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 DannyS712 (talk | contribs) at 22:11, 3 July 2024 (Reverted edit by Vote Labour MP Loki Laufeyson (talk) to last version by DannyS712). 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]
@Maurnxiao How is the current infobox "classist"?? DimensionalFusion (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the one with the pictures of the party leaders? It's basically the Rupert Murdoch & ITV News selected candidates at that point. We can see this with the hostility shown towards including Galloway in an infobox with party leaders' pictures, whereas the current system includes the Workers Party, Plaid Cymru, the Northern Irish parties etc Maurnxiao (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, @Maurnxiao are you some sort of appologist for Galloway'sparty? The 6 shown are the main contenders and that's why they were selected for the ITN debate. — Iadmc♫talk  01:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologist? What do I need to apologize for, or deflect from, or protect? Obviously I feel a desire to defend my integrity in light of your suggestion that I am an "apologist", but this is a Wikipedia talk page where we discuss how aspects of an article should look like. We don't discuss apologetics or the political views of someone who happens to believe a political party is much more noteworthy than it is given credit for. Maurnxiao (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then find the sources to show that they are significantly covered. As a side, the NI parties are not covered as they are exclusively in NI and and won't affect the outcome nationally much at all (like Galloway, indeed). — Iadmc♫talk  01:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already had that discussion in the Workers Party topic, which unsurprisingly degenerated into personal and political attacks against Galloway. The DUP had a deal with the Conservatives in 2017, by the way, and the SNP is also only active in Scotland. At what point do only local parties become notable enough to merit an inclusion, such as the SNP? Maurnxiao (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maurnxiao
> The DUP had a deal with the Conservatives in 2017
Yes, that is why they're included in the 2017 infobox.
> and the SNP is also only active in Scotland
They're also the third largest party.
> At what point do only local parties become notable enough to merit an inclusion, such as the SNP?
When they are notable enough to do so. It's a mix of polling, MP numbers, and coverage. DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When there is any indication that the Workers' Party is likely to be the third biggest in parliament, you can be assured that they will be included. Similarly if they are expected to win, or have an appreciable effect on the outcome of a considerable number of seats, if they are polling significantly at a national or regional level, or otherwise become a truly significant player in an election.
Right now, I see three possibilities:
1) you wish to militate to have Wikipedia included regardless of any objective inclusion criteria, in which case you are trying to break its NPOV rule;
2) you do not trust the processes by which consensus is built at Wikipedia, in which case I politely suggest that it is not the place for you;
3) you are simply a troll who is enjoying being disruptive here.
You have made your points, I am sure that all of us active in building this article are now alert to the arguments for the inclusion of the Workers' Party here and are capable of discerning, collectively, a justification for greater reference to the group than they already have. Thank you for that, and goodbye. I shall, however, initiate steps towards a topic ban if you persist when it is clear that you do not have consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of clarity - an apologist is not someone who is or should be apologising. Rather, it means a person who explains or defends a belief - particularly where the belief is unpopular or controversial. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise proposal for Debates and Interviews sub-sections

Based on all of the recent discussions, as well as past precedent, I propose the following compromise proposal for the Debates and Interviews sub-sections:

  1. In the Debates table, include the venue (eg, dock10, University of York, etc), but in the same column as the town/city. This corresponds exactly to what was done in the 2019 UK general election article.
  2. In the Debates table, include the start time of the debate in an additional column (called simply "Time"), but not the end time. This maintains a record of the time of day of these events, without capturing the extra detail of how long each debate lasted.
  3. Keep the Debates sub-section called "Debates", for conciseness, but accept that it includes some high-profile town hall-style events (such as the Sky News leaders' event and Question Time).
  4. Keep the Interviews sub-section, but with prose only. Remove the Interviews table.

