Talk:2016 Witney by-election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Order in the Infobox

User 86.154.202.122 is repeatedly editing the InfoBox to place the Liberal Democrat candidate second, citing betting odds and "work on the ground", saying there has been a "seismic change in the national picture since 2015". Even setting aside the fact that opinion polls show the Lib Dems polling exactly the same as they did in 2015, I am under the impression that betting odds are not how we assign order in the infobox. I have reverted the edit so that the order in the infobox is based on the results at the 2015 general election which took place only 17 months ago. The same user is also adding commentary and predictions on the Liberal Democrat candidate.

My proposal would be: to provide a neutral list of candidates in the infobox, we determine it based on the 2015 general results. Alternatively, we remove the InfoBox completely, as it is not used in all such articles. FriendlyDataNerd (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are arguments for infobox ordering reflecting reliable, up-to-date information rather than merely the previous result. However, the evidence in this case does not appear sufficient to me. If we have an infobox, let's stick to the 2015 result order unless something more concrete turns up. I'm also happy to drop the infobox or to drop the candidates from the infobox. Infoboxes are overused. Bondegezou (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, fair point - if there was a recent constituency poll for example that showed a clear shift I'd have no problem. FriendlyDataNerd (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]