Template:Did you know nominations/Sam Carling

Sam Carling

Created by Roc0ast3r (talk), JeffUK (talk), Yngvadottir (talk), Jyeboah77 (talk), and Akpqegoj (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 238 past nominations.

Launchballer 20:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC).

  • Comment only. It's interesting that you say that all of their ages are in the public domain. I spent a few hours yesterday clearing Results of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency of dozens of links to disambiguation pages. Very, very few of the new MP bios included a year of birth. I don't doubt that The Guardian has got its facts straight, but I do doubt that your statement holds true. If it was true, those bios would presumably have included birth years. Schwede66 05:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Apologies, that was a very clumsy way of putting that. I meant that all of the information would have been available to the Guardian for them to fact-check their claim (especially given that baby of the House is a thing). It's very unlikely someone else is going to sprout up and prove us wrong.--Launchballer 19:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66: The Guardian's just published an article saying that two further MPs were 24 at the time of election, and sniffing around some less than reputable sources (the @Tomorrow'sMPs Twitter account, which appears to be operated by Michael Crick) says that both Josh Dean (politician) and Euan Stainbank were born in 2000. It would appear that Carling's constituency declared first, but I'll do a deep dive into live results when I'm finished with Dead Pony. I do note that the Guardian has not retracted the article cited on this page.--Launchballer 15:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
According to the Economist, Stainbank's Falkirk declared at 3:47, Dean's Hertford and Stortford declared at 4:03, and Carling's North West Cambridgeshire declared at 5:59. However, I did some further digging, and it turns out I've got the start of the 21st century wrong as there is no year zero in the Anno Domini system. So I am right, but not for the reason I expected.--Launchballer 18:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think the provided QPQ is valid because no hook was actually reviewed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Probably because there were no hooks on the page for me to review and because I was explicitly invited to propose one. Reviewers often propose new hooks and call for new reviewers, I fail to see the difference.--Launchballer 16:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)