Talk:2012 Corby by-election

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

Candidates[edit]

Please add Peter Reynolds (representing Cannabis Law Reform) to the candidates table

86.163.92.85 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long list of candidates in the results box, but, as usually happens, many of these potential minor candidates, whatever they say now, will not actually successfully nominate themselves. So, first, we need to make sure the article is revised appropriately when actual nominations are announced, and secondly, should we hold off on having a results box listing candidates until the actual, official candidate list is announced? Bondegezou (talk) 10:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such things have troubled us since I started editing here in 2008. Many of the self-nominated/minority candidates edit themselves into articles and that can be for many reasons - they think it gives them publicity, they think it makes it more likely that the media will cover them, they think it makes them 'official', and so on. We can't really stop them from doing so. I half remember getting into edit wars with candidates who claimed bias against them whenever we tried to keep things 'official'. Given that normal by-elections have a very tight nomination process of two weeks, Corby and the others are probably getting more attention than they'd usually do anyway. Added to that, at one point we'll have the official SOPN which not only puts an end to the editing but clears up the citation orgy in the candidates sections.
In short, I guess there is a problem, there's not a lot we can do to stop it unless the candidate added is clearly fake or using no source or what-have-you, and as long as we are vigilant we can avoid there being too much of a mess. Not having a results box *at all* seems a bit too radical for me. It would make the place look tidier for a few weeks but is very much convention now. In fact I could say there's an argument for ditching the summary box which by and large causes us more problems than the results box does! doktorb wordsdeeds 10:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That all seems very sensible. Perhaps we can be careful with wording, saying things like "has said he intends to stand" rather than "will be a candidate". Bondegezou (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ive added Margot Parker into the top right box as UKIP now poll either higher or equal to the Liberal Democrats nationally. I think given that, it is fair to list her here and not as a minor candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.99 (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UKIP do not consistently poll higher than the LibDems, and certainly not in the more reliable phone polls. More to the point, I think it becomes complicated and subjective to try and make judgements based on national polls. Let's stick to the previous result in the constituency for now, whatever parties' national standings. And after the election, the infobox will, of course, reflect the actual results. Bondegezou (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe doing this detracts from very large moves in opinion polls that are evident. Using only parties that have competed before gives an inaccurate presentation of how people may vote; serving established parties to the detriment of others. Please monitor opinion polls. it is important the top three or four candidates are presented in view of current opinion and not previous performance. Previous results are clear in the article for those to see — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.97 (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the reason to delete my comment as it doesn't detract from the article. if other candidates were in the summary box I wouldnt object. I do not feel it is fair to give cover to some parties and not others. I will not re-edit it at present but please consider before removing other people's additions that are in keeping with the article. if it is convention only to name candidates in the summary box whose parties have previously stood please state so. UK politics is no longer a three party race and wikipedia should relect this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.6.91 (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is only a summary. All the candidates standing and, once available, the full results are shown in the article. Current practice tends to be to use a 5% cut-off for the infobox. If the election is forthcoming, current practice is to look at the previous election's results. (If one of the three main UK parties does not meet that criterion, it shouldn't be listed either, as far as I know.) If you have useful content on the UKIP candidate, it can be added to the main article text.
National opinion polls are of very limited use in considering a single constituency. Were there a reliable local poll (which seems highly unlikely), it might be appropriate to consider that. Bondegezou (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Corby by-election, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Corby by-election, 2012. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Corby_by-election&oldid=1196612601"