Talk:2006 Dunfermline and West Fife by-election

message: Does anyone have the background on the candidates from the last Scottish Parliament elections? Has this issue been resolved yet?
Timrollpickering 16:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hospital campaigners

message: Is there a source for the section "Implications (on UK and Scottish elections)"? It looks like it might fall foul of WP:NOR. If it's not original research, it could do with information on how a swing to the Tories or LibDems would affect the Scottish Parliament too. --Whouk (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is borderline original research - it's simply someone who knows (and I know Harry, he's good at this kind of thing), working things out from the available information. doktorb | words 10:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's quite easy to produce this sort of thing - swing calculators and tables are commonplace now - but I question whether it's not misleading. By-elections, especially when parties other than the main two are in a strong position, are a law unto themselves swing wise and it's dodgy to start making mathematic conclusions. Of far more importance is the seat's proximity to those of Menzies Campbell and Gordon Brown - a poor showing in their backyards could prove damaging for their respective leadership hopes. Timrollpickering 10:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The result of the Brent East by-election, for example, bore not relation at all to the following general election result. --Whouk (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implications (on UK and Scottish elections) 

message: I am with those keeping the swing sentence short and sweet despite my edits, BUT, look at the talk pages at the Newbury by-election article - some editors round here really don't recognise the concept of a Lab/Lib swing. The Newbury by-election article has been edited to express the unofficall status of Lab/Lib swing calculations, so for the benefit of having the same consenseus throughout - and against my own beliefs - I think the swing sentence should have a disclaimer of some sort on it. It will keep the peace, in my opinion ! doktorb | words 09:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a no-brainer. One senior Wikipedian holds a very, very strong POV on the matter which is completely at odds with the rest of the planet. We should not humour him for one second.--Mais oui! 09:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have advised he-of-whom-you-speak of the situation here, conscious as I am of the need to have fair play on this. Even though I recognise the existance of a Lab/Lib swing, I'd prefer to "play safe" and "keep the peace" by putting in a disclaimer. As I've edited that part 2 times, I don't want to be involved in any 3RR problems so I'm leaving it for now.. doktorb | words 09:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might suggest "BBC News reports the swing from Labour to Lib Dem of 16.2%" as a compromise wordage. This might help settle the issue because a) it's a clearly facutal statement thaat doens't give any assertion about whether the BBC's view of the matter is correct, and b) this article is not the place for fringe views of the word 'swing'. The Land 10:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I deliberately added the link to the BBC site at the end of my change because it uses the term in that context. —Whouk (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Swing

message: Do we really need so many old election results, now the by-election is done?  I suggest removing all but the previous elections in the same boundaries - ie the 2005 general election result.  The council elections definitely want to die. Morwen - Talk 00:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. —Whouk (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old election results

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Dunfermline and West Fife by-election, 2006. 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/20070930163646/http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2006/01/23/newsstory7953886t0.asp to http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2006/01/23/newsstory7953886t0.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060205010615/http://www.sundayherald.com/53816 to http://www.sundayherald.com/53816
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927185610/http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2006/01/21/newsstory7949230t0.asp to http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2006/01/21/newsstory7949230t0.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090821055307/http://www.by-elections.co.uk/dunfermline06.html to http://by-elections.co.uk/dunfermline06.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified