Talk:2006 Blaenau Gwent by-elections

Political Colours

Why has the LibDem Colour changed to a dull orange, it should be gold. Plaids new coulour should be yellow (same as the SNP) and Plaid should still be green for all election upto and including May 2005.

It's one of the problems we have with the Metaframe colour system. The LibDem colour was gold but it looks/ed very similar to the Plaid Yellow. The LibDem gold has been changed as a consequence of the Plaid move.

As for Plaid changing colour up to a certain point - that is simply not possible using the system used here. Look at Aberavon - the Plaid and LibDem colours next to each other (as yellow and gold) looked almost as one shared block. doktorb | words 13:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Article for both votes?

I admit to rushing to create this so there may be errors abound.. Should there be a separate page for the Welsh Assembly vote or should this page "piggy back" both byelections? doktorb | words 09:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

So much of the campaign will overlap that I think one article is best - but it should be moved to Blaenau Gwent by-elections, 2006. —Whouk (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought "...by-elections" would be suitable but maybe once the date(s) are known? Unfortunate that we may have to move away from convention but the circumstances are what they are..Did this happen with Glasgow Anniesland by-election, 2000 ? doktorb | words 00:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Just checked - the Glasgow Anniesland by-election page has both results on one article with the single "by-election" not plural... doktorb | words 00:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that article should be moved to the plural too then :-) —Whouk (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Both should be plural, as per Whouk. Either that or two articles, but depends how much info we are planning on putting in here (the Anniesland article is a stub, and probably will be for a long, long time: this one - or two - hopefully will not be!) --Mais oui! 08:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the move has been done pretty smoothly, and I think I've got all the "what links here" sorted out too. Pretty clean and quick that one, makes a change =)

The next problem I can see is quite minor - why are the footnote numbers all muddled? doktorb | words 09:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

They're not, are they? The first instances of each footnote in the main text are numbered in order; subsequent instances have the same number. It's the new(ish) Cite.php format - see Wikipedia:Footnotes. —Whouk (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Aaaah, understand now. Right, good, everything seems sorted and straightforward....for how long......doktorb | words 13:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Holding party - Independent or Independent Labour?

As well as on this page, List of UK by-elections and Blaenau Gwent (UK Parliament constituency) will need a consistent position on what to list Law's party affiliation as. List of UK by-elections (1950 - 1979) lists S. O. Davies as Independent Labour and I think the two are sufficiently similar that the same label should be used for each. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Timrollpickering 10:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Peter Law won the constituency as "independent", which is the tag used in the 2005 article election box, so convention would suggest using just this word. The SO Davies case is very similar but they're not the same person, just the same situation, so I would go for "Independent". doktorb | words 10:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think "Independent" for the same reasons. —Whouk (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I should add that it's perhaps different for the Welsh Assembly by-election as he was elected as Labour. —Whouk (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Also if a candidate does stand for Westminster with the backing of Law's supporters it may make sense to regard them as the "defending candidate" for calculating percentage changes etc.... Unless they go and use a party label and it gets messy... Timrollpickering 15:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if they use the BGPVG label on the ballot paper (are they a registered party?), it still seems reasonable, as long as it's explained in the article. —Whouk (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

According to the Electoral Commission the BGPVG are not a registered party. doktorb | words 09:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Tidying up exercise

Can I ask someone to tidy up this document as it seems a bit messy at the moment? Harry Hayfield 16:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Blaenau Gwent by-elections, 2006. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ukip.org/ukip_news/gen12.php?t=1&id=2153
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310210316/http://by-elections.co.uk:80/GE2005/lawblaenau.html to http://by-elections.co.uk/GE2005/lawblaenau.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090821055149/http://www.by-elections.co.uk:80/blaenau06.html to http://by-elections.co.uk/blaenau06.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719102808/http://by-elections.co.uk/blaenau06a.html to http://by-elections.co.uk/blaenau06a.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060514154319/http://blaenaugwentlibdems.org.uk:80/ to http://www.blaenaugwentlibdems.org.uk/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 23:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)