Template talk:National elections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Possibly broken

This doesn't work as it should yet -- all but the first headline are *not* centered, but should be. —Nightstallion 12:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

They look fine to me. Can you link to a template which isn't showing up properly? Cheers, Number 57 12:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I agree, I can't find any place where that happens (in both IE and Firefox). The underlying code of templates that use this one (after this template is applied) shouldn't actually change, so they should look exactly the same as before. Could you tell me which template this occurs on, and in what browser you see it? Thanks, --CapitalR 12:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Using Firefox 2.0.0.6 on WinXP, all the templates exhibit this behaviour. I can screenshoot it, if you want or if it helps. —Nightstallion 14:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
This is how it appears for me:

Image:Exampletemplateerror.png

Any idea what's wrong? —Nightstallion 14:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, works fine for me now. Thanks! —Nightstallion 21:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vestigial characters sub-issue

Incidentally -- a lot of referenda are missing, despite them being there in the source code... HUH?! —Nightstallion 14:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The referenda were missing because the template wasn't fully converted (it still had a few | in rather than {{!}}. I have fixed this now on Template:Swiss elections. Number 57 14:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, okay. —Nightstallion 14:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that was my bad...on my computer those extra characters didn't change the output, so I just left them. I'll go through and fix those today. --CapitalR 15:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I just went through all 270 templates and removed those characters from about 5-10; let me know if there are still other problems. --CapitalR 16:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any more to be converted?

I've converted all election years templates (except the European Union one and the Zimbabwean one) in Category:Election years templates. I'm pretty sure there's more, so make a list of them below if you find one and I'll convert them. --CapitalR 13:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meta-template

Wasn't this template created because {{U.S. presidential elections}} was being converted to a meta-template? Shouldn't we try to use a more universal meta-template like {{Navbox generic}}? Can you convert this semi-meta-template to use a real meta-template like {{Navbox generic}}?—Markles 14:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? Aside from Nightstallion's problem with Firefox, this template is great! Number 57 14:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, yes. It's great as it is now. —Nightstallion 14:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I created this template to group all election templates. At a future date, if agreed, we can just feed this one directly into Navbox generic. For the time being, however, we'll just leave it as is. This helps standardization of all the election templates, even if we're not using one of the standard Navbox templates. --CapitalR 15:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. Let's see about that Navbox conversion soon. It's beyond my technical talent, but I know you can do it, CapitalR.—Markles 15:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I just made it so that both options are available. If one specifies the "state = " variable to be "autocollapse", "collapsed", or "uncollapsed", it will automatically be a Navbox with that setting for the Show/Hide feature. See US Senate and US House of Representatives for an example of it being used like this. I could easily just make them all Navboxes, but I'm reluctant to do so until after discussion (though I am very much in favor of that option). --CapitalR 15:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Well the both options was making the template way too large (see Wikipedia:Template limits for more information on that topic). This template should be a standard form, so I was bold and just made it Navbox generic. --CapitalR 05:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, fair enough. Just don't autocollapse it. —Nightstallion 11:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted the switch to navbox generic. Aside from my personal opinion that navbox generic is ugly (too wide, nasty colours and no need for hide option) it has been causing problems with some templates, such as Template:Australian elections where they interact with other templates. On some pages the 100% width is an issue, as previously the 80% width allowed it to appear alongside a sidebar. Number 57 18:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead of converting it back, this template should be made to comply with the Navbox template. First, the 100% width is standard across the project for templates, so it is not necessary to debate that here. Second, this template is not compatible in terms of collapsing with the other navbox templates. --Tom (talk - email) 17:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why should it be collapsible? IMO having the [Hide] option on a template makes it uglier. Its hardly like they take up a whole page! Number 57 18:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
That's not really a debate for here, since the entire project is converting to collapsible templates. For consistency, this template needs to follow suit. --Tom (talk - email) 00:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Why should there be consistency? Having collapsible boxes just doesn't work for some templates (though it has not stopped some people converting them without actually looking at what they have done). Consistency for the sake of consistency is not a good reason for a change. Number 57 07:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Collapsing these templates does not make any sense at all. —Nightstallion 12:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it makes sense. Many of these templates look ugly on pages because all the other navboxes on them use a common style, and this one clashes. I very much think that this needs to be converted to use the common style. Also, some pages use lots of navboxes, and it makes no sesne that this one in particular doesn't get collapsed and all the others do. If you don't like that it collapses, then you could just force the "|state = uncollapsed" option on for pages that you want it to be uncollapsed. Also, if you think the standard navboxes in general are ugly, then you could bring up your complaints on the relevant talk page. --CapitalR 12:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the argument "doesn't make any sense" is not helpful. Please add reasoning or something specific to make yourself clearer. Second, "consistency for the sake of consistency" is not the issue here; this template stands out like a sore thumb on many pages, and it looks terrible. How about consistency for the sake of an attractive website? --Tom (talk - email) 14:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Seeing as 4 users are ok with changing to the standard {{Navbox}} form and only 1 user is against, I converted it to the standard form. I kept the autocollapse feature off (though I'd be in favor of keeping it on). --CapitalR 06:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks better, but I'd suggest putting the autocollapse on. Thanks for converting it. --Tom (talk - email) 01:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

