![]() | 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 |
It is very easy to find sources that state 326 as the number of seats to get a majority. Unfortunately, it is not true: this is simply lazy journalism, based on half of 650+1. Given that the speaker does not vote, 325 would beat 324, and given that Sinn Féin will win, but not occupy, a number of seats, about 322 will yield a majority. But we don't know exactly how many seats that will be, so we don't have an accurate, confident number that can be given as a requirement for a majority, so we shouldn't pretend that we can. Kevin McE ( talk) 11:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Erm, I agree with many of the arguments above, but they're all irrelevant. We only care what WP:RS say. And if they majorly conflict, we should report that too. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 15:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
As long as there's 650 seats in the House, then a majority is 326. We only need to add a note to 326, explaining anything further. GoodDay ( talk) 22:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Notes
Jopal22, it was Farage who linked the two in his comments, and the citation given does the same, so I think we're safe in following the RS. Bondegezou ( talk) 15:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to whoever put together the "Constituencies where the Unite to Remain pact is active. Colored by which party will stand a candidate" map. Can I suggest it would be much more useful if this was done using "File:2019 UK general election constituency map.svg" as the base map? It is very hard to see some of the smaller constituencies (e.g. Bristol). I would do it myself, but have not been involved in developing these maps before. Just a suggestion. Jopal22 ( talk) 20:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
According to UKIP twitter they are not putting forward any candidates at the next election, is it worth mentioning this in the article. Also some constituency pages such as the Southampton Itchen page still list a UKIP candidate, I propose removing these as they are not going to be standing. C. 22468 Talk to me 00:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Its quite a common feature of election articles for other countries (if not most developed articles) to include the ideologies of each party. What do people think? Jonjonjohny ( talk) 16:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I have created an preliminary table for the Great Britain Section:
Party | Party leader(s) | Leader since | Leader's seat | Ideology | Position on the European Union | Last election | Current seats |
Notes | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
% of votes |
Seats | ||||||||||
Conservative Party | Boris Johnson | July 2019 | Uxbridge & South Ruislip |
Conservatism
[1]
[2] Economic liberalism [2] Euroscepticism [3] |
In favour of a deal to leave on the deadline (31 October 2019), However if no deal is secured then the country will leave without a deal. [4] | 42.4% | 317 | 288 | - | ||
Labour Party | Jeremy Corbyn | September 2015 | Islington North |
Social Democracy Democratic Socialism [5] |
Wishes to renegiotiate a deal with the European Union, then put that deal do a second referendum against a remain option. Prior to the referendum campaign, the party plans to host a special one-day conference to chose a position within the referendum. [6] [7] | 40.0% | 262 | 247 | |||
Scottish National Party | Nicola Sturgeon | November 2014 | None [n 1] |
Social Democracy, Scottish Independence, Pro-Europeanism [4] [8] |
Supports a second referendum, in which the party would support remaining. [4] | 3.0% | 35 | 35 | Only contests seats in Scotland | ||
Liberal Democrats | Jo Swinson | July 2019 | East Dunbartonshire |
Social Liberalism,
[9]
[10] Pro-Europeanism [4] |
Supports a second referendum, in which the party would support remaining. However should the party win a majority, they would revoke Article 50. [11] | 7.4% | 12 | 18 | |||
Plaid Cymru | Adam Price | September 2018 | None [n 2] |
Social Democracy, Welsh Independence, Pro-Europeanism [4] |
Supports a second referendum, in which the party would support remaining. [4] | 0.5% | 4 | 4 | Only contests seats in Wales | ||
Green Party of England and Wales |
Jonathan Bartley Siân Berry |
September 2016 September 2018 |
None [n 3] |
Eco-socialist,
[12] Pro-Europeanism [4] |
Supports a second referendum, in which the party would support remaining. [4] | 1.6% | 1 | 1 | Only contests seats in England and Wales | - | |
Brexit Party | Nigel Farage | March 2019 | No seat |
Right-wing populism,
[13]
[14] Hard-Euroscepticism [8] |
Supports leaving the European Union with no deal [14] | Did not contest | 0 | 0 | - |
Conservatives position will change rapidly over the next month, however I felt this was the most neutral. I struggled to find ideology defined for everything, the separatist parties were a rough outline that still need sources for their social democracy. The GPE&W source is a bit old but two others ( [3], [4]) do not use the exact word Eco-socialist, however do describe their policies as left-wing and socialist (whilst obviously mentioning ecology). Should we include a "political position" section? Should we include a picture of each leader? Should we remove the notes section? Jonjonjohny ( talk) 04:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The table above look very good. I support its addition to the article. --
