Wikipedia

Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election

Latest comment: 5 months ago by AwesomeSaucer9 in topic UKIP?
Learn more about this page
Former good article nominee2015 United Kingdom general election was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 20, 2010Articles for deletionNo consensus
October 31, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 8, 2015.
Current status: Former good article nominee


Section on media coverage

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've added a section on media coverage of the election. There are lots of reliable sources on it and, as the media is considered to be 'importan[t] to democratic life' (IPPR report [2015], p. 30) and 'essential to democracy, and a democratic election is impossible without media' (ACE encyclopedia entry 'Media and elections'), I thought it would make a useful, interesting and important addition. I've also added two tables in the Endorsements section. The tables -- on which parties the main daily and Sunday newspapers endorsed -- are taken from the main article on endorsements during this election campaign. I've included them here because (1.), considering the importance of the media in democracy and the elections, I thought this would be useful and important to include directly in this article; and (2.), in my opinion, it makes the main part of the other article more readily available (whilst providing extra detail if people want to click through to the full article on endorsements), which makes this article read more easily without having to go to a different article (this is following the precedent of other sections of this article, which link to another, main article of the topic but also provide an overview/the most pertinent information: e.g., the sections on MPs not standing for re-election, Contesting political parties and candidates, Television debates, and Opinion polling). I hope these decisions and edits are OK. --Woofboy (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Party use of social media in campaigns

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The 2015 election was expected to be the 'social media election' (see, e.g., C. Byrne, 'Getting Engaged? The Relationship between Traditional, New Media, and the Electorate during the 2015 UK General Election' (Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Nov. 2015)). It would be good to see information included in this article about the parties' use of social media in their campaigning, and about the public's use of social media, too. --Woofboy (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Merge from Carlisle principle

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

With this edit, I merged the text from the Carlisle principle article, which is now a redirect to the 'Constitutional affairs' section. Thanks, Amkilpatrick (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

UKIP?

