Talk:2018 Lewisham East by-election

Initial article creation

I've filled out the page with everything I can gather from today's news cycle. Most of that is discussion of the Labour Party, since it's a safe seat. Please feel free to adjust my words if you feel they don't fairly or accurately present the situation for Labour. Likewise, I would welcome any information about other party selection processes to add into the candidates section. Remember that a date for the election has not been set, so the wording "a by-election is expected" is correct. Maswimelleu (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes I think it's all fine and as you say, there's going to be an initial bias towards the Labour Party because of the nature of the seat and their selection process. I have every faith that we can fight off accusations of WP:UNDUE once other party selection details are made clear. I suspect there's not much else to be written about from a Labour perspective anyway at this point. doktorb _words^deeds 17:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Exclusion of membership from Labour selection process

Could we have some clarity on exactly what this means? Am I right to understand that the local Labour Party will have no say on the shortlist (likely, all-woman and largely-BAME) but will get to vote on their candidate from amongst those candidates? Or will the local membership not even get to vote at all? Quoting statements from the Lewisham East CLP needs to include clarification of exactly what the statements mean. Maswimelleu (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Maswimelleu: I think we do need to clarify the statements, I have tried editing to make things clearer as the paragraph is getting very stuffed. Maybe a touch of editing from top to bottom is needed doktorb _words^deeds 10:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Rearranged it. What do you think of that format? Can continue to tweak the wording of "local members having their say" to make something less vague, if required. From further reading it definitely looks like the shortlist will be done by the NEC, but local members will get a vote at some kind of selection meeting. Some people saying how this means people on night/shift work wont be able to come in to vote. Obviously if they don't like any of the candidates provided to them by the NEC they're a bit out of luck. What I do want to make clear is that local members will still get a vote, so it's not quite a dictatorial move by the NEC. When the shortlist is available we could put them in a table and denote the ballots cast for each, if they become publicly available. Maswimelleu (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, here's a link to what will probably be the Labour selection timetable. We'll know the shortlist late on Monday and the final candidate late Wednesday (or early Thursday). Maswimelleu (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Other parties

So I sort of understand the need for a secondary source for fringe parties. That said, shouldn't we take UKIP and the Lib Dems at their word if they say they're going to be standing candidates? The Liberal Democrat candidate is Lucy Salek, but I'm not sure if you consider Mark Pack's blog and the Lib Dem twitter account to be good enough sources. Should we split it as just Labour/Other parties or give dedicated sections to major parties? Would we be judging major parties by whether they held their deposit, or my volume of press coverage? Maswimelleu (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I think if a party has a track record of standing in the constituency, then, fair enough, we can use primary sources, but secondary sources would obviously be better. (Arguably, Pack's blog does count, but that's another discussion.) But I wouldn't argue the point if others felt differently that we should insist on some secondary source coverage first.

Section sizes will be dictated by what RS coverage there is. Bondegezou (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I've just given all the 'other parties' their own sub-headings. Either all the parties should have a heading each or none should as per WP:UNDUE. I've also made them alphabetical. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree and I've reverted the change. A party holding its deposit in the last election or receiving significant press coverage is the criteria we use for UK by-elections to avoid giving undue weight to fringe candidates. The only other party that warrants a section is the Conservatives. I also disagree with alphabetising the parties, I think it should either be chronological or in order of votes received in the last election. The Labour Party is the only party in this election to receive any detectable press coverage, and reflecting that in the article is not undue weight. Creating sections for fringe parties makes the article harder to navigate and isn't neccessary to provide a neutral point of view. I'd be interested to hear Bondegezou's thoughts as well. Maswimelleu (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I broadly agree. Our weight should reflect the weight of discussion in the sources/media. Jdcooper (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean in Lewisham or more generally? I'm not sure you can call the Lib Dems and UKIP "fringe parties". I'd be interested to hear what User:BrownHairedGirl thinks also. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Fringe parties in the context of Lewisham East. The absence of secondary coverage for any party other than Labour means that it's legitimate to make the article about "Labour vs everyone else". If the media decided that they wanted to write lots of news stories about the Lib Dem campaign then we'd have the material to write a section, but for now we don't. That principle is sort of similar to examples given for WP:FALSEBALANCE - insisting that "everyone is equal" in the context of this by-election ignores the fact that its a Labour safe seat, nobody seriously expects them to lose the seat (at the moment) and press coverage is exclusively about the Labour Party. Maswimelleu (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

What we've usually done in the past is cover parties in the order they came in the last election, with exceptions made if RS coverage clearly indicates otherwise. For example, with the recent Northern Ireland by-election, we initially led with discussion of a possible "unity candidate" as that was what was getting all the press attention. As for sub-headings, I'm fine with minor parties being lumped together. That's what RS often do. Bondegezou (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I have (again) deleted reference to For Britain, Green and OMRLP candidates that is based only on the parties' own announcements. WP:RS is a basic Wikipedia policy. At numerous past by-elections, all sorts of fringe candidates have said they would stand, but then failed to actually achieve a valid nomination, so I don't think it is unreasonable to apply a strict interpretation of the need for secondary reliable coverage. Bondegezou (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean in Lewisham or more generally? I'm not sure you can call the Lib Dems and UKIP "fringe parties". I'd be interested to hear what User:BrownHairedGirl thinks also. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

responding to ping by @The Vintage Feminist: I recommend going back to first principles. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, and WP:WEIGHT says we should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

Editors should not make some judgement of their own about who is a "leading" candidate or who is "fringe". No matter how well-reasoned any such judgement or how well-founded in data, it is still WP:OR. Wikipedia doesn't do original research.

