Talk:Bromsgrove (UK Parliament constituency)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of UK Parliament constituencies 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.UK Parliament constituenciesWikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliament constituenciesTemplate:WikiProject UK Parliament constituenciesUK Parliament constituencies articles

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Worcestershire Low‑importance

	Worcestershire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Worcestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Worcestershire-related articles 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.WorcestershireWikipedia:WikiProject WorcestershireTemplate:WikiProject WorcestershireWorcestershire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

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

Next election

An unlogged in user made a large number of edits, indicating:

That some one had been selected as an independent. Since 'Independent' is not a party, it cannot have an official candidate. Accordingly there can be no prospective independent candidate until the election has been called and the nomination papers submitted.
That a conservative candidate had been selected to replace Julie Kirkbride (whose resignation is now final). This is premature and must be the result of WP:OR, i.e. invention. The selection process has not even begun, or hardly so. Reference for this: circular to local party members, as to the procedure intended to be followed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your reversion. Any article that presents General Dannatt as a conservative party candidate will need very reliable sourcing. Road Wizard (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have had edit warring over the content of the box (including my suffering an annoying edit conflict that lost part of my work). I have restored the Lib-Dem and Green candidates (recently added and then removed). In one case, the name is credible; in the other, the editor is likely to be well-informed. I presume that the editor who reinstate the name of the Labour candidate knows. However for reasons given above, I will continue to delete any alleged independent candidiate, unless (possibly) a reliable source is cited. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the activities in the last 24 hours I don't think you can call it edit warring. It appears to involve vandalism of the different candidate's records with some edits possibly in breach of the WP:BLP policy. While I restored the article to what appeared to be the last stable version I was acutely aware that none of the prospective candidates are sourced.

I am tempted to pull the whole prospective candidate table from the article until a source is provided. Road Wizard (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is now as it should be. If the "independents" reappear, I suggest they be tagged with {{fact}}. I fear this is a problem that will arise with many constituencies until the election is formally called and candidate lists can be sourced from an website website or newspapers. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a source for two of the candidates and set {{fact}} for the others. Whether or not they are independents we need sources for verification and to help identify further vandal edits. Road Wizard (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bromsgrove (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

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) 06:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]