Talk:1832 United Kingdom general election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

File:1833 UK Election Map.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:1833 UK Election Map.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is
    non-free
    then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no
    fair use rationale
    then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --

talk) 00:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Requested move 27 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved.usernamekiran(talk) 09:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


United States presidential election, 1788–89 for precedent. --Neve:selbert 17:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name

This should be moved back to the old name. Google returns 81 results for "1832 general election" versus 31 results for "1832-33 general election" (all of those results are Wikipedia articles that have been edited to include the changed title) and 47 results for "general election of 1832" versus 1 result for "general election of 1832-33" (which is a typo in the Google result). The standard reference works for this period (e.g. the New Oxford History of England) describe this as the "1832 election" or the "election of 1832". There is no evidence that the common name of this election includes 1833.--

talk) 21:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree, though I would, given that I opposed the recent move! Warofdreams talk 18:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, while the History of Parliament hasn't produced the volume covering the 1832 election yet, they seem to use "the 1832 general election" or similar when they mention it in the 1820-32 volume. I would be tempted to say we should use them as the standard reference point! Andrew Gray (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus is to move all the pages/subpages as proposed. The only oppose presented in the discussion is regarding use of subpages in article, which is currently being discussed at

Talk:List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1832#Use of subpages. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]



– the current titles were adopted at a

WP:MOVEREVIEW, it seems simpler to just open a new move discussion to seek a positive consensus on the substantive issue. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Usage in reliable sources:
  1. The two most authoritative referencs books on elections to the Parliament of the United Kingdom are F. W. S. Craig's series multi-volume series "British parliamentary election results", and the single-volume multiple-edition "British Electoral Facts" initiated by Craig and updated since by Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher. Both use 1832 rather than any variant of year-span 1832–33
  2. The following searches were all conducted today. All are linked, to allow verification.
    Per
    WP:COMMONNAME's guidance When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources, I searched Google Books rather than doing a general google web search. Since Google News is unlike to be helpful in searching a 186-year-old topic, I searched Google Scholar instead. I also searched JSTOR, which consists solely of scholarly journals and books.
    However, the first search uses Google to check the History of Parliament Online, a massive scholarly exercise which has been underway since the 1940s, writing biographies of every single member of the UK Parliament and its predecessors the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Great Britain. So far it has completed its work only up to 1832, but many of the Member of Parliament
    (MPs) whose biogs are included in preceding period contested the 1832 election, and many served for years after that date. So there are plentiful references to that election. As can be seen and verified below, the History of Parliament uses only the single year, and never a year span.
  3. Note that in the table below, I conducted separate searches for each variant of year span ("1832-33 and 1832-1833"), and also duplicates each of those searches using an
    endash rather than a hyphen. The endash appears to make no difference to the result. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Source "1832 general election" "1832-33 general election" "1832–33 general election" "1832-1833 general election" "1832–1833 general election"
The History of Parliament 255 0 0 0 0
Google Books 184 12 12 0 0
Google Scholar 54 1 1 0 0
JSTOR 15 0 0 0 0
Alos pinging the three editors who commented after its closure: @
Britannicus, Warofdreams, and Andrew Gray. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:DATERANGE. But the consensus was to move the article. As BrownHairedGirl pointed out correctly, the only argument which was backed by a policy was ironically an oppose. I did weigh it, but it was the a lone vote. Last time (another move discussion), when I closed the discussion based on rational arguments, and policies provided; I was said to biased view/OR, and imposed my own thoughts/view on the close. Hence I closed previous request in discussion the way I did. In the hindsight, I should have relisted the discussion with a comment. Looking back at the discussion (which was from my early/inexperienced days as page mover), makes me feel I should have relisted it. I apologise for my mistake, which lead to the current discussion consuming everybody's time. Sorry again. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a . No further edits should be made to this section.