Talk:Salford and Eccles (UK Parliament constituency)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

UK Parliament constituencies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of UK Parliament constituencies 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.UK Parliament constituenciesWikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliament constituenciesTemplate:WikiProject UK Parliament constituenciesUK Parliament constituencies articles

Greater Manchester High‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester 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.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
High	This article has been rated as High-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

Reality Party

Berry declared he would stand as the Reality Party candidate which he can't now be. The fact that he can't stand for the RP doesn't make him automatically an independent. I think we should leave him out and wait for more information from Berry or the party as to what they intend to do. The paragraph below the infobox summarises the current position. The fact the neither Berry nor the party have made any comment about their intentions since the EC deadline would suggest that they are not entirely serious about rectifying the situation. There's also confusion about the candidates they intend to stand as mentioned in the party's article. Frinton100 (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that there's a ridiculously low bar to being included as an independent - other constituencies have people included based on a blog post entry or letter to the local newspaper. It's hard to require a higher standard without excluding legitimate candidates. So I think it's a little unfair to leave Bez out of the list: their statements so far have been "discussing with the EC" (indy). They appear to still be campaigning based on their facebook page.

I've sent the party a tweet and an email asking them to make a statement in public. I guess we'll see what happens. --h2g2bob (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email reply said "We are still standing... just waiting for Electoral commission to get back to us... we have made facebook statements, more soon...". Can't see any strong statements about this on their facebook page.

If it's only the party name that stops us listing Bez, we could leave that column blank (no text). --h2g2bob (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should stick with him off the list but with the explanatory paragraph. The problem with leaving the "party" column blank is it implies a "no description" candidate - akin to being an Independent - so I don't see it would make any difference. Incidentally, did they give you any clarification as to where Jackie Anderson intends to stand - she is the candidate listed on their website for a non-existent constituency? I wonder if they mean Worsley & Eccles South for her. Frinton100 (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a blank party name would imply independent, although we could write "?" or "Unknown" in needed. I'm mostly worried about giving undue weight to the other candidates - not everyone will check the notes below. And we have no reason to think that he won't be standing at all.

I haven't asked the Reality Party to clarify further (btw, that email quote, including ellipsis, is the full email). But YourNextMP lists Jackie Anderson as standing in Worsley and Eccles South, based on a local news article. --h2g2bob (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Salford and Eccles (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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]