Talk:List of by-elections to the Senedd

Untitled

2 Points I disagree, Peter Law was an Independent when he died.

Also ahve you guys forgoton about the Swansea East by-election? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1568106.stm

On Law's party - whilst I agree he was, virtually all listings are seeking to ascertain the change by the voters - hence comparison to the last election. The listings for UK Parliament by-elections contain a lot of cases of by-elections in seats where the elected member had changed party and this method is the best for showing when the voters changed their mind.

As for Swansea East fair play. I recall a lot of people talking about Blaenau Gwent as the first ever Assembly by-election so it seems everyone forgot the earlier one. Timrollpickering 13:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Holdng party

For consistency with the other lists I think we should list the holding party as that when the seat was last contested. When a member has moved party we can put their new alleigance second (so Peter Law would be Labour/Independent) but even if the move is upheld in the by-election it should be treated as a gain. Timrollpickering 09:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. —Nightstallion (?) 09:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. Good to keep the standard doktorb _words^deeds 11:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this have a grey background now, to signify an independent gain? —Nightstallion (?) 12:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, did it myself. —Nightstallion (?) 12:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Regional Member changes

I've re-added the list of regional member resignations as I think it's important that these are all recorded in one place. As the Assembly is still a fairly new institution and there haven't been too many by-elections and list changes I think it's logical to have them on a single page. Over time it might be necessary to split them. I've renamed this page accordingly. The only other option would be to have two separate pages, but at present I think that would be unnecessary. Happy to debate/discuss, but please do not just delete Paulharding150 (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Uh, you don't just get to impose your view unilaterally. There is a procedure for debating page moves (WP:RM). I don't agree with your logic of stitching together by-elections and regional member appointments. This isn't how it is done with the Scottish Parliament articles, for example. Regional member changes there are recorded in the parliamentary term articles, e.g. 5th Scottish Parliament. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless you object then I'll make a new page for changes, I think (and I stress I think) it's better to have all the changes together rather than spread over five articles. Paulharding150 (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)