![]() | 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 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Next United Kingdom general election --> United Kingdom general election, 2017 ProgrammingGeek talktome 13:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
We usually base an infobox on the previous election results. We don't have to. We should follow reliable sources, so there is an argument that, irrespective of the above debate, it is reasonable to base the infobox for this article, before the results are in, on what reliable sources say are the notable parties.
I feel that is a better approach, more in keeping with Wikipedia policy, than back-engineering rules based on the previous election results to include the parties people want included. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
It's a rhetorical question, intended neither a political point nor an attempt at sarcasm. My intent is to demonstrate why in practise we cannot adopt this suggestion, which is made in good faith and at a glance seems eminently sensible. StillWaitingForConnection ( talk) 16:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The article does not detail some points; I assume it miss: Who are the voters to this election? Is the election open to every European citizens? Can we vote by Internet from abroad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.187 ( talk) 19:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Why isn't UKIP listed in the Info box? — Calvin999 10:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
It's a list of parties that currently hold seats, Douglas Carswell has left the party. CarlDurose ( talk · contribs · count) 11:11, 19 April 2017
Will these still be taking place? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
As the Scottish National Party have became the third largest party in the House of Commons after the 2015 election why are they snubbed in the opening text. In particular "All major parties will contest this election with different leaders from 2015." well this is not true as the SNP will likely still have the same leader in the next general election. The Liberal Democrats are mentioned in this paragraph too despite only having 9 seats so if the Liberal Democrats are regarded as a major party then surely the SNP should be considered major as well. Despite personal opinions I feel that Wikipedia should remain impartial in regards to the next election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool1056 ( talk • contribs) 23:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Not sure how that has anything to do with my point. Although if you want to play it that way the SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson has been the Westminster leader since 2007 and so is the same as the 2015 General Election. I think you need to read the text before commenting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool1056 ( talk • contribs) 23:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
My addition of Lynton Crosby has been removed due to a perceived lack of notability. I think this is notable and of encyclopaedic value, not least considering the fact that he was seen as the man behind Cameron's 2015 campaign (the "dead cat" and "wedging" techniques have been mentioned in a number of the below sources), as well as the controversy surrounding him.
Some sources:
References
Any thoughts? GringisMan ( talk) 14:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Do we really need such large boxes showing the leaders of parties in GB and Northern Ireland? Appears to duplicate text already there. Think #Contesting_political_parties_and_candidates| can also now include content in #Changes_in_party_leadership_since_the_last_election which was moved from the lead. Happy to change but because it's a big one, what do others think? SocialDem ( talk) 09:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
There is now an election. Who are the candidates for prime minister? How did they get there? Why? I have been trying to answer those questions and I keep on getting reverted. Not cool.
First, lets discuss why these changes are needed, shall we?
First, the leader of the party is the candidate for Prime Minister. This has been the case for literally centuries. That's why we need photos of them in the infobox and elsewhere. As it stands now, nobody has a clue who everyone is besides perhaps May and Corbin. Maybe political junkies like myself, perhaps, but he casual reader outside the UK? NO!
Second. The leader of party (candidate for prime minister) had to get elected. The Tory party isn't just the "Teresa May fan club" like UKIP was Nigel Farange's. An easily findable link to the last leadership election article is necessary. It currently is not. Who is the head of he Liberal Democrats? Not a clue.
So we need subcategories to organize everything properly. Northern Ireland has a different system than the rest of the Union and while this is mentioned, the fact that NI is in administrative chaos is not. The local party leaders aren't standing for a seat in the Union parliament. So why mention them at all? Yes, I know that Nicola Sturgeon took part in one of the debates last time out, but she's not actually standing for anything. She's not part of the election.
In short we need catagorization. That means subsections on each of the leaders, more on the background on the election, and more analysis. Don't ASSUME that everyone is familiar with British politics. Don't assume that everyone knows who the characters are. This is a TEMPORARY article which will be in flux until after the vote in June.
