Talk:Old Bexley and Sidcup (UK Parliament constituency)

This article is rated Stub-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 as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. 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

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related 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

Prospective Parliamentary Candidates

Hmmm, is it normal for articles to give details about "the next general election", not least when an election has not been formally called? Equally, should such prominence be given to a single Prospective Parliamentary Candidate, especially out of the formal elections period? I think, perhaps, there is some manner of promotion going on. -Super Callum! xxx (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not normal, I think these amendments are pure self promotion and should be deleted. The candidates for an election cannot be confirmed until the nomination papers are in and candidates should not be listed in the results section.--Jimclev (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, it's not unreasonable to document the stated intentions of political parties. A PPC is a PPC, whether an election is under way or not. BTLizard (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jimclev: talking about prospective and as yet un-nominated candidates for an as yet uncalled future election is nothing more than speculation and fails the notability critereon for inclusion. The time to add PPCs is when the next election has been called and PPCs have been formally nominated; then there should be a separate section in the article dealing with the forthcoming election and providing balanced description of all the nominated PPCs. Even the title of the PPC table, "Confirmed candidates for the next UK general election", is questionable: none of the candidates is confirmed and I see that the talk page for the linked article on the next election also raises the question of crystal ball gazing. I move we delete this table unless policy-based reasons are presented that override the issues of non-notability and speculation. -- Timberframe (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, in response to Callum's and Jim's suggestions of (self) promotion, I think we must treat the inclusion of PPCs as a good faith attempt to provide info pertinent to the article, and register our disagreement with the inclusion and/or location of this material in the article without second-guessing the motives and identity of the editor concerned. There is no promotional material, as only the PPCs' names and parties are given (note that the cited source includes "to save QMH" in the party name), and no promotion of one PPC above another since all but one of the PPCs currently listed in the cited independent source are included in the article. -- Timberframe (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can talk about crystal-ball gazing in this context. Independents aside, these are people who will have gone through a formal selection process and been selected and announced as prospective candidates by their parties. As such they are sigificant and active parts of the political lives of the constituencies. I can't see the point of pretending they aren't there until a few weeks before the poll on the basis of a pure formality. BTLizard (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Granted they're waiting in the wings, but I disagree that we can assume "they are sigificant and active parts of the political lives of the constituencies" at this stage unless there are refs to prove the case. For example, this guy seems to have his work cut out in another constituency and as a shadow minister:

James Brokenshire (Conservative) born 1968, Southend. Educated at Davenant Foundation School and the University of Exeter. Prior to his election worked as a corporate lawyer. MP for Hornchurch since 2005, his seat is due to be abolished in the next round of boundary changes. Shadow minister for Home Affairs.

Furthermore, have they done anything notable for the constituency yet? I don't think that their mere selection (given that all but one of them will be de-selected by the electorate) qualifies as notable-- Timberframe (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the constituency, not about candidates or the PPCs. WP:NOTE is clear that the notablity guidelines apply to article subjects, not to incidental content, except for articles which consist of lists of names. Thought a constituency article will necessarily contain names, I do not think you can argue that it is a list in the sense stated in WP:NOTE. The subject here is Old Bexley And Sidcup; the PPCs are descriptive and illustrative of its status and condition. To exclude them would be to deprive those who consult the page of useful information which may well be the very information for which they are searching, and worse, it may lead them to believe incorrectly that no candidates had been selected. BTLizard (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points; if consensus goes with your arguments I would only caution that as with all "current affairs" articles constant vigilence will be required to ensure that the list of PPCs is kept up to date to avoid claims that wiki is providing an unbalanced picture (for example, the article doesn't mention the BNP PPC who does appear in the cited source, presumeable the source was updated more recently than the article. While we wait for others to comment, I'll create a "forthcoming elections" section for the PPC table and add the BNP chap. -- Timberframe (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Old Bexley and Sidcup (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) 11:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]