Talk:Cardiff South and Penarth (UK Parliament constituency)

Welsh naming
While you're correct about the letter of the law and the official usage of the Boundary Commission, it remains the case that Welsh constituencies have de facto Welsh names that are used by the media and throughout Welsh politics. I cannot see any reason for leaving out the translation. Vashti 14:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an English—Welsh dictionary! I have never seen or heard these constituencies referred to by Welsh names, and similarly I have never heard Meirionnydd Nant Conwy referred to as "Merionethshire and Conway Valley"! Owain (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia's not a dictionary, but it does provide bilingual terms throughout when they are in common usage. Vashti 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Cardiff South and Penarth (UK Parliament constituency). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070324031421/http://politics.guardian.co.uk:80/hoc/constituency/history/0,9571,-791,00.html to http://politics.guardian.co.uk/hoc/constituency/history/0,9571,-791,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Cardiff South and Penarth (UK Parliament constituency). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160311070732/http://electionweb.co.uk/Bp/P83120.htm to http://electionweb.co.uk/Bp/P83120.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609151404/http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/content.asp?nav=2867,3597,5426&parent_directory_id=2865&id=7965&pagetype=&keyword= to http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/content.asp?nav=2867,3597,5426&parent_directory_id=2865&id=7965&pagetype=&keyword=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Spoilt ballots
No, the point of an encyclopedia is not to include "[all] details about election results". An encyclopedia is a "summary of knowledge". That is, neither a database nor a collection of information which may be of interest to only a very limited audience. The few people interested in the nitty gritty of how exactly the ballots were spoilt can look that up in the cited source. For most others, this is just useless clutter which does not provide any encyclopedic information to the reader; and on top of that is based on a primary source (the election results as published by the local authority). Unless there is a source which explicitly mentions how this very routine information is somehow significantly noteworthy here, it shouldn't be included. I'll note the fact this kind of information isn't usually reported on any election results article, picking a few constituencies at random: not in Canada; not in Germany; not in Ireland; not even in the USA (where such information often isn't included at all), and, most convincingly, not even in other UK constituencies (Peterborough; Glasgow South West; North Down; Arfon; Witham; Derby South) I see no reason to make exceptions here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)