edit
Latest comment: 5 months ago77 comments14 people in discussion

Not a fan of the party at all. But given that they won a significant amount of votes and played a visible role in the media coverage of this election surely they should be included in the infobox? Or at least in the infobox for 2015 United Kingdom general election in England? --Theimmortalgodemperor (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Support - Continuing from some of the discussion held on a recent RfC inspired by the 2021 Canadian federal election's article's infobox, I think that UKIP certainly has crossed the threshold of noteworthiness to be included in the lead infobox for this article. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Agree (and have added data) - deciding which parties to include can be problematic: how about parties with >1 million votes? ... in which case add Greens, but N. Ireland parties gained more seats. Roy Bateman (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support for UKIP inclusion. This was discussed back on its day and resulted in a divided outcome on whether UKIP should be in or not. Much has come to pass since then, and retrospectively it's fairly obvious that UKIP was very significant heading into this election and scored a very significant popular vote total (even if it did not secure any seat by virtue of the electoral system). Nine years later, the 2024 UK election may bring further stress to the view that parties securing zero seats but 10-15% of the share should not be added to infoboxes. Impru20talk 15:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support per Impru20. — Czello (music) 15:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose unless other parties that won equal number of seats are included. Pretty fatuous arguments above: which party had more media coverage is obviously a value judgement that depends on which media are included and what metric is used for degree of coverage. What was "significant" is again a value judgment: there's nothing clear about whether UKIP was significant and no argument is made above to support this notion. The idea of >1 million votes is not bad, especially given that those are very clear outliers (the next has <200k). Cambial — foliar❧ 15:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Extended discussion on the !Oppose vote
Almost 4 million votes and being the third political force of the country in vote share in the election is not "value judgement", it is a real metric. The article has 77 mentions of UKIP (16 as reference titles alone), it appears in maps and charts through the article (as well as in related articles such as Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election) and its full results are represented at constituency level at Results of the 2015 United Kingdom general election, greatly exceeding almost any other parties but the Conservatives and Labour. What is clear is that it has a measurable significance that is represented everywhere but in the infobox due to criteria that are applied in a very rigid manner. Impru20talk 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
3.9m votes but only one seat, so its political force was 1/650 or just over 0.15%. Exactly the same political force as the green party at the same election. Thus the claim that it is "significant" remains a value judgement. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
So, if it's just 0.15% of the seats, why does it have so much coverage throughout the article? Surely there must be something else, right? Remember: an infobox must summarize the article. It's weird for a party to have so much in-wiki election coverage, win millions of votes and score third and then be entirely absent from the infobox. It's one way or the other; its relevance cannot be perfectly measurable for article coverage, then very difficult to ascertain for infobox inclusion. Impru20talk 15:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Excitable, eager supporters? It's probably excessive coverage, but that's not relevant. Your claim that an infobox must summarize the article is incorrect. The purpose of the infobox is to summarise key facts that appear in the article. The key facts are already summarised. A single seat, where other parties held several times that number, is not key. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Is getting 10-20% in opinion polling "eager supporters"? Is getting almost 4 million votes and becoming the third political party of the country in vote share terms not a key fact of the election? You have depicted very well what I did mean when I spoke about applying criteria in a very rigid manner. Seat count, while an important metric, is not the only metric of significance come an election. Impru20talk 15:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Opinion polling is irrelevant once the election result is in (see revealed preference). Does a million votes translate to legislative influence, or any political power at all? No. Only seats do. FPTP is fucking stupid. But it is the system, like it or not. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
1) Opinion polling is part of an election. 2) The popular vote is part of the election result.
Such a strict application of specific criteria lead us to re-interpret what an election is about and forget that seats are still a particular translation of the popular vote result according to the electoral system. I am not denying that the seat count is relevant in an election. You are denying that the popular vote share is relevant. That's a clear difference in how we both see an election (which is neither good nor bad, just different). Impru20talk 17:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I am denying that. I deny it because it's a fact that the popular vote share is irrelevant. The purpose of a UK general election is to determine the constituent members of the house of commons. The only relevant factor that determines the constituent members is who wins the seats. The popular vote tally has no influence on the outcome. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Popular vote share is not irrelevant, how do you think parties get their seats from? It obviously has a significance. As said, I am not denying that an election determines the constituent members of parliament. You are denying that the popular vote share has any relevance (to which I disagree). I have a broad vision that sees a benefit in considering both. You are applying a (very) strict vision which (in my view) thwarts a relevant part of the election. That's my point all along. But as said, we have different visions. Impru20talk 17:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I understand that you disagree. But your claim is factually incorrect. Parties get their seats from vote share in individual constituencies. National vote share is irrelevant. The seats are determined by first-past-the-post, a system in which the national vote share has zero influence on the outcome that is the purpose of the election. Were the popular vote tally a relevant factor, in this particular election UKIP would have obtained eighty-one seats. But it's not a relevant factor and thus they obtained one seat. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The claim is not incorrect, because what I am saying is that popular vote is important for getting seats, and you saying Parties get their seats from vote share in individual constituencies basically acknowledges that. Parties getting 0 votes get no seats. Parties getting millions of votes can get seats (or not, depending on the electoral system, but obtaining millions of votes is surely a first step towards that goal). I do understand how the electoral system works. I understand what FPTP is. I understand that translating popular vote into seats is one of the most important aspects of the election. I am not denying none of that, what I say is that it is not the only factor for relevance in an election, which is what you say.
Were the popular vote tally a relevant factor, in this particular election UKIP would have obtained eighty-one seats. This claim makes no sense, as you both acknowledge the importance of popular vote (UKIP's share would equal to 81 seats under a different system, which is quite a lot) while attempting to minimize it. But as I said, I am not denying this. My take is that both views are compatible. And so it looks from the election coverage as it currently stands. Impru20talk 17:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
You claim popular vote is important for getting seats. You're referring to national vote share. It's not important. Nowhere did I "acknowledge" something which does not exist: "the importance of popular vote". I observed that in a different system it would have importance. But that system is not used, and never has been: thus in actual reality it is irrelevant. In fact it's entirely plausible that a party could have 30 to 35 percent vote share (10 million votes) and win zero seats. So getting millions of votes can get you nowhere. Conversely, a party could have 0.6% vote share and win eight seats, or 0.3% (less than 100k votes) and win three seats, which is exactly what happened in this particular election. So the national vote share can vary by a factor of more than 100 and bring about entirely opposite results: it is not a determinant of the outcome. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not important but Farage was in the debates when his party had... how many, 2 seats from by-elections? While parties like DUP or SF weren't. And we are not talking about what-ifs here: this happened, and this was part of the election (which includes, but is far from being limited to, a vote-to-seat conversion).
In fact it's entirely plausible that a party could have 30 to 35 percent vote share (10 million votes) and win zero seats. So, you are telling me that you would leave a party with 10 million votes (30-35% of the share) but zero seats out from the infobox just because it got zero seats? That's precisely my point. Polling so high gets you somewhere: it at the very least entitles a party to debates, news coverage... and well, it would still be 10 million votes lol. I mean, you are basically reassuring me in my position that the "seats-only" criterion, strictly speaking, is useless by itself to address situations where a party gets a sizeable mass of the electorate.
This said, I think we are going around in circles and that we both are unlikely to convince each other of the other's position. Impru20talk 18:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think this discussion is going anywhere (@Impru20). I can see two ways to resolve it:
  1. Cambial accepts that they are in a minority within this particular debate and allows the change to take place, or
  2. a proper RfC is opened to encourage wider participation.
A.D.Hope (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Considering that this is a contentious issue and that it could potentially affect other UK articles (I'm thinking of 2024), I would say that going for a proper RfC would be the most cautious and sensible solution (specially to avoid a potential edit war, as I have seen from various edits to the article today). Impru20talk 19:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
This may well affect other UK (and other FPTP) election articles. I think a central RfC is appropriate. Were we to decide that national vote share ought to determine infobox placement in FPTP jurisdictions, for this specific article the greens, with a comparable vote share to LD and SNP, ought also to appear. Based on seat numbers we ought also to be including DUP here. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I think the proposal is less ambitious than that (or at least the one I defend): not to let national vote share ought to determine infobox placement in FPTP jurisdictions (which would affect all elections if applied like that); rather than national vote share complements the current seat count system, i.e. that a party getting above X threshold of popular vote share should be considered as "major" and, thus, entitled to appear in the infobox alongside the other major parties (this would only affect 2015 and 2024 on current election trends I think, as I can't think of any other election where a party gaining so many votes is so penalized by the electoral system in seat count). Basically what happens with 1935 Prince Edward Island general election, 1987 New Brunswick general election, 2021 Canadian federal election... Impru20talk 19:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The first example to which you link is a "two-horse race" (according to the infobox) so isn't really comparable to this nor to the other two. The 2021 example is similar to the six-party layout proposed here and discussed here and in various other threads. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's perfectly comparable to your argument: if seats are the only thing that should matter, why are we showing parties with zero seats in the infobox there? I'll tell you why: because the specific circumstances of those elections were taken into account, so exceptions to your strict view of the seat-count criterion do exist and are applied when required. Criteria should serve the article, not vice versa.
You are aware that the discussions you are citing date back to 2014 and 2016, right? It's been ten and eight years since then. 2021 came later. Consensus and reality back then does not necessarily mean that we are at the same place nowadays: consensus can change, specially in light of new developments. Impru20talk 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
