Talk:2017 Lancashire County Council election

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

Lancashire and Cumbria Low‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria 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.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Detailed Data

Usually County election articles are summaries of the whole with detailed election results placed on their own borough articles. This was agreed several years ago on the politics discussion page. Very recently an anon editor has indicated they wish to change with by adding some data to the summary page. The problem with this being is it makes the whole article too long and cumbersome and makes the detailed local data harder to find for a specific area, so personally I would oppose this. That said if editors wish to change the policy they should contribute to the discussion here so a new consensus can be agreed. - Galloglass 14:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think my view has been expressed quite clearly with my edits. I am an editor of many years standing, and have helped form, curate, and maintain articles which cover local association elections. There are always, each and every year, individual articles about specific local authority election results by year. They are not covered in umbrella articles. They are always covered by their own merits, in their own articles, and that has always been the case for the many years that British local councils have had such a place on Wikipedia. I see no reason why the entire election should be on this page: if you want full election results on Wikipedia, then the place to go has always been "Local Authority elections, year ". I think this article, and its predecessors, are well accepted by showing a brief précis. doktorb _words^deeds 20:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with a uniform system with how we process detailed data. I do, however, see that it creates an issue when we remove detailed data from the 2017 results but leave it lying around on older elections of Lancaster County Council (and many other local elections besides) - It seems to me that this 'data on a separate article' standard isn't really a standard at all, which is why I would lean in favour of having more data, rather than less. Further to that, if it is deemed that a separate article is needed, surely it makes more sense to create the article and move the data, rather than simply delete it and send countless hours of wiki contributor work to the cutting room floor, in the name of simply asking them to do it in a different part of the wiki. bulgaroon 02:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not particularly constructive to go back through the articles and edit them all to your liking, rather than engage with this discussion doktorb. I have proposed a solution which likely satisfies both sides of this discussion. You make the case for the data being on a different article, and I make the case for the data being retained. I'd ask that if you're going to remove data, that you make the accompanying articles which you prefer the data be displayed on. Please engage with this discussion and maintain the status quo, rather than engaging in more edits (especially to other articles related to this one). bulgaroon 15:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All quiet on the Northern shore? You guys seem to have become unresponsive here. Further to my previous proposal, I'd be indebted if you guys could show me examples of this 'two articles' plan in action? I've browsed some local election results but I can't find any that split results for areas onto their own articles.Cambridgeshire County Council election, 2017 seems to have integrated results as per my edit, as does Cumbria County Council election, 2017, Oxfordshire County Council election, 2017, Nottinghamshire County Council election, 2017, Lincolnshire County Council election, 2017, Durham County Council election, 2017. Without wanting to list every single 2017 county council election, it seems like I'm following the accepted model. bulgaroon 02:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One decision does not bind the rest of Wiki. I remind you that you're not suggesting putting full results here, just those for one authority. That is not an improvement. At the moment, we have summary results for all authorities. Choosing one and not all for full results would skew the article and reduce the information available. Also, by the way, while editing earlier articles I noticed that stand alone articles had been merged into summary pages like this one, suggesting that full results for local authority elections might not have the notability you think they do. doktorb _words^deeds 11:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely am suggesting putting full results here. I've been working on an offline version of this article for some time, and am closing in on being able to present a full version with every authority filled out with full results, inkeeping with most of the other 2017 County Council Election results. Given that the majority of other articles show full results, I don't see why this article needs to be an exception. If you take a look at the articles I linked in my last comment, you can see that they look clean, tidy and informative. My goal is to bring this article up to that standard, and I can see no good reason not to do so. I've asked before and I'll ask again, all of your reversions have suggested that this data belongs on a seperate article. Can you show me an example of what you mean? I've still not been able to find any local election results anywhere on wikipedia that are split into two articles, one with summary results, and one with full results. Nontheless, I am happy to do that if it's what you prefer, and as mentioned above, I've even proposed it as a potential solution to this edit war. We must find a compromise. The article has been locked in order for us to do so, not in order for the article to simply be locked in your preferred format. bulgaroon 17:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since no constructive discussion has been attempted here, and I can find no precedent for the idea that detailed results belong on another article, nor any reason why this article needs to differ in style from the other 2017 County Council election results. I'm pressing ahead with finishing off an article update which tidies up the existing data slightly, and fills out complete data for every Borough. This will bring the article into uniformity with the other 2017 County Council election results pages. I have restored the partial results version so that contributors can offer constructive edits on the style and layout of the data on boroughs already completed. Any style changes proposed will be incorporated in my next major edit. I would ask those who are keen to revert the article to a minimal layout to address what I've said above, and to indicate a willingness to populate a new article with the data they remove, or at the very least, offer some examples of such articles so that I can follow the style and do it myself. I will treat any further article reversions that are not accompanied by involvement in this talk page as a form of vandalism, and will request admin intervention, as this edit war should not be resumed. bulgaroon 05:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doktorbuk, you can't just ignore this talk page as a way of enforcing your preferred model due to 'lack of consensus'. bulgaroon 14:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That came from a place of frustration, and I'd like to apologise. I'm not suggesting that your reverting is some kind of tactical move on your part. It would help me a lot if you'd engage a little more readily on this page, however. bulgaroon 19:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

Please stop. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]