Template talk:Hong Kong elections

The 2005 election should definitely be in here, no question about that. The second flag is unnecessary, we only use the current flag for these templates. —Nightstallion 14:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sanitary board elections

I am still struggling to understand why anyone thinks these elections should not be on this template, or should have a template of their own. They are municipal elections (it was the same in England, where sanitary boards were also the forerunners of local councils). If you really want to be pedantic, then have a separate row for them, but removing them from the template is really not the way to go. Number 57 08:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It's better to talk over here before anyone start the revert war. I am the one who wrote all those Sanitary Board and Urban Council elections articles and I think I'm in a good position to address the reasons I think the Sanitary Board elections should not included in the election box:

1. They are not the same as the Urban Council so it's better to be distinguished, even though the Sanitary Board was the forerunner of the Urban Council.
2. They are among other minor elections in which the electorates were limited (in those years there were elections for Licensing Boards and elections among the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce and also Justices of Peace for two unofficial seats on the Legislative Council but I did not include them because they were mostly uncontested, without much information, as well as their limited electorate), the significance was not comparable to the Legislative Council or Chief Executive elections, nor they were too ancient so they were better be separated in different boxes. Take a look of Template:United Kingdom elections which you used as an examples, the earliest local elections in the box was 1949. They did not include the local elections too ancient either. Lmmnhn (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• The reason local elections are not on the UK template prior to 1949 is only because the articles haven't been created - 1949 is not an important year in terms of local government reform (local government remained largely unchanged between the 1880s and the 1970s). Some templates go much further back (see e.g. Template:London elections)
• If you want to distinguish them, then I suggest the answer is to have a separate row on this template. I still think they are still effectively municipal elections, but if we need to compromise, then I think that this is a sensible solution. Number 57 09:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It was the first one who created those Sanitary Board elections and put it on this box and later realized that there were a lot more minor elections during those years and it would be better to separate them from the more modern ones, i.e. the Urban Council Ordinance 1935, the 1980s democratizations and the elections in the SAR period since they were so different in nature and practice as well. So I removed those Sanitary Board elections from the box after a long consideration. I would love those Sanitary Board elections get more exposed too. If you must insist the Sanitary Board elections to be included then I think we can leave it for now and wait until I can create the articles on those other minor elections during those years later. Anyway thanks for your concern on the works on Hong Kong electoral history. Lmmnhn (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

So shall we create a separate row, or just leave them under "Municipal elections"? They were municipal elections at the time, so I don't think either solution is a bad one. Number 57 11:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we can use "Sanitary Board &
Municipal elections" instead of just "municipal elections." Lmmnhn (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds sensible - I've amended the template. Number 57 16:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Chief Executive elections

Is there any reason to keep these indirect presidential elections on the template? Sladnick (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)