User talk:Doktorbuk/Archive13

Reference errors on 22 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Stoke-on-Trent Central (UK Parliament constituency) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=761410474 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F761410474%7CStoke-on-Trent Central (UK Parliament constituency)%5D%5D Ask for help])

Edmonton
Every local history scholar in London would probably know Edmonton had a large working class and all the businesses associated with the Lea Valley and its terraces boom. Even in uneducated circles, it is well known for example (as a matter of interest) Bruce Forsyth often talks of dancing on the tin roof in Edmonton and the area was generally of modest incomes in the 20th century. I will however ensure to put a taster of local history on constituency websites where a seat has a definitive industry at its heart. Don't expect me to do that for Stoke on Trent or Burton or whatever though as I assume you know a little of those places.- Adam37   Talk  13:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

By-election gains presented as general election holds
Hi. Yes we do. Newbury (UK Parliament constituency) Orpington (UK Parliament constituency). Graemp (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, no we don't. A gain is a gain. However general elections are compared like for like. If a seat is won by the same party in 05 and 10 with a different party winning a by-election in between, it is still a "hold'. This is standard practice. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hold on there sparky. UI give you examples where you are wrong, like Brent East (UK Parliament constituency), Eastleigh (UK Parliament constituency), Christchurch (UK Parliament constituency) and you go and change them. Thats not how we do it is it? Graemp (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly there is a difference in practice. I can't refer you to a project discussion. Unless you can, perhaps that is our next step. Graemp (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC) 07:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought you were cleverer than this. It is self explanatory that general elections are compared like for like. That's how results are compared and reported. Why are you now going down this cul-de-sac? We have always respected that byelections do not count, why the change? doktorb wordsdeeds 07:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, regardless of what you and I think, we have identified a difference in practice that needs sorting. Graemp (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong. We have identified that I'm correct and you're not. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not helpful. I know from working with you in the past you are better than that comment. Graemp (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In 2006 this discussion was held (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_United_Kingdom_by-elections_(1979–2010)#Holding_party_-_at_the_last_election_or_at_the_vacancy.3F ) which is useful here. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is interesting but not quite what we are dealing with. Perhaps we can dig up a more relevant discussion? Graemp (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is exactly what we're dealing with. A by-election result does not effect comparing results from one GE to another, it's right there in front of you. We have not had an issue for years and years, why are you causing trouble now?! doktorb wordsdeeds 08:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I read the discussion as how to present the information in the more complex examples such as where an incumbent changes party. Please get it out of your head that I am causing trouble. I demonstrated to you that there are a number of examples that present the information in the other way and those include examples that I was not involved in editing. Please be less adversarial. Graemp (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You have read the discussion but taken the wrong conclusion. This isn't just Wikipedia policy I'm defending, this is how elections are reported from Butler and others, and the media. That discussion also mentions by-election victories by parties other than the holding party at the general elections either side and the principle is exactly the same. I'm sure you watch BBC election coverage: they have always reported general elections "like for like" disregarding by-election changes in intervening years. It's statistical nonsense to do differently. I am serious about this, I will not move from the universally recognised position that by-election results do not count. General elections are reported "like for like", and that's the end of it. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That 2006 discussion just does not represent wikipedia policy, let alone project practice for what we are talking about. Forget about what you or I think about this issue. Between us, we have identified an inconsistency in the way this information is presented in UK constituency articles as a result of actions taken by editors who are neither you nor I. It is highly likely that editors, not including either of us, will make edits that contradict either one practice or the other. These edits may result in edit wars. All I am suggesting is that it is up to two experienced editors like ourselves to resolve this, and avoid problems for others. In the meantime, we should respect the status of the articles at the time we discovered this inconsistency, this means I will not revert Leicester but I will revert Orpington. Graemp (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Leigh (UK Parliament constituency)‎
Hi. You undid my recent revert and I note your explanation. I failed to include in my edit summary a note to see my explanation on the talkpage. Sorry. I would be grateful if you could check this out. Your undo covered more than just middle names. At the least, I would hope you would revert those edits you made that do not have anything to do with forenames, so that we can avoid an edit war. Thanks. Graemp (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Middle Names
