Elections and Referendums Template‑class

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 articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

	India Template‑class
This template is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Hi @ Number 57:: I understand the point behind not wanting a large space following a small number of elections, but I think it is still necessary to clarify that these earlier elections (1952, 1957 and 1962) were not to the Legislative Assembly. Let me know what you think of the new lay out. I'm not wedded to this version, if you have an alternative, please suggest. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 15:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi Goldsztajn. As this is simply a navigational aid between election years, I don't think it's necessary to differentiate the predecessors of the Legislative Assembly – if a reader clicks through to one of the pre-1957 articles, it will be immediately clear that it was not called the Legislative Assembly at the time. For example, on Template:Zambian elections we don't mark out the years when elections were to the Advisory Council or Legislative Council as being different to the modern parliament, as they gradually succeeded each other as the legislature of the country. As long as the previous bodies were equivalent to the modern one in being the highest legislative bodies of Tripura, I think it shouldn't need marking out. Number 5 7 16:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi – the final part of your response reinforces the point I was trying to make; that is, in the case of the Electoral College, this was a substantially different body (it had no legislative power and only existed to nominate Tripura's Rajya Sabha representative); with the Territorial Council this included nominated members following the 1957 and 1962 elections (albeit a small number) and did not have the same scope of power as later since Tripura was a Union Territory (and not a state) at the time. Regards-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 17:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. If it was the highest legislative body (regardless of what powers or its membership) we don't tend to denote the difference. Many countries that were formerly colonies have legislatures that started off with few elected members and few powers, but gradually evolved into fully-functioning parliaments (for example, the Papua New Guinean Legislative Council initially only had three elected members and 25 appointed ones). I think here the Territorial Council fits this description. The electoral college seems to be a completely difference one-off body, which TBH I'm not really sure what to do with. Number 5 7 17:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Just to clarify - did you look at my edit to the template *after* your revert? Are you saying you are against using a footnote? This is what I was asking you about. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 07:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes, apologies – I don't think the footnote is necessary for the Territorial Council. However, I don't think the Electoral College election fits in this row even with a note. Perhaps that one might have to have its own row? Number 5 7 08:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC) reply