Jump to content

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iadmc (talk | contribs) at 16:59, 23 June 2024 (→15 or 17 independents?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

2024 election series template (below infobox)

Seeking opinion on this before I do anything too destructive - do we feel this is strictly necessary? Most of the links in the template are in the infobox directly above it already and those that aren't are either elsewhere in the article or can quite reasonably added to a more appropriate spot, so the template feels a bit redundant. Would appreciate any thoughts you may have.

CipherRephic (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CipherRephicI 100% agree. The current info box is
- redundant
- inconsistent with previous articles
- generally just less sightly than the regular one.
So I think we should switch to Template:Infobox election DimensionalFusion (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Switching infobox would be more concise and look far less clunky, completely agree. Ebm2002 (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this change and the rationale presented here. I can understand having TILE much in advance of an election, but it's standard that once the election is announced (and to my knowledge, even before then) we switch to TIE. There's no good reason why we shouldn't have TIE at this point. — Czello (music) 08:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the rationale behind the current style is:
"There is a consensus to use this infobox style, not Template:Infobox election. This is because the latter cannot include all the parties, and therefore if we included it before the results of the election are known, we would have to guess which parties will make a significant impact, against what WP:CRYSTAL says. So do NOT change the infobox without consulting the talk page to change the consensus."
I am not inclined to agree with this argument. The use of Template:Infobox election format is on the basis of the last election results (and typically how many seats are needed for a majority), not, as is argued here, what we think will or is likely to happen in the upcoming election. Mapperman03 (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bondegezou Hi, you reverted the infobox change despite there being a consensus here. Why? DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a longstanding consensus to use TILE before the election. We did this before previous general elections. We should not change from that until a new consensus has been demonstrated. You don't get to make the change you want and then tell people to wait for a consensus: we stick with the long-standing arrangement until the matter is settled. Bondegezou (talk) 09:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, to demonstrate you have consensus for a major change to the article, you need more than a few comments in a Talk section not even on the topic, and a discussion that has had more than 12 hours to take place. An RfC might be necessary. Bondegezou (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Czello, are you being serious with this? You are an experienced editor and you should know you need more evidence of consensus than the above. Do not start an WP:EDITWAR. Bondegezou (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the topic of this dicussion has diverted to the infobox, I believe I need to explain the reason why I believe TILE is better than TIE until the results of the election are in, since I wrote the note Mapperman03 quoted. There was a discussion now at Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1#Infobox (2) where I explained my rationale in more detail than that note, and I note DimensionalFusion and Bondegezou took part in that discussion. I criticised DimensionalFusion's arguments as unsubstantiated then and I do again now. They have said nothing in this dicussion that they didn't say in that discussion, and so I reiterate my criticisms: "less sightly" is a subjective opinion that falls foul of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and comparing to precedence goes against WP:OTHERCONTENT and is an example of the false equivalence fallacy, as past and future elections are not comparable. I take it when they say "redundant" they are referring to TILE including more parties, but that is a necessity to avoid failing WP:CRYSTAL.
On the subject of WP:CRYSTAL, the reason why I believe all the parties with MPs in the House of Commons now/at dissolution (and therefore my reason for using TILE) need to be included is that we don't know the results of the election, and therefore which parties will have a significant number of MPs after the next election. This means to avoid creating an infobox that implies we are presuming only some parties (probably Con, Lab, SNP and LD) will get a significant number of seats in an election we don't know the results of, we have to use TILE, as that is able to list all the parties in a reasonably small amount of space. It's important the infobox is relatively small, as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE's statement The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. TIE cannot list all the parties necessary to include (either for technical reasons or because otherwise the infobox would be huge), so we should use TILE. This will stay the case until at least the outcome of the election is obvious (when most seats have declared their results). So I disagree with Czello that now or at dissolution is the time to change the infobox, that time will be at the earliest around 03:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (that's 4am in the UK) when we know which parties have a significant number of seats for sure. Then TIE will likely be the best infobox. --TedEdwards 14:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TedEdwards It's interesting you should bring up MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE's statement "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". TILE does not meet this. Is knowing all 15 parties and their leaders and their candidates really needed at a glance? Does "Speaker" need to be included in the infobox? "Speaker" is obviously not going to win a landslide of seats, which is the same rationale applied to the rest of the parties- for example, the DUP, SF, PC, Alliance, and SDLP all cannot win huge majorities because they only run in their own regions.
Counter to this, it is much more important for the reader to know what the main parties' standings are. Labour and Conservative are being put on the same list as WPGB. Is knowing how many seats Speaker currently has really key information, vital to the election? I don't think so. DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To return to what this section actually began talking about, I would support dropping the election series template. It's unnecessary clutter. Bondegezou (talk) 09:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CipherRephic: Since this discussion immediately went off-topic because the editor who replied to you first only bothered to read what they wanted to see and not what you actually said, do you think it would be worth splitting this discussion into two? Or renaming this discussion to refer to the infobox, and start a fresh discussion about Template:2024 United Kingdom general election series somewhere else? --TedEdwards 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TedEdwards I'd favour starting a new section with a less ambiguous header but as the significantly less experienced editor I feel I ought to defer to you on matters of procedure such as this - what would you suggest? CipherRephic (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CipherRephic: Since RealTaxiDriver started a separate discussion on the infobox at #Infobox, I suggest further comments about the infobox go there. As for this header being ambiguous, the thing is I don't think it is, and I can't see what anyone could change it to. You were crystal clear with what you wanted to dicuss, but DimensionalFusion, who only bothered to look at the word "infobox", drove the topic off-piste so she could talk about what she wanted. So it's not your fault this happened.
To summarise to all editors: This discussion is on including Template:2024 United Kingdom general election series in the article, not on the infobox (bolding for emphasis). Further comments on the infobox should go under #Infobox--TedEdwards 22:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I misread "2024 election series template (below infobox)" as "2024 election series template (infobox)" DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to WP:BOLDly remove the series template using CipherRephic's rationale. If contested the reverting editor can discuss it here. --TedEdwards 17:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Lets settle this
What should be the infobox:
A - Classic election infobox as seen in 2019
B - Current infobox
RealTaxiDriver (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B, until the result is declared. For the reasons outlined further up this page, several times.
I genuinely can’t believe we’re still having this conversation. OGBC1992 (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are other options: (C) No infobox, (D) Party-free infobox (showing a map or other details, but not parties).
The classic election (TIE) infobox is used now for the 2019 general election, but (mostly) wasn't used for that article before the vote. There has been considerable discussion of what infobox to use before an election over the years, and the most stable consensus has been to use the current (TILE) infobox. However, I note (D) was also used at times during the 2019 campaign.
MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Infoboxes should be smaller, not bigger. That's why I favour the TILE format over the bloated TIE format. We also have to avoid WP:CRYSTALBALL predictions and take a WP:NPOV. A TIE format has to exclude multiple parties, which introduces bias, and ends up making a guess about the results. So, I favour (B), but would be fine with (C) or (D). Bondegezou (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. I believe the numeruous small parties mandated within TILE is unnecessary content. That's why I favour the TIE format over the bloated TIE format. DimensionalFusion (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RealTaxiDriver B (TILE) seems most appropriate for now - using A (TIE) would necessitate speculating as to whether certain parties (e.g. the greens, reform, plaid) would gain sufficient foothold to be considered major, contravening WP:CRYSTALBALL. I'd concede the TIE box looks nicer, but (especially this early in the campaign) that shouldn't be the primary goal. CipherRephic (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I need to mention that a discussion on this ended up starting in a discussion on a different topic at #2024 election series template (below infobox) because someone only got as far as reading the word "infobox" before replying. I have attempted now to redirect all discussion on the infobox in that section to here.
To reiterate my view, it is to support B, and I quote myself here to explain why:
Since the topic of this dicussion has diverted to the infobox, I believe I need to explain the reason why I believe TILE is better than TIE until the results of the election are in, since I wrote the note Mapperman03 quoted. There was a discussion now at Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1#Infobox (2) where I explained my rationale in more detail than that note, and I note DimensionalFusion and Bondegezou took part in that discussion. I criticised DimensionalFusion's arguments as unsubstantiated then and I do again now. They have said nothing in this dicussion that they didn't say in that discussion, and so I reiterate my criticisms: "less sightly" is a subjective opinion that falls foul of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and comparing to precedence goes against WP:OTHERCONTENT and is an example of the false equivalence fallacy, as past and future elections are not comparable. I take it when they say "redundant" they are referring to TILE including more parties, but that is a necessity to avoid failing WP:CRYSTAL.
On the subject of WP:CRYSTAL, the reason why I believe all the parties with MPs in the House of Commons now/at dissolution (and therefore my reason for using TILE) need to be included is that we don't know the results of the election, and therefore which parties will have a significant number of MPs after the next election. This means to avoid creating an infobox that implies we are presuming only some parties (probably Con, Lab, SNP and LD) will get a significant number of seats in an election we don't know the results of, we have to use TILE, as that is able to list all the parties in a reasonably small amount of space. It's important the infobox is relatively small, as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE's statement "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." TIE cannot list all the parties necessary to include (either for technical reasons or because otherwise the infobox would be huge), so we should use TILE. This will stay the case until at least the outcome of the election is obvious (when most seats have declared their results). So I disagree with Czello that now or at dissolution is the time to change the infobox, that time will be at the earliest around 03:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (that's 4am in the UK) when we know which parties have a significant number of seats for sure. Then TIE will likely be the best infobox.