That the leadership has changed since 2015 is not important. What matters is how the contenders got there. We don't have that now. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 13:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Come on, that Corbyn image hasn't been used in ages. It's not even the picture on his page. I know we have always struggled to get good pictures of him, but we at least established some over in the archives of the Jeremy Corbyn talk page that are better than the one currently used here. Can we have some kind of vote on it so we can at least come to a general consensus about what should be used without the in-good-faith changes made to this page being constantly reverted. Thanks Nbdelboy ( talk) 20:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed a section saying that carswell would be running under a different affiliation than in 2015. Mr Carswell will not run for election in clacton so I have removed it. Thanks Editorguy123098 ( talk) 17:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Editorguy123098 ( talk) 17:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Do we know when the 57th parliament will assemble? If 2015 is a precedent then it would logically take place on Monday 19th June (with the first state opening on Wednesday 28th June), but there is no mention of it in the article. Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 23:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
May has made a complete u-turn on the issue of holding a "snap" election. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39628533 What degree of an impact should this change of circumstances have on the prospective nature of the general election?? SecretName101 ( talk)
May previously indicated through a spokesperson she had no plan for a general election, the spokesperson stated, “There isn’t going to be one. It isn’t going to happen. There is not going to be a general election.” She denied there would be an election many times. [1] [2] [3]
May clearly stated before deciding on the election that there wouldn't be one. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 15:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
It may be relevant as some background to indicate how much of a surprise the announcement was, but if Wikipedia added everything that a politician changed their mind on, all the politics articles would be at least three feet longer. It can provide context, but as the Commons have now voted for dissolution and re-election, it is little more relevant than that. — Sasuke Sarutobi ( talk) 10:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment on this aspect is conspicuously absent, but will the constituency boundary changes come into force for this year's election, as they were mooted for a general election previously assumed (as based on the parliamentary Fixed Term Act) to be taking place in 2020? I recall reading Jeremy Corbyn's own seat was one of the candidates for abolition. Cloptonson ( talk) 11:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The section "Members of Parliament not standing for re-election" was converted to a table from series of lists. It has a number of relevant columns, but then also has a separate column for the ref. Would anyone object to my appending the refs to the dates (which would become the last column of the table)? - Rrius ( talk) 21:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Guido Fawkes (www.order-order.com) has compiled a list of MPs not standing [2] it includes Graham Allan (Lab) and Steve Rotheram (Lab) which are not included at the moment in our list. can anyone find a reliable source for either? Steve Rotheram I think may still be standing (having read an article from the liverpool echo) but I can't find anything for Graham Allan=> Spudgfsh ( Text Me!) 09:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
We were talking about this above at Talk:United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017#Which_parties_in_infobox and I promised Impru20 I'd start a separate section on this. The infobox (oh, yes, we're back to the infobox) currently has a little union jack at the top. This is an option within the template (and the legislative election template we were previously using). Use of a flag icon in this position is commonplace across election articles.
However, the manual of style is pretty clear that we should not be using a flag icon. WP:INFOBOXUSE says, "Avoid flag icons." (bold in original). It then refers to MOS:FLAG, which states:
There's more, I recommend going to read it. There's nothing specifically on election articles, but it does also say, "Beware of political pitfalls, and listen to concerns raised by other editors. Some flags are (sometimes or always) political statements and can associate a person with their political significance, sometimes misleadingly." We must consider WP:NPOV and a flag is a political statement when there are significant parties in the election that do not identify with that flag and want a different political settlement, and there are political movements that use the flag as a symbol in particular ways.
Flag icons are contentious across Wikipedia. Practice all over Wikipedia departs from the manual of style, but the community has ultimately agreed the manual of style and I think we should follow it, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS notwithstanding. So, I say we dump the flag.
I will also raise this at the template talk pages. Bondegezou ( talk) 17:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Note there is now a broader discussion at Template talk:Infobox election#Flag icon. Impru20 is right that MOS:FLAG does not say anything specifically about elections, but it does talk about "political pitfalls" and elections are obviously political. Impru20 argues that the flag is "perfectly neutral". I cannot agree. There is a body of research demonstrating that exposure to flag imagery effects people's decision making, generally shifting people to more right-wing views, making this an WP:NPOV issue. I cite several papers at Template talk:Infobox election#Flag icon; I'll just mention one here: Carter et al. (2011), “A Single Exposure to the American Flag Shifts Support Toward Republicanism up to 8 Months Later.” Psychological Science, 22(8):1011-8. I quote: "We report that a brief exposure to the American flag led to a shift toward Republican beliefs, attitudes, and voting behavior among both Republican and Democratic participants, despite their overwhelming belief that exposure to the flag would not influence their behavior." Most of that research has been in a US context. In the UK context, we certainly know flags are very important symbols in Northern Irish politics. For example, see:
Or just read Wikipedia's own article on the Belfast City Hall flag protests. In a GB context, flags are obviously used symbolically by parties. One reference here is:
Or consider what befell Emily Thornberry, a high-profile Labour politician in this election, a few years ago: Emily_Thornberry#White_Van_Gate.
With respect to Impru20's comments about "solitary usage", sorry, I think we're just talking at cross-purposes there. I meant that when MOS:FLAG supports flag icons, it is when a table or infobox will have several different ones, not when the table/infobox will have a solitary flag icon. Impru20 is entirely right that common practice is to use flag icons quite widely, but WP:OTHERSTUFF. The manual of style is what we're meant to follow. Impru20's use case study of "people who frequently visit a large number of election articles at once" sounds a bit odd to me. How many people do that? At once? Bondegezou ( talk) 12:55, 22 April 2017 (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 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Next United Kingdom general election --> United Kingdom general election, 2017 ProgrammingGeek talktome 13:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
We usually base an infobox on the previous election results. We don't have to. We should follow reliable sources, so there is an argument that, irrespective of the above debate, it is reasonable to base the infobox for this article, before the results are in, on what reliable sources say are the notable parties.
