Template talk:Artsakhian elections

Indirect election
Hi the revert made by Number 57 is not consensuel. For various countries, there are indirect and direct elections. And we should add them like for Brazil, Haiti, etc. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for starting a discussion and stopping repeatedly reverting, but your edits on the Haitian and Brazilian templates are disappointing (although given my previous experience your behaviour, not entirely surprising). I'm afraid there is a long-standing consensus that we do not include indirect elections in these templates, which is why separate templates (pretty much all the ones in here) were created for indirect presidential elections and why many presidential elections and the Senate elections are not included on French elections. As stated on my talk page, I would be happy to have an RfC at WP:E&R to see if consensus has changed on this issue. Number   5  7  13:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your behavior is not collaborative as you take liberties with the rules and saying " my previous experience your behaviour, not entirely surprising" without argument is an attempt to discredit me. All this has failed. For the rest, I want to see the slightest trace of this consensus. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want some evidence, here you go:  Number   5  7  13:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But there are no discussion about that. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There almost certainly was, but because it was so long ago (this set of templates are over 10 years old), it's impossible to remember where. However, you have proof that several different editors are aware of this convention – are you saying we are being dishonest about it? Number   5  7  13:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do believe what I see and this just shows that some contributors present the articles in a certain way. But afterwards, there are also the counter example that I have shown myself and I will find others if I look for it but what good if it will allow you to pass in force on it? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There are always going to be examples of edits that are against community consensus – I fix many every day (for example this edit where I correct the date format – the fact that an editor added the dates in an incorrect format does not mean the consensus on how we should present dates does not exist). Many such edits go unnoticed for years before being corrected. Number   5  7  13:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, I have to show that consensus is said to have been obtained during a discussion. For the rest, if you want to convince me, you have to prove to me that only the palette of Brazil and Haiti contained the indirect elections. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that you can't prove a negative? And there may well be one or two more examples of editors unaware of this consensus adding elections to the templates which have gone unspotted by those that are, but that doesn't mean the consensus doesn't exist.
 * Anyway, in addition to the above example of French elections, perhaps you could explain why Czech elections, German elections, Moldovan elections, Turkish elections do not contain the indirect presidential elections that are otherwise listed on Czech presidential elections, German presidential elections, Moldovan presidential elections and Turkish presidential elections if this consensus does not exist? Number   5  7  13:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Panam2014 and Number 57, if you let me I tell you my opinion on this issue. I agree with Number 57 that indirect elections should not be included in this template but I have already added it in Nagorno-Karabakh politics template and also created a separate template for Nagorno-Karabakh presidential elections. If you like it I think we can add this template in presidential elections articles.Dododorodo (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is up to you to prove that only two templates are presented as well. Where is the complete list? thank you. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems we have reached an amicable solution now. Shame so much time and effort had to be wasted to reach this point. Thanks for your help Dododorodo. Number   5  7  14:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing to be ashamed of! Such discussions occurs all the time and very often both sides have good reasons to prove their point of view. It is always good when at the end a solution can be found which will satisfy both parties. Also, such discussions help everyone to improve themselves. So, the time and effort were not wasted and there is nothing to be ashamed of.Dododorodo (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)