![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Is there any reason to have the disproportionality section, whatever that even means? Its never been done before in an election article as far as Im aware. Its pushing a point of view (theres no factual reason that the popular vote should be as close to the seats as possible; its seat based elections, not national). It also reeks of original research. I propose that it be removed.-- Metallurgist ( talk) 18:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The electoral map is wonderfully detailed and I like the new additions showing how different densely populated areas including the South Coast, Welsh Valleys and North East voted but I believe the detail may be excessive but only in the case of Belfast and Aberdeen. I don't see why only these two cities show all their component constituencies when there are other cities which arent zoomed in on which have more consituencies. Also the labels are a bit excessive especially for the Greater Manchester, Merseyside and West and South Yorkshire zoomed in bit. I know there isnt really a commonly accepted way to refer to the whole area but it's a bit of a mouthful. This might be something better for the talk page on the images. These images are wonderful but I think my proposals could improve their readability. Eopsid ( talk) 22:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Is it right to continue to describe the House of Commons as the 'Lower House'? There is nothing in any key written constitutional document to call it as such and the set-up of the houses with sobriquets such as that is part of the unwritten constitution. You could even call it the commoner's house if you want to be more explicit and accurate. By virtue of the Parliament Act 1911 (the Commons can force through legislation without Lords consent after a year or so of 'ping-pong' and the associated Salisbury Convention whereby the Lords do not even play delaying ping-pong on manifesto commitments (by convention not law); and the fact the last Prime Minister from the Lords was Lord Salisbury at the turn of the 20th century, it is wholly misleading is it not in this day and age to resort to an obscure, and indeed outmoded and totally obsolete fawning notion of the Commons being the Lower House and their lordships in someway superior!
In plain English, the Commons is the dominant or more neutrally couched to pedants, elected house (with all the weight that carries), not lower house isn't it given the above constitutional statute alone! Let's not hide behind antiquated misnomers particularly in our summary text, it is jargon, pitiful and a setback for any e.g. less advanced democracy country trying to contain the power of their unelected dignitaries! Alternatively it might be construed as a sort of thinly veiled attack on the reviewing chamber, hardly necessary and wholly wrongly put.- Adam37 Talk 19:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
317 | 10 | 7 | 12 | 35 | 262 | ||||
Conservative | D U P |
S F |
L D |
S N P |
Labour |
The above has been lovingly prepared and sits in the results section of the article. It looks great... some of the time. On a computer monitor, it's lovely. On smaller screens, it breaks. We had a lengthy discussion about this previously because the smaller party names have to be shown vertically, which looks a bit ugly, otherwise on small screens the name takes up more room than the block of colour should and exaggerates how many seats were won. The majority arrow is then in the wrong place. We have a fix there and the only problem is people keep re-breaking it wanting in good faith to make the names look nicer. However, on some mobile devices, the problem is worse and the whole thing falls apart. I've just tried on my smartphone and the majority arrow is still in completely the wrong place.
I propose we remove the bar. We cannot have the article displaying incorrect information. If there's some way to fix the bar so it will work on smaller screens, let's implement it. Until then, it's wrong and should go. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
317 | 36 | 35 | 262 |
Conservative | Oth | SNP | Labour |
317 | 19 | 12 | 35 | 262 |
Conservative | Oth | LD | SNP | Labour |
317 | 10 | 14 | 12 | 35 | 262 |
Conservative | DUP | Oth | LD | SNP | Labour |
317 | 10 | 14 | 12 | 35 | 262 |
Conservative | DUP | Oth | LD | SNP | Labour |
Ipsos MORI's report on how Britain voted: very useful material for the article. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Should we begin work on a table for voter demographics like in the 2015 election article? YouGov have already realised an analysis. CorrectiveMeasures ( talk) 21:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Are there any sources on a difference between the number of electors and those registered to vote? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 08:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Its is very clear not one single ref matches any others, Its no good have incorrect details. I suggest we either find a proper ref that match up with others OR wait for the electoral commission report. -- Crazyseiko ( talk) 23:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
From the infobox (for the three biggest parties)
Swing Increase 5.5 pp Increase 9.6 pp Decrease 1.7 pp
Surely a swing is measured as a percentage (%) and a change in percentage (from the previous election, natch) is measured in percentage points (pp)? Or so my memory of reading about psephology is telling me, anyway. Harfarhs ( talk) 19:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Note to discussants Bondegezou is will not listen to any reason, and therefore will override everyone who disagrees with their opinion. To avoid an unproductive discussion, do not engage said user. 87.117.199.189 ( talk) 21:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I've amended the Conservative seat total to 317 in the infobox, since the Speaker John Bercow does not stand as a Conservative. This is explained in a note in the infobox. Meesher ( talk) 06:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
This is rather silly in the SUMMARY STATS, since you now have complicated a simple table with an asterisk and a footnote for no good reason. Traditionally the Speaker's constituency is counted as a hold (or loss) for the previous election result where Party affiliation was declared. John Bercow won Buckingham as a Tory candidate in 2010, and his subsequent wins are, for well-established traditional reasons counted as a Conservative HOLD by all major media outlets (BBC, Guardian etc etc)
The place for highlighting this one vote quirk is not in a table of basic summary stats.
