Talk:2017 Stoke-on-Trent Central by-election

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.

Elections and Referendums

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

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Set to disappear

Much of the media are reporting that the constituency is set to disappear... well, the name is going, but most of it, I think, ends up in a new Stoke South. It's not disappearing, more morphing. I'll see if there's a better cite to explain that. Bondegezou (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes the Central seat as being split between a new North and South seat, but then implies it will be more South. Bondegezou (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bond, do you want me to add the wards which make up Stoke South? It's not WP:OR if I cite the Boundary Commission website.... doktorb _words^deeds 16:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should have too much in this article as this may be getting too tangential. But what about adding something to Stoke-on-Trent Central (UK Parliament constituency)? Bondegezou (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith edits 15.1

I reverted a number of changes, which I don't think add anything. For example, the raw number of JSA claimants in the seat is not informative without comparisons with other seats, percentage of the total population etc. We know the seat is in Stoke-on-Trent, it says so in the name of the constituency, and the article elsewhere states that the seat is entirely urban. The boundary review has proposed those changes, but until they are taken further in parliament, they are not guaranteed to take place before 2020. And so on. I reverted to maintain readability, above all. Jdcooper (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in candidate table

User:Doktorbuk, why are citations better at the top of the candidate table rather than next to the relevant names? Bondegezou (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's how things were done for years at the start of these articles being created. It was always thought that it looked tidier, avoided people (usually anonymous IPs) from dropping spam links next to their supported candidate, that sort of thing. When the Statement of Persons Nominated is confirmed all the individual citations can be replaced by just the one to the council. doktorb _words^deeds 11:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tories "not contesting" Stoke Central

There's been a bit of to-ing and fro-ing over this article [1] which says the Tories are "writing off" Stoke Central. This does not mean they are not putting up a candidate, to not do so just because they think they won't win would be unprecedented for one of the main parties (and the governing party) in a GB by-election in at least the last 40 years.

As mentioned in the edit summaries, this is only one article quoting an anonymous source. It is more about tactics than candidates, and while a "process story" is a perfectly reasonable addition for wikipedia, we should not be reading into it something which it doesn't say. I support leaving it as:

On 23 January, an article in The Huffington Post quoted Conservative Party sources saying that the by-election in Stoke-on-Trent would be deprioritised in favour of the Copeland by-election taking place on the same way, which the party considers as a better hope of a gain.

Frinton100 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed also. If the Conservatives announce that officially (which I rather doubt) then there will be a rather more reliable and clear source. Jdcooper (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Labour Leave Poll

There is a poll that's been batted about and reported on in various places. It's also been added and removed from this page twice. This was not a scientific poll and Labour Leave haven't produced their methodology for it. Reading through it, it's very clearly just an attempt to get Labour to pick a pro-brexit candidate. Either way, can it be formally agreed here that the poll not be included on the page?Awoma (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agreed. It's not a serious poll. Practice has always been to exclude such pseudo-polls. Bondegezou (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, their methodology is suspect and it is a very small sample. As would be expected, reporting of the poll by Labour Leave has also been highly selective. Frinton100 (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could be mentioned in the context of the campaign section ("A poll purporting to show a significant lead for UKIP was dismissed because XYZ...) doktorb _words^deeds 18:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be appropriate if it had received a large amount of reliable source coverage, had impacted on the campaign in a significant way, but it hasn't really. Some less reliable sources covered it for a bit. Bondegezou (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loony Party

Can someone add The Flying Brick onto the list of candidates, he's standing for the Loony Party. It won't let me add it without messing up the template. (Z2a (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Candidate images

There's only one candidate image. Seeing as it's of the current favourite, and there are politically contested topics surrounding the by-election, would it not seem less biased to have images of the other two main candidates at least? If no free-to-use images have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons or whatever the case may be, I'm sure someone could find some to upload...? I'd do so but posting here first in case of there being a background to this question... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.120.26 (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have free images of any of the other candidates to upload, then go ahead. If you want to read some background on this issue, why not check out the Richmond Park by-election talkpage. Graemp (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates listed in infobox

I've seen it mentioned somewhere that the infobox should contain all candidates who received over 5% of the vote. I've also seen someone say it should be the top 3 only, but this seems slightly more arbitrary - a percentage threshold guarantees a more uniform depiction of the candidates it the running. That's been the case on, for example, Ogmore by-election, 2016. So shouldn't this mean that Zulfiqar Ali should be added here? Jdcooper (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sentinel use of WP table

Editors may be interested to hear that the Stoke area newspaper The Sentinel has used of results table from this article (screendump image, complete with coloured wiklinks, some visited) in at least 2 articles: [2] [3]. No sign of a credit to WP, or copyright info. I've reported this to The Sentinel using the "Report abuse" links at the bottom of the articles. Rwendland (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. How hard is it to make their own? Jdcooper (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]