Talk:2017 Scottish local elections

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BBC reporting of seat figures[edit]

We gained 6 seats from the last election in 2012. 425 in 2012, 431 in 2017. Can people count, or are youse all gullible? Salty1984 (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holyrood magazine reporting it as a gain of six. http://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/conservatives-make-huge-gains-scottish-council-elections-while-snp-becomes-largest ~~Soldierwhy~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.122.19 (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's called "notional" results, as the BBC outlines: "Boundary changes have occurred in many councils in Scotland. Seat change is based on notional 2012 results, which estimate what the results would have been then if the new boundaries had been in place." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/8201e79d-41c0-48f1-b15c-d7043ac30517/scotland-local-elections-2017 FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the OP. I think it's misleading to report an SNP gain in seats in absolute terms, as well as a gain in seats in proportional terms (in 2012, there were 1,223 total council seats. In 2017, there were 1,219---a decrease of four seats from five years ago) as a loss of seats. These "notional" results don't really have a place in an online encyclopedia, in my opinion, especially since "notionally", according to the BBC, the SNP won 438 out of 1,227 seats in 2012, which doesn't reflect the reality of five years ago, or of today. I'm going to add columns to the table that show the proportional changes in seats from 2012. Hazey Jane (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly fat-fingered my calculation of the total seats for this year at some point. There were 1,227 seats in total, not 1,219. This doesn't change the fact that the SNP got more seats proportionally or in absolute terms compared to 2012, though. Hazey Jane (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering if there is already a precedent for this on Wiki, this can't be the first time such an event has occurred surely? Soldierwhy (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


These are not real life figures. They are an estimate of what the figures would be. At the very least it should be changed from "Seat Change" to "Estimated Seat Change" or if you like "Notional Seat change". Alternatively, If as you say "previous results will be incomparable" then the comparison should be removed entirely and the seat change section should be taken out. Or we could accept that 431 is not 7 less than 425 and put the real figures in. Ekul95 (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


General election pages show the changes from notional figures, if there have been boundary changes. A note is added to explain this - and this has been done here. Referring to it as "BBC propaganda" as the OP does is wild over-exaggeration. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well is there any other outlet which has another more accurate/neutral 'notional estimation' based on the seat changes? The BBC assertion that 425 from 1223 (798 to others) is 7 less than 431 from 1219 (788 to others) is absolutely ludicrous. Yes there is a note explaining the notional figures, but where have they plucked this notion from?? Crowsus (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to throw a spanner in the works, here is the Guardian reporting it as a gain of 31 for the SNP. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/may/04/local-and-mayoral-elections-2017-live-results-tracker Soldierwhy (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is historical precedent of using notional vote share in showing gains and losses on here. If you check the 2011 Holyrood Election page, it shows the SNP making gains based on the notional results based on the 2007 election as calculated by the BBC, with Labours results looking even worse than they were. I suppose if those, I suspect SNP Supporters claiming BBC Bias will also rail against pro-SNP BBC Bias? Let's put this to bed and agree that the pattern which has been used on several pages, some of which have benefited the SNP should be used here and the notional loss of seven stay. Otherwise you are taking neutrality away from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2FE0:C700:3454:45A8:658D:D340 (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, if there is a precedent already in force then use that. If such a thing exists it shouldn't be hard to show examples of it and stop any further bickering. Soldierwhy (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC have made a mistake, it happens. I don't know how they calculate the notional results but it is a simple fact that the SNP have made small gains rather than small losses at this election (35.35% of seats compared with 29.68% in 2012). Perhaps we should use the Guardian's figures as they must have used (different) notional results to calculate a gain of 31 seats. Either that or have it as a gain of six, the actual increase in the number of their seats. Regardless of which, accurately stating that the SNP have gained seats does not affect the neutrality of the page. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian's different figures may be a red herring - on quick inspection, for example, they're showing Independents losing 15 in North Lanarkshire and SNP picking up 11. Suspect this is carelessness and/or lack of sufficient editorial rigour, rather than them using different notional results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.160.199 (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That may be because quite a few Labour Councillors in the recent past have 'resigned' and formed the 'Independent Alliance'. None of them were re-elected so it's probable that's where those figures come from. Soldierwhy (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes, I'm an idiot. Done more than a "quick inspection" this time :). Guardian figures are accurate, but based on the change from sitting Councillors rather than the 2012 elections (notional or otherwise). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.160.199 (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is quickly going to turn into an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.227.220 (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actual Results[edit]

