Jump to content

Talk:Ilford North (UK Parliament constituency)

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

Note of article for deletion

[edit]

The article on Gavin Stollar has been nominated for deletion. Timrollpickering 10:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple names for candidates

[edit]

User Graemp has added volumes of middle names into candidate details on this and other pages, and I have deleted them here and for Ilford South. My view is that this is detail not needed for a page intended to provide historical election results; where candidates are notable, a link to their personal page provides access to full biographical information. Showing candidates with up to five first names before their surname doesn't make this page look sensible. Pinging Doktorbuk Other views are welcome IanB2 (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IanB2 has deleted volumes of middle names out of candidates details on this and 1 other page and I had restored them only to have them deleted again. My view is that this detail is needed where a candidate does not have a link to access biographical detail. He also assumes that a candidates first name is the name they were known by, which is a poor assumption to make. When an un-linked candidate's name is listed in full we can be sure the information listed is right and we make it esaier for other editors to track down a link if one exists. How many forenames a candidate had is a fact and should not be constrained by any stylistic consideration, after all this is an encyclopedia concerned with facts. Graemp (talk) 12:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that adding every single middle name, up to five!, is perhaps overkill. Yes, candidates may be known by other names, but issues with notability surely kicks in when each and every middle name of each and every candidate is added in full? For winners and notable runners up, I understand the case for adding additional detail. Others and also-rans, not so much IanB2 Graemp doktorb wordsdeeds 04:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When a person has five forenames, any problem with overkill is not created by the wikipedia editor but with the parents or whoever was responsible for naming the individual in the first place. I think when wikipedia editors attempt to decide when a name is too long there will be problems as we will certainly have differing views on this subject. Perhaps this is the sort of thing we should not be deciding.

I take a different view from doktorb regarding winners and notable losers; as IanB2 has correctly pointed out, these individuals will have links to articles that contain more detailed information about them. The others and also-rans, who are not linked, need to be presented in as full a way as possible to ensure that they will be more easily identified by the reader, and any subsequent editor who will be more able to link them to articles that contain more detailed information about them. Difficulties in IDing candidates is part of the challenge to members of the UK politics project, like myself, who work on the older election results. Those editors like doktorb who have done good work on the more modern results, may not instantly realise that.

Finally we come to a point about style; which in an encyclopedia, should be most concerned with consistency in presentation. If we recognise the need to record the full names of candidates for un-linked candidates, we should follow that pattern by recording the names of all candidates in full. To have UK parliamentary election candidates names listed in full is not unusual; it is customary for all candidates to formally submit their name in full and at the count their names are read out by the returning officer in full. Unlike past published reference works, wikipedia has an un-limited space to present information to the reader, so is in a position to re-present the full information contained in the official records. Graemp (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The style point about proper names is already covered fully by existing WP policies. In an article speficially about a person, their full name is spelled out ONCE only. For references within articles, the format most commonly used by other sources should always be used. Normally this would be first and last name, although there are exceptions (like John F Kennedy). This is the approach that should be used on election result pages. Adding strings of middle names that would not generally be used by other media sources isn't adding value. IanB2 (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WP style policies regarding proper names relate specifically to articles about the individual concerned and bare no relation to how thy should be presented in other articles. Your point about presenting a name as previously presented in other sources does not understand the problem when those sources only use a candidate's initials. Also sources use a variety of presentations. There are also problems arbitrarily using the first name when we don't know the common name. Consistency of presentation is the most sensible approach. Graemp (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The style policies very clearly apply to all references to proper names. If you wish to contest them please take this up on the appropriate MoS talk page IanB2 (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy that the WP style policy regarding proper names relates specifically to articles about the individual concerned, therefore I have no need to contest that. Graemp (talk) 09:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP doesn't work on the basis that individual users can decide whether they wish to apply policies or not. If we are looking for consistent presentation I would suggest that the historically published Times Guide to the House of Commons can be considered authoritative; in the pre-electronic era this was the go-to source for detailed election results, as Butler only contained summaries. The Times Guide did not, as far as I can see, list any middle names of candidates, who were referred to by first and last name only and, in the tabulated results data, with initials only. IanB2 (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The TGttHoC were compiled from editions of The Times published at the time. Errors appeared in those pages relating to candidates names and not all were subsequently corrected. Editions of the TGttHoC also sometimes contradict themselves, using different forenames at different elections. In the 1950 edition no forenames were used at all, so TTGttHoC can not even serve as a model of consistency on that count. The guides were constrained by space, which is why they abbreviated where they could. On wikipedia we are not so constrained. Graemp (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is nevertheless clear that WP policies on data presentation and style are guided by those of other authoritative sources, not the preferences of a single user. It is also clear that we editors are directed towards consistency and conciseness, with the 'unlimited space' argument explicitly countered in WP editing policy. If you have a concern with the general principle of clear, concise and consistent presentation you really need to take it up elsewhere, rather than spend any more time adding fluff to individual pages. IanB2 (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted the second forename of Stanley Walter Alexander from the article titled S.W. Alexander. The argument you have used to justify this action is that we should present a candidate in proper (common) name form. However, the article does not say that his common name was Stanley Alexander. For all we know, his common name may have been Walter Alexander. This is one of the reasons why it is better to list a candidate's name in full.

if his name were 'Walter Alexander' then he would be referred to as such in the rest of the article about him. But he is clearly called 'Alexander' IanB2 (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Likewise if his name were 'Stanley Alexander' then he might be referred to as such in the rest of the article about him. We do not know if he was Walter Alexander or Stanley Alexander, so it makes additional sense in the Ilford article to refer to him as Stanley Walter Alexander. Graemp (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MIDDLENAME is a policy that applies to Wikipedia:Article titles and not to how names should be presented in other articles. Your latest deletes make it harder for editors researching candidates to identify them for the benefit of the reader. Graemp (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ilford North (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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 09:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ilford North (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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 23:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ilford North (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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ilford_North_(UK_Parliament_constituency)&oldid=1207308642"