Template talk:Croatian elections

Elections in 1848 and 1861
There were also elections for the Croatian-Slavonian-Dalmatian parliament (Sabor) in 1848 and in 1861, but I don't know how to add this into the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.118.143 (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Elections before SFR Yugoslavia
I'd like to add the pre-Communist elections in the table, but am a little confused as to exactly just how to do it. Any help? --PaxEquilibrium 18:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What were they elections for? Number   5  7  19:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the Croatian Parliament, among other...--PaxEquilibrium 07:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So, put them in :) If there were ever any Senate elections, perhaps we can use the "Upper House" solution from the Yugoslavian elections template? Number   5  7  07:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah.. it's a bit hard to explain. From 1939 to 1941 a "Croatian Banate" has existed within the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and I would've made no quarrels regarding adding elections to the Croatian Parliament (that was supposed to be elected in '41, but the Axis invaded, hence it used only nominated deputies from '39). However before, the "Croatian Parliament" was a governing body of an entity within the Austria-Hungarian Monarchy (its Magyar part) known as the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia created according to the Hungaro-Croatian Compromise of 1868; after the Great War it joined Serbia into a South Slavic state and was abolished in 1922. And as you see, that' not quite "Croatia", and especially notice the border differences. And Dalmatia, was a separate Austrian crownland that had its own "Dalmatian Parliament" from 1861 to 1922... are you following me? --PaxEquilibrium 20:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. I would still attempt to include them under parliamentary elections, as even if the borders moved, it is still Croatia (we count German elections before WWI and Polish elections before WWII, even though their borders were markedly different from today). I would not include the Dalmatian ones - that sounds like a special case. I think we should get comment from our resident Austrian though!  Number   5  7  08:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Mh, it's difficult. I'd either be in favour of having an own template for Croatia-Slavonia and Dalmatia, or for including them in here but in their own rows, as they *are* different entities... — Nightstallion 10:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Istria
Should I include Istria too? --PaxEquilibrium 23:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but on the condition that Istria and Dalmatia and Slavonia are clearly differentiated somehow... — Nightstallion 01:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ? --PaxEquilibrium 01:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase that: What do you mean? --PaxEquilibrium 14:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't simply mix Croatian-Slavonian, Dalmatian and Istrian elections in the same row, IMO. — Nightstallion 10:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Croatia-Slavonia was a single crownland, with the Croatian Parliament.
 * I've decided to leave out Istria. I'm keeping only the so-called "Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia" which was never realized in accordance to Greater Croatian movements back then. --PaxEquilibrium 13:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I *meant* Cr-Sl. — Nightstallion 16:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Parliament" controversy
This brings me to another problem (Number 57'll know what I'm talking about). Those pre-1990 parliaments are actually elected in the same way the "Chamber of Counties" was... --PaxEquilibrium 23:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ? From reading Croatian Chamber of Counties election, 1993, it seems that it was a popular vote, but done on a multi-member constituency basis? Or is my interpretation wrong, and they were actually elected by local councillors? Number   5  7  23:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Local elections were organized in each county. Every county gave a specific amount of deputies. When all elections are over and deputies nominated, the Parliament is constructed. That's how's the Vojvodinian parliamentary election today. That's how most elections were back then. There weren't nation-wide like today. And if you ask me, they should've stayed that way. --PaxEquilibrium 00:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Having read the Vojvodina election articles, it sounds similar to constituency voting for the National Assembly of France, in which case they should be included, no doubt. Number   5  7  00:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup. But you misunderstood - should I move them all to the "Chamber of Counties" bit? --PaxEquilibrium 00:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, make it "upper house" as in the other case, I s'pose. — Nightstallion 01:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would keep them in the parliamentary elections section. If they were the only body at the time, they couldn't really be described as the Upper House - how they are elected is irrelevant to their status as upper/lower, as electoral systems change over time. Number   5  7  10:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, I misunderstood that. Yes, electoral systems are not of importance, they should remain in the first row. — Nightstallion 13:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Imperial and Yugoslav elections
Should I add elections for Deputies in the Imperial Parliament that were in Croatia-Slavonia and(if) Dalmatia? --PaxEquilibrium 23:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And how about in Yugoslavia? --PaxEquilibrium 00:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose so. — Nightstallion 01:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you mean representatives to the Austro-Hungarian/Yugoslavian parliaments, or to the local assembly? I would only include the latter (like on Template:Czech elections where only elections to the Czech local assembly during the Czechoslovakian era are included). Number   5  7  10:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The first of course - the latter is that which already is in the article. --PaxEquilibrium 19:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Then no, I wouldn't include them - they should be part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire elections articles, if such things exist. I assume neither Austria or Hungary are successor states to the Empire, and therefore it should be treated like Czechoslovakia? Number   5  7  20:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, precisely. — Nightstallion 10:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Unknown elections
