This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of UK Parliament constituencies 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.UK Parliament constituenciesWikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliament constituenciesTemplate:WikiProject UK Parliament constituenciesUK Parliament constituencies 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 London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
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
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
User:Tiller54 has chosen to delete random elements to this article and edit a paragraph in such a way as to make it difficult to understand. I have restored the article to how it was before the edit. This process has been repeated a few times with both editors making brief comment. It is time therefore to discuss the issue here more fully.
1. Titles: Tiller54 has chosen to delete some but not all of the titles used to describe the candidates in the election boxes. I have restored the titles for consistency. Titles impart additional information about an individual and can also assist in the further identification of those individuals. This is particularly relevant in the case of Miss Marjoram, Miss Leighter and Miss Johnson.
2. Full names: Tiller54 has chosen to delete some but not all of the middle names of candidates in the election boxes. I have restored the full names where known for consistency. The practice of using full or the fullest names available assist in the further identification of individuals, though none of Tiller54's edits actually were detrimental to that process which is good. Tiller54 said that full names are not used in boxes and gave the example of Sedgefield (UK Parliament constituency). In that example, full names are actually used more often than not, therefore I would conclude that this is a page that is still very much in development. To counter, I used the example of Epping (UK Parliament constituency), a fully developed article where full names are used throughout. Tiller54 countered by saying that Epping is an exception. I think that if anyone trawled through the current and historical constituencies, they would soon realise that consistency on this matter does not exist one way or another but that there are a clear majority of articles that include full names. Again, I think this difference is merely a difference in the extent of the development of each article. Some but not all of the main sources used for constituency election results provide full names and where an editor has included this information, it has helped them and other subsequent editors from IDing a candidate and providing an appropriate link to the individual concerned. Not to include this information makes this task harder. Perhaps the style that seems to have been adopted of placing full names in the boxes is because it apes the official records which are read out by returning officers at a count. If so, I think this is a nice touch.
3. Coalition endorsed: Tiller54's edit removed the detail that explained which 1918 candidate was endorsed by the coalition government.
4. 1939/40 election: Tiller54's edit made for a confusing sentence that is grammatically bad. Tiller54 added that it was a cancelled election which is strictly speaking not correct as we did not have fixed term parliaments. Perhaps there should be a bit in there stating that the election was postponed, which would be more accurate. Graemp (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
1. There's no need for titles. Either use them for everyone or none of them.
2. For people without Wiki articles, I don't object to including middle names. For people like Margaret Thatcher, using their full name is pointless and violated WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia uses the name by which she is best known, not her full name, not her maiden name, not anything else.
3. That was an oversight, I didn't mean to delete that.
1 You argue for consistency of use while not acknowledging the value in divergence. If you did not understand my point, please say.
2.You argue for inconsistency of use while not acknowledging that WP:COMMONNAME is a policy relevant for article titles only not a policy for how an individual should be described in an article, therefore an invalid argument here. Your comment about wikipedia use is wrong. In the Dartford article where in 1950 Margaret Thatcher stood, she is not described as Margaret Thatcher, the name by which she is best known, because at the time her name was Margaret Roberts. I think that article is correct to describe her as Roberts.
.svg){kind=small}