According to the BBC Results at the Scotland page, SNP lost 7 seats overall based on boundary changes. This is based on notional results which have been used in all previous elections to report. See the page for the UK election of 1997 for an example. Do not change without a better source. 49.200.119.98 (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the "seats before" figures should really have an explanatory note (such as the BBC has) to say that those are notional figures, based on estimates on what they think would have happened in 2012 if the seats then had been based on the 2017 boundaries and seat numbers. ("Boundary changes have occurred in many councils in Scotland. Seat change is based on notional 2012 results, which estimate what the results would have been then if the new boundaries had been in place.") Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See for yourself, it still doesn't matter. Geniuses are still making edits to the contrary. I requested semi-protection but since the administrators are half bots running on caffeine-induced hamsters it is going to take a day for something to be done. ✓Protected. 49.200.119.98 (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a table just below for explanation. Alternatively, a person can follow the BBC link to the website. 49.200.119.98 (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the actual results differ from the notional ones provided there should be a column added for actual seats won in 2012 as that was the reality of council make ups that people had to live under. Percentage of first preference votes will also be necessary as soon as they are available. Scotland has the lowest level of trust in the BBC across the U.K. so linking to BBC information will be rejected out of hand by many, hence the need for clearer and more detailed information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.203.145 (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the precedent on Wikipedia and in all acceptable organizations is comparing the results to previous ones based not on original but on notional seat counts. This is calculated by adjusting them according to the voting trends seen by area and by demographics. For comparison, see the 1997 UK elections.
Secondly, it is misleading to compare to the actual results (not just because of boundary changes, but because the total number of seats has also changed.
Thirdly, there is no proof regarding 'trust' in BBC being lower in Scotland. Furthermore, Wikipedia is concerned about material that can be proven. Thus, it is irrelevant whether people reject the material or not, provided it has a clearly verifiable source linked to it.

  • Actually, not true: the BBC themselves acknowledge that they are viewed markedly less favourably by the Scots than by other UK nations.[1] Conrad Hughes (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, for the comparison with the 2012 results, see the analysis section. In the Results section, the Councils and Seats shown are all actual. Only the changes from last time are based on notional calculations as direct comparison with the 2012 elections will cause the figures to not add up due to seat changes (it will be off by 4, i.e. 1227-1223=4). 49.200.119.98 (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with the actual 2012 results is inaccurate because of changed boundaries and also a changed total number of seats. BBC News estimated what the results would have been in 2012, if the 2017 boundaries had been in place at that election.

Has this manipulation been applied to the results of every party or only the SNP?Keith-264 (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos, is plural voting really allowed? Keith-264 (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the parties, in Scotland, England and Wales where there have been boundary changes (there were in most cases) have had the change applied. The 438 notional seat count for SNP may also be higher than the 425 they got last time because of not just boundary changes, but the advantage by stretching the increase of total seats, from 1223 to 1227. The reason why the SNP figures are so disputed may be that SNP supporters are giving in to political emotions and changing the decrease to increase when they find it over the net. From a neutral POV, this isn't acceptable. 49.200.119.98 (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with notional 2012 is even more unreliable, these are seats that did not exist until 2017 elections - so we cannot compare with seats that did not exist. The seat changes in the infobox would therefore be misleading as the SNP for example gained seats from 2012, and increased their percentage of seats relative to the total available. I made an edit where BOTH notional and actual seats from 2012 are displayed - I think this is the clearest option as either notional or actual on its own is misleading. I propose we display both for clarity with the footnote explanation. Colinmotox11 (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Notional seats are always used in previous elections by precedent. They are not misleading in any way. Aitch Singh communicate 11:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is utterly ridiculous. The BBC is the ONLY source of these "notional" figures, and it has published no explanation or working of how it arrived at them. On the (lack of) evidence it has simply made them up off the top of its head. Almost every other source is reporting the results as a gain of six.

