This template is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
This template is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union
West Berlin
Electuins in 1979 CD2, SD+1 IN 1984 CD2 ,SD+1 in 1989 CD1 ,SD+1, ECO+1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.200.9.34 (talk) 02:31, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
Didn't Greece elect MEPs after their accession and before 1984, too? —Nightstallion(?)23:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-01-02T23:19:00.000Z","author":"Nightstallion","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Nightstallion-2007-01-02T23:19:00.000Z-West_Berlin","replies":[],"displayName":"Nightst"}}-->
I based this on the pre-standardisation Greek elections template, which suggested they didn't. Might be wrong though! Number 5709:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-01-03T09:52:00.000Z","author":"Number 57","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Number_57-2007-01-03T09:52:00.000Z-West_Berlin","replies":[]}}-->
[1] seems to indicate that they did elect their MEPs in 1981... —Nightstallion(?)15:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-01-03T15:08:00.000Z","author":"Nightstallion","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Nightstallion-2007-01-03T15:08:00.000Z-West_Berlin","replies":[],"displayName":"Nightst"}}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Nightstallion-2007-01-03T13:59:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Size_of_template_and_abbreviations-2007-01-03T13:59:00.000Z","replies":["c-Nightstallion-2007-01-03T13:59:00.000Z-Size_of_template_and_abbreviations","c-Number_57-2007-01-03T14:10:00.000Z-Size_of_template_and_abbreviations","c-Nightstallion-2007-01-03T14:42:00.000Z-Size_of_template_and_abbreviations","c-Number_57-2007-01-03T14:59:00.000Z-Size_of_template_and_abbreviations","c-Nightstallion-2007-01-03T15:04:00.000Z-Size_of_template_and_abbreviations"],"text":"Size of template and abbreviations","linkableTitle":"Size of template and abbreviations"}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Nightstallion-2007-01-03T13:59:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Size_of_template_and_abbreviations-2007-01-03T13:59:00.000Z","replies":["c-Nightstallion-2007-01-03T13:59:00.000Z-Size_of_template_and_abbreviations","c-Number_57-2007-01-03T14:10:00.000Z-Size_of_template_and_abbreviations","c-Nightstallion-2007-01-03T14:42:00.000Z-Size_of_template_and_abbreviations","c-Number_57-2007-01-03T14:59:00.000Z-Size_of_template_and_abbreviations","c-Nightstallion-2007-01-03T15:04:00.000Z-Size_of_template_and_abbreviations"],"text":"Size of template and abbreviations","linkableTitle":"Size of template and abbreviations"}-->
There's two reasons why I prefer my way of structuring this template: Firstly, the abbreviations you used are non-standard in some cases, and do not really help with navigating; secondly, it helps a lot to have the supplementary elections in separate rows. I do realise the template takes up a little bit more space the way I do it, but since it's only at the very bottom of articles, anyway, that doesn't really hurt. —Nightstallion(?)13:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-01-03T13:59:00.000Z","author":"Nightstallion","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Nightstallion-2007-01-03T13:59:00.000Z-Size_of_template_and_abbreviations","replies":[],"displayName":"Nightst"}}-->
No offence, but I think it looks a bit of a mess this way, especially the overlap of country names for the 2004 elections (and coming 2009 elections). This morning's edit tabulised it so they couldn't overlap like this. Perhaps the 1987, 1995 and 2007 elections could have a seperate row, but I don't think it's needed as they are really part of the same election as the previous one.
Which country names are non-standard? The UK is the only non-IOC code, and arguably the only country which it is not needed for (as also the GBR code ignores Northern Ireland).
