The Template:Voting, should be used on each of the articles if you guys want people to find the right information right away. Since other templates are also in use, maybe working with the show and hide buttons would help in getting the right template on the right pages and being consistent with every voting articles. Lincher 20:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I added the merge template to this template and the Electoral systems template. They both seem to have the same point and massively overlap. They are also used inconsistently on pages that they both link to. Please add your opinion if you Agree or Disagree and a brief reason backing it up.--Old Hoss 05:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Below is a proposal to merge the aspects of both Template:Voting and Template:Electoral systems and convert them to a footer to be placed at the bottom of each listed page. I have included every link from both templates, and culled as many as I could from the category pages. Unfortunately, I know very little about this topic (other than the navigation was rough). Therefore, I need help in placing the links in the proper grouping; near the end I just ended up throwing them wherever. I may have included some terrible choices and may have excluded just as many. Please review the proposal and make the appropriate changes or suggestions. (I'm afraid I didn't see your below removal of some links before I did this, sorry about that.)--Old Hoss 00:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This is no longer applicable as the Voting and Electoral Systems templates no longer overlap. Rather than be merged, they were separated to cover their each individual aspects. --Electiontechnology 02:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Removed some non-related:
- Ballot access (elections, not voting)
- Clone (voting) (Electoral methods, not voting)
- Delegated voting (theory, not voting)
- Demarchy (theory\Democracy, not voting)
- Strategic nomination (not voting)
- Votebank (politics, not voting)
- Voter database (politics, not voting)
- Voting bloc (politics, not voting)
--Electiontechnology 16:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- That all seems sensible, but I don't understand the rationale for this dif. They all appear on other templates, but they seem relevant for this one as well, mainly thinking of suffrage and spoilt vote. I was going to edit the other templates as well to work out a nice balance between them, but didn't have the time.
- On another matter, should these politics/election templates link to the other related templates down the bottom in a footer? Or would that be information overload? - Grumpyyoungman01 11:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The "Spoilt vote" removal was unintentional. Thanks for pointing that out, I put it back. Suffrage I was on the fence about. I really tried to limit the list to items directly related to voting rather that politics, elections as a whole, or electoral theory. (As we have existing templates for all of them) I also generally tried to keep the list to a manageable number.
The way these templates usually work is that the template containing the term is in each of the articles. This makes it difficult to have a term in more than one template, so I tried to limit double entries.
I'll try to explain the edit you referenced:
- Spoiler effect - is a political term describing the effect of one campaign on another. (not voting)
- Suffrage - is term referring to civil rights and already in the elections template
- Swing vote - is really a political term and probably not for elections or voting. It refers to trying to predict the political ideology of certain groups of people.
- Vote allocation - is a defunct system of tactical voting in Taiwan (not relevant to very much)
- Wasted vote - is an electoral theory term used for analyzing votes after an election.
- Youth vote - is a purely political term.
On the other matter, I think that is potentially good option. If it helps us limit multiple entries then I don't think it would be overload. Maybe their could be mini-versions of the other templates. Just throwing ideas out there. --Electiontechnology 20:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining, that all seems good. "The way these templates usually work is that the template containing the term is in each of the articles. This makes it difficult to have a term in more than one template, so I tried to limit double entries." - An obvious point but one which I overloooked.
- I based my idea of links to related templates on what I have seen on the fallacy templates, but now I notice that they just linked to the mainspace categories instead. We wouldn't want to be needing meta-navigational templates to navigate between navigational templates!
- "Maybe their could be mini-versions of the other templates. Just throwing ideas out there." Sounds interesting. - Grumpyyoungman01 09:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)