Discuss away Gnevin (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Was discussed previously, with no consensus for removing the flags. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

All i'm seeing is they look nice , the guideline clearly cover that Gnevin (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There have been plenty of decisions against policy following disuccions. Anyway, they do meet guideline 2 (Flag icons may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables or lists provided that citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand) in articles such as this. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

These template isn't a table or list and also don't meet Help the reader rather than decorate or Historical considerations Gnevin (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

They are tables and lists. Plus although the example I've given you does show historical considerations (as it shows that Singapore was once part of Malaysia), that it is irrelevant, because it isn't part of guideline 2. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is you can't guarantee the flag usage in this template, List means the likes of International Rugby Hall of Fame where you have many nationality's not the "list" option in the templates Gnevin (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. пﮟოьεԻ 57 00:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is you can't guarantee the flag usage in this template ,such as the usage of the historical inaccurate 50 starred flag in Template:U.S. presidential elections and when the MOS refers to lists it is referring to list with many different countries and many different nationality not the list option or tables in this template where the one nationality/county is generally only show Gnevin (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

By that logic we should also remove the coats of arms from all the Politics of templates as many of them have changed down the years. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats not a bad idea Gnevin (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It not a bad idea, it's a terrible idea! пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with Number57 -- the flags (and coats of arms) add an aesthetic touch, don't hurt anyone, and should not be removed IMO. —Nightstallion 10:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki isn't an art show, they add more hassle and create more inaccuracies than they are worth Gnevin (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on both points -- there's no hassle and inaccuracy involved IMO. —Nightstallion 11:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Flags such as the Union Jack, Ulster Banner, Nazi Flag, Confederate Flag are all hassle at best, edit war material at worst as are many other flags and using flags which didn't exists at the on Infobox boxes which refer to historical event is inaccurate.The look nice seems to be the only argument of the pro flag peopleGnevin (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already noted the fact that it meets guideline 2 of WP:FLAGS. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And i've noted your incorrect Gnevin (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you have. I clearly pointed out how "nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand" in the example I gave. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Going in cirles here, will post at WP:Flags and see that they say Gnevin (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I note that two months ago I updated this template such that if flag= is left unspecified in the template transclusion, or left empty, no flag icon is rendered. This option can be used for "controversial" instances. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not that there are any. ;) —Nightstallion 20:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Having the same flag repeat in EVERY title seems a clear breach of Wikipedia:Flags#Appropriate use, specifically points "Help the reader rather than decorate" and "Using too many flags". Why can't you use just one at the top like with every other navbox? --Malyctenar (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But they look so pretty (Dont forget Historical considerations)Gnevin (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they look bloody awful. As they can only be copies of the same one, there are no historical considerations. --Malyctenar (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In case you couldn't tell i was being sarcastic,Current flags on old elections (for before the flag existed) are a historical consideration if you ask me Gnevin (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Calling Template:void - anybody out there?

So, Andrwsc, what is the point of those rubegoldbergian calls? --Malyctenar (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

After seeing the diff, I realize I just replaced null with void to avoid the redirect. The key point of my edit was setting the default value to none for the call to {{flagicon|none}}. With that in place, there is no need for the conditional at all. Please feel free to revert that, to continue your little edit war, and to continue your sarcastic interactions with other editors. Carry on. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)