Talk:Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)

message: There are significant coverage gaps here. The demographics of the seat need to be discussed - Age distribution, income distribution, ethnic and religious distribution. And need to discuss how this affects the psephology. eg, older people will put focus on aged care, certain ethnic or religious groups may tend to vote based on foreign policy, how income distribution affects thether they vote Tory or Labor. Also, need to discuss what local aspects of the seat make it different to others - local issues like specialisede local industries, wildlife and what have you. Also need more about the evolving psehology of the seat. Was it in the past a conservative area that evolved into a Labor area? If so, why did this happen, etc. There is a long list of members, so this electorate has a long history, and it give you a lot more to talk about - more unusual elections, histroical developments of the electorate and also, I think you need to discuss if any frontbenchers or prominent parliament members held this seat. eg, see Division of Macarthur, although not very good at all, for a start. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 05:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article nomination (1)

message: Taken to WP:GAR for a reassessment of the above decision. Chrisieboy 11:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reassessed and listed. Geometry guy 20:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reassessment

message: IMO, this should really be formatted like other multi-MP constituencies, with MPs who served simultaneously on the same level as one another. Choess (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, hence why I made the changes I did (now revoked). The list is horribly formatted; entries do not link to their relative articles, it violated the MoS in several ways and some of the bits are frankly ridiculous. 'Helen Rosemary Brinton (later Mrs Clark)'; does the fact that she got married really need to be included? PhD's and other qualifications have also been put in the entries; they aren't acceptable in the introduction to articles on those people nevermind their entries in a list. Ironholds (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point of the "later Mrs Clark" is that her surname has changed, so she's normally known as Helen Clark (e.g., in the lede). We do the same sort of thing for MPs who adopted new surnames by deed poll during their term. I agree that the postnominals aren't necessary for a list like this. Choess (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Ironholds, your edit summaries, which include "some work, god this page is appalling" and "cleaned up; no way in hell this should have been a GA" are not really called for. Helen Clark's marriage is mentioned as she was first elected as Brinton and the article was promoted by consensus, having been assessed by experienced reviewers. The change proposed by Choess does not correspond to your edits in any case. By all means let's work collaboratively at improving the site, but tone down your language please. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The first one is a bit strong, indeed. Actually Choess's edits are (generally) in line with my thinking; I didn't have time for much of the stuff I wanted to do. GAs are normally assessed by single reviewers; if you are referring to the multiple nominations then I'd point out that two of the three reviewers failed it; not really consensus. Ironholds (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm referring to the reviewers at reassessment. Chrisieboy (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, alright. I'd disagree with consensus here; while WP:CREDENTIAL doesn't (as far as I know) apply to list entries it should. Ironholds (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of MPs 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070128155507/http://www.statistics.gov.uk:80/pbc/review_areas/downloads/FR_NR_Cambridgeshire_Peterborough.doc to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pbc/review_areas/downloads/FR_NR_Cambridgeshire_Peterborough.doc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927113505/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pbc/review_areas/downloads/ACR_Cambs_Peterborough.doc to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pbc/review_areas/downloads/ACR_Cambs_Peterborough.doc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071013052335/http://www.peterborough.gov.uk:80/page-5807 to http://www.peterborough.gov.uk/page-5807
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716123043/http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/viewarticle.aspx?sectionid=845&articleid=1020903 to http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/viewarticle.aspx?sectionid=845&articleid=1020903
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110929165210/http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/viewarticle.aspx?sectionid=845&articleid=1021345 to http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/viewarticle.aspx?sectionid=845&articleid=1021345
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Peterborough (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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is potentially likely to become relevant to a current event in the near future, and may see a large volume of traffic. See the Article for the current MP Fiona Onasanya for reason why. Does this article need any improvement or cleanup ahead of it becoming potentially important and popular? Espatie (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We must adhere to WP:Crystal I think. If what could happen, happens, then we must ensure that this article does not get messed up by IPs and candidates without sources and that sort of thing. For now we can only deal with any copyediting or general maintenance that seems relevant. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

text: I absolutely agree that we should not jump the gun and start adding things about the putative by-election, but I do wonder if there is any cleanup and improvement that could be prioritised ahead of it becoming popular. I'm working backwards through the material by date to ensure accuracy. Sadly this is a very long article (a consequence of a Constituency of this name having been in existence since 1542), and clarity here is a victim of the standard format in some ways. Espatie (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article likely to become relevant to a current event 

message: This older GA promotion is listed a the new GA Sweeps initiative. This article has accreted significant amounts of uncited material that is of a non-obvious nature, which should be sourced per the modern GA criteria. Additionally, some material is outdated as the demographics information is dependent upon the 2001 census, when there have been two UK censuses since then. Hog Farm  Talk 15:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA criteria