Anyway, please don't revert it again this time! Thanks, Number 5714:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-01-03T14:10:00.000Z","author":"Number 57","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Number_57-2007-01-03T14:10:00.000Z-Size_of_template_and_abbreviations","replies":[]}}-->
I've tried it once more, properly tabularising it this time; I'm mainly against abbreviating the country names because it creates unnecessary confusion (there's no need to save space, really; the space we save is not really used for anything else, as I've tried to reason above), especially since "Spain" is suddenly between "Denmark" and "Estonia"... —Nightstallion(?)14:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-01-03T14:42:00.000Z","author":"Nightstallion","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Nightstallion-2007-01-03T14:42:00.000Z-Size_of_template_and_abbreviations","replies":[],"displayName":"Nightst"}}-->
How about this version as a compromise - long names used, but no off year elections in the left hand column? The previous edit came out a bit strange - years didn't line up (possibly set to a certain screen width?). Number 5714:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-01-03T14:59:00.000Z","author":"Number 57","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Number_57-2007-01-03T14:59:00.000Z-Size_of_template_and_abbreviations","replies":[]}}-->
Aye, that's a very fair compromise, thanks! I touched it up a bit, italicising the future elections and such. Thanks for compromising! :) —Nightstallion(?)15:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-01-03T15:04:00.000Z","author":"Nightstallion","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Nightstallion-2007-01-03T15:04:00.000Z-Size_of_template_and_abbreviations","replies":[],"displayName":"Nightst"}}-->
I removed the flag on the end because it looked rubbish tacked onto the end, was replaced with this message "+ flag as per standard". Can I just ask, what "standard"?!? -JLogan16:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-04-22T16:30:00.000Z","author":"JLogan","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-JLogan-2007-04-22T16:30:00.000Z-Flag","replies":["c-Number_57-2007-04-22T16:54:00.000Z-JLogan-2007-04-22T16:30:00.000Z"]}}-->
Like the 201 other election templates (see Category:Election templates)! Number5716:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-04-22T16:54:00.000Z","author":"Number 57","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Number_57-2007-04-22T16:54:00.000Z-JLogan-2007-04-22T16:30:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Number"}}-->
David Kernow asked me why I fully reverted his edit a month ago. He basically created a template I did so for three reasons:
It was an undiscussed major change to a template without a substantive edit summary, I didn't think that was procedurally right;
It made the template more difficult to use by hiding all relevant information;
It arbitarily cut the template in half;
It removed all kinds of nuances from the template.
Therefore I reverted it. C mon07:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-05-21T07:13:00.000Z","author":"C mon","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-C_mon-2007-05-21T07:13:00.000Z-Full_Reversion","replies":[]}}-->
Apologies for my over-enthusiasm in redesigning the template. Something must've prompted me to do so, although I can't think why I divided it in half (and horizontally rather than vertically). Hopefully the following retains all the nuances:
[[Category:Election templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:European Union templates|Elections]]
Thanks in advance for feedback! Best wishes, David Kernow(talk)14:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-05-21T14:58:00.000Z","author":"David Kernow","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-David_Kernow-2007-05-21T14:58:00.000Z-Full_Reversion","replies":["c-C_mon-2007-05-21T21:18:00.000Z-David_Kernow-2007-05-21T14:58:00.000Z"]}}-->
IMHO your proposal is fine. C mon21:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-05-21T21:18:00.000Z","author":"C mon","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-C_mon-2007-05-21T21:18:00.000Z-David_Kernow-2007-05-21T14:58:00.000Z","replies":["c-Number_57-2007-05-21T21:40:00.000Z-C_mon-2007-05-21T21:18:00.000Z"]}}-->
It looks ok to me too (perhaps the flag could be moved to the right of the text for consistency with other election templates?). One concern is its size - and it will be even worse when the 2014 elections come around! Perhaps the country names could be replaced by three letter ISO codes in order to get each election on one line (as well as including off year elections in the on year rows)? Number5721:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-05-21T21:40:00.000Z","author":"Number 57","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Number_57-2007-05-21T21:40:00.000Z-C_mon-2007-05-21T21:18:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Number"}}-->
[[Category:Election templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:European Union templates|Elections]]
Yes, using the three-letter ISO codes seems a good idea! I've also amended the above (rather than add even more to this page's size) so that the off-year election years appear in the group headings and that the gap between groups is slightly larger (i.e. more distinct, using <div>s). If this still okay, I'll transfer the above to the template. Yours, David(talk)00:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-05-22T00:35:00.000Z","author":"David Kernow","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-David_Kernow-2007-05-22T00:35:00.000Z-Full_Reversion","replies":[],"displayName":"David"}}-->
PS Re the flagicon position, it seems a little odd as a suffix rather than a prefix; cf, for example, some of the templates added to the ends of country articles. Personally, I'm not too keen on either, as collectively the varied positions of flagicons in groups of (collapsed) templates tend to look untidy. It reminds me of a suggestion I meant to make somewhere some time ago, that templates whose titlebars included flagicons are formatted as currently here (for example), with, say, the v·d·e links in the top righthand corner of the template body (i.e. below the [show/hide] link). Any thoughts...?