Comments invited. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, can we stop creating new sections interpolated further up the page, please? It's really hard to keep track of.
Secondly, I think you (Kennethmac2000) are under a misapprehension about 'compromise' and 'consensus'. You don't own this page, any more than the rest of us do. It feels like you're trying to trade off different sets of proposals for the interview and debate sections against each other, as though you have some particular right to make offers and cut deals. That's not how any of this works. We're trying to find a consensus in the sense that we have a common interest in developing a page that conveys the right information in an accessible way, but none of us specifically controls it or any part of it, and I'm not interested in any kind of 'bargaining' approach.
Thirdly, I don't find the tables particularly informative. As I said above, these events are only of interest for what is said in them, and yet that's the one thing that none of these tables conveys. If it were solely up to me, I'd scrap them and simply incorporate elements from them which are reported in reliable sources (that are independent of the ones who carried the original debates/interviews) into the narrative of the 'campaign' section. There's an argument for splitting the debates out into their own article, in which the table could be used to introduce a substantial amount of prose describing the content and its impact in proper context. But I don't think the same can be said of the interviews table - we'd be much better off putting this material into prose only. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am very well aware I don’t own this page. However, we are dealing here with things which are marginal and incremental, and we can all come up with arguments in support of our respective positions. If we are to reach a consensus, that will likely involve compromise, which means some/most people getting some of what they want but not all. You may prefer to be less candid and transparent than I am about what is going on, which is perhaps strategically very wise of you, but inevitably how this will work mechanically is that people will argue most vociferously for the things they feel most strongly about, while quietly backing down on the things they are happy to let slide. That is an implicit cutting of a deal, compared to my admittedly more explicit version. Anyway, hopefully we can resolve this soon. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need for a time column in the Debates table at all. Can most of the colours be removed? I'm good with the proposed venue column. I don't see the need for an Interviews section. Interview content can be folded into the Campaign section. Bondegezou (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) That level of detail is just cruft, and has neither importance, wide coverage or enduring interest. It might (but only might) be worth mentioning in the pages of those institutions that these took place there, but no relevance here. No argument has been put forward as to why it would fit within policy to include them.
2) Wikipedia is not a listings magazine. Anyone with experience of UK television will now that such programmes tend to be mid to late evening, but the exact hour is not encyclopaedically relevant. No argument has been put forward as to why it would fit within policy to include them.
3) A note below the heading could suffice for explaining that not all are head to head debates; the phrase town-hall meeting would not fit with the appropriare ENGVAR. (Each leader took questions individually from a studio audience)
4) Interviews should be adequately covered within the chronological report of the campaign: any table is a false prioritisation of one broadcast format over another.
I don't have strong opinions over the colours, but would like input from someone with colour differentiation difficulties on the matter. Kevin McE (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the debates table, I also don't see the need to include either start or end times. There are many far more important times worth noting in this election campaign: the time of day Rishi Sunak called the election from Downing Street, for instance, or the time he left the D-Day commemorations. Neither of these are given in the article text, and I can't see any argument for the times of every debate being more deserving of inclusion than these. Similarly, locations such as where each party chose to launch their individual manifestos are arguably far more significant than where various debates and not-a-debates took place, and none of these are included in the article text either. However, I concede that previous debates tables have included city/town information, so I suppose this should be retained here for consistency.
I find it ever so slightly bizarre that, within a table headed '2024 United Kingdom general election debates in Great Britain', there are a whole five events actually tagged as 'not a debate' - one of which is literally Rhun ap Iorwerth on his tod. In other words, over a third of the 2024 GB debates table is comprised of not-a-debates. As a metaphor for the absurdity of a general election campaign, it's perfect. As a model for constructing a table purporting to consist of debates, not so much.
On a less flippant note, I appreciate that there are always arguments for why things can be included. As an example, take the very straightforward table of parties and candidates just below the debates and interviews. Any number of arguments could be made for additional columns to be bolted on to this: the year each party was established would help in differentiating new-ish parties (such as Alba) from established yet less familiar parties (such as the SDP); listing the leader/s of each party would assist those who can remember the name George Galloway but not the Workers Party of Britain; showing the nation or region each party is running in would aid in differentiating parties contesting 100% of seats in Northern Ireland from those contesting 3% of seats in England. All of this information could be included, but to do so would merely overcomplicate and detract from the table's actual stated purpose, which is to show the relative standing of various political parties in this election. Just because something is interesting doesn't mean it's essential.
On that principle, I come down on the side of removing all not-a-debates from the debates table, and deleting the interviews sub-section altogether. On the latter point, I would have agreed with prosifying its information, as has previously been suggested. But on reflection, the very few genuine points of interest from these interviews so far - ie, the controversy over Rishi Sunak's ITV appearance and Nigel Farage's Panorama comments on the Russian invasion of Ukraine - are already covered in the main campaign section of the article, and so there seems little justification for merely reiterating them in a dedicated subsection.
I don't have a strong opinion about table colours either, but would note that (at present) two of the six colours in both the GB and NI table keys are just legacy items from the 2019 table: 'Absent' and 'No debate', both of which should be removed. Likewise, 'Invited' will presumably disappear from the table as of 28th June, provided both Adrian Ramsay and Nigel Farage take part in that day's reboot of The Odd Couple. The 'Surrogate' colour could then be changed to something less similar to 'Present', so as to better differentiate between the two, if others have found this an issue? (Personally, I think the whole 'Surrogate' concept is an odd way of saying 'this person is not a party leader', but heaven knows this conversation doesn't require yet another subplot. Although don't get me started on the fact that one of the participants in the 21st June debate is an unspecified 'Lewis'....) 2A00:23C8:3FA2:D201:9966:4166:7FDB:37C (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidating the most recent discussions, can we live with the following compromise proposal?

  1. In the Debates table, include the venue (eg, dock10, University of York, etc), but in the same column as the town/city. This corresponds exactly to what was done in the 2019 UK general election article.
  2. In the Debates table, do not include either start or end times.
  3. Keep the Debates sub-section/tables called "Debates", for conciseness, but, per Kevin McE‘s suggestion, add an italicised note immediately below the “Debates” heading explaining that not all were head-to-head debates.
  4. Remove the Interviews sub-section.

