Talk:Rotherham (UK Parliament constituency)

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

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

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

UK Parliament constituencies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of UK Parliament constituencies 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.UK Parliament constituenciesWikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliament constituenciesTemplate:WikiProject UK Parliament constituenciesUK Parliament constituencies articles

Yorkshire Mid‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Rotherham (UK Parliament constituency) is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

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

Defection

MacShane has defected and therefore references to independent articles on the page should be left, here is the proof

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Members_of_Parliament_who_crossed_the_floor#2010-2015_Parliament —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeontheedge (talk • contribs) 17:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing having the whip removed, as MacShane has, with crossing the floor.

Rsloch (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graph

The useful graph on this page shows the relative votes of the major parties over time, and also the total votes for other parties. An editor has removed it on the grounds that the "others" are not a party. I do not understand this objection; it is a common and widely understood convention to group "others" together, and is particularly useful on a graph, where it would not be possible to illustrate in an intelligible way the vote share of every other party and independent. Warofdreams talk 12:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The graph says 'Other' not 'Others'. 'Other' implies a single party which makes the graph misleading and hence why I removed it.

Rsloch (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Other' is a perfectly normal way to group small parties. See, for example, the BBC election calculator here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8609989.stm —Jeremy (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) I agree that the plural would be more correct, but as you're the first person to even spot this in almost six years since the original creation of these graphs, I don't agree that it is misleading. The value of the graph far outweights the small chance that somebody might find the wording slightly confusing. Warofdreams talk 16:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably I'm being too picky then Rsloch (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Rotherham (UK Parliament constituency)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.

Requires inline references adding using one of the {{Cite}} templates
Investigate red-link election years

Keith D 13:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 13:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 04:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rotherham (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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]