To reply to something written by DimensionalFusion in response to the above comment, the choice is TIE with all parties or TILE with all parties, as excluding parties will fall foul of WP:Crystal (also pointed out by Bondegezou above). We can't even exclude the Northern Irish parties/Plaid Cymru because the DUP is included in the infobox at 2017 United Kingdom general election because they had a major impact on politics after that election (gave Tories enough seats for a confidence and supply agreement) (Sinn Fein is also included, but that's to avoid white space I think) so it's entirely possible these parties that don't stand in England will still have a significant impact after the election. So while including 15 parties might seem bloated, it's necessary as we can't exclude any of them as that would imply e.g. the Greens, Reform, WPGB or the NI parties definitely won't win a significant number of seats and aren't worth anyone's attention. All we can do is state what the composition of the house at the last election or now (or just prior to dissolution when that happens), as that's the only way to make an infobox with parties that doesn't imply that we're making predictions. TIE with all parties is impossible, so TILE with all parties is the only option if we want an infobox with any parties at all. --TedEdwards 22:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I strongly favour option B, for essentially the reasons laid out above. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly favour option A above. DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B, preferably, or D. TILE lets us include all the parties and not entirely seconcary details like leader's seats, dates of leadership elections, and so on, for a handful of parties, which almost never deserve to be in the infobox. Ralbegen (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have stalled, so:
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says that an infobox's purpose is:
to summarize—and not supplant—key facts that appear in the article.
Both TIE and TILE accomplish this.
The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.
Arguably, both TIE and TILE achieve this, but in different ways. TIE gives important context about leaders and important parties, which excludes unecessary parties that won't win any more than a few seats. In my opinion, unless there are more than 6 major parties, such as in Belgium, then TIE should be used. This article is about the 2024 GE, and it's very clear from polling and other such indicators who should be included: Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, SNP. These are who is going into the election, so this provides important context to the viewer about the election. When the results come in, the infobox can be re-formulated.
I can already hear the "what about WP:CRYSTALBALL"s coming in, so yes. This is, techically, speculation. However, WP:CRYSTALBALL says Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. TIE is not this! TIE is using the current standings of the parties to give context about the state of the election before it happens. In the run up to an election, should an election article not be focused on what the states of the parties are before the election happens?
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE continues:
Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, present information in short form wherever possible, and exclude any unnecessary content.
I'd argue that unnecessary content is including multiple parties that are not particularly relevant to the national political scene. These can be, and are, incorporated in the more detailled later parts of the article. I'd argue that the Alliance Party doesn't really need to be incorporated into the infobox, which is for short form information.
There will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information may be placed in the infobox, but is difficult to integrate into the body text.
TIE does meet this! I've heard several arguments about how TIE is "cluttered" and the example everybody uses is leader's seat. However Leader's seat is
- difficult to integrate into the body text, and
- gives important context about the party (e.g. a hypothetical party with a leader's seat in London provides context about the kind of party and policies they may offer very quickly)
DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can flog the dead horse as much as you like, but it's not getting up.
To again rebut your arguments, not including parties that didn't get a significant number of seats is breaching WP:CRYSTALBALL, because since the infobox is about this election, what you're saying by not including smaller parties that were in the HoC is "ignore them, they'll be irrelevant in the aftermath", when you have no evidence that is the case. You say the APNI doesn't need to be in the infobox, but they could get some more seats, so much that they will form a Confidence and Supply argreement with the next governing party, a bit like the DUP in 2017, and so it may be worth putting them in the infobox after the election. Of course what I just said is speculation, but saying they won't be relevant to the national political scene after the election is equally speculative. You and I don't know the outcome of the election, and therefore which parties should be or shouldn't be in the infobox, and therefore we have to include a non-objective selection of parties e.g. ones with seats at the end of the last parliament, so the infobox doesn't suggest which parties should or shouldn't be ignored. And polling is predicting, so when talking about it, we say that is predicting, and we do not base anything else in any article on this election (e.g. order of parties in a list) on predictions made in opinion polls. Including only parties projected to get a significant number of seats in opinion polls in the infobox, which you seem to suggest when you say it's very clear from polling and other such indicators who should be included, is definitely in breach of WP:CRYSTALBALL.
As for quoting There will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information may be placed in the infobox, but is difficult to integrate into the body text, that is, by no stretch of the imagination, a requirement to put such information in the infobox. It is always ideal to include information in the infobox elsewhere in the article, it's not always possible. And you say the leaders' seats give important context. So would you like to tell everyone how knowing Keir Starmer and Ed Davey having seats in London allows people to work out the kind of party and policies they offer, and what those policies you can work out are?
You said When the results come in, the infobox can be re-formulated and, yes, that will of course happen. On 5 July the infobox will probably change because they we'll know who the major players the new parliament are, and TIE will almost certainly be the best infobox to display that information. But it is very clear that your support for TIE is emotional, not logical. --TedEdwards 22:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TedEdwards
Hi! “But it is very clear that your support for TIE is emotional, not logical.”
Do you have a source for this? Or are you breaching WP:CRYSTALBALL by speculating?
“So would you like to tell everyone how knowing Keir Starmer and Ed Davey having seats in London allows people to work out the kind of party and policies they offer, and what those policies you can work out are?”
Absolutely. Parties that have their leaders in rural seats suggest conservative platforms, whereas in urban seats this suggests Centerist to Left wing platforms. That’s common sense.
“saying by not including smaller parties that were in the HoC is "ignore them, they'll be irrelevant in the aftermath"”
You’re putting words in my mouth there. I’m not saying that they won’t be relevant in the aftermath of the election. I’m saying that, in the run up to an election, knowing who the major players are going in gives better context to the reader than a HTML table. DimensionalFusion (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just dropping in my strong support for Option A (2019 format) as this has extremely useful information and reader-friendly, I see no reason personally to remove it. -Internet is Freedom (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second supporting option A (2019 format, unless someone sneakily tries to change it), or the TIE format. There frankly, was no real issue (except maybe aesthetics, for a minority) for using TIE in previous elections - it’s not like Indonesia, or Israel, or Netherlands where there are nearly a dozen parties and the bugs ones can barely get above 25%.
There are only a handful number of pivotal parties, and it’s fine to have TIE just include them, which there were no issues before then. Even with TILE, sometimes someone will have to judge where the cutoff is, or else you end up with 60+ rows for a page when previously 6 parties was considered adequate (2022 Philippines legislative elections).
I would also like to suggest that TILE is, essentially just a mini copy of the results table anyway, and so generally less valuable (and closer to supplanting results table) than using TIE, where information like leaders seat (quite notable for UK, where there are no list MPs of any sort) and images (can’t “roll over” links on mobile) are in an easy place rather than buried around the article or just not included
With this, I think whatever benefits TILE may have over TIE, used almost since day dot, are not particularly applicable to here, and the supposed consensus around using TILE here relatively recent and flimsy, having come through with few eyes watching iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 05:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that this is a relatively recent decision is wrong. We’ve had the same discussion before multiple general elections and are following the same practice agreed then. We’ve discussed the infobox for this particular article now three or four times already,
MOS:INFOBOX is clear that an infobox should, with very limited exceptions, only include information that is also in the article, so an infobox is always a copy of article content.
If people want the article to cover leaders’ seats and to have their photos, they can be added to the article. Bondegezou (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bondegezou, arguably under MOS:INFOBOXEXCEPTIONS, this is information that is hard to integrate into the body text of the article in a coherent way. Putting a one liner about - eg Boris Johnson representing Uxbridge in 2019, would get buried under the other text, and their face too, doesn’t clearly fit under the other sections (eg Background) - when it can just go in the infobox - rather than simply culling it.
And unless if we live in a radio only world, or a world where news sites steadfastly avoid photographing politicians, images are linked to, and useful representations of parties and their leaders. The infobox MOS specifically has a whole section on styling images too, rather than a proscriptive ban on them, along with pushing for consistency as per MOS:INFOBOXSTYLE
I am hunting through Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1#Infobox (2), but I am not finding the agreement. I have found that you have discussed TILE before, and have said that it had been agreed on earlier, but I’m not sure where the consensus is for this major change.
It hasn’t been agreed for 2019. Nor 2017. Nor 2015 United Kingdom general elections. Or to clarify, there was no discussion on those talk pages of even moving to TILE, so I don’t get how this TILE discussion has been had multiple general elections?
At this point, this use of TILE is trying to foist a different aesthetic preference (unless if people using TILE somehow believe TILE looks worse?) onto the UK General Election pages, and causing inconsistency with the infoboxes used for past elections. iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 07:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well stated DimensionalFusion (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and come to think about it, if someone did create a section for party leaders with photographs, people against TIE leader photos could then say photos are a needless duplication of article content...
As for "consensus", so far what I have found is
- Discussion that TILE can be kept for "next UK general election", and TIE once election is called Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1#Switch to standard election template
- Vigorous discussion, once again between similar users in this thread, but no consensus, and trying to frame existing TIE as WP:I don't like it
Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1#Infobox (2)
I've found discussion, but no consensus. iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 03:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome stuff DimensionalFusion (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ralbegen Why'd you revert the election infobox DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been discussed to death with more editors supporting and giving reasons for TILE. As an indication of the level of consensus, there is a widely-participated-in discussion on this page about how the infobox will change to TIE after the election. I can see no indication that that view among editors has changed. Ralbegen (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see no indication that there was a single "view" amongst editors in the first place, therefore how could it have "changed"? DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B, current infobox as it is more inclusive unlike the classic classist system. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox suggested edit

