User talk:OrkneyLad1996

"No descripton"
Hey Orkneylad. I've watched your edits for the constituency articles and thank you for all the hard work you're doing. BUT (you can tell there was a but coming:)) I want to ask you to accept "No description" as an election box designation. Candidates can use "independent" or no description, and if they use the latter specifically, they have made a deliberate choice to be no description. I have a few small hills on which to die and this is one of them! Independent is independent, no description is no description: I hope you'll be fine with us reflecting the SOPN accurately :) doktorb wordsdeeds 09:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh right. I just seen this and made the changes again so I shall revert back. Instead of displaying no description, would it be an idea to just display nothing altogether? I have went and changed 'Uxbridge and South Ruislip' 'Basingstoke' and 'Blaydon' candidates that had 'No description' so there is nothing displayed next to their name as I feel this makes it look a bit neater. Hopefully that change is ok?
 * A fine compromise! If only all disputes on here were so easily resolved. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It was something I was completely unaware of and felt what I was doing was correct.  I think with anything else if there is no information to insert then it should be left blank.  If only others could not abuse the pages and change candidates names to something insulting.  I can understand some changing the parties for candidates that have had the support withdrawn but this issue is easily enough resolved if there is a bit of speech below the election stating that the support has been withdrawn. OrkneyLad1996 (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I saw you reverted my edit on This Page. I totally agree with the above discussion about blank boxes being neater than 'No description', but thought that it was a bit vague and confusing, which is why I added the footnotes. I have added a discussion here [] about the best way to format these candidates' entries. Cheers, PinkPanda272 (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I see you have already replied! Cheers, PinkPanda272 (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Portsmouth South (UK Parliament constituency)
In response to your edit summary, it's probably because nobody has gotten around to changing the order since election articles were moved in line with WP:NCELECT. It makes no sense to have articles titled with the format [date] [election] (e.g. 2019 United Kingdom general election), and then on constituency articles to refer to them in the opposite order. I think it's still a force of habit for a lot of editors to present them in that order. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to the correct formatting for this, Mattythewhite. This is something I will probably get around to once I finish going through all of the constituencies to check that all the candidates are listed for the Election on the 12th December. OrkneyLad1996 (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the guideline? If so, it's WP:NCELECT. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I seen what you meant on the other page, Mattythewhite. I will get around to seeing to it once I check all the other constituencies to see if they have all their candidates listed or not. OrkneyLad1996 (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Uxbridge and South Ruislip (UK Parliament constituency), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Brian R Hunter (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for this. I thought it did not seem necessary to display links to the footnotes the way you did.  Would perhaps a better way be to display a message below the election box and then link to the footnotes that way? OrkneyLad1996 (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * happy to see it improved, but think the footnote link in the box is the best way to explain why it is blank. At least two editors have tried to put independent in this box only to have it deleted. I had hoped that putting an explanatory note in the box would help other editors not to make the same mistake -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I was thinking like under the box can list the three candidate names and then a link with an explanation as that saves having three links the same as well. OrkneyLad1996 (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * seems more complex and I fail to see why 'three links the same' is a problem. The current solution shows the same number so viewers can see it is the same reason and it reads well when a user hovers over the link. What do you see as wrong with the way it is now? -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just more a case of personal preference and neatness but your reasoning and thinking sounds good. OrkneyLad1996 (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Election box titles
Hello. I've noticed that you are in the process of changing the titles of Election box templates from 'General election 2019' (or the equivalent election) to '2019 general election'. Is this to fit in with anything in particular, or just to make it neater? Cheers, PinkPanda272 (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * PinkPanda272, another editor informed me that this is the correct format and was changed to be like this a small amount of time ago but nobody got around to altering it. OrkneyLad1996 (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up, I'll keep that in mind for future edits. PinkPanda272 (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Finchley and Golders Green
You say in an edit comment that Ross Houston has stood down. This is not correct - it would make the national news if he did and there is nothing on a google search. He was the replacement for Sara Conway, who stood down in September. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. I was taking the persons word that made the previous edit and not thinking of checking the news. I shall bare this in mind. OrkneyLad1996 (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Badminton at the 2019 Island Games for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Badminton at the 2019 Island Games is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Badminton at the 2019 Island Games until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)