Talk:Cheadle (UK Parliament constituency)

Untitled

Somebody might want to double check the percentages in 1992 and 1997 as they seem to be a case of lazy copy and pasting... I would correct it, but I'm too lazy :) -Neo 19:58, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'm less laxy than I thought... should be correct now :) -Neo 17:09, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM discussion

I propose this is moved to the appropriate page, as given in the Wikiproject style guide - Maltaran 17:55, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm neutral Oppose. (I reverted an earlier move, but that was because it was done by cut and paste rather than using the move button). AFAIK the style guide is only one person's ideas rather than official policy. The official policy of Wikipedia however is not to over disambiguate, and unless there is more than one constituency named Cheadle the seems no need to make the move. If there is more than one constituency I have no objections. Joe D (t) 18:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• This should stay here since there are no other constituencies to our knowledge with the name Cheadle. Also I think the use of UK as an adjective instead of British is ugly. Dmn / Դմն 00:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with Dmn; the move may be in keeping with "the Wikiproject style guide", but that is trumped by the Wikipedia style guide and conventions that say that we don't pre-emptively disambiguate unless there is a very good reason; on does not seem to have been given. Also, "UK" is not an adjective, and using it as such does indeed look absolutely vile. James F. (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: incidently, the WikiProject style guide has been corrected and no longer recommends over-disambiguation / pre-emptive disambiguation. Joe D (t) 21:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• Ultimately I don't care so long as the redirect remains from (UK ...) - if one is writing an article which needs reference to one or more constituencies it is very useful to have a link that one knows is certain to reach the page required. --Neo 22:45, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Seems to be a consensus for it to remain here, then. I'll take down the move request. Maltaran 11:43, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 11:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cheadle (UK Parliament constituency). 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/20101106204053/http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/electoral-figures/electoral-figures.htm to http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/electoral-figures/electoral-figures.htm

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) 23:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Questionable statement

I am not sure that the statement "The seat had safe Conservative majorities until the 1997 election" in the Members of Parliament section is fair or appropriate. This ignores the fact that in 1966 Michael Winstanley won the seat for the Liberal Party and when he lost it in 1970, the conservative majority was less than 2,000 votes. Admittedly the pre 1974 seat had significantly different boundaries and much of the Liberal's strongest area moved to Hazel Grove, which Winstanley did briefly hold in 1974. Dunarc (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the text in this section including prefacing the above by making clear that it was the redrawn (1974 onwards) seat that had safe Conservative majorities. I think this helps matters, but I am happy to discuss further. Dunarc (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)