We actually do need middle names. The usual argument about middle names is that we should just use the first name. Many assume that the first name is the name an individual was more commonly known by. As a result, articles are created with the wrong title. This morning I have come across an example of this problem at Michael Bass, 1st Baron Burton. In carrying out research I have come across sources that refer to him as both Michael Bass and Arthur Bass. I don't know which is right, but I do know he can be correctly referred to as Michael Arthur Bass. Many problems are created by article titling by people who assume that the common name is going to be the first. We also need middle names to distinguish between Sir John Brunner, 1st Baronet and Sir John Brunner, 2nd Baronet both Liberal MPs at the same time. The Brunner example is just an example from the Leigh article you edited today. Graemp (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Does that incorporate putting middle names for each and every candidate? Sometimes Graemp you have added three or four names for a single person, that's far too many on the off-chance that maybe there's a researcher out there looking for them. Maybe adding names will be useful in the limited circumstances you describe (although even then, Wikipedia will have disambiguated article titles and the time of the election should make it obvious if the candidate is father or son). doktorb wordsdeeds 10:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and accepting that there are cases when including middle names is acceptable. The case for including middle names will vary depending on the example. To me it makes sense to habitually include middle names in these election results for two reasons. One, it is good to be consistent in presentation and two, it encourages other editors to follow the same practice and avoid them leaving out information that may be important. As for how many names, I don't think we should arbitrarily decide how many middle names we regard as acceptable to present. Someones full name is their full name and we should probably accept that. While wikipedia allows the reader to move from article to article via links, I think it is good to save the reader the trouble of having to click on links to clarify what they are reading. Graemp (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The issue is around candidates who have links, such as Bessie Braddock, or Harold Wilson. We are attempting to create an encyclopaedia that can be reasonably well read and understood, so describing Wilson as "James Harold Wilson" in an election box is confusing, similarly "Jeremy John Durham Ashdown" instead of Paddy. We don't do it elsewhere, so why in election boxes? The issue was discussed at length last year, and there was a clear view that linked candidates should be listed under their commonly used names at the time of the election (which would usually be the title of their article), and that female candidates' titles should not be displayed. There was less agreement over full names for other candidates, hence the compromise which was broadly acceptable. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 6. Frinton100 (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Docktorbuk - adding extra middle names is not particularly constructive and adds little to an article. When they become excessively numerous it's a distraction and makes the encyclopedia look messy and unprofessional.  I also have an issue with WP:Verifiability and where this information is coming from, which should be raised on Graemp's talk page as the principal editor involved.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.88.70 (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Last year's discussion was a useful and thorough airing of the issues. Differing views were expressed. It did not conclude with any particular consensus or agreed compromise. I don't think it is particularly useful us going over all those arguments again. I took away from the discussion some points which I have subsequently taken on board. It seems as if others did also. Clearly it is helpful to the reader to list some names more fully, to avoid confusions or wrong assumptions being made about 'common names'. That being the case, it still makes more sense to me to list all candidates names to the full for consistency of presentation. Election boxes bring together names of very well known people with those that are very obscure. Despite this difference, it seems logical to me to try to present them in a consistent manner in what is a very formal format. Graemp (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm
I see you added the UKIP vote in Uxbridge to the "lowest vote shares" section in the by-election records page. Surely "major party" means one with parliamentary representation at the time (that, I believe, is the definition elsewhere on that page)? UKIP polled less than 2% at most by-elections prior to Hartlepool in 2004, including (but not limited to): Ipswich, Brent East, Wirral South, Islwyn, Littleborough & Saddleworth, Winchester, Tottenham, and even Eastleigh (1994), when Farage was the candidate. I don't think we should include all of these, and similarly, we probably shouldn't include any more UKIP figures from now until they next have an MP. If Uxbridge is their lowest ever, and it could well be, it could be added in text below the table. Frinton100 (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability
Please do not go around deleting citations from articles on UK parliamentary constituencies. This is against the wikipedia policy Verifiability.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not. There are citations already next to the headings for the 2015 election, and if you bothered to check, you'll notice that the citations I'm removing are often dead links, links to pages which are now for 2017 candidates (therefore not links connected to candidates) or otherwise irrelevant. With citations already next to the 2015 heading confirming the candidates anyway, there's no need to replicate citations next to each candidate. You'll notice that we never put citations next to candidates anyway, citations should always go next to the heading. I'm only tidying up and removing unnecessary links. doktorb words

deeds 15:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Candidate names
Agreement exists to use full names where common names are not known, which is what I have done.Graemp (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Lancashire County Council election, 2017
Hi there!

I've spotted some reversions to the LCC2017 article by you, in which a number of detailed results are removed, with the reason cited being that they belong in a separate article.

A cursory look back through older LCC results shows that they have mixed results (of the type you removed from the 2017 results) with no edits referring to a need for the data to be put in a separate article. Is there a reason why the LCC2017 article is being held to separate standards to the articles that precede it? Seems like consistency is key, here.

Bulgaroon (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Lancashire County Council election, 2017
Your contribution to this discussion would be greatly appreciated. Regards -  Gallo glass  14:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)