I think it would be nicer to keep the order of the countries as similar as possible, so they form collumns like france does in the first three. C mon07:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-05-22T07:26:00.000Z","author":"C mon","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-C_mon-2007-05-22T07:26:00.000Z-Full_Reversion","replies":["c-Number_57-2007-05-22T08:28:00.000Z-C_mon-2007-05-22T07:26:00.000Z"]}}-->
I'm not sure we need the [hide] option at all given that the template will be at the bottom of articles (and no other template is there in most cases) - the v-d-e could go in the top right per other election templates. Number5708:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-05-22T08:28:00.000Z","author":"Number 57","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Number_57-2007-05-22T08:28:00.000Z-C_mon-2007-05-22T07:26:00.000Z","replies":["c-David_Kernow-2007-05-22T15:38:00.000Z-Number_57-2007-05-22T08:28:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Number"}}-->
...although currently that would make it non-standard as regards {{Navbox generic}} (and {{Navigation}})-based templates. Perhaps, though, this option could be added to {{Navbox generic}}; this proposal (and the thread containing it) may be of interest...
Re the countries' order, I guess my instinct would be the status quo, i.e. alphabetically by code, but if the consensus is otherwise, fine! In the meantime, I hope I've not been too quick to copy the above version to the template page. Yours, David(talk)15:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-05-22T15:38:00.000Z","author":"David Kernow","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-David_Kernow-2007-05-22T15:38:00.000Z-Number_57-2007-05-22T08:28:00.000Z","replies":["c-Number_57-2007-05-22T16:02:00.000Z-David_Kernow-2007-05-22T15:38:00.000Z"],"displayName":"David"}}-->
No, fine by me. I've alphabetised the codes and shrunk it slightly (by not having <return> between each link). Number5716:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-05-22T16:02:00.000Z","author":"Number 57","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Number_57-2007-05-22T16:02:00.000Z-David_Kernow-2007-05-22T15:38:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Number"}}-->
Which of the two versions [DK: discussed above] do people prefer? I don't really understand your reasoning behind the change Nightstallion - I thought it would be better to (a) have the 3 letter codes in alphabetical order rather than remain in the order that the country names come in, and (b) to reduce the redundant space as much as possible. Comments? Number5719:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-05-22T19:59:00.000Z","author":"Number 57","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Number_57-2007-05-22T19:59:00.000Z-Which_version","replies":[],"displayName":"Number"}}-->
[Edit-conflicted with:]
User:Nightstallionhas indicated he'd prefer the countries' names; on reflection, (1) using the three-letter codes does presume users are comfortable with them; and (2) I don't reckon using the names will increase the template's size significantly. Since they were in use before, would anybody ibject if they were reinstated...? David(talk)20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-05-22T20:01:00.000Z","author":"David Kernow","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-David_Kernow-2007-05-22T20:01:00.000Z-Which_version","replies":[],"displayName":"David"}}-->
I will implement the first proposal immediately. If anybody has any strong feelings for or against the second proposal, please make them known.
Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-01-08T22:19:00.000Z","author":"Anameofmyveryown","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Anameofmyveryown-2008-01-08T22:19:00.000Z-Two_things","replies":[]}}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Ambi_Valent-2009-06-12T18:32:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Gibraltar_by_itself,_but_not_Northern_Ireland?-2009-06-12T18:32:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ambi_Valent-2009-06-12T18:32:00.000Z-Gibraltar_by_itself,_but_not_Northern_Ireland?","c-Borgarde-2009-06-15T11:06:00.000Z-Gibraltar_by_itself,_but_not_Northern_Ireland?"],"text":"Gibraltar by itself, but not Northern Ireland?","linkableTitle":"Gibraltar by itself, but not Northern Ireland?"}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Ambi_Valent-2009-06-12T18:32:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Gibraltar_by_itself,_but_not_Northern_Ireland?-2009-06-12T18:32:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ambi_Valent-2009-06-12T18:32:00.000Z-Gibraltar_by_itself,_but_not_Northern_Ireland?","c-Borgarde-2009-06-15T11:06:00.000Z-Gibraltar_by_itself,_but_not_Northern_Ireland?"],"text":"Gibraltar by itself, but not Northern Ireland?","linkableTitle":"Gibraltar by itself, but not Northern Ireland?"}-->
There are articles about the EU elections in Gibraltar, where the votes are counted as part of the SW England region, but not about Northern Ireland, which elects its MEPs in its own region and with its own rules different from the rest of the UK.