Aréat (
talk)
10:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Party | Party leader(s) | Ideology | Position on the European Union | Last election | Current seats | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
% of votes |
Seats | |||||||
Conservative Party | Boris Johnson |
![]() |
Conservatism
[15]
[2] Economic liberalism [2] Euroscepticism [16] |
In favour of a deal to leave on the deadline (31 October 2019), However if no deal is secured then the country will leave without a deal. [4] | 42.4% | 317 | 288 | |
Labour Party | Jeremy Corbyn |
![]() |
Social Democracy Democratic Socialism [17] |
Wishes to renegiotiate a deal with the European Union, then put that deal do a second referendum with a remain option. Prior to the referendum campaign, the party plans to host a special one-day conference to chose a position within the referendum. [18] [19] | 40.0% | 262 | 247 | |
Scottish National Party | Nicola Sturgeon |
![]() |
Social Democracy, Scottish Independence, Pro-Europeanism [4] [8] |
Supports a second referendum, in which the party would support remaining. [4] | 3.0% | 35 | 35 | |
Liberal Democrats | Jo Swinson |
![]() |
Social Liberalism,
[20]
[21] Pro-Europeanism [4] |
Supports a second referendum, in which the party would support remaining. However should the party win a majority, they would revoke Article 50. [22] | 7.4% | 12 | 18 | |
Plaid Cymru | Adam Price |
![]() |
Social Democracy, Welsh Independence, Pro-Europeanism [4] |
Supports a second referendum, in which the party would support remaining. [4] | 0.5% | 4 | 4 | |
Green Party of England and Wales |
Jonathan Bartley Siân Berry |
![]() |
Eco-socialist,
[23] Pro-Europeanism [4] |
Supports a second referendum, in which the party would support remaining. [4] | 1.6% | 1 | 1 | |
Brexit Party | Nigel Farage |
![]() |
Right-wing populism,
[24]
[14] Hard-Euroscepticism [8] |
Supports leaving the European Union with no deal [14] | Did not contest | 0 | 0 |
What do people think about this one? It could easily be replicated for the NI parties Jonjonjohny ( talk) 09:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
So, it seem to me we could add it.-- Aréat ( talk) 17:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I do not think you should be using ideologies that are different from the individual articles of the parties. Framing an ideology is often contentious and changing it for this article risks rehashing discussions already made on each individual talk page. Jopal22 ( talk) 10:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
References
I don’t think we should use a poll accused of being biased. Also despite this poll being from a trusted source, YouGov, many other trusted polls with much larger sample sizes and more appropriate sample (the undecided for example) suggest the public opinion is that Corbyn won. JamesVilla44 ( talk) 20:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
We could just not have a poll to avoid debate and bad feeling JamesVilla44 ( talk) 20:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I understand but I would prefer we don’t have a poll unless it has a certain sample size and variety of sample. (E.g. Includes Tory voters, Labour voters, undecided etc.) JamesVilla44 ( talk) 20:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer we don’t have a poll after a debate as I don’t think it tells us anything really either. An encyclopaedia shouldn’t be viewed as potentially biased. It would be better to exclude a poll. I don’t think it’s needed or appropriate. Could you provide me some evidence that a poll is necessary enough to be required and used? For one debate? JamesVilla44 ( talk) 20:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC) @ Bondegezou: We didn’t have debate polls for 2017. Why this time? JamesVilla44 ( talk) 20:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok I will wait for a consensus. I disagree but I will follow what the consensus is JamesVilla44 ( talk) 20:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Just a note:
a) It's perfectly reasonable to alter citations so that the name of a source does not appear in italics unless it would be routinely italicized in WP. To do otherwise would be to introduce, or allow, unnecessary confusion. Hence 'work=BBC News' altered to 'publisher=', because BBC News is not italicized.
b) Political parties are corporate bodies, and therefore ought to be referred to in the singular unless this would make phrasing impossibly awkward. Harfarhs ( talk) 20:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I take it we can bring this back again for this page? -- Crazyseiko ( talk) 21:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The following are some of the site that have them in mid nov:
Is there any new ones? Can we take Twitter accounts that have big following and website?-- Crazyseiko ( talk) 18:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
These two are new.