Hi editors. I have started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox legislative election#Suggested changes to change possible row headers for future election, suggesting an edit that would allow e.g. this page to say "seats at dissolution" or list the number of seats won at the last election when the "ongoing" parameter in the template is set to "yes" (which it technically should be). --TedEdwards 18:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would be an improvement if TILE *had* to be used for pages like this.
It may be of limited utility as for elections like eg Netherlands and Israel, with many parties and no really big parties (eg above 25% vote share), there aren’t really any geographic seats anywhere. It seems like it’s a change so that TILE can better fit on pages like this when TIE would probably be a more appropriate usage case iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 06:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iamthinking2202: On this talk page, we have discussed (several times) why we should use TILE before the election here, the main argument boiling down to we shouldn't guess based on the last election which parties will be important after the election. If we used TIE, we would have to exclude many parties, even if they become important after the election e.g. the DUP in 2017 or the SNP in 2015. TILE allows use to include all the parties which had seats at the end of the last parliament (or ones who won seats at the last election), thus we avoid implying which parties will or won't be significant after the election as much as possible. Hence for the time being, TILE is a better fit here. --TedEdwards 14:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TedEdwards For what its worth, I do not think this is a particularly good justification.
- For example, if a Conservative hadn't defected to Reform, under this logic Reform would not be in the TILE infobox, despite polling currently comparable to the Conservatives - and then if they hadn't had an MP defect to them, inclusion would've just been a guess
- Even more importantly, even if a party is exclude from TIE that happens to become important after - which by and large, is the exception and not the norm, the infobox can be edited after the election! That's the beauty of wikipedia, no? Unlike if this were some print encyclopedia.
-- Likewise, if someone else thinks a party warrants a space on the infobox, Wikipedia can be edited to do so.
-- And again, the number of pivotal parties isn't too many like some pure PR system, and nor is it based off thin air. Blind freddy for instance, can see that Labour will get a significant number of seats to warrant an infobox. And while it may be more controversial to say the Speaker will get exactly one (1) seat, this can be checked against opinion polls, current standing of parties, and more to confirm or correct this - it is not "unverifiable speculation".
And TILE is not without downsides, as I have discussed in the infobox thread.
And as for all the talk around consensus, so far I have found an archived talk saying that once an election is called, it should be switched to TIE, rather than kept at TILE. Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1#Switch to standard election template iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 03:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debates table

The debates table has become very complicated, which is good in some ways, in terms of conveying a lot of information, but which is bad in other ways if it becomes too confusing to understand. On the latter, it has become very complex in terms of different colours used, and there's no explanation for all those different colours. I don't think we're complying with WP:COLOUR. Cutting back on some of the colours would seem like a good idea for me: e.g. the purple for when the venue hasn't been announced, or the different shade of green for party leaders vs surrogates. Bondegezou (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has indeed become ridiculously overdetailed. @Kennethmac2000 added the building, even the room, in which they are filmed, which seems way beyond what is necessary or of any lasting interest, and has shown no understanding of the concept of WP:BRD.
Given that this is not a listings magazine, and that the information we add should remain relevant and of legitimate interest for years to come, the inclusion of times is also, I would suggest, entirely redundant.
The interviews section is also difficult to justify: on what grounds would radio interviews not be as much of valid interest, and given that we have included non-leaders in the debates, so should we not include non-leaders in the interviews list? It would then become unmanageable, but that is the price of consistency, unless we drop it. Kevin McE (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the debates table, wholly agreed it is completely unwieldy at present. Greater consistency with precedents would not go amiss: the debates table in the 2019 article included neither start/end times, individual host names, nor a bifurcated column for venue vs town/city. I think alignment with previous years is ample justification for scrapping these innovations here.
Perhaps also worth noting that the 2017 table did not include viewing figures either, and there are (at time of writing) still only four present over the whole of the 2019 table - the rest still optimistically labelled 'TBA' nearly five years on. I expect this year's figures will remain similarly scanty, and so my opinion is that this is also a less than essential column; if the known figures are considered useful, they could instead be incorporated into the debate section text instead, probably in a single sentence - although this section is already bloated as is.
I'd also vote for removing the interviews altogether. If there is a justification for including the debates table, it is surely that debates are something unique to election campaigns: a format where upwards of six or seven high-ranking figures all take part in a shared (non-parliamentary) broadcast. But singular politicians, up to and including party leaders and Prime Ministers, are interviewed weekly - at times, almost daily - all year round. Additionally, the only inclusion rubric seems to be 'television interview formats broadcast by the BBC and ITV' - which seems not only arbitrary now, but probably sets an unhelpful precedent for the future. 2A00:23C8:3FA2:D201:697D:C985:C5DE:26BD (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, and done per WP:BOLD CipherRephic (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the changes, per WP:BRD.
Please, can we do two things:
1) Not conflate multiple things in a single discussion. More specifically:
a) This section of the Talk page is about the "Debates table". The Interviews table, while similar, is by definition a different table. There are different arguments for and against it, and we can talk about those in a separate discussion if people wish. (It wasn't my table, but I am defending the contribution of those who created it.)
b) The original comment in this section of the Talk page by Bondegezou was about the colours in the table, but the point about colours was entirely ignored by Kevin McE and the person only showing us their IPv6 address, who used it to make entirely different points. Meanwhile, we haven't resolved the point about the colours in the table. Can we resolve each point separately?
2) Not rush to make changes before people have had a reasonable chance to be online, discuss, and see if we can reach a consensus. This is not urgent. It is a lot easier to remove information from the table later than to have to add it back in when other parts of the table may have changed.
My view is that the time and venue information in the Debates table is useful and interesting in the present moment - Wikipedia is not only designed to be an encyclopedia to be read in 100 years - but it is also the sort of thing that will be harder to find years down the line if it is not compiled now. I see very little downside to including it, and don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't have it somewhere, as long as it is clean, correct, and well-referenced, which it is. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kennethmac2000 sorry, i'm not entirely sure what you're referring to here. you mention the time and venue information, but that wasn't my edit, that was @Tim O'Doherty's. the WP:BOLD edit i made and was referring to in this previous message was the removal of non-debate events from the debate table - something i feel ought to be fairly cut and dry considering the notes in the table do directly acknowledge that the events were interviews rather than debates. surely it'd make a lot more sense to put them in the interviews section?
CipherRephic (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's way too big and complicated. 2A0A:EF40:E4A:E101:698A:BD05:47AD:E241 (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section looking a lot better. What do we do about the Question Time specials and the Sky News 12th June programme? They were not debates: they were audience question sessions. They are more related to the sort of phone ins that are a very frequent occurence on radio stations at any time of the electoral cycle, so on that grounds have no more reason to remain than the interviews that have already been deleted. But, essentially because they were badged as Question Time specials, they have drawn far more attention than most. And if we retain them, do we keep them camouflaged among the debates? And why are we giving a programme title, with a misleading link, in a column headed 'Broadcaster'? Kevin McE (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have been referred to extensively as debates, leaders' debates, etc in the media. Even some of the actual "debates" have included sections where the participants were only answering questions from the host or from the audience (ie, not debating with each other). Rather than constantly trying to remove information that others find valuable, how about looking for ways to retain it with a potentially more precise presentation? Glass half full rather than half empty. Eg, we could refer to the category as "Debates and town hall-style events" (the latter being a description that has already been used in the text in the Debates section). Kennethmac2000 (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My original concern was about the complex colouring of the first table. I still think the colour scheme on the first table is overly complicated and could be simplified. I agree with the other comments here that both tables contain too much detail, like times. Kennethmac2000, your claim about Wikipedia's purpose, while well-meaning, is wrong and goes against policy, as per WP:NOTDATABASE. I think the majority of opinions expressed here favour simplifying both tables. Kennethmac2000, you are probably better able to do that simplification, so I suggest you consider doing so. Bondegezou (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I have reverted Kevin McE's revert, while we look for consensus, on the basis that it is easier to remove information from a table like this later than to have to try re-inserting it later when the rest of the table has moved on. I would propose that we don't waste human time by constantly reverting each other's edits - it does very little harm to leave the information there for now while we seek a sensible compromise (which I am happy to do in good faith). As a further thought on this, some people here seem to think this is the most urgent issue facing humanity, or at least the English-language Wikipedia. We are not all on our computers 24/7, and if it takes a few days to reach consensus, that is not the end of the world. Decisions on a matter as trivial as this do not have to be made within a matter of hours. Let's be patient and let the discussion play out.
On one other process point, Kevin McE isn't just simplifying the Interviews table, he is insisting on removing the entirety of the table, despite that not even having been substantively discussed here. (In fact, one contributor was proposing adding to the Interviews table.) I've created a separate Interviews section for discussion on this - can I respectfully propose we discuss it there instead? (These comments aren't particularly directed at you Bondegezou, just anyone with an interest in these discussions.)
Turning to the substantive point, I note WP:NOTDATABASE, but here we are talking about incremental detail, not whether we enumerate the debates at all, and so the right level of detail is clearly somewhat subjective - there is no Wikipedia authority on this exact issue. The equivalent table for the 2019 UK general election did include the venue, albeit in the same column as the town/city, whereas in the tables we are discussing here, I separated out the venue and the town/city into two separate columns, as I think that presentation makes it easier to see the town/city at a glance, while retaining the venue information as well. If it helped get to consensus, I would be happy to combine these two data points back into a single column (though would contend that two columns is still better ;) ).
(Kevin McE has repeatedly claimed that I want to record the exact room that the debates took place in, citing the example of the University of Glasgow's Bute Hall. University campuses are special cases, as they contain a lot of buildings, and so writing "Bute Hall" isn't actually providing any greater level of precision than writing "Grimbsy Town Hall" - but writing just "University of Glasgow" seems silly when we know it was Bute Hall.)
In terms of the times, would a compromise be to only include the start time? This preserves a historical record of at roughly what time of the day each debate was held, without capturing the additional detail of its length. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, in reference to the BRD cycle, and despite CipherRephic's self-description, there was a Dabates table before Kenneth's first edit in this article, which omitted presenter, times and building. His edits were therefore 'Bold', but once they were reverted, he should have respected the convention and refrained from re-posting them.