Kennethmac2000 (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, it is about consensus, not compromise. What evidence of consensus do you claim you have for the inclusion of information about location beyond the city? Kevin McE (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed this page for all references to "venue" and "location" and find the following mentions in support:
  • 2A0A:EF40:E4A:E101:698A:BD05:47AD:E241: "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."
    [Alignment with previous years would mean a single "Venue" column including both the venue itself and the town/city.]
  • Bondegezou I'm good with the proposed venue column.
  • ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter This looks good! A big improvement.
    [This refers to my proposed compromise which includes a single column including both the venue itself and the town/city.]
  • I obviously support my own proposal.
The only direct opposition I can find is from yourself User:Kevin McE.
WP:CON literally is about compromise, so I'm not sure why you keep saying it isn't:
"Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision making. It involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise ..." Kennethmac2000 (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an update on the above:
  1. As already set out, there is a consensus to re-add venue information (to a single column combined with town/city), so I have now done this.
  2. There is a consensus to not add either start or end times. The current version of the table already doesn't include these, so no further action is required here.
  3. I have added a note immediately below the "Debates" heading which says:
    "This section includes reference to some events which were not head-to-head debates."
  4. Someone else has already removed the Interviews table again - I will leave others to decide whether to remove the Interviews section entirely, or whether to leave the current stub. I am relaxed either way.
Kennethmac2000 (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This section includes reference to some events which were not head-to-head debates." - I really think this is a mistake. It's stepping into an editorial voice instead of an encyclopedic one, in order to announce that the section you're about to read doesn't follow its own heading properly.
On the subject of compromise and consensus - your earlier posts repeatedly framed this as "I will accept X if you accept Y". This presents editing as an exercise in compromise, in which there are defined positions which editors, or groups of editors, are entitled and expected to promote and defend, and from which elements may be traded out in order to reach a text which incorporates some parts from each position. This is not necessarily the case, and as I said above, it leans towards WP:OWN issues. I would rather think of consensus as a collective exploration of the possible space an article might fill, working out which directions are productive, and working together to achieve something which is comprehensible and accessible to the majority of the readership. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually Kevin McE who suggested this, when he wrote: “A note below the heading could suffice for explaining that not all are head to head debates”. I then included this in my consolidated compromise proposal 2 days ago and no-one objected to that part of it.
The Sky News ‘debate’ in Grimsby and the various Question Time Leaders’ Specials (particularly the one in York) were widely referred to as “debates” and discussed extensively afterwards (in the way that many of the other interviews weren’t), so I think they merit inclusion in some sort of table of the tier-1 TV events of the campaign. (Drawing the line only at strict debates would imply the inclusion of the Channel 4 News debate in Colchester, but not the Question Time Leaders’ Special in York, which seems an unhelpfully strict place to draw the line).
I would be more than happy if we decided to rename the section from “Debates” to “Debates and <something else>”. Or we could accept that it isn’t a perfect world and keep the current italicised note. The one thing I am against is removing the high-profile events mentioned above. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see College2021 has now added a "Format" column. Even if I'm unsure about the values 'Debate' and 'Individual', I think this is another reasonable option. (I'm also content enough with 'Debate' and 'Individual' if we can't think of any alternatives.) Kennethmac2000 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I further note that, following College2021's addition of the "Format" column, Scotlandshire44 has now removed the line "This section includes reference to some events which were not head-to-head debates." which was added immediately below the "Debates" heading per the discussion above.
If the view is that the new column now clarifies things, such that the line immediately below the "Debates" heading is no longer necessary, I think that makes sense (though I also wouldn't mind if the line was re-added).
The one thing I am wondering is whether "Individual" is the right term - "One at a time" could be better, although it is 3 characters longer. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hierarchy of headings

Betting Issue

Currently, 'Betting Scandal' sits alongside 'Timetable' as a subsection of 'Date of election'. This cannot be right. Make it a stand-alone section in its own right, or a subheading under Campaign (although that is chromologically subdivided), or (my own favourite) as a subsection of 'Candidates', because in time it will be just a footnote that affected three (at the present count) candidates, two of whom were not likely to be elected anyway.

Thoughts? Kevin McE (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about an entire section dedicated to controversies? Farage's comments about Ukraine also seemed to stir up some controversy, and the entire situation with Diane Abbott, the House of Lords and the Labour Party whip, so I would guess you could muster an entire section without relying too much on a single story. Maurnxiao (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia advises against Controversy sections.
I put the betting scandal under date of election originally because it was about betting on the date of the election, and it seemed somewhat tangential to the rest of the campaign. It has since become a bigger issue, so I'm happy for us to look at that again. I think it still sort of works where it is, and it has its own spin-off article for detail.
We have a chronological campaign section and that works for many purposes. We do have some issues that might sit better in their own subsections. If we're going to move the betting scandal section, I would suggest moving it to the end of the campaign chronology. Bondegezou (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debates

Quite apart from discussion elsewhere on this page about the tabulation of debates and interviews, they are surely a subject within the scope of Media coverage, so I would propose lowering that 'Debates' (or 'Debates and interviews', or whatever is settled upon) heading to a subheading under 'Media coverage'

Do people agree? Kevin McE (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sound idea. They are too prominent at the moment — Iadmc♫talk  20:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements

This is essentially a single line saying that ther are endorsements, and a link that is not even in the same line of prose. I know there are many WP articles with such sections, but would it not make more sense to just have it in the See Also at the bottom? Kevin McE (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In previous elections these have included newspaper endorsements (as the endorsements that typically get most coverage) excerpted from the endorsements article. Ralbegen (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse George Galloway!194.120.133.41 (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forecasts section

A few issues here have arisen overnight:

a) The heading had been changed from projections to predictions. I would argue that as a mathematical/psephological extrapolation, projections is better.

b) The format has been changed, apparently to match previous elections (something that there is no obligation to do) to a format that has the projections as columns and the parties as rows. I find the previous arrangement (columns for parties, rows for projections) more natural to read, and a lot neater: I'm not sure that there is anything other than personal preference to bring to this, but I think the change merits discussion.