So this isn't complicated. Write up each candidate/party per WP:WEIGHT. Then make a sub-head for a candidate only if that makes the content more readable. This is an ongoing event, so the balance will change as the election proceeds. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

There are, as far as I can see, literally no secondary sources discussing any party other than Labour. This is not a case of undue weight - we are simply discussing the only party mentioned in the material we have available to us. As we've previously discussed, it's been very hard to provide properly referenced coverage of other candidates as the only coverage has been on primary sources (twitter, party websites, party blogs). The ultimate consequence of this is that we have a large quantity of detailed content on Labour and no content whatsoever on anyone else. One editor has decided that this merits reducing the amount of content on the Labour Party, and then removing section headers, a stance with which I also disagree. With the Labour Party selection process being pretty much the sole focus of media attention, it's entirely sensible to give it a specific section and not lump it in with other political parties. I think your argument of WP:OR is difficult to follow - we're aggregating material from secondary sources without providing a synthesis or inserting our own primary sourced commentary. The point is that we cannot say "well, the media has it wrong, we need to treat every single party as being equally important in this election" because, as you say, the event is ongoing and continuing media coverage may reflect or refute our idea of "important" parties and candidates as time goes on. Maswimelleu (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I copyedited down the Labour material because it was badly written, with lots of padding and multiple repetitions of "selection", "process" and "Labour" which detracted from its readability. The only substantive removal was a sentence clearly overtaken by events, now that the shortlist is decided. Of course the Labour selection will merit more content - because of the controversy rather than any favoured status for the party in the seat. Nevertheless sub-headings aren't justified for such a short section under normal WP standards, and it is remarkable that a couple of editors continue to revert them into the article just to maintain a special heading for one of the parties competing in the election. In my view this is a mis-use of editor privilege. MapReader (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

For starters, can I point you to WP:GF. With respect to your other comments, you've made repeated reference to WP:MOS in generalised terms without specific reference to any section prohibiting one sentence paragraphs or prohibiting section headings for two paragraph sections. The Labour Party is the only party to receive any discernible press coverage in this election and we have been following the guidance of secondary sources to discern significant events or candidates in this election. My view is that repeatedly condensing paragraphs or removing headers constitutes an over-zealous interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines and detracts from effective presentation of information. Giving a separate section to the only party with secondary press coverage does not mean Wikipedia is displaying bias towards that party. I encourage you to let others respond to your comments before making judgements about the character or intentions of other editors. My user page might give you some insight on my own private opinions towards the Labour Party if you think there's a WP:NOTHERE issue. Maswimelleu (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Per WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS, we should be saying a lot about the Labour Party's candidate selection process and between nothing and next to nothing about any other parties. Once nominations have closed, I imagine RS coverage will evolve. Bondegezou (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It has always been the case that during a by-election we struggle with providing information without going into blog territory or real-time RSS feed type stuff. I think the thing to remember is the SOPN comes out in a few days, that gives us an official source without question (well...) doktorb _words^deeds 11:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Diff for Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election, 2014. 5 days before the Statement of Persons Nominated was published. Labour safe seat. There was no "Labour" and "other parties". --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

All of the entries there are supported by secondary sources, and are roughly equal in terms of material. In this case the Labour content is the only one with genuinely independent sources and comprises most of the section. Thus a subsection seems a lot more warranted. Maswimelleu (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The Vintage Feminist, bring us reliable secondary source coverage of non-Labour candidates and it will be used. In this by-election, there has been considerable discussion of the Labour selection process, a reflection of the tensions within the Labour Party, and little to none of other parties, a reflection perhaps of the swing back to 2-party politics at the 2017 election, including the collapse of UKIP. Well, whatever the reason, the situation is as it is. Lots of RS about Labour, not about others. We have to follow that. Bondegezou (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

*Edit conflict* Two separate things are being conflated:

(1) How much coverage there is of Labour vs. other parties

(2) Wikipedia's WP:IMPARTIALITY (my bold) Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The organization of the article is biased. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

We're not conflating the two disputes. I've tried to flag the distinction between the secondary sources issue and the impartiality issue already. If you would prefer, we can refactor this talk thread into two different sections and discuss them separately. The secondary source issue will be rendered moot by the publication of the statement of persons nominated (SOPN) which describes all the candidates who will be on the ballot. We're getting that on the 21 May. Whilst we are all aware of the contents of WP:IMPARTIAL, I don't think your comments so far support the contention that we are selecting, presenting or organising facts in an inappropriate way. It is not that I am actively trying to omit or conceal secondary source material for other parties, I am just constrained by the fact that it is totally absent. Events may overtake us and provide us with significant secondary sources for "other parties", but for now the section serves to separate a simple list of primary sourced candidate announcements from a larger and self-contained discussion of Labour candidates and the party's selection process. Were it appropriate, I'd give each party its own header, but they lack sufficient content to justify one. Maswimelleu (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The Vintage Feminist, sorry, I've lost track somewhat. Could you say what specific edit you would like to see? It is just that you want a sub-heading saying "Liberal Democrats" for the one sentence on their candidate and another saying "UKIP" for the one sentence on them? WP:MOS argues against sub-headings for such short sections, as MapReader has been arguing. Bondegezou (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

