Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2024 election series template (below infobox)

Seeking opinion on this before I do anything too destructive - do we feel this is strictly necessary? Most of the links in the template are in the infobox directly above it already and those that aren't are either elsewhere in the article or can quite reasonably added to a more appropriate spot, so the template feels a bit redundant. Would appreciate any thoughts you may have.

CipherRephic ( talk) 19:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

@ CipherRephicI 100% agree. The current info box is
- redundant
- inconsistent with previous articles
- generally just less sightly than the regular one.
So I think we should switch to Template:Infobox election DimensionalFusion (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Switching infobox would be more concise and look far less clunky, completely agree. Ebm2002 ( talk) 22:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree with this change and the rationale presented here. I can understand having TILE much in advance of an election, but it's standard that once the election is announced (and to my knowledge, even before then) we switch to TIE. There's no good reason why we shouldn't have TIE at this point. — Czello ( music) 08:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
So the rationale behind the current style is:
"There is a consensus to use this infobox style, not Template:Infobox election. This is because the latter cannot include all the parties, and therefore if we included it before the results of the election are known, we would have to guess which parties will make a significant impact, against what WP:CRYSTAL says. So do NOT change the infobox without consulting the talk page to change the consensus."
I am not inclined to agree with this argument. The use of Template:Infobox election format is on the basis of the last election results (and typically how many seats are needed for a majority), not, as is argued here, what we think will or is likely to happen in the upcoming election. Mapperman03 ( talk) 01:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Bondegezou Hi, you reverted the infobox change despite there being a consensus here. Why? DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
We have a longstanding consensus to use TILE before the election. We did this before previous general elections. We should not change from that until a new consensus has been demonstrated. You don't get to make the change you want and then tell people to wait for a consensus: we stick with the long-standing arrangement until the matter is settled. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
To clarify, to demonstrate you have consensus for a major change to the article, you need more than a few comments in a Talk section not even on the topic, and a discussion that has had more than 12 hours to take place. An RfC might be necessary. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Czello, are you being serious with this? You are an experienced editor and you should know you need more evidence of consensus than the above. Do not start an WP:EDITWAR. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Since the topic of this dicussion has diverted to the infobox, I believe I need to explain the reason why I believe TILE is better than TIE until the results of the election are in, since I wrote the note Mapperman03 quoted. There was a discussion now at Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1#Infobox (2) where I explained my rationale in more detail than that note, and I note DimensionalFusion and Bondegezou took part in that discussion. I criticised DimensionalFusion's arguments as unsubstantiated then and I do again now. They have said nothing in this dicussion that they didn't say in that discussion, and so I reiterate my criticisms: "less sightly" is a subjective opinion that falls foul of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and comparing to precedence goes against WP:OTHERCONTENT and is an example of the false equivalence fallacy, as past and future elections are not comparable. I take it when they say "redundant" they are referring to TILE including more parties, but that is a necessity to avoid failing WP:CRYSTAL.
On the subject of WP:CRYSTAL, the reason why I believe all the parties with MPs in the House of Commons now/at dissolution (and therefore my reason for using TILE) need to be included is that we don't know the results of the election, and therefore which parties will have a significant number of MPs after the next election. This means to avoid creating an infobox that implies we are presuming only some parties (probably Con, Lab, SNP and LD) will get a significant number of seats in an election we don't know the results of, we have to use TILE, as that is able to list all the parties in a reasonably small amount of space. It's important the infobox is relatively small, as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE's statement The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. TIE cannot list all the parties necessary to include (either for technical reasons or because otherwise the infobox would be huge), so we should use TILE. This will stay the case until at least the outcome of the election is obvious (when most seats have declared their results). So I disagree with Czello that now or at dissolution is the time to change the infobox, that time will be at the earliest around 03:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (that's 4am in the UK) when we know which parties have a significant number of seats for sure. Then TIE will likely be the best infobox. -- Ted Edwards 14:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ TedEdwards It's interesting you should bring up MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE's statement "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". TILE does not meet this. Is knowing all 15 parties and their leaders and their candidates really needed at a glance? Does "Speaker" need to be included in the infobox? "Speaker" is obviously not going to win a landslide of seats, which is the same rationale applied to the rest of the parties- for example, the DUP, SF, PC, Alliance, and SDLP all cannot win huge majorities because they only run in their own regions.
Counter to this, it is much more important for the reader to know what the main parties' standings are. Labour and Conservative are being put on the same list as WPGB. Is knowing how many seats Speaker currently has really key information, vital to the election? I don't think so. DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
To return to what this section actually began talking about, I would support dropping the election series template. It's unnecessary clutter. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ CipherRephic: Since this discussion immediately went off-topic because the editor who replied to you first only bothered to read what they wanted to see and not what you actually said, do you think it would be worth splitting this discussion into two? Or renaming this discussion to refer to the infobox, and start a fresh discussion about Template:2024 United Kingdom general election series somewhere else? -- Ted Edwards 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ TedEdwards I'd favour starting a new section with a less ambiguous header but as the significantly less experienced editor I feel I ought to defer to you on matters of procedure such as this - what would you suggest? CipherRephic ( talk) 15:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ CipherRephic: Since RealTaxiDriver started a separate discussion on the infobox at #Infobox, I suggest further comments about the infobox go there. As for this header being ambiguous, the thing is I don't think it is, and I can't see what anyone could change it to. You were crystal clear with what you wanted to dicuss, but DimensionalFusion, who only bothered to look at the word "infobox", drove the topic off-piste so she could talk about what she wanted. So it's not your fault this happened.
To summarise to all editors: This discussion is on including Template:2024 United Kingdom general election series in the article, not on the infobox (bolding for emphasis). Further comments on the infobox should go under #Infobox-- Ted Edwards 22:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Apologies, I misread "2024 election series template (below infobox)" as "2024 election series template (infobox)" DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I am going to WP:BOLDly remove the series template using CipherRephic's rationale. If contested the reverting editor can discuss it here. -- Ted Edwards 17:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Infobox