You are aware that the election articles you reference took place in 1935 and 1987? It's been eighty-nine and thirty-seven years since then. Cherry-picking instances that you believe support inclusion isn't how we ought to proceed. We should be applying some statistically significant criteria to the article, not simply setting an entirely arbitrary cutoff in order to shoehorn in a party some would like to include. Given there are six parties with a significantly higher vote share than those below - the lowest has more than six times the vote share than the one below it, a multiplier unmatched anywhere in the dataset - an argument can be made for inclusion of those six. Or it could be set based on seats. Inventing a criterion based on the data, and designed to encompass a party that some want to include, fails to adhere to the non-negotiable NPOV policy. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support – receiving 12.6% of the vote makes UKIP notable in this election, regardless of how many seats the party actually won. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support. Not a fan of UKIP by any means, but when I think of the 2015 election, I think of it as the UKIP election just due to how much they affected the outcome, and due to their high level of support directly leading to David Cameron's decision to call the Brexit referendum. They finished in second place in a vast number of seats. If we want people researching the election to have the clearest picture of the outcome upfront, I don't feel that seat count should be the only factor dictating who appears on the infobox. JHarlowR (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - UKIP won just a single seat in 2015, which is as clear cut an example of non-inclusion as I can find. If there were no other parties, then maybe based on their vote share, such as with NZ in '84, but infoboxes are arranged by their seat share, not vote share, and there are five other parties who won more seats than UKIP. Why exclude them but include UKIP? The four parties which have been consistently featured are perfectly fine for the key purpose of an infobox: at a glance which conveys key information of the election results (a tight Tory Majority, the Lib Dem implosion, SNP surge). BitterGiant (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
In previous RfCs[1] on this topic, not only has it been established that having even one seat is grounds for inclusion, but that parties that win a substantial proportion of the popular vote but who haven't won a seat should be included. UKIP won a larger share of the popular vote than the SNP in this election.
I strongly support the inclusion of UKIP. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm reading the RfC discussion and it feels very clear that nothing approaching a firm consensus on auto-inclusion after 5% has been established, but rather a lot of agreement to judge case-by-case. And in this case, as this is a FPTP election in which the number of seats won takes priority, it would be wrong as it would be quite misleading to give a party which won a single seat priority placement over parties which won more on less. You may support inclusion, you can point to that RtC, but it's a simple fact that we order seats in an infobox based upon FPTP seat totals, not vote share. BitterGiant (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
As I said below, this discussion isn't about the ordering of parties within an infobox (which consensus seems to still remain to be determined by seat count, not the popular vote), it's about the inclusion of parties based on various criteria.
No matter how you slice it, UKIP in this election matches all the relevant criteria: >5% popular vote share, >=1 seat, and most importantly, notability. Keep in mind that according to previous RfCs, a party needs to meet only one of these criteria for inclusion, not even necessarily all three. How else would you justify the inclusion of the PPC in the 2021 Canadian federal election infobox? AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think about the 2021 Canadian election because that's beyond the scope of my concern when discussing the inclusion of parties in the UK in 2015. BitterGiant (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not beyond the scope though. The RfCs on these topics have been about infoboxes in general, not specific to any one country or event. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's beyond the scope of my concern, as in, I don't personally as an individual editor give much thought to the arrangement of Canada 2021 (which is a whatabout that I frankly will not engage with), and have already made it clear I view the outcome as a question of going case-by-case, and have laid out my view on this case, which was, I would note, also hashed out in an RfC back in the day that is linked at the top of this page in the first question. BitterGiant (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment: I believe that whatever the decision is on inclusion, it should be applied consistently among other election pages. I will add that including the UKIP on the basis of the percentage of vote (which would suggest that percentage, not number of seats won) would seem to run counter to listing the SNP before the Lib Dems (the former won more seats, but the latter had a higher percentage of the vote).98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    This discussion isn't about the ordering of parties, it's just about which parties should be included.
    However, I would agree that all parties that won a seat (or got a "substantial" share of the popular vote) should be included in the infobox. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Support - Got a seat and 5% of the vote. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The '5% rule' is not applied as a standard to parliamentary elections. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Personally, I think it seems odd to include a party that got 1 seat over parties that got multiple (the various Northern Ireland parties and Plaid Cymru all received multiple). So I oppose unless ones that received more seats are also included or if seat count is officially deemed to be less important than percentage of vote received. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I personally think those parties should also be included, for that reason. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Comment: This discussion seems to have run its course. That is, unless someone else wants to bring forward any new arguments, but I'll assume that this is not the case for now. As such, I think we have to proceed in one of two ways:

  • Accept the semi-consensus for inclusion: The strong opinion from these discussions is in favor of including UKIP in the infobox. If we want to swiftly end this debate, inclusion seems like the most logical way to go.
  • Open a new RfC and formally hash it out there: If there truly are more arguments that people wish to present in relation to this topic, it should be covered in an RfC that relates to Wikipedia as a whole, not only this page.

I don't believe there's much more logic in continuing the debate here. So I want to ask, which option is preferable to you all here? AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Creating a new RFC seems like the best way to proceed. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
If no one objects, I'll make one soon! AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I suggest proposing a question and options here first, so we don't end up with a string of alternatives added during the RfC's run. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
By @Cambial Yellowing's suggestion, I'll list a few options out here, and see if we can get a clearer consensus that way before resorting to a new RfC. The options I believe we have are:
  1. Keep UKIP, the Greens, and other smaller regional parties (Sinn Fein, Plaid, DUP, etc.) out of the infobox
  2. Include UKIP, but not the Greens or the other regional parties in the infobox
  3. Include UKIP, the Greens, and other regional parties in the infobox, and change the infobox style to match
  4. Include UKIP, the Greens, and other regional parties in the infobox, but only up to nine to maintain the current infobox style
  5. Include UKIP and the Greens, but not the smaller regional parties, in the infobox
I personally lean towards Option 3 because it fits best with the current standard set out under previous RfCs on this topic. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
An RfC would be better framed based on the principle applied to make the decision, i.e. based on which parties appeared in mainstream news organisations election polling trackers; which are the outliers in the data; number of seats; etc. Given there are six parties which are the clear outliers in terms of vote share, and six parties fit without having to redesign the infobox, it's appropriate to include the vote share outliers option. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
So that would mean adding UKIP and the Greens, but no one else? AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Right, this is both the six outliers in the vote share, and also , not coincidentally, the six parties that appeared in most mainstream news sources' poll trackers i.e. Financial Times, Telegraph, Grauniad.. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've added it as a fourth option. I still lean towards Option 3 for the same reasons as above, but if any of you here prefer Option 4, feel free to say so and why! AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
An issue is that Option 3 is, under the style of inforbox being used, impossible. There are no parameters which allow for a tenth party - and UKIP came tenth in seat total (while the Greens also won a single seat, in cases of ties we would favour the party with the higher vote share).
Therefore, we can only have Option 1 or Option 2, and that runs back into an issue I've talked about previously, which is that those regional parties won more seats that UKIP, and because we rank based on seats, we would be unduly favouring a party which won a single seat by ignoring parties which won multiples more.
Option 2 would, I feel, be deceptive because it specifically excludes parties which won multiple more seats while unduly favouring a party which only accomplished a win in a single seat. Even if those parties are regional, it is a simple fact they won more seats and this is an infobox which we rank based on seat totals. And because Option 3 is not an option (unless we change the infobox to a style which favours more than 9 results, I would have to say it has to be Option 1. BitterGiant (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Option 3 is not impossible; it is the style used for Danish elections for instance. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
"under the style of infobox being used, impossible". That is a different style of infobox. BitterGiant (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, but changing the infobox style isn't off the table. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Changing which style of infobox has been a very controversial topic on this particular election and I would recommend reading previous RfCs and Talk discussions that can be found within the archives regarding a change of infobox as this begins moving firmly beyond the scope of present discussion. BitterGiant (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've added an option to the poll to reflect this, and I'll definitely look around closely. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Option 4 and Option 5 aren't very good though - they both unduly favour parties which only won a single seat at the expense of parties which managed multiples, and the latter includes a party which only contests elections in England & Wales. Why should that be included at the expense of one which only contests in wales or Northern Ireland?
Changing the infobox style is not a solution to the question of UKIPs inclusion as it creates inconsistency with other British election pages. BitterGiant (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would personally be okay with changing the previous elections to match the Danish/Dutch style, if necessary. I understand why that may not be appealing, though. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am not sure why you are so adamant to remove UKIP from the table, when many here have come up with good points (which were agreed upon) to keep them in. You do not have to agree with the party itself (obviously) - but removing them is blatantly misleading, and I find it odd that it's only come up as an "issue" so close to another UK general election. You are not being subtle.
The discussion would possibly make sense if it were around removing Green from the table, but I think they should be displayed too. 86.137.148.183 (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
To quote the header text on this page under the FAQ "An extensive process of discussion and narrowing-down of the available options culminated in this RfC, which concluded that the infobox should use the template {{Infobox election}}, and should display Labour, the Conservatives, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats. This should not be altered without altogether clear consensus on the talkpage."
This discussion is determining whether that should be changed and so adding the party before a firm consensus is established will just lead to more dispute. 2601:249:9301:D570:857E:D8EA:29D4:FED9 (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
As noted in that RfC's conclusion, consensus can change, and I think this discussion is proof that there is a desire to see change. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
No party is being "added" and if it was, it would be the green party. UKIP has been on the infobox for years - so your point is null. 86.137.148.183 (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looking back in the edits, there's a small group of individuals that seems determined to remove UKIP from the info box. I do not know whether these are always the same people, but I find it very suspicious.
Anybody familiar with UK politics of then and now would know that the results of this election is a major talking point when it comes to voting systems (FPTP and PR), so trying to make this information harder to access at a glance seems disingenuous - and a deliberate attempt to obscure the data. 86.137.148.183 (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It was only added to the infobox on 4 May 2024. So it is incorrect to say that it has been there for years. The talk page note saying to seek gain a new consensus to add parties other than the Conservative, Labour, SNP, and Lib Dems has been there since 2016. It may very well be the case that a new consensus to include UKIP, but the party should not be added unless and until the decision is official. 2601:249:9301:D570:857E:D8EA:29D4:FED9 (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Check the older edits. After being added it is removed thereafter. Again, odd. I shall not be engaging anymore as there is a clear agenda here and I find it disgusting.
No wonder this site is losing credibility. 86.137.148.183 (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I looked at earlier edits and I found that there was a lot of back and fourth over whether the party should be included, which ultimately ended with it not being included. After the dust settled on that dispute, someone added it on 19 April 2017‎, but minutes later, it was reverted with the edit reason "This has been endlessly discussed. You'll need a consensus for change on talk". It was later added back again 13 August 2019‎, but it was reverted minutes later with the edit reason "Revert:infobox is by seats won". From a quick glance, (I could be wrong), it doesn't seem to have been present on the infobox again until last month and it appears that its inclusion in the infobox has been rather intermittent. I think the crux of this argument is seat count vs percentage of vote (if we go by the latter, the UKIP would be in third place, if the former, then it's behind most of the Northern Ireland parties) which is what the discussion is trying to determine. I'm not trying to push an agenda, I'm just trying to keep the page consistent with what was previously decided upon. If the mood since the last consensus and shifted and it is now the consensus to use a format that includes the UKIP, then so be it. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@AwesomeSaucer9, with all the back and forth going on (to the point where I submitted a Wikipedia:Requests for page protection), should we commence with an RFC? 2601:249:9301:D570:857E:D8EA:29D4:FED9 (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd be down. At this point I think we're veering into guideline territory that extends to the whole site - especially with the noted inconsistencies between countries. How does an RfC on "Guidelines for party inclusion and the choice of infobox style" sound? AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Proposal question

