Talk:Haltemprice and Howden (UK Parliament constituency)

Location problem

The map indicated "Haltemprice and Howden shown within Humberside, and Humberside shown within England"

The problem is that Humberside was abolished on 1 April 1996.

The map & page needs updating to reflect this.

Keith D 22:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Humberside map on the main article's page must be replaced with an East Riding of Yorkshire map. The England counties map is also am pre-1996 map; that needs to be replaced with the current England map by counties. Someone who knows how to make those necessary updates to the maps please do so asap.Redwhiteandblue2 (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ordering

The order of election results has been changed to have the oldest result first this appears to be at odds with other constituency articles. Is there a guideline on which order these results should be presented in? Keith D (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I know this is at odds with some constituency articles, but I think it far the more logical way. After all we don't list the MPs more recent to the first. I think its just a habit people have got into, putting the most recent first, but there's no reason to do so.--UpDown (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed some articles are "late to early" and others "early to late". It seems to be, largely, the whim of the editor. A standard would be great but the templates are quite fiddly to move without copy and paste disaters, so it may be best to keep them "as is" doktorb _words^deeds 16:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with the suggestion that we should leave them "as is", that does not create consistency. Copy and paste is quite easy, or dragging them (which is what I did here). Also, in my eyes they should really be in chronolgical order.--UpDown (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean "recent to historical" order? I prefer most recent first for results to be at the top, with list of MPs going in the reverse to this, most recent MP at the bottom. doktorb _words^deeds 17:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer, as I said in my first comment, to have the first election results going down to more recent (as reflected in the change I made to this article). I can't understand why MP list should be in reverse order to results list. All lists on Wikipedia, like filmographies, should be date order with earliest first.--UpDown (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This morning User:Warofdreams made this this edit to the results section saying "full by-election result; standardise this section". I take issue with the notion that he was standardising it. He put the results back to most recent first order - as we have discussed on here there is no standard, it varies from article to article. I suggest this is something that is discussed and decided upon at the Wikiproject's talk page. Secondly, he also changed the heading to "Election results" from "Elections" - rather than standising this the opposite of what the project's style guide suggests. It says the section should be called "Elections", which in my mind is better anyway as the "results" in reduant. Warofdreams also changed the sub-headings from "1990s" to "Elections in the 1990s". There appears to be no style guide recommondation here, but I do feel that the "Elections in the" is largely redunant; the heading is called "Elections", so the subheading doesn't need to point that out again. The heading says Elections, so the sub-heading splits it into decades, the word "elections" does not need repeating. --UpDown (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The large majority of article have the format with the most recent results at the top, and with subsections named "Elections in the 1xx0s". The style guide was written quickly and has been little referred to over the past few years; it's interesting that it suggests "Elections", but the vast majority of articles don't use this. "Results" is not redundant in the title, as there's far more to an election that the result. The previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies concluded with no consensus as to which order to use, so there's definitely no consensus to change articles with one style already in use.

I'm very keen to see a standard format for these articles; as you have ideas for improving this, could we discuss it centrally at the WikiProject, rather than trying to change one article at a time. Warofdreams talk 17:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that the large majority have most-recent first format, but I don't believe its correct at all. I would disagree that most articles have "Elections in the..". I would very much agree to a discussion at the wikiproject.--UpDown (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Deposit

From the By-elections from 2008, do the English Democrats, Conservatives and Green party get to keep their deposits for the next General election? Because they scored 5%+ of votes. So, should there be a 'confirmed political party' list that includes the English democrats, Green party and the Conservatives for the next general election? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.240.200 (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the question. That is not the way UK elections work. Yes, those parties kept their deposits, but there is no guaranteed place in future elections. If any of those parties want to nominate candidates, that is up to them. One great source for information on candidate election is http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/, just follow the links to Haltemprice. doktorb _words^deeds 16:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I just found out that Labour and the Conservatives are the confirmed parties for this constituency for the next general election here:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/haltempriceandhowden

(86.148.145.120 (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

Other articles, also disputed statement

Please don't add boilerplate text to every article about a place that is within this constituency eg

The area mainly consists of middle class suburbs, towns and villages. The area is affluent and has one of the highest proportions of owner-occupiers in the country.

The statement is about the constituency not the individual places - it does not mention the demographics of individual places - the content is relavent here, not elsewhere.

Also the claim that The area mainly consists of middle class suburbs, towns and villages is disputed - the area is primarily agricultural - most of the area is (easily verified) agricultural land.Xiiophen (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Haltemprice and Howden (UK Parliament constituency)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

#Requires inline references adding using one of the {{Cite}} templates Fulfill request for expansion Keith D 11:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC) it's had a couple of inlines added and been expanded Tom (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 17:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haltemprice and Howden (UK Parliament constituency). 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20101106204053/http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/electoral-figures/electoral-figures.htm to http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/electoral-figures/electoral-figures.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)