Talk:Pudsey (UK Parliament constituency)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal of Liberal Democrat candidate.[edit]

It would appear that the same user has removed the Liberal democrat candidate twice now without explanation, despite the candidate being listed on the cited reference (#4). I have reverted back to including the LibDem candidate. Can I have others comments please as this may turn into a prolonged edit war which is not what anyone wants I expect... T

Before this is edited again we need to have a discussion to debate the reasons for removing the candidate.

Thanks Mark.s.shaw (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources without exception point to David Morton being the correct Lib Dem candidate. All I can assume is the person(s) changing this is simple vandalism. - Galloglass 13:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pudsey Liberal Democrats website [1] still list David Morton as the candidate. - Galloglass 23:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should consider having the page semi-protected for a while? - Galloglass 11:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have been editing this page I am the Leeds Central Lib Dem membership sectary, the link you have is wrong as David Morton stepped down as a councillor in Leeds more than three years ago and stepped down as candidate for the Pudsey at around the same time. The New Candidate Jamie Matthews was selected yesterday he is councillor for the Headingly ward in Leeds [2] I will see if I can find a better link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulnrswain (talkcontribs) 12:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are all aware that Jamie Matthews is a Lib Dem councillor in Leeds. The problem we have is there is no evidence he is the candidate for Pudsey. And unfortunately persons have been changing the candidate on this page to Jamie Matthews for rather longer than yesterday. Which does not give us much confidence to change it when all the evidence we find points to Morton. - Galloglass 12:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As we approach the end of the semi-protection I note that the Pudsey Liberal Democrats website [3] still has David Morton listed. I have found a twitter update from Jamie Matthews [4], however that is not an independantly verifiable source. Mark.s.shaw (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Pudsey (UK Parliament constituency)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
.
  1. Requires inline references adding using one of the {{Cite}} templates *DONE Mark.s.shaw (talk)
  2. Investigate red-linked election year *DONE Mark.s.shaw (talk)
  3. Complete information for missing elections *DONE Mark.s.shaw (talk)

Keith D 13:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Requires article for 1908 By-election creating. - *DONE Mark.s.shaw (talk)
  2. Requires pages for John James Oddy and Frederick Ogden. *DONE Mark.s.shaw (talk)
  3. Calculations for swing. - Outstanding, need someone who knows about Swing to help!
  4. Check turnout figures, as I have seen one that is the electorate figure from http://www.politicsresources.net - Done Mark.s.shaw (talk)

Mark.s.shaw (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark.s.shaw (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More detailed comments after rating as C-class though unsure exactly on this type of article how it fits in to the scale, may be it should be rated as a list.

  1. Capitalisation on Municipal Borough needs to be standardised. *DONE Mark.s.shaw (talk)
  2. Reference detail needs completing. On first glance it looks like a number of references go to the same page but they do not. Also the Times digital archive ones need to have more detail of the date, page of the publication of the original paper so that they can be located without having to read every page. - *DONE Mark.s.shaw (talk)
  3. The History section is unreferenced.
  4. The use of the word Parish in the boundaries section is confusing - are we talking ecclesiastical or civil parishes?
  5. The lead need to be expanded.
Keith D (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 04:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 03:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)