Lets settle this
What should be the infobox:
A - Classic election infobox as seen in 2019
B - Current infobox
RealTaxiDriver ( talk) 17:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

B, until the result is declared. For the reasons outlined further up this page, several times.
I genuinely can’t believe we’re still having this conversation. OGBC1992 ( talk) 19:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
There are other options: (C) No infobox, (D) Party-free infobox (showing a map or other details, but not parties).
The classic election (TIE) infobox is used now for the 2019 general election, but (mostly) wasn't used for that article before the vote. There has been considerable discussion of what infobox to use before an election over the years, and the most stable consensus has been to use the current (TILE) infobox. However, I note (D) was also used at times during the 2019 campaign.
MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Infoboxes should be smaller, not bigger. That's why I favour the TILE format over the bloated TIE format. We also have to avoid WP:CRYSTALBALL predictions and take a WP:NPOV. A TIE format has to exclude multiple parties, which introduces bias, and ends up making a guess about the results. So, I favour (B), but would be fine with (C) or (D). Bondegezou ( talk) 20:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes. Wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. I believe the numeruous small parties mandated within TILE is unnecessary content. That's why I favour the TIE format over the bloated TIE format. DimensionalFusion (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ RealTaxiDriver B (TILE) seems most appropriate for now - using A (TIE) would necessitate speculating as to whether certain parties (e.g. the greens, reform, plaid) would gain sufficient foothold to be considered major, contravening WP:CRYSTALBALL. I'd concede the TIE box looks nicer, but (especially this early in the campaign) that shouldn't be the primary goal. CipherRephic ( talk) 22:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
First of all I need to mention that a discussion on this ended up starting in a discussion on a different topic at #2024 election series template (below infobox) because someone only got as far as reading the word "infobox" before replying. I have attempted now to redirect all discussion on the infobox in that section to here.
To reiterate my view, it is to support B, and I quote myself here to explain why:
Since the topic of this dicussion has diverted to the infobox, I believe I need to explain the reason why I believe TILE is better than TIE until the results of the election are in, since I wrote the note Mapperman03 quoted. There was a discussion now at Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1#Infobox (2) where I explained my rationale in more detail than that note, and I note DimensionalFusion and Bondegezou took part in that discussion. I criticised DimensionalFusion's arguments as unsubstantiated then and I do again now. They have said nothing in this dicussion that they didn't say in that discussion, and so I reiterate my criticisms: "less sightly" is a subjective opinion that falls foul of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and comparing to precedence goes against WP:OTHERCONTENT and is an example of the false equivalence fallacy, as past and future elections are not comparable. I take it when they say "redundant" they are referring to TILE including more parties, but that is a necessity to avoid failing WP:CRYSTAL.
On the subject of WP:CRYSTAL, the reason why I believe all the parties with MPs in the House of Commons now/at dissolution (and therefore my reason for using TILE) need to be included is that we don't know the results of the election, and therefore which parties will have a significant number of MPs after the next election. This means to avoid creating an infobox that implies we are presuming only some parties (probably Con, Lab, SNP and LD) will get a significant number of seats in an election we don't know the results of, we have to use TILE, as that is able to list all the parties in a reasonably small amount of space. It's important the infobox is relatively small, as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE's statement "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." TIE cannot list all the parties necessary to include (either for technical reasons or because otherwise the infobox would be huge), so we should use TILE. This will stay the case until at least the outcome of the election is obvious (when most seats have declared their results). So I disagree with Czello that now or at dissolution is the time to change the infobox, that time will be at the earliest around 03:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (that's 4am in the UK) when we know which parties have a significant number of seats for sure. Then TIE will likely be the best infobox.
To reply to something written by DimensionalFusion in response to the above comment, the choice is TIE with all parties or TILE with all parties, as excluding parties will fall foul of WP:Crystal (also pointed out by Bondegezou above). We can't even exclude the Northern Irish parties/Plaid Cymru because the DUP is included in the infobox at 2017 United Kingdom general election because they had a major impact on politics after that election (gave Tories enough seats for a confidence and supply agreement) (Sinn Fein is also included, but that's to avoid white space I think) so it's entirely possible these parties that don't stand in England will still have a significant impact after the election. So while including 15 parties might seem bloated, it's necessary as we can't exclude any of them as that would imply e.g. the Greens, Reform, WPGB or the NI parties definitely won't win a significant number of seats and aren't worth anyone's attention. All we can do is state what the composition of the house at the last election or now (or just prior to dissolution when that happens), as that's the only way to make an infobox with parties that doesn't imply that we're making predictions. TIE with all parties is impossible, so TILE with all parties is the only option if we want an infobox with any parties at all. -- Ted Edwards 22:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
For what it's worth, I strongly favour option B, for essentially the reasons laid out above. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 08:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I strongly favour option A above. DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • B, preferably, or D. TILE lets us include all the parties and not entirely seconcary details like leader's seats, dates of leadership elections, and so on, for a handful of parties, which almost never deserve to be in the infobox. Ralbegen ( talk) 18:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
This seems to have stalled, so:
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says that an infobox's purpose is:
to summarize—and not supplant—key facts that appear in the article.
Both TIE and TILE accomplish this.
The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.
Arguably, both TIE and TILE achieve this, but in different ways. TIE gives important context about leaders and important parties, which excludes unecessary parties that won't win any more than a few seats. In my opinion, unless there are more than 6 major parties, such as in Belgium, then TIE should be used. This article is about the 2024 GE, and it's very clear from polling and other such indicators who should be included: Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, SNP. These are who is going into the election, so this provides important context to the viewer about the election. When the results come in, the infobox can be re-formulated.
I can already hear the "what about WP:CRYSTALBALL"s coming in, so yes. This is, techically, speculation. However, WP:CRYSTALBALL says Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. TIE is not this! TIE is using the current standings of the parties to give context about the state of the election before it happens. In the run up to an election, should an election article not be focused on what the states of the parties are before the election happens?
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE continues:
Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, present information in short form wherever possible, and exclude any unnecessary content.
I'd argue that unnecessary content is including multiple parties that are not particularly relevant to the national political scene. These can be, and are, incorporated in the more detailled later parts of the article. I'd argue that the Alliance Party doesn't really need to be incorporated into the infobox, which is for short form information.
There will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information may be placed in the infobox, but is difficult to integrate into the body text.
TIE does meet this! I've heard several arguments about how TIE is "cluttered" and the example everybody uses is leader's seat. However Leader's seat is
- difficult to integrate into the body text, and
- gives important context about the party (e.g. a hypothetical party with a leader's seat in London provides context about the kind of party and policies they may offer very quickly)
DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
You can flog the dead horse as much as you like, but it's not getting up.
To again rebut your arguments, not including parties that didn't get a significant number of seats is breaching WP:CRYSTALBALL, because since the infobox is about this election, what you're saying by not including smaller parties that were in the HoC is "ignore them, they'll be irrelevant in the aftermath", when you have no evidence that is the case. You say the APNI doesn't need to be in the infobox, but they could get some more seats, so much that they will form a Confidence and Supply argreement with the next governing party, a bit like the DUP in 2017, and so it may be worth putting them in the infobox after the election. Of course what I just said is speculation, but saying they won't be relevant to the national political scene after the election is equally speculative. You and I don't know the outcome of the election, and therefore which parties should be or shouldn't be in the infobox, and therefore we have to include a non-objective selection of parties e.g. ones with seats at the end of the last parliament, so the infobox doesn't suggest which parties should or shouldn't be ignored. And polling is predicting, so when talking about it, we say that is predicting, and we do not base anything else in any article on this election (e.g. order of parties in a list) on predictions made in opinion polls. Including only parties projected to get a significant number of seats in opinion polls in the infobox, which you seem to suggest when you say it's very clear from polling and other such indicators who should be included, is definitely in breach of WP:CRYSTALBALL.
As for quoting There will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information may be placed in the infobox, but is difficult to integrate into the body text, that is, by no stretch of the imagination, a requirement to put such information in the infobox. It is always ideal to include information in the infobox elsewhere in the article, it's not always possible. And you say the leaders' seats give important context. So would you like to tell everyone how knowing Keir Starmer and Ed Davey having seats in London allows people to work out the kind of party and policies they offer, and what those policies you can work out are?
You said When the results come in, the infobox can be re-formulated and, yes, that will of course happen. On 5 July the infobox will probably change because they we'll know who the major players the new parliament are, and TIE will almost certainly be the best infobox to display that information. But it is very clear that your support for TIE is emotional, not logical. -- Ted Edwards 22:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ TedEdwards
Hi! “But it is very clear that your support for TIE is emotional, not logical.”
Do you have a source for this? Or are you breaching WP:CRYSTALBALL by speculating?
“So would you like to tell everyone how knowing Keir Starmer and Ed Davey having seats in London allows people to work out the kind of party and policies they offer, and what those policies you can work out are?”
Absolutely. Parties that have their leaders in rural seats suggest conservative platforms, whereas in urban seats this suggests Centerist to Left wing platforms. That’s common sense.
“saying by not including smaller parties that were in the HoC is "ignore them, they'll be irrelevant in the aftermath"”
You’re putting words in my mouth there. I’m not saying that they won’t be relevant in the aftermath of the election. I’m saying that, in the run up to an election, knowing who the major players are going in gives better context to the reader than a HTML table. DimensionalFusion (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Just dropping in my strong support for Option A (2019 format) as this has extremely useful information and reader-friendly, I see no reason personally to remove it. - Internet is Freedom ( talk) 16:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Rhun ap Iorwerth / Liz Saville Roberts

