Talk:Wyre and Preston North (UK Parliament constituency)

Next election entries presumptuous

They break Wikipedia policy (see UNDUE, CRYSTAL and NOTBLOG for starters). Discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Berwickshire,_Roxburgh_and_Selkirk_(UK_Parliament_constituency) refers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.185.122 (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no policy against giving readers information about PPCs. Ii is useful information for readers and for that reason it is standard to show it on articles about constituencies, currently on around 90%. Different rules should not be adopted on articles about one or two constituencies because a few editors object to standard practice. Some names are added with no reference or an unsatisfactory one such as a blog and it is legitimate to delete those names, but not names with reliable sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The policies have been quoted (see UNDUE, CRYSTAL and NOTBLOG for starters). That this information is available on other pages merely indicates that the other pages contain material in breach of policy, they do not by force of volume constitute a policy

As you admit, these are Prospective Parliamentary Candidates - and at that for an election which has not been called. Sourcing is barely relevant, they are still no more than prospective candidates. Who knows, we may wait long enough for an election that some candidates may give up, go to prison or die before the election comes. One [on another page] has suggested he may not stand if there is a suitable electoral pact [which is not what Wikipedia is for - but we may yet see candidates stand aside as a result of pacts. Others may even be disqualified after nmination.

Another issue here is the possibility of mischief being done through misinformation. To allow PPC information for an election which has not yet been called will require policing possibly until 2022 for the validity of content. This is unnecessary. The appropriate time to add candidate information is when nominations close, although you could stretch that to when an election is called. 78.33.185.122 (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

And another thing. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiassed. Some parties seem to like to get their PPC's up on Wiki ASAP, for exposure. Anyone entering a candidate should enter them all, not just their pet candidate, or leave out the xxxx Party candidate. You cannot be sure of getting them all until nominations close. 78.33.185.122 (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

You are giving your personal view. Wikipedia operates by consensus and in almost all articles on constituencies information about PPCs is accepted without dispute as useful to readers. You do have a point about bias in which parties are listed, but some parties do not make it easy to find the information - specifically the Labour and Conservative parties - and this should not prevent details of PPCs being listed where reliable sources are readily available. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates by consensus within the limits of established policies. You have cited no policies in your argument. If this dispute goes higher, the text will probably be locked, either with no entries, or only the ones you insist on. Neither will be satisfactory and will require admin action to unlock, thus depriving everyone of information at the time it is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.185.122 (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The policies you cite do not apply. UNDUE applies to giving excessive weight to minority viewpoints, such as the flat earth theory in the article about the earth, not to statements of fact supported by reliable sources. CRYSTAL applies to speculation that someone intends to stand, not the fact that they have become a PPC. NOTBLOG says that Wikipedia is not a social networking service and you may not use it to host your own blog. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• There seems to be a misunderstanding of the position of a prospective parliamentary candidate. These people are chosen, or "adopted", by some parties at least, when no election is on the horizon (to work on gaining support, and in case of a sudden election or by-election). If there is a reliable source for their adoption they can be included in Wikipedia. They become "candidates" when the election is called and they have been nominated correctly and accepted by the returning officer. PamD 05:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

To clarify: not saying that they are notable enough for their own article, just as a PPC or even candidate, but that they can be added to the "Next election" table for the constituency. PamD 07:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wyre and Preston North (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/20101106204053/http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk:80/electoral-figures/electoral-figures.htm to http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/electoral-figures/electoral-figures.htm

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) 19:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)