The Times: plus six https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/tory-resurgence-slams-brakes-on-sturgeon-s-nationalist-juggernaut-jqxk30vkv
Daily Mail: plus six https://www.pressreader.com/uk/scottish-daily-mail/20170506/281513636061759
Express: plus six http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/800968/Nicola-Sturgeon-SNP-independence-local-council-elections
Scottish Sun: plus six https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/politics/967199/ruth-davidson-conservatives-tories-snp-nicola-sturgeon-labour-council-elections/
Herald: plus six http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15269198.Tory_surge___39_sinks_case__39__for_independence_poll/
Scotsman: plus six http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/general-election/local-elections-2017-snp-victors-as-conservatives-make-gains-1-4438739

If and when the BBC ever produces its working there may be a case to be argued for the "-7" figure. Until then, there is not. It's a completely unsupported assertion and unsupported assertions have NO place on Wikipedia. Anna Lertreader (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there are now at least three sources for the +31 figure also supposedly based on a notional 2012 result - the Guardian, Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/local-election-results-did-area-vote-does-tell-us-general-election/) and Daily Record (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-says-tories-well-10366336). The -7 figure is completely and utterly unreliable, and until better supported must be replaced with the actual-reality figures. Anna Lertreader (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I will have to respectfully disagree with Hsinghsarao. Notional seats are by definition an estimation of seats and any estimation has a large error associated with it. The seats did not exist before this election. A key example of this is the SNP lost 7 seats against the notional 2012 result and gained 6 seats against the actual. This creates the picture that they decreased, as illustrated by the red down arrow. However if you calculate the percentage of seats relative to the total seats available then in 2012 they won 34.75% and 35.13% in 2017. So they in fact increased their seats relative to the total - see my point? In any election you CANNOT ignore the total number of seats available. We need to be careful to avoid statistical bias by displaying the whole picture to readers. I agree that actual 2012 results on their own are also misleading as they don't accurately represent current boundaries but notional results also misrepresent the overall election result/picture. That's why I am arguing for both to be displayed with a explanatory footnote clarifying the meaning. The contribution from Anna Lertreader also highlights that some media are reporting plus 6. I repeat that BOTH are misleading and verging on inaccurate alone, which is why i think we need to have both and an explanation. This will avoid any doubt or confusion.Colinmotox11 (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read by comment and then reply again. If you are still in disagreement, please ask an administrator for intervention. As for the tabloids, they are a less reliable source than the BBC calculations. BBC doesn't need to give any explanation, we are basing this on WP:PRECEDENT. See the 1997 UK election for example. Me | Talk 11:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming precedent - what is the DATA for the -7 figure? You have none, because the only source for that number is a BBC report that gives no explanation. Assume we accept the precedent - now show us where you arrive specifically at -7, rather than +31. (Oh, and the Times, Telegraph, Herald and Scotsman are NOT "tabloids".) Anna Lertreader (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The data is here for the BBC. The data is here for Sky News. And yes, the are all tabloids. Me | Talk 11:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not "data". That is an assertion, numbers pulled out of nowhere with no explanation. And as you don't know what a tabloid is, you should probably stop talking to the grown-ups now. Anna Lertreader (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, a simple table with unjustified numbers cannot be used as the ONLY source for seat change. Colinmotox11 (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that precedent is not always a correct approach. Any figure claimed must be backed up by an explanation to be used on a fact based platform such as Wikipedia. Both sets of numbers have their own issues - this is the reason why I propose displaying BOTH, with a note explaining to the user the difference - problem solved! I think this is a fair compromise and avoids statistical bias. Colinmotox11 (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC) The total number of seats was raised from 1223 to 1227.[reply]

