Template talk:French elections

message: There will be a referendum in Alsace on 7 April 2013, deciding wether to unite the departments of Alsace.  Liam987(talk) 18:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This template is for national-level elections only. If there is a template for elections in the Alsace, then it should be included on there.  Cheers, Number 57 20:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alsace referendum 

message: Should a different section be added for Corsica? The current way doesn't seem very practical to me, even more so when we will have several of these elections.--Aréat (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so. It just needs "(Corsica)" removing to bring it in line with other countries' templates (e.g. ), so I've done that. Number 57 12:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a bit weird to include, honestly. It's not a national election like all of the others in the table, even if it was an off-year – it might be appropriate in a Corsican elections template, but probably not here. Mélencron (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a regional election though, so it would be odder to not have the link there, as otherwise readers may think there were no regional elections in 2015. Number 57 14:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, sorry, did you mean to say 2017? Mélencron (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sorry I did. Number 57 20:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Is it really a regional election, though? --Aréat (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, it's an intermediate election that's part of the same sequence (2015/2021), but I don't think it belongs here as it's not a national election. Mélencron (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: None of them in that row are national elections though :) But seriously, it's part of the regional election cycle and we'd be remiss to omit it – I'd again point at the Italian template as a way of doing it (or ). Number 57 20:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Separate rows for individual administrative divisions is a no-no, otherwise some templates will quickly balloon to unreadable proportions. And adding stuff in brackets makes templates overly complex. The row is for regional elections, and the Corsican election is a regional election, so I don't see what's not clear. The German template doesn't link to individual state election articles because there are no articles for German state elections, 2017 or suchlike, in which case it would – IMO we currently largely have consistency. Number 57 10:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is the french version, (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le:Palette_Scrutins_en_France_sous_la_Cinqui%C3%A8me_R%C3%A9publique), such a non-non ?--Aréat (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say so. Far too large and complex to be easily comprehendable by readers. Number 57 12:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Of course I don't advocate for huge navigation templates (like this Austrian one), but in my opinion it is a good compromise to note between brackets if there is an election that differs from the other elections in what body/bodies is/are concerned in that article. And in certain cases (if there are one or two special cases with a larger number of elections for them), a separate row is an appropriate solution. SPQRobin (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corsica 

message: @Number 57 Is there a reason not to add the indirect elections beyond "we just don't" or "the note says so"? If this talk page is to be believed, you have encountered plenty of disagreement over the years re: whether or not to include the indirect elections, so this doesn't seem to be a consensus decision. I don't understand the rationale of not including them at all, even if they are explicitly distinguished from the direct elections. XTheBedrockX (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a longstanding consensus not to include indirect elections in this series of templates, as they are not elections the public participated in (and including indirect elections risks a huge amount of template inflation, as you may end up with articles on elections for parliament speakers etc). This consensus is why only direct presidential elections are included in , , , , , , , ,  and so on. There are of course occasional queries from editors who are not familiar with this topic area (hence the discussions above), but usually when the situation is explained, they're usually fine with it. Cheers, Number 57 20:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indirect elections