I would suggest the following
Bondegezou Isn't happy that for a 3rd time in row for the elections these have come back, he already removed the box once, @ CarlDurose, Neegzistuoja, Nevermore27, The wub, K347, EddieHugh, FriendlyDataNerdV2, Jazdisney, CarlDurose, Rami R, The joy of all things, and To agree to use thus again.:
Once again Bondegezou Isn't happy, and were still none the wiser as to what the problem is. We have no consensus to doing this, yet it happened on the 2015 and 2017 page. Is that not consensus? if were already doing this? He then changes his mind and New statesman site has no consensus even thought there were included in 2015 and 2017 page. Now does anyone have any real objections to repeating this again? @ CarlDurose, Neegzistuoja, Nevermore27, The wub, K347, EddieHugh, FriendlyDataNerdV2, Jazdisney, CarlDurose, Rami R, The joy of all things, Unreal7, GoodDay, GreyGreenWhy, Aréat, and Bonusballs:-- Crazyseiko ( talk) 15:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Why is it we use Mary Lou McDonald in the infobox for Sinn Féin when she is from the Republic of Ireland, which is not a member of the United Kingdom? The Republic of Ireland does not have seats in British parliament, and the only seats that Sinn Féin are contesting are in Northern Ireland. Michelle O'Neill is the leader of Sinn Féin for Northern Ireland, and she is displayed as party leader in Northern Irish election articles like 2017 Northern Ireland Assembly election, so why should it be different here? { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Lib Dems are styling themselves as "Liberal Democrats - To stop Brexit" on ballot papers this time. We have the template system so have to use "Liberal Democrats". Should we not show the name on the ballot paper? https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/Documents/Democracy/Representation/Elections/SoPNNOPPoplarLimehouse.pdf Jopal22 ( talk) 08:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I noticed while browsing the article that the template at the bottom of the page had a link to the 2017 election but the 2017 template did not have one back. So I've added links to 2019 from 2017 and from 2019 to the next election. On checking the 2015 page I noticed it also only had a link for 2010 (so I added one for 2017) which prompted me to post here. I'm almost certain that this is just forgotten about after an election has happened but if there is a convention only to link to the previous election, please feel free to revert my changes but if you could point me to where this is said - that would be great! I also checked 2010 but it had neither so I left it. Mindi Crayon ( talk) 19:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I am concerned this section is all using WP:PRIMARY sources. What justification do we have to include these particular models (and not others)? Where's the evidence that they are reliable sources? Bondegezou ( talk) 13:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
This is what a seat projection looks like when it's established due weight. That's what we should include, rather than Twitter accounts. Ralbegen ( talk) 22:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Here is that new one from tomorrow, However New statesman britain elects has not turned up.