Secondly, town hall meeting is by no means a concept that is common in UK politics, and so is a thoroughly inappropriate name to be given here per ENGVAR.

Thirdly, I have the right to an opinion on the contents and format of the section of the article described in the title of this section of the talk page, even if I do not feel strongly about the colours. A very forked discussion does not help build a consensus on what the section should look like.

Fourthly, the interviews section has been up for discussion, had not argument put forward for its retention, and was deleted, so restoring it under a claim of BRD is, at best, counter to following consensus.(later edit: In the post in which the edit summary claimed was about re-introducing the interviews section, Kenneth also reverted several other unrelated edits in other sections of the article)

I shall therefore revert the edits that Kenneth has made under the invalid claim of BRD. (Later edit: having done so, I have received thanks for the edit from @Scotlandshire44, adding to the consensus against inclusion of excessive detail) Kevin McE (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) Not true. I wasn't the person who first added presenter, nor was I the person who first added time. Your contention about the BRD cycle is therefore inaccurate.
2) I don't have a strong view on this - however, I see the exact term I proposed still exists in the text above the table. "thoroughly inappropriate" sounds hyperbolic.
3) Noted. Then stop reverting my reverts while we seek a consensus. Not all of the issues you apparently have are even my doing (but I will support the status quo until we come to a decision to change it).
4) There has been some discussion of the Interviews section buried under this discussion entitled "Debates table", but that has included support for the retention of this section. If we want to entirely remove a section that it looks like someone has spent hours authoring (not me), let's at least have the courtesy of having a proper discussion about it. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus needs to be established for something to be included in an article: that is why the BRD cycle determines a default position of the page being without the contentious material while it is under discussion. I see no consensus here for the additional columns in the debates table, not for inclusion of the interviews table. Kevin McE (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews section

Should we remove the Interviews section (or, at least, almost remove it save a brief stub)?

I vote no, for the reason that flagship leaders' interviews that form part of the UK broadcasters' election coverage are just as much part of the package of coverage as debates are.

Why is a seven-party debate in Colchester's Firstsite on the topics of immigration and law and order per se a more notable occurrence than a sit-down interview of Keir Starmer by Nick Robinson? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates table

There seems to be a bit of a scuffle over whether or not to include the candidate summary table and what to put in it, so in the interests of establishing consensus:

  1. Should we include the table in the article?
  2. If yes, what would constitute the criteria for a party's inclusion?

Discuss - I'll put my own thoughts as a reply. Most recent table below for reference.

Party Party leader(s) Leader since Leader's seat 2019 election Seats at

dissolution

Contested seats
% of

votes

Seats
Conservative Party Rishi Sunak October 2022 Richmond (Yorks) 43.6% 365 346 635 seats in the United Kingdom
Labour Party Keir Starmer April 2020 Holborn and St Pancras 32.1% 202 205 631 seats in Great Britain
Scottish National Party John Swinney May 2024 None[n 1] 45.0% 48 43 59 seats in Scotland
Liberal Democrats Ed Davey August 2020 Kingston and Surbiton 7.4% 12 15 611 seats in Great Britain
Plaid Cymru Rhun ap Iorwerth June 2023 None[n 2] 0.6% 4 3 32 seats in Wales
Alba Alex Salmond March 2021 None[n 3] New party 2 19 seats in Scotland

CipherRephic (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was in a section labelled 'Great Britain' without any clear explanation as to why, and no corresponding material for Northern Ireland. I'm not sure what useful function this table serves. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don;t see what new information this brings to the page? ALL the information listed in that table is covered else where in the page--Crazyseiko (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We have this info in other forms already in the article, don't we? And why the weird choice of parties? Why Alba, but not Reform UK? Why no Greens? Why the wrong number for LibDem candidates? Bondegezou (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said when I removed it for a second time, it also contained unsourced commentary, an undue table, and was off topic in the 'Candidates' section. When I removed it the first time I said that it adds nothing to the topic other than confusion between UK, GB and NI and duplicates the 2019 results again in the article. I think it added nothing and was unencyclopaedic. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right, I was going to put my opinion here.
Personally I think it's not worth keeping (it would be more fitting on the candidates page if it's anywhere at all) but if we do keep it then the criteria should probably be either 1. Had any MPs at dissolution (rather than multiple) or 2. Got >1% of the vote in 2019 (although this would exclude Plaid which feels like an oversight) CipherRephic (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose putting the table from the Candidates article as far as those that have 10 candidates (ie, to include all parties that have any real attention: I believe that in the context of NI, Aontú probably have enough profile to justify inclusion). There is then a mathematically objective cut off point that avoids any need for CRYSTAL BALL accusations, and avoids the accusation of bias against those not represented at the time of dissolution. 14 candidates could be an alternative cut off point: no party below that figure (assuming we are not counting Speaker as a party) has any real expectation of winning a seat or probably even retaining a deposit).
Text below the shortened box could explain the independents, that n other parties with fewer than 14/10 candidates are also contesting, and the situation regarding the speaker. A link to the full table could accompany it. Kevin McE (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been WP:BOLD Kevin McE (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is to follow the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw55nk6yn01o) who only listed either parties that were standing in 25+ seats, or who were standing in more than 1/6 of seats in a single UK nation Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to infobox with images, leader's seat, etc.

Not sure where to write this but a lot of people are particularly unhappy with the change - it's been spotted on Twitter (X) by followers of politics who may not be avid Wikipedia editors but regularly visit these pages. Please could we revert to the previous infobox which was far better with images, leader's seat, etc? Internet is Freedom (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm generally in agreement that TIE (the one with the pictures) is preferable to TILE (the one without), because this election hasn't happened yet the current consensus is to use TILE because TIE requires us to guess which parties will or won't be major players (see: 2017 DUP), which contravenes WP:CRYSTAL. The idea is to change it to TIE once the election has happened and we have an idea of the major players. CipherRephic (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If people want images of the party leaders, they can be added to the article. Bondegezou (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greens clarity, there are three

I think the "Green Party" has to be clarified as the "Green Party of England and Wales"/GPEW/Greens (E&W), as both the separate Green parties, Scottish Greens and Green Party Northern Ireland are also standing candidates and not part of GPEW. An exception is for polling which seems they're considered as one, depending on the respondent's location, unless the outcome seat prediction is specifically for one of the Green parties. While the debates table already does it somewhat. DankJae 00:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

done :) CipherRephic (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign section: chronological or by party

The Campaign section was being written chronologically, but someone has now re-arranged it to be split by party. I can see pros and cons either way, but I think it makes more sense to do it chronologically, so you can understand how the story of the election unfolded. What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Arranging by date allows the section to be read as a singular contiguous narrative and makes the addition of new events (particularly ones which concern multiple parties, or no parties!) substantially easier. CipherRephic (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter:, you made this change, I believe. Would you like to input into the discussion? Bondegezou (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think chronological would make sense for this article, given the amount of coverage it receives. (I've used party-split campaign sections for mayoral and council elections but that's normally a reaction to limitations in RS coverage!) Ralbegen (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that chronological would be more informative. As an aside, per MOS:NOBACKREF, headings should Not refer to a higher-level heading, unless doing so is shorter or clearer so, eg., "Reform UK campaign" should be "Reform UK" if party-based headings are kept – I don't see that "campaign" adds clarity in this case. Irltoad (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s 4/4 in favour of chronological. ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter, could you revert your edits? Bondegezou (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just restored it to the chronological version, whilst keeping the additions not in the previous edits (such as the Reform Manifesto, and some other info). I will respect the consensus and keep it this way. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, TCOGW. Bondegezou (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, B. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-articles by English region

Pinging @Moondragon21: as the creator of these sub-articles, like 2024 United Kingdom general election in North East England. The articles seem to be forks from the main list of candidates done on grounds of article size, but they're all bloated by a large number of unnecessary sources. Now that the SOPNs have been released, only one source is needed (e.g. https://candidates.democracyclub.org.uk/ ) for all candidates in the country, which would cut down article size a lot.

