Talk:2013 West Sussex County Council election

Sussex Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex 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.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

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

Infobox

The addition of the infobox is duplicative and unnecessary page clutter. It is not justified. It is just there for the sake of it. Please do not add this rubbish. Sport and politics (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no justification for removing this info box. I am slowly upgrading all the CC elections pages so that they are all consistent. However Sport and politics seems to be trying to make this difficult by undoing my edits, they have threatened to have me blocked when all I am doing is upgrading articles, I intend to add more information to these articles (and source it properly of course) so that all CC election articles are consistent. I am starting from the top of the pages and that happens to be info boxes. I notice that some articles have info boxes and others dont, it makes sense to add information, not remove it, this would be consistent with other articles. I would suggest that if any editors are to be blocked it should be those who are vandelising articles by removing information. All I am trying to do is make these articles consistent and another editor is making that very difficult. I from time to time come on wiki to do formatting as no one else seems to bother to do it properly and indeed some intend to remove information...so it seems. 94.2.4.145 (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not spread this discussion out over many articles please stuck to one article to discuss this the first article where this is being properly discussed is here please discuss there and not everywhere. There may be a ban for disrupting Wikipeidia to try and make a point. Sport and politics (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue the discussion on the other page as its easier but I do not appreciate being threatened with bans every 5minutes when I am trying to be constructive and work with you. You need to change your attitude, I do not intend to vandelise or spread discussions everywhere I am trying to cover my back by using talk pages when editing as per wikipedia policy. You seem determined to paint me to be an nonconstructive vandal, that is not the case. I shall continue this discussion on the page you have requested. I hope the discussion will be fruitful and that I am not met with obstanance.94.2.4.145 (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion centralised here Sport and politics (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I have made this article consistent with other articles. I see that the dispute above has been resolved as Sport and politics was removing sourced material and altering the layout, the user has been officially warned about this. 94.2.4.145 and other editors were making the articles consistent with each other. I have completed this task now that the page has calmed down and that Sport and politics and 94.2.4.145 have lost interest in this page. Hopefully there shouldn't be any further issues.130.88.52.43 (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral Divisions / Wards articles

I would appreciate it if anyone would have the time to read the guidance in WP:UKTOWNS to determine whether we should seek to blanket cover each part of the United Kingdom with temporary divisions in their own articles.

My reading of this is that it is best to consolidate information on pages to a Politics section of articles about settlements, which can thereby cover the changes to these wards which in some cases change dramatically. Please feel free to add your views on this. I would be willing to assist a series of successful mergers.Adam37 (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swings

IT is not possible to work out a swing when the two parties/independents which were first or second at the previous election are not the parties which are wither first or second in the subsequent election. This is because it is not possible to work out from which party the change in voters has gone to and doing so is a form of original research which is banned by wikipolicy. This is also the same if a new party enters e.g. UKIP standing in a seat they did not contest at the last election. no swing can be worked out as there is no party candidate to take a change from. Also for consistency one decimal place should be kept with for formatting purposes. Sport and politics (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]