Talk:1960 South African republic referendum: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:37, 2 July 2022

	This article 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

South Africa: Politics C‑class High‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the South African politics task force.

Colours in infobox are misleading

The 'Yes' and 'No' colours are displaying as pale blue for Yes and green for No, while the map shows all the provinces which voted Yes coloured solid green and the one which voted No solid red. Can someone please fix this? Moonraker (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of the referendum

User:Johnsc1277, here is a picture of the ballot paper right from the Government Gazette:

Please stop changing it to the wrong wording. - htonl (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another photo which shows the wording of the ballot (top center). And another. - htonl (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Htonl, It's or not for. Johnsc1277 (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? How can you keep saying this when all the evidence proves you are wrong? - htonl (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong. Johnsc1277 (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Htonl: Don't waste your time with this, this is clearly someone who doesn't want to hear or is simply a wind-up merchant. If they revert again, they'll probably be blocked. Number 5 7 16:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a wind up merchant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Johnsc1277 (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Results by electoral division

Referendum results by electoral division (parliamentary constituency) as published on the Government Gazette are now included in the article. The relevant table probably deserves its own article, but I will leave such task to others. Manuel Alvarez-Rivera (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 :{{ping|Htonl}} Don't waste your time with this, this is clearly someone who [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT|doesn't want to hear]] or is simply a wind-up merchant. If they revert again, they'll probably be blocked. [[User:Number 57|<span style="color:orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color:green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color:blue;">7</span>]] 16:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 I am not a wind up merchant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Johnsc1277|Johnsc1277]] ([[User talk:Johnsc1277|talk]]) 17:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
+== Results by electoral division ==
+Referendum results by electoral division (parliamentary constituency) as published on the Government Gazette are now included in the article.  The relevant table probably deserves its own article, but I will leave such task to others. [[User:Manuel Alvarez-Rivera|Manuel Alvarez-Rivera]] ([[User talk:Manuel Alvarez-Rivera|talk]]) 02:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)