Template talk:Referendum rejected

Rejected "X" mark[edit]

Added the X-mark to add in pass v. reject visual ques. Particualrly useful in pages with multiple ballot measure tables shown like the Oregon state elections, 2008 article, when multiple tables are shown. Lestatdelc (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with accepted[edit]

I've mocked up a merged template , what do you think ? User:Gnevin/sandbox2 Gnevin (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the check and the "X" enhance the template. – Zntrip 01:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put the check and X marks back into both templates since, as explained above, they help visually when multiple templates are used in a single article to quickly convey pass or fail referendum and ballot measures. This was the feeling of everyone who voiced and opinion on the matter save Gnevin when it was discussed here. – Lestatdelc (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lestatdelc, whether or not these generic icons are ultimately removed may hinge on a dispute of the guide that Zntrip saw as policy here. It appears that it's being used as if it's policy. I thought it was policy too when I first encountered Gnevin and have been disputing it ever since. Gnevin has been editing the guide. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What has the pretty icon, got to do with merging the templates Gnevin (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gnevin, you really haven't made a case yet; you've only claiming that the images are "pretty". The fact is that they enhance readability and make it easier for a someone scanning a lot of these templates to see if a referendum was approved or not. See Oregon state elections, 2008 or California state elections, February 2008. – Zntrip 22:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the icons keep them. I am talking about merging the template. Can you please discuss this suggestion Gnevin (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits that redirect to the new Template:Referendum, however, the new template looks promising. The only question I have is how would one use the template to show that a referendum either failed or passed? In other words, how do you get "no" first and "yes" second, and vice versa? – Zntrip 00:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the yes is more than the no, the yes will be on top other wise the no will. If yespct is blank it will show Result not yet known .See User:Gnevin/sandbox2 Gnevin (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the cells bigger in the second row? Is there a way to fix this? – Zntrip 01:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already fixed this on Template:Referendum , just forgot to update by sandbox, should be fine now Gnevin (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I like it and think it should be implemented. If I could, I would like to make one suggestion. Is it possible to make an optional row for "valid votes" and additionally make the "invalid or blank votes" row optional? This way the template can be applied to more pages like Bolivian constitutional referendum, 2009 and Swiss referendum, February 2009. – Zntrip 01:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That should be doable will have a look tonight Gnevin (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix added , can I merge them now? Gnevin (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of it, the new template is great. I also added an optional "valid votes" row. – Zntrip 02:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]