This neutral diff was undone. Either all the parties should have sub-headings or none. The way that the article is organized with Labour given "special" mention is biased. This is a NPOV issue not a sources issue. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand that you're framing this primarily as a WP:NPOV issue, I'm just asking you to assert why you think giving a section to the only party to receive any press coverage is biased. As I've already stated, Wikipedia is reliant on secondary coverage to establish its own content. The Labour Party is the only party being discussed in mainstream press in relation to this by-election, and thus warrants deeper discussion. Section headers denote pieces of distinct and self-contained content and don't identify content as being more or less important than items not contained within a sub-section. The reason I've asked you to come to discuss this is because neither I nor Bondegezou accept the "headers for everyone or headers for nobody" dichotomy. Maswimelleu (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, TVF. I think the subheadings are a useful way of splitting up the text and help the reader navigate. They reflect what text there is. I don't see that they violate NPOV, but equally I'm not going to die in a ditch over subheadings. I have no strong feelings about that particular edit myself. Bondegezou (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that in the absence of consensus the only recourse we'd really have is to have no subheadings. I just think it's an unnecessary step. Maswimelleu (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay I'll change it then. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, you've misinterpreted what I've said. I'm not saying "remove the headings", I'm saying it'd be the only recourse if we don't reach consensus. You've already submitted a request for comment on the NPOV noticeboard and the administrator noticeboard for incidents, so wait. The Labour content has grown even more now, making it more logical to use common-sense section subheadings to group content. I'm happy to accept the result of an arbitration but I'd prefer to wait for comment before going ahead with your proposed change. Maswimelleu (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@MapReader - if you want to escalate this to some kind of binding arbitration then I'm happy to do that. Please stop making your preferred edit "as per talk page though". We haven't reached any form of consensus and its been less than two days. You've only made one contribution to this discussion so far. I am open to be convinced of your point of view if you are prepared to put it across. Maswimelleu (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

You yourself say, above, "in the absence of consensus the only recourse we'd really have is to have no subheadings" and the other editor who has previously reverted says "I'm not going to die in a ditch over subheadings. I have no strong feelings". So with no-one defending the position I do not understand why you keep reverting to it? MapReader (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Because two noticeboard discussions have been opened and The Vintage Feminist has flagged this discussion with the administrator noticeboard for incidents. You seem to be of the impression that by digging your heels in and not participating you can force your preferred change. I have strongly defended my viewpoint and you have offered very little in the way of a response. Communication is required. Maswimelleu (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

And these alternative discussions to this already extensive one were mentioned by whom and where in this thread exactly? MapReader (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@User:power~enwiki - I personally don't think that's the right solution, but I'm happy to stick with that whilst we try to hammer out a better one. It still satisfies my key concern that the Labour selection and other party candidates shouldn't be intermingled into an unstructured section, but it detracts from readability and creates an odd distinction between candidate selection and candidates, which I don't think are separate concepts. To be quite honest, I'd still rather move back to what we had before because I think that's ultimately the better layout. The key question is still "is grouping content into Labour and Other Parties a case of bias towards the Labour Party?" My view is still no. Maswimelleu (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being an interim solution. Once the full list of filing candidates is known, we can focus on that and the selection information will be less important. I have no idea if sub-headings will be needed at that time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there will really be any cause to trim the selection information afterwards. I've tried to base the discussion on 1) the background for the Labour Party, 2) who was interested in being a candidate, 3) the nature of the campaign and the key issues. If all or most of that content remains, I think there would still be cause to have a subsection. Another possible post-SOPN solution is to dispassionately list all the candidates in a referenced table, but have a subsection of "background" or "candidates and campaign" called "Labour Party selection". We did something similar with the "unity candidate" subsection for West Tyrone by-election, 2018 once we had the SOPN, which allowed the candidates section to be a more succinct list whilst also preserving important context for the reader in a separate place. What I'm keen to stress to other editors is that none of this is urgent - articles evolve as notability shifts and more information becomes available. Maswimelleu (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

To be clear I asked for requests for comment from NPOV noticeboard but then realized that with the timescale of such discussions, there could well be no closure until after 14 June, the date of the election. That would mean leaving the sub-headings the way they are for the duration of the campaigning. I opened the ANI to take account of this time-sensitivity. I am utterly baffled by the statement: What I'm keen to stress to other editors is that none of this is urgent - articles evolve as notability shifts and more information becomes available. The most that can be said is that there is disagreement on whether it is urgent or not. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to seek an alternative form of arbitration or assistance, but I'm not backing down based on the contention that "it's urgent". In my personal opinion, it isn't. You can continue to insist that it is urgent, but without providing evidence or reasoning for your contention I don't really see what you're hoping to achieve. I have asked you to provide more detailed reasoning for your belief that subsection headers give undue weight to one party, even when we are simply organising content by depth and prominence in secondary sources. I'd like to follow up by asking you to clarify why you think the point is "urgent" either way. Such a subtle difference in opinion is not going to sway voters or expose Wikipedia to claims of partisanship. Maswimelleu (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:PROPORTION is another good example of this - namely, An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Our assessment of each party's "significance" should be stemming from reliable, published material. You say "that would mean Labour are the only party that matter!" in your edit summary - isn't that essentially a valid conclusion that any dispassionate observer would draw from the secondary sources at this time? The notion that Labour is the only important party in Lewisham East is far from my own personal view, but it's quite clear that they're the only topic of discussion where the by-election is concerned and merit much deeper discussion it the article, within their own subsection. Maswimelleu (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• In these circumstances "other parties" is fine as an approach. One might list all the candidates (or current lack of them) in the same section, then have the detail on the internal Labour battle in a section below, perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with dispassionately listing all the candidates at the top and having "Labour selection process" underneath that list. We should know the Labour candidate soon, so I can make the change after. That way there wouldn't be the "other parties" header that people are getting so annoyed about, and instead the "other parties" would be directly underneath the candidates section and eventually the table of candidates. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I've now implemented that change. I am happy to move "Labour selection process" underneath background if people prefer. If there are no objections, I'd like to call this discussion closed. Maswimelleu (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Putting aside the above formatting discussion for a moment, are there any other good ways besides Google News to find reliable secondary sources for candidate announcements? I'm searching every day and not finding anything on non-Labour candidates. Might it be better to invoke WP:IGNORE and include a short summary of primary sourced candidate announcements that we can remove/reformatted after we have the SOPN? Maswimelleu (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