c) A 'One week to go' projection has been introduced, which bears the date of 23rd June in the 'accessed' field in the reference, and 22nd June on the target website, so obviously more than a week to go. But had been (I have edited it) marked as on 26th June. But those weeks are at best unclear. Monday of this week was was 24th June, 10 days before the election. So is that 1 or two weeks? And by Friday it will be less than a week, but still the same calendar week as the 24th. As a header, it is very imprecise, without even checking whether stated date is that of polling of of publishing. Kevin McE (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you on (a).
The format with parties as columns was better, clearer and more concise. We should return to it—the format it has been changed to is worse. One projection from each source that's either authoritative (pollster, newspaper, magazine) or covered by reliable sources as close as possible to the Thursday in the relevant week makes sense to me.
I would also support including fewer tables if we can. Ralbegen (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That section has just been blanked by @Ralbegen with "sc" whatever that means. — Iadmc♫talk  11:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced it with the more readable version, but accidentally left in one of the projection tables. My second edit removed that table as a self-correction. My third edit replaced the projection from 22 June with one that's actually from today. Ralbegen (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. OK fair enough — Iadmc♫talk  11:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current format looks good to me. Bondegezou (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A) I can agree on that, projections probably does sound better.
B) As you said this is largely down to personal preference, but I strongly think the previous format (columns for projections, rows for parties; see example) looks better and is a lot more readable. First off, the new format (columns parties, rows projections) feels 'cramped' in a way, the seat numbers feel too close together and the whole thing is too condensed to be easily readable. The old format was a lot more flexible; e.g. you could more easily read each pollster's projection of one party's seat number. Secondly, while consistency across articles isn't obligatory it's still very much preferable as it makes for more continuative reading rather than switching-up the format on each article just 'cause. Overall, even if the consensus decides on columns for parties and rows for projections, I also think we should re-introduce party colour shadings on the majority party's seat tally and solid party colour as a BG on the overall result / majority number (if applicable of course although in this instance it very much is) as again it just improves readability. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This orientation is clearer, but I don't think we should make the majority text bold white on a dark red background. That's not an improvement. It makes the tables much larger, spreads out the numbers so they are harder to see next to each other, and looks garish. Ralbegen (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ralbegen. The Manual of Style does not support whacky formatting without good reasons. Plain text is fine. Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Projections xxxx weeks before the vote - someone changes the format

Someone keeps on changing the format back to the old style, however they crit 2017 and 2019 HOWEVER there modified those tables included more blue etc, so it looks like there is a patten. Personnel I like the new format as it more slick and not over powering on the page esp since this time around there is alot more data and projections. What is everyone views on this? You can see the old sytle here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_Kingdom_general_election&oldid=1231325130#Predictions_four_weeks_before_the_vote

Also we need to add more text to this section, but some people dont seem to like this point. like can we trust them: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv22y07ggy6o or how reform will actully pick up half a dozen seats which should be worth a simple metion? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/18/reform-farage-tice-survation-poll-election-lee-anderson/ Crazyseiko (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should maintain the current system that lists all the parties with MPs until the election is over, after which we should go back to the one with party leader's pictures. I however disagree with others on here in that I think we should include the leaders of ALL parties with MPs. There's actually precedence for this in other countries' election articles, but, unless I'm mistaken, there's already an old consensus against this... Maurnxiao (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your replyed to the wrong section. --Crazyseiko (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Postal Vote Issues

I think this developing issue from the BBC ought to be mentioned in the election article somewhere possibly on here or on the Scottish article.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2g5y6nyr0o MOTORAL1987 (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Maybe under Electoral system? Bondegezou (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should come under a voting section with the mention making it clear that the election date in Scotland falls within its school summer holidays as they have July as their main summer month off as opposed to August in England however since my first post a little while another article on this matter has come to my attention which is here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8vdpvqe24jo (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]

This may be a bigger issue than first thought I have some unofficial reports from areas within England who are reporting issues now with Postal Votes i have a link here from the telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/28/general-election-postal-votes-marginal-seats/ and also from Ipswich https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/24418362.ipswich-residents-not-got-postal-ballots/ (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Details have Already been added to the page as its its bigger issues and more councils have had to deal with whats going on. --Crazyseiko (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why has interview box gone?

There use to be a box under the debates for all the leaders interviews. Why has it gone? It was really useful. I use to use it like a tv guide 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:49F9:2E29:663:6218 (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a TV guide. There was extensive discussion on this page about the utility of that table, and it was removed from the article following that discussion. As I argued then, interviews are only notable for what is said in them, which was the one thing that table did not provide. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several firsts

It will also be the first general election held under the reign of King Charles III. Should we add this? 79.148.174.160 (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 1955 United Kingdom general election mentions the fact that it was the first general election under the new monarch, so either we should remove it there or add it here, and I happen to think we should add it here. Maurnxiao (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was previously discussion supporting including this material in the body of the article but not the lead, which I think would be fine. I don't think it belongs in the lead.
(The format and content of the 1955 article has very little bearing on how we should write this article.) Ralbegen (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be in the background section, and I support the existing consensus that it should not be in the lead. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to include this in the lead. Charles III is already mentioned throughout the article, so readers will already be aware this election is the first to take place with him as the King. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional manifestos

Please can someone add the following manifestos to the external links at the bottom of the article? I can't, due to semi-protection. Both are from modestly substantial parties contesting more overall seats than, for example, Alba (who are also currently represented in this section).

Scottish Greens, contesting 44 seats: https://greens.scot/sites/default/files/SGP-Westminster-Manifesto-2024-web.pdf