Parties | Electoral Calculus
[1]
[2] as of 27 November 2019 |
Elections etc
[3] as of 27 November 2019 |
Britain elects
[4] as of 27 November 2019 |
YOu Gov
[5]
[6] as of 27 November 2019 |
Parallel Parliament
[7] as of 27 November 2019 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservatives | 342
|
353
|
359
|
351
| ||
Labour Party | 225 | 209 | 211 | 206 | ||
SNP | 41 | 44 | 43 | 45 | ||
Liberal Democrats | 19 | 23 | 13 | 22 | ||
Plaid Cymru | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
Green Party | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Brexit Party | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Others | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | |
Overall result (probability) | Conservative majority |
Conservative majority |
Conservative majority |
Conservative majority |
Conservative majority |
References
Given the timing of this election, some venues normally used as polling stations are not available, leading to some unusual venues being chosen. An example of this is Thelnetham Windmill, which is standing in for the Village Hall. There are likely to be many other examples. Would the article benefit from a section detailing these venues? Mjroots ( talk) 12:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Only 850.000 people tuned in
62.226.77.113 ( talk) 19:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure the election predictions are being updated carefully enough, and the references used are often out of date so there is no way to check. The number of seats should add to 650 unless rounding is used (elections etc only). I corrected YouGov, where the 1 independent wasn't being added to the 18 NI in other. The Parallel Parliament is three seats short. Looking at the current projection it has the speaker separately , and one independent winning , so i think these are 2 of the missing seats. Is there a way to ensure there are sustainable links to the numbers input? Jopal22 ( talk) 19:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@ OrkneyLad1996: @ Bondegezou:
A brief return to a subject matter we occasionally find ourselves discussing during election times. I remember that some time ago we decided that using ''No description'' in election boxes would reflect the SOPN in those instances where a candidate has used neither a registered party name or the word independent. Recent discussions have changed that view, to using an actual blank box (you can see in my recent contributions examples of this). I am happy using either but thought that making a wider audience aware that there could soon be a wide editing decision made useful. doktorb words deeds 09:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Are the following notable enough to add additional text in the article:
The Labour Party suggested that a dossier detailing meetings between members of the May Government and American counterparts provided 'evidence that under Boris Johnson the NHS is on the table and will be up for sale.' A background note in the documents said that ' "NHS access to generic drugs will be a key consideration" in talks with US officials pushing hard for longer patents.'
The Conservatives criticised Labour for insinuating that the documents suggest that the NHS would form part of future trade talks with the US. Boris Johnson described the claims as 'total nonsense', saying 'that will not happen under this Government or any Conservative Government.'
Jopal22 ( talk) 11:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Conservatives is losing in opinion polls, but this is not a reason to delete official Labour party promise for 4 day week(32 hours) instead of current "5 day" and full payment for it. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.30.51.187 ( talk) 10:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
It will be of course interesting to see a debate about it with all other competing parties, but sadly debates are about things like a climate - which despite media coverage is less directly affecting(at least now) live of average British citizen than how much hours he have to work. For further reading - read for example the article and books cited there and there. Read also History_of_labour_law_in_the_United_Kingdom(especially XIX century), and Factory Acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.30.55.17 ( talk) 19:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Cite error: There are <ref group=n>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=n}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | 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 |
It is very easy to find sources that state 326 as the number of seats to get a majority. Unfortunately, it is not true: this is simply lazy journalism, based on half of 650+1. Given that the speaker does not vote, 325 would beat 324, and given that Sinn Féin will win, but not occupy, a number of seats, about 322 will yield a majority. But we don't know exactly how many seats that will be, so we don't have an accurate, confident number that can be given as a requirement for a majority, so we shouldn't pretend that we can. Kevin McE ( talk) 11:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Erm, I agree with many of the arguments above, but they're all irrelevant. We only care what WP:RS say. And if they majorly conflict, we should report that too. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 15:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
As long as there's 650 seats in the House, then a majority is 326. We only need to add a note to 326, explaining anything further. GoodDay ( talk) 22:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Notes
Jopal22, it was Farage who linked the two in his comments, and the citation given does the same, so I think we're safe in following the RS. Bondegezou ( talk) 15:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to whoever put together the "Constituencies where the Unite to Remain pact is active. Colored by which party will stand a candidate" map. Can I suggest it would be much more useful if this was done using "File:2019 UK general election constituency map.svg" as the base map? It is very hard to see some of the smaller constituencies (e.g. Bristol). I would do it myself, but have not been involved in developing these maps before. Just a suggestion. Jopal22 ( talk) 20:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
