Talk:Canterbury (UK Parliament constituency)

message: The official PDFs on the Canterbury City Council website - e.g. 2001 have higher turnout percentages that we do here (for 2001, 61.1% vs 60.9%).  Is there more than one recognised way of calculating it?  Which source takes precedence? William T (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turnout figures 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Canterbury (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
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100415010454/http://candidates.ukip.org:80/index.php?pg=show&eid=185 to http://candidates.ukip.org/index.php?pg=show&eid=185
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should the 2019 section record that the original Liberal Democratic candidate Tim Walker withdrew as he advocated supporting the incumbant Labour candidate Rosie Duffield? I feel that this is arguably significant given the reasons, potential impact and high profile coverage of the withdrawal (eg see this national newspaper article. Also I would note that other constituency articles do feature content on candidates who withdrew and were replaces (eg see under 2010 in the Watford constituency article which discusses changes in the Conservative candidates in some detail). Yet I am a bit cautious as to whether such an edit during an ongoing campaign is appropriate, so thought it best to open this to discussion. Also the final nominations are not official for a few days it might be best to wait in case of any other changes. Dunarc (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Now the result is in, I think it probably would be worth adding. Dunarc (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  2019 withdrawal  

message: It seems to be the convention that, even in by-elections which have been announced, we only mention candidates which have third party confirmation, and we only put up this box when we have the official confirmation from the returning officer.  Whether these conventions are correct could be a legitimate debate, but we need a centralised discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be convenient to just have them on there, as no need to create a box when they are announced. If a candidate isn’t officially confirmed we can just remove them but chances are they will be. MCMax05 (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You may think that would be convenient, but we follow what the community has agreed to do, including respecting WP:SECONDARY. What we've seen in the past is that it is quite common for a minor party to say they will be standing a candidate, and then they don't. Bondegezou (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Candidates