Talk:January 1910 United Kingdom general election

Untitled

The sum of each party's number of votes (6,643,139) does not fit number given below the table (7,694,741). Or have there been more than a million invalid votes? Also the Swedish version of this articles gives different numbers of votes ... Martinwilke1980 14:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The total given is incorrect. Warofdreams talk 02:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Changing the order of parties in Table

re: Elections 1910, 1923, 1929, 1951.

I can't see the logic of ordering the tables by votes won. In the UK, votes won are neither here nor there really. It's all about constituencies (seats) gained. The party who wins most seats - not most votes - should be listed first.

It also happens that, in each of the above elections, the party who gained most seats also formed government - another compelling reason to list that party first in the table.

To not so order the table, is to leave the uninformed reader confused as to who formed government after those elections. It not being immediarely apparent that i: the 1910 election was "won" by the Liberals, ii: that Labour formed it's first government in 1924 and it's second in 1929 and that iii: the Conservatives "won" in 1951 despite and yet gained over 1.5 million votes less than Labour.

That's my rationale for the change. Setwisohi (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is highly confusing; any table should have one sort order, not a top item which does not fit a pattern. The party which formed the government should be covered by the text; it makes no sense to try to cover this in the table.

You've not changed all the table to list by number of seats won, which would at least be consistent, but leads to bizarre orders, putting (for example) the Nationalists in 1924 - one seat but no votes - above Sinn Féin, with 34,181 votes but no seats. Besides, the party which forms the government is not the one with the most seats any more than it is the one with the most votes.

By the way, please don't forget the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - if someone reverts your changes in good faith, open the discussion without revert to your preferred version. Warofdreams talk 22:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, advice in return: "By the way, please don't...." is the kind of comment that winds people up. Better to leave such "advice" out of a discussion.

OK, back to the tables. Well, you are absolutely correct that I hadn't considered the effect of my change on the position in the table of small parties. And I agree, completely, that if one changes the top party, as I have done, it makes the rest of the table a confusion. On the other hand, to change the rest of the table would indeed lead to the effect you describe re: Sinn Fein and the Nationalists "finishing" above them, so to speak.

Ah, but, is it really any less 'daft' - if daft is the right word - to have at the top of the table a party with less seats than another? (eg. the 1929 election was won by Labour: they formed government and they had the most seats (287). But the version you prefer places the Conservatives at the head of the table even though they gained only 260 seats and were not the next government). I guess the truth of it is - a lesson for both of us - is that there is no best or proper way of managing the matter. Whichever route one chooses, the end result is unsatisfactory. My version don't work and neither does yours.

How to resolve it? Well, here's one idea: how about the body of the table stays as you want it, but the party who forms government is, in a manner, separated from the rest of the table at the top? I think that could work. What do you reckon? Setwisohi (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• ps. Have changed the table in this article to reflect the kind of thing I mean. Sorry if it's a bit rough but you should get the idea? Setwisohi (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm not keen on this. The example table looks rather a mess, and it's not immediately clear why one party is separated from the rest. I appreciate that reading the text could clarify this, but the purpose of a change should be to make the table more self-explanatory. What if instead we simply bolded the winning party? This would have the considerable advantage that where a coalition has won, we can bold all parties which are part of it, rather than pulling them all out of the main body of the table, or ignoring all but the largest coalition partner. Warofdreams talk 00:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Warofdreams. The table is unattractive. If someone wants to know who won then they can look at the seats won in the table and/or read the article. Bolding the winning party/parties is a good alternative to the table as it stands.--Johnbull (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The table is rough. Granted. (But it was only done quickly as an example and could be improved). But do try doing, say, the 1929 election in bold and let's see if that looks erm... immediate enough. Setwisohi (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented a subtle bolding for Labour in the 1929 general election. It would be quite simple to bold the other fields if this is desirable. Warofdreams talk 20:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, looks fine with bold. But can we have all the stats in bold which refer to the party or parties that won? (I've removed bold from the other parties seats tally - but have singularly failed to add bold to all the stats as they refer to the party/parties who won). Setwisohi (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, I've employed bold text for all fields for party/ies that won. Warofdreams talk 02:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Splendid! I've added party = government = yes to all election from 1910 to 1983. Don't seem able to add it from there on? Any idea why that may be? Will go back and add it to earlier elections as soon as possible. Nice job. Looks better. More immediate. regards Setwisohi (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ps It's OK now. Those other elections were using a different template. I've changed it so that that one also bolds the governing party or parties. Setwisohi (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:John Redmond.jpg

The image Image:John Redmond.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

File:Feb 1910 UK Election Map.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Feb 1910 UK Election Map.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox cotent

Another editor recently decided to delete the AfIL entry in this section stating "election box is a summary, clear cut off point". A similar action was taken to delete elements of the Infobox for UKGE D1910, 1922 and 1923. I think the editor was right to do so in the case of 1922 and 1923 but I am not convinced that the "clear cut off point" used is either clear cut or justified. Some editors will argue that the point of the infobox is to reinforce the statistics used in the table. They might point to the fact that the 4th party, the Labour party, fielded 78 candidates out of 670 in the UK. That is less than 12%. And that they elected 40 - 6%. Compared with the deleted 5th party, the AfIL who fielded 10 candidates out of 103 in Ireland (10%) and elected 8 - nearly 8%. These stats make it hard for anyone to determine that there is much of a difference between the 4th and 5th parties and that if there is a statistical cut off point then it shouldn't be between them. There are perhaps others like me who believe that the infobox should not just be about reflecting the numbers, as this would just duplicate the table. The infobox should reflect the election campaign and its key parties/individuals. While the article currently is little more than a record of the result, few political historians would argue that the battle between the IPP and the AfIL was not a significant feature. To delete one of its protagonists from the infobox I think overlooks this key element. Graemp (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom general election, January 1910. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070811005157/http://www.labour-party.org.uk:80/manifestos/1910/jan/1910-jan-labour-manifesto.shtml to http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1910/jan/1910-jan-labour-manifesto.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 22:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  23:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2018

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: Withdrawn by nom per the lack of support (non-admin closure). --Neve~selbert 18:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

---

United Kingdom general election, January 1910 → United Kingdom general election, January–February 1910 – Voting in this election ended in February (sources). --Neve~selbert 20:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 19:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - it is commonly described as the January 1910 general election, and with good reason, as it was essentially over by the end of January - the only three contests held in February were in the two Scottish university constituencies, and in Orkney & Shetland. Warofdreams talk 01:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The nom has provided sources referring to it as January/February. Can you provide opposing sources? Shadow007 (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, the standard sources such as Craig and Rallings & Thrasher all use January, and a simple Google Books search "January+1910"+election for January 1910 election turns up a large number of works using the term, far more than the equivalent search "January-February+1910"+election for January-February 1910 election. Warofdreams talk 00:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Factually correct. Number 57 12:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Oppose As per Warofdreams, if the bulk of the election was done by the end of January, it would not make much sense to move this (also as per WP:COMMONNAME, if that's to be the case). I've not full knowledge on this issue, though, nor am I specifically contrary to the move, so I'm not casting neither a support or oppose vote. (see below for change of stance) Anyway, I'd be in favour of creating redirects whatever the result of the move proposal be, namely in United Kingdom general election, February 1910 and United Kingdom general election, January-February 1910 (because en-dashes are hard to type), as well as in United Kingdom general election, January–February 1910 should January 1910 remain as the article's name. Impru20 (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose As per Warofdreams. I have never seen this election described as anything other than the January 1910 election.--Britannicus (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Reopening and relisting per request. User:Neveselbert would like to present further arguments in favor of the move. Dekimasuよ! 19:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks Dekimasu. I would just like to point out that there are over 2,460 results for "January to February 1910" etc. and "election" in Google Books. Furthermore, there's nearly 4,000 results rendered in Google Search including "February 1910". This general election extended into February, and per WP:PRECISE I believe this article's title should reflect this fact.--Neve~selbert 19:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • While the numbers on Google searches are notoriously unreliable, I do note that it suggests 55,000 results for "January 1910" and "election", vastly more than including February. Article titles should be at the common name, WP:PRECISE suggests use of the current title, which is "precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". Warofdreams talk 19:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

    I very much doubt that the common name for this election is the "January 1910 general election". I think it's vastly more likely people would refer to it as the "first election of 1910". Per Google Books, there's around 20,300 results for "January 1910" AND "election". If one were to explicitly exclude "February" from the equation the numbers drop by 25 per cent. In Google Search, the numbers plummet: from about 62,000 to to just 14,600. That's a dramatic decrease of over 75%.--Neve~selbert 19:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Google returns 10,800 results for "January 1910 election".--Britannicus (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

    Google also returns about 18,800 results for "first election of 1910" OR "first general election of 1910", etc.--Neve~selbert 19:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