edit

Basing a question on the principle to apply, rather than a cherry-picked list of parties -

Should the infobox:

  • a. Use the legislative election infobox to list all parties that won seats
  • b. Include the statistical outliers for seats won i.e. Conservative, Labour, and SNP
  • c. Include the statistical outliers for national vote share i.e. Conservative, Labour, UKIP, Liberal Democrats, SNP, and Greens
  • d. Include what appears in the trackers & results of news organisations Financial Times, Telegraph, BBC, and Guardian include Conservative, Labour, UKIP, Liberal Democrats, Greens; all include SNP in headline results.
  • e. Remain as status quo Labour, Conservative, SNP, Liberal Democrats

Cambial — foliar❧ 21:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

C. Thank you. 86.137.148.183 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
As noted before, I prefer Option a. I would also support changing the infoboxes of previous UK elections in which >9 parties won seats to the Danish style to match. Yes, I am willing to put in effort myself to make this happen. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Should we make this an official RFC? That way the result will hopefully be beyond dispute?98.228.137.44 (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

A formal RfC on the WikiProject Election and Referendums talkpage has been created. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's not an RFC. I've made some comments over at that page. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The formatting has been fixed, but I am still unsure as to how you think the other criteria should be met. Would be happy to hear your opinion. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
What should be done if the UKIP is added back before consensus is reached? 66.99.15.163 (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The talk page for the 2024 UK election article is currently awash in similar discussion. Are there objections to redirecting people back to the RfC page? AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ "RfC: Clarify the 5% rule for parliamentary elections".
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_United_Kingdom_general_election&oldid=1233666433"