Template talk:Irish elections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Elections and Referendums (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Ireland (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Changes to template[edit]

I changed this template to use the Navigation box template and I changed the colour to match all the other Irish political templates, including the Presidents, Taoiseach, Tanaiste, Ceann Comhairle among others. Even the political offices ({{s-off}}) matches. Number57 claims my changes look awful, I think his changes are equally vile. Nobody asked him to change an Irish template and make it look a) rubbish and b) different in colour and style to the rest of the Irish political templates. Perhaps he'd be better off fixing the international series to make them look less pants.

And while I'm on the subject what was the point of lumping in the Irish Referenda in the Irish Elections box, they are not elections so should not be there. There already is a template for Irish referenda and one that has all the links working unlike the poor job that was done of the duplicate one.

Furthermore, if you are going to have an Irish elections box where are the European elections and the Local elections? And when you're done making with them add in the Udaras na Gaeltacht elections as well to make a complete dog's dinner of it! Snappy56 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The "elections" template is a standardised series which will eventually cover all countries in the world (see here for a full list). The templates only cover elections or votes held at the national level. Therefore EU elections has its own template, and so will local elections in the near future.
Also, why do I think it looks worse? Having three stacked boxes rather than one combined one, plus the hide and v-d-e options on all three is a little silly. However, I have left your chang to the headers making them links, as this is a good idea. Number 57 21:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Number 57. —Nightstallion (?) 17:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll go with the International series done by Number57 then. Snappy56 16:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Is there a reason that the 1983 Presidential election is flagged as "uncontested" while the 1974 and 1976 are not? I am aware that the circumstances were different, in that the '83 election was scheduled and the other two were due to an unexpected vacancy, but the fact remains that there was no vote on any of these three occasions. Scolaire 11:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No idea why, but I would have no problem with them being flagged as such. Number 57 11:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. Scolaire 21:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Overuse of flags?[edit]

I had a read of Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags and I don't think it applies to this case. What it is talking about is piling flags on top of each other, like the Gianluca Zambrotta infobox in its example. With this template it's more a matter of asthetics, and I for one prefer it with three flags than with one. I wish you'd discuss it here, though, instead of in your edit summaries. Scolaire 20:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This template only deals with the Irish Republic, therefore only one instance of the flag is necessary in the template.--padraig3uk 11:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As I have pointed out in the edit summaries, having a flag on each line is the standard layout for the 200+ election templates. And as Scolaire says, it just looks better. Number 57 11:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, three flags is not too much. —Nightstallion (?) 18:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as both of yous where involved in creating these templates its not surprising yous both agree on that, but there is no need to overuse the flagicons.--padraig3uk 19:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that 3 flags is too much, one should suffice. As has been pointed out, the template deals with 1 country only therefore it only needs one flag. Personally I think it should be on the top left egde of the template. The defence that 200 other templates also have this layout (all done by Number57 - well done, but you don't own them) is weak, maybe they should change too. Snappy56 19:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe they should, but then again, if users of all the other templates are happy with 2-3 flags maybe we are the ones that are out of step! I've checked Britain, Wales, Scotland, Ontario (as a sample of Canadian elections), France, Germany and Italy - these are the ones most likely to be used often on English Wikipedia and I don't see any evidence that editors think the flags are overused.
By the way, the fact that these people worked hard on standardising the templates may not give them ownership, but it certainly shouldn't be used as a stick to beat them with! Scolaire 07:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is using thatas a stick to beat them with, but they have understand that other editors may not agree with the layout they created, and may wish to improve it.--padraig3uk 08:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Meh. This debate strikes me as pretty much pointless. Using the flagicons again and again for no reason is simply a blatant case of redundant overwikilinking per WP:MOS. There's just really not much to argue about here. They are totally superfluous. The fact that a bunch of other templates have equally silly redundancies simply means they need to be cleaned up too. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Rather that continuing the edit war, is there any chance of reaching a consensus on this issue? Snappy56 17:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd say the chances are bleak, if people are going to use phrases like "pretty much pointless," ""totally superfluous" and "a bunch of other templates have equally silly redundancies!" I have to confess I was hoping for a more reasoned discussion.
Number 57, in his edit summary, has pointed out that the template as created had three flags, and there has been no clear consensus for change on this talk page. I think we have to respect that. That is my position on consensus. Scolaire 18:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The template was created by Number 57 so that dosen't mean much, there is no need for three flags on this template.--padraig3uk 19:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not mistake dismissiveness for irrationality. My view is quite reasoned, and comes to the conclusion, as I thought I was pretty clear about, that there isn't really anything to discuss. WP:MOS already covers this: We do not wikilink the same things again and again and again. The fact that they are also in-yo'-face graphical links militates even more strongly against such overlinking. I dismiss the debate as a totally moot non-issue, under extant well-accepted guidelines at WP:MOS. The question (whether to clean up the redundancy in this and similar templates) was pre-answered by very strong community-wide consensus long ago. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sadly this discussion is going nowhere, with the same points being repeated and one contributor having resorted to asking other users to come here and back him up here. Everyone has stated their opinion, and it is obvious that there is no consensus. On Wikipedia when there is no consensus for change the article reverts to its original status, in this case with three flags.