Something that might be of interest to those watching this page: all official MP portraits are licensed as {{ cc-by-3.0}}; you can find them here. If someone has the time, it might be uploading some to Commons, especially for those MPs who don't currently have a portrait in their article. Mélencron ( talk) 15:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Can somebody put all the parties votes in the election results. Torygreen84 ( talk) 14:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
A user just undid the Corbyn picture change on the basis that "a picture from before the election is preferable". I have never heard this reason before, but for the record, Corbyn's official portrait was taken in June 2017 and the election was in June 2017. The gap between the election and his photo was a handful of days. The portrait is the only freely available, full-face, high quality picture of Jeremy Corbyn and there is a consensus on the Corbyn article talk page that this picture is preferable. To insist upon the use of a poor-quality photo instead of the high-quality portrait, simply because the portrait is a few days after the election, seems really unnecessary. There has been no change in his appearance between June 8th and the taking of that photo. He looks exactly the same. FriendlyDataNerdV2 ( talk) 17:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I find these GE pages very odd - so much prominence given to polls and debates and less to the actual result. The balance is not right. The result is the most important element of all and should be high in the article. I have to scroll 2/3rds of the way down to find out how many votes were cast for each party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.250.10 ( talk) 11:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I have finally found the time to go through and put the results into a proper table of results, just as has been done with 2015, 2010, 2005, 2001 etc (all the way back to 1832). This took a lot of effort and simply involves bringing the 2017 article in line with all other previous UK election articles. It now shows the gains, losses and net results, and includes parties who had been left out of the original table despite polling higher than parties that were included.
I have also separated out the Green parties in the UK. They are different organisations and hold different views and should not, technically speaking, be grouped together. They certainly shouldn't be grouped together as being led solely by Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley as they aren't. Anyway, hope my edit helps. FriendlyDataNerdV2 ( talk) 22:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I suggest, we move it to its own page. -- Crazyseiko ( talk) 00:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom general election, 2017. 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) 04:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Which of the following is a more appropriate layout for the Members of Parliament section of a constituency seat:
1)
Election | Member [1] | Party | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|
2005 | Sandra Osborne | Labour | Previously MP for Ayr | |
2015 | Corri Wilson | Scottish National Party | ||
2017 | Bill Grant | Conservative |
2)
Election | Member [1] | Party | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|
2005 | constituency created, see Ayr and Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley | |||
2005 | Sandra Osborne | Labour | Previously MP for Ayr | |
2010 | ||||
2015 | Corri Wilson | Scottish National Party | ||
2017 | Bill Grant | Conservative |
Also is commentary of election results (such as "________ was the third most marginal seat in Scotland") generally acceptable or unacceptable? Are pictures of candidates and election results being declared acceptable or not?
Cheers, Brythones ( talk) 16:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
A very similar discussion is currently taking place
here and to avoid duplication and for a more comprehensive discussion please contribute there not here.
Sport and politics (
talk)
17:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
References
I think the article could mention how many (and which) of the 650 constituencies that were won by a majority of voters. (majority = more than half, not "most"). I couldn't find any such information in this article nor in the "650 constituencies"- link.
