Talk:Henley by-election, 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Politics Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom , a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of politics and government within the United Kingdom. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.

[edit] A little premature?

Might it not be better to wait until we can actually be sure there will actually be a by-election to start articles like this (like until Johnson took the post of Steward of the Manor of Northstead)?

Anyway, having said that, I removed a sentence about possible polling on the same day as the Crewe and Nantwich By-Election, as by my reckoning, even if the writ were moved on Tuesday, there are only 12 working days between then and the 22nd.

Luke Parks (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hiya Luke. From what I gather, if the writ is moved on Tuesday, there is very little chance of a 22nd May date, so I think removing that was a good idea. It seems that both here, and with C&N for critically, there is a rapid trigger happy tendency to create articles for by-elections, more perhaps now than at any time I can remember since joining Wiki. I would think it a good opportunity for the Wiki project members to consider some kind of control on this, but we shall see. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's clear there'll be a by-election, so there's no harm in creating the article, but the info should, of course, be accurate... —Nightstallion 09:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe not. But looking at the article History, by my reckoning, the article was created even before it was announced that Boris Johnson had won the mayoral election. What's next? Cases of dying MPs where the article about the by-election is started before they're actually dead? In my view, articles about by-elections should only be started once there is a confirmed vacancy, and there isn't yet as far as I'm aware.
Luke Parks (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think once someone has announced his retirement, then it's okay to create an article (we regularily create articles on elections before they're formally called, for instance), but not before then. As Johnson had announced his retirement in the case of being elected, I would have considered it okay to create an article the second his victory in the mayoral election was announced, but not before then. —Nightstallion 22:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The article history indicates the article was created about 25 minutes after the Mayoral election results were announced. DWaterson (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we may have to be a bit more measured in future, but at least it seems we were not jumping the gun literally. I don't want to get into articles being created prior to a resignation (or worse, on reports of illness rather than death) doktorb wordsdeeds 12:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree - it is not a question of whether this by-election may or may not happen, it WILL happen, and it WILL be this year. This is slightly different to setting a page for a by-election when it is confirmed that an MP is terminally ill for example, there is no guarantee as to when or even if this will happen, the same as we should not create a page stating that whoever is confirmed as the Tory PPC will become MP for Henley on.... - there is a 99.99% chance a Tory will be elected here, but there is a 0.01% chance there will not. Whilst a chance exists - we cannot present this information. This by-election is a 100% fact - and it is a 100% fact that it will happen this year. Seivad (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd dispute your assertion that it's a 100% fact. It's only a 100% fact when the actual vacancy has occurred, which it hasn't as yet. Until then, anything could happen (such as Johnson changing his mind; such things have been known to happen). Luke Parks (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a useful line at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." When that applies to a by-election, we can create an article. If individual editors are confident that an event will take place but there has not been well documented speculation, an article is premature. If there is well documented speculation, then an article is a good idea. This is a borderline case, while I'd suggest that it implies the article on the Crewe and Nantwich by-election was premature when it was first created. Warofdreams talk 21:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
How was the Crewe & Nantwich article premature? It was created after the death of the incumbent and therefore a by-election was certain to take place. I would also argue that this article was a little more than well documented speculation as the incumbent specifically stated 'I will stand down'. Politically, this statement is binding, and whilst technically he could in theory change his mind, in practice he can't. Seivad (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Claim about Labour not fielding a candidate

I notice we now have a claim about Labour perhaps not fielding a candidate. I find this highly dubious, and as there's no citation, I personally can't see any reason not to delete it. Luke Parks (talk) 09:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Seivad (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)