This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
Can we please go back to the single table format? All older general elections were reported in a single table and that is more convenient for people scraping wikipedia for data collection and analysis.
Ggilestro (
talk)
17:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Agreed, splitting these tables makes the data significantly less usable, e.g. it's no longer possible to rank Lab/Con results in Welsh constituencies alongside English ones. It was already possible to look at particular countries by sorting on the region column on previous tables, this needlessly hardcodes it.
82.4.185.182 (
talk)
21:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I also agree single table format makes the data more accessible. Can we also add ONS/GSS identifiers? You can find them in the Google Doc I linked to below. This makes it a lot easier to match to other datasets, as there is no standard naming convention for constituencies (cf. various permutations of "Torridge and West Devon", "Devon West & Torridge", etc)
Johnsandall (
talk)
00:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I am curious if you compiled this from their API, and had to source the pages separately from within the DeocracyClub pages. It's not obvious to me how to generate this spreadsheet from their web pages. --
Yellowdesk (
talk)
17:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)reply
It is odd to be using "marjority" to indicate a mere plurality winner's winning amount to the next most popular candidate. Isn't there a better word than that? --
Yellowdesk (
talk)
18:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC) (late signature)reply
The spreadsheet's stated total in England does not match up with the actual total of the spreadsheet, I calculated it using excel (and got 26,911,850), might want to check it out... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
107.190.33.254 (
talk)
04:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)reply