This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shropshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Shropshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShropshireWikipedia:WikiProject ShropshireTemplate:WikiProject ShropshireShropshire articles
Removed a lot of useful stuff (eg incumbents) and has by deleting bits made many things unclear, such as explanations of uncontested wards and headings for the central and south areas. I would like to do a partial revert, but I have a feeling she is just going to go for an edit war (..looking through her history and talk page). Could I have some feedback from other users on this? Argovian (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I would also like to mention that correcting errors made by Sport and politics is time consuming. On providing the results I am going with the names used on the results page of the Shropshire Council's website.Tk420 (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The clean up is in line with the usual standards of other election results articles. If the information is important then it needs sourcing and it should be aded to the lede of the article and not interlinked with the results. There is also Original Research with the addition of the separation of the sections in to uppers south etc. It needs some independent reliable third party sources and cannot be just because. Sport and politics (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What we have here is one editor - Tk420 - trying his best to add information - and another, namely you "Sport and politics" who is just deleting stuff. Stop removing useful information such as:
Which candidate won
Incumbent candidates
How many members a particular electoral division returns (I have bolded this as I regard this as a particularly ridiculous removal by you)
I could go on. Why you feel it necessary to go about Wikipedia and deleting perfectly good stuff I don't know. Just because other similar articles are minimalist doesn't mean this one should be. If anything, other elections-related articles should be expanded. Argovian (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The information stated as having been removed simply has not. The bold item on the list for example is still there and goes to show that the edits undertaken by myself have only been skimmed and not actually looked at. the number in brackets in the division name is the usual practice for indicating how many seats are being contested, not blocks of text in and amongst the results. There is also no "just deleting stuff" the use of wikitables and converting them to template tables in not deleting them. Bringing an article up to standards is not "just deleting stuff". This sounds like an editor or editors have made or seen edits made and are of the mistaken understanding that they can keep all of the information and version of the article they prefer, which is not how wikipedia works as per WP:OWN. Incumbents and which candidate won are not information which add to the article. They complicate and confuse, thereby reducing the ease of access to the information and the articles. This is all a storm in a tea cup. Articles will be edited and articles will be changed after they have been edited that is how Wikipedia works, not a user or users making edits and then taking affront to other users changing the articles after their edits have been made. I would like to suggest that the manual of style is read thoroughly.~~Sport and politics (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}