Social Democratic Party, contesting 122 seats: https://sdp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/SDP_Manifesto_2024.pdf 2A00:23C8:3FA2:D201:6408:F88B:4A0C:2642 (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I'd knock Alba out. We don't need every Tom, Dick and Sheila. Same goes for Alliance and Workers. — Iadmc♫talk  14:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alba and Workers have 3 MPs between them, and their leaders, Alex Salmond and George Galloway, with the latter being a sitting MP, are extremely famous and notable figues in the British political landscape. Maurnxiao (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a popularity contest. Farage would win hands down if it were. (...) It just get cluttered with all the minor parties being mentioned. — Iadmc♫talk  14:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a popularity contest but popularity is an additional piece of evidence in support of the possibility of both Alba and the workers Party, which have sitting MPs, being important political forces in the British state. Maurnxiao (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are "popularity" or "importance" assessed? Number of MPs or seats being contested aren't good enough or the article will become cumbersome. It should, as far as I'm concerned, take after notability guidelines: significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I'm not sure that Alba, Scottish Greens, Workers, ..., get the media coverage that, say, the Eng/Wales Greens or Reform do, despite comparable numbers of MPs. Information on SGs is likely more relevant to 2024 United Kingdom general election in Scotland, if it isn't there already. Irltoad (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are legitimate political parties with parliamentary representation and you don't want their include their manifestos? It's not, say, the English Democrats. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You totally ignored my argument. It is not for us to decide the "legitimacy" of parties, and even if it were this is irrelevant to the matter at hand. We can't discuss everything about every party or the article will become far too long. Media coverage is a good way to assess notability, and not every party in each parliament of the country gets a high level of coverage. Irltoad (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is extensive media coverage of the Alba and Workers parties. And they both currently have sitting MPs; in the case of the Workers Party, theirs was directly elected. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think would disagree with knocking out the parties mentioned, but I think it's acceptable to only include parties that either already have MPs, or that have significant coverage e.g. in the opinion polls. This would probably include the Scottish Greens but maybe exclude SDP. The other question would be significant media coverage. It's also clear that Alba/Alliance have significant mentions in the opinion polls, being listed in more or less every opinion poll in their respective countries (and Alliance polling in first place on one). Workers party and SDP are not listed in most opinion polls however. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, in favour of the SDP/Workers being added, is that they come 6th and 7th respectively in number of candidates, which is significant. These parties have candidates in a large number of seats across the country which might warrant more coverage? Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think every party with MPs when Parliament was dissolved is a sensible starting point. I’m not against further parties being included, e.g. on the basis of # candidates. Certainly, any party that has received significant secondary RS coverage should be included. Bondegezou (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did not expect to find this level of convo when I remembered to check on this today!
To clarify my original request, I was thinking on the basis of including all ten of the largest parties in terms of seats contested: hence adding the SDP (#7) and Scottish Greens (#10). (The Co-operative Party have, of course, not produced a separate manifesto for this election.) Plaid Cymru and Alba make sense to retain as parties that are contesting a third or more of the seats in their respective nation; Plaid are of course standing in every Welsh seat, whilst Alba are contesting 19 of the 57 seats in Scotland (which is a greater proportion than, for example, the Workers Party of Britain, who are only contesting 27% of English constituencies).
The idea of leaving out Alliance is quixotic at best. Anyone who follows Northern Irish politics will know that the parties currently represented are very much the five canonical parties contesting this election, as evidenced by the fact they were all included in both the BBC and ITV debates. Indeed, Alliance actually had an MP elected in 2019, which is more than can be said for the UUP, who haven't returned a Westminster candidate for almost a decade. 2A00:23C8:3FA2:D201:C8F1:B3CD:EA9D:434C (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that we should respect the usual RS approach of seeing 5 canonical parties in NI and include all of their manifestos. Bondegezou (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background section

The background section is becoming increasingly long. Anyone have any ideas on how to best condense it? ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think it's pretty tight. Compared to how it was shortly after the election was called, it's clear and relevant throughout. The subsection headings help to keep it organised. If anything, I'd add a short introductory paragraph above the 'Conservative party' subheading, introducing the general situation - COVID-19, Brexit, the new monarch. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed it down a bit now. Bondegezou (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background section verifiabilty

I must say that after reading, and attempting to verify the content, I am quite shocked at the poor quality of sourcing in the section. WP:V says Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. I've added a few tags, but got fed up in the end, but am sure there are many other gaps. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, DeFacto, that was just egregious WP:TAGBOMBing, out of all proportion to any problems in the text. Bondegezou (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that implies unjustified tagging. These were clearly necessary and clearly reasoned to attract attention to the problems, and with enough precision to allow willing editors to easily fix the problems I discovered. I could justifiably have added more. I see you've already helped with the problems I've raised by adding more references, which is good, and is a better way to spend your time than being unnecessarily aggressive here and wasting our time. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Conservative section is now fully cited. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-headings for campaign section

Hi all, soliciting opinions here: how should the dates for the sub-headings in the campaign section be arranged? I've been tweaking things so that 20-26 June and 27 June - Present is now a heading instead of 21 June - Present. This is on the basis of "weeks until election", i.e. 20-26 June is the second week until polling day and 27 June - Present is the final week. But opinions welcome here - should this be done another way? Such as splitting it where it feels natural, etc. DimensionalFusion (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Party slogans section

(CCing in @Nolbraltar1704)

I've removed the party slogans section on the grounds that it's extremely bulky and contributes to the general tablespam problem this article has while giving arguably undue coverage to a number of v. fringe parties. I don't think it's worth inclusion unless notable external coverage can be found and would probably better fit a brief mention for the major parties in the campaign(?) section. Would appreciate any thoughts. CipherRephic (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! We need to be looking at where reliable sources are focusing and follow them. They are not focusing on slogans. Bondegezou (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when party endorsement is removed?

According to Swedish media (e.g. this article in Aftonbladet), candidates Craig Williams and Laura Saunders no longer have the support of their party. As the ballots are already printed, they remain Tory candidates, but will - if elected - be seated as independents. This seems to be confirmed by British media too (e.g. Sky News).

The electoral systems varying much between countries, I think this might merit mentionning/explaining in the article. In a tight race, this could be very important. In this race, it will probably not affect the general outcome but will explain the election results.

  1. Should it be mentionned?
  2. If so, where? (This article, the Betting Scandal Article, other articles...?)
  3. If so, how specific should the mention be? (With 650 seats, this might happen a lot. If so, a more general mention would be suitable, unless it is very uncommon and thus merits a lot of detail.)

