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 British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories 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.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean articles
Names of Candidates Party 1 + Postal + Mobile 2 3 4 VOTES of Votes
1 Bryan, Kenneth Vernon IND 303 176 197 175 851 87.10%
2 Cornwall, Frank Anthony IND 39 25 32 30 126 12.90%
Ballots counted per station: 342 201 229 205
Total ballots counted in district = 977
Thanks for finally explaining what the problem is – why didn't you just raise this issue four hours ago rather than having to go through all this? A helpful editor would have spotted an error or contradiction and raised it on the talk page, or at least explained it fully in an edit summary.
I genuinely don't think you understand what OR is though. We have to deal with contradictory sources all the time – not just for elections, but for all kinds of topics. It's our job as editors to try and determine which source is correct – this is not original research. The question here is what other sources say about Cornwall's affiliation. Theseofficial lists of nominated candidates have him as a Progressives candidate, as do thesenews sources, so it looks like the first source has an error. Number5720:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't the problem, that was an illustration of the problem. If it was just about Cornwall's affiliation per se, it wouldn't be OR. Publishing vote totals which as such aren't in any source, however, is. Mewulwe (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CALC says "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." These calculations are typically done by a single person without any broader consensus, and no one could ever honestly say that they are "obvious" - verifying the correctness requires a tedious replication of a complex, far from "routine" calculation. Something being regularly done doesn't justify it - there are many "regular" malpractices on Wikipedia. Mewulwe (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted, and thanks for pointing it out. You could have corrected it yourself if you wanted – the article is free for anyone to edit. Number5701:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