Going into the election, and planning out article layout after the election, it feels to me that some changes to the layout would be useful. For the list of candidates, a layout comparable to Results of the 2019 Canadian federal election by riding is readable and is probably something to aim for following the election, whilst the information on boundary changes is useful but clutters the table so may be useful to be separated out into a different article. As a result, I'd propose replacing the England sub-articles with two new articles: the first one being Results of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency and containing a table along the lines of this:

Constituency Labour Conservative Reform UK Liberal Democrats Green Party Others Incumbent
Bishop Auckland Sam Rushworth
25,000
50.00% 		Jane MacBean
15,000
30.00% 		Rhys Burriss
2,500
5.00% 		Helen Cross
2,500
5.00% 		Sarah Hannan
2,500
5.00% 		Rachel Maughan (Transform) Conservative Dehenna Davison
Blaydon and Consett Liz Twist
25,000
50.00% 		Angela Sterling
15,000
30.00% 		David Ayre
2,500
5.00% 		Vicky Anderson
2,500
5.00% 		Richard Simpson
2,500
5.00% 		Paul Topping (SDP)
Mark Logan (Workers) 		Labour Liz Twist
Blyth and Ashington Ian Lavery
25,000
50.00% 		Maureen Levy
15,000
30.00% 		Mark Peart
2,500
5.00% 		Stephen Psallidas
2,500
5.00% 		Steve Leyland
2,500
5.00% 		Labour Ian Lavery

And the second one being something like 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies by constituency along the lines of this

Elected MP (2024–) Constituency (2024–) Constituency (2010–24) Succession %[note 1] Incumbent MP (before 2024)
Conservative Anne-Marie Trevelyan North Northumberland Berwick-upon-Tweed 95% Conservative Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Labour Sam Rushworth Bishop Auckland 75% Conservative Dehenna Davison
Labour Liz Twist Blaydon and Consett Blaydon 51% Labour Liz Twist
North West Durham 49% Conservative Richard Holden

My examples obviously have dummy data/results as designed for following the election. But I thought I would raise the general idea- I think this change in layout would be preferable to the status quo. Would appreciate all thoughts on this. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC) Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully! This change in layout is a big improvement. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant you had the same idea I had to use the Canadian style. I fully support this. Also I started two drafts on "Results" and "Results breakdown" for this election. - Moondragon21 (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've started off a draft: Draft:Results of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency Chessrat (talk, contributions) 15:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chessrat, why have you removed Scotland's, Wales' and Northern Ireland's when this is just on "English regions"? Just surprised thats all. Although this is the first election the English regions were split-off. DankJae 00:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of them were originally in Candidates in the 2024 United Kingdom general election until a month ago, and in general result pages cover the entire country. Results of the 2019 Canadian federal election by riding, the analogy mentioned above, covers the entire country rather than having provinces in separate articles. So I didn't even consider the possibility of separate result pages for England/Scotland/Wales/NI, but if you feel there would be value in doing so I'd be interested in hearing. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chessrat, not opposed to the change, just didn't assume this discussion would apply to them. Most of the "XXXX United Kingdom general election in XXXX" articles become largely on the results anyway.
I do believe however that the English regional articles should be merged into England as like 2019 United Kingdom general election in England and lack of 2019 United Kingdom general election in North West England, as the regions aren't usually discussed much compared to the other countries. Although not an important merge, and tbh I assumed that was the idea of this discussion. DankJae 00:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed it's worthwhile to do so and I had been intending that, just not sure what to do with the remaining info on the English regional articles and if there's anything useful enough to keep. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 01:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chessrat; The English region articles all largely share just a number of party candidates table which could easily be merged. While London's has a bit of the boundary review in which you proposed another article? or they can simply be merged/summarised/hatnoted/transcluded with Parliamentary constituencies in London.
Additionally, could the combined article's sections be transcluded back to the sub-articles, at least the nations ones? So transcluding Wales' section at "... in Wales". Like what was done for polling. Of course, the actual information remains at the combined article. DankJae 01:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, yes. I'll sort it out soon. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 02:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-filled post-result infobox

Hey all,

I've thrown together a pre-made TIE infobox (with --- for all of the seat counts, percentages etc.) so that we can switch out the infoboxes with ease once the results start coming in and we have a reasonable idea of the major parties. Right now it's populated based on an educated guess at the _very_ surface level returns but obviously this can be changed round if any surprises come about. It's on my user sandbox here. Hope this can be of some use!

CipherRephic (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are showing N parties, you should show the top N parties by seats won. That’s what we’ve agreed previously. That’s going to be unlikely to be the Greens. It may not be Reform UK. It’s more likely to include the DUP and Sinn Fein, as with the 2017 infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bondegezou I'm working more from the position of displaying the parties that seem likely to hit around 5% popular vote (as I believed the criteria to be) ordered by seat count - that's pretty much how it worked as far as i can tell with the 2015 infobox (UKIP's included, and they came joint tenth in seat count), and I think that's a more effective solution. the DUP and SF will almost certainly get more seats than the greens and probably more than reform, but the latter are far more politically important. Besides, isn't the DUP in the 2017 infobox because of its influence in the May govt. rather than any objective criterion?
Anyway, I think it's fairly clear that the six I've put in the infobox are the main six players politically, even if they don't get the most seats. The seven-way debate roster is indicative of this - it's those six plus Plaid (which is clearly the least influential party on that slate nationally), and they're acknowledged as the main six in the polling article since they're the only ones consistently polling over 1-2%. Unless there is a hung parliament (which seems unlikely) and the small parties do become relevant, it seems like including the relative success or failure of the Greens and Reform would be more informative to the lay-reader. Frankly, though, it's not a hill I intend to die on, and I'm perfectly happy to mock one up with the NI parties as well.
CipherRephic (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll have to check out the 2015 infobox, but no. We’ve had these discussions before, at length. An election is about winning seats. Getting above a certain % in the popular vote has zero constitutional significance. The way to summarise a process of electing MPs is to show how many MPs were elected. You might disagree with the UK’s choice of electoral system (I do), but it is what it is, and the thing that matters is how many seats you won. That can be the only sensible criterion for ordering parties in an infobox for a democratic election. Bondegezou (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zero constitutional significance, sure, but a party's popular support has vital political significance - and this is an article on politics. Reform splitting the Tory vote would have a much greater impact on British politics as a whole than the DUP losing a seat or two, even if they end up with more seats. Also, people in general are going to care a lot more about getting Reform results at a glance than they are DUP results (unless the DUP suddenly becomes very politically important, a la 2017. Ultimately the criteria should serve the article rather than vice versa and so if the seat criteria is hindering the usefulness of the article then it ought to be dropped for the article - WP:IAR, after all. CipherRephic (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agreeing with this. Plus, it's not an actual Wikipedia policy that parties in infoboxes should abide to an strict seat-count criterion: that is rather the result of a loose consensus in election Wikipedia on what the party order should be in an infobox. But this does not necessarily preclude other parties appearing as well if relevance is justified. Last time this was seriously discussed for the UK was 2015/2017; much has come to pass since then, some consensuses have evolved (the 2021 Canadian election is one example) and new situations arise that may potentially warrant a review of such consensuses in order to improve on them. Impru20talk 15:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Frankly, given the amount of coverage it's receiving and the amount of votes it's projected to receive, it'll be difficult to explain that Reform is either left out of the infobox or depicted as having a lesser relevance than DUP or SF, but specially if the scale of the Conservative crash leads to Reform scoring second in votes but still gets 0 seats. While the seat count has been agreed as general criteria for parties to appear in the infobox, there are some situations where additional criteria may entitle to it (and this election may prove to become one such situation). Impru20talk 13:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One might have some big, significant event that happens during an election campaign -- a terrorist outrage, the monarch dying, a party leader getting arrested -- that everyone agrees has a big impact on the election. Yet that wouldn't get captured in the infobox. Election infoboxes show the result, not the whole story. Reform UK getting lots of votes but not seats is kinda in this category. They can have a big impact, but if they don't win (m)any seats, then they aren't going to feature in an appropriate summary of the election results. Bondegezou (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Events are not depicted in an infobox. Parties do. We have criteria elsewhere in Wikipedia that feature parties/candidates if they cross a particular threshold in vote share, so it's not true that this solely comes down to how many seats are won. Impru20talk 13:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, exactly. CipherRephic (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Threshold rules don’t contradict showing parties in an order determined by how many seats they won. As far as I know, they are only actually used for the election of a single position (a president, an MP).
While a party getting lots of votes but not seats under an FPTP system can be an important part of the story of an election, the repercussions of an election, its long-term significance, is nearly always about how many seats were won. In elections, winning matters. The top line messages of this article will be (1) who gets to form the government, and (2) who gets to form the official opposition. Those are determined by seats, not votes.
Deviating from showing parties in order of seats won would open up the biggest can of worms. How do you decide when a party with fewer seats warrants being higher in the infobox than a party with more seats? The Greens will get more votes than the SNP, so should we put them above the SNP? Etc. The DUP had a pact with the Tories after the 2017 election, so does that make them more important than the LibDems? These are impossible questions to answer. Bondegezou (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A party winning a lot of votes, specially if those are detracted from a particular party (i.e. as polls show Reform are doing to the Tories) may deprive a party from winning seats without necessarily translating into any seats themselves. According to your criteria, if the Progressive Conservatives had got 0 seats in the 1993 Canadian federal election (they barely clinged on to 2), the rigid application of your criterion would have excluded them from the infobox despite them being the governing party at the time and their collapse being the story of that election. Other examples worth mentioning could be 1935 Prince Edward Island general election, 1987 New Brunswick general election... extreme cases do exist, yet those are handled as required to correctly represent an election result in the infobox.
Deviating from showing parties in order of seats won would open up the biggest can of worms. Not really, all you need to do is to include additional criteria (measurable criteria) that may entitle a party to enter into the infobox without excluding the seat count, i.e. getting more than X votes (1 million has been mentioned, 5% is used in other countries, etc.). Your 2017 example is boggy since DUP is already in the infobox and the LibDems won both more votes and more seats than them. Note that I am speaking of measurable metrics: media coverage could be a factor for considering the relevance of a party, but would be boggy as well. Actual results are measurable.
All in all, you must consider that most of the time elections will perfectly fit into the seat count criteria. Most of the time there won't be any debate on which parties will have to be included into an infobox. But weird things happen some times due to crisis within the political and electoral system. 2015 was one. And 2024 may be 2015 on steroids. Impru20talk 15:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to including parties that won 0 seats, as long as they are listed after parties that did win seats. Bondegezou (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some parties that win seats may have less political relevance in a particular election that parties not winning seats. Precisely because popular votes are also a factor. Impru20talk 17:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> Deviating from showing parties in order of seats won would open up the biggest can of worms. How do you decide when a party with fewer seats warrants being higher in the infobox than a party with more seats?
There is a way around this: specifically excluding Northern Irish parties thanks to the unique nature of the political system in Northern Ireland. Here's an example of what that could look like: User:Chessrat/sandbox2
It's a bit ugly but could be the best compromise (depending on what the final result is). Chessrat (talk, contributions) 21:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support something like this but with the top two rows instead (that is, 3x2 rather than 3x3). Impru20talk 21:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a particularly viable solution personally. a 3x3 grid gets far too bloated and the addenda would take up sufficient space on a 3x2 grid that we might just as well jettison them altogether and go with a 2x2 at that point. CipherRephic (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is incredibly dismissive of the electorate of Northern Ireland. This is meant to be a UK election article. Kevin McE (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that argument is sustainable. The election in Northern Ireland isn't a separate election. I don't think there is a precedence for just excluding parties that don't contest the election in the entire country (especially since the SNP would still be included). The argument you could make though, is that because these parties will receive a very low vote share (~1%), they could be excluded on the basis of the low vote share, whereas Reform UK and GPEW could be included due to a (likely) vote share above 5%, and also winning at least one seat. I think some people might disagree at focusing on vote shares though, but personally I don't think it is too unreasonable, especially since the media's election coverage have and will continue to focus on the parties currently polling above ~5% of the vote. Gust Justice (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Minor point, but Swinney has been SNP leader since 6 May. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oops. corrected that. CipherRephic (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a presidential election: if the objection to a 3x3 box that allows a clearer picture of the result and the resulting parliament is that it is bloated, then drop the pictures of the leaders, drop their seats, and drop the info as to when they became leader. This is an encyclopaedia for literate people, so leaders are recognised by their names; their seats matter not one jot to anyone living outside those constituencies, and very little to those that live in them; the amount of time that a party leader has been in post may have some marginal relevance as background, but not enough to make inclusion here necessary. Kevin McE (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that we, as experienced Wikipedians, can explain our arguments without being openly dismissive or disrespectful to other people involved. Impru20talk 08:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really not my intention, but edited since it has bothered you. Kevin McE (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outgoing members reversion

