Talk:Ipswich (UK Parliament constituency)

message: Thomas Clement Cobbold ought to be given his full name, to distinguish from Thomas Cobbold who is linked from the article on Cliff Brewery as founding it in 1723.  I had a go at sorting it out but got muddled: I think we need to do a WP:RM to sort out.  Similarly, the two John Cobbolds should be identified by full names, rather than dates: WP:NAMC explicitly says "Years of birth and death should not be used in a page title to distinguish between people of the same name.".  We're lucky to have middle names for those 2!  PamD (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have picked up all the pieces, I think, and left a request on the WP:RM to have Thomas Clement Cobbold article renamed as such.  (I think that if I hadn't started to edit the redirect I could have just done the move, but with a redirect with a non-zero edit history it can't just be done simply).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs) 23:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cobbolds 

message: A series of elections between 1835 and 1842 were found to be corrupt. To quote Hansard from 1842: During the last seven years, or little more, there had been five elections for the borough of Ipswich, and those five elections had produced five petitions . Should there not be a standard way of marking corruption against an election, currently the only clue is a subsequent by-election? PeterEastern (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Corruption 1835-1842

message: The election results from 2005 seem to be calculated from the 2001 election and not the by-election.  Shouldn't the swing be from the last time the seat was filled, rather than the last time there was a general election?
JASpencer (talk) 09:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you in this particular instance and as a general rule, this seems to have been the norm. Any diversion from that norm ideally should be flagged up as such. Graemp (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: By-elections are anomalous beasts and often bear no relation to the constituency's general political leanings and on occasions one or other major party may not stand, further distorting the trend that swing is supposedly representing, so swings, percentage changes, and N/A etc. should generally be based on the previous general election results - just like every other constituency, but in an absence of a wiki-wide policy this should follow whatever convention the relevant wikiproject supports. If it came to a vote my preference would be for general election to general election. Fan | talk | 05:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure of the true value of your point. It should not be forgotten that by-elections can actually change the constituency's general political leanings, if only for one subsequent general election, which of course happens to be the one we are specifically interested in. Graemp (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst I normally prefer to compare like with like -general election-general election, the major parties assess a candidate's performance by comparing his swing with that of the main parties at the election.  It has the benefit of being easy to calculate and politically neutral. JRPG (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 election swing 

message: To try to sort this edit warring about 'N/A', I have raised the issue at the relevant Wikiproject, so please comment there if you wish to be involved in the discussion. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Dispute at Ipswich (UK Parliament constituency)]]

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ipswich (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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: For constituenecies that have had a continual life over the years, should we really be putting everything into one article?
I think that the current layout first bloats the current article with lists of MPs while also ironically downplaying the history - the role of the Corporation, the changing nature of the electorate during the various reform acts, the Blues and Yellows.  
1918 when the Ipswich constituency became a one member constituency, female suffrage, universal male suffrage  and the Liberals stopped being elected to Ipswich - seems to be a very obvious place to split the article. JASpencer (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked the question here JASpencer (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the article