Boeing720 (
talk)
00:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
The map on the page marks the constituency of Ashfield as Conservative, when that is not the case (although it nearly was). It appears also to marked in blue on the 2010 and 2015 maps accidentally, perhaps the constituency was confused with one of a number of neighbouring Conservative seats. Can this be corrected? 86.19.130.219 ( talk) 18:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I've added a section on media coverage of the election. There are lots of reliable sources on it and, as the media is considered to be 'importan[t] to democratic life' ( IPPR report [2015], p. 30) and 'essential to democracy, and a democratic election is impossible without media' ( ACE encyclopedia entry ' Media and elections'), I thought it would make a useful, interesting and important addition. I've also added two tables in the Endorsements section. The tables -- on which parties the main daily and Sunday newspapers endorsed -- are taken from the main article on endorsements during this election campaign. I've included them here because (1.), considering the importance of the media in democracy and the elections, I thought this would be useful and important to include directly in this article; and (2.), in my opinion, it makes the main part of the other article more readily available (whilst providing extra detail if people want to click through to the full article on endorsements), which makes this article read more easily without having to go to a different article (this is following the precedent of other sections of this article, which link to another, main article of the topic but also provide an overview/the most pertinent information: e.g., the sections on Candidates, Scottish independence and the future of the UK, Seats which changed allegiance, and Opinion polling). I hope these decisions and edits are OK. -- Woofboy ( talk) 23:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The 2017 election is considered to be the first UK election in which social media made a decisive impact (see, e.g., D. Lilleker, 'Like me, share me: the people’s social media campaign' in UK Election Analysis 2017: Media, Voters and the Campaign (The Centre for the Study of Journalism, Culture and Community, Bournemouth University, June 2017) -- an others in that report). It would be good to see information included in this article about the parties' use of social media in their campaigning, and about the public's use of social media, too. -- Woofboy ( talk) 23:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
In the section on media coverage -- specifically, the part listing which newspapers endorsed which party -- I've edited the list of newspapers so that related papers share the conjunction and as an ampersand: i.e., 'In editorials, The Sun & The Sun on Sunday, the Daily Mail & The Mail on Sunday, the Daily Express & Sunday Express, The Times & The Sunday Times, and The Daily Telegraph & The Sunday Telegraph endorsed the Conservatives while the Daily Mirror & Sunday Mirror and The Guardian endorsed Labour'. I hope this aids reading. (This is following grammar guides like Clark & Pointon, The Routledge Student Guide to English Usage (2016): see its entry on 'and, ampersand'.) -- Woofboy ( talk) 17:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
There are two problems with this:
a) The first table, naming all the parties involved, surely has the wrong title. It certainly doesn't make sense to me.
b) The data for that table doesn't appear to be accessible though editing - perhaps it has been imported from elsewhere? I wanted to make a change: the name Eamonn McCann (as leader of People Before Profit) ought to be wikilinked, as here. Harfarhs ( talk) 02:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
BitterGiant, may I ask why you have reverted without any explanation? MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is pretty clear: we shouldn't have flag icons in an infobox, certainly not in this sort of situation. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. In this "sort of situation", they are useful not just to help differentiate between countries or between regions within the same country, but also between different political regimes within a given country (obviously, this is my opinion. Others may differ, but this shows that this is not a "MOSINFOBOXFLAG forbids use of flag 100%" issue). Possibly, this would be even more useful if, aside from the flag, it provided a link of some sort to the main article in question (be it "[Place]" or "Elections in [place]" or whatever). However, as of lately I'm getting suprised (and concerned) that some discussions at Talk:Next United Kingdom general election have to (seemingly) result in massive changes across Wikipedia just because some people there don't like how the local infobox is set up there. Certainly, while one can be bold, changes of this kind of nature would require a much more throughout discussion and consensus before being carried out unilaterally. Impru20 talk 12:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@ BitterGiant: Note that there seems to be a more centralized discussion (probably the better place since this has spread to too many articles already...) at the relevant template talk page; here. 107.190.33.254 ( talk) 13:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