We don't need secondary sources for statements like "The Barnstar Party announced that Joe Bloggs would be their candidate". The Barnstar Party is a perfectly fine source for an announcement from the Barnstar Party, assuming that it's relevant to include (which it certainly is, here). If it was "The Barnstar Party is set to win the by-election" then we'd treat it much as if they claimed they'd discovered Bigfoot. This has been the principle Wikipedia's worked by for about 15 years. See WP:SELFSOURCE... The Land (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe WP:SELFSOURCE applies. A party can say they intend to stand, but to actually stand requires a deposit and sufficient nominations, which are not straightforward to get. To say they are standing is thus to make a claim about third parties. We have repeatedly seen parties announcing they will stand in by-elections and then not following through in terms of obtaining a valid nomination, so I am very cautious about including candidates based only on self sources and practice of late has been not to include them. Bondegezou (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

If we were talking about some fringe groups with no record of standing in elections, then I might agree. But it gets absurd saying that we can't include the Conservative candidate on the basis of the Conservatives saying "look here's our candidate". We have the Lib Dem candidate sourced to two Lib Dem blogs and a bunch of statements about Labour candidates sourced to their personal Twitter. There is absolutely no reason to gold-plate the usual rules here. (in passing: If these candidates fail to get nominated then that might well be worth including. And coverage in secondary sources doesn't affect a party's ability to collect nomination papers or raise the deposit, either, so I don't see how the fact that candidacies are prospective at the moment is particularly relevant) Regards, The Land (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I've no strong feelings either way. Irrespective of what we decide, it'll be rendered moot at 5pm on 21 May, so I think the main purpose of discussing this is to establish some kind of precedent. I think the five tests set out by WP:SELFSOURCE are met, but I think the question is whether a person simply expressing an intention to stand is notable if they do not actually go on to do so. For the West Tyrone by-election, I took the view that CISTA deciding to stand and then withdrawing was notable, despite them being a very minor party. Whilst this was based on secondary sources too, I still think it would have passed WP:SELFSOURCE if those secondary sources didn't exist. The main exception I can envision would be a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, perhaps made by a completely unknown person intending to stand as an independent or from a Twitter source with dubious authenticity. Maswimelleu (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Take a look here. This is the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, 2011 article shortly before the SOPN was released. It includes as candidates Gregg Beaman (Libertarian), Chris Jackson (National Front) and John Mitchell (Scottish Homeland Party). The first and last of those were included based on self-sourcing; I'm unclear on what basis the second one was included. None of them were actually nominated or stood. That was a bad thing. Wikipedia got it wrong. This is the danger of relying on self-sourced claims of candidacy. As per WP:RSBREAKING, "Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors."

I accept the situation is a bit different with established parties like the Conservatives, but even then, individuals within a party may jump the gun before internal processes have actually approved them. For Britain and the WEP are not established parties, and both have been added based on self-sourcing alone.

With the Labour candidates, I've looked, and self-sourcing is only used in the context of reliable secondary source confirming their involvement. That seems fine. If an RS says someone is a candidate, we can quote what they say on Twitter (within the context of WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE). Bondegezou (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This is the Barnsley Central by-election, 2011 before the SOPN. It lists candidacies from the Pirate Party and the Legalise Cannabis Alliance Party, both self-sourced, both didn't actually get a candidate nominated. Bondegezou (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This one, an earlier version of Corby by-election, 2012, lists two candidates who didn't then get nominated: James Delingpole (independent) and Toby Jug (OMRLP). Toby Jug was only sourced to a self-source (Twitter): under my suggested application of editing policy, we would have avoided listing that candidate. Delingpole was sourced to RS, but pulled out, but the whole incident got further RS coverage and is retained, appropriately I believe, in the final article today. Bondegezou (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I see your point, but personally I'm fine with us mentioning announcements from people who don't end up standing, even at the level of triviality of the Pirates, LCA and OMRLP. In the Saddleworth case I would certainly it was a mistake to create a table for candidates before the official list was published, though, as that gave an impression of certainty when there wasn't any. The Land (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This invokes so much precedent that I think we should refer it to a noticeboard for wider discussion and comment. I think it would be productive to hear what other editors think so that we can form a more definitive consensus for future. From my excursions to Twitter to find information, I have noticed some users (closely connected to the candidate) replying to candidate announcements saying "I've added this to Wikipedia for you", which I personally find troubling. I don't think this page should be a platform for candidates to quickly gain exposure. I sometimes feel that there is a lack of clear guidance for editors dealing with elections and referendums - after all, there is (to my knowledge) no politics manual of style. Maswimelleu (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

yes, sensible idea The Land (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I've put a request for input at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom#Is_self-sourcing_sufficient_evidence_of_a_candidacy?, or Maswimelleu, did you mean WP:RSN? Bondegezou (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The WikiProject page is pretty much what I meant, I just didn't know which one to use. Thanks for submitting the request. Maswimelleu (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

