Talk:2017 Manchester Gorton by-election

List of candidates and connected purposes

There seems to be some dispute about who goes on the list of candidates. I thought it was the convention that we only list candidates who have been announced, in alphabetical order of surname. We do not list parties who have yet to announce a candidate, even if they are highly likely to field a candidate eventually. Trying to judge who is or is not going to contest the election involves too much crystal ball gazing, see WP:CRYSTAL. PatGallacher (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's generally how we do things: only list candidates where there is WP:RS reporting. If a party is known (based on RSs) to be planning to stand, but has not yet selected a candidate, that can be described in the campaign section. Bondegezou (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Correct, alphabetical order in election box, top 3 in infobox. However, things could get a bit odd in this election, as the party who may well end up as the main challengers came 5th last time. I think there would be an argument for having no candidates in the infobox. Alternatively, I wonder if the Israeli-style box could be adapted for a by-election? Frinton100 (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, convention on previous byelections has been for the parties who came top 2 or 3 parties in the previous election to appear detailed in the info box. As the Liberal Democrats attained limited support in the previous election they will not be appearing and any 'confusion' suggested by Frinton100 could only be seen as bias. There is a standard that is followed on wikipedia for a reason. 51.6.100.24 (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)WikiPse

I was under the impression that the infobox can list any parties receiving over 5% of the vote. Seems to me a better way of catching all main candidates. Clearly here this doesn't include Lib Dems either, and as no other candidate has been announced can't we just leave it blank for now, as the article is currently? Jdcooper (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to see it left blank for now.

Generally, we include parties who got at least 5% last time. That has been convention, supported by consensus. However, we have sometimes discussed that it would be appropriate to include other/different candidates if reliable sources gave hard evidence for a different approach, e.g. a poll showing some candidate doing very well. If RS consistently and persistently report a candidate as significant, even without something like a poll, I'd be happy to see them included in the infobox. Right now, that is clearly not the case. Bondegezou (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Convention is that what becomes the results box is shown in alphabetical order ("ballot paper order") until the results are confirmed. It's why I am now taken to putting a hidden notice directing editors to respect the agreed convention. The candidates box has largely been the same as long as I can remember: candidates with 5% or more at the last comparable election until the result is declared. Whether a seat is a "target" or not doesn't matter (indeed edits have been reverted on the grounds that someone thought that opinion polls or direction of travel suggested that a party should be included against convention). doktorb _words^deeds 00:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the infobox should omit the parties until candidates are confirmed. No need to rush to add in the information. I also agree that the Liberal Democrats shouldn't have an exception made for them even if the media is describing them as the main challengers to Labour in Gorton. If this is a major issue then just don't fill out the infobox until the election is over. The table of candidates in alphabetical order by surname will suffice for now. Maswimelleu (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

If the media are describing the LibDems as the main challengers, then let's use those citations in the text. Happy to see infobox delayed: I always like to see more focus on text than on infobox! Bondegezou (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Labour Longlisting

I've moved part of it to a separate section as it clearly warrants it. The vote is held tonight (22 March), at which point we can begin cleaning up this messy little article! Mongoletsi (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I've moved it back to where it was before, and put the parties back in the correct order - Labour, Green, LD, Others - being the order they were at the last election. The "Labour Longlist" section which had previously been created was not actually about the longlist at all, but about the NEC interview panel. This information is clearly relevant to candidate selection so it should stay where it was. Once the campaign gets underway in earnest we can create a new "campaign" section and keep the existing section for purely matters about candidate selections. Frinton100 (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've never edited one of these pages before so was just going with what made sense to me, rather than bother to actually find out the proper "Wiki Way". Mongoletsi (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Can we move some of the discussion about Labour longlisting to another section? It's long-winded. A summary, then link to the section would seem appropriate. Mongoletsi (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary - its' 3 paragraphs, and all the information is essential detail about how the Labour candidate was selected. The longlist itself is barely mentioned. The whole Labour selection is likely to be the most interesting thing that happens, so we should definitely leave it as it is. If there is some interesting information to add about the campaign over the next month then we can add that in a separate section, as we often do (e.g. Stoke-on-Trent Central by-election, 2017). Frinton100 (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Infobox candidates

Are we going to fill in Labour, Green, Conservatives, UKIP in the infobox or just the top two? I think we should be careful not to take a position on who the "main challenger" is, given that this is a campaign issue in the constituency. The inclusion of George Galloway makes this an unusual election in which we could simply leave the infobox parties blank until the result is announced. I think the existing depiction of just Labour and Greens unfairly dismisses the Conservatives, who were one tenth of a percent behind in 2015. I would also appreciate it if we could fill in placeholder blank graphics for candidates without a free use photo, as the lack of one makes the template squish up too tightly. Maswimelleu (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The issue with the infobox is that it is often treated as a display of which parties are "the contenders". However, we might see some churn here. The Liberal Democrats, who lost their deposit in the seat two years ago, stand a good chance of finishing in second place. George Galloway is another wildcard. So I'd rather keep it blank. Alternatively, we could display only Labour in the infobox, as last time they were miles ahead of anyone else. 92.1.212.198 (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

By convention we include only those parties which saved their deposit at the previous election. Talk about "could be challengers" or "churn" is of little concern doktorb _words^deeds 13:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I argue we should either follow our convention and show four or show nothing. I think showing Labour on its own is unwise unless someone actually created a new template for by-elections showing "defending party" prominently followed by other previous contenders in a smaller size. My gut says show nothing. Maswimelleu (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I would support including no candidates in the infobox this time. Frinton100 (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Frinton, Maswimelleu et al. Jdcooper (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Done, for now at least. Frinton100 (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The info box should be consistent with previous elections, as such Labour and certainly Greens as 2nd should appear. Talk of 'challengers' is just politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.35.27 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

We can look back at our decision again once the statement of candidates nominated appears. Maswimelleu (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with consistency, showing all candidates from parties or who as independents saved their deposit at the last election makes sense, so top four (obviously adding them as they announce candidates). This is a good general policy for all our UK election articles and saves endless debates and people adding and removing the candidates they prefer or dislike. Warofdreams talk 22:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

If we're in the business of setting precedent here then I think we should simply not fill out the infobox until the result has been declared. The "defending party" should be visible in a dedicated part and not much else. The type of infobox we use here doesn't really accommodate that though. It's frustrating because we're frequently having elections where the "challenger" doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion in the infobox, or where a significant candidate wouldn't appear among the other frontrunners. Maswimelleu (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Here, those who got more 5% last time were Labour, Green, Tory and UKIP, but coverage now suggests the most likely winners are Labour (way ahead) followed by LibDem and Galloway. I think it is entirely acceptable to follow reliable sources as to who the major candidates are: but RSs are often vague, making interpretation difficult. Bondegezou (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Righty, are we happy with the box simply listing all declared candidates? I'm keen to put this issue to bed. Mongoletsi (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has suggested that. The question is about whether to include only the Lab/Green/Con/UKIP candidates that got over 5% last time, or whether to also include the LD/Ind candidates who are likely to receive considerable media coverage. As far as I can see, the consensus was to hide the list either way until the official statement of persons nominated is released, then review the matter. Jdcooper (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Close of nominations is at 17:00 on Thursday 6th April. Don't do anything for now. Maswimelleu (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not favour listing all declared candidates. We've not done that before. The infobox is a summary. While I'm in favour of it being an inclusive summary, it is misleading to list the utter no-hopers. Bondegezou (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

After publication of SOPN, I am still in favour of us not showing any candidates in the infobox at all this time given the unusual situation of the most likely challengers being parties/candidates who lost their deposit/didn't stand in 2015. Frinton100 (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I concur with the remarks above (i.e., to not list candidates in the infobox), given the unusual circumstances of the by-election. Mélencron (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, although I think my own feelings shouldn't really be taken into account since I have a personal interest in what goes in the infobox. The most important thing is that we either follow convention or leave it blank. No other option is on the table. Maswimelleu (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I will add another agree here. All Wikipedia rules are conventions, and all conventions can be quite bendy when they need to be. The infobox could be misconstrued or misunderstood were it to show only those candidates whose parties saved their deposits last time, so no infobox is better than a potential magnet for edit warring. As ever, though, this decision shouldn't bind any future article! doktorb _words^deeds 21:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I still back keeping the infobox blank. I'd definitely change my mind if a poll is released showing that there hasn't actually been any notable shift within the seat, although I doubt that this one will be polled. Anywikiuser (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Usually it's only private polling for by-elections, most of which doesn't get released. Even when it does, a lot of it is too unreliable to form conclusions from. The poll released a month out in Richmond Park showed Zac with a comfortable lead, which evaporated over that month (assuming the poll wasn't bogus in the first place). I'd be reluctant to draw any conclusions from polls if they did emerge. Maswimelleu (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Political Party Campaign Manifestos