Aside from this, I resent the accusations that have been made against me concerning this template and others regarding WP:OWN. I had no problem other changes being made to the template (i.e. the title being converted to a link or the addition of by-elections) which I thought were helpful. The flags issue is about aesthetics, and I don't believe removing the other two flags is making it better. Number 57 21:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, it is common practice to ask other editors with known involvement in an issue to comment on application of that issue at a particular article. As a review of the history of WP:FLAGCRUFT and its talk page (and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template) will show, I am such a party. While Padraig3uk's request for my comments was not very neutrally phrased, it was not a broad WP:CANVAS campaign. Could have been handled better, but not problematic at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I regard the overuse of the flag as pointless the flagicons are meant to convey information, in a template dealing with one area there is no need to repeatly use the same flag.--padraig3uk 16:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No consensus, is there? A recipe for entropy! Can anyone show me a template (NOT created and/or edited by either Number57 / Scolaire / Nightstallion which has multiple flagicons for the same country? If someone can then I'll bow out from this debate otherwise it will continue! Snappy56 22:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, there is in fact consensus, a long established one, at WP:MOS against such redundancy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I can give you three examples of templates created by other editors using multiple flags:
My only edit was to the templates was to add the category or mark an election as over. Number 57 22:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
And you can add Template:Ontario elections by User:Jack Cox and Template:Spanish elections by Nimora to that list. Number 57 22:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It could be said those templates were created using previous ones by you as a style, that dosen't mean much, nor does it make the overuse of flagicons correct.--padraig3uk 23:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It does "mean much!" It means that the editors listed thought that Number 57's templates were good templates, and that more than one flag was fine! Now you show us a template (NOT edited by you or Snappy56) where the number of flags was reduced to one. Surely that won't be hard?
As for "making the (over)use of flagicons correct" - nothing makes it correct or incorrect. It's only your POV. Now please stop reverting until you have made a convincing case or establish a proper consensus! Scolaire 09:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Negatory. All of those templates need to be cleaned up to stop being so redundant. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And Snappy, you promised to 'bow out' if Number 57 could show a template, not his, that used multiple flagicons. He did, and 30 minutes later you reverted! What's the story there? Scolaire 10:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

He didn't - for some reason our signature times and edit history times differ by an hour - Snappy hasn't edited the template since I added my comment. Number 57 11:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't, my settings were offset by an hour. Anyway, the examples shown were all at some point EDITED by Number57, I ask for examples that were not created OR edited by Number57 et al. I don't have time to go through the history and see what changes were made, but the fact the Number57 edited them means, he endorsed the overuse of flags on these templates. Also as padraig3uk points out, these users more than likely used Number57 template as a starting point which brings us back to the start. Copying a mistake doesn't make the original mistake correct, it simply multiples the error! Snappy56 11:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Nor does it imply that the copiers actually agree with the overuse; it is evidence of little but either laziness or a mistaken belief that the template is somehow a "standard" that should be followed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, as I have edited every election template around at some point then there aren't any examples, though I don't see how me just adding the category to a template is enough to disqualify it from your critieria. To save you having to trawl through, these are the links to the first versions: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. As Scolaire points out, those editors could have, but didn't change the style, and were obviously happy with it. Number 57 12:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