So why are the Northern Ireland party's visible in the six panels about the vote rather than UKIP? Ender's Shadow Snr ( talk) 08:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Where are the votes for the Scottish Greens tallied in the results table? -- Kaihsu ( talk) 12:51, 1 November 2019 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Is there any reason to have the disproportionality section, whatever that even means? Its never been done before in an election article as far as Im aware. Its pushing a point of view (theres no factual reason that the popular vote should be as close to the seats as possible; its seat based elections, not national). It also reeks of original research. I propose that it be removed.-- Metallurgist ( talk) 18:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The electoral map is wonderfully detailed and I like the new additions showing how different densely populated areas including the South Coast, Welsh Valleys and North East voted but I believe the detail may be excessive but only in the case of Belfast and Aberdeen. I don't see why only these two cities show all their component constituencies when there are other cities which arent zoomed in on which have more consituencies. Also the labels are a bit excessive especially for the Greater Manchester, Merseyside and West and South Yorkshire zoomed in bit. I know there isnt really a commonly accepted way to refer to the whole area but it's a bit of a mouthful. This might be something better for the talk page on the images. These images are wonderful but I think my proposals could improve their readability. Eopsid ( talk) 22:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Is it right to continue to describe the House of Commons as the 'Lower House'? There is nothing in any key written constitutional document to call it as such and the set-up of the houses with sobriquets such as that is part of the unwritten constitution. You could even call it the commoner's house if you want to be more explicit and accurate. By virtue of the Parliament Act 1911 (the Commons can force through legislation without Lords consent after a year or so of 'ping-pong' and the associated Salisbury Convention whereby the Lords do not even play delaying ping-pong on manifesto commitments (by convention not law); and the fact the last Prime Minister from the Lords was Lord Salisbury at the turn of the 20th century, it is wholly misleading is it not in this day and age to resort to an obscure, and indeed outmoded and totally obsolete fawning notion of the Commons being the Lower House and their lordships in someway superior!
In plain English, the Commons is the dominant or more neutrally couched to pedants, elected house (with all the weight that carries), not lower house isn't it given the above constitutional statute alone! Let's not hide behind antiquated misnomers particularly in our summary text, it is jargon, pitiful and a setback for any e.g. less advanced democracy country trying to contain the power of their unelected dignitaries! Alternatively it might be construed as a sort of thinly veiled attack on the reviewing chamber, hardly necessary and wholly wrongly put.- Adam37 Talk 19:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
317 | 10 | 7 | 12 | 35 | 262 | ||||
Conservative | D U P |
S F |
L D |
S N P |
Labour |
The above has been lovingly prepared and sits in the results section of the article. It looks great... some of the time. On a computer monitor, it's lovely. On smaller screens, it breaks. We had a lengthy discussion about this previously because the smaller party names have to be shown vertically, which looks a bit ugly, otherwise on small screens the name takes up more room than the block of colour should and exaggerates how many seats were won. The majority arrow is then in the wrong place. We have a fix there and the only problem is people keep re-breaking it wanting in good faith to make the names look nicer. However, on some mobile devices, the problem is worse and the whole thing falls apart. I've just tried on my smartphone and the majority arrow is still in completely the wrong place.
I propose we remove the bar. We cannot have the article displaying incorrect information. If there's some way to fix the bar so it will work on smaller screens, let's implement it. Until then, it's wrong and should go. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
317 | 36 | 35 | 262 |
Conservative | Oth | SNP | Labour |
317 | 19 | 12 | 35 | 262 |
Conservative | Oth | LD | SNP | Labour |
317 | 10 | 14 | 12 | 35 | 262 |
Conservative | DUP | Oth | LD | SNP | Labour |
317 | 10 | 14 | 12 | 35 | 262 |
Conservative | DUP | Oth | LD | SNP | Labour |
Ipsos MORI's report on how Britain voted: very useful material for the article. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Should we begin work on a table for voter demographics like in the 2015 election article? YouGov have already realised an analysis. CorrectiveMeasures ( talk) 21:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Are there any sources on a difference between the number of electors and those registered to vote? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 08:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Its is very clear not one single ref matches any others, Its no good have incorrect details. I suggest we either find a proper ref that match up with others OR wait for the electoral commission report. -- Crazyseiko ( talk) 23:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
From the infobox (for the three biggest parties)
Swing Increase 5.5 pp Increase 9.6 pp Decrease 1.7 pp
Surely a swing is measured as a percentage (%) and a change in percentage (from the previous election, natch) is measured in percentage points (pp)? Or so my memory of reading about psephology is telling me, anyway. Harfarhs ( talk) 19:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Note to discussants Bondegezou is will not listen to any reason, and therefore will override everyone who disagrees with their opinion. To avoid an unproductive discussion, do not engage said user. 87.117.199.189 ( talk) 21:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I've amended the Conservative seat total to 317 in the infobox, since the Speaker John Bercow does not stand as a Conservative. This is explained in a note in the infobox. Meesher ( talk) 06:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
This is rather silly in the SUMMARY STATS, since you now have complicated a simple table with an asterisk and a footnote for no good reason. Traditionally the Speaker's constituency is counted as a hold (or loss) for the previous election result where Party affiliation was declared. John Bercow won Buckingham as a Tory candidate in 2010, and his subsequent wins are, for well-established traditional reasons counted as a Conservative HOLD by all major media outlets (BBC, Guardian etc etc)
The place for highlighting this one vote quirk is not in a table of basic summary stats.
