Talk:2022 Cardiff Council election

Common Ground Alliance
I've begun adding the candidates lists for each of the wards, and the Plaid Cymru and Wales Green Party candidates are all listed under the same description on the statements of persons nominated ("Plaid Cymru, Green Party, Common Ground / Plaid Cymru, Plaid Werdd, Tir Cyffredin") - for example the third candidate listed for Adamsdown, Phil Doré (Adamsdown PDF). The description has been registered jointly by the two parties, so there is no clear way to differentiate between the Plaid Cymru candidates and the Green Party candidates. Unsure, but I assume the ballot papers will include the emblem of only one of the parties for each candidate (rather than a joint emblem or no emblem)?

I've created a party template for the election box, which has the long name Common Ground Alliance and short name "Common Ground" (both parties are using the 3-word phrase (WGP, PC), but the word 'Alliance' isn't in the description); and uses the Plaid Cymru colour. The link redirects to the relevant subsection on this article. If a separate page on the alliance would meet required notability criteria, then that could replace the redirect, but as I understand it, this electoral alliance is limited to Cardiff only.

Please do add any best practice or examples - I'm not aware of similar alliances with separate UK parties running under a joint description (Wikipedia basically treats Labour-Coop as just another name for Labour; and the previous Plaid-Green-LibDem pact only involved not standing against each-other)'. Hopefully the fix I've used works, but entirely open to correction if there's an established method.

Thanks - Woodgreener (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Votes percentages
This now makes no sense, an IP editor creating percentages of votes in each ward that amount to more than 100%. Pure WP:OR, as far as I can tell. The percentages should be those that have been reported/calculated in secondary sources, or at the very least calculated in a transparent way (to the casual reader). Sionk (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed. That is what I do. Benawu2 (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Ward results
I think we need to try and find a consensus here. The registered electors are in the report at source 11. The results and candidate percentages are in source 13.

Hence my version of the page. Thoughts?

Benawu2 (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I've left a message on User talk:Icc27, if they choose to pursue it further. I don't think we should be doing our own analysis of elections or clever calculations, however fascinating it might be - that's not what Wikipedia is here for. Sionk (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've left another message on User talk:Icc27 to ask them to engage in discussion, or an explanation. It's not clear at all where these excentric percentages are coming from. At the very least they need to be (1) explained (2) sourced, in the article. Sionk (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

By-elections and defections during council terms
Apologies @Benawu2; I didn't realise the convention here was to include by-elections, defections, and other seat changes in the council term in the article of the election before the council term.

I haven't extensively contributed to this election series before today, but I did want to voice some scepticism about this approach. At a London local authority election series on which I have extensively edited, seat changes in the council term are recorded in the article of the election after the council term. For me, this is more intuitive: seat changes have bearings on the next election and not on the previous election, especially as context for the election campaign (so by-elections etc. are often covered in a 'Background' section). Of course, that feels slightly stranger as it means the current composition isn't recorded anywhere obvious in the absence of a 'next election' article. But I've given a quick look at other election series and see that there is no standard across local authorities for this. It may be something to bring up to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums, if it hasn't already been discussed there. In the absence of a standard, I'm not really fussed, of course.

Whatever the advantages and disadvantages of either approach, it feels weird that the current output is effectively a duplicate of Cardiff Council elections. In this kind of case, a WP:TRANS may be more appropriate (and time-saving!) than a copy-paste exercise across the two entries. _ MB190417  _ (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree re cut and paste. I just checked 2 London Councils that I have done a lot of editing at and 1 that I plan to and all 3 had by-elections on the previous election page. I think you have done a lot of editing at Merton London Borough Council? The Merton 2018 election page also has by-elections for 2018-2022 on it.
 * Cheers
 * Benawu2 (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Very good, I had not seen this! It must have been added since my last wikibreak :))  Perhaps there is a standard after all! _  MB190417  _ (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In theory it could make better sense to include by-elections in a separate elections page, such as Cardiff Council elections, then simply say "See main article Cardiff Council elections" on the bottom of the full council election page. At the moment we're doing a lot of duplication. I didn't notice by-elections were being listed on Cardiff Council elections as well, and had continued the convention of listing them elsewhere. Sionk (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I think it best to include any by-elections within the article on the previous election. There is also an option to reference back to the article in the introduction to the next election results. Thanks! Macs15 (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)