Template talk:Montenegrin elections

Is there a way to put a name of the parliament for the corresponding elections - because they greatly differ.

In 1905 it was the Constitutional Assembly of the Princedom of Montenegro, in 1907 it was the Serbian National Assembly of the Princedom of Montenegro, in 1911 and 1913 Serbian National Assembly of the Kingdom of Montenegro, in 1918 the Great Assembly of the Serb People in Montenegro, and in 1990, 1992, 1996, 1998, 2001 and 2002 the Assembly of the Republic of Montenegro and in 2006 the Constitutional Assembly of Montenegro. --PaxEquilibrium 12:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it matters in the template - they are all some form of parliamentary election - I think it is for the articles themselves to say that. Otherwise the template would look quite messy. Number 5 7 13:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it is so in the Yugoslavian elections template... --PaxEquilibrium 13:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Are you saying that some of them are Upper House (e.g. Senate) elections and some are Lower House (e.g. Commons)? If so, which are which, and we can divide them. Number 5 7 13:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the first one - Constitutional. --PaxEquilibrium 14:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, we have tended to group Constituational Assemblies in with parliamentary elections in other templates; the problem being that there are so few (2 being the highest I've seen!) that it is hardly worth another line. In Template:Russian elections it was marked with a (CA), so we could do that if you want - I am in favour of leaving it as it is, but I will bow to your superior knowledge of all things Balkan :) Number 5 7 14:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three questions

1. Should I remove the 1918 parliamentary election, because of it's particulary unorthodox nature?
2. Should I add the Communist 1945-1990 elections?
3. Should I add the local elections for the Federal Assembly (of Yugoslavia) - that were held from 1992 to 2000? --PaxEquilibrium 21:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R1: How was it unorthodox?

R2: Were they for an autonomous Montenegrin parliament? If so, yes

R3: Don't think so.

пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, how?

2. Exactly.

3. Mh, why not? —Nightstallion 21:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3: As these weren't for a Montenegrin parliament (they were for the Yugoslavian one), they should only be in Template:Yugoslavian elections. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there *also* was a Montenegrin Parliament... —Nightstallion 21:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I *love* your new signature. ;) —Nightstallion 21:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1992-2000 Yugoslav-era Montenegrin parliament elections are already on the template aren't they? Also, thanks for your kind words about my signature. Can you guess what the letters used have in common? :) пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. It was illegal.

2. Yes, every republic had its own parliament - the only difference is that many Deputies were appointed, and in all elections there was only one choice (so, there was no choice at all - the turnout also whether 10% or 70% didn't matter), and that one was always elected.

3. Why not place it at both places? --PaxEquilibrium 22:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Mh. Then, no.

2. I'd still say we should include it.

3. Yeah -- the federal parliament elections in the Yugoslavian template, the autonomous parliament elections for Montenegro and Serbia (plus earlier Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Macedonia) in the Montenegrin/Serbian/... template. —Nightstallion 12:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. How were they illegal? I guess we could classify any election held by an illegitimate regime as illegal. If everyone voted, it's still an election.

2. Yes, they should be included. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the letters... all from IPA, perhaps? —Nightstallion 12:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that, but a letter from every alphabet used by members of the European Broadcasting Union (except our one of course). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well I wrote quite a large explanation - but you didn't answer so I thought it was far too confusing. It's here if you could read it.

3. Hm? --PaxEquilibrium 20:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems from what you wrote that the election was sort of recognised a couple of years after it happened. If it was a nationwide vote, then it's good enough for me. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was illegal - but the King's List participated in the election (can this be understood that he accepted it or no?). But it should be noted that he immediately opposed the decision of the assembly - which included his deposing, instigating a rebellion in 1919, which onwards continued in a guerrilla resistance of a small band of men at arms. However in 1920 he accepted all decisions of this 'illegal' parliament.

Yeah, it was nation-wide; representative election in all municipalities for the parliament were held. --PaxEquilibrium 23:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1945-1990 elections removal suggestion

I think we should remove the 1946, 1950, 1953, 1958 1963, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1982, 1986 and 1989 alleged and unconfirmed parliamentary election years from this template. We have no real evidence, or any valid source that they were actually held in the years currenly indicated in this template. MneEdit 13:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The years are confirmed here, Number 5 7 13:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]