Talk:2024 Durham federal by-election

Parameter for 'ongoing' status
I've changed 'yes' to 'no' in the infobox's ongoing parameter. That way, O'Toole won't be (mistakenly) shown as the incumbent MP. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Turnout
please read WP:ALLORNOTHING. This is exactly the argument you are using to remove content and is specifically listed under "Arguments to avoid". You do not get to mandate that other editors have to edit other pages before they can add cited information to this one. You are very clearly breaking guidelines here. Once more, the current turnout claim is not cited, this information is citing that claim with a reliable source. Your behaviour is also straying into page ownership behaviour. You do not get to mandate or gatekeep legitimate and cited information from being added to this page because you think other information should be added elsewhere. Please follow the guidelines. Helper201 (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I personally don't see an issue with including the turnout in the prose of the article, even if it's mentioned in the infobox. However, I don't think it's appropriate in the lead. Maybe we can reach a compromise with User:Mason54432 and have it in the results section? -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes that would be fine have it in the results section but the turnout already stated there and in the info box. I don't know why Helper201 is obsessed with adding turnout in the beginning of this page while ignoring other by-election articles. Mason54432 (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are literally vandalizing the page and treat the turnout is something usual and had to state it in the beginning. If you want to add turnout in the beginning, please also add in every by-election articles because adding only on this page show bias and doesn't align with pass by-election articles styles. Mason54432 (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * unusual
 * Mason54432 (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Helper201 is correct about WP:ALLORNOTHING though, you should not compel them to edit other articles; I would suggest not going down that route.-- Earl Andrew - talk 21:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article's key information. Turnout is certainly important information that only adds to improving the quality of the page. Adding cited information is in no way "vandalizing", that claim is ridiculous. It’s also funny to be accused of "ignoring other by-election articles" using this argument which consistently ignores the WP:ALLORNOTHING guideline it violates, as stated multiples times now. Helper201 (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the turnout is an important enough detail in the lead. Perhaps if you can find reliable sources that show that the turnout was especially noteworthy for being low (and in my opinion, it isn't, as the turnout was on par with several other recent by-elections in that it was in the high 20s). Otherwise, it's just a trivial fact, that should go in the results section.-- Earl Andrew - talk 19:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)