Talk:2022 Tiverton and Honiton by-election

Dorset Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dorset, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics connected with Dorset. If you would like to participate, you can visit the WikiProject Dorset project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.DorsetWikipedia:WikiProject DorsetTemplate:WikiProject DorsetDorset
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

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reason for by-election

May I suggest that the article needs a section about why and how Parish resigned, so news breaking of an MP watching porn, Parish is revealed, whip withdrawn, resigns, talks about tractors...? This is usual for by-election articles. Bondegezou (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to use Reliable Sourcing

Recent edits have used the Daily Mail and Twitter for sourcing. These do not meet WP:RS and should not routinely be used. Bondegezou (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University

Hi all, The Lib Dems describe their candidate as someone who 'works for a leading university', and this source suggest that is Oxford. Is it worth adding this, or could it come under original research? Quinby (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that's correct, but I don't think we can know for certain. There could be more than one Richard Foord. I would wait for a source explicitly linking candidate Foord to Oxford. Bondegezou (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling

While the Liberal Democrats claimed internal polling is interesting and has been reported by a reliable source, it should not be afforded anything approaching the same level of legitimacy as an opinion poll conducted by by a proper polling organisation. It is therefore wrong to include the figures in the table as has been done in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.209.7 (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling section removed

Hi all, I decided to remove the opinion poll section as it gives a lot more credit to the poll than its worth. Arguably these aren't even polls and are incorrectly reported as such - instead they are canvassing data. Comparing this to the Wakefield page, those opinion polls have been done by official pollsters with a solid reputation. Moreover, the precedent set by the 2021 North Shropshire by-election suggests we should just mention it in the campaign section. If there are any qualms, feel free to reply Quinby (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I don't think internal canvassing data is appropriate for this, and I'm not convinced it's entirely reliable either. — Czello 11:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No pies

Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:2022_Wakefield_by-election#No_pies on the use of pie charts. Bondegezou (talk) 11:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bar chart is wrong

The 2022 Lib Dem vote is incorrect as is the 2019 Conservative vote 2A00:23C7:A896:1001:47E4:A4CB:4128:449 (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. —twotwofourtysix^{(talk || edits)} 13:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]