Talk:2013 United Kingdom local elections/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Infobox problems

The infobox currently doesn't match the article, article lists many con councils, 1 lab, some NOC. Infobox says many con councils, 1 libdem, 0 labour?? Also, if the infobox is including mayors in its' councils count (which is the only way I can see to get 30 for cons), then title should be Councils/Mayors.

Re the long UKIP argument: the solution is simple. If UKIP get enough voteshare/councillors, put 'em in. Until the results are in, the infobox is only to (can only) show the old results, where UKIP don't come anywhere close. 92.15.59.167 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I see why that's confusing. The explanation is complicated. Those numbers reflect the results of the 2009 local elections when most of these elections were last held. Bristol has elections in third, so when these elections were held in 2009, the LibDems took control of the council, but they've lost control since. Meanwhile, Durham is a bit of an exception: it last had an election in 2008, but there was a re-organisation and it's moved a year in the cycle. I'll add some footnotes to clarify. Bondegezou (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That is somewhat dodgy. I'd be strongly suggest that the 'last election' figures are the previous results from all positions up for grabs, excluding (or footnoting) Durham because it wasn't voted for at the same time as many of the others last time doesn't seem particularly logical. But mebe these things have been debated to death up in that mess. Also, mebe the infobox could/should be extended to also show councils/councillors the day before the election, to account for defections and such.....but then how to include bristol. Probably a matter of if anyone can be bothered. 92.15.77.178 (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not dodgy. Most of the elections held in 2013 are those being defended from 2009. So we have to show "like for like". Anything else is manipulation (hence, the rightful exclusion of UKIP) doktorb _words^deeds 13:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh don't be so defensive, I'm not a UKIPer. Example of dodgyness: If Lab win Durham but nothing else....the infobox will have displayed that labour held 0 councils before election, 1 after.....gaining 0. The infobox isn't showing like for like, because these elections are not only the 2009 ones, excluding those held previously on a different date is far closer to manipulation. The only problem I see is the vote share. 92.15.77.178 (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It is all fiddly and complicated. I suggest we see what the BBC do and follow them as a reliable source. It's pretty standard in the media to base comparisons on the last election result and not on defections or by-elections since, so the BBC and newspapers do report as a gain a Commons seat that was already won by that party at a by-election. The complication that most of these seats were last fought in 2009, but there are these three exceptions... I'm less sure what to do there, so will keep an eye on what reliable sources do.

Vote share... the thing about vote share is that we should be clear it's a projected national vote share. It's not the actual vote share: it's a calculation used by media and psephologists to make year-on-year comparisons meaningful even though they're for elections in different areas. Bondegezou (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Previous local election articles don't have the previous numbers of councils and councillors displayed in the infobox anyway so this shouldn't really be an issue after the election - I'm guessing those numbers will be replaced with the election results once we know them.

On a related note I've noticed all the previous local election articles back to 2005 compare popular vote share with the previous year's local elections rather than the previous election in the cycle - presumably this is a valid comparison as it's a projected national share rather than the actual vote share in the set of councils and divisions/wards up in a particular year - but this article compares with the previous election in the cycle. I don't really care which way we do it, but we should at least be self-consistent. Pilchard (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I suggest we compare with the previous year as that's the point of the projected vote share. Bondegezou (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Using last years projected vote share seems like the best idea, as a like for like comparison is so tricky. Also agree (for ease of finding info if nothing else) that using last results rather than day-before-election-standings makes sense...although the lib-dem loss is not so straightforward, if they lost it at election of a separate 3rd rather than defection...else it will be described that they lost that council at 3 separate elections? It's a bit....dodgy. It seems pretty certain to me that after the election the infobox will count all results, not just the results of those last contested in 2009, so before the election should do the same. I really think that the previous-situation/gains&losses/results, should add up. I can't see that having 1+0=0, or similar...can be a good idea. 92.15.77.178 (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we just use the info box for councils as opposed to including directly elected Mayors because its a different type of election, under a different type of system, for a completely different type of position, we can't count a mayor as a council or councillor because they are neither. As elections to the council chambers take place at a different time. Simply put the mayors shouldn't go in the info box because there is nowhere for them to fit. 130.88.115.11 (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at last years national shares, changing to use that would involve moving Labour to first party, which could be controversial.....and is likely to seem like nonsense given the overwhelming conservativeness of the councils contested, and the national government. Could really do with firm guidelines for this stuff. 92.15.77.178 (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Vote share: compare to last year's or 2009's?

