Jump to content

Talk:2011 Barnsley Central by-election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Election results box

[edit]

((User:Doktorbuk unable to log into office computer))

I propose we look at using , for this article only to see how it all works out, the "new" style election results box (see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Oldham_East_and_Saddleworth#Previous_elections)

It has advantages and disadvantages, but up to now it's not really been used "in real time", only retrospectively.

Therefore, if it's seen as a good idea by regular editors, I suggest we trial the new style canddiate/results box for this by-election to see what issues could be ironed out. We may even like it ! 80.193.130.5 (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you noticed Doctorbuk, but I applied the template to Doncaster North and Witney yesterday. I've a semi-automated way of doing this. I'll do the same thing to the main Barnsley Central Page as it is likely to have increased visibility in coming weeks - but http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies#Compact_election_box suggests some unease with it being used for pending elections. To be honest I'm agnostic, but thought I should point it out. Crooked cottage (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information loss? Is there some information which is not available to be added in the new box as opposed to the old box eg in the Oldham box it says it was a Labour hold when infact it was a void election and in this one I cannot seem to add the number of rejected ballots. Does the new box have fewer parameters and therefore is it not a "worse" way of dispaliying all of the information.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly isn't worse, as the amount of space it saves outweighs any disadvantages that I'm aware of, and I've converted a number of articles. If you want a change to the template to add in the number of rejected ballots as a parameter, suggest it at WT:UKPC. Crooked cottage (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon the silly question but why is space saving a consdieration?--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It makes it more readable. See Windsor (UK Parliament constituency) now and (say) a fortnight ago. Crooked cottage (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lucy - whilst Wiki is not paper, it /is/ a website, and if we're editors around here for any good reason, it's to make everything look better. Not just the content, but the appearance too. Compact election boxes aren't faultless (they are not the most user friendly) but they are much easier on the eye for casual readers. Taking steps to give the full Wiki experience benefits for all is why I tap away at the keyboard so often, and in the context of election results, the larger, traditional election boxes take up far too much space on the page and look clumsy . doktorb wordsdeeds 19:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A good strategy for external links for this article would probably to adopt that used by Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, 2011 and link to candidate websites where available. This is a bit of a problem at the moment as some of the parties we can assume will be contesting the election have yet to select candidates. Adambro (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Carman

[edit]

There's been some disputed editing about the biographical notes for Dominic Carman: i.e. how much and what content. Looking at this situation, it seemed to me that there was sufficient material under WP:GNG for a Dominic Carman article in its own right, which I have now created. Linking to that article (presuming others feel it is notable enough and it doesn't get deleted!) then simplifies what material is needed here. I invite interested parties to review the new article and the text here. Bondegezou (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would Illsley have been disqualified?

[edit]

Our article is ambiguous as it doesn't say what happens regarding disquslification when an MP is imprisoned for exactly 12 months. The law seems clear to me. The Telegraph refers to '12 months or more' and '12 months or less' which cannot be right. The Independent I think has it right. Do we change the article? Crooked cottage (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the text of the law and the Indie article seem sensible to me. Bondegezou (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

There seems to be a dispute over which form of infobox to use. I would have thought it's an easy decision to use one in which candidate's names are visible, given that this is a contest between individual candidates. Does anyone want to make the case for leaving them out? Warofdreams talk 10:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a no-brainer to me. Reinstate the names. Crooked cottage (talk) 11:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It simply shows modifications are needed to the infobox to allow for a "candidate name" label to be added to the infobox. This would resolve the issue and remove the need for the use fo the presidential infobox which is misleading as this is a paliamentary election and not a presidential election.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is an election contested by individual candidates, "presidential style" seems quite appropriate to me, but, if you think that the template needs modifying, by all means propose that on the template talk page. In the meantime, we need an infobox which works in this article, and the exact (hidden) keyword used to generate it is irrelevant. Warofdreams talk 12:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The presidential box loses the previous election result label. --18:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Barnsley Central by-election, 2011. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Barnsley_Central_by-election&oldid=1196586594"