Personally, I was thinking something along the lines of

"Both major major parties have withdrawn support for several of their candidates, resulting in the candidates standing as independent. When loss of support occured after deadline XYZ, the candidates remain party candidates on the ballot, but will not be extended (correct wording?) the party whip if returned to Parliament."

OJH (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally always the case if MPs or candidates have the support withdrawn by their party, they sit as independents if they are elected (these cases are still standing under their party affiliation, because nominations had closed). It's not something specific to this election. The specific examples above are already mentioned in the 2024 United Kingdom general election betting scandal and (as are all candidates that have been disowned) on their respective constituency articles. Sionk (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've just realised that Reform has done the same thing, over racial comments (TT article in Swedish).
So, your point is that, since this happens all the time, it does not need explaining in this article? But that said, I should go look for an article on UK elections and make sure that it can be found there? Have I got you right? Thanks again. OJH (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OJH, is Candidates in the 2024 United Kingdom general election#Deselected and disowned candidates what you're looking for? DankJae 13:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DankJae Yes! Perfect! OJH (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Election Infobox and Maps

Isn’t it time now that we are at the Monday before the election to change the infobox to show all the usual percentages and seats ect as showing the old number of seats that each party had is now kinda irrelevant and also where are we with the blank SVG maps we will need for the results come late Thursday and into Friday? (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]

No. The rationale for the current infobox applies until the voting has concluded. We have previously agreed not to have blank SVG maps. Wait until they're not blank! Bondegezou (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon @Bondegezou thank you for replying as no one else has done until now and I have asked this question at least three times over the campaign with no answer, I appreciate the answer and I do accept that you don’t want blank SVG maps on the main page before results come in however do we have a plan in place for the results and if so does that include regional maps as well. I will appreciate also that this is much more complicated with the new boundaries so I hope you understand why I am asking this. Thank you (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
I'm sorry, MOTORAL1987, that no-one else has answered your question! I see what you mean now about blank SVG maps now. Sorry I can't help there. Bondegezou (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem @ Bondegezou and I can’t help either, is there anyone that can help at all as we are very short of time now (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Projected seats values

I'm not certain of the convention regarding this, so any input is appreciated: it seems that some of the values in the "Projections" section have been adjusted from their sources to aid consistency, such as adding the NI seats to the "Others" section on those sources which only cover GB, and transferring the Speaker's seat to "Others". I understand that this may be helpful for comparison, though since this appears to have been applied inconsistently, I should like to question whether it would be better to have the displayed values match exactly their counterparts in the cited sources for ease of verification. It would be nice to ascertain consensus before adding the polls for this week.

On a side note, I've been unable to verify the values listed for The Economist, since their site doesn't seem to work through archive.org. The values listed do not appear to add to 632/650, which is probably deserving of an explanatory refn.

Cheers, Closingbrackettalk 17:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the process of verifying these myself, and have decided to maintain the original format (as described in the note at the top of the section) given a fair number of the sources choose to publish thereas. Unfortunately, many of the sites, in choosing to update "live", have failed to maintain a static, archivable version.
I'm unsure as to the benefit of retaining the headers organising the tables into separate weeks; this was mentioned above but not resolved. Currently, "three weeks before the election" is missing, and the "weeks" are not well-defined in the slightest. Closingbrackettalk 22:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reform colour on the electoral map (when the results come)

Hello everyone,

Just a quick concern about the colour of Reform on the map of constituencies that will be created as usual when the results come through. Reform's light blue / turquoise colour is far too similar to the Conservatives. Look here, for instance, at Survation's latest prediction. When viewing it small (as it will be seen in the infobox), it's impossible to tell which of the blue seats are Reform seats. On closer inspection, it becomes easier, but still the colours are just too similar.

I propose, for the electoral map, making the colour of the Reform seats either a lighter or darker shade than the blue of the Conservatives. Something like this perhaps -

  Conservative Party: 85 seats
  Original Reform colour (too similar for a map)
  Reform: 4 seats (#9CF2FF instead of #12B6CF)

There is still a chance Reform could not win any seats, in which case none of this will be an issue. Dhantegge (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the lighter shade of turquoise I've chosen as an example resembles that of the National Liberal Party as in, for example, the 1935 United Kingdom general election, which is easily distinguished from the Conservative party blue. Dhantegge (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. — Czello (music) 09:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post-result infobox

There was an earlier discussion about the post-results infobox, now archived. CipherRephic shared their sandbox suggestion showing 6 parties (Con, Lab, LibDem, SNP, Green, RefUK, in that order). There was discussion on what parties to include and how, with some suggesting the infobox should show parties like Reform UK and the Greens in preference to parties winning more seats (e.g. maybe DUP, Sinn Fein) given their significance in the story of the election. I said back then that we need to respect the standard infobox approach and show parties in order of how many seats they win. We don't know what the results will be, with a lot of uncertainty around smaller parties, but there is a possibility that first past the post will deliver a significant mismatch between seats won and vote share. As we get nearer polling day, I thought it important to re-visit this. Maybe the results will come out such that a traditional TIE infobox, with 6 or 9 parties, works normally. If so, we can stop worrying!

I think it is completely unacceptable to have an infobox like CipherRephic's proposal if that does not reflect the election results (i.e. seats won). You can't have a party coming, say, seventh on seats and third on votes (as could happen to Reform UK), and list them sixth. That's just nonsense; specifically, it violates WP:OR. We have to write for the casual reader. A casual reader coming to this infobox will presume it works like other election infoboxes. That is, the party listed sixth did sixth best in the election results. Deviating from that is highly misleading.

