This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The total votes column in the results table doesn't add - I get 29,524,464. BBC site has 29,691,380. I suppose the difference is somewhere in the smaller party results that were not published in the BBC results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.254.107 ( talk) 18:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Are those little icons with the triangles supposed to sort the table? They appear to randomise the order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.67.22 ( talk) 03:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I have removed the image on the right. "Vote Labour Out" - the is amusing but not encyclopedic. We are here to inform and not amuse. The joke does not seem to be notable, and in any case the text below is ultimately unverifiable. Keep the joke in someone's userspace - not in an article. (Kudos to the photographer, though.)-- Scott Mac 21:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there a section on the difference between 'the electorate' and 'those of the electorate who voted'? Given that the British electoral system operates like the Acerbo Law I would like to see something on the page about the number of electors who didn't vote and any changes in the size this group from previous elections. Keith-264 ( talk) 20:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if it helps, but the BBC Election 2010 site is still up. It's on http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/election2010/ . Regards, Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 22:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Why does the article state that the Conservatives won 306 seats? They won 307.
If it is because of the speaker then why isn't the speaker's seat counted as a different party/shown as a different colour on the previous elections maps, in the UK General Election articles pre-2010? -- Jonesy1289 ( talk) 18:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this a by-election? I understand it as a re-run of the 2010 General Election, in one constituency. It might warrant it's own article, but I'm not sure the title Oldham East and Saddleworth byelection, 2011 (spelling and date speculation aside) is valid - it's not a by-election. There is a wider implication for this - if it is not valid, then we need to go through all articles and remove the vote from counts etc, until the re-run occurs. -- Pretty Green ( talk) 12:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I notice this article is slowly filling up with non-notable stuff one example is Celebrity endorsements anybody know why a a list of celebrities is notable or encyclopedic? MilborneOne ( talk) 19:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really sure in the point of this table (the one with "3 main parties", "cabinet" and "opposition" in). The use of "cabinet" and "opposition" could also be misleading. I think it should be removed.-- Jonesy1289 ( talk) 11:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I know "avoided" means "voided" but I see little reason to use an unfamiliar term when a familiar term has the same meaning. If "voided" is unwanted, then can we say "declared void"? DrKiernan ( talk) 16:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
According to the infobox, how can Nick Clegg have had a swing of +1.0% when the Lib Dems' share of the vote went from 22.1% to 23.0%? NotFromUtrecht ( talk) 08:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Why does this measure the proportion according to votes cast and not the votes of the electorate? More than a third of the votes were abstentions. The second largest vote shouldn't be ignored. Keith-264 ( talk) 17:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
This is all nonsense. The term "popular vote" has a set meaning, and it does not include non-voters. The term used is the right term and should in consequence continue to be used. The fact that an editor comes along who doesn't like the term doesn't really matter. Coming up with some neologism or circumlocution to replace "popular vote" to assuage one wrongheaded perception is silly at best. The fact is, not voting is not a vote, despite Keith's unsupported assertion—saying so is at best a play on words. Coming up with some "compromise" will serve no greater purpose than quieting a squeaky wheel, and will never meet the stated goal of making the name more clear. - Rrius ( talk) 10:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/elections/turnout-general-elections? At the 1 May 1997 general election: 71.4%, at the 7 June 2001 general election: 59.54%, at the 5 May 2005 general election: 61.4%, at the 6 May 2010 general election: 65.1%. Is this an acceptable source? Keith-264 ( talk) 19:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Perfectly acceptable, although turnout figures going back further than that will be available somewhere. MonachusLuscus ( talk) 12:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Keith-264 ( talk) 13:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The article states that "In terms of votes it was the most "three-cornered" election since 1923, and in terms of seats since 1929." How could it be the most in seats since 1929, when the Lib Dems dropped seats? Surely 2005 was more 3-cornered? 81.159.112.136 ( talk) 21:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Thanks for making that clear. 81.159.112.136 ( talk) 21:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
if only parties which got more than 500 votes are mentioned in the results section, that should be noticed there. -- 82.113.122.166 ( talk) 02:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I challenged the recent addition of MPs who were de-selected, barred from standing or defeated in selection as none of those listed were involved in the election. User:Sillputty87 has added the section again with the edit summary Sort of is notable as the reason why none of them were involved in the election is because the either were barred, de-selected or lost in the selection meaning they had attempted to stand again. While I can understand the point loads of people did not stand in the election for loads of reasons and picking jusst a few of them that were not involved has no relevance to the actual election. Suggest that as this has been challenged then it needs to gain a consensus to add this section, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 13:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone else find it confusing that the yellow for SNP and the 'orange' for LibDem are so similar? Not sure what protocol is- but can LibDem get a darker shade of Orange, or perhaps change SNP to Lilac, which is also an official color? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkaganoff ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Not everyone reading this is from UK, and we don't have a clue what that map says. There needs to be a proper color coding key on the map. Clear, and easy to follow. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Wrongs ( talk • contribs) 13:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Labour had a bias in the electoral system of 10% because we need boundary reform. Without this the Conservatives would have won the election. ( CWLilius ( talk) 14:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC))
Labour got an absolute majority on an even lower share of the vote in 2005. ( CWLilius ( talk) 19:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC))
According to the number you've given, the total of the votes should be 29,520,569 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.194.15 ( talk) 10:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
QUERY The data in the first table under RESULTS only adds up to 644 seats out of 650, and does not include SDLP (3 seats), ALLIANCE (1 seat), INDEPENDENT SYLVIA HERMON (1 seat) and SPEAKER (1 seat).