The notional results take that into account, the direct comparison with actual results does not. Further, you are showing an increase from 34.75% to 35.13% in Scottish seats - this takes into account the totals but this has another problem - it leaves the changed boundaries completely unaccounted for. Wikipedia is based on verifiable material, not necessarily 'truth' (WP:TRUTH), in someone's definition. Me | Talk 11:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I'm against displaying the figures of direct comparison in the infobox is that the figures will not add up, since the seat total increases. However, I may create a separate table. Just wait a minute. Me | Talk 11:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The +31 figure is based on councillors just before the election, and is not based on 2012 elections results at all, notional or real. The +31 figure is shown in the Guardian. Me | Talk 12:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say it's based on figures immediately before the election? Anna Lertreader (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should display the number before the election (i.e. the 31), but I think we should be displaying BOTH the actual and nominal seat change from the 2012 election (so +6 and -7 respectively). Some sources state one and some state the other so the only approach which is not confusing is to display both with an explanation below. I would be open to only putting this in the table and not the infobox? Colinmotox11 (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.s. Please don't edit war.Colinmotox11 (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Agreed I believe that the total should be clearly displayed in such a case. Me | Talk 12:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have absolutely no data supporting the -7 figure. When we do, fine. Until then the ONLY remotely concrete figure we have is +6. "The BBC said so but didn't explain where the numbers came from" is not data. Anna Lertreader (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have given you two links above, as well as an explanation for +31. Please act slowly, and don't adopt a militaristic approach. Me | Talk 12:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So now we know that we can add "data" to "tabloid" in the big list of words you don't understand. Anna Lertreader (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you agreeing that we can put the actual and notional 2012 results in the table, along with the totals and an explanation? Colinmotox11 (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am creating the table. Me | Talk 12:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need - I had it saved and have changed it to this effect. Colinmotox11 (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good - but the BBC figure is still not data and some sort of notification to that effect is required. Anna Lertreader (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do need sources for both data added, and the BBC data needs to be clarified, and a discussion had re the infobox, however for the meantime this addition to the table clears up the confusion for readers. Colinmotox11 (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. You changed the infobox figures as well. Those shouldn't be changed because the figures won't add up.

2. If the BBC figures aren't data and the Sky News figures aren't data, then the tabloid papers' figures aren't data either. Me | Talk 12:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. The only figure that's verifiable data at this stage is the +6, because it's the only thing based on real published results of things that actually happened. I assume you'll be removing the "notional" guff, then. (And for Christ's sake go and look up what the word "tabloid" means before you embarrass yourself any more.) Anna Lertreader (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I meant that sarcastically. What I mean, of course, is that the BBC figures are accepted as data, because they can be verified by at least one independent secondary source (Sky News) (See WP:RS). As for tabloids, the issue is trivial, I wasn't referring to all of those but most of your sources. But the point is 'which sources are reliable?' (See WP:RS). Me | Talk 12:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sky News did not "verify" the BBC figures, they merely repeated them. Neither outlet provided any data to support them. They are unsourced, unexplained assertions. The only data which is currently reliable are the ACTUAL 2012 and 2017 results. Everything else is a fantasy based on no demonstrated evidence. Anna Lertreader (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition is verification. What else do you expect? Read WP:SHEVERIFY. Me | Talk 12:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really are an idiot. Anna Lertreader (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but you may be blocked for aggressive behaviour. Your talk page shows that you have been blocked before, please adopt a good attitude. Respond with arguments, not personal abuse. Me | Talk 13:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the infobox edit - now fixed so table has both and infobox has just notional. Colinmotox11 (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again - the infobox should contain the only SOLID data we have. The notional "figures" are still completely unsupported by any data. They're a single-sourced unexplained assertion. If we're only having one figure it should be the real one. Anna Lertreader (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Okay Me | Talk 12:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A potential for controversy: the official EC data doesn't contain seat changes. Me | Talk 12:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has never been an issue before. In all previous elections, the notional result has been used to determine whether a party has lost or gained seats. The only reason this is an issue on this page is because the Nats believe they have some sort of monopoly over Scotland now. Why not just keep what has been done previously?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.1.15 (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both figures have been displayed to avoid confusion. Some sources claim +6 and some claim -7 dependant on 2012 result used. This principle is the same for all over parties in the table. Displaying both avoids all and any statistical bias towards one party or one perspective, which is the most neutral stance. Wikipedia should remain as neutral as possible; the reason for this format. Colinmotox11 (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For your convenience, I have requested an expert intervention to resolve the matter as soon as possible. Me | Talk 13:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that a serious intervention is required here, because the reputation of Wikipedia is at stake. The fact that some above have used politically-charged language ("Nats") already gives rise to suspicions of inappropriate bias. Wikipedia should report verified facts and nothing but facts, not unverified "adjustments" produced by third parties. Otherwise we are on the slippery slope of alt-truth.