As of right now, we have 8 candidacies listed. 3 are unambiguously supported by RS (Labour, UKIP + LibDem, for whom I have just found a better cite). The other 5 candidates (Conservative, WEP, For Britain, Democrats & Veterans, OMRLP) are only supported by self-sourcing, although RS coverage supports that the Conservatives are contesting the election if not the name of the candidate yet. I have removed from the candidate list the Christian People's Alliance, which had no citation given at all. I remain concerned that coverage of four candidates is entirely based on party's own promotion, which is against Wikipedia policy. I note that WP:BLP, which presumably applies, says, "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources." As discussion here and at the Project page has not reached a conclusion, I have left these 4 in, with tags. Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I've put the SOPN in now, so you can clean out any poorly sourced stuff from the page as you see fit. I'm not really sure to approach it as some are candidate announcements, but some (Lib Dem, Tory, UKIP) contain secondary sourced claims about the candidates. I'm not sure how best to do it without triggering another "fairness" dispute. Maswimelleu (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Now the SOPN is there I would say two things, 1) the primary sources supporting the bullet-point list are now ok, as they are all corroborated by a non-primary source, and 2) there's no need to remove any of them, as every item on the bullet-point list contains some extra information not included in the table (date of announcement, previous candidacies of those nominated, leadership of party etc.). As for "fairness", we should continue the previous situation of including the material that can be supported by the sources. If someone wants to add information about the other candidates with info about who they are etc. then all the better. Jdcooper (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, my fears were unfounded: all 5 candidates only supported by self-sourcing were successfully nominated (unlike in some prior by-elections, as discussed previously). There's also a whole bunch of other candidates we didn't know about until the SOPN, demonstrating the difficulties of achieving balance. If we know a candidate is standing from a reliable source, then I think it is fair to use self-sourced/primary sourced material about them to a degree, but we should still prefer secondary sources. Bondegezou (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should generally allow for twitter/facebook/self-published sources to support the most basic claim "Party X announced person y would be their candidate on DATE". Beyond that we should refrain from adding any additional material, and be on the lookout for unsourced claims. I think future by-elections are unlikely to be as much of a press wasteland - the press coverage was much more balanced and comprehensive in West Tyrone, and I believe it was fairly balanced in Copeland/Stoke/Gorton too. I think the "secondary source needed" tag is appropriate as a matter of course though, as it alerts other editors to add a better source if they see it. Trying to find a middle ground where we obey the fundamentals of Wikipedia policy whilst also giving the general impression of "fairness" is probably less likely to cause friction. The two points I don't think we should give ground on is "no candidate table before SOPN" because of WP:CRYSTAL and the reasons you illustrated previously, and also to keep the infobox clear of all candidates before the result, mainly because it often doesn't reflect the reality of the campaign (eg. Richmond Park). Blank infobox is a rule we can apply consistently and fairly. Maswimelleu (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Bondegezou, your fears were unfounded in this case but were still warranted. I completely agree that we should require primary sources until the SOPN is released. Jdcooper (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem with the exclusionary approach is that we will inevitably get IPs and other users darting in to add parties, either because they want to be helpful or because they want to promote a specific party. Initially we commented out stuff, but people didn't notice it and added it above. Unless we semi-protect by-election pages (which would be unduly punitive) we're likely to be firefighting every time there's a by-election. I'm more likely to just tag everything, but I understand and accept that other editors may want to take a remove-at-sight approach to primary sourced candidate announcements. Might it be worth getting a request for close on some of these topics so that a clear consensus can be denoted at the top of each? I appreciate I've suggested we go to pretty much every noticeboard and wikiproject under the sun at this point, just think it might be worthwhile. Maswimelleu (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I think how it went down here was fine. I have no opinion on whether such contributions are commented out or removed as unsourced, both approaches seem acceptable, but there's no intrinsic problem with "fire-fighting", I would say that is standard on any article covering a fast-moving current event, or indeed any high-traffic article. There has been no shortage of editors around to protect this page from such in this instance, at any rate. Jdcooper (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No label candidate Carey

I'm told, though no Wikipedia-ready proof, that the no label candidate stood in this constituency as an independent doktorb _words^deeds 22:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I caught this post in an edit conflict and ended up reinstating it after you removed it. To answer your question, there is no practical difference between "no label" and "independent" as some people suggest. It's just the two options an independent candidate has when submitting their papers without a political party and/or part 3 (request for a party emblem. It's mainly a stylistic choice and I pretty much always list "no labels" or "blanks" as independents. In this case I'm happy for Carey to be shown as no label though. Maswimelleu (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

And feel free to delete this and my comment if you'd prefer to remove your contribution.