Something that might be of interest to those watching this page: all official MP portraits are licensed as {{ cc-by-3.0}}; you can find them here. If someone has the time, it might be uploading some to Commons, especially for those MPs who don't currently have a portrait in their article. Mélencron ( talk) 15:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Can somebody put all the parties votes in the election results. Torygreen84 ( talk) 14:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
A user just undid the Corbyn picture change on the basis that "a picture from before the election is preferable". I have never heard this reason before, but for the record, Corbyn's official portrait was taken in June 2017 and the election was in June 2017. The gap between the election and his photo was a handful of days. The portrait is the only freely available, full-face, high quality picture of Jeremy Corbyn and there is a consensus on the Corbyn article talk page that this picture is preferable. To insist upon the use of a poor-quality photo instead of the high-quality portrait, simply because the portrait is a few days after the election, seems really unnecessary. There has been no change in his appearance between June 8th and the taking of that photo. He looks exactly the same. FriendlyDataNerdV2 ( talk) 17:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I find these GE pages very odd - so much prominence given to polls and debates and less to the actual result. The balance is not right. The result is the most important element of all and should be high in the article. I have to scroll 2/3rds of the way down to find out how many votes were cast for each party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.250.10 ( talk) 11:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I have finally found the time to go through and put the results into a proper table of results, just as has been done with 2015, 2010, 2005, 2001 etc (all the way back to 1832). This took a lot of effort and simply involves bringing the 2017 article in line with all other previous UK election articles. It now shows the gains, losses and net results, and includes parties who had been left out of the original table despite polling higher than parties that were included.
I have also separated out the Green parties in the UK. They are different organisations and hold different views and should not, technically speaking, be grouped together. They certainly shouldn't be grouped together as being led solely by Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley as they aren't. Anyway, hope my edit helps. FriendlyDataNerdV2 ( talk) 22:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I suggest, we move it to its own page. -- Crazyseiko ( talk) 00:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom general election, 2017. 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) 04:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Which of the following is a more appropriate layout for the Members of Parliament section of a constituency seat:
1)
Election | Member [1] | Party | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|
2005 | Sandra Osborne | Labour | Previously MP for Ayr | |
2015 | Corri Wilson | Scottish National Party | ||
2017 | Bill Grant | Conservative |
2)
Election | Member [1] | Party | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|
2005 | constituency created, see Ayr and Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley | |||
2005 | Sandra Osborne | Labour | Previously MP for Ayr | |
2010 | ||||
2015 | Corri Wilson | Scottish National Party | ||
2017 | Bill Grant | Conservative |
Also is commentary of election results (such as "________ was the third most marginal seat in Scotland") generally acceptable or unacceptable? Are pictures of candidates and election results being declared acceptable or not?
Cheers, Brythones ( talk) 16:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
A very similar discussion is currently taking place
here and to avoid duplication and for a more comprehensive discussion please contribute there not here.
Sport and politics (
talk)
17:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
References
I think the article could mention how many (and which) of the 650 constituencies that were won by a majority of voters. (majority = more than half, not "most"). I couldn't find any such information in this article nor in the "650 constituencies"- link.
