Template talk:German elections

Federal vs. imperial

User 129.240.214.83 commented a rv with ""Federal" is the appropriate English translation of both." I don't think so, because in German, there is a sharp distinction between federal="Bundes..." and imperial="Reichs...". leo.org seems to support my point of view. I like the new solution. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 16:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

That difference is irrelevant here. The sole and only point with "federal" is to mark that it is at the federal level, not state level. In this context, "federal" is the appropriate translation of both. "Reichs-whatsoever" doesn't mean "federal" less than "Bundes-whatsoever". "Imperial" is a less appropriate translation in this context.

Then way not spell it out? -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 17:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

east germany?

Should East German elections go on the same template? Given that it already includes imperial, weimar, and FRG elections, I think yes it should be on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kami888 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No - there should be a separate template, as East Germany was considered a separate country, whilst the current country is a successor state to West Germany. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Do legal technicalities like this actually matter though? I mean there is no doubt that both states were German in nature, and if the template is about elections in Germany, what's the problem of having them on the same template? Kami888 (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Because East Germany is not Germany - it is a separate state - hence I've created Template:East German elections. The best paralell I can think of is this is why there there are separate articles for Germany national football team and East Germany national football team (but not one for West Germany, as it is included under the Germany one). пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Pre-1949?

Shouldn't we consider present-day Germany as a state which essentially arose with the 1949 Basic Law? From that point of view, it's inadequate to include in this template Weimar Republic parliamentary and presidential elections, right? I suggest this template includes only elections held in Bundesrepublik Deutschland. I reckon another template already exists for the DDR; this one should then be split, with the 1871-1945 elections and referenda presented at a new one. It would be linked to from here, and could be named "Elections in Germany (1871-1945)" or "Elections in the German Reich" (as the state name continued to be Reich even during the Weimar years).

Was denkt ihr? What do you think? 189.97.228.45 (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC) (User:Amorim Parga, too lazy to login. And oh, I'm curious about the 1930s referenda, what were they about?)

I disagree, the elections all occurred in some form of modern-day Germany, and we do not separate elections from other countries regardless of reconstitution. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Then, why having a separate template for the DDR? Was it any less a "form of modern-day Germany" than the BRD? Says who? I mean, personally I'd much rather live in the BRD than in the DDR, but that's just my opinion. Some East Germans might have disagreed; I think that, for WP:NPOV issues, either Template:East_German_elections should be merged here or this template be split into pre- and post-1949 elections, like I had suggested.

Put otherwise: given the need to keep a NPOV, why list West Germany as the successor state to Nazi Germany instead of East Germany? Yet another way: why was the Weimar/Nazi Republic the same as BRD, why group all of these successive states as "modern-day Germany"? 189.99.136.145 (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC) (me again)

There's definitely an inconsistency here, I agree. Either of your proposed solutions -- dividing the template at 1949, or adding East German elections -- would work. -- SCZenz (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The Federal Republic is identical with the state founded in 1867. See Legal status of Germany. Therefore, the elections of 1867 should be added.--Ziko (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Bundespräsident

Why Bundespräsident elections are not here?--Ventusa (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

They should be in here, of course. --bender235 (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Because they were not public elections, which is what these templates are for. If you like, create a separate template like {{Israeli presidential elections}} for the non-public ones. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Those presidential elections are indirect public elections, like in the United States. --bender235 (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

They are not indirect public elections - people are not elected specifically to elect the President. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Difficult. I would like to see the federal presidential elections here because of the continuity. The template serves to find elections easier, not to define whether they are essentially comparable. Otherwise we would have to eliminate the NS era elections because they are something completely different from democratic elections. By the way, why are the two Volksentscheide of the 1920s missing?--Ziko (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The template exists at {{German presidential elections}}. Number 57 16:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Election is election, either it was direct or not(indirect). Do not delete.--LINKMAN (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)