Talk:Results of the 2015 United Kingdom general election
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
It would be good to have this completed. I am putting-in all the constituency lines with links (following on from Coventry) in the hope that this will help others to enter data. Roy Bateman (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Although 'patchy' in places (e.g. % turnout for the Bs), I have now completed the important entries for all constituencies and deleted the 'incomplete' heading. Data was parsed from the set at [1], then made compatible with the Wikipedia format. I apologise in advance for any transcription errors and leave it to others to make improvements ...
This has all taken several hours and I suggest that, for future elections, this table is made simpler, with fewer columns: for example, do we need counties and repeating the winning vote numbers? This is a useful page and it would be good to see the whole table width accross a normal screen. Roy Bateman (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I found it useful but on downloading I discovered some internal errors, some of the derived columns don't seem to be correct. I tried to edit 2 of them but (using Firefox 52.0.2 on Windows 7, 8gb and 4 processors) the update froze. This is the list of consituencies affected, they all have errors (or at least inconsistencies) with 1 or more of winner votes, winner % or majority: Aberconwy Brighton Kemptown Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill Croydon South East Surrey Mid Bedfordshire North Cornwall North East Bedfordshire North East Cambridgeshire North West Cambridgeshire South East Cambridgeshire South East Cornwall South Basildon and East Thurrock South Cambridgeshire South West Bedfordshire South West Surrey The Cotswolds Alan-24 (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Errors and inconsistencies very possible - as mentioned above. Should we wish to construct a 2017 page, my main points continue to be:
- (1) let's parse the whole data set from a reliable source (I used Parliament, then a spreadsheet) but had to 'mesh this in' with work done to date, which was difficult).
- (2) Only use as few columns as possible to minimise scrolling left-right ('Counties' could go for a start, I suggest)
Requested move 13 June 2017
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Results of the United Kingdom general election, 2015 by parliamentary constituency → Results of the United Kingdom general election, 2015, by parliamentary constituency
- Results of the 2010 United Kingdom general election by parliamentary constituency → Results of the United Kingdom general election, 2010, by parliamentary constituency
- Constituency results of the United Kingdom general election, 2005 → Results of the United Kingdom general election, 2005, by parliamentary constituency
– Per WP:Basic copyediting#Punctuation and consistent naming (discussion similar to that at Talk:Results of the United Kingdom general election, 2017, by parliamentary constituency). HandsomeFella (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Agree about consistency: brevity would also be good - how about "UK general election 20XY, results by parliamentary constituency"? Roy Bateman (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- That would break another consistency pattern: the comma in "United Kingdom general election, 2015". HandsomeFella (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Sensible, policy and guideline compliant, and consistent with previous RM decision as noted above. Andrewa (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Andrewa. It's good to be consistent. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.