@GenevieveDEon Why did you revert my edit which added the link for "outgoing members" to the "outgoing members" section of the infobox? DimensionalFusion (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the page you linked is of MPs elected in the 2019 election. Some of the people on that list - eg Cheryl Gillan, Jack Dromey, and James Brokenshire - have since died. Others such as Ahmad Khan have resigned from the House. And many of the people on that list who were still in office when parliament was dissolved will return when it is called after the election. These changes and others, including who's actually voluntarily stepping down, are discussed at length in the body of this article and others linked to it. It's not information we need in the infobox, and your link didn't provide it anyway. I stated in my edit summary "Those are not necessarily outgoing members - some of them are very likely to return - and there is accurate information on this topic in the article - we don't need this in the infobox." Your post here shows no sign that you even read that summary. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GenevieveDEon That makes no sense. All other election infoboxes 2019 United Kingdom general election, 2017 United Kingdom general election, 2015 United Kingdom general election, 2010 United Kingdom general election, 2005 United Kingdom general election, 2001 United Kingdom general election, 1997 United Kingdom general election, all have an "outgoing members" link that leads to a list of MPs elected at the previous parliament. This is because the members of the previous parliament are... Outgoing. Why break this for nor eason? DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see your point about consistency, although it's not how I would do it if I were designing the infobox. However - that's also a different infobox from the one this article is using at the moment; there's extensive discussion above about which infobox to use while the campaign is in progress. I think it's reasonable to expect that it will be replaced with the other sort once the election is done, at which point the 'outgoing members' and 'elected members' links will both be included through the template. Forcing the content of one infobox into the other isn't the answer. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GenevieveDEon From a technical perspective, all members of the previous parliament are "outgoing" as the previous parliament does not exist anymore - a new one is taking its place. I see your point about them being different infoboxes, however they both have an "outgoing members" section for a reason - to see who was elected at the previous election. DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I do see your point - what you're doing is entirely consistent with existing practice, and I was wrong to remove it. But it still seems dissonant to be using a list whose main body includes several people who have died, and others who have resigned from parliament. I guess if others agree with me, there could be a discussion on the relevant templates' talk pages. But if it's just me being a pedant, it possibly doesn't matter. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DimensionalFusion. All members of parliaments are technically "outgoing" when an election is called, even if many of them may retain their seats in the new election. The "outgoing members" article provides a listing of MPs elected in the 2019 election, but also notes who of these died/resigned/were replaced/are stepping down/etc. Cannot see what the issue is, since that article is helpful to readers by providing them an easy look into previous members vs. future members without having to individually search for these. Impru20talk 09:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I have reverted my change. Apologies for taking up your time. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim vote

I was listening to a podcast on the upcoming election, and was surprised to learn about The Muslim Vote 2024 initiative. The idea seems to be to get out the muslim vote, to target a number of constituencies to get the frontrunner to "care more about muslim issues" and possibly also to lift the war in Gaza. Apparently, there has been some harsh words from Ian Duncan Smith regarding the project.