I think either Gibraltar should be left out, or Northern Ireland should get its own articles. Ambi Valent (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-06-12T18:32:00.000Z","author":"Ambi Valent","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ambi_Valent-2009-06-12T18:32:00.000Z-Gibraltar_by_itself,_but_not_Northern_Ireland?","replies":["c-Number_57-2009-06-12T19:08:00.000Z-Ambi_Valent-2009-06-12T18:32:00.000Z"]}}-->
The difference is that Northern Ireland is part of the UK, but Gibraltar is not. пﮟოьεԻ5719:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-06-12T19:08:00.000Z","author":"Number 57","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Number_57-2009-06-12T19:08:00.000Z-Ambi_Valent-2009-06-12T18:32:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ambi_Valent-2009-06-12T21:20:00.000Z-Number_57-2009-06-12T19:08:00.000Z"],"displayName":"\u043f\ufb9f\u10dd\u044c\u03b5\u053b"}}-->
All citizens of Gibraltar together still make out only fractions of a seat. Looking at the results, the elected members of SW England in 2004 and 2009 would not change, regardless how the actual voters of Gibraltar voted. With a Gibraltar turnout rate of 100% concentrated on a single party, it would have been possible to move a seat from Con to Green in 2009, and from Con to LibDem in 2004. But these theoretically possible changes run against Gibraltar's voters, who gave only 7,6% to the LibDems in 2004 and only 3,2% to the Greens in 2009. (Even on Malta, Gibraltar's voters would only amount to just less than half a seat) Ambi Valent (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-06-12T21:20:00.000Z","author":"Ambi Valent","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Ambi_Valent-2009-06-12T21:20:00.000Z-Number_57-2009-06-12T19:08:00.000Z","replies":["c-Number_57-2009-06-13T08:56:00.000Z-Ambi_Valent-2009-06-12T21:20:00.000Z"]}}-->
I'm not sure what your point is? The fact that Gibraltar is so small is not a reason to exclude it; the elections still happened in a different territory. пﮟოьεԻ5708:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-06-13T08:56:00.000Z","author":"Number 57","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Number_57-2009-06-13T08:56:00.000Z-Ambi_Valent-2009-06-12T21:20:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"\u043f\ufb9f\u10dd\u044c\u03b5\u053b"}}-->
I didn't remove Gibraltar from the box because I agree with Number 57 above, but I placed it next to the UK in brackets since their votes count under the UK votes. Borgarde (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-06-15T11:06:00.000Z","author":"Borgarde","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Borgarde-2009-06-15T11:06:00.000Z-Gibraltar_by_itself,_but_not_Northern_Ireland?","replies":[]}}-->
There's a stern note inside the template telling editors not to add the UK unless the elections are confirmed. But 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom already exists, even though whether or not it'll take place remains in a state of flux.
Is there any way we could find a compromise solution that'd allow the UK to be included? Putting it in italics with a (status uncertain) note, something like that? I can imagine a lot of readers over the next couple of days checking out the template in search of up-to-date information on developments vis-à-vis the UK's participation. Moscow Mule (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-04-08T20:31:00.000Z","author":"Moscow Mule","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Moscow_Mule-2019-04-08T20:31:00.000Z-UK_2019","replies":["c-Number_57-2019-04-08T21:46:00.000Z-Moscow_Mule-2019-04-08T20:31:00.000Z"]}}-->
IMO it shouldn't be included until the elections are confirmed. Number5721:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-04-08T21:46:00.000Z","author":"Number 57","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Number_57-2019-04-08T21:46:00.000Z-Moscow_Mule-2019-04-08T20:31:00.000Z","replies":["c-Moscow_Mule-2019-04-09T15:16:00.000Z-Number_57-2019-04-08T21:46:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Number"}}-->
OK. Meh. We'll know tomorrow, presumably. Moscow Mule (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-04-09T15:16:00.000Z","author":"Moscow Mule","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Moscow_Mule-2019-04-09T15:16:00.000Z-Number_57-2019-04-08T21:46:00.000Z","replies":["c-77.193.103.116-2019-04-11T18:58:00.000Z-Moscow_Mule-2019-04-09T15:16:00.000Z","c-77.193.103.116-2019-04-11T19:01:00.000Z-Moscow_Mule-2019-04-09T15:16:00.000Z"]}}-->
If elections are not canceled, but not confirmed it could be included with the note: "unconfirmed", for instance: 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom(unconfirmed) because the reader might wonder what is in such an article.