Where a comparison with previous results is inappropriate for whatever reason, a suitable warning to that effect should be appended, stating relevant reasons. Comparisons should most definitely not be attempted in such cases. In this particular case, for example, what can a reported notional loss by one particular party possibly signify when on officially-verified returns that party has increased both its vote count and its vote share? How can some calculation be made for the notional change produced by a change in voting age, as has occurred between 2012 and 2017 here?

Such unverified tinkering with figures should be complete anathema here, since the only possible beneficiaries are alt-fact peddlers and propagandists.

R J Sutherland (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To end such tedious, repetitive and disruptive arguments, since almost everything said here was said in 2012, could some sort of template message be created explaining how this works? I would be delighted never to read these arguments again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Carrell, Severin. "BBC audience study shows Scottish viewers are most critical of all". The Guardian. The Guardian. Retrieved 12 May 2017.

1st preference percentage[edit]

How Long will it take to get the first preference percentages?Iamnotacylon (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but when they are published we can add two columns to the end of the table - one for first pref votes and one for first pref percentages. Colinmotox11 (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added! FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SNP seat change increased by 6; not decreased by 7[edit]

The SNP actually had a seat change of an increase of 6. In the 2012 local council elections, the SNP won 425 seats and in the 2017 election, the SNP had increased their seat share by 6 to 431 seats. The council boundaries changed between 2012 and 2017, and the BBC are reporting on a 7 seat loss but that is because they are reporting on the basis of the previous boundaries of Scottish councils. 82.41.158.132 (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As my argument above explains, I think the only way for this article to be clear to the reader (and that is the underlying objective) is to state both sets of figures, both the actual change and the notional change based on the BBC figures, which an explanation/methodology should be seeked. I am satisfied with the table as it currently is. Colinmotox11 (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the BBC refuse to issue clear data on exactly how their 'notional' figures are obtained - and every other media outlet uses the actual figures, I would strongly suggest that the actual figures are used. Simple arithmetic shows the correct course. 425 + 6 = 431. Aedis1 (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 14:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to "As the BBC refuse to issue clear data on exactly how their 'notional' figures are obtained". The BBC has officially released the procedure. I have added it to the article, scroll down to see it in the results section.

49.200.119.74 (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Party rankings[edit]

I've notice that in the party rankings (where there is a picture of the Party leader) that in both the 2012 and 2017 local elections the Lib Dems are showing as being the Fourth Party. In actuality in both 2012 and 2017 the Lib Dems came fifth behind the Independents.

Is this because Independents are not classed as a party or should we be editing the information to show this?Soldierwhy (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2017[edit]

Change the page figures to previous consensus, remove bad tempered edits (possible vandalism) by User:Tiggsy 49.200.119.74 (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Election maps style[edit]

Myself and Barryob have come to a disagreement about which style of maps should be used to display the Scottish local election results for individual councils.

My preference is to use the following style:

It is my belief that style of map is easier to create, understand and read in comparison to Barryob's preference shown below:

My problem with this style is that it is difficult to replicate and that in smaller wards (such as Kilmarnock East & Hurlford in the map above) the result is difficult to read. The result here in 2012 was actually 2 SNP 2 Labour, however it looks like 2 Labour 1 SNP from this map due to the small size of the ward in question and the style which has been employed to display this information.

Brythones (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first style is vastly easier to read. Anna Lertreader (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Anna. I think the second style comes closer to showing the spread (or focus) of political support, but it blurs the ward boundaries. The first makes for a quicker and clearer read, which should be the first aim of any map. — MouldyFox (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the issue with smaller wards can be resolved by highlighting them larger, the second style gives vastly the wrong impression as who has the most first prefence vots is irrelevant in a multi member wardBarryob (Contribs) (Talk) 02:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the second (stripy) map is awful. Trying to cram too much information in and leaving it difficult to read. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first map is much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.116.24 (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who takes control[edit]

Just incase there are any still to be dealt with, a full list can be seen here: http://www.cosla.gov.uk/councils/political-control

Conscious distortion for mobiles and tablets[edit]

At the (small) tablet version of the site, a politically motivated programmer distorted the size of some - but not all - political leaders' photos inside the main right table.

External links[edit]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Scottish_local_elections&oldid=1196739548"