I feel that is a better approach, more in keeping with Wikipedia policy, than back-engineering rules based on the previous election results to include the parties people want included. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
It's a rhetorical question, intended neither a political point nor an attempt at sarcasm. My intent is to demonstrate why in practise we cannot adopt this suggestion, which is made in good faith and at a glance seems eminently sensible. StillWaitingForConnection ( talk) 16:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The article does not detail some points; I assume it miss: Who are the voters to this election? Is the election open to every European citizens? Can we vote by Internet from abroad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.187 ( talk) 19:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Why isn't UKIP listed in the Info box? — Calvin999 10:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
It's a list of parties that currently hold seats, Douglas Carswell has left the party. CarlDurose ( talk · contribs · count) 11:11, 19 April 2017
Will these still be taking place? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
As the Scottish National Party have became the third largest party in the House of Commons after the 2015 election why are they snubbed in the opening text. In particular "All major parties will contest this election with different leaders from 2015." well this is not true as the SNP will likely still have the same leader in the next general election. The Liberal Democrats are mentioned in this paragraph too despite only having 9 seats so if the Liberal Democrats are regarded as a major party then surely the SNP should be considered major as well. Despite personal opinions I feel that Wikipedia should remain impartial in regards to the next election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool1056 ( talk • contribs) 23:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Not sure how that has anything to do with my point. Although if you want to play it that way the SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson has been the Westminster leader since 2007 and so is the same as the 2015 General Election. I think you need to read the text before commenting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool1056 ( talk • contribs) 23:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
My addition of Lynton Crosby has been removed due to a perceived lack of notability. I think this is notable and of encyclopaedic value, not least considering the fact that he was seen as the man behind Cameron's 2015 campaign (the "dead cat" and "wedging" techniques have been mentioned in a number of the below sources), as well as the controversy surrounding him.
Some sources:
References
Any thoughts? GringisMan ( talk) 14:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Do we really need such large boxes showing the leaders of parties in GB and Northern Ireland? Appears to duplicate text already there. Think #Contesting_political_parties_and_candidates| can also now include content in #Changes_in_party_leadership_since_the_last_election which was moved from the lead. Happy to change but because it's a big one, what do others think? SocialDem ( talk) 09:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
There is now an election. Who are the candidates for prime minister? How did they get there? Why? I have been trying to answer those questions and I keep on getting reverted. Not cool.
First, lets discuss why these changes are needed, shall we?
First, the leader of the party is the candidate for Prime Minister. This has been the case for literally centuries. That's why we need photos of them in the infobox and elsewhere. As it stands now, nobody has a clue who everyone is besides perhaps May and Corbin. Maybe political junkies like myself, perhaps, but he casual reader outside the UK? NO!
Second. The leader of party (candidate for prime minister) had to get elected. The Tory party isn't just the "Teresa May fan club" like UKIP was Nigel Farange's. An easily findable link to the last leadership election article is necessary. It currently is not. Who is the head of he Liberal Democrats? Not a clue.
So we need subcategories to organize everything properly. Northern Ireland has a different system than the rest of the Union and while this is mentioned, the fact that NI is in administrative chaos is not. The local party leaders aren't standing for a seat in the Union parliament. So why mention them at all? Yes, I know that Nicola Sturgeon took part in one of the debates last time out, but she's not actually standing for anything. She's not part of the election.
In short we need catagorization. That means subsections on each of the leaders, more on the background on the election, and more analysis. Don't ASSUME that everyone is familiar with British politics. Don't assume that everyone knows who the characters are. This is a TEMPORARY article which will be in flux until after the vote in June.