You misunderstood, I deleted my comment because I had posted the wrong link :) doktorb _words^deeds 04:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I saw that there was a C Carey standing in the Feb 1974 election, but do we have proof that it's the same C Carey? It seems a mighty long time ago! Jdcooper (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It's still shorter than Ken Clarke's tenure, so it's within the realm of possibility. At the moment it's possibly just speculation. Maybe put a "dubious" or "not supported by source" tag on it? It is possible that C Carey is the current candidate's father/relative, not the man himself. Maswimelleu (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

FWS Craig's election results book, the one cited, had the candidate with the same first and middle names as Lewisham council's SoPN. It may be a father/son situation, not that it'll be easy to confirm. I have taken it as they are the same person, others may choose to be cautious. doktorb _words^deeds 11:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The more recent SOPN withholds his address (but confirms he's from Lewisham East). Does the book you cited contain his home address or any similar detail? It's possible that a journalist will perform the type of original research that we can't actually do ourselves. Maswimelleu (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The usual term in such circumstances is "No description". This matches the entry on the nomination papers. Timrollpickering 11:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Colloquially I tend to hear it called "standing as blank". In any case, there's essentially no difference between blank and "Independent" and I don't think we should make the distinction, it just confuses readers. I'm going to blue link it to the Independent (politician) article in any case. Maswimelleu (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Although I agree that there is no significant difference, the law does make a clear distinction between "no description" and "independent". I'm thinking we may need a stand alone No description article (and for all my No label candidate edits to be amended accordingly!!) doktorb _words^deeds 12:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with starting an article for "no description" because it's insufficiently distinct, but a section under Independent (politician) might be warranted. Then you can link "no label" and "no description" to that section. Do you have a source to legislation establishing a difference between Independent and blank? The advice I have received in nomination packs for local and GE candidates is that the person is still inherently an independent candidate, but has the option of either on the ballot paper. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I have boldly edited the line for Carey. I'm fine with the hidden link to Independent (politician), but I'd keep it simple in the text. I've removed the reference to his standing before: that's OR. This is a minor candidate: we don't need to say much about him if reliable sources don't, and they don't. Bondegezou (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Page 3 of this document is a good illustration of my point in terms of UK electoral law and advice given to independent candidates. It fairly clearly states that a person with no ballot description is an independent candidate, hence my preference for blue linking to term "no description" when it appears in tables and in prose. Maswimelleu (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Maswimelleu I have added two paragraphs over at Independent_politician#Independent_and_No_Description_candidates doktorb _words^deeds 16:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Labour Party selection process

An entire subsection about the intricacies of the selection process for one party seems completely WP:UNDUE. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

We've already discussed this in a section above. I suggest you read the comments in "other parties" for information. My view then, as now, is that you are mistaken and that the Labour Party is the only party with a notable selection process, which has completely dominated all secondary coverage for the past two weeks. WP:UNDUE refers to giving improper weight to one side of a widely publicised argument, or to a fringe theory. Doesn't apply here. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, the very first line of WP:UNDUE pretty clearly summarises why it doesn't apply here. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.". There are little to no mentions of any other parties' selection processes in published and reliable sources. We should not and must not omit important information on the Labour selection process out of "fairness" to other parties. If you search for secondary sources yourself (even just search Lewisham East by-election) you will find coverage completely dominated by Labour. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I just don't think that the machinations of a local constituency party and speculation about who the candidate might have been, who pulled out because they were unwell etc is particularly encyclopedic. Of course we should include mention of the selection process but SUMMARYSTYLE and yes UNDUE say that what we have here is overblown and indulgent. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Lady Phyll's announcement and withdrawal was heavily reported. Definitely not UNDUE, happy to defend that point until the cows come home. We report things that have been widely discussed in secondary sources and are relevant to the subject matter. I don't see why cataloguing widely reported and discussed events in the lead up to this by-election in a very strict NPOV is anything but encyclopedic. It's difficult to draw direct comparisons with previous by-elections because in previous instances the selection processes of each major party was not really in the public view, nor did it receive much media attention. The best comparison in my view is the countermanded by-election in Gorton, in which the Labour selection and its fallout DID receive heavy attention and was consequently given much more discussion in the article. Another example is the West Tyrone by-election, where we wrote a long section about the "unity candidate" and eventually moved it to background after it no longer documented a current event. I am happy to introduce even more sources to support the section if you are concerned about verifiability or notability. Conversely, feel free to introduce sources supporting claims about other candidates as I find them difficult to obtain. Maswimelleu (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to balance an appearance of bias, so artificially casting about to include material about other candidates won't help. Four paragraphs of this? Great for Labour party types and those in the political bubble, possibly even defensible when it was current and unresolved, but now, in an encyclopedic it is indulgent and UNDUE. --14:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but this sounds a lot like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT to me. There's no logical reason to remove content to remove an appearance of bias. We need to concern ourselves only with actual bias, which in this case it clearly isn't. In spite of our differences on the wider issue, User:MapReader has selectively removed portions of the text that are repetitive, non-notable or have been overtaken by events, leaving us with a fairly mutually agreeable level of information. The remaining paragraphs break up distinct phases of the contest and each paragraph contains notable information in a sensible order. If you're adamant that certain bits aren't notable, I'm happy to discuss that, but having re-read it I struggle to see anything that isn't. Maswimelleu (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. "I'm not trying to balance an appearance of bias". UNDUE and SUMMARYSTYLE are not about bias. Or IDON'TLIKEIT. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I read what you wrote and I don't think it's a credible argument for the reasons I and other editors have outlined. I've already provided you with a fairly thorough rebuttal of your UNDUE and SUMMARYSTYLE points, which is why I think the root of your point is JUSTDONTLIKEIT. It's important for editors to leave their personal convictions about this by-election at the door, and rely on reliable secondary sources to inform the article's content. If secondary sources are discussing various points about the Labour Party in great detail, then that's what goes into the article. Further to your SUMMARYSTYLE point, the 4 paragraphs are sequentially the local party background, the prospective candidates who received discussion in the media, the shortlisted candidates (and their campaigns) and the final outcome of the selection meeting. Each of those paragraphs constitutes an appropriate summary of the subject matter, and each of those paragraphs reflects a genuine focus of media/public attention. This is an article about the by-election itself, meriting an informative discussion of the issues and events relevant to the ultimate outcome. We cannot and must not push our own POVs in an article by arbitrarily determining that something is not important or too widely covered if that conclusion is not supported by the quality and quantity of secondary sources. Maswimelleu (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Further to this point, virtually all secondary sources are describing this as a Labour safe seat, with the party selection being tantamount to election. That's why the selection battle is so well covered and why it forms an important part of writing this article in an encyclopedic way. Maswimelleu (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree this fairly short section is fully appropriate. Up to now, that has been in effect the whole news story, which of course will now develop further. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

