I propose we remove the referendums from this template. Referendums are not the same thing as templates, and it is unlikely that we will ever have encyclopedia articles on each of the many liquor licensing referendums.-gadfium 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest moving them to its own template Brian | (Talk) 01:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How would that help? Unless you expect that many of the articles in the template will be written someday, the new template will be almost entirely redlinks.-gadfium 02:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I was not very clear. It in wrong imo, to have Referendums on the election template, however if we want a Referendums template, it should be on its own template, as is the case in other wikipedia templates Brian | (Talk) 02:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the referendums are reasonbly important and/or interesting: the electoral reform referendums, military conscription and six o clock closing spring to mind. I would be happy to do brief pages on each of these. I suggest the template be rejigged to allow referendums to be grouped by subject, with the dates in brackets, ie Electoral Reform (1992 and 1993); Liquor Licencing (1911-1987) etc. As everyone has said, no one will ever write articles on each of the individual liquor licensing referendums, but one article on all of them would work.

Currently the electoral reform referendum links go straight to the electoral reform pages, and this might provide a model for the others; they should be more a history of the issue than anything else. --Helenalex 02:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

...however if we want a Referendums template, it should be on its own template, as is the case in other wikipedia templates. Actually referenda are included in the election templates in all other countries, the rationale being that the templates include all votes held at the national level. See the complete set here. Number 57 11:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

keep the referenda (?) in this template; the idea of a template is to provide a short cut without needing to chase references. And why remove the short-cut to By-elections, which I find very useful! Hugo999 (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why the by-elections short-cut was commented out. You could ask the editor why on their talk page, or just be bold and remove the comment tags. The discussion on whether referendums should be included concluded over a year ago.-gadfium 06:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want, you can add them on the end of the general election lines like {{Irish elections}}. As for why I removed them in this edit, look at what the template looked like before I did - it leaves an empty line with a dot in it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I just added the by-elections as in the Irish template. —Nightstallion 23:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Should there be child navboxes in the referenda section, distinguishing between government and citizen initiated referenda? Adabow (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

@Nixinova: Have you seen MOS:DATERANGE? Schwede66 03:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)