and flags alone are not helpful for people unaware of what those flags are, if, for example, like myself, they have no knowledge of the subject. Frankly, I think the problem boils down to the wrong reading audience being considered here. Those of us who are knowledgeable in an area are (unlike academia, or so it seems) not writing for others who are knowledgeable in the same area, but for those who wish to learn about what we are writing about and don't necessarily know anything about it. I don't see anything wrong with having one template, but the names should be changed to reflect the name of the country at the time. Size is not an issue as it can be collapsed and expanded in stages with a little bit of template coding. MSJapan ( talk) 14:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Although I understand why the box was enlarged to separate colonial- and independence-era elections, it does make the box overly large and complicated.
Plus I would argue that the logic is not consistent. If you want to separate Rhodesian and Zimbabwean elections based on the fact there "was no such country as Zimbabwe before 1980", then surely you would also have to create seperate boxes for Southern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia as part of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Rhodesia, Zimbabwe Rhodesia and Zimbabwe. This would end up ridiculously large, and was the reason the flags were included in the template as a shorter way of showing the country's status at the time of the elections.
I included all the elections under the name Zimbabwe, as although the name has changed, the country is the same territorial terms. I don't think it would be appropriate to split templates based on name changes (would Sri Lankan/Ceylon elections have to be separated?) or colonial status. Perhaps a more subtle marker (asterixes or the flags) is better.
Anyway, please respond before reverting and perhaps another compromise solution can be found. Number 57 10:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
PS. Although referendums has somehow found its way into common usage as the plural of referendum, the correct term is indeed referenda (as it is a latin word, it has a latin plural as is the situation with words like cactus (cacti) and datum (data)).
I will revert anyone who suggests that there was a Zimbabwean election in 1899. Ridiculous, absolutely stupid. Anyone who says it is manifestly bonkers. Fys. Ta fys aym. 19:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This template already has a compromise to show former incarnations of the country (the flags), which is not needed on any other. Why can't you accept this? Number 57 19:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
As if that makes your case. Pathetic. I'm completely unmoved. Fys. Ta fys aym. 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It does show your destructive tendencies and ignorance about the subject in sharp relief though, which is why I mention it. Fys. Ta fys aym. 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I write about elections, you write templates. Well done. Next you'll be arguing that you ought to be PM because you've washed the windows at 10 Downing Street. Fys. Ta fys aym. 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well bollocks to you then. Fys. Ta fys aym. 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
If it takes a mediator to tell you you're in the wrong, then take it there, I don't see why I should participate. Rhodesia is still not the same as Zimbabwe and nothing you can do will make it so. Fys. Ta fys aym. 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Your 'standardization' of templates has not the blessing of any degree of consensus. It's simply your preference which you're trying to claim as policy. I said absolutely nothing about South Africa (which merely changed the franchise in 1994) nor Poland (which ceased to be Communist in 1989, not 1990). Would you put the Palestinian Legislative Council in the same template as the Israeli Knesset, pray tell? I will listen to people like Bob Scarlett on this but not to you. Fys. Ta fys aym. 20:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the argument of legal continuity and succession of states is still valid in this context. We have the elections for the different German states in a single template. We have the elections for Myanmar in the same template, which fundamentally changed its political system and its name. I do not claim that your way of seeing it is wrong, but I'd prefer to arrive at some common point which we then could employ in all templates of countries with similarily complicated historical issues. — Nightst a llion (?) 10:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Number57, the current version is fine. — Nightstallion 12:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, to clarify my argument: We're doing it with all other countries which changed names and systems multiple times, and it does not at all confuse people, so why should Zimbabwe be different? — Nightstallion 02:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I got to the article on the 2008 election through Wikinews, and when I saw this template at the bottom, I thought "I didn't know Zimbabwe was around in 1899, let's see what this says", whereupon I was brought to a page on an election in Rhodesia. Clearly, the country did not exist as such at the time, and while I would consider it lying, it is misinformative - no real sources are going to say that Zimbabwe existed in 1899, and flags alone are not helpful for people unaware of what those flags are, if, for example, like myself, they have no knowledge of the subject. Frankly, I think the problem boils down to the wrong reading audience being considered here. Those of us who are knowledgeable in an area are (unlike academia, or so it seems) not writing for others who are knowledgeable in the same area, but for those who wish to learn about what we are writing about and don't necessarily know anything about it. I don't see anything wrong with having one template, but the names should be changed to reflect the name of the country at the time. Size is not an issue as it can be collapsed and expanded in stages with a little bit of template coding. MSJapan ( talk) 14:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)