This 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.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel 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.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
In my opinion, now that the separate articles about the prime ministerial elections and the parliamentary elections have been merged, there is no point to keep a separation in this template between the prime ministerial elections and the parliamentary elections. In my opinion, this separation is completely unnecessary, confusing to our readers and redundant. What version of the template do you think we should use? If you are familiar with the subject please express your opinion. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A few points:
Not all the articles have been merged - the 2001 election was only for the Prime Minister and not the Knesset and leaving it in a row with other elections would be inappropriate
The proposed template is not a Navbox - its coding and appearance are awkward (the bullets don't work properly and it is too big)
I fail to see how the existing template is confusing. If anything it is informative, as it shows readers that there were separate elections for the PM in those year, even if the link is the same for two of them.
In my opinion, the fact that in 2001 only direct elections were held does not justify this split in the template. Please note that in the parallel article in the Hebrew Wikipedia they did not choose to create this split in the template.
That's no problem. I can easily fix the proposed template so that the content would appear within a Navbox. (besides, there is no rule in Wikipedia that states we must use the Navbox template).
In my opinion, the current split in the template is confusing and unnecessary, especially now after we have decided that the Israeli election articles covering both Direct elections and Knesset elections held in the same year would be merged. There are other ways to illustrate to the readers which election years where the ones in which direct elections were held (see my compromise proposal below).
Elections held world wide are essentially different – for example, while we both agreed that the articles which cover the direct elections and the Knesset election held in the same year in Israel needed to be merged, we may agree that there is no such justification for merge for articles covering the elections in a different country (and thus in the elections template of that other country there would be a justification for keeping such a split in the template).
Sorry, I still think this would be a retrograde step. Having the separate lines is not confusing - having a footnote referring to "Direct elections" is. Also, there are template of other countries that have the same article linked twice (see {{Ivorian elections}} as an example). Number5716:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe instead of "Direct Elections" (which is somewhat vague for readers unknowing of the difference) it should read something like "1 Years in which the prime minister was chosen directly by popular vote instead of being the leader of the largest party elected"? Solatic
I'd leave it the way it was before. It's the standard used for all the other country articles, which is kind of the point of having a standard template look, anyway. —Nightstallion23:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightstallion - But do any others have elections from before they existed? e.g. {{Australian elections}} starts in 1901, it doesn't add things from before federation, even though there were elections happening within the area that is now modern Australia as early as 1851. MWQs (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most ridiculous and absurd thing I have ever seen. The elections of the Mandate have absolutely nothing to do with modern Israel or the PA. It would be like including the presidents of the Articles of Confederations with the presidents of the Constitution. I am not familiar with the Bangladeshi setup, but it looks like they at least had continuously running elections the whole time. This has a significant gap and is not the same mechanism. I think the 1923 should be removed from this template and the PA template. The others might be worth keeping as the AoR did eventually become Knesset, but I think that would be best separated as AoR elections.--Metallurgist (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support Metallurgist's suggestion. The template should only include links to the elections held since 1949 as the template consists only of "Elections in Israel". Even the parallel template in the Hebrew Wikipedia does not include these links. In my opinion all those links to the previous elections should be presented in a separate template. Another option, which I do not prefer but which should also be considered, would be to instead change the template's name to something like "elections to the Assembly of Representatives, Palestinian Legislative Council and the Knesset". What do you think? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the template consist only of elections in Israel? Why shouldn't elections that happened in the territory before it adopted its current name be included? Especially the Assembly of Representatives elections, which were effectively the precursor of the Knesset. If these elections aren't included in this template, I think it's highly unlikely that any reader would find them. Number5708:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57 I don't see a footnote currently. They should at least be in their own line. Probably labelled Mandatory Palestine? unless it was militant groups like the. Lehi holding elections or something? I agree they should be included so people can find them. But it needs a proper label. MWQs (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that they need their own line. The Assembly of Representatives was effectively the forerunner of the Knesset. Number5721:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who didn't know that body existed until this week, currently this navbox is confusing and unhelpful.
I agree the pre-1948 elections belong on the same table if they're meaningfully connected, but it needs to be properly labelled with links to information that explains that connection.
It would be much more useful to readers for it to clearly explain what those elections are, by putting them on their own row and linking the article page that explains it. e.g. Link Assembly of Representatives as the group name.
Why hide the difference? Why not clearly link an informative page? It doesn't even take extra space, when they're all in the same group it now span two rows anyway.
The row that starts in the 1920s currently links a page that says, "The Knesset first convened on 14 February 1949 in Jerusalem following the 20 January elections, replacing the Provisional State Council which acted as Israel's official legislature from its date of independence on 14 May 1948 and succeeding the Assembly of Representatives that had functioned as the Jewish community's representative body during the Mandate era.[1]" This does explain it, but it's a lot more confusing than it needs to be. The point of a table or template is to present info clearly so that the reader doesn't have to go digging to work out what's going on. Why not just make it clear and simple? MWQs (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see the point in splitting the template. We should include as much information as possible on one (unless it becomes unwieldy, which clearly isn't the case here), rather than splitting. Number5714:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have strong feelings on this. Both TheCuriousGnome and and Number 57 have made excellent points. But in this case, given that they are not combined on the Hebrew Wikipedia, I think it'd make sense to model the template after them, and distinguish between those that occured in the modern state of Israel and those that occured in the Mandate. --JethroB19:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Metallurgist, as you initially stated " The elections of the Mandate have absolutely nothing to do with modern Israel". I do not understand why you have all of a sudden changed your mind now and want to continue this absurdness in which the "Assembly of Representatives elections" links appear under the headline "Elections in the Modern State of Israel". Please rethink your current compromise proposal.
Since there is not clear consensus on this matter so far, I will go ahead and invite more users from the Israeli wikiproject discussion page to share their opinions on this matter here as well. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What if we'd change the title of the infobox from "Elections in the modern state of Israel" to "elections in Israel" - what would you say regarding Metallurgist's proposal? --JethroB21:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would still be a mistake since Israel = Modern State of Israel. I do not understand why you can't see that and why you do not understand the necessity of the split. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the heading is "in Israel" does not prevent us from including stuff that happened in the Mandate era. For example, {{Israeli top flight seasons}} includes seasons in the Mandate period. If people really think there is a need to separate beyond the existing footnotes which clearly point out that the pre-1949 elections were for different bodies, then perhaps a second row should be added with "Mandate-era elections"
Metallurgist and Jethro B – please state your final opinion on this issue (which proposal so far do you mostly prefer?). I am hoping that additional users, whom are knowledgeable on this topic, would share their opinions here very soon (so that our decision would be based on a wider consensus) as I have just invited people to join the discussion at the Israel WikiProject discussion page. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@TheCuriousGnome Reframed, I like this one best, the only problem is the row order. I can't decide whether the Palestinian one belongs on there. Is there a way to divide the row? Have it separated in a shaded box at the end? MWQs (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elections in Israel