A while back I would have had some sympathy with your concerns, as some editors did want to include lengthy speculation about who the Labour candidate might be, some of questionable newsworthiness, and risking the impression that the votes of the electorate could be taken for granted in advance. But it is becoming increasingly clear that the bitter infighting within Labour, locally and nationally, will be a key story in this by-election: provided the article covers the critical aspects with appropriate weight, I am happy that it is not demonstrating bias. MapReader (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. This is what RS are talking about at present, so it's what we should talk about. Time will tell what's remembered from this by-election in the future, but the article can evolve as necessary. Bondegezou (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to concur with the overall feeling here - most of the coverage of this by-election to date in places like the Guardian, Independent and New Statesman as well as various online-only outlets has been coverage of the Labour selection, which is regarded as a significant skirmish in a grand factional battles. So it's appropriate to include! The Land (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

"Campaign" subsection

This content is not about the campaign. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The subsection name is perhaps not right, but this is a set of events relevant to and emerging as a result of the by-election campaign that have received considerable RS coverage. Bondegezou (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It's preferable to call it "campaign" than "controversy", which is always a divisive content header. Previous by-election articles have discussed controversies and local events in the "campaign" section that are themselves not part of the campaign, but are connected to the by-election in some way. An example would be Paul Nuttall giving inaccurate information about his primary residence in his nomination papers for the Stoke-on-Trent Central by-election, 2017. It wasn't really part of the campaign, but it was connected to the by-election. Ian MacKenzie has already been discussed quite a bit in this article and secondary coverage yesterday pretty much rolled the story of his suspension in with routine coverage of the by-election. Maswimelleu (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Once nominations have opened, everything that happens regarding the election is usually covered in a section headed Campaign, including events relevant to the election that are not technically campaigning. The heading relates to the campaign as a period of time (as defined in electoral law), rather than solely to the activity of campaigning. The McKenzie text won't look so incongruous once other events start to fill out the section. MapReader (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Reliability check

Came across a source called Voting Counts which has an article on the "mainstream" candidates in the by-election. It gives a few sentences on some of the candidates, which might help in addressing the secondary source starvation for parties other than Labour. I'm not going to introduce the source to the article unless people think its sufficiently reliable. Maswimelleu (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

From their "About" section: "Where is information sourced?

The political party’s descriptions and policies come from a number of sources. Usually the parties themselves provide information and some is also extracted from manifestos and press releases from the political parties themselves.

For other areas of the website different sources are used to create content, often from the Parliament UK website itself. We try to provide links to the sources of information wherever possible. The aim is to extract content from a wide variety of sources, then collate, rewrite and simplify it for our audiences. We always try to provide links to websites that go into more detail if readers want to learn more. Most importantly we try to make sure that the information supplied to our readers is unbiased. Our content is also peer reviewed to make sure that it is of a suitable standard and remains impartial." Taken at face value, that is probably no less reliable than the vast majority of other websites wikipedia uses. And the information presented is pretty neutrally worded. I say we use it until anyone tells us otherwise. Jdcooper (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess it establishes it as a tertiary source, but yes it does seem to be reliable. Maswimelleu (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Comparisons to other by-elections

User:GregKaye added a line specifying that this by-election is surpassed by only 7 other by-elections in terms of number of candidates. I personally don't think this content is encyclopedic and I also feel that it conceals the fact that many other by-elections have had 14 candidates (it's just that very few have had more). In my opinion, this information ought to be left on the by-election records page, and not form part of the article's text. In its current location, the text seems largely irrelevant and doesn't contribute to the discussion of the number of candidates or their backgrounds. What are people's thoughts? Maswimelleu (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

TY. My view that it is of interest, in context of the relatively polarised current parliament, that one of the two subsequent by-elections could field such a large number of candidates. Happy if others disagree but I think that its this type of context (in this cases a single line of text in a large section) that adds value to articles. It's not a trivial ("three of the candidates have dogs") type addition but I'm happy if other editors dispute the warrant of entry. GregKaye 09:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It's an interesting fact, I just don't think it's entirely encyclopedic. It's not a comment that we made on any of the prior by-elections with 14 candidates, and it isn't supported by a secondary source. My other concern with it is the phrasing - you've stated that there are only 7 more instances of greater numbers of candidates, but you don't mention that there are 8 other examples of 14. So there are 16 by-elections with 14 or more candidates, which I don't think is tremendously notable. Maswimelleu (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Maswimelleu understood. This being an article that you started and substantially developed, I'm happy to concede the removal of the text. It currently reads: "With 14 candidates on the ballot, only seven by elections (to date) have had more candidates standing."
Alternately, and noting your last edit, perhaps the text could move above the election box, to more simply read:
"Nominations closed on 21 May, with 14 candidates standing.
If there are no objections I'll edit to this. GregKaye 11:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter, and I don't really think my opinion counts for more in any case. I'd suggest leaving your text in place for the time being and letting a few other editors weight in as to whether it's appropriate before making a decision. I've reformatted the text to be a synthesis of the close of nominations date (which I personally find significant) and a dated statement about the number of candidates. People can revise/remove one or both of those remarks if they don't think it's worth having them in there. Maswimelleu (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It's of marginal interest, in that it should be a safe seat and there is no obvious reason why there is such a large slate (such as a notable parliamentarian or other public figure standing). If it were the most (or even second or third) it would definitely be worth a mention. I have copyedited the reference down but am relaxed if someone wants to delete it altogether. MapReader (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This fact is interesting enough for those of us who enjoy arcane political trivia, but AFAIC it only belongs on this page if it has been mentioned in tertiary sources. Otherwise it's original research. I'm sure some source has mentioned the large number of candidates, but I highly doubt they have commented on it being 8th, which is itself no record of note. I think it should be removed pending similar comment in the sources. Jdcooper (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Polling