Is there a reason for this, or is it an inadvertent omission? -- Jfp2006 ( talk) 09:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on United Kingdom general election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United Kingdom general election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
The map on the page marks the constituency of Ashfield as Conservative, when that is not the case. It appears also to marked in blue on the 2015 and 2017 maps accidentally, perhaps the constituency was confused on the map with one of a number of neighbouring seats like Sherwood, Broxtowe or Amber Valley that the Conservatives did indeed gain at this election. Can this be corrected? 86.19.130.219 ( talk) 18:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi @ Bondegezou:. Thanks for your help on The Independent Group article (I especially didn't know that adding a reference wasn't considered a minor edit - useful to know). Here, though, the intro to the table does say 'major papers'. Morning Star isn't one of those. I'll take it out of the table. -- Woofboy ( talk) 17:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
In order to deal with layout of the Lead, I would like to ask those involved in the dispute with myself to look into this some more and determine how best to proceed. I will begin by explaining that my action to redo the Lead when I started was due to the fact that when I read it, I found it to be too large and overly detailed - I also was concerned about the use of minor details and the fact I had read up a bit on MOS:LEAD and how it states that such a section of information for the article to begin on should consist of a summary of the article's key points of information. Since then, I had a further look at MOS:LEAD, and found a notable line within the section of MOS:INTRO:
"Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article."
Based on this, regardless of how the Lead is written out in future, is the current arrangement at fault per this line? GUtt01 ( talk) 15:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Others are welcome to add input to this. GUtt01 ( talk) 15:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I think the lede is very long and some of the detail on e.g. coalition negotiations could be left out? Crookesmoor ( talk) 13:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The total votes column in the results table doesn't add - I get 29,524,464. BBC site has 29,691,380. I suppose the difference is somewhere in the smaller party results that were not published in the BBC results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.254.107 ( talk) 18:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Are those little icons with the triangles supposed to sort the table? They appear to randomise the order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.67.22 ( talk) 03:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I have removed the image on the right. "Vote Labour Out" - the is amusing but not encyclopedic. We are here to inform and not amuse. The joke does not seem to be notable, and in any case the text below is ultimately unverifiable. Keep the joke in someone's userspace - not in an article. (Kudos to the photographer, though.)-- Scott Mac 21:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there a section on the difference between 'the electorate' and 'those of the electorate who voted'? Given that the British electoral system operates like the Acerbo Law I would like to see something on the page about the number of electors who didn't vote and any changes in the size this group from previous elections. Keith-264 ( talk) 20:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if it helps, but the BBC Election 2010 site is still up. It's on http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/election2010/ . Regards, Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 22:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Why does the article state that the Conservatives won 306 seats? They won 307.