According to UKIP twitter they are not putting forward any candidates at the next election, is it worth mentioning this in the article. Also some constituency pages such as the Southampton Itchen page still list a UKIP candidate, I propose removing these as they are not going to be standing. C. 22468 Talk to me 00:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Its quite a common feature of election articles for other countries (if not most developed articles) to include the ideologies of each party. What do people think? Jonjonjohny ( talk) 16:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I have created an preliminary table for the Great Britain Section:
Party | Party leader(s) | Leader since | Leader's seat | Ideology | Position on the European Union | Last election | Current seats |
Notes | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
% of votes |
Seats | ||||||||||
Conservative Party | Boris Johnson | July 2019 | Uxbridge & South Ruislip |
Conservatism
[1]
[2] Economic liberalism [2] Euroscepticism [3] |
In favour of a deal to leave on the deadline (31 October 2019), However if no deal is secured then the country will leave without a deal. [4] | 42.4% | 317 | 288 | - | ||
Labour Party | Jeremy Corbyn | September 2015 | Islington North |
Social Democracy Democratic Socialism [5] |
Wishes to renegiotiate a deal with the European Union, then put that deal do a second referendum against a remain option. Prior to the referendum campaign, the party plans to host a special one-day conference to chose a position within the referendum. [6] [7] | 40.0% | 262 | 247 | |||
Scottish National Party | Nicola Sturgeon | November 2014 | None [n 1] |
Social Democracy, Scottish Independence, Pro-Europeanism [4] [8] |
Supports a second referendum, in which the party would support remaining. [4] | 3.0% | 35 | 35 | Only contests seats in Scotland | ||
Liberal Democrats | Jo Swinson | July 2019 | East Dunbartonshire |
Social Liberalism,
[9]
[10] Pro-Europeanism [4] |
Supports a second referendum, in which the party would support remaining. However should the party win a majority, they would revoke Article 50. [11] | 7.4% | 12 | 18 | |||
Plaid Cymru | Adam Price | September 2018 | None [n 2] |
Social Democracy, Welsh Independence, Pro-Europeanism [4] |
Supports a second referendum, in which the party would support remaining. [4] | 0.5% | 4 | 4 | Only contests seats in Wales | ||
Green Party of England and Wales |
Jonathan Bartley Siân Berry |
September 2016 September 2018 |
None [n 3] |
Eco-socialist,
[12] Pro-Europeanism [4] |
Supports a second referendum, in which the party would support remaining. [4] | 1.6% | 1 | 1 | Only contests seats in England and Wales | - | |
Brexit Party | Nigel Farage | March 2019 | No seat |
Right-wing populism,
[13]
[14] Hard-Euroscepticism [8] |
Supports leaving the European Union with no deal [14] | Did not contest | 0 | 0 | - |
Conservatives position will change rapidly over the next month, however I felt this was the most neutral. I struggled to find ideology defined for everything, the separatist parties were a rough outline that still need sources for their social democracy. The GPE&W source is a bit old but two others ( [3], [4]) do not use the exact word Eco-socialist, however do describe their policies as left-wing and socialist (whilst obviously mentioning ecology). Should we include a "political position" section? Should we include a picture of each leader? Should we remove the notes section? Jonjonjohny ( talk) 04:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The table above look very good. I support its addition to the article. --
Aréat (
talk)
10:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Party | Party leader(s) | Ideology | Position on the European Union | Last election | Current seats | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
% of votes |
Seats | |||||||
Conservative Party | Boris Johnson |
![]() |
Conservatism
[15]
[2] Economic liberalism [2] Euroscepticism [16] |
In favour of a deal to leave on the deadline (31 October 2019), However if no deal is secured then the country will leave without a deal. [4] | 42.4% | 317 | 288 | |
Labour Party | Jeremy Corbyn |
![]() |
Social Democracy Democratic Socialism [17] |
Wishes to renegiotiate a deal with the European Union, then put that deal do a second referendum with a remain option. Prior to the referendum campaign, the party plans to host a special one-day conference to chose a position within the referendum. [18] [19] | 40.0% | 262 | 247 | |
Scottish National Party | Nicola Sturgeon |
![]() |
Social Democracy, Scottish Independence, Pro-Europeanism [4] [8] |
Supports a second referendum, in which the party would support remaining. [4] | 3.0% | 35 | 35 | |
Liberal Democrats | Jo Swinson |
![]() |
Social Liberalism,
[20]
[21] Pro-Europeanism [4] |
Supports a second referendum, in which the party would support remaining. However should the party win a majority, they would revoke Article 50. [22] | 7.4% | 12 | 18 | |
Plaid Cymru | Adam Price |
![]() |
Social Democracy, Welsh Independence, Pro-Europeanism [4] |
Supports a second referendum, in which the party would support remaining. [4] | 0.5% | 4 | 4 | |
Green Party of England and Wales |
Jonathan Bartley Siân Berry |
![]() |
Eco-socialist,
[23] Pro-Europeanism [4] |
Supports a second referendum, in which the party would support remaining. [4] | 1.6% | 1 | 1 | |
Brexit Party | Nigel Farage |
![]() |
Right-wing populism,
[24]
[14] Hard-Euroscepticism [8] |
Supports leaving the European Union with no deal [14] | Did not contest | 0 | 0 |
What do people think about this one? It could easily be replicated for the NI parties Jonjonjohny ( talk) 09:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