Shall we add this poll to the page?

https://twitter.com/PolitiStatsUK/status/1006186362272407552 http://uk.businessinsider.com/lib-dems-expect-strong-second-place-finish-in-lewisham-east-anti-brexit-message-may-and-corbyn-2018-6 Guyb123321 (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't see why not. We added a Lib dem poll for the Manchester Gorton by-election. Matt 190417 (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

No, definitely not. That's not a poll, that's canvassing returns. We can and should use the article in the campaign section, but we can't portray it as a poll. Bondegezou (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, agreed. I'll change my edit to clarify from "polling estimate". Matt 190417 (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It's an increasingly common Lib Dem tactic to release canvassing returns publicly, but it's not a poll. For one, it's an unrepresentative sample and the weighting could well be off standard. Maswimelleu (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

All parties release canvassing returns, or supposed canvassing returns, when it suits their narrative. Although when the LibDems did this for Richmond Park by-election, 2016, they got the result pretty much spot on, IIRC. Bondegezou (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, those were real canvassing returns. I entered a lot of them onto the database. No idea about the Lewisham ones though. Now's probably the time to highlight that I have a conflict of interest with the "campaign" section of this article now given that I've actually gone and campaigned for the Lib Dems, so I'm going to steer clear of it from now on. Maswimelleu (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I would say your good judgement on the talk page is still valuable though. Jdcooper (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of first names

User:MapReader, I am aware that if someone has been mentioned already in the text, it is possible to omit their first names thereafter, but that is hardly one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. In an article like this where there are many people being mentioned, and some of them not since several paragraphs above, it damages readability. Jdcooper (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I knew this would come up when I wrote the paragraph. It's a headache. I would like to suggest we take out any references to the candidate's names outside of the selection process/list of candidates and thereafter refer to them only as "the Liberal Democrat candidate", "the WEP candidate", etc. (with the exception, perhaps, of Daby and Waters, who are fairly high-profile and/or mentioned throughout the article). I agree the current format is a memory test. Matt 190417 (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

If we are going to use "the Conservative candidate" etc then it should be all or none, otherwise we will (with some justification) be accused of bias. I see nothing wrong with occasionally using the first name again on an ad hoc basis if the person in question hasn't been mentioned for several paragraphs. Jdcooper (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Your "it is possible" is, I think, a reference to the MoS's "should generally be referred to by surname only" (my bold)? Adding in their first names does nothing for readability - articles are of course perfectly readable with people referred to by surname only. It also does nothing for recollection - the justification advanced for the original edit - since these are mostly not notable individuals and the forgetful reader is none the wiser if given a first name as well. What would damage readability is to spell out the full name and the person's role/job title every single time they are mentioned (the only alternative to expectinf people to scan back up the article in the normal way); especially in an article that is much shorter than most. MapReader (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the current text is fine. If someone hasn't been mentioned for a while, then re-introducing them (repeating their role) is fine, but I can't see where that's needed in the current article. As MapReader says, it is relatively short. Bondegezou (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No-one suggested spelling out the full name and job title every time though, did they? Obviously I am not gonna die on a hill for such a trivial matter, I'm just pointing out that overly officious implementation of style guidance treated as some kind of natural law sometimes has the opposite effect of damaging clarity and readability. Jdcooper (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Radical Party Afd

I have nominated the Radical Party article for deletion as per GNG and sourcing policy violations. doktorb _words^deeds 21:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Labour Internal Vote

Was there a reason the table showing the three Labour candidates was removed in the internal vote, and can the table (or at least the results of the membership vote) be reinstated Guyb123321 (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. I think we need the result. I'm not certain it needs to be in table form. Bondegezou (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

It was removed by MapReader with the following comments in the edit summaries:

• "[O]verkill. Not that important, even the figures are not really notable, but if editor disagrees simply mention them in text".
• "[A]dd the figures into the text. One party's internal selection with one round of voting and three candidates does not need a bar chart."

I'm inclined to agree with MapReader Matt 190417 (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the table was useful information - I certainly don't think the voting process by which the MP was selected is "not really notable". We have tables of selection results for other positions (such as Mayoral posts) - why not for this? FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Given the fact that this has been considered by many news articles to be a Labour safe seat, and the fact that is appeared to be a contentious vote, I would have thought putting the table back would be a good thing. At the end of the day its also hardly a very large page and so its not as if we need to worry about cutting out content Guyb123321 (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

All the information that was in the table has already been edited into the article. A table, as for any image, needs to add something to the article in order to merit inclusion - as per WP policy on images. With just three candidates, one round of voting, and an overwhelming winner, putting three figures into graphical format really is gratuitous as far as this article is concerned. Certainly it isn't needed to illustrate what is a very easy result to understand. MapReader (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

References