I thought of adding a bit on this under the Campaign heading, but as a foreigner, living in another country, it is more difficult to evaluate sources and I was a bit reluctant to start editing. Are there thoughts on whether to include this project, where and how to do it, etc.? Thanks! OJH (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any mention of it in the main election coverage. I think it's a fringe group, and our existing coverage of it is sufficient. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
George Galloway, who is an MP for Rochdale (or at least was until after the snap election was called), and his Workers Party are in alliance with and can attribute much of their success to The Muslim Vote initiative. Just how fringe exactly is it? Galloway and his Party are under–represented in the British media, this article should not make that same mistake. Maurnxiao (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have to follow reliable sources, and at least some of the British media are indeed classed as reliable sources. However, if there are reliable sources showing close collaboration between the Workers' Part and TMV, that would be useful information to add to both their articles, at least, as there's currently no mention of it whatsoever. GenevieveDEon (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the Workers Party was not endorsed outright, but almost all of its 100+ candidates standing in the election have been. This is quite clearly "close collaboration" and it is likely to have a significant swing in some seats. Galloway almost certainly wouldn't have won in Rochdale without it. Maurnxiao (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we have to go with what reliable sources are saying about it. I have my own opinions about George Galloway, but they're not for this article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On The Muslim Vote website you can type in any UK constituency and the website recommends you to vote for the candidate they believe to be the most prominent anti-imperialist (or another view, I suppose they may vary somewhat) candidate standing in that constituency, including George Galloway in Rochdale, where the Muslim vote is 26%. That is a huge swing, and considering Galloway won the by-election there a few months ago with about 39% of the vote (and how Galloway is the leader of a party with more than 150 candidates standing inthis general election) – I would even say that Galloway is the most notable and well-known MP outside government and the official opposition – I fail to see how it doesn't merit an inclusion in this article. Of course, as for reliable sources, are you referring to sources such as ITV, a British network that has hosted, as far as I'm aware, all the official UK 2024 election debates, and invited Nigel Farage, the leader of a party with no elected MPs and with less Councillors than the Workers Party, a party led by the aforementioned Mr. Galloway – who himself was not invited, nor were any other members of his party? Well, Galloway was... but only on another program to "discuss" the debate, which he was not a part of... did I ask for my views on Galloway to be included in this article? I doubt I did, so your last comment is not needed but appears to have been written condescendingly. Maurnxiao (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By 'reliable sources', I mean WP:RS, which obviously does not include the organisation's own site, as that's not independent of the subject matter. GenevieveDEon (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about this one to merit an inclusion in this article? Maurnxiao (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you guys, this underlines how hard it is for someone at a distance to discern whether TMV is a relevant factor for the article.
As for reliable sources, there seems to be mentions of the movement (and I'm talking about the Muslim Vote movement here, not Mr. Galloway, nor his campaign, nor his party!) in the Guardian, the Times, BBC and Prospect. But if they are onky revelant in connection with a single candidate, that's not so interesting. If, on the other hand, they are influencing the elections in Bethnal Green, Rochdale and parts of Birmingham, that could speak for inclusion. Let's see what pops up in the next few days, and let's not limit the discussion to the Workers Party! OJH (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of The Muslim Vote is of course quite limited because the main purpose of the group is to oppose the major parties and their support for Israel and NATO foreign policy. Reliable sources, such as ITV, treat questions about Gaza like this, so of course media coverage is limited! The war in Gaza is certainly a major issue for Muslims and younger people in the UK, and, in constituencies such as Rochdale where Muslims make up 26% of the electorate, and 39.7% was enough to get current Muslim Vote-endorsed candidate George Galloway elected, then I'm not sure why it shouldn't receive attention in this article. Maurnxiao (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why should this article care about the Workers Party considering they're currently polling at a dismal 0%? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article should care about the facts. The fact show that the Workers Party have a sitting MP, George Galloway, who was elected with 39.7% of the vote in a constituency with a 26% Muslim electorate, an electorate recommended by an organization called The Muslim Vote to vote for Galloway. The Muslim demographic is a significant one in the UK, and there may be a significant political disenfranchisement within this demographic. The article shouldn't merely care about the Workers Party; it should care about The Muslim Vote, who happen to largely support the Workers Party. Besides, since when was Wikipedia bound only to polls? Maurnxiao (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Rochdale by-election is not relevant to this article. Is there any source that says that "The Muslim Vote" is wot won it for Galloway? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't I mentioned the demographics frequently enough already? 26% Muslim electorate in a constituency won with 39.7% of the vote by a candidate endorsed by The Muslim Vote. Maurnxiao (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you've not given a source saying this. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not from Rochdale, so I wouldn't know immediately but in The Muslim Vote website, you can type in your constituency and it will tell you the Muslim electorate in the constituency and will suggest who to vote for. Maurnxiao (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a source. Clearly this isn't an integral part of this election campaign and isn't due in this article. As for "Galloway and his Party are under–represented in the British media, this article should not make that same mistake": we weight our encyclopaedic coverage based on the media's; we don't make things up ourselves based on personal opinion. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't make up the writing on the wall but you can add it to an encyclopedia. Maurnxiao (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not if it doesn't exist. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, the evidence I provided suggests it does actually exist so there really should be a discussion about this. Maurnxiao (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Muslim Vote is not an impartial source for the Muslim Vote. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This article should care about the facts." Yes, but the threshold for inclusion in the article is verifiability, not truth.  M2Ys4U (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These things can be seen on their website and on a few articles. Maurnxiao (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so please provide links to those articles. If they are from reliable sources and they demonstrate that this specific organisation has had an impact on the campaign then we can put something in the article. Unless and until you (or another editor) can do that there is no justification for inclusion.  M2Ys4U (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at their website and they explicitly say they do not endorse anyone in particular — Iadmc♫talk  13:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, impact is more than endorsing specific candidates or parties. Demonstrating that they have had a significant effect on, say, voter registration or turnout then that would merit inclusion as well IMHO. But let's see what (if anything!) the RS say about them first.  M2Ys4U (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This? Maurnxiao (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This pressure group is already heavily featured, possibly over featured compared to other single-issue campaigns that state preferred candidates, in the endorsements article. I don't believe there is grounds to feature/promote them here. Kevin McE (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And most of those say vote for the Muslim. Not a shocker and not in line with the suggestion that Galloways Party is heavily endorsed — Iadmc♫talk  13:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maurnxiao has been registered on Wikipedia for all of 4 days, and may not have a thorough understanding of what is required here. First and foremost, WP:Consensus is required, and it is clear that there is no consensus emerging for mention of this group in this article. Secondarily, there is no extensive second party coverage in reliable sources that suggests that this group is playing a significant part in this election as would be required. I move we close the discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded: it's going nowhere — Iadmc♫talk  15:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than assuming bad faith it appears you are assuming ignorance on my part. But the demographics of certain seats which have either been won or are being closely contested by candidates endorsed by The Muslim Vote speak for themselves. I do concede, however, that a clear consensus has been reached among the custodians of this article, and it is to exclude many of the details of this group from the article. Maurnxiao (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no "custodians" here: we are all equal. But the participants in this debate, all bar you, agree that the information should not be included for various reasons. Move on @Maurnxiao — Iadmc♫talk  01:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all, I'm happy I asked before editing. I'm not sure that the discussion has been on "is The Muslim Vote important enough to be mentioned" as much as "is the Workers Party a factor", but I see the usual notable, impact, verifiable, Reliable Sources and so on being discussed and people closer to the matter seem to agree that TMV is not (yet?) influencing this election at a level that merits mention. Thanks again! OJH (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As regards the Workers' Party, I have seen nothing that suggests they are likely to even retain a deposit in any seat other than Rochdale, so five mentions in the article seems appropriate. They feature very little in any discussion at national level, and that is what determines the amount of coverage they should get here. Kevin McE (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this article only for British readers or for English speaking readers? There has to be a larger criteria than just UK national coverage, surely? Maurnxiao (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not just for British readers (I, for one, am not British), but that is not the issue. Do you have a reliable source that suggests that the Workers' Party are going to have a major impact in this election in any seat other than Rochdale? They already have more mentions that the SDP, who have a similar number of candidates, the SDLP, who have, and are expected to retain, two seats, the UUP, who have far more seats, etc etc etc Kevin McE (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of edits

@Kevin McE Hi- you reverted 4 edits in the article without giving an explanation in the summary. Why was this DimensionalFusion (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because a) the undo button on the dropdown menu doesn't give the opportunity to leave a comment, and b) contrary to the way it is described, and my expectations, it reverts to the version before that edit rather than just undoing that one edit.
I undid my undo, and removed the part I had intended, now with edit summaries. Kevin McE (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, great DimensionalFusion (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Farage photo

The photo of Farage is accepted one to use (currently, for election pages and his article), but it is 6 years out of date. If he's elected, do we switch it to the official portrait (although it didn't exist at the time of the election), find a better photo that we have now, or keep the 6-year old one? Curious for thoughts DimensionalFusion (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elected as what? PM? Don't make me laugh! The present pic is fine: he hardly changes! — Iadmc♫talk  13:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Member of Parliament for Clacton. Also, polls have him far ahead of anyone else in said constituency. Maurnxiao (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David Cameron's portrait from August 3rd 2010 is included in the 2010 election article which took place on May 6th, 2010, and Donald Trump's presidential portrait is included in the 2016 election article, so including a hypothetical Farage portrait taken after the election would not be unprecedented. Maurnxiao (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's just because other articles like July–September 2022 Conservative Party leadership election have comments like "do not replace with PM portrait, did not exist at time of election" DimensionalFusion (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workers Party