If elections are not canceled, with a confirmed date of an unconfirmed election it could be included with the note: "date confirmed and election unconfirmed", or "confirmed date of unconfirmed election" for instance: 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom(date confirmed and election unconfirmed) because the reader might wonder what is in such an article; or 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom(confirmed date of unconfirmed election) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.116 (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-04-11T18:58:00.000Z","author":"77.193.103.116","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-77.193.103.116-2019-04-11T18:58:00.000Z-Moscow_Mule-2019-04-09T15:16:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Tlhslobus-2019-05-05T16:18:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Option_to_display_just_one_group?-2019-05-05T16:18:00.000Z","replies":["c-Tlhslobus-2019-05-05T16:18:00.000Z-Option_to_display_just_one_group?","c-Tlhslobus-2019-05-05T16:30:00.000Z-Option_to_display_just_one_group?"],"text":"Option to display just one group?","linkableTitle":"Option to display just one group?"}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Tlhslobus-2019-05-05T16:18:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Option_to_display_just_one_group?-2019-05-05T16:18:00.000Z","replies":["c-Tlhslobus-2019-05-05T16:18:00.000Z-Option_to_display_just_one_group?","c-Tlhslobus-2019-05-05T16:30:00.000Z-Option_to_display_just_one_group?"],"text":"Option to display just one group?","linkableTitle":"Option to display just one group?"}-->
Is there any way of amending this template to give an option to display just one group (such as 2019)? Due to this discussion, our main 2019 article is currently displaying the entire list by default, but it would at least arguably be preferable if it only displayed the 2019 list (and a similar change might then be wanted for the articles for other years). Tlhslobus (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-05-05T16:18:00.000Z","author":"Tlhslobus","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Tlhslobus-2019-05-05T16:18:00.000Z-Option_to_display_just_one_group?","replies":[]}}-->
(Note: I may or may not eventually have a go at trying to make this change myself, but there would be a learning curve involved for me, so even if I do eventually try, there would at the very least be a time delay, and no guarantee of success, so some more experienced template editor might do it faster and with more certainty than me). Tlhslobus (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-05-05T16:30:00.000Z","author":"Tlhslobus","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Tlhslobus-2019-05-05T16:30:00.000Z-Option_to_display_just_one_group?","replies":["c-Number_57-2019-05-05T16:35:00.000Z-Tlhslobus-2019-05-05T16:30:00.000Z"]}}-->
There may be a way of doing it on the article itself – I have seen it done elsewhere where the template is transcluded by doing something like {{European Parliament elections|displaygroup=9}} (that doesn't actually work, but just to point you in the direction of how it could be done – I can't find any hints at {{Navbox}} unfortunately). However, this template shouldn't be modified to only show 2019 as it would affect all the other years too.
In the meantime, the solution to the immediate problem would appear to be clearly listing this years' national votes in the article (which I've done). Number5716:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-05-05T16:35:00.000Z","author":"Number 57","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Number_57-2019-05-05T16:35:00.000Z-Tlhslobus-2019-05-05T16:30:00.000Z","replies":["c-Tlhslobus-2019-05-06T03:07:00.000Z-Number_57-2019-05-05T16:35:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Number"}}-->
Having had a further look at it, I won't be trying any change to the template myself, as it now seems far too difficult for me.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-05-06T03:07:00.000Z","author":"Tlhslobus","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Tlhslobus-2019-05-06T03:07:00.000Z-Number_57-2019-05-05T16:35:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
Strategi Solo vs Squad di Free Fire: Cara Menang Mudah!
