Talk:2021 Batley and Spen by-election

Reliable secondary sources required
A reminder to editors... The WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom consensus and WP:V requires reliable, secondary sourcing for the reporting of candidacies. The social media accounts of a political party do not satisfy this. Particularly with smaller parties, we frequently see claimed candidacies tweeted that never materialise. Bondegezou (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Demographics
Does the figure of 15.9% refer to the Indian population or the Gujarati population? PatGallacher (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Indian population per 2001 census profile, though perhaps a little out of date? Cilidus (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Consensus?
What exactly is the consensus about when we create the box with the list of candidates? Can we start doing it when we get reliable sources about which candidates are standing, do we have to wait for the official announcement following the close of nominations, or do we have to wait until the result? Can someone point in the direction of where any consensus was established? PatGallacher (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In the run-up to the recent batch of Parliamentary by-elections, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_11, there was some agreement that the box, i.e. an empty results box, should not be used until the Statement of Persons Nominated is out. Bondegezou (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Bad actors CZello and DoctorBuK removing just one candidate as CENSORSHIP, since press covered them
Once issue of how to edit ballot-paper template had been resolved, then they are using various deceptive methods to remove a cited candidate. This needs the history reviewing, and some kind of fair job done. However, the nature of the edits suggest no party (pun) is above partisanship. Just use what's in the press. The ballot-paper SURNAME Firstname is how elections are run in UK, how the order is set. Maybe more work needs doing on localised templates,but people coming to the page will be interested in who the press say will stand. Where there is no link to a party, as no linked page,just don't put it in bold. This is a lesson in why you don't delete parties < 10 years~ they may re-stand~and the deletion butchers have lost a lot of party history, context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillCaxton (talk • contribs) 08:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the candidate is not properly sourced: your link, as has been explained several times, is from 2016. Secondly, we're not the press, we're an encyclopedia, so we don't list candidates as SURNAME Firstname. Please see Template:Election box candidate with party link for our MOS on this. If you want your edits to stand for your political party, can you provide reliable sources that support your additions? — Czello 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Smiling George
George Galloway looks quite pleased that he's the only one with an image in the infobox. Is it fair to only show his image here? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's an issue; this is pretty standard when other candidates don't have pictures (yet). I suspect we'll manage to get an image of Leadbeater in short order. — Czello 11:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Well I did look for her in Google Images and was surprised there were no copyright free images yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * There's one of Ryan Stephenson here which is tagged as available by Google? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I see George has now exchanged his smug smile for a leering sneer, directed at the triumphant Leadbeater. Gosh their eyes almost meet... spooky. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The infobox is almost begging for a picture of Ryan Stephenson to break up their staring contest. — Czello 15:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Protest
I must protest against the removal of Dan Hodges's opinions on the Mail on Sunday. While it is true that the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday are unreliable sources, Hodges's article was an op-ed. It should not be deleted simply because it came from the same website!--Karma1998 (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)