That the leadership has changed since 2015 is not important. What matters is how the contenders got there. We don't have that now. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 13:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Come on, that Corbyn image hasn't been used in ages. It's not even the picture on his page. I know we have always struggled to get good pictures of him, but we at least established some over in the archives of the Jeremy Corbyn talk page that are better than the one currently used here. Can we have some kind of vote on it so we can at least come to a general consensus about what should be used without the in-good-faith changes made to this page being constantly reverted. Thanks Nbdelboy ( talk) 20:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed a section saying that carswell would be running under a different affiliation than in 2015. Mr Carswell will not run for election in clacton so I have removed it. Thanks Editorguy123098 ( talk) 17:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Editorguy123098 ( talk) 17:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Do we know when the 57th parliament will assemble? If 2015 is a precedent then it would logically take place on Monday 19th June (with the first state opening on Wednesday 28th June), but there is no mention of it in the article. Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 23:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
May has made a complete u-turn on the issue of holding a "snap" election. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39628533 What degree of an impact should this change of circumstances have on the prospective nature of the general election?? SecretName101 ( talk)
May previously indicated through a spokesperson she had no plan for a general election, the spokesperson stated, “There isn’t going to be one. It isn’t going to happen. There is not going to be a general election.” She denied there would be an election many times. [1] [2] [3]
May clearly stated before deciding on the election that there wouldn't be one. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 15:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
It may be relevant as some background to indicate how much of a surprise the announcement was, but if Wikipedia added everything that a politician changed their mind on, all the politics articles would be at least three feet longer. It can provide context, but as the Commons have now voted for dissolution and re-election, it is little more relevant than that. — Sasuke Sarutobi ( talk) 10:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment on this aspect is conspicuously absent, but will the constituency boundary changes come into force for this year's election, as they were mooted for a general election previously assumed (as based on the parliamentary Fixed Term Act) to be taking place in 2020? I recall reading Jeremy Corbyn's own seat was one of the candidates for abolition. Cloptonson ( talk) 11:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The section "Members of Parliament not standing for re-election" was converted to a table from series of lists. It has a number of relevant columns, but then also has a separate column for the ref. Would anyone object to my appending the refs to the dates (which would become the last column of the table)? - Rrius ( talk) 21:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Guido Fawkes (www.order-order.com) has compiled a list of MPs not standing [2] it includes Graham Allan (Lab) and Steve Rotheram (Lab) which are not included at the moment in our list. can anyone find a reliable source for either? Steve Rotheram I think may still be standing (having read an article from the liverpool echo) but I can't find anything for Graham Allan=> Spudgfsh ( Text Me!) 09:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
We were talking about this above at Talk:United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017#Which_parties_in_infobox and I promised Impru20 I'd start a separate section on this. The infobox (oh, yes, we're back to the infobox) currently has a little union jack at the top. This is an option within the template (and the legislative election template we were previously using). Use of a flag icon in this position is commonplace across election articles.
However, the manual of style is pretty clear that we should not be using a flag icon. WP:INFOBOXUSE says, "Avoid flag icons." (bold in original). It then refers to MOS:FLAG, which states:
There's more, I recommend going to read it. There's nothing specifically on election articles, but it does also say, "Beware of political pitfalls, and listen to concerns raised by other editors. Some flags are (sometimes or always) political statements and can associate a person with their political significance, sometimes misleadingly." We must consider WP:NPOV and a flag is a political statement when there are significant parties in the election that do not identify with that flag and want a different political settlement, and there are political movements that use the flag as a symbol in particular ways.
Flag icons are contentious across Wikipedia. Practice all over Wikipedia departs from the manual of style, but the community has ultimately agreed the manual of style and I think we should follow it, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS notwithstanding. So, I say we dump the flag.
I will also raise this at the template talk pages. Bondegezou ( talk) 17:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Note there is now a broader discussion at Template talk:Infobox election#Flag icon. Impru20 is right that MOS:FLAG does not say anything specifically about elections, but it does talk about "political pitfalls" and elections are obviously political. Impru20 argues that the flag is "perfectly neutral". I cannot agree. There is a body of research demonstrating that exposure to flag imagery effects people's decision making, generally shifting people to more right-wing views, making this an WP:NPOV issue. I cite several papers at Template talk:Infobox election#Flag icon; I'll just mention one here: Carter et al. (2011), “A Single Exposure to the American Flag Shifts Support Toward Republicanism up to 8 Months Later.” Psychological Science, 22(8):1011-8. I quote: "We report that a brief exposure to the American flag led to a shift toward Republican beliefs, attitudes, and voting behavior among both Republican and Democratic participants, despite their overwhelming belief that exposure to the flag would not influence their behavior." Most of that research has been in a US context. In the UK context, we certainly know flags are very important symbols in Northern Irish politics. For example, see:
Or just read Wikipedia's own article on the Belfast City Hall flag protests. In a GB context, flags are obviously used symbolically by parties. One reference here is:
Or consider what befell Emily Thornberry, a high-profile Labour politician in this election, a few years ago: Emily_Thornberry#White_Van_Gate.
With respect to Impru20's comments about "solitary usage", sorry, I think we're just talking at cross-purposes there. I meant that when MOS:FLAG supports flag icons, it is when a table or infobox will have several different ones, not when the table/infobox will have a solitary flag icon. Impru20 is entirely right that common practice is to use flag icons quite widely, but WP:OTHERSTUFF. The manual of style is what we're meant to follow. Impru20's use case study of "people who frequently visit a large number of election articles at once" sounds a bit odd to me. How many people do that? At once? Bondegezou ( talk) 12:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)