Impru20 suggests we could include additional criteria around the infobox. I suspect it would be hard to agree on such, but more importantly, it's not a workable solution. You can't expect casual readers to trawl through a Talk page to find out criteria being used. They see an infobox: they will expect it to work like other election infoboxes. It needs to be clear to the casual reader what we are saying. Chessrat came up with an approach that I think is on a better track, including the Northern Irish parties, but lumping them together. I don't think that works, as such. It's hard to think of two more diametrically opposed political parties in the UK than the DUP and SF: to lump them together is misleading. Also, we have to obey WP:NPOV. We in GB may tend to ignore the NI results (except in 2017 when May needed DUP support), but readers in Northern Ireland, or indeed southern Ireland, will be more interested in those results (as Kevin McE pointed out). But if we are to deviate from usual practice, it has to be something where it is immediately clear to the reader what we are doing and at least with Chessrat's suggestion, you can see something is going on.

I am not blind to the problem. (I'd happily switch the UK away from FPTP just to avoid infobox arguments!) So, what can we do? I have suggestions. (1) The infobox can't do everything, so let's make sure the WP:LEAD text is good and flags up these issues of certain parties getting lots of votes, but few seats. (2) Stick to the usual infobox approach, even if some parties are excluded, but have a graphic in the infobox that tells the rest of the story, e.g. of vote share vs seat share. (3) Can we do a TILE-style infobox that shows seats and vote share? Then we can list lots of parties compactly and it will be clear if parties like Reform UK and the Greens do well on votes while winning few seats. (4) It's my least favourite option, but what about some sort of TIE infobox where it is very clearly indicated that we're not showing the straight results, like maybe a 6-party GB infobox (following seat order in GB) followed by a 3-party NI infobox (following seat order in NI)? But what we absolutely cannot do is list a party fifth who didn't come fifth! Bondegezou (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as i said previously, it seems fairly off to exclude a party getting (potentially) a popular vote in the high teen %ages from the infobox given the political impact of such a party, but if it's really that "completely unacceptable" and going to cause this much trouble then it's probably just easier to do a 4x4 box (LAB, CON, LDM, SNP, adjust order to preference). A seperate NI box seems unnecessary. CipherRephic (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also, I'd personally avoid using TILE in any form like the plague in this case. given the many recent scuffles it seems there's a fairly solid consensus not to use TILE outside of countries with loads of small parties like the netherlands and israel. CipherRephic (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You suggest TILE is acceptable for countries with loads of small parties like the netherlands and israel. I suggest the UK is a country with loads of small parties. 10 parties won seats at the 2019 general election. The figure will probably be 11-12 this time around. That compares to 15 at the last Dutch election and 10 at the last Israeli election. If we're electing more parties than Israel and TILE works for Israel, then the conclusion that TILE could work for the UK seems obvious to me. What am I missing? Bondegezou (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the small parties in NL and israel are important to include in the infobox because a. governments there are almost always formed as broad coalitions of several small parties and b. all the parties are fairly small, unlike other countries where, yes, there are a lot of small parties, but there are also a few major parties that tend to be the only real factors in a big-picture view of the election. see the debates around south africa and france, where we quite recently had a fairly vigorous discussion leading to an anti-TILE consensus. the situation in the UK is similar to that in south africa and france, in that we have a select few large parties which control the vast majority of seats, even though there are a number of smaller parties - thus using TIE would be better because it provides a better summary of the major players at a glance (plus, subjectively, a strong majority of people think it looks way better) CipherRephic (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the UK has a select few large parties which control the vast majority of seats, even though there are a number of smaller parties, so, while not my first preference, I don't mind if we have a TIE infobox with as few as 4 parties shown, or we could have 6, or I see South Africa has 9 for their last election. (I prefer TILE; I get that I'm probably in a minority on that.) As long as those are the 4 (or 6 or 9) parties that control the most seats. Bondegezou (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bondegezou How would you feel about an infobox a la the second and third ones here? I'd prefer the second out of the two but i'm very much amenable to either. CipherRephic (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If those are the top 4 or 6 parties, then, great, I'm OK with those infoboxes. Thanks for putting them together. Bondegezou (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the possibility of a hybrid TIE/TILE box if needed. Here's my attempt (using dummy data mostly from the most recent MRP): User:Chessrat/sandbox/UK2024 Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a great idea. unncessary duplication of the data and v. bulky CipherRephic (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda like it. I'm all for minimalist infoboxes, as per MOS:INFOBOX, so my first preference would be just the TILE box, but I think the mash-up does kind of give everyone something. I could go with that. That said, there are a million and one arguments, always, over infoboxes. I have my preferences, but other people have other preferences! My main concern here is that whatever we do, it cannot mislead casual readers or break WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/WP:NPOV. So I strongly believe that means we have to list parties in order by how many people they get elected. I can live with most things that follow that obvious rule. Bondegezou (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that if there are equal seat numbers it's fine to include one party on that number but not another (e.g. DUP and Lib Dems both on 8 seats in 2015 but only the Lib Dems are featured in the infobox there).
Out of the feasible results, it's highly unlikely that the Greens achieve more seats than the DUP/SF, and including the NI parties but not the Greens doesn't feel right, so my preferred options depending on the feasible results would be:
1) If the Lib Dems finish ahead of Reform in vote share and ahead of the SNP in seats: three-way infobox (Lab, Con, LD).
2) If Reform finishes ahead of the Lib Dems in vote share and ahead of the Northern Irish parties in seats: five-way infobox (Lab, Con, LD, SNP, Reform)
3) If Reform and the Greens are both in the top eight/nine (outright or tied), include the top eight/nine respectively. Most likely Lab, Con, LD, SNP, DUP, Sinn Fein, Reform, Green, and a maximum of one out of Plaid/Alliance/SDLP/UUP.
