Talk:2011 National Assembly for Wales election

message: Throughout this article, Labour has been Wikilinked to Welsh Labour. However, each of the Labour candidates is a member of the Labour Party and is standing in their constituency as  a representative of the Labour Party. No one can vote for a Welsh Labour candidate, as there are no Welsh Labour candidates. I propose to amend the article to refect the reality of the election. Any views? Daicaregos (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Welsh Labour Party has seperate policies from the UK Party, and also it is widely reported to be called Welsh Labour in various media, and by the party itself. Welsh Labour also had a PEB, under the title "The Welsh Labour Party" on the BBC, and announced as a Party Political Boardcast on behalf of The Welsh Labour Party.PEB, and the BBC soruces Welsh Labour's 5 election pledges as coming from Welsh Labour, aswell as Carwyn Jones talking about Welsh Labour.BBC Link The reality of the election is that they are voting for Welsh Labour, even if it is registered as the Labour Party. The complexities of devolution should be taken into consideration, rather then ignored. Especially on an article to do with the election.--Welshsocialist (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That the Welsh Labour group seem to be trying to distance themselves from the main party is interesting, but not relevant to this article. Welsh Labour will not have any candidates running in the 2011 Welsh Assembly election. Consequently, they have no place on this article. Daicaregos (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They do have a place in this article, because it is an article about the Welsh Asssembly election, and Welsh Labour's policies and direction are relevent to that. It is clearer and more factual to have Welsh Labour because of policy differences then Labour UK.--Welshsocialist (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Welsh Labour does not exist as a legal entity. Separate policies may be pursued by the Labour Party at the Senedd, to those pursued at Westminster, but Welsh Labour is not a party and should not be described as one. While politicians can be members of the Welsh Labour group, they represent the The Labour Party for electoral purposes. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. The Labour Party choose to register their candidates under their party name. Wikipedia should reflect that. It is not WP:NPOV to describe politicians as representing any party (or even a faction within a party) other than the party for whom they stand. This shows how the National Assembly for Wales describe Carwyn Jones' 2007 election result. It is how it should be shown here too. Daicaregos (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As en encclopedia it also should explain about the differences between Welsh Labour and the UK Labour for electoral purposes. This is not adequately down in this article by changing it all to Labour Party UK. Also the Welsh Labour page already explains this as such.  Plus, I have already provided evidence that it does campaign under the banner of Welsh Labour, rather then Labour Party UK. Again, your changes would ignore this.--Welshsocialist (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Its purpose (I assume you mean “an encyclopaedia”) here is to reflect the registration of the various candidates. The Labour Party chose to register its candidates so that they will appear to represent the Labour Party on ballot papers. Whether they do or not, is not for Wikipedia to guess. Guessing, wishing or pretending that they represent only a small faction of that party will not make such conjecture suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Should you wish to write a section on the campaign in this article, I don't think anyone would object – provided it is written in a neutral way. Daicaregos (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

text: If you are accusing me of not being neutral, then I suggest you apologise, as I take that as a personal attack. Moreoever, I point to the Welsh Labour manifesto, released today, which is titled the "Welsh Labour Manifesto 2011" and makes mention of Welsh Labour throughout the manifesto. I think that the evidence suggest that there is nothing "pretend" or "guessing" or "wishing" that they are Welsh Labour, when the evidence is clearly there, and I've presented various evidence, that it is very much reality. In this campaign they are Welsh Labour, and they are representing Welsh Labour. --Welshsocialist (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No reasonable person would consider anything I wrote here as a personal attack. The Labour Party decision to distance their election campaign in Wales from the leadership in London, is irrelevant to an encyclopaedic entry. Labour candidates in this election will be registered under the Labour Party and this and related articles should show how they appear on ballot papers. Daicaregos (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welsh Labour 

message: I've uploaded the pair of maps to the right: The first is straightforward enough (and should be added to the infobox), and shows the constituency results. The second shows the additional members selected for the regions, this is a much more complex situation and I'm not sure if the map adequately conveys that info. (Sourced via BBC - I assume they are right).--Nilfanion (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO the typical user won't be able to read anything off the regional map, as there are too many lines. I think a similar map style to that used for Scottish regions would be appropriate. Jolly Ω Janner 17:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created and added the map as you suggested (see right). I think it's all correct - the parties are labelled alphabetically as they appear on the tables on the article, though this could be changed to their vote-share in each region if this is preferred. --Woodgreener (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you able to add a key? Either to the map or in the caption? Only those familiar with the parties would know immediately to whom the colours refer. Daicaregos (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, no problem. It doesn't come out great on the image, but I have added a key in the caption (see right). --Woodgreener (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. Thanks. I added some further info to the caption. Daicaregos (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps 

message: There are figures for the "popular vote" of the four parties who had candidates elected, but no explanation of how this is derived. They're fairly close to the total of the constituency votes on BBC News, but not the same, and there's no reference for the data to clarify things. Unfortunately, I don't know if there's an authoritative record available. 
I'd find a page in the form of the Scottish Parliament election pages much easier to understand, as it actually uses the same terminology the media does. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'll change this from "popular vote" to "Constituency Votes" and "List Votes". --Woodgreener (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does the "popular vote" share mean? 

message: I fail to see the reason for Dai's objections to having "31 seats were needed for a majority" in the infobox. Nobody else complained about its addition for quite a while. GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Assembly has 60 seats. Even the mathematically challenged would be able to calculate immediately that 31 seats are needed for a majority without the aid of their fingers or thumbs, let alone a calculator. Setting it out explicitly would be dumbing down this encyclopaedia. It may be suitable for Simple Wikipedia (although I'm not convinced of that) but not here. It is unnecessary and patronising. Just because something is an infobox parameter, there is no requirement to include it. In some circumstances it would be useful, but not for a chamber of 60 seats. Daicaregos (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In the 2nd paragraph of this article, it mentions that 30 seats make up half the assembly. It's alright for the content, but not the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Hello Dai, why are you ignoring my question? You seem to only be opposing my proposed additions, merely because  you don't like it. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, and not that I need to explain my actions to anyone, I've been busy adding relevant content to articles (welcome to check my contributions history). Do you really think your posting is appropriate to an article Talk page? Re: the 2nd paragraph of this article, I hadn't noticed. Let's wait to see what others think. Daicaregos (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majority of seats in the infobox 

message: I'm adding some colour to show which members have been elected this year, as it isn't very clear at first glance - particularly as bold is currently being used to indicate incumbents from before the election. Colours being used are as follows: Lab - FF9999, Con - 9999FF, Plaid - 99FF99 and Lib Dem - FFFF99. This should hopefully make it clearer to identify individual elected members and their party affiliation.
Comments, suggestions, objections? --Woodgreener (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members elected 2011