Talk:2024 Kingswood by-election

What is the logic for moving this article?
What is the logic for moving this article from 2024 Kingswood by-election to Future Kingswood by-election? Regardless of when Skidmore resigns, the next general election must be held before the end of January 2025, and a by-election would need to be held at least three months before then (no later than October 2024). So, given that we're in 2024 now, this election can only be held in 2024. This is Paul (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If a general election is called for May, this by-election won't be called. Look at Manchester Gorton for a recent equivalent. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You could apply the same argument to the 2024 Wellingborough by-election, the date of which is yet to be confirmed. Also, it's worth bearing in mind that Sunak has signalled the election will be in the second half of the year. This is Paul (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can move Wellingborough if you like doktorb wordsdeeds 23:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Go for it, This is Paul (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please can we discuss moves on the actual pages rather than on the talk page of an article many editors may not have even visited yet? Quinby  ( talk ) 14:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Doktorbuk The Wellingborough by-election is already underway and there is a vacancy. Realistically, that won't be cancelled. This one however could be if there is delay to move the writ. In any case, calling any of them future rather than 2024 by-elections is redundant. The by-elections either will happen this year, or there will be an election and all/some may not take place, if the latter situation applies this page should just not exist rather than being called 'future'. Quinby  ( talk ) 14:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * GOV.UK says A new Writ is usually issued within three months of the vacancy. There have been a few times when seats remained vacant longer than six months. Seats will be left vacant towards the end of a Parliament. They are then filled at the general election. So it all depends on the date of the election. But as I mentioned above, that election would have to take place this year, because Parliament has to be dissolved this year. Sunak has pretty much ruled out a general election in May, and as he has a reasonable majority the ball is in his court, so to speak. The closest by-election date I've found so far is the 1997 Wirral South by-election on 27 February 1997, with that year's general election taking place on 1 May. So there's a good chance this one will go ahead, at least to the writ stage. This is Paul (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not underway. The writ hasn't been moved. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Doktorbuk Considering the Conservatives now have selected a candidate for Wellingborough, I believe it is certainly settled to say it is underway. Regardless, I agree with other points made here as I did earlier that 'future' is redundant. If a by-election does not happen this year, the page will be deleted. Something like 'possible' could work, but I see no issue with keeping it as 2024. Quinby  ( talk ) 21:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , if your concern is that the by-election might not happen at all, I don't understand why the move to "Future..." If this election is held, it is held in 2024, so "2024..." makes more sense than "Future..." If you want to express uncertainty, it would need to be "Possible...", wouldn't it? Bondegezou (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. OGBC1992 (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I have moved Wellingborough back to “2024…” given the weight of sources that expect that by-election to occur, and a lack of any consensus for a move. There is less sourcing around this by-election, so I haven’t moved this one back. However, I remain of the view that this move was mistaken. “Future…” should be used when the year is uncertain. If there is serious doubt about the election happening at all, then “Possible…” or something similar is the appropriate modifier for the title. Bondegezou (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Bar chart
Quite simply, the figures displayed in the bar chart are not correct. The Conservative candidate's vote share has been displayed as 34.5% - it should read 34.9%. Want proof?

100 / 24869 X 8675 = 34.882% - rounded up, it is 34.9%? Amazing isn’t it.

and when one considers the Reform Party vote share, which reads 10.8% instead of 10.4%, again we will use the magic formula. This is Einstein level maths, by the way.

100 / 24869 X 2578 = 10.366% - we will round this up to 10.4%.

Apparently, to point this out is using "opinion". Blimey, simple maths is so full of opinions these days. Here’s another controversial opinion for you: not only have I pointed out the mathematics proving beyond peradventure your erroneous figures, but the correct figures are even displayed, in black and white, RIGHT beside the bar chart. That’s pretty much it. Keep displaying incorrect information if you want to. Maybe that’s why this site has the reputation it does these days. Cheerio. 2A02:C7C:DB33:8300:813C:89F3:6466:1B00 (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah! Someone called "Doktorbuck" has seen sense and said precisely what I have said for the last hour. Only, I suppose he/she/it/them won’t be accused of adding opinion. Fair's fair, not really sure why I bother with life sometimes.


 * That's probably because they didn't add any opinions to the article – which you did. — Czello (music) 10:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The figures are either right or wrong, maths does not care about opinions. 2A02:C7C:DB33:8300:813C:89F3:6466:1B00 (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about changing the maths, I'm talking about comments like these. — Czello (music) 10:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)