Jump to content

Talk:South Thanet (UK Parliament constituency)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orphaned references in South Thanet (UK Parliament constituency)

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of South Thanet (UK Parliament constituency)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ynmp2015":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Murray

[edit]

There seems to be some disagreement as to how we should list Al Murray in the 2015 GE candidate table.

The official Statement of Persons Nominated ((here), clearly states that he is standing with no description. For whatever reason, he is not standing with his FUKP party name. Therefore I think we should leave him as "no description" in the table. Frinton100 (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we add a note below the table explaining that Murray has been using the FUKP name in campaigning, but is listed on the ballot paper with no description? Bondegezou (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd been thinking that was probably the best way forward. Probably along the lines of "Murray is the leader of the Free United Kingdom Party (FUKP) and has used that name during his campaign. However, his name appears on the ballot paper with no description." Frinton100 (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 1 May 2015

[edit]

Please change Al Murray's party in the table from "no description" to "Free United Kingdom Party (FUKP)"

Without this detail then the entry is incomplete and may cause an issue under the Representation of the Peoples Act.

This has already been stated in several publications and in Wiki itself (on Al Murrays page) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000948 194.80.130.124 (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can it be undone? The official statement of nominations tells us that Murray will have no description on the ballot paper. If reliable sources disagree, we have to go with the one with the greatest authority. As I've said before, the solution to this conundrum is, as per WP:NPOV, to explain the deviation between sources. That is, we have a note in or below the table explaining that Murray will appear on the ballot paper with no description, but that Murray's campaign is as a candidate for the FUKP (a spoof party he created for the purposes of this election). This is easy to do: we do not have to be caught in this edit war swapping between the two options when we can simply explain both.
By the way, IANAL, but as far as I understand it, there is nothing in the Representation of the Peoples Act that applies to Wikipedia. Go read it here for yourselves. It is simply not an issue and those citing it to argue for particular edits should remember WP:LEGAL. We should stick to Wikipedia policy; that's all that's needed. Bondegezou (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
arrow Reverted for now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 5 May 2015

[edit]

Please undo previous edit of 10.57 on 5 May. Official list of candidates (http://thanet.gov.uk/your-services/elections-and-voting/parliamentary-election-2015/south-thanet/) does not support this edit. A sensible solution has been proposed in the Al Murray section of the talk page. Frinton100 (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Discuss in section above please. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redrose64 I'm happy to discuss in the section above which I created some time ago. But none of the editors who have changed the entry prior to my protection request have contributed to this section, neither did the editor who requested the change this morning - which begs the question of why was that edit done in the first place as there was no consenus?! The only other editor to contribute to the discussion was Bondegezou with the sensible suggestion I referred to above which I completely support.Frinton100 (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made the suggested change: the box says "no description", but there's a footnote with explanation. Bondegezou (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on South Thanet (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, 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) 00:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2010 result - Conservative gain?

[edit]

While the seat did change hands from Labour to Conservative at the 2010 general election it did so on different boundaries. The change in vote shares would seem to be based on the notional result had the 2010 boundaries been in use in at the 2005 election and if right would imply Conservative 41.2% Labour 39.5%. Thus Conservative win would be a more accurate description (if the figures are correct). Dunarc (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Thanet_(UK_Parliament_constituency)&oldid=1205940167"