I've recently noticed that the name of the leader of Plaid Cymru, as given in the Debates section, has been repeatedly reverted from the correct 'ap Iorwerth' to the incorrect 'Rhun'. This seems to be in line with Rhun ap Iorwerth's Wikipedia article, which bizarrely insists on referring to him throughout on a first-name basis, presumably from a fundamental misunderstanding of the Welsh language and Welsh naming conventions.

Without going into great detail on all that, suffice it to say that the BBC, as well as dozens of Welsh newspapers, refer to the Plaid Cymru leader as 'Mr ap Iorwerth' rather than 'Rhun' or 'Mr Rhun'. And if that isn't sufficient proof, his own party's website likewise refers to him, correctly and consistently, as 'Mr ap Iorwerth' in both its English-language and Welsh-language articles. Presumably one can trust Plaid Cymru to get their leader's name correct?

On the other hand, the name of the party's Westminster leader is, at time of writing, given in the same table as 'Roberts'. In this instance, her Wikipedia article correctly identifies her double-barrelled surname, 'Saville Roberts', and this should be replicated in the Debates table here. 150.143.153.242 ( talk) 00:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I have edited his article to use ap Iorwerth, as that is what reliable sources, including Welsh ones, do. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn or disowned candidates

We should have a section for candidates who loose the support of their party now that nominations have closed. There is a precedent for this.

Here is a table with the first example.


Candidate Party Constituency Reason for withdrawal Date
Rahman Sharifah Plaid Cymru Cardiff South and Penarth Plaid Cymru withdrew support due to social media posts about the "situation in the Middle East" [1] 7 June

Kalamikid ( talk) 10:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Kalamikid ( talk) 10:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The Candidates in the 2024 United Kingdom general election page would be a good place for this! Ralbegen ( talk) 11:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree Candidates in the 2024 United Kingdom general election is probably the best place for it, and for it already being quite long. Seems 2019 is the outlier, with previous elections not having such a table. Dank Jae 10:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Lewis, Rhodri. "Plaid withdraws candidate support over Middle East posts". BBC News. Retrieved 8 June 2024.

Infobox (II)

Until the election is held, Sunak should be described in the infobox as the incumbent prime minister. GoodDay ( talk) 17:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ GoodDay: Just seen this. So the options are either have the infobox saying "current seats" in the third column (when all seats are vacant) and have the infobox say "incumbent prime minister", or have the infobox saying just "seats" in the third column and have the infobox say "prime minister before". Or we could edit the template itself so it works better for dissolved legislatures (I'll have a look at that). -- Ted Edwards 00:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ GoodDay: I've just sandboxed some changes to the template in my sandbox ( User:TedEdwards/sandbox1, the sandbox also transcludes from User:TedEdwards/sandbox2). If I were to make an edit request to add these changes to Template:Infobox legislative election, we could a) make that column say "Seats at dissolution" and b) have the infobox say "incumbent Prime Minister".
I also got carried away and made it that the infobox can now say what the seats won at the last election instead of current seats/seats at dissolution were (this is the only reason I needed my sandbox2). The two infoboxes in sandbox1 to the right are identical and were just to check which parameter overrides the other. -- Ted Edwards 22:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The infobox was removed, and now replaced with England's? Dank Jae 23:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
just fixed that. CipherRephic ( talk) 00:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ GoodDay: I haven't made an proper edit request as my suggestions are pretty extensive, but I have suggested those changes at Template talk:Infobox legislative election#Suggested changes to change possible row headers for future election. -- Ted Edwards 18:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Debate viewing figures

The 7-way BBC Debate was watched by 3.2M people https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/bbc-angela-rayner-penny-mordaunt-labour-daisy-cooper-b2559158.html 2A02:C7C:823D:F200:32D2:D0E0:C2CB:2658 ( talk) 19:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2024

Add after it will also be the first to take place under the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022. a reference to be the first election called by or taking place with Charles III as Sovereign AlexMayE96 ( talk) 23:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

 Done '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
And undone, as it has been the subject of much discussion here and consensus has been to place it in the background, not in the lead. Kevin McE ( talk) 09:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2024

The infobox contains two sentences which should not be added until after the election. They read This lists parties that won seats. See the complete results below. Those sentences should be removed, as they are factually inaccurate until the election actually takes place. 64.66.123.248 ( talk) 00:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Annoyingly, i think that's an integral part of the legislative election infobox template which would need fixing by someone with template level permisson and can't be done page-side (at least for now) CipherRephic ( talk) 10:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Removing "Polling Report" as a forecast source

