This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
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 articles
2012 Leeds City Council election is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose as the main article is at Leeds City Council. Just because there is a long-established pattern, doesn't mean they are right. Lugnuts (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But what if they were wrong to begin with? If someone makes a thousand articles all based on the same initital template that has an error, then it's OK to continue with that error? Lugnuts (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you disagree with the long-established pattern of the council election articles then go to somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England where you can put your case on how those article titles should be renamed. This a major issue which covers all the English council election articles, whatever the year. It should not be done by bold moves by one user without any consensus. HLE (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - thanks for the heads up. As there wasn't a consensus to the naming conventions to begin with, I thought I'd take up the initative. Shame no-one else has put any effort into these articles. Lugnuts (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this clinches it. The website for Leeds calls it "Leeds City Council Elections". Hard to argue against this. Surely it's WP:OR to use other naming standards? Lugnuts (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:COMMON NAME probably comes into it too. Note too that at one point someone moved this page to Leeds Metropolitan Borough Council election, 2012, as part of a pattern of unhelpful pattern-breaking moves which appeared to be part of an interaction with a long-established serious editor who has now, to the loss of the encyclopedia, retired. Very sad. PamD 09:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably or definetly? I moved this page in good faith, per the comments of said user posted on my talkpage, after creating a page with an incorrect title for a Welsh election (look for yourself). Very sad that said user then left with his tail between his legs, rather than help further. Yes. Lugnuts (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency, although the consistent titles are flawed in having capital C for council. In two-tier areas some of the current titles are darned confusing. Any change should be a universal one not a change to one page. Sussexonian (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But one change can be the trailblazer. Looks bad that all the others are incorrect. This is being used as a test case, and the others can follow suit. Lugnuts (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for consistency.J3Mrs (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it's wrong? What WP:POLICY are you citing for this? Lugnuts (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see consistency because that's what people here call it. What you consider relevant might not be relevant to others. Continual badgering doesn't necessarily make you right.J3Mrs (talk) 09:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per COMMONNAME and IGNOREALLRULES. Given that most of the media, ordinary people (off-line) and the fact that no changes have been suggested until this month do not use the full name, it can be concluded that Wikipedia is best served by following that philosophy. Sometimes policy is best left ignored. 78.86.102.100 (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME isn't relevant. This isn't some long-winded scientific name, or other reason to use it. IAR suggests moving them all to this standard - do you agree? If not, why not? Lugnuts (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reading COMMONNAME a bit more, then the upcoming Olympics should be at London 2012. But it's not. Lugnuts (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does that not prove the point though? That there is no convention across Wikipedia which fits the attitude of "there's a policy for everything"? Exceptions exist to prove rules. "Leeds Council election" works in its own context, just as London 2012 does not. Sometimes it's best not to force conformity. 78.86.102.100 (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, this isn't one such time. Lugnuts (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no such thing as "Leeds Council". The full name of council should be used (one that is correct is Ipswich Borough Council election, 2012) - most of the other pages are improperly named. If the full name of the council isn't used, then Council (in the title) shouldn't be capitalised as it isn't a proper noun (i.e. it should be "Leeds council election"). Number57 10:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because this is the correct name. Surely using correct designations for all local election article names leads to a consistent outcome? If that means changing other article names then so be it.sephia karta | dimmi 12:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a mixture of usage both with and without the City, for example Birmingham has 4 years with and one without. May be time to look more widely and see if we can standardise across the patch. Keith D (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could I support Keith D's suggestion above- I think we need to consider standardising the titles, and perhaps the wider structure of articles across local election pages. I am aware of different pages adopting different naming styles - some with 'City' or 'County' between place and 'election', and some without. From my experience there are a number of us here who frequently create, update and maintain articles related to local elections, so perhaps we should consider forming a United Kingdom local elections Project where we could all work constructively together and have a space to discuss things like this, and try to reach a concensus for the benefit of all local election articles.Spiritofsussex (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, Keith. I don't know how active those two projects are, maybe the two could be combined if they are quiet. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support the idea of discussion both for names and content of local election articles. But regarding content, there will never be constitency because some councils acquire articles on every regular election (with full ward results etc) while many others do not. Sussexonian (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It needed discussing before any action was taken, as I said it needs to be consistent, not just for this year. In other metropolitan districts such as Wakefield or Bolton, the most commonly used term is Wakefield Council election or Bolton Council election and I suggest it might be in Leeds.J3Mrs (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, 7 days have gone - stick a fork in this one, it's done. Lugnuts (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More than a week has gone by with 4 users support the page moved back and 3 oppose it. So the consensus is that the page should be reverted back to its original title. HLE (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, but you're wrong. None of the page-move votes have any policy based rationale behind them. Lugnuts (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Consensus says otherwise. Your continuing badgering won't alter the majority vote. HLE (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith, son. Consensus can change, as it clearly has done here. As pointed out, above, there simply no such thing as "Leeds Council". Thanks for your contributions. Lugnuts (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
.svg){kind=small}