If it is because of the speaker then why isn't the speaker's seat counted as a different party/shown as a different colour on the previous elections maps, in the UK General Election articles pre-2010? -- Jonesy1289 ( talk) 18:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this a by-election? I understand it as a re-run of the 2010 General Election, in one constituency. It might warrant it's own article, but I'm not sure the title Oldham East and Saddleworth byelection, 2011 (spelling and date speculation aside) is valid - it's not a by-election. There is a wider implication for this - if it is not valid, then we need to go through all articles and remove the vote from counts etc, until the re-run occurs. -- Pretty Green ( talk) 12:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I notice this article is slowly filling up with non-notable stuff one example is Celebrity endorsements anybody know why a a list of celebrities is notable or encyclopedic? MilborneOne ( talk) 19:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really sure in the point of this table (the one with "3 main parties", "cabinet" and "opposition" in). The use of "cabinet" and "opposition" could also be misleading. I think it should be removed.-- Jonesy1289 ( talk) 11:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I know "avoided" means "voided" but I see little reason to use an unfamiliar term when a familiar term has the same meaning. If "voided" is unwanted, then can we say "declared void"? DrKiernan ( talk) 16:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
According to the infobox, how can Nick Clegg have had a swing of +1.0% when the Lib Dems' share of the vote went from 22.1% to 23.0%? NotFromUtrecht ( talk) 08:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Why does this measure the proportion according to votes cast and not the votes of the electorate? More than a third of the votes were abstentions. The second largest vote shouldn't be ignored. Keith-264 ( talk) 17:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
This is all nonsense. The term "popular vote" has a set meaning, and it does not include non-voters. The term used is the right term and should in consequence continue to be used. The fact that an editor comes along who doesn't like the term doesn't really matter. Coming up with some neologism or circumlocution to replace "popular vote" to assuage one wrongheaded perception is silly at best. The fact is, not voting is not a vote, despite Keith's unsupported assertion—saying so is at best a play on words. Coming up with some "compromise" will serve no greater purpose than quieting a squeaky wheel, and will never meet the stated goal of making the name more clear. - Rrius ( talk) 10:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/elections/turnout-general-elections? At the 1 May 1997 general election: 71.4%, at the 7 June 2001 general election: 59.54%, at the 5 May 2005 general election: 61.4%, at the 6 May 2010 general election: 65.1%. Is this an acceptable source? Keith-264 ( talk) 19:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Perfectly acceptable, although turnout figures going back further than that will be available somewhere. MonachusLuscus ( talk) 12:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Keith-264 ( talk) 13:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The article states that "In terms of votes it was the most "three-cornered" election since 1923, and in terms of seats since 1929." How could it be the most in seats since 1929, when the Lib Dems dropped seats? Surely 2005 was more 3-cornered? 81.159.112.136 ( talk) 21:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Thanks for making that clear. 81.159.112.136 ( talk) 21:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
if only parties which got more than 500 votes are mentioned in the results section, that should be noticed there. -- 82.113.122.166 ( talk) 02:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I challenged the recent addition of MPs who were de-selected, barred from standing or defeated in selection as none of those listed were involved in the election. User:Sillputty87 has added the section again with the edit summary Sort of is notable as the reason why none of them were involved in the election is because the either were barred, de-selected or lost in the selection meaning they had attempted to stand again. While I can understand the point loads of people did not stand in the election for loads of reasons and picking jusst a few of them that were not involved has no relevance to the actual election. Suggest that as this has been challenged then it needs to gain a consensus to add this section, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 13:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone else find it confusing that the yellow for SNP and the 'orange' for LibDem are so similar? Not sure what protocol is- but can LibDem get a darker shade of Orange, or perhaps change SNP to Lilac, which is also an official color? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkaganoff ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Not everyone reading this is from UK, and we don't have a clue what that map says. There needs to be a proper color coding key on the map. Clear, and easy to follow. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Wrongs ( talk • contribs) 13:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Labour had a bias in the electoral system of 10% because we need boundary reform. Without this the Conservatives would have won the election. ( CWLilius ( talk) 14:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC))
Labour got an absolute majority on an even lower share of the vote in 2005. ( CWLilius ( talk) 19:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC))
According to the number you've given, the total of the votes should be 29,520,569 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.194.15 ( talk) 10:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
QUERY The data in the first table under RESULTS only adds up to 644 seats out of 650, and does not include SDLP (3 seats), ALLIANCE (1 seat), INDEPENDENT SYLVIA HERMON (1 seat) and SPEAKER (1 seat).
Is there a reason for this, or is it an inadvertent omission? -- Jfp2006 ( talk) 09:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on United Kingdom general election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United Kingdom general election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
The map on the page marks the constituency of Ashfield as Conservative, when that is not the case. It appears also to marked in blue on the 2015 and 2017 maps accidentally, perhaps the constituency was confused on the map with one of a number of neighbouring seats like Sherwood, Broxtowe or Amber Valley that the Conservatives did indeed gain at this election. Can this be corrected? 86.19.130.219 ( talk) 18:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi @ Bondegezou:. Thanks for your help on The Independent Group article (I especially didn't know that adding a reference wasn't considered a minor edit - useful to know). Here, though, the intro to the table does say 'major papers'. Morning Star isn't one of those. I'll take it out of the table. -- Woofboy ( talk) 17:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
In order to deal with layout of the Lead, I would like to ask those involved in the dispute with myself to look into this some more and determine how best to proceed. I will begin by explaining that my action to redo the Lead when I started was due to the fact that when I read it, I found it to be too large and overly detailed - I also was concerned about the use of minor details and the fact I had read up a bit on MOS:LEAD and how it states that such a section of information for the article to begin on should consist of a summary of the article's key points of information. Since then, I had a further look at MOS:LEAD, and found a notable line within the section of MOS:INTRO:
"Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article."
Based on this, regardless of how the Lead is written out in future, is the current arrangement at fault per this line? GUtt01 ( talk) 15:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Others are welcome to add input to this. GUtt01 ( talk) 15:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I think the lede is very long and some of the detail on e.g. coalition negotiations could be left out? Crookesmoor ( talk) 13:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)