There is not space on wikipedia for each individual party's campaign manifestos. There is no need to say Lib Dems are focussing on BREXIT (as it is their national party policy) otherwise we have to say Greens are focussing on Brexit. Its also not relevant to write what Galloways position on BREXIT is. The decision to put BREXIT information on here has been a political decision by an editor and does not meet wikipedia guidance. If it is really of interest, create an info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.35.27 (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

If a party is campaigning on a particular issue, and that is reported by a reliable source, then it is relevant to this article. You know that it is their national party policy, but if someone reads this article in 20 years, will they know? Maybe, maybe not. But it's relevant to include it. If the Green party are also emphasising their opposition to Brexit in the campaign, and we have a source to support that fact, then that should also be included. I would also ask you not to accuse others of "vandalism" just for having a different point of view to yours. That's not very civil. Jdcooper (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jdcooper. What candidates are campaigning on is 100% relevant to the by-election. The LibDem position on Brexit was completely relevant to the Richmond Park by-election, 2016 for example. We are not reproducing their manifestos as has been suggested, but providing a very brief summary of what they are campaigning on based on RS. Frinton100 (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

"No label"

My personal feeling is that "no label" or "blank" as I more often hear it called should just appear as Independent in infoboxes and tables. That's pretty much always how they appear in articles for British elections, with Parliamentary by-elections being the only exceptions I am personally aware of. Not entering a description into the nomination paper doesn't mean the candidate isn't independent, and insufficient context is given to clarify that to the reader. I am not of the opinion that our candidates box should repeat the statement of persons nominated ad verbatim - it should be a concise and informative summary of the information. Removing fluff like "no label" should be part of that presentation. Maswimelleu (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Whilst I accept your view about not repeating the SOPN word for word, we do have to reflect how things are as accurately as possible. Look at the arguments we've had about whether we should use each and every middle name of each and every candidate. With specific reference to "No label", I am a passionate supporter of ensuring that our election result boxes are accurate, and as I am sure you know, the relevant legislation on the registration of political parties allows candidates to stand for a party, or independent, or "no label". As this third option is specifically NOT independent, but a conscious and valid decision to show no label at all, Wikipedia must respect and reflect that. doktorb _words^deeds 22:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with doktorb. While I accept what is said that they usually are referred to as independents in RS (and in fact, I referred to Hopkins in that way myself in the text in the absence of any more information on him, though I wouldn't object if someone changed this), the election box should reflect the ballot paper situation. There have been occasions where no description has been used deliberately. I seem to recall David Ike saying something like he wasn't standing as an independent, but as himself when he stood with no label in Haltemprice & Howden. And in Thanet South in 2015, Al Murray had no label on the ballot but campaigned under his FUKP name (presumably as that wasn't allowed by the Electoral Commission?). So there are differences between no label and independent. And also, the precedent is to use "no label/description" when this is done by the candidate, even if, as is suggested in the edit summaries here, it is done accidentally. Frinton100 (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Will this be cancelled?