    Both the Oxford History of England and the New Oxford History of England (to give an example) call it the January 1910 election. JSTOR similarly brings up no results for calling it the "January-February 1910" election. The only book about the 1910 general elections (Neal Blewett's Peers, the Parties and the People: The General Elections of 1910) calls it the "January election"/"January 1910" election throughout.--Britannicus (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

    It's still neither the common name nor the most precise one. It's merely a shorthand reference.--Neve~selbert 20:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

    10,800 results for "January 1910 election" versus 62 results for "January-February 1910" and 85 results for "election of January 1910" versus 8 results for "election of January-February 1910" suggest that the common name of this election does not include February. Can you give examples in books or articles that label it the January-February election? If "January 1910" is used as a shorthand reference, as you admit, does not that suggest that it's the common name?--Britannicus (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) WP:PRECISE means that titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. For example, William Jefferson Clinton would be precise indeed, but "Bill Clinton" is precise enough, so no more is needed. I fear that the proposed name for this article would be too long and precise for it to be workable, and in the end people would end up using one of the shorter redirects. I'd be in favour of the name change if that would be appropiate under WP:COMMONNAME, but as it looks that a quick search on Google (as shown per Britannicus and Warofdreams) shows "January 1910" is vastly preferred to "January-February 1910":

Google Books gives 6,250 results for "January 1910" AND "Asquith", as opposed to 603 results for ""January-February 1910" AND "Asquith".

It gives 21,000 results for "January 1910" AND "election", as opposed to 240 results for "January-February 1910" AND "election".

It gives 4,460 results for "January 1910" AND "UK" AND "election", as opposed to 159 results for "January-February 1910" AND "UK" AND "election".

Just a few examples from Google Books, but other searches through Google return similarly (or even more) lopsized results in favour of "January 1910".

In light of this evidence, and as per both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE and in consideration of WP:CONCISE, I'm changing my stance to Oppose. Impru20 (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The current title gives the impression that the election was over by January 1910. There is no absolutely no harm in moving the page to a more precise title. A few statistics:

• There are about 4,700 results for "January 1910" -"February 1910" AND "Asquith". The decrease from 6,250 is nearly 25%.
• There are about 7,060 results for "January 1910" -"February 1910" AND "election". The decrease from 21,000 is over 66%.
• There are about 4,030 results for "January 1910" -"February 1910" AND "UK" AND "election". The decrease from 4,460 is nearly 10%.

Each time you omit "February 1910" from the search, the numbers go down. I wonder why that is? As for COMMONNAME, it has certainly not been proven that "January 1910 election" is the common name. There are more results favouring "first election of 1910" or "first 1910 election" for that particular distinction. The current title simply isn't precise but colloquial. Millions of people call the Affordable Care Act simply Obamacare. Is "Obamacare" precise enough? Or is the term merely a colloquial way of referring to the legislation? One has to emphasise that nearly half of this election wasn't over by January. Ballots were casted in February for nearly two weeks, which is more than enough reason to include it in the title.--Neve~selbert 20:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Your name proposal includes both dates, January and February, not either of them, so it is definitely true that "January 1910" vastly overscores "January-February 1910" in results. Still, your own searches separating "January" and "February" are still not as common as "January 1910", so that would still make "January 1910" the COMMONNAME winner. Further, under PRECISE, the title should not be more precise than needed in order to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, whereas under CONCISE the title should not be longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Even if you wanted to use the Google results separating "January" and "February" to argue over COMMONNAME, the proposed title would still fall short of meeting PRECISE and CONCISE as compared to the current title, so that's why I've changed my stance.

As per your reference Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, given that it's legislation it would fall under its own naming convention, which provides for the official title to be preferred (that's what prevents it from being titled "Obamacare", in line with NASA (and not "National Aeronautics and Space Administration") or United Kingdom (and not "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland")). Sadly for elections, the specific naming convention does not provide for the eventuality of elections happening through different months, so WP:NAMINGCRITERIA would have to be applied to fill in such a gap. Impru20 (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose -William D. Rubinstein (2003). Twentieth-Century Britain: A Political History. Macmillan International Higher Education. p. 38. ISBN 978-0-230-62913-4. These elections are known respectively as those of January 1910 and December--Moxy (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Moxy Rjensen (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONCISE and because WP:PRECISE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:NATURAL are all satisfied by the shorter name; it will also be more WP:CONSISTENT with other such articles, though we made need to do additional work on that (it's likely that a few others are unnecessarily giving over-precise ranges when a simpler identifier will do). Remember that our article titles are not definitions, they're just labels detailed enough that the average editor will understand whether they've found the right page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:56, 10 March 2018 (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.