From looking at the UK Polling Report site, there seems to be a lot of areas where no care or attention has been paid - missing candidate names even now after nominations have closed, and silly mistakes like Rochdale being predicted as a win for Jess Philips (Labour) despite her being the incumbent (and standing again) in Birmingham. I've removed it as a forecast per WP:BOLD. Eilidhmax ( talk) 22:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2024

BBC Wales Cymru has announced who will be taking part in the BBC Wales debate sp it should be added into the debate template. -- 78.149.98.83 ( talk) 22:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

 Done   M2Ys4U ( talk) 21:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

One of the most significant part of the election is missing from the infobox

Hi.

So it seems like the infobox is talked about a lot. I really have a strong frustration over why we do not have information about the latest election result in the infobox. This information, is what the media will compare the polls and the upcoming election results to. The media coverage of the structure of the parliament at the dissolution is rare to non-existent.

Therefore I really struggle to see why the information about the parliament at May 30 is relevant enough to be part of the infobox.

Alternatively we could have information regarding the parties' seat count at the last election as well as the parties' seat count at the dissolution, although I still struggle to see why the seat count at the dissolution is relevant on any page but House of Commons.

Have a nice day. Thomediter ( talk) 00:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi Thomediter. While I'm neutral at the moment on what set of seat numbers should be in the infobox, I have just suggested an edit to Template:Infobox legislative election, which would, if made, make it easier to display the seats at the last election. I've put more details about this discussion in Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#Infobox suggested edit. -- Ted Edwards 18:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Amazing. For me the important part just is the inclusion of seats at last election being in the infobox, and I see these are included in your suggested infobox. Thomediter ( talk) 10:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Predictions box rejig

Hi all (particularly ccing in @ Errora 404 and @ Ralbegen due to the earlier kerfuffle)

I've noticed there appears to be a bit of confusion over what the predictions box is supposed to contain (i.e. whether it's supposed to serve as a record of previous predictions made or reflect the most recent predictions) so per WP:BOLD i've bifurcated the box into four weeks pre and three weeks pre, as is the case on the GE2019 page. The former contains predictions made last week and the latter should contain all the predictions made this week. next week's should go in a section entitled two weeks from the vote and so on and so forth. I'll be cleaning up the citations in this week's one in a bit. lmk any thoughts.

CipherRephic ( talk) 18:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for tagging me! I think there are a couple of things here. It's clearly true that reliable sources cover seat projections quite widely and it makes sense for us to cover them here. However, the amount of the encyclopaedia article we dedicate to them should reflect the prominence in reliable source coverage of the election. I don't think there's been a recent burst of new coverage of seat projections this week compared to last week that justifes a second large table. If there had been projections showing something noteworthy (a Labour collapse and Conservative recovery, Reform or the Greens winning lots more seats, the Conservatives being overtaken by the Liberal Democrats), I feel confident that we would be able to justify adding a second table from media coverage of seat projections.
As it stands, I think sticking to the four-week one only for now is best. We don't have sources to justify giving so much more weight to them at the moment. As a reader, it's also not particularly interesting. Either the small changes are part of a trend, which will be matched by the polling charts and will be clearer in a week's time; or they are noise that will disappear in a week's time. Neither option justifies a second table yet.
I also think we ought to be judicious in who we include. There are lots of bloggers who produce seat projections but as in previous years it would be sensible for us to limit ourselves to those produced by reliable news outlets (the FT, the New Statesman, the Economist) or those which have been covered by multiple reliable sources. I don't think Election Polling or Principalfish have received any reliable source coverage, so we should remove them. Ralbegen ( talk) 22:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Crazyseiko:: Please see my reasoning here. Past articles having too many tables is not a reason to include indiscriminate numbers here without RS justification. We have discussed this topic before on multiple occasions. The default should not just be to add in a new large table!
In particular, there was agreement about removing predictions without reliable source coverage in 2019. I can't see any justification for including Election Polling or Principalfish. Ralbegen ( talk) 14:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Ralbegen: I originally stated on here, that we should have 3 tables: 4 weeks before, 2 weeks before and day before. Mainly because there was a longer campaign, that has happened this time around. The only reason to included 3 weeks is if there was a major change compared to the last one, and looking between the two tables there isn't. So I could agree to removing 3 weeks before, as long as we can have 2 weeks before as that would prove without a doubt the the direction of travel for the polls. In relation to Election Polling or Principalfish If think your right however "Fish" was included as it covered Yougov. I also tried to add in some commentary about the table but it was removed. -- Crazyseiko ( talk) 14:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Here is the template for 2 weeks before: Are the following good reliable sources:

Parties YouGOv Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
as of 21 June 2024 		ElectionMapsUK Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
as of 21 June 2024 		Financial timesCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
as of 21 June 2024 		THe Economist Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
as of 21 June 2024 		Britain Elects/
New Statesman Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
as of 21 June 2024 		Polling ReportCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
as of 21 June 2024 		Electoral calculusCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
as of 21 June 2024 		Elections etcCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
as of 21 June 2024
Labour Party
Conservatives
Liberal Democrats
SNP
Plaid Cymru
Green Party 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2
Reform UK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Others 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
Overall result (probability) Labour
majority
Thanks—I think we should wait and see what each week brings before deciding in advance whether to include a new table. If there's something interesting enough next week that news sources cover it I think we should include another table; if it's the same again I'm not so sure. The New Statesman, the Economist and the FT are all worth including on their own merits. YouGov and Electoral Calculus projections are very widely covered. Election Maps UK projections have been covered by some local news sources so probably makes the cut. I can't find anybody covering Election Polling (though it's a tough name to search for), Elections Etc or Principalfish so I would be minded to exclude those for now. Ralbegen ( talk) 16:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Seconded. I'd say it might also be worth distinguishing between predictions made based on poll aggregations (e.g. the FT's) and ones made based on bespoke polling (e.g. YouGov's) - but not entirely sure where i'd put that in the table. CipherRephic ( talk) 16:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Infobox suggested edit

Hi editors. I have started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox legislative election#Suggested changes to change possible row headers for future election, suggesting an edit that would allow e.g. this page to say "seats at dissolution" or list the number of seats won at the last election when the "ongoing" parameter in the template is set to "yes" (which it technically should be). -- Ted Edwards 18:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

predictions boxes edit

Hi @ DeFacto,

Just to let you know, the edit you just made to the prediction boxes has wiped out the Labour figures for a few of the columns. I'm not going to touch it because i'm pretty sure i've already done three reverts today and a *very* liberal interpretation of what a revert is could include this (better safe than sorry, yk). BTW, re: the pink shading, it's supposed to be a saturated version of the party colour meant to indicate the largest party in a given prediction as it was used on the 2019, 2017 and 2015 pages. I think it's worth keeping because the emphasis makes the table marginally more legible and there is precedent for it - this could be clarified in the bit above the boxes, maybe? CipherRephic ( talk) 20:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ah, missed that you've just fixed that. Ignore the top bit :) CipherRephic ( talk) 20:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Yep, there was an edit conflict, which I fixed.
If the colouring adds something, complies with WP:COLOUR, and is fully explained near the table(s) I see no problem, but currently there is no explanation, so I cannot see the point of it. -- DeFacto ( talk). 20:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ DeFacto it copied 2017/ 2019 when the tories were in the lead -- Crazyseiko ( talk) 13:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Crazyseiko, that's not necessarily a good reason to keep it in this article. Do you know what the use it is? Does it comply with WP:COLOUR? -- DeFacto ( talk). 14:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ DeFacto I believe its complys with WP:COLOUR. The reason it was used was to highlight the winning party, ie in the case of 2019 the tories. In one section of the tables they only got 20 seat maj.-- Crazyseiko ( talk) 18:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Debates table

The debates table has become very complicated, which is good in some ways, in terms of conveying a lot of information, but which is bad in other ways if it becomes too confusing to understand. On the latter, it has become very complex in terms of different colours used, and there's no explanation for all those different colours. I don't think we're complying with WP:COLOUR. Cutting back on some of the colours would seem like a good idea for me: e.g. the purple for when the venue hasn't been announced, or the different shade of green for party leaders vs surrogates. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Candidates table

There seems to be a bit of a scuffle over whether or not to include the candidate summary table and what to put in it, so in the interests of establishing consensus:

  1. Should we include the table in the article?
  2. If yes, what would constitute the criteria for a party's inclusion?

Discuss - I'll put my own thoughts as a reply. Most recent table below for reference.

Party Party leader(s) Leader since Leader's seat 2019 election Seats at

dissolution

Contested seats
% of

votes

Seats
Conservative Party Rishi Sunak October 2022 Richmond (Yorks) 43.6% 365 346 635 seats in the United Kingdom
Labour Party Keir Starmer April 2020 Holborn and St Pancras 32.1% 202 205 631 seats in Great Britain
Scottish National Party John Swinney May 2024 None [n 1] 45.0% 48 43 59 seats in Scotland
Liberal Democrats Ed Davey August 2020 Kingston and Surbiton 7.4% 12 15 611 seats in Great Britain
Plaid Cymru Rhun ap Iorwerth June 2023 None [n 2] 0.6% 4 3 32 seats in Wales
Alba Alex Salmond March 2021 None [n 3] New party 2 19 seats in Scotland

