Talk:2019 Newport West by-election

Initial article creation
I've made the article using the basic structure I use for all by-elections. I tried to limit the background to the bare basics but I'm sure there's scope to add more about the context if needed. Events today have really overshadowed this coming by-election so I'm not expecting much in-depth coverage about anything other than the basic facts of the constituency and Paul Flynn's death. Please do not add in self-published candidacy announcements until those announcements have been covered by a reliable source (eg. a newspaper or news website) rather than just content aggregators or twitter statements. Maswimelleu (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The South Wales Argus here considers Ruth Jones and Matthew Evans to be the Labour and Conservative candidates. Do you think that's sufficient to include them without caveat? Ralbegen (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That article does list the four pre-selected candidates, although it might merely have looked them up on Wikipedia. I would like to hold off on a results table until there are results and hold off on a candidate table until we have an election called. Bondegezou (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for removing my table :-/ In other by-election pages candidates have been shown when parties announce them not at the close of nominations. The campaign will start now, not at the close of nominations. Please consider readding the table

Littlemonday (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are meant to consist primarily of text. Text allows us to describe the nuance of the situation. The proposed table, meanwhile, may be wrong (no-one's actually been nominated yet) and may give a misleading impression that these are the only candidates (there will probably be more - it would be surprising if there wasn't a LibDem). So I remain of the view that it's premature. Great when we have the final official list of candidates and when we have actual results, but premature now. That the same mistake has been made on previous articles isn't a reason to repeat it here. But I recognise that opinion on this matter varies across editors, and as we get closer to the election (it's now been called), I understand the growing desire for something tabular. Bondegezou (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

However, Labour will certainly be running in the by-election and Womack, Clarke, and Surchozewski have been confirmed as by-election candidates. Shouldn't we at least create a by-election table like we have for future UK general elections of candidates on certain constituency tables? Saxonvsjones (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I have been deleting any election box found on constituency articles where there is only one candidate or where there are no citations. It's far too early to host next election candidate boxes, particularly with just one candidate. In relation to Newport West, a table can be added once we have citations for by-election candidates. I don't have a problem with incomplete tables being hosted when the timetable is counted in weeks rather than years, and we can always use "candidates chosen to date" as a disclaimer. All this falls moot when the SOPN is published. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I also disagree with adding candidate tables in advance of the SOPN, or at least prior to a reliable source listing selected candidates. The text in the article is adequate to describe the situation and the table can be added either once nominations open or when nominations close. Maswimelleu (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how to add the citation, but there is a new candidate announced: https://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/17467627.renew-party-announces-candidate-for-newport-west-by-election/ Rhialto (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, so we have a table now, but it's got an ugly "|N/A hold" in it. Can that be fixed? (If not, that suggests to me that this table is not meant to be used this way, before a result!) Bondegezou (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've got rid of that bottom box from the table. I don't really have a view to express on the propriety of including a table at any particular stage of the election. I think it's a pretty clear way of showing who the candidates are for users to get an at-a-glance idea of who's standing, but I can appreciate the concerns of editors who are opposed to including a table so early. Ralbegen (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. It is possible I am being overly grumpy about this. Bondegezou (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I continue to agree with you on the topic. I was going to tidy up the candidates box, but I figured it would constitute me giving consent the notion of having one in the first place. I'm going to take out the vote columns and results rows at the bottom to make it just a simple list of candidate and party. Maswimelleu (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Analysis
So I've been skimming through the coverage of this by-election and it looks like some journalists are framing it as being closely related to the Brexit debate, given that it will take place less than a week after the UK is scheduled to leave the European Union. To what extent do we want to incorporate this sort of speculation into the article? It seems as though fairly reputable sources such as inews are pushing this hypothesis. Another feature I'm unsure about adding is the notion that the date is "early" and the criticism Labour has faced for moving the writ before Flynn's funeral, which is often considered to be bad form where by-elections have been triggered by a death. ITV also reports that Labour is "nervous about losing the seat", which echoes reports from somewhat less credible blog/pundit sources that report a projected narrow margin for Labour if the by-election was held on current polling. I'm not inclined to add speculation of that kind, but it might be worth adding a sentence on the electoral situation including the local Leave vote if the claim is repeated in reliable sources. Maswimelleu (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the article shouldn't become a ticker-tape of every conspiracy theory, criticism and speculation. If a major issue erupts and it's covered in-depth in multiple reliable news sources, then fair enough. It would be 'recentist' in the extreme to run a day by day news commentary. Sionk (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * These articles are always magnets for people wanting to post daily updates, which is not what articles exist for. We're all vigilant against IP address editors wanting to ramp one candidate over another (or themselves, in some cases). Political parties saying that they are worried about losing the seat is the oldest trick in the book. Expectation management should not be taken seriously. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree we want to avoid recentism, or (self-)promotion. However, we also want to say something. Too many by-election articles are just same tables. If there is broad and deep coverage of an issue, let's get it in. So the timing of the election with respect to the (current planned) Brexit date seems to me something that is already getting broad coverage. Bondegezou (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ruth Jones (politician).jpg