Talk:Canterbury (UK Parliament constituency)
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Turnout figures
editThe official PDFs on the Canterbury City Council website - e.g. 2001[1] have higher turnout percentages that we do here (for 2001, 61.1% vs 60.9%). Is there more than one recognised way of calculating it? Which source takes precedence? William T (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ "2001 Declaration of Result" (PDF). Canterbury City Council.
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Canterbury (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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101106204053/http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/electoral-figures/electoral-figures.htm to http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/electoral-figures/electoral-figures.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100415010454/http://candidates.ukip.org:80/index.php?pg=show&eid=185 to http://candidates.ukip.org/index.php?pg=show&eid=185
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 10:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
2019 withdrawal
editShould the 2019 section record that the original Liberal Democratic candidate Tim Walker withdrew as he advocated supporting the incumbant Labour candidate Rosie Duffield? I feel that this is arguably significant given the reasons, potential impact and high profile coverage of the withdrawal (eg see this national newspaper article. Also I would note that other constituency articles do feature content on candidates who withdrew and were replaces (eg see under 2010 in the Watford constituency article which discusses changes in the Conservative candidates in some detail). Yet I am a bit cautious as to whether such an edit during an ongoing campaign is appropriate, so thought it best to open this to discussion. Also the final nominations are not official for a few days it might be best to wait in case of any other changes. Dunarc (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Now the result is in, I think it probably would be worth adding. Dunarc (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Candidates
editIt seems to be the convention that, even in by-elections which have been announced, we only mention candidates which have third party confirmation, and we only put up this box when we have the official confirmation from the returning officer. Whether these conventions are correct could be a legitimate debate, but we need a centralised discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think it would be convenient to just have them on there, as no need to create a box when they are announced. If a candidate isn’t officially confirmed we can just remove them but chances are they will be. MCMax05 (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- You may think that would be convenient, but we follow what the community has agreed to do, including respecting WP:SECONDARY. What we've seen in the past is that it is quite common for a minor party to say they will be standing a candidate, and then they don't. Bondegezou (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)