Talk:Electoral Calculus

Italic title
This useful tidying is much appreciated (especially the date formatting, which is something I don't pay enough attention to, usually just going for the quickest option - thanks). But regarding the italic title, MOS:ITALIC states Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (such as Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries (like Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online) should also be italicized. Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis. IMO this site a creative work and therefore qualifies. The infobox also uses italics, so it seemed logical. However, I'm really not fussed either way and will therefore leave it alone. Thanks for reading. --Trevj (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Trvj. The site may include creative content, but that's not the criterion. Pertinent is the fact that it's not an "online magazine, newspaper, or news site" nor is it something like an "online encyclopedia and dictionary". It's just a site with some information, not a newspaper or something that would ordinarily (outside of the World Wide Web) be italicized.
 * Also, in regards to the italicization of the website infobox: I noticed that when I was making my other edits, and clicked through to Template:Infobox website to find out why it was (incorrectly, IMHO) italicized. Turns out somebody asked for it to be that way in 2010, based on the (incorrect, IMO) italicization of the  parameter by cite web. However, others have finally noticed this oddity, and a discussion started a few days ago. I'm hoping it will get changed back to vertical Roman face. I think that would be not only right, but less confusing for cases like this. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the useful comments. I agree that this site is not a news site or similar and therefore probably shouldn't be italicized. --Trevj (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Predictions table
I've attempted to use User:Trevj/Election incumbent with party link within Electoral Calculus but my limited familiarity with both templates and nested wikitables means it would currently look like this: This is clearly far from ideal, in terms of layout and the sortable aspect being lost (presumably due to the nesting). So until the template's improved (or perhaps an all-encompassing predictions template created) I'm not going to copy it to Template namespace for use. Something like this may be useful in other articles too. If anyone has any comments or inclination to improve things in the mean time, that'd be most welcome. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Try this. Warofdreams talk 16:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much - that's more like it! I'll have a play when I've more time. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been doing some playing but have a way to go yet!

-- Trevj (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Minor Parties
The minor parties - Ukip, the Greens and BNP are now included in the calculations. You can opt to include their share and seats. 

Regarding Ukip they won 16.5% in the Euro election of 2009 but this was just 3% in the 2010 General Election. In terms of General Elections - which is what Electoral Calculus is about, they are still 'minor' and would need 24% to win a single seat. (Coachtripfan (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Electoral Calculus. 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/20140921111914/http://blog.localdemocracy.org.uk/2010/03/30/election-websites-to-watch/ to http://blog.localdemocracy.org.uk/2010/03/30/election-websites-to-watch/

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) 02:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)