So, it seem to me we could add it.-- Aréat ( talk) 17:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I do not think you should be using ideologies that are different from the individual articles of the parties. Framing an ideology is often contentious and changing it for this article risks rehashing discussions already made on each individual talk page. Jopal22 ( talk) 10:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
References
I don’t think we should use a poll accused of being biased. Also despite this poll being from a trusted source, YouGov, many other trusted polls with much larger sample sizes and more appropriate sample (the undecided for example) suggest the public opinion is that Corbyn won. JamesVilla44 ( talk) 20:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
We could just not have a poll to avoid debate and bad feeling JamesVilla44 ( talk) 20:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I understand but I would prefer we don’t have a poll unless it has a certain sample size and variety of sample. (E.g. Includes Tory voters, Labour voters, undecided etc.) JamesVilla44 ( talk) 20:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer we don’t have a poll after a debate as I don’t think it tells us anything really either. An encyclopaedia shouldn’t be viewed as potentially biased. It would be better to exclude a poll. I don’t think it’s needed or appropriate. Could you provide me some evidence that a poll is necessary enough to be required and used? For one debate? JamesVilla44 ( talk) 20:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC) @ Bondegezou: We didn’t have debate polls for 2017. Why this time? JamesVilla44 ( talk) 20:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok I will wait for a consensus. I disagree but I will follow what the consensus is JamesVilla44 ( talk) 20:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Just a note:
a) It's perfectly reasonable to alter citations so that the name of a source does not appear in italics unless it would be routinely italicized in WP. To do otherwise would be to introduce, or allow, unnecessary confusion. Hence 'work=BBC News' altered to 'publisher=', because BBC News is not italicized.
b) Political parties are corporate bodies, and therefore ought to be referred to in the singular unless this would make phrasing impossibly awkward. Harfarhs ( talk) 20:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I take it we can bring this back again for this page? -- Crazyseiko ( talk) 21:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The following are some of the site that have them in mid nov:
Is there any new ones? Can we take Twitter accounts that have big following and website?-- Crazyseiko ( talk) 18:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
These two are new.
I would suggest the following
Bondegezou Isn't happy that for a 3rd time in row for the elections these have come back, he already removed the box once, @ CarlDurose, Neegzistuoja, Nevermore27, The wub, K347, EddieHugh, FriendlyDataNerdV2, Jazdisney, CarlDurose, Rami R, The joy of all things, and To agree to use thus again.:
Once again Bondegezou Isn't happy, and were still none the wiser as to what the problem is. We have no consensus to doing this, yet it happened on the 2015 and 2017 page. Is that not consensus? if were already doing this? He then changes his mind and New statesman site has no consensus even thought there were included in 2015 and 2017 page. Now does anyone have any real objections to repeating this again? @ CarlDurose, Neegzistuoja, Nevermore27, The wub, K347, EddieHugh, FriendlyDataNerdV2, Jazdisney, CarlDurose, Rami R, The joy of all things, Unreal7, GoodDay, GreyGreenWhy, Aréat, and Bonusballs:-- Crazyseiko ( talk) 15:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Why is it we use Mary Lou McDonald in the infobox for Sinn Féin when she is from the Republic of Ireland, which is not a member of the United Kingdom? The Republic of Ireland does not have seats in British parliament, and the only seats that Sinn Féin are contesting are in Northern Ireland. Michelle O'Neill is the leader of Sinn Féin for Northern Ireland, and she is displayed as party leader in Northern Irish election articles like 2017 Northern Ireland Assembly election, so why should it be different here? { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Lib Dems are styling themselves as "Liberal Democrats - To stop Brexit" on ballot papers this time. We have the template system so have to use "Liberal Democrats". Should we not show the name on the ballot paper? https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/Documents/Democracy/Representation/Elections/SoPNNOPPoplarLimehouse.pdf Jopal22 ( talk) 08:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I noticed while browsing the article that the template at the bottom of the page had a link to the 2017 election but the 2017 template did not have one back. So I've added links to 2019 from 2017 and from 2019 to the next election. On checking the 2015 page I noticed it also only had a link for 2010 (so I added one for 2017) which prompted me to post here. I'm almost certain that this is just forgotten about after an election has happened but if there is a convention only to link to the previous election, please feel free to revert my changes but if you could point me to where this is said - that would be great! I also checked 2010 but it had neither so I left it. Mindi Crayon ( talk) 19:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I am concerned this section is all using WP:PRIMARY sources. What justification do we have to include these particular models (and not others)? Where's the evidence that they are reliable sources? Bondegezou ( talk) 13:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
This is what a seat projection looks like when it's established due weight. That's what we should include, rather than Twitter accounts. Ralbegen ( talk) 22:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Here is that new one from tomorrow, However New statesman britain elects has not turned up.