<yawn> — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Stanton, I did not realise that you had been invited to comment here, but I have to say honestly that I believe you have been most unhelpful throughout. In particular, to post this ream of comments four days after the issue was successfully resolved was uncalled-for, if not downright provocative. You seem to have taken no trouble to follow the history of the debate — you even split one of my edits in two, and added a <!--Who posted this?--> to boot! Your use of expressions such as "Meh" and "yawn" is arrogant in the extreme. To answer one of your comments, I do not "mistake dismissiveness for irrationality" — I take it for boorishness.
And by the way, if you read WP:MOS yourself, I think you might see the following: "A distracting, confusing or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users. Some editors find it disruptive to discourse on talk pages, or when working in the edit window." Bear that in mind when lecturing others about "in-yo'-face graphics". Scolaire 08:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Lots to cover. I didn't just wander in here long after the fact, but on May 10. I returned a week later for followup. I'm sorry if you feel I was unhelpful. When a point seems utterly clear to me, but others will not look at it, I sometimes try to turn their heads manually to stare it in the face. This makes me few friends, I admit, but it honestly does tend to end pointless arguments rather more quickly than they would wind down on their own. A grand total of 14 sentences, distributed all throughout the debate, hardly strikes me as "a ream"; I was quite concise, I thought. History: I did read the entire thing before I posted (again), and did not detect that the issue had come to resolution; if it has, then great, and sorry I made unnecessary noise. Oops, but no, I just re-read it again, and I still don't detect resolution, only you declaring the issue resolved while some others' concerns remain unaddressed. I apologize sincerely for forking one of your comments; the fact that I did so indeed clearly apparent by my "who posted this?" question. I got completely confused and thought that a comment was standing alone and was unattributed, when I of course accidentally split it from its own closing, signed paragraph. Dumb error on my part, but one that should be pretty obvious and not require a question about it; just refactor it back to the way it should be (just did that myself). I don't understand your concern over the use of the term "meh". Please see Culturally significant words and phrases from The Simpsons#Meh — I was using it quite precisely "as an interjection indicating apathy or lack of enthusiasm" (for this topic's continuance). Regarding "yawn", I don't feel that I was assuming bad faith, engaging in a personal attack, or being incivil, I was simply expressing my opinion that the debate was boring and tiresome, because the issues raised by it have already been addressed elsewhere long ago. It wasn't a slap, it was a "hey, look here, this is very old news, so move on" indicator. Arrogant? What's to be arrogant about? I didn't write WP:MOS (other than a few lines I've contributed over the years, none of which are relevant here), and I have no stake on either side of the debate; the outcome of Irish elections is about as relevant to me as the price of cheese in Madagascar. If you care to mistake dismissiveness for boorshiness (your words), that's your problem and your mistake. Dismissiveness is usually an indication that someone feels strongly that the issue should be dismissed, as moot or pointless. In a drunken tavern argument, that opinion is often worse that worthless; on Wikipedia, there is almost always a rational reason behind it (not an unchallengeable one, of course, but one worth at least looking at.) I'm not sure what you mean with regard to my sig being "distracting, confusing or otherwise unsuitable"; it has some CSS font twiddling, and an enormous grand total of 7 characters of ASCIIart, but does not make use of any graphics, enormous sizing or other problems. If you really have a legitimate complaint here, I'll be happy to entertain it at my talk page (I just reduced by sig's code length by about 50%, at the expense of proper XHTML over more concise old-school HTML, about 2 weeks ago, at someone's request.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Scolaire 13:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Overuse of flags, part deux[edit]

Time to re-open this debate, I think. Now that the Local and European elections have been added we have not 1, not 3 but 5 Irish flags on the template. IMHO, this is way too may. My argument is the same as before; this is a template about 1 country which has 1 flag, therefore there is no need to repeat it, 4 times. I suggest a change to the National Elections template to allow these extra flags to be turned off. Snappy56 (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it should have "Voting in Ireland" (plus the flag) at the top, with the current 5 categories below it (flagless); maybe have the EU flag on the botom one as well. Sulmac (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever about flags this template is too big and has too many different elections on it. Djegan (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the local and European elections as is standard for other countries. Local elections now has its own template {{Irish local elections}}, whilst all the European ones are on {{European Union elections}}. This means there are only three rows as before. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Fine as it is now. —Nightstallion 16:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
An improvement, still has 2 flags too may, only needs 1 national flag at the top of the template. Repetition is redundant! Snappy56 (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
... unless it's for aesthetic reasons. —Nightstallion 10:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This goes against WP:FLAG, Help the reader rather than decorate and Using too many flags and even then it just looks cluttered --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 11:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

European elections[edit]

I just added in the European elections, and they were promptly removed as "non-standard".

This template already includes presidential elections and referenda, so I don't see what harm is done by providing the reader with a handy way to navigate between the different nationwide ballots that have taken place in Ireland.

This may not be how the {{National elections}} template is used in other countries, but since the {{Irish elections}} template is only used on articles about Irish elections, I see no reason to conform with practice elsewhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


Firstly, this template has been vastly improved, all the elections and referendums are in one template, and it only has one flag, brilliant! I have changed the alignment to left rather than centre because it looks alot better (imho) and it is pretty much the standard for navboxes. Any reason why it was centre aligned? Snappy (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned it on BHG's talk page, but I did so largley because on some other templates there might be only one elections in one group, but a couple of line's worth in another (e.g. the {{Bulgarian elections}}, where there has only been a few presidential elections, but numerous parliamentary ones (there are more extreme examples, e.g. the UK)). I just thought that having that left-aligned would look a little strange. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this a huge improvement --well done Number57! And I agree with Snappy: the standard left-aligned is easier to read. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Cheers. Fair enough, I'll make them all left-aligned. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles deletion proposal[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish constitutional referendums, 1968 is relevant to this template. jnestorius(talk) 17:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)