Talk:2019 Peterborough by-election

East Anglia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia 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.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia 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

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.

Annunziata Rees-Mogg[edit]

There are reports that A. Rees-Mogg will be the Brexit Party candidate, but these all appear to be based on a report in the Express, which is not generally considered reliable (WP:RSP). I suggest we hold off until we see something more. Bondegezou (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know when nominations close? PatGallacher (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

9th May doktorb _words^deeds 07:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that we should hold off. The Express is a very unreliable tabloid paper and there isn't any need to rush with putting up a candidates list prior to the SOPN. Maswimelleu (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Nancy Mogg' has annunzed on Twitter that she is not a candidate in the by-election https://twitter.com/zatzi/status/1125472766512250881 Nedrutland (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galloway[edit]

We don't know that Galloway isn't standing yet, so it would be best to rethink his inclusion in this article only after the SOPN comes later today. If he's received coverage from reliable resources in connection with this by-election then he's notable enough to get a few sentences. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The latest citation I added has him definitively not standing. Bondegezou (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No description[edit]

I made a typo in my edit comment so I'll repeat it here - a candidate standing as "blank", or as "no description" is legally an Independent in UK electoral law, so it should remain wiki-linked to Independent (politician) to make this clear. There is no distinction between a person standing without a label and someone standing with the description "Independent" in electoral law so I cannot see any reason to unlink it, as had happened previously. Maswimelleu (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swing[edit]

I've removed swing from the results table, because it isn't in the source given, and I don't understand how the number given was calculated.

There are two main ways to calculate swing:

1-party swing - simply the change in vote of the lead party - in this case that would be -17.16%
two-party swing - presumably between the Labour Party and Brexit Party, which by my maths (based on this BBC article) would be -23.02%

However, as our Swing article explains, two-party swing is normally used in two-party systems; in this case, given the second place party was not even in the previous election, that doesn't seem to be the situation we're in.

The article had a figure of -48.31, which doesn't seem to line up with any definition of swing I can work out.

I'm unconvinced that there is a helpful way to calculate swing here; I'd suggest that we would need a reliable source for what the swing would be calculated as in this case; or just leave it out. TSP (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good reasoning. I agree. --LukeSurl^{t c} 08:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto - agreed. The table has change statistics for all the parties, which are much clearer. Bondegezou (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]