Talk:Sheffield Hallam (UK Parliament constituency)

message: I found the 1992 election results for this constituency so I have added them. Is this overkill? Maybe 1992 is too far in the past for anyone to care? JeremyA 00:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Id say keep 'em... its valid information, someone might care, and wikipedia isnt paper... Iain 10:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1992 results 

message: Who calculated the swings in the 2010 election? They are all wrong. For example, Clegg's vote shares was up from 51.1% to 53.4%, which is 2.3% and not 7.1% as it says in the article. This is not the first UK parliamentary constiturency I've noticed with with incorrectly calculated swings. -- Cabalamat (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They're from the BBC (see the reference number above the table). The boundaries have changed since the last election, so the results are calculated based on estimates of what the votes would have been with the current boundaries. If you can find any more info on how that's done, I'd be interested to see it. I'm a bit surprised at how far 7.1% is from 2.3%, though. I wonder how big the boundary changes were. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, that makes a lot of sense. The way the BBC do it is calculate notional results from the last time, which are an educated guess as to what the result would be on the new boundary, and then calculate swings based on those notional results. It should probably say this in the article (and for the c.600 constituencies where the boundary changed? Maybe use a template?) -- Cabalamat (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering if there was any more information on how the "educated guess" is done. I imagine for 600+ constituencies, there must be some system they use, but the Swing (politics) and Swing (United Kingdom) articles don't seem to describe it. As for the possibility of getting a disclaimer, I suggest you start a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, or some other relevant place. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Guardian has a database of 2005 notional results here. The notional results were calculated for the Press Association by Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher of the School of Law & Social Science at the University of Plymouth. They have a Media Guide that probably explains more, but it costs ₤30 (http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/pages/view.asp?page=16620) —Jeremy (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well found! My university library has a copy of the 1995 equivalent of the book (the boundaries must have changed before the 1997 election), so I might go and have a look at that. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The boundaries did change in 1997 (and in Scotland, also in 2005).  Rawlings and Thrasher's methodology is explained here, by Anthony Wells.  Essentially, they look at votes at the ward level to judge how the make-up of a seat has changed. Warofdreams talk 10:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swings are all wrong! 

message: I've found a reference for Sheffield Hallam being the most affluent constituency of the north, but it also says that Tatton is more affluent; so not entirely sure how to cite this one.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/aug/24/politics.communities
94.192.111.177 (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Affluent Constituency 

message: I removed some exact duplication from this section. However the first and fifth paragraphs also have a bit of an overlap as they both describe the voting history, in particular the Labour-phobic nature of the seat. Should they be combined into a single more concise paragraph? Should some of this information be moved to the history section, with which there's also some overlap.  Xanthonym (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constituency Profile 

message: Roland Jennings stood as a "Conservative and Liberal". Notes 12 to 16 are intended to convey this. However they've been attached to the table headers for each relevant election result rather than his party. This isn't terribly clear, but I wasn't sure whether there's a standard approach that should be used. Xanthonym (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative and Liberal 

message: Substituted at 05:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Possible 2019 Sheffield Hallam by-election. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Possible 2019 Sheffield Hallam by-election" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The map that has been added is not actually a map but a link to a map. I think that is not satisfactory and should be deleted. We should actually have a map image or nothing. What do others think? --Bduke (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies. The map took ages to come up on my computer, so I thought it was not an actual map. It is not very good, but perhaps it should stay. --Bduke (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map