Template talk:Zimbabwean elections

Elections and Referendums Template‑class

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 Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Although I understand why the box was enlarged to separate colonial- and independence-era elections, it does make the box overly large and complicated.

No it doesn't. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

That's bollocks on so many levels. Firstly, Southern Rhodesia retained responsibility for elections throughout Federation and its dominion government remained exactly as before (only with a few less responsibilities). So there's a clear continuity there. The Debates of the Legislative Assembly of Southern Rhodesia/Rhodesia/Zimbabwe Rhodesia are all consecutively numbered up from 1 to vol. 101 in 1979, while those of the Parliament of Zimbabwe start again at volume 1, showing a clear discontinuity: in other words, Southern Rhodesia/Rhodesia/Zimbabwe Rhodesia is one continuous run, but Zimbabwe is not. Finally, when I created the template I included flags, so it's for me to say what the reason for them was. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I don't give a toss about Sri Lanka. It's Rhodesia and Zimbabwe under discussion. Frankly I'd take you more seriously if you could answer these three questions correctly:

1) In the provisional determination of boundaries by the Delimitation Commission of 1969, how many Coloured voters were there in Willowvale constituency?

2) Who was Registrar-General of Elections at the 1985 election?

3) What was the date of birth of James Done, Independent candidate for Salisbury Central in 1954, and how many votes did he get? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, please respond before reverting and perhaps another compromise solution can be found. Number 57 10:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

That's bollocks as well. See Referendum. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The flags are those of Rhodesia and not Zimbabwe. Getting the two confused is plainly stupid. Ian Smith was not Prime Minister of Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe is not President of Rhodesia. You try telling either of them that and you'd get a pretty curt response, I can tell you. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS - you obviously couldn't answer the questions. The reason why Rhodesia/Zimbabwe has the best coverage on Wikipedia about its electoral history is that I have written it, not you. So go away until you contribute constructively. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going by your history on Wikipedia, you obviously have a problem interacting with other people constructively.

As if that makes your case. Pathetic. I'm completely unmoved. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you have written or created an article does not give you the right to prevent anyone changing the format of it.

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)[reply]

Certainly bragging about how many articles you have written on politics in Zimbabwe does not. If you have descended to this level, I can point out that I have created around 120 election templates and standardised several more.

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)[reply]

Anyway, the new edit is not an improvement.