I made this edit to the infobox, but it was removed because the Workers Party are not "significant enough in more than one seat", the one seat being Rochdale. What is the consensus for this being the case? Especially when it is a party with more elected MPs and more councillors than Reform UK and with 152 candidates standing for election? That's a little more than just one seat, per my estimation. Galloway has also represented four different constituencies, only Winston Churchill represented more. Maurnxiao (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plaid Cymru are not included in the infobox despite winning 4 MPs at the last general election and being projected to win between 2 and 4 MPs at this election. However, because they're only fielding candidates in Wales they can only win a maximum of 32 seats. Despite this, they're considered a more significant party than the Workers Party (and another minor party, the Social Democratic Party) by reliable sources. If we have an infobox in this style it makes sense to only include the top 6 parties to keep it manageable, and if we were to include a 7th, Plaid Cymru would surely merit inclusion above the Workers Party. —Paul1337 (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Plaid Cymru should have been included too, but they are only standing seats in Wales and the average person couldn't tell you a thing about the party's leadership. The Workers Party – who are more significant – are standing MPs all throughout the country and have a much more notable leadership and platform. Maurnxiao (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is more significant coverage in the media: there isn't any, unlike Reform, Green, Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems and the SNP. Plaid are covered and they were part of the debates; I don't think Workers Party UK were... — Iadmc♫talk  14:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They could be included in the body as a "fledgling" party though: BBC, Independent etc — Iadmc♫talk  14:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if your party leader and most recognizable figure winning a Labour seat in a by-election with 40% of the vote is characteristic of a fledgling party, considering it was, I think, only the second election they had ever contested – and even in the first election Galloway won 21.9% of the vote as Labour's share fell by more than 7%. Galloway is clearly a sizable figure in British politics. Maurnxiao (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah personality vs party. He's visible not his party — Iadmc♫talk  14:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same could have been said of Farage and Reform. How can you take Galloway's party away from him during this election in which he is leading that same party? Maurnxiao (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally remove Reform too but they have WP:SIGCOV — Iadmc♫talk  14:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you? They're polling ahead of the Conservatives who are currently in government, and they're also projected to win some seats including Clacton which is where Farage the party leader happens to be standing. Maurnxiao (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about like this? Are eight candidates too much, considering the 2023 Finnish parliamentary election had nine? Maurnxiao (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop the POV-pushing. Galloway is not a key player in this election. His party polls at 0 and he has 1 by-election win. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've not provided a single source for these numbers and of course Galloway only has 1 by-election win, you're not allowed to represent different constituencies simultaneously in the UK, unless I'm mistaken. Maurnxiao (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the onus is on you if you want include not on @Tim O'Doherty for exclusion. He's right this is pure WP:POV — Iadmc♫talk  14:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the one making the claim that the Workers Party is polling at 0% carries the burden of proof because I did not say how the Workers Party were polling. He said the Workers Party are not a key player – but surely neither are Greens, who are included? Maurnxiao (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean if you wish to modify the infobox or add info about the party in the body, you need significant coverage in independent reliable sources. You really don't have that. — Iadmc♫talk  15:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was significant coverage of Galloway's victory in Rochdale some months ago. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not relevant to the general election. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. Beeb sez:
  • LAB - 41%
  • CON - 20%
  • REF - 17%
  • LDM - 11%
  • GRN - 6%
  • SNP - 3%
  • PCU - 1%
  • Other - 1%
"Other" being NI parties. Any Gallowayites in the north? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UK doesn't use proportional representation plus that is only one poll, another one has Reform ahead of the UK Conservative Party. What about the north? Maurnxiao (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not one poll. Did you even look at the source you were demanding? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it has Reform behind the Conservative Party which is different to some other polls. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a poll aggregator - it includes all the other polls and an average versus independent polls. Meaning it does include the poll that put REFUK over the tories. But averaging it out with all the other polls, which don't say that, means that it is put behind them... DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I doubt such an aggregator does accounts for the omission of the Workers Party from mainstream polls. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the aggregator omits WPGB is because no polling companies have found it to be at a significant level of support to include it in their data. DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we encouraging him? — Iadmc♫talk  15:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? Maurnxiao (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For all we know this is George Galloway's wikipedia account 😂 DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! It could be! — Iadmc♫talk  15:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, totally, and if this were an article about the 2011 Canadian election and I supported the mention of François Gourd, would I be his Wikipedia account as well? Maurnxiao (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox was just reverted (no idea why) to the old table. Happy now? DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is an improvement on not including Plaid Cymru and the Workers Party, yes, but I'm not sure that it is the ideal solution given how it differs from previous elections. In Japanese election articles, they all used to use pictures, were changed to the table in this article some time ago, and were recently changed back to pictures, that is if I am remembering all this correctly. So I don't think this new version is likely to last too long. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PC was not included in the infobox because it only stands candidates in Wales.
WPGB was not included because in both news coverage and polling it's never discussed DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SNP only stands candidates in Scotland, so...? Workers Party has received significant coverage from UK media. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it hasn't. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an argument. And it can easily be disproven. One, two, three, four... and this is only considering UK media as if the Party hasn't received coverage from other countries as well as the UK. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's just
- report on manifesto launch
- report on manifesto launch
- report on manifesto launch
- report on manifesto launch
I'm not seeing much actual coverage DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously if the goalposts are shifted to consider reports on manifesto launches not being "actual coverage", then no, the Workers Party probably will not be included in the end. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Four articles. Not exactly consuming the British media, is it? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like it if I were to dedicate too much time scavenging the depths of British tabloids? Maurnxiao (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SNP is included because it's the 3rd largest party behind Labour and the Conservatives. I have not heard at all about WPGB since Feb 2024 DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's... you. Others will last have heard of it yesterday and still think about it today. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I heard of it here on Wikipedia in this thread... Does that count as sigcov? — Iadmc♫talk  15:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I haven't checked every reliable source on the Wiki, I know the Daily Mail, RT and Namu are considered unreliable but, not much more. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WINRS — Iadmc♫talk  15:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither my "I haven't heard of it" nor your "I think about it all the time" are valid arguments for inclusion in infobox. The fact is that WPGB isn't appearing in polls, doesn't have a large presence in parliament, nor are they regionally relevant DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Electorally more successful than Reform UK and more notable than the Greens, it's Workers Party of Britain, not Workers Party of Great Britain. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"More notable than the greens"? What? This is the Greens who have been around for decades vs the WP who have been around for all of two weeks or so — Iadmc♫talk  15:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And in that time what have the Greens even achieved? George Galloway alone wins an arm wrestle of notability between the two! Maurnxiao (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Greens were in power with the SNP in Scotland for a long while. WP? Galloway is better known as a commentator than a politician — Iadmc♫talk  15:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a typo there: Galloway is better known as a cat impersonator than a politician, I think is what you meant to say. Kevin McE (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, this discussion has now descended into a monstrous contest of anti-Galloway jokes, quips and witticisms, none of which have any bearing on Galloway or his Party's notability. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it cannot be verified (without considerable expense), but I strongly suspect that a survey asking for people's association of images or concepts with the name George Galloway would probably return a result in which his interaction with Rula Lenska would score higher than his by-election result. A joke only inasmuch as I am sure that Iadmc is not that error-prone as a typist. Kevin McE (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Greens have 160 times more councillors than the WPB and are level pegging in seat numbers. You've still given no reason as to why Galloway or any other part of his miserably unpopular party are worthy of increased coverage in this article. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And all those many councillors of the Green Party put together are not more notable than a single citation or footnote on George Galloway's Wikipedia page. A "miserably unpopular party" with more elected MPs than a supposed watershed party. The power sharing agreement was with the Scottish Greens who differ from the Green Party of England and Wales. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"And all those many councillors of the Green Party put together are not more notable than a single citation or footnote on George Galloway's Wikipedia page" - I don't think so. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that politically, the Greens are more relevant.
Whilst they may have the same number of MPs, polling shows them on 5% and WPB aren't even included. The Greens have 800+ councillors, 2 lords, and 3 London assembly reps. WPGB has 5 councillors and only has 1 MP because of their personal firebrand popularity - every source I've seen mentioning them says "Galloway's Workers' party" or some variation on that. They have 5 councillors out of a possible 18,725. In what world is WPGB more relevant than the Greens? DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I may have also read Sunak's tories, Starmer's Labour, so on... but who knows what about the Green Party? Galloway has been notable in and outside of the UK for many, many years. One might say, the thunderous sound of the name Galloway echoes further around the world than that of anyone's to have ever been associated with the Green Party... but if you want to turn this discussion into a battering ram against Galloway's personality, as others have done, I can speak in favor as well but how would it help this article in any way? Maurnxiao (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the thunderous sound of the name Galloway echoes around the world" - Yes, maybe in Moscow, Ba'athist Iraq and Syria. Other than that, not really. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And there he goes with the political jargon... blah, blah, blah, blah... no bearing on his notability but now I might be questioning the neutrality of your own point of view when you previously brought mine into disrepute. Maurnxiao (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never claimed to be neutral. I make no secret of the fact that I find Galloway deplorable. The important thing is that I can leave my biases at the door when I edit articles. The question is: can you? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rhetorical question basically, you're interested in torpedoeing all my contributions to this article because you're upset with Galloway's politics and turn to used-up, disingenuous insults against him and pretend I only want Galloway to be in this article because you believe I like his politics. Verbal and editorial impartiality? Another user on here suggested I could even be George Galloway's Wikipedia account, even if sarcastically. Clearly there is a consensus to exclude any profound mention of Galloway from this article and there appears to be extensive hostility – particularly from you – to any objection to that consensus no matter how well such an objection may have been argued. And I just so happen to find this hostility deplorable itself. Maurnxiao (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed the ad hominem attacks are bad. But I do think everyone here agrees, but you, that Workers Party of Britain are just not getting enough coverage in this election campain to include them — Iadmc♫talk  16:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah does that mean Scottish Labour, etc are to be discounted too...? — Iadmc♫talk  16:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scottish Green Party is separate from the Green Party of England and Wales as far as I'm aware. Maurnxiao (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK. I wonder if they are conflated in polls? — Iadmc♫talk  16:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you'll begin to notice the polls may or may not be reflective of the popularity of the Workers Party. Maurnxiao (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of a poll is to be reflective of popularity. If a party is not featured in the polls, what does that tell you about their popularity? DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, @Maurnxiao:, you have tried at length to argue a case and have failed to get consensus. Repeating yourself does not change reality. It's time to leave the dead horse alone. Kevin McE (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Please make it stop! — Iadmc♫talk  15:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15 or 17 independents?

Template:UK House of Commons in the body says 17 independents, but the table at the top of the page says 15, which is correct? MarkiPoli (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe two stepped down or were replaced in a by-election? — Iadmc♫talk  16:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At a guess, the difference is made up by Lucy Allan and Lloyd Russell-Moyle, both of whom lost their parties' whips after the dissolution of parliament. In which case there were no longerr MPs, so shouldn't be counted, and the source for the higher figure is wrong.
Edit: But there again, Diane Abbott only had her whip re-instated after that, so that should make 16, so I am less sure.
Further edit: Whichever individuals are involved, I think the issue is that the infobox claims that it is the position at the dissolution (30 May), but is it fact the state of play at the point of parliament being prorogued (24 May). Either the numbers or the description needs to be changed. Kevin McE (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside, the infobox doesn't even actually add up to 650 I'm pretty sure MarkiPoli (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because certain parties such as the Workers Party have been omitted, to one's dismay. Maurnxiao (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No they haven't: it is right there. Kevin McE (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was changed recently and I predict that it'll be changed again. It had Farage on there instead of Plaid Cymru or the Workers Party. Maurnxiao (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
648... Who's missing (Not Workers Party, though)? — Iadmc♫talk  16:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really don't know. The numbers are the exact same for all groupings in both tables except Independents. Probably ok to just go ahead and change it to 17 in the infobox MarkiPoli (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That must be it: infobox is wrong as it misses out two indepenents — Iadmc♫talk  16:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=n> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=n}} template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_Kingdom_general_election&oldid=1230599381"