If there's an early general election, as now announced, won't this by-election be cancelled? Bondegezou (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably but I think Parliament would need to vote to authorise the cancelling of the writ which I can't recall has ever happened. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It has happened before: United_Kingdom_by-election_records#Countermanded_Poll. Bondegezou (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

If Parliament is dissolved before polling day, then yes, this will be cancelled. doktorb _words^deeds 11:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have noted on the article that an early general election is expected. I didn't want to add more for fear of WP:OR. Bondegezou (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Found something -- see edits. Bondegezou (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Given that the writs will have to be moved (I think) before 4th May, Gorton will have to be countermanded, but I suspect it probably won't actually happen until the writs are moved, so the process of running the election will have to continue. Election geeks will probably be aware that it happened in Canada in 2008 By-elections to the 39th Canadian Parliament#Cancelled by-elections. Frinton100 (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me like dissolution will be Weds 3rd May, with writs received by returning officers on the 4th. Frinton100 (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that any UK election can be cancelled right up until close of polls, so notice of cancellation will likely be formally given on polling day. Any postal votes would be destroyed and the election held in line with the GE instead. The official line from Manchester City Council is that it wont be cancelled (but that may just be because they have no legal grounds to cancel it yet). Maswimelleu (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for the last bit we could use in the article? Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately not - as far as I'm aware they've been privately emailing this information out to party agents only. Private legal advice also concurs with the judgement that the election has to go ahead until Parliament dissolves itself, which then countermands the poll (an election may not be held to a dissolved body before it has fully reconstituted itself). I'm looking for this legal text to cite - currently can only find the guidance on countermanding an election following the death of a candidate. Maswimelleu (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The Independent thinks the election is off based on a similar reasoning as my own. Maswimelleu (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The headline of the Independent article conflicts with the text, which says the election is still on. The Manchester Evening News live blog has more, so I've added that to the article, creating a "Cancellation" section. Bondegezou (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I've gone into way too much detail now, I expect. We can trim it down once the dust has settled. Bondegezou (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought a poll could only be countermanded before 7am on polling day (that is the case with a death). I think the question is, which act stops the election - is it the dissolution, the issue of writs or receipt of writs? If it's either of the first two, then its clear cut that it is cancelled, if it's the last one, then its more uncertain. Frinton100 (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A poll can be countermanded even if it is underway in the event of a candidate's death (see page 34). Once polls close the poll isn't "cancelled", but the result is meaningless if the circumstances change in a way that renders the election moot (eg. death of winner prior to declaration). The dissolution of Parliament would countermand the poll as there'd be no body to elect an MP to. Maswimelleu (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok - it's definitely going to be cancelled, but we will need to wait for Parliament's actual vote on the matter before we can switch everything to past tense and alter the article to reflect the fact that the election was cancelled. Would we then need to change the page title or would it still be prudent to call it a "by-election"? Maswimelleu (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This will be cancelled, I think the page title is correct as it was a by-election until this point. Can we keep the page as it will be of relevance in years to come. Paulharding150 (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh def. keep it. It's even more notable now for not going ahead than if it was! Easily passes WP:GNG if someone were to take it to AfD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Curioser and curioser. I guess the most surprising thing is this hasn't happened for over 90 years given the number of early elections there have been in that time. I'm not so sure about keeping it as a separate article, I think it would possibly be better off as a section within the Manchester Gorton constituency article, with perhaps some of the detail about the Labour selection moved to a Labour Party or Corbyn-related article, perhaps Jeremy Corbyn#Leader of the Opposition. If we do keep the article, the title should probably be changed along the lines of "Abandoned by-election in Manchester Gorton". Frinton100 (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

No need to take it to AfD (the comment made by Lugnuts). It is quite permissible to be WP:BOLD and (at the right time) to redirect it to the Manchester Gorton constituency article. The interesting thing is whether if the date set for the by-election had been a few days earlier, before parliament dissolved, whether they would have gone ahead with the by-election (and then had another election a few days later). Probably not, but technically they could have done. The question is when does a by-election exist in an existential sense? When the writ is issued? When the voting has taken place and the new MP returned? If the previous cancellations don't have articles, why should this one? It is only 'notable' because the current media coverage is more obvious because we around at the time (a version of WP:RECENTISM). Carcharoth (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I am in favour of keeping this article, as are others (and a BOLD redirect would not be appropriate given these views have been expressed). It's well-cited. It won't be a bother by existing. If someone can find material for the 1923 or 1924 countermanded by-elections, I'd happily see articles written for those. Bondegezou (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree about finding the information about the other countermanded elections. It is best to gather the information together and see how much there actually is before assuming that writing an article is better than placing the information in existing articles. I see you have already removed the infobox. Once the 2015 result section goes, and the results table redone, there won't be much left. Hardly worth an article. Carcharoth (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Given the comments expressed above in favour of keeping this article, which I endorse, I can't see how a WP:BOLD redirect would be appropriate. If anyone wants to remove the article it should only be done through an AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will wait a while (a few months) and in the meantime make sure the information present in this article is present and referenced in other articles. It should be more obvious after some time has passed whether this really needs a separate article or not. Carcharoth (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Do we have information yet on what happens about candidate deposits, or payments to the returning officer?