Well bollocks to you then. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a mediator can help solve this issue. Number 57 19:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Are you suggesting I know nothing about the politics and history of Zimbabwe or Rhodesia? I am not the ignoramus you seem to think I am. I don't understand what your problem associating Rhodesia and Zimbabwe is. They are patently the same entity, albeit under a different name and political system. I also suggest you stop the abusive language before you are banned again. Number 57 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't answer my questions above. Rhodesia and Zimbabwe are patently not the same entity. They may have the same boundaries, but that is not the same thing – you even acknowledge "different political system". Different political systems shouldn't be equated, should they? And if your entire argument is summed up by "Yah boo sucks you've been banned" then perhaps you should reflect on how weak it is. You haven't presented a single good reason, nor made a single positive contribution in this area. Go away and leave the work of productive contributors alone. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the Republic of South Africa did not exist before 1994? No Poland before 1990? The argument of a country's existence being based on its political system is very poor. How many Nigerias have there been if this is the rationale? As for not answering your questions above, no I couldn't but in the grand scheme of things, they are minute details. You probably know only because you have access to a text with the answers. Just because my knowledge is not that in depth does not mean that I am not able to contribute. Indeed, if only a person with perfect knowledge of a subject was allowed to be involved in it, we wouldn't have got much further than throwing spears and grunting. The Zimbabwean elections articles are not yours alone, and if you insist on believing so, then it will not end in your favour. Number 57 20:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. —Nightstallion (?) 10:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think some people have quite simply missed the point. There was no Zimbabwean election in 1970. It's that simple. This "new" template simply deceives readers; think about the surprise on their face when suddenly they're looking at the "Rhodesian" election of 1970. Perhaps you intend to change that article's name, too? Michael ^talk 19:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the country changed its name and/or electoral system means that the template has to be split. It certainly isn't the case for any other country which has done so. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's nothing to do with it. There was no Zimbabwean election in 1970. Pretending otherwise is essentially lying. You are lying to readers. Michael ^talk 07:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I could argue that your version was lying to readers as there was no Rhodesian election in 1899 as the state was called Southern Rhodesia, not just Rhodesia, as well as pointing out that the black population was referring to the country as Zimbabwe by 1970. If we split the template up to include all the former names, then it would be unwieldy. The fact is that there was an election in the country which is now called Zimbabwe in 1899. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be unwieldy, it would be factually correct. The old template was easy to read, and correct. The new template is not any easier to read, and is incorrect. So if we want to score both points, revert back. Michael ^talk 09:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've just noted, the previous version would not be factually correct because it didn't have separate sections for Southern Rhodesia, Rhodesia and Zimbabwe Rhodesia. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that is your qualm, then we shall correct it, dividing it into the appropriate sections. Michael ^talk 09:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because that would make it far too large; there was only one election in Zimbabwe Rhodesia and there is no need for a separate section for it. A previous solution was to do this, but I'd imagine the WP:FLAG people would not be very happy. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with that if the flags in the titles were removed and the redundant "Zimbabwean" removed from each of the titles. Replace with a simple "Zimbabwean and Rhodesian elections" at the top. Michael ^talk 09:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; I don't see the need for the country's former names to be used in the template; according to your demands of including previous names to avoid "lying" to readers, it should read Southern Rhodesian, Rhodesian, Zimbabwe Rhodesian and Zimbabwean parliamentary elections, which is ridiculous (the presidential elections section would remain as Zimbabwean presidential elections as they have only taken place since 1990). Templates are for linking articles, not for writing a history of the country's name. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main heading: "Zimbabwean and Rhodesian elections". Sub headings: Presidential elections, general elections, etc... Flags to show state in place at time of elections. That's it. Michael ^talk 10:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim is that merely putting Zimbabwean elections is "lying"; surely this must apply to just using Zimbabwean and Rhodesian elections, as it ignores Southern Rhodesia and Zimbabwe Rhodesia. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Number57, the current version is fine. —Nightstallion 12:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the current version is a lie. There was not a Zimbabwean referendum in 1964 about independence under the then-current constitution. Garfield Todd did not win the Zimbabwean election of 1953. I think we have people here who know absolutely nothing about this country dictating to those who do. Unless some distinction is made between Rhodesia and Zimbabwe, you are deceiving your readers and they are in for quite a shock when they look at these pre-1980 'Zimbabwean' elections and wonder why everything is radically different. Michael ^talk 19:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are on the page, reading about those elections, you will see that the title says "Rhodesian" or "Southern Rhodesian" or whatever the country was called then. The template is not the place for pointing that out. If I were you I would refrain from accusing people of not knowing anything about the subject. You have no idea who I am or what I know about. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are perpetuating a lie rather than a simple generalisation (Sth Rho/Rho)through this. Again, you are misleading readers into thinking that there were Zimbawean elections in 1970 or 1962. I don't know how much simpler I can make it. Surely there is a WP:LIES? Michael ^talk 19:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem a bit obessed with the lies thing. Click on the link and you go to an article entitled Rhodesia/Southern Rhodesian/Zimbabwe Rhodesian elections. We don't have to put all the former names in the template; it's just unnecessary. Would you rename History of Sri Lanka to History of Ceylon and Sri Lanka or History of Thailand to History of Siam and Thailand? пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the name refers to a separate state contingent with the same land area, then it deserves a different article. If it is just a cosmetic name change (Burma / Myanmar) then I'd leave it alone. Rhodesia was not just a cosmetic name change; it was a different state, different system of government, different system of elections -- there was not just a cosmetic name change. Michael ^talk 20:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you separate templates in cases where there was no name change, but a change in the government system? The answer should be no, and the fact that there just happened to be (several) name changes here makes it no different. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, there was no change in the system of government until 1987; the country remained under the parliamentary system until then despite the changes in the voting system and name. Making a mistake like that makes me think that we may indeed "have people here who know absolutely nothing about this country". пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on discovering that Bob got rid of the white seats and created an executive presidency in '87. Rhodesia and Zimbabwe were different entities. There was no Zimbabwean election in 1970. The election processes in Rhodesia and Zimbabwe were radically different. Why can you not fathom that? Michael ^talk 21:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know they were radically different, and the articles note that. The template, however, is not the place; it's purpose is merely to link any elections which have taken place in the country we know now as Zimbabwe. Why can you not fathom that? пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not "elections which have taken place in the country we know now as Zimbabwe" in the template. It is (to give one example) "Zimbabwean parliamentary elections" even though there was no such thing as a Zimbabwean parliamentary election prior to 1980. Michael ^talk 21:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you underestimate the intelligence of the reader; the second statement can be read as a contraction of the first in the context which it is placed. As noted before, we don't entitle articles History of Siam and Thailand even when they include history of the country when it was under a different name. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]