Talk:Old Bexley and Sidcup (UK Parliament constituency)

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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101106204053/http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/electoral-figures/electoral-figures.htm to http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/electoral-figures/electoral-figures.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160129132219/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/2011/census-data/2011-census-interactive-content/index.html to http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/2011/census-data/2011-census-interactive-content/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)