Candidates nominated

I think we should re-insert the list on a custom table, without the vote share columns. They were validly nominated and I think that should be noted for future reference, even if they didn't ever face an election. Maswimelleu (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Edits 11.6

Hi, I made edits on 11.6 (diff) which were reverted. I have removed the peacock terms "distant" and "well behind" with clarification, but my edits were two-pronged, and the other can be discussed here. The article as it stands includes awkwardly worded run-downs of the final election results in two separate sections ("Campaign" and "Cancellation") which is unnecessary. I guess the mention in campaign was placed there to finish the discussion of Farron's comments about Piercey's chances in the by-election, which is fair enough, but do we need to list the second and third placed candidates when they are also listed below in what strikes me as a more sensible place? I feel it would be enough to mention that she was fourth and then list the top 3 in the section below.. Jdcooper (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jdcooper. Thanks for your edits; I agreed we should have changed the language. The reason for mentioning all the other candidates with Pearcey was because Pearcey was only eighteen votes behind George Galloway. I was happy as well with Pearcey only being mentioned as fourth, but Rwendland felt this did not accurately reflect that she came within touching distance of third. To be honest, my preference would be to mention Pearcey was fourth after Farron's section, then copy the full table of results from the constituency entry at the bottom of the article. Then we can avoid fears of POV language completely. I agree the organisation is awkward, but not sure if there are any better and clearer alternatives. Matt 190417 (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, given that this article is about the by-election only, maybe all we need to do is mention that Khan won, with a link to the results on the constituency article for the rest of the results. I would still leave the line about Piercey coming fourth as an explanatory addendum to Farron's remarks, but the stuff about her being 18 votes behind I don't think is necessary, again it seems a bit WP:PEACOCK and also potentially fails WP:OR. Let's wait and see if Rwendland has something to add. Jdcooper (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to move the eventual outcome description from Campaign to Cancellation, rearranged a bit, where it is more naturally placed. My change was because I could see no real objective reason to mention Galloway, including that he was close to losing his deposit, and not mention the other candidate on the same 5.7% - this seemed like Galloway-exceptionalism to me. I don't feel strongly about this though - this article won't be that significant in the fullness of time. Could leave Campaign alone and just mention the eventual winner in Cancellation if that is generally preferred? Rwendland (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I've made some changes, is this acceptable to everyone? Jdcooper (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy. If anyone really wants the results, they can go search for them. Thanks Jdcooper Matt 190417 (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Page move

Hi Bondegezou, With respect, I'm really not sure that the new title for this page is an improvement. In fact, I think it worse according to four out of the five page title criteria:

• Recognizability/Naturalness – would anyone start searching by typing "planned"? Is the new title the most common phrasing used in sources? I would wager that even in the future it will be referred to as "the Manchester Gorton by-election", even though it didn't happen.
• Conciseness – The criteria states "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." - there was no other Manchester Gorton by-election in 2017, therefore no disambiguation needed
• Consistency - I can't find any other by-elections with this format of title.
• Precision - the new title is no doubt precise. But WP:PRECISION also states "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." I would say that the fact this by-election never took place doesn't mean it wasn't a by-election, for the purposes of article naming at least. We could safely leave out the "planned" and there would be absolutely no issue of ambiguity, plus it would be easier to find and cohere with other by-election articles. I would say it should be changed back.. Jdcooper (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Jdcooper and have moved the page back. It's a similar situation to an article about a proposed piece of infrastructure that was never built: for example, we have articles on the M64 motorway and Brockley Hill tube station, not "Proposed M64 motorway" or "Unbuilt Brockley Hill tube station". The most likely search term will be "Manchester Gorton by-election". --RFBailey (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Bondegezou (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)