Parties | Electoral Calculus
[1]
[2] as of 27 November 2019 |
Elections etc
[3] as of 27 November 2019 |
Britain elects
[4] as of 27 November 2019 |
YOu Gov
[5]
[6] as of 27 November 2019 |
Parallel Parliament
[7] as of 27 November 2019 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservatives | 342
|
353
|
359
|
351
| ||
Labour Party | 225 | 209 | 211 | 206 | ||
SNP | 41 | 44 | 43 | 45 | ||
Liberal Democrats | 19 | 23 | 13 | 22 | ||
Plaid Cymru | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
Green Party | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Brexit Party | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Others | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | |
Overall result (probability) | Conservative majority |
Conservative majority |
Conservative majority |
Conservative majority |
Conservative majority |
References
Given the timing of this election, some venues normally used as polling stations are not available, leading to some unusual venues being chosen. An example of this is Thelnetham Windmill, which is standing in for the Village Hall. There are likely to be many other examples. Would the article benefit from a section detailing these venues? Mjroots ( talk) 12:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Only 850.000 people tuned in
62.226.77.113 ( talk) 19:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure the election predictions are being updated carefully enough, and the references used are often out of date so there is no way to check. The number of seats should add to 650 unless rounding is used (elections etc only). I corrected YouGov, where the 1 independent wasn't being added to the 18 NI in other. The Parallel Parliament is three seats short. Looking at the current projection it has the speaker separately , and one independent winning , so i think these are 2 of the missing seats. Is there a way to ensure there are sustainable links to the numbers input? Jopal22 ( talk) 19:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@ OrkneyLad1996: @ Bondegezou:
A brief return to a subject matter we occasionally find ourselves discussing during election times. I remember that some time ago we decided that using ''No description'' in election boxes would reflect the SOPN in those instances where a candidate has used neither a registered party name or the word independent. Recent discussions have changed that view, to using an actual blank box (you can see in my recent contributions examples of this). I am happy using either but thought that making a wider audience aware that there could soon be a wide editing decision made useful. doktorb words deeds 09:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Are the following notable enough to add additional text in the article:
The Labour Party suggested that a dossier detailing meetings between members of the May Government and American counterparts provided 'evidence that under Boris Johnson the NHS is on the table and will be up for sale.' A background note in the documents said that ' "NHS access to generic drugs will be a key consideration" in talks with US officials pushing hard for longer patents.'
The Conservatives criticised Labour for insinuating that the documents suggest that the NHS would form part of future trade talks with the US. Boris Johnson described the claims as 'total nonsense', saying 'that will not happen under this Government or any Conservative Government.'
Jopal22 ( talk) 11:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Conservatives is losing in opinion polls, but this is not a reason to delete official Labour party promise for 4 day week(32 hours) instead of current "5 day" and full payment for it. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.30.51.187 ( talk) 10:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
It will be of course interesting to see a debate about it with all other competing parties, but sadly debates are about things like a climate - which despite media coverage is less directly affecting(at least now) live of average British citizen than how much hours he have to work. For further reading - read for example the article and books cited there and there. Read also History_of_labour_law_in_the_United_Kingdom(especially XIX century), and Factory Acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.30.55.17 ( talk) 19:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Cite error: There are <ref group=n>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=n}}
template (see the
help page).