4) If none of these events pass- go for the hybrid TIE/TILE box. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 21:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If parties are tied on seats won, perfectly sensible to split the tie by vote share. Bondegezou (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says the purpose of an infobox is to summarise key facts that appear in the article - if Reform UK was to get a significant vote share, that sounds like a key fact that would appear in the body of the article. DimensionalFusion (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not object to an infobox that says "Reform UK got a significant vote share". I do object to an infobox that ranks the parties and puts a party in (say) fifth position that did not come fifth in the election results. That is misleading when every or nearly every other election article infobox puts parties in order by seats won. You cannot mislead readers. You cannot pretend a party came fifth when they didn't to make a point: that's violating WP:OR/WP:V. Entirely happy to discuss how to highlight Reform UK's significant vote share in other ways, and have made suggestions to that effect. If Reform UK come within the top 9 on seats won (as they might well), problem solved: use a 9-way TIE infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Women's 3000 metres. The story of the race was all about Zola Budd and our article talks at length about Budd. But Budd fell and didn’t medal. The infobox shows the three women who did medal. Should we just show Budd in the Bronze medal position because she’s a key fact? No, of course not. We have to respect the actual result of the race. When an infobox shows the result of an election, it has to reflect the actual result too. Bondegezou (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is precisely one circumstance in which I could support violating this rule- namely, the "Canada 1993" style result. If the Conservatives were to fail to get any MPs, including them in the infobox would be useful for the purpose of highlighting the decline in support of the previously governing party. Aside from this very specific scenario, I agree with you. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 22:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My take on this:
1) On the use of TILE: yes, it was originally intended for countries with loads of small parties like the netherlands and israel. And I'll add: for countries with loads of small parties whose results are fairly proportional and fragmented (and thus, close to each other). It makes no sense for countries such as the UK (or Spain, or France, or Italy) where yes, you may have about 10-20 parties getting into parliament depending on the election, but where only about 3 to 5 of these parties get a significant amount of seats: it feels weird and close to WP:UNDUE to put at a party with 100, 200, 300 seats next to one with 1 seat (and I should note here that I'm aware of this applying to UKIP in 2015 or to Reform/Greens now; that's why I spoke of including additional criteria. But barred any such criteria, my position is that of using TIE with no more than 6 parties appearing and sorted by number of seats, even if that excludes UKIP/Reform, though I'll elaborate on why I think those should appear based on other criteria). On this, I (almost) wholeheartedly agree with Bondegezou's position in this edit (except for the TILE-preference bit :P).
2) I'm also against this proposal because of the reasons exposed by CipherRephic (unncessary duplication of the data and v. bulky) as well as because of MOS:INFOBOX (An infobox is a panel [...] that summarizes key facts about the page's subject). Adding the full seat results is not a summary and (in my opinion) should only be done in extreme situations where you cannot fully grasp the overall picture of results without adding all of these (which is what happens in Israel or the Netherlands).
3) When I talk of additional criteria I mean some restrictive ones, i.e. ones that should not apply in "normal" circumstances because the system works by itself, but rather in "abnormal" situations where weird electoral (but still notable) things happen, which is more frequent for FPTP systems than for other systems. UK 2015 was one, UK 2024 will probably be another one (though we will have to wait and see the actual results first). Canada 1993, as Chessrat is also a good example: the PCs are currently in the infobox by virtue of (barely) having 2 seats, but imagine a situation where they got 0. Bondegezou's view would imply that they got out of the infobox in such a situation, despite they being the ruling party and their decline being the whole story of the election. You also have 1935 Prince Edward Island general election or 1987 New Brunswick general election in which extreme situations did happen, with infobox inclusion criteria relying mostly on vote share because of a single party getting all of the seats and all other ones 0 seats. Remember: notability is a master guideline in Wikipedia, and while it mostly applies to article creation, it ultimately also covers article content. And the infobox is meant to summarize article content. Yes, you can highlight this in text, but isn't acknowledging the importance of this in text but omitting it from the infobox (which is meant to summarize key facts about the page's subject) in itself contradictory? Btw, I would not compare this with sports events since those work out differently (I would only agree if parties got medals or any other actual thropies based on their seat count, but that's clearly not the case).
This said, I understand Bondegezou's reasoning and ultimately, if no additional criteria can be agreed for, I'd rather have TIE with the 3 to 6 parties getting more seats than other solutions where the infobox is packed with minor parties (because that, ultimately, would not fully satisfy anyone). Any agreement should be crystal clear and as little interventionist as possible on current consensus for party inclusion, as only that would ensure that the issue is not re-opened in the future (or, at the very least, not as many times as would be the case for other alternatives). Impru20talk 08:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Impru20 Thanks for your considered thoughts. To be clear on one point, I have no objection to including parties who win 0 seats, as long as they come after the parties winning >0 seats. This "solves" the Canadian examples you give. Bondegezou (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer TILE because TIE seems far too bloated, massively too presidential, and goes way beyond the stated purpose of an infobox. The purpose of an infobox ("Key facts about the page's subject") is not served by details of the party leader's constituency or date of election, details of numbers from previous elections, etc. Looking at the 2019 election article, there are many details on the infobox there that are not even mentioned in the article itself (election of party leaders other than main 2, constituency name even of Johnson, numbers outside of tables) so the infobox's contents are evidently not 'key'. Even photos of party leaders are gratuitous: only about 0.15% of the population even have a chance to vote directly for Starmer or Sunak: entire countries within the UK don't get to vote for even the parties of some others. 4 1/2 years after the 2019 election, how many people would recognise the photo of Jo Swinson?
Other than precedent, what are the arguments in favour of TIE? Kevin McE (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_Kingdom_general_election&oldid=1232471102"