Talk:2008 Crewe and Nantwich by-election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics of the United Kingdom

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Cheshire Low‑importance

	Cheshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Official Monster Raving Loony Party#Crewe and Nantwich By-Election]] The anchor (#Crewe and Nantwich By-Election) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Article Creation: Undue haste?

The speed at which this article was added is disgraceful. What the hell is wrong with people these days? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.143.244.226 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I can recognise the difficulty people may have with the creation of this article on the day of Gwyneth Dunwoody's death, but I guess this is one of the consequences of having the "rapid response" media and Wikipedians ensuring the site is as up-to-date as possible. It is awkward to walk the line when dealing with emotions, personal and fragile as they may be at such a time. I hope that you can accept that this article was created only to reflect the news, and was never meant as some kind of rude or tasteless response to Mrs Dunwoody's passing. doktorb _words^deeds 23:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the usual convention in these matters is that a writ for the by-election is not moved until after the funeral, but in this case that principle was set aside because of the delay caused by arranging a funeral in Westminster Abbey. The British news media usually hold back on commentary or speculation on a by-election for at least 24 hours after a death; the general idea seems to be to allow at least one day's news cycle to focus on the deceased rather on their seat.

I think it is regrettable that this by-election article was created only 40 minutes after Dunwoody's death was noted in the article on her. There was no need for such haste, and I hope that it can be avoided in future. (BTW, the article was not created by Doktorbuk, who first contributed to it ten days after Dunwoody's death). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a news-related article should be created as soon as it can be written to a sufficient standard with sufficient references. I dislike the idea that we should start getting into whether it is or is not "right" to put up an article quickly, for much the same reason that we should not start using euphemisms like "passed away" instead of "died" for fear of upsetting the subject's family or friends. We should not be wilfully unkind, but that's as far as it goes. I don't think it was regrettable, much less disgraceful. Loganberry (Talk) 17:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is where we disagree. Whilst it is almost impossible to prove it easily, nevertheless the other recent by-elections caused by the death of an MP did not have articles created immediately. I think a moment of calm and decency should be shown, after all this article as it currently stands could be merged into the main C&N page without to much of a loss to anyone. Still, no it's here we have to make sure it stands upto the usual standard of by-election pages. doktorb _words^deeds 01:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perfectly fair point, but personally I think the main reason for not creating a by-election article immediately is mainly practical, rather than mainly moral: the first version of this article, for example, was barely one and a half lines long, and didn't really add much to the sum total of information. I would have thought that in almost every case, if editing waits until there is enough to create a significant article, that will automatically grant a pause between the MP's death and the by-election article's appearance. Mind you, I wouldn't mind at all if in the early period the information were simply incorporated into the constituency page: not being sure of the naming conventions on these things, that was in fact where I first looked for details anyway! Loganberry (Talk) 12:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right to suggest a gap between the death and the article creation, but how we can do that when, of course, anyone can create an article is going to be difficult. There is also the problem with this specific byelection being called so soon and quickly, given that there is less than a month between Ms Dunwoody's passing and the polling date. I am sure that in the future members of the Wiki project on parliamentary constituencies will look into this matter. doktorb _words^deeds 13:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commentators

I think we should be ver selective here (major columnists in National Media only perhaps) but to have such a major Labour commentator saying the Conservatives will win easily is truly remarkable. NBeale (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - remarkable, perhaps, from a certain viewpoint - but I think on reflection that the inclusion of anything like this is inevitably going to breach WP:NPOV. And the way it is at the moment ("It is Labour that has become the stupid party, dumb, directionless, depressing") is a gross breach of that policy. The WP article is being used not to report the facts but as a vehicle for a slur on the Labour party, and/or to push the opinions of one editor. I have therefore deleted the whole section - but in its place we should cut and paste a version of the "campaign themes" section from Edward Timpson, which rightfully belongs here, not there. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've never had a commentators section before in any by-election article and I don't think we should start now. By all means refer to commentators for background information in the body of the article but to actually have a section devoted to them makes us more of a news site than an encyclopedia. - Galloglass 15:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates - Monster Raving Loony Party

The proof I have of the OMRLP candidate is from the following post on the vote2007.co.uk message board, from the OMRLP candidate at various electins, including Bromley last year:

Re: Crewe and Nantwich by-election, 2008

« Reply #92 on: Today at 05:33:07 PM » Quote

Nick "The Flying Brick" Delves has been selected as OMRLP candidate for Crewe & Nantwich. He's the Shadow Minister for the Abolitiopn {sic}of Gravity, and has contested Derbyshire West for the last 3 general elections.

doktorb _words^deeds 21:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A message board is not a reliable source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its now also been announced on ukpollingreport[1] by a OMRLP spokesman (John Cartwright). - Galloglass 21:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, for once, thank heavens for UK Polling. Yeah, BHG, I kinda know that a message board is not WP:RS, but without any other proof I was either going to leave it and hope, or put it up here and try to justify it! I've been here too long now to try and take the mick! doktorb _words^deeds 22:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the official nominations now; but as Surname: Brick, Other name(s) The Flying Richard B (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crewe and Nantwich by-election, 2008. 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/20080925122323/http://www.creweandnantwichlabour.org.uk:80/dont_be_conned_by_tory_boy to http://www.creweandnantwichlabour.org.uk/dont_be_conned_by_tory_boy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]