Boeing720 (
talk)
00:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
The map on the page marks the constituency of Ashfield as Conservative, when that is not the case (although it nearly was). It appears also to marked in blue on the 2010 and 2015 maps accidentally, perhaps the constituency was confused with one of a number of neighbouring Conservative seats. Can this be corrected? 86.19.130.219 ( talk) 18:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I've added a section on media coverage of the election. There are lots of reliable sources on it and, as the media is considered to be 'importan[t] to democratic life' ( IPPR report [2015], p. 30) and 'essential to democracy, and a democratic election is impossible without media' ( ACE encyclopedia entry ' Media and elections'), I thought it would make a useful, interesting and important addition. I've also added two tables in the Endorsements section. The tables -- on which parties the main daily and Sunday newspapers endorsed -- are taken from the main article on endorsements during this election campaign. I've included them here because (1.), considering the importance of the media in democracy and the elections, I thought this would be useful and important to include directly in this article; and (2.), in my opinion, it makes the main part of the other article more readily available (whilst providing extra detail if people want to click through to the full article on endorsements), which makes this article read more easily without having to go to a different article (this is following the precedent of other sections of this article, which link to another, main article of the topic but also provide an overview/the most pertinent information: e.g., the sections on Candidates, Scottish independence and the future of the UK, Seats which changed allegiance, and Opinion polling). I hope these decisions and edits are OK. -- Woofboy ( talk) 23:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The 2017 election is considered to be the first UK election in which social media made a decisive impact (see, e.g., D. Lilleker, 'Like me, share me: the people’s social media campaign' in UK Election Analysis 2017: Media, Voters and the Campaign (The Centre for the Study of Journalism, Culture and Community, Bournemouth University, June 2017) -- an others in that report). It would be good to see information included in this article about the parties' use of social media in their campaigning, and about the public's use of social media, too. -- Woofboy ( talk) 23:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
In the section on media coverage -- specifically, the part listing which newspapers endorsed which party -- I've edited the list of newspapers so that related papers share the conjunction and as an ampersand: i.e., 'In editorials, The Sun & The Sun on Sunday, the Daily Mail & The Mail on Sunday, the Daily Express & Sunday Express, The Times & The Sunday Times, and The Daily Telegraph & The Sunday Telegraph endorsed the Conservatives while the Daily Mirror & Sunday Mirror and The Guardian endorsed Labour'. I hope this aids reading. (This is following grammar guides like Clark & Pointon, The Routledge Student Guide to English Usage (2016): see its entry on 'and, ampersand'.) -- Woofboy ( talk) 17:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
There are two problems with this:
a) The first table, naming all the parties involved, surely has the wrong title. It certainly doesn't make sense to me.
b) The data for that table doesn't appear to be accessible though editing - perhaps it has been imported from elsewhere? I wanted to make a change: the name Eamonn McCann (as leader of People Before Profit) ought to be wikilinked, as here. Harfarhs ( talk) 02:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
BitterGiant, may I ask why you have reverted without any explanation? MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is pretty clear: we shouldn't have flag icons in an infobox, certainly not in this sort of situation. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. In this "sort of situation", they are useful not just to help differentiate between countries or between regions within the same country, but also between different political regimes within a given country (obviously, this is my opinion. Others may differ, but this shows that this is not a "MOSINFOBOXFLAG forbids use of flag 100%" issue). Possibly, this would be even more useful if, aside from the flag, it provided a link of some sort to the main article in question (be it "[Place]" or "Elections in [place]" or whatever). However, as of lately I'm getting suprised (and concerned) that some discussions at Talk:Next United Kingdom general election have to (seemingly) result in massive changes across Wikipedia just because some people there don't like how the local infobox is set up there. Certainly, while one can be bold, changes of this kind of nature would require a much more throughout discussion and consensus before being carried out unilaterally. Impru20 talk 12:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@ BitterGiant: Note that there seems to be a more centralized discussion (probably the better place since this has spread to too many articles already...) at the relevant template talk page; here. 107.190.33.254 ( talk) 13:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
So why are the Northern Ireland party's visible in the six panels about the vote rather than UKIP? Ender's Shadow Snr ( talk) 08:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Where are the votes for the Scottish Greens tallied in the results table? -- Kaihsu ( talk) 12:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)