CipherRephic ( talk) 16:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

This was in a section labelled 'Great Britain' without any clear explanation as to why, and no corresponding material for Northern Ireland. I'm not sure what useful function this table serves. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 17:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I don;t see what new information this brings to the page? ALL the information listed in that table is covered else where in the page-- Crazyseiko ( talk) 18:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Agreed. We have this info in other forms already in the article, don't we? And why the weird choice of parties? Why Alba, but not Reform UK? Why no Greens? Why the wrong number for LibDem candidates? Bondegezou ( talk) 21:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
And as I said when I removed it for a second time, it also contained unsourced commentary, an undue table, and was off topic in the 'Candidates' section. When I removed it the first time I said that it adds nothing to the topic other than confusion between UK, GB and NI and duplicates the 2019 results again in the article. I think it added nothing and was unencyclopaedic. -- DeFacto ( talk). 21:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Oh, right, I was going to put my opinion here.
Personally I think it's not worth keeping (it would be more fitting on the candidates page if it's anywhere at all) but if we do keep it then the criteria should probably be either 1. Had any MPs at dissolution (rather than multiple) or 2. Got >1% of the vote in 2019 (although this would exclude Plaid which feels like an oversight) CipherRephic ( talk) 12:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I would propose putting the table from the Candidates article as far as those that have 10 candidates (ie, to include all parties that have any real attention: I believe that in the context of NI, Aontú probably have enough profile to justify inclusion). There is then a mathematically objective cut off point that avoids any need for CRYSTAL BALL accusations, and avoids the accusation of bias against those not represented at the time of dissolution. 14 candidates could be an alternative cut off point: no party below that figure (assuming we are not counting Speaker as a party) has any real expectation of winning a seat or probably even retaining a deposit).
Text below the shortened box could explain the independents, that n other parties with fewer than 14/10 candidates are also contesting, and the situation regarding the speaker. A link to the full table could accompany it. Kevin McE ( talk) 00:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I have been WP:BOLD Kevin McE ( talk) 09:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Another option is to follow the BBC ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw55nk6yn01o) who only listed either parties that were standing in 25+ seats, or who were standing in more than 1/6 of seats in a single UK nation Eastwood Park and strabane ( talk) 10:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Seats @ Dissolution

Why, on the infobox and the table for seats at dissolution, does it say Conservatives has 344 Seats, when the source cited from the House of Commons website says 346?

I have changed this before but it got reverted. Thanks, Wikieditor019 ( Talk to me) 14:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I've rejigged the sources in the table to make clear where the numbers are coming from. -- Ted Edwards 16:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Revert to infobox with images, leader's seat, etc.

Not sure where to write this but a lot of people are particularly unhappy with the change - it's been spotted on Twitter (X) by followers of politics who may not be avid Wikipedia editors but regularly visit these pages. Please could we revert to the previous infobox which was far better with images, leader's seat, etc? Internet is Freedom ( talk) 16:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

While I'm generally in agreement that TIE (the one with the pictures) is preferable to TILE (the one without), because this election hasn't happened yet the current consensus is to use TILE because TIE requires us to guess which parties will or won't be major players (see: 2017 DUP), which contravenes WP:CRYSTAL. The idea is to change it to TIE once the election has happened and we have an idea of the major players. CipherRephic ( talk) 17:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
If people want images of the party leaders, they can be added to the article. Bondegezou ( talk) 21:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Greens clarity, there are three

I think the "Green Party" has to be clarified as the " Green Party of England and Wales"/GPEW/Greens (E&W), as both the separate Green parties, Scottish Greens and Green Party Northern Ireland are also standing candidates and not part of GPEW. An exception is for polling which seems they're considered as one, depending on the respondent's location, unless the outcome seat prediction is specifically for one of the Green parties. While the debates table already does it somewhat. Dank Jae 00:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

done :) CipherRephic ( talk) 12:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Campaign section: chronological or by party

The Campaign section was being written chronologically, but someone has now re-arranged it to be split by party. I can see pros and cons either way, but I think it makes more sense to do it chronologically, so you can understand how the story of the election unfolded. What do others think? Bondegezou ( talk) 21:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Arranging by date allows the section to be read as a singular contiguous narrative and makes the addition of new events (particularly ones which concern multiple parties, or no parties!) substantially easier. CipherRephic ( talk) 21:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sub-articles by English region

Pinging @ Moondragon21: as the creator of these sub-articles, like 2024 United Kingdom general election in North East England. The articles seem to be forks from the main list of candidates done on grounds of article size, but they're all bloated by a large number of unnecessary sources. Now that the SOPNs have been released, only one source is needed (e.g. https://candidates.democracyclub.org.uk/ ) for all candidates in the country, which would cut down article size a lot.

Going into the election, and planning out article layout after the election, it feels to me that some changes to the layout would be useful. For the list of candidates, a layout comparable to Results of the 2019 Canadian federal election by riding is readable and is probably something to aim for following the election, whilst the information on boundary changes is useful but clutters the table so may be useful to be separated out into a different article. As a result, I'd propose replacing the England sub-articles with two new articles: the first one being Results of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency and containing a table along the lines of this:

Constituency Labour Conservative Reform UK Liberal Democrats Green Party Others Incumbent
Bishop Auckland Sam Rushworth
25,000
50.00% 		Jane MacBean
15,000
30.00% 		Rhys Burriss
2,500
5.00% 		Helen Cross
2,500
5.00% 		Sarah Hannan
2,500
5.00% 		Rachel Maughan ( Transform) Conservative Dehenna Davison
Blaydon and Consett Liz Twist
25,000
50.00% 		Angela Sterling
15,000
30.00% 		David Ayre
2,500
5.00% 		Vicky Anderson
2,500
5.00% 		Richard Simpson
2,500
5.00% 		Paul Topping ( SDP)
Mark Logan ( Workers) 		Labour Liz Twist
Blyth and Ashington Ian Lavery
25,000
50.00% 		Maureen Levy
15,000
30.00% 		Mark Peart
2,500
5.00% 		Stephen Psallidas
2,500
5.00% 		Steve Leyland
2,500
5.00% 		Labour Ian Lavery

And the second one being something like 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies by constituency along the lines of this

Elected MP (2024–) Constituency (2024–) Constituency (2010–24) Succession % [note 1] Incumbent MP (before 2024)
Conservative Anne-Marie Trevelyan North Northumberland Berwick-upon-Tweed 95% Conservative Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Labour Sam Rushworth Bishop Auckland 75% Conservative Dehenna Davison
Labour Liz Twist Blaydon and Consett Blaydon 51% Labour Liz Twist
North West Durham 49% Conservative Richard Holden

My examples obviously have dummy data/results as designed for following the election. But I thought I would raise the general idea- I think this change in layout would be preferable to the status quo. Would appreciate all thoughts on this. Chessrat ( talk, contributions) 00:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC) Chessrat ( talk, contributions) 00:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
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).
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2024_United_Kingdom_general_election&oldid=1229471724"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2024 election series template (below infobox)

Seeking opinion on this before I do anything too destructive - do we feel this is strictly necessary? Most of the links in the template are in the infobox directly above it already and those that aren't are either elsewhere in the article or can quite reasonably added to a more appropriate spot, so the template feels a bit redundant. Would appreciate any thoughts you may have.

CipherRephic ( talk) 19:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

@ CipherRephicI 100% agree. The current info box is
- redundant
- inconsistent with previous articles
- generally just less sightly than the regular one.
So I think we should switch to Template:Infobox election DimensionalFusion (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Switching infobox would be more concise and look far less clunky, completely agree. Ebm2002 ( talk) 22:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree with this change and the rationale presented here. I can understand having TILE much in advance of an election, but it's standard that once the election is announced (and to my knowledge, even before then) we switch to TIE. There's no good reason why we shouldn't have TIE at this point. — Czello ( music) 08:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
So the rationale behind the current style is:
"There is a consensus to use this infobox style, not Template:Infobox election. This is because the latter cannot include all the parties, and therefore if we included it before the results of the election are known, we would have to guess which parties will make a significant impact, against what WP:CRYSTAL says. So do NOT change the infobox without consulting the talk page to change the consensus."
I am not inclined to agree with this argument. The use of Template:Infobox election format is on the basis of the last election results (and typically how many seats are needed for a majority), not, as is argued here, what we think will or is likely to happen in the upcoming election. Mapperman03 ( talk) 01:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Bondegezou Hi, you reverted the infobox change despite there being a consensus here. Why? DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
We have a longstanding consensus to use TILE before the election. We did this before previous general elections. We should not change from that until a new consensus has been demonstrated. You don't get to make the change you want and then tell people to wait for a consensus: we stick with the long-standing arrangement until the matter is settled. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
To clarify, to demonstrate you have consensus for a major change to the article, you need more than a few comments in a Talk section not even on the topic, and a discussion that has had more than 12 hours to take place. An RfC might be necessary. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Czello, are you being serious with this? You are an experienced editor and you should know you need more evidence of consensus than the above. Do not start an WP:EDITWAR. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Since the topic of this dicussion has diverted to the infobox, I believe I need to explain the reason why I believe TILE is better than TIE until the results of the election are in, since I wrote the note Mapperman03 quoted. There was a discussion now at Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1#Infobox (2) where I explained my rationale in more detail than that note, and I note DimensionalFusion and Bondegezou took part in that discussion. I criticised DimensionalFusion's arguments as unsubstantiated then and I do again now. They have said nothing in this dicussion that they didn't say in that discussion, and so I reiterate my criticisms: "less sightly" is a subjective opinion that falls foul of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and comparing to precedence goes against WP:OTHERCONTENT and is an example of the false equivalence fallacy, as past and future elections are not comparable. I take it when they say "redundant" they are referring to TILE including more parties, but that is a necessity to avoid failing WP:CRYSTAL.
On the subject of WP:CRYSTAL, the reason why I believe all the parties with MPs in the House of Commons now/at dissolution (and therefore my reason for using TILE) need to be included is that we don't know the results of the election, and therefore which parties will have a significant number of MPs after the next election. This means to avoid creating an infobox that implies we are presuming only some parties (probably Con, Lab, SNP and LD) will get a significant number of seats in an election we don't know the results of, we have to use TILE, as that is able to list all the parties in a reasonably small amount of space. It's important the infobox is relatively small, as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE's statement The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. TIE cannot list all the parties necessary to include (either for