I found that Bondegezou had gone against the above discussion and switched Labour to be 1st place despite the consensus and despite the 'wall of blue' of county council control. Why Bondegezou has done this against consensus I dodo not know but it is standard practice to have it last time the elections were actually held i.e. 2009. Doktorbuk made this point long ago and is no less correct then he was then. May I suggest to Bondegezou that this is not an appropriate way to behave as you so frequently like to point out to others. 213.120.148.60 (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

213.120.148.60 is a known sock puppet with, um, issues. In articles for previous years, vote share is always compared with the previous year. Bondegezou (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That of course excuses your actions....I think not. That is an unrelated matter, the block has expired so can we stick to the subject of the feed. Rules have got to be applied in the same measure to all editors, you have made an edit against consensus and misrepresented what the talk page said in the edit log, so your edit is disingenuous. The evidence clearly suggests you have not acted in good faith and have disregarded the talk page and wikipedia policy. 81.149.185.174 (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

213.120.148.60 and 81.149.185.174 are socks of Sheffno1gunner, who has been permanently banned for block evasion and disruptive editing, including vandalism and personal attacks against myself and a number of other editors.

If anyone has anything constructive to add to the discussion, I'm all ears. I've left the article in its earlier form for now.Bondegezou (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Surely we should be comparing this round of elections with those in 2009 and not last year's? Otherwise we're not comparing like-with-like. Therefore I support the infobox as it is now. David (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see the rationale for comparing with 4 years ago as that's when (most of) these elections were last held (a few exceptions were last in 2008). However, the vote share given isn't simply calculated from adding up all the votes. Rather, it's a projected national vote share that takes into account where the elections are being held: that gets round (at least, some of) the question of whether you're comparing like-with-like.

Either way, I note United Kingdom local elections, 2012, United Kingdom local elections, 2011, United Kingdom local elections, 2010 etc. all (I think) use the previous calendar year for the vote share line in the infobox. So my thinking was that, if we're going to do something different for this article, we need a very good reason why and should then consider whether all those articles should be changed too. (I've also retitled this section given Sheffno's behaviour.) Bondegezou (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a little concerned about the Vote share box too. When these particular seats were last contested, Conservatives got a lot more than Labour, but the current info box implies Labour won. Surely the "Vote share at Last election" would do better to reflect the vote share for these particular seats not for the last election per se ? 2.10.12.53 (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted a change to the infobox before seeing this chat, so sorry about that. I'm abit split now on what I think the best way forward is. I always used to think we should base the 'last election' statistics on the preceding set of local elections, regardless of the fact that the councils in question were not up for election the last time. My thinking was it is I just found it so confusing to keep track of wider trends in local elections. However, this set of local elections in particular is making me question that. These are county council elections, and politically are rather incomparable to the set of unitary authorities we last had - for one thing, I'm pretty sure the percentage of the Labour vote is going to be lower for these elections than in 2012, because traditionally county councils have been rather unfavourable to Labour victories. However, if we base the last election statistics on 2012, it will give the wrong impression that Labour has declined in support since 2012, whereas in actuality county councils are not that favourable like I said, and compared to those in 2009 they will have actually have made an improvement. Nevertheless, I'm still rather stuck on my original concern on it being rather confusing to lay readers if we do it that way. Ugh, not sure right now what the way forward is. Maybe someone has an idea for trying to meet this halfway? Redverton (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The figures used in the vote share row are projected national vote shares. That is, they are adjusted to take into account that local elections in different years are in different places, thus they should be comparable year to year (arguments about the methodology of calculating these figures notwithstanding). So you shouldn't see the problem suggested by Redverton that Labour appears to be declining in support since 2012 just because these are county council elections: the projected national vote share has adjusted for that already. Bondegezou (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

... and whatever we do, we should append some explanatory note as to what comparison is being made. Bondegezou (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Academic explanation of projected national vote share here. Bondegezou (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I actually never knew that was what the last election statistics were based on. Seems a pretty good thing to use. Thanks for informing me about all this. I say defo use that for now. However, I agree a note of some kind explaining those figures wouldn't go amiss - I count myself as a political animal, but if I didn't know about this then most lay readers definitely won't. Redverton (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The popular % vote is not the actual vote in these elections, but an adjusted figure to predict what would happen nationally, but I don't think it mentions this! Someone needs to state this or else it will be very confusing --Andromedean (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Table of results?

Is anyone working on a table of the results for this article?--82.35.251.109 (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)