There seems to have been some sort of an election in 1885, but I can't confirm anything. --PaxEquilibrium 23:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What does the "(Military Frontier)" link signify? — Nightstallion 01:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In late 1881 the Military Frontier was abolished and a huge chunk of its territory annexed to the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. In 1883 the Croatian Parliament was enlarged and elections were held in areas of the former Croatian and Slavonian Frontiers' municipalities to fill in the empty seats. It was a result of the crownland's expansion. --PaxEquilibrium 01:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then it should be "Military Frontier parliamentary election"... — Nightstallion 13:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? --PaxEquilibrium 19:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's more sensible, and we never have "" in election article titles -- we have "region type election, year". — Nightstallion 20:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well don't you think that makes the picture like the Military Frontier had a parliament? --PaxEquilibrium 14:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we should call it "Croatian parliamentary by-election" instead. — Nightstallion 16:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is new to me. Is that some sort of standard practice? --PaxEquilibrium 21:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, no, but this wasn't a standard case, either, was it? Simply having "Croatian parliamentary election" would indicate it was a *full* election, and having (Military Frontier) in parentheses afterwards is rather ugly and something we haven't done before at all... — Nightstallion 10:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem
The current format of the template isn't adequate. Some Dalmatian elections (three or four) occurred during the same years as elections in Croatia-Slavonia (I have all the Dalmatian election results, which I'll add shortly). I'll try a quick fix for now. --Thewanderer 17:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If they were for a separate Dalmatian parliament, I suggest we create a new template for them. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  17:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have created a new template at Template:Dalmatian elections. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  17:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dalmatia was not a sovereign nation, but a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire which, along with Croatia-Slavonia formed the modern Croatian state. I don't see why it would have its own template. --Thewanderer 17:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it wasn't part of Croatia-Slavonia - it was a Kingdom with equal status to its neighbour. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  17:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Croatia-Slavonia wasn't a sovereign state either. Modern Croatia traces its foundation (in the preamble of its Constitution), to the Triune Kingdom, which includes Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia. --Thewanderer 17:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps they should have a separate template too, or have the Dalmatian ones in the same line as the Croatian ones, and in years where they both had elections, mark it with 1867 (CS) 1867 (D). I await the input of Nightstallion and PaxEquilibrium. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  18:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say we do it like this:


 * Croatia-Slavonia:
 * Dalmatia:
 * (no qualifier) 

All in the same -- i.e. this -- template. Okay? — Nightstallion 20:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I'm concerned that it would end up looking like this, which I do not find very aesthetically pleasing. Perhaps there could be either a new template for Croatia-Slavonia elections (if the current Croatia is not entirely a successor state of it, this would fit), or a new template for "Austro-Hungarian era elections in Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia" could be created. Any of these could be listed in the Past elections section of Elections in Croatia. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  09:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually think the version you linked to IS very good... — Nightstallion 10:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Well, Croatia is not quite a successor of Croatia-Slavonia - but neither is any ex Yugoslavian country successor of... anything. They were all created in 1945 with combined choices and no particular one until the borders were finally permanently set in the 1950s. --PaxEquilibrium 11:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, if every else likes it, feel free to put it back like that. I am just concerned about how it comes across when one of those series breaks across two lines (try reducing screen size to 800x600 and look). пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  15:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll be restoring the template then, as we seem to have a consensus. --Thewanderer 23:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Layout
I'm struggling to see how this is preferable to this. The latter is much more compact and in line with other countries' templates. Number  5  7  17:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The inclusion of the former country information in this template is dubious already - squashing it down to be on equal terms as the current data seems rather contrary to encyclopedic standards to me. We shouldn't set the readers up for surprises such as inexplicable glaring gaps in continuity. Any conflation of these wildly disparate political systems is weird at best. When we have subdivisions of an empire, subdivisions of a kingdom, subdivisions of a communist state, and then a democratic state that changed its system once already (from bicameral to unicameral), it's a big hodge-podge. A navigation template is supposed to help readers navigate a topic - when the topic is apparently so complex, presenting it with so little nuance is not actually helpful to navigation. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I read the edit summaries also, and wanted to comment how that ordering issue also applies to the historical elections in former states... It would probably be best if the Austria-Hungary and Yugoslavia information is actually in collapsible boxes within this one - and collapsed by default when the reader is e.g. reading about a 2019 election. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Note also that regardless of how we end up dealing with the historical layout in general, I stand by my earlier edits about those few elections in Yugoslavia. Certainly the earliest '90s election and referendum resp. are inextricably linked to recent history, but they can't actually be lumped together in the same group with elections in modern-day Croatia, because in the first case the body elected was composed of completely different bodies than the current Parliament, and they weren't on the same hierarchical level anyway, and likewise the whole point of that referendum was to revamp the top hierarchical level. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Then as a starter, perhaps let's just remove the pre-1918 ones and leave a link in the below section for the Austro-Hungarian era elections? Number   5  7  21:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, tried something like that now, see if you like it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with removing the pre-1918 ones abd can live with leaving out the 1940 one given the oddity of the entity at the time, but I'm implacably opposed to removing the 1990 parliamentary election or the independence referendum. It's standard to have these types of pre-independence votes in this set of templates and I think excluding them is extremely unhelpful. Number   5  7  16:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * They can be duplicated here, in their own group. The question is, above or below? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither – a separate group isn't necessary, and isn't used for any of the other former Yugoslav countries (Slovenian elections, Macedonian elections etc). Number   5  7  11:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not an actual argument for consistency when both of those make the same mistake. I'm pretty sure the constituent republics of Yugoslavia held elections in the single-party system, too. The final elections that were multi-party were certainly the beginning of a new trend, but they did not happen in the same state. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a 'mistake' – these templates are simply about displaying a list of elections over the years with no comment on the political system or national status – we don't break up the parliamentary elections on French elections by the various republics, German elections by Empire/Weimar/FRG or Maltese elections by pre/post independence eras; if we had the years of the rest of the Croatian elections during the single-party era, they'd be included here to (as the Montenegrin ones are). With regards to the italics, they are used on the templates to denote future elections, so it's not appropriate to use them for other purposes. Also, having another template purely so the 1940 elections are somewhere is really pointless; if they need to be on a template, they can just be included here. Number   5  7  21:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd remove the breaks by country and have all parliamentary elections (for Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, SR Croatia and modern Croatia) in one list, and the same for other elections like the 1940 local one. Elections in the Kingdom of Dalmatia would probably be better in a separate template. Tzowu (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't there be a bit of an issue there that Croatia is a combination of the kingdoms of Croatia-Slavonia and Dalmatia? Including one but not the other doesn't seem right. Other countries formed by mergers of different territories either have them in a separate template, or a separate row (e.g. Romanian elections Yemeni elections). Number   5  7  21:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Dalmatian elections were not for the Croatian Parliament, but the example of Romania (other territories listed under "Other elections") also seems fine. Tzowu (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you think of this version, which has the two listed at the bottom? Number   5  7  22:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no actual justification for your core claim. You're apparently relying on precedent that seems to be based on editorial discretion rather than anything particularly concrete. I just clicked through the Maltese example, which seems most obviously similar (relatively recent independence), and when I read the actual article on Maltese elections, I saw that it clearly distinguishes mentions of what happened prior and after independence. Navigation boxes are not supposed to have glaring deviations from the articles that they link to. In fact I'd say this kind of an approach violates WP:NAVBOX which literally says that links should be grouped into clusters, by topic, or by era, etc. When talking about countries, historically relevant state changes are absolutely appropriate delimiters of topics and eras. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Consistency is a justification and the links are grouped by topic – presidential elections, parliamentary elections etc. But clearly I won't be able to convince you that this is how it should be done, nor will you convince me that the current format of these templates need changing. Twozu seems to have delivered a third opinion, so we have the two extremes of excluding/separating all pre-independence elections, or including them all (including the pre-1914 ones) on the same line. The current version appears to be a compromise between these two.  Number   5  7  22:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Uhh, I'm sorry but WP:TALK doesn't work that way, one has to substantiate their opinions, and just looking for some sort of a mean value between any set of baseless opinions is pointless. The idea that the succession of states in 1991 is so irrelevant to these elections and referendums that it's not even worth mentioning is clearly controversial. The idea that the 19th-century kingdom which had a wildly different political structure, electoral rules, etc should not be delineated at all from other later periods -- is downright preposterous. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's your view, but it's not mine, nor apparently Twozu's. There is no right or wrong answer here – whether all the parliamentary elections should be on a single line or not is a matter of opinion, for which we've both given our rationales. Number   5  7  20:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

2022 redux
So, to reiterate for the umpteenth time, if Croatian elections makes numerous explicit notes about the 1990 elections, and the said articles about the 1990 elections clearly point out it's not just "Croatia" but "Socialist Republic of Croatia", then the navigation box for the same topic needs to follow suit. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

One thing that could be a compromise is to move the pre-independence group to the top instead of the bottom? That way the chronological ordering is maintained. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The template does not "need to follow suit"; there is no problem with having the 1990 elections in the same rows as other elections and the current layout is fine. And with regards to your CANVASS-breaching comment here how that article is laid out is nothing to do with how this template is laid out. The layout of this template is based on how it's done for other countries. Number   5  7  15:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because you think your policy-free argument is an appropriate use of Wikipedia that does not make it all right to keep enforcing your personal opinion and now accuse me of a bad-faith canvassing, when I was merely trying to garner any sort of interest from folks who may watch talk of the same (but actually referenced) list in the main namespace. After so many years, I'm tired of screaming into the void here in template talk where nobody really seems to be listening. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no policy basis for either of our views; this is simply a matter of editorial discretion. You've also been here long enough to know that there is a different between notifying editors of a discussion in a neutral manner, and doing so in a way that makes it clear you are seeking editors to back up your position, which you've now also done at WT:E&R... Number   5  7  20:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that is just nonsense. The template namespace is not a free-for-all where you can be magically exempt from policies. If you added links to e.g an Asian animal species in this template, do you think that would be a matter of editorial discretion?! --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood what I said. What I mean is that there is no policy or guideline that is relevant to this discussion. Whether the elections are included in one row or another is simply down to editorial discretion; there is no guideline that says elections prior to independence should be in a certain row or not. Number   5  7  23:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That is simply not correct, WP:NAVBOX guideline clearly says: 'The article links in a navigation template should be grouped into clusters, by topic, or by era, etc.' There's certainly room within this for editorial discretion, but the framework is pretty clear. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And now I noticed that we went over this three years ago... I find this argument that we're already grouping by topic and therefore we shouldn't group by era self-contradicting, because the rest of the template currently effectively implements a grouping by era by not having the remaining Yugoslav and Austro-Hungarian items listed within it. Not marking the transitional Yugoslav elections in any way is making an exception, cherry-picking. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think on this we'll just have to agree to disagree; I think grouping by type (president/parliamentary etc) is sufficient. These templates are meant to be simple navigational guides; they are not the place to try and explain convoluted histories. Number   5  7  23:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The distinction between independent states and those that are not are one of the simpler ones to an average reader. It's most certainly a clearer distinction than "parliamentary" and "chamber of counties"! --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * An average reader can more easily browse through a template that list all parliamentary elections of a country rather than having to switch from one template to another every time the country changed its regime, international status or electoral system.--Aréat (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * we are talking about the latest change that I was proposing which merely changed the formatting inside this same template, there is no template switching involved whatsoever. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The 1990 elections should be deleted from the template or given separate sections, as they occurred while Croatia was a part of Yugoslavia. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? This isn't done for other countries. Number   5  7  20:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a relevant example for some of these other countries? I discussed Malta above, and it was completely ignored. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The current practice all over election templates is to include election from before independence when the territory of the country is the same as it was as a dependent entity. See for example Namibia, Slovenia or East Timor. --Aréat (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * What does "it was as a dependent entity" mean? Did you come up with this explanation yourself or is it the result of some sort of a process? Ultimately, all of these are giving the impression to readers that succession of states, electoral system, etc are meaningless details on the topic of elections, which is patent nonsense. Indeed I remember trying to fix at least some of the other templates before, but was summarily reverted by Number 57. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The territory of Croatia as a part of Yugoslavia and of Croatia as an independant country is the same. Simple as that. So it make sense to link one to another. Are you suggesting that we should instead make separate templates for the same country each time it become independent, change system of governement or change electoral system? Because that would be very inconvenient, jumping constantly from election template to another. Many countries barely have a few election between one of those occurences.--Aréat (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course some elements of the system can change between elections, but it's a slippery slope - if we don't mark these transitional elections somehow, how do we explain the lack of listing all the other elections from SR Croatia in the same list? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do think those should be added in the template, in the same way we do for Russia, Armenia or Belarus, for example. In which election template would you add it, otherwise?--Aréat (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would support this; they are on Montenegrin elections and Serbian elections as the dates are known. Number   5  7  23:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * They're already split off to Yugoslav elections. It's amusing we're talking here about examples of former Soviet and Yugoslav republics about navigating to their single-party state elections, and literally all of the links are red links, so nobody is actually navigating readers anywhere. This has to be a classic example of abusing the concept of navigation templates to prove some sort of a very intricate WP:POINT. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, they aren't. Those are the election at the Yugoslavia level, not the ones at the Socialist Republic of Croatia level. And I believe it make more sense to have the Socialist Republic of Croatia elections on the Croatian elections template rather than on the Yugoslavia election template. Most of those elections pages being red on the english wiki is another matter entirely, not unusual for old, not well knows election in non english countries, which are very often either red links or stubs. Look at the very same Yugoslav elections template you linked. All upper house elections are red links too. Doesn't mean them being there is an abuse nor that it should be removed.--Aréat (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So, would you dump a list of red links here in front of the list of blue links, disregarding what Elections in Croatia actually describes, or? :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would add links, not dump them. Anyways, isn't your proposal to add those red links on a "prior to independence" bottom line? That would mix together all those parliamentary and local election and still have them added as red links. How is that better?--Aréat (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My proposal is exactly what is in that edit that got senselessly reverted. I don't really see any sense in arguing about weird other possibilities that do not actually exist. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought it would necessarily be expanded. You mean your proposal is to have a section "prior to independence" with only links to the 1990 parliamentary and local election, and not any other election prior to independence? Why?--Aréat (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Because they exist, and can actually have readers navigated to them? BTW while we're entertaining this little discussion, do you maybe want to go back in the history and examine what I had proposed way earlier, a navbox for all elections prior to independence that could then be transcluded here? We went through several iterations here, and Number 57 reverted them all. *facepalm* --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I also made proposals that you reverted. I don't understand why you have to be so obnoxious during discussions. Perhaps you could tone down the attitude a bit? Number   5  7  21:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Which were these, can you remind me please, I honestly don't remember at this point? Likewise, you could tone down the obstinate reversions a bit? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * See below. And seriously, knock the attitude on the head please. Number   5  7  10:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

But the 1990 local election page doesn't exist, yet you still included it, so what about the other prior to independence elections? All election templates of every country have all the election we know happened, even if it mean some red links. That's because only showing the links to pages that exist would make the readers wrongly believe no election happened in-between existing pages (for example removing the Minorities Councils and Representatives 2007 and 2011 red links here would make it appear like there were no election between 2003 and 2015.). It also encourage users to create these red links pages. Do we agree on this practice? If so, it mean your proposal with a "Prior to independence" line would include more than a dozen of parliamentary and local election red links. What would be the point of not simply have them in the normal Parliamentary and local elections lines, then? I've seen your 29 May 2019 revision with a "See also: Elections in Croatia before independence". I've been discussing with you above about why I believe it's not a good idea to have different templates of the same entities before and after independence, and you told me off saying "there is no template switching involved whatsoever". Or maybe you're talking about another version? If so, could you please link it?--Aréat (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to delete the existing link to the complementary 1990 election, that is all. Fundamentally, I think there were actually three elections in 1990 because of the political system at the time, so that link might actually be somewhat inaccurate. If we were to actually have a proper set of articles about SR Croatia elections, it would be completely fair to have a group in a navbox about them. I'm most concerned about them being squashed into the same list as everything else. About above, I distinctly remember a variant where it was included in this template. I went to the history and found e.g. this one. Going back further, you can see that it was pretty much like that much earlier, like here. This all started when Number 57 made a change to "simplify" the template despite years of it being just fine, and now enforcing his will since then. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not been 'enforcing my will'; I suggested this simplification; you largely reverted but created a new line for SR Croatia elections, I took it back to the original, you split out all pre-independence elections (which effectively created the current layout), then I reinstated the 1990 ones. If I had been enforcing what I wanted, we'd still have the Dalmatian/Croatia-Slavonia ones in (which Tzowu also supported in the previous discussion about this).
 * More importantly, you said that for years the template layout was "just fine". That layout was this, in which the 1990 elections were in the same rows that the current version has – why was this "just fine" then, but not now? The 1990 elections had been in the same row as the post-1990 elections ever since the very first version of the template in 2005. Number   5  7  10:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * When I last mass-moved the pre-indepence elections, I moved them to a separate template that was linked from here, but was of the same context and could have been transcluded as well; but then recently this got killed in Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_29. You previously seem to have squashed these in Surely if they should be in here rather than there, we would advocate for the result of that discussion to be merge, not delete? For the 1990 ones, I think I didn't notice them before because at the time they were only one small part of that larger discussion. I recall noticing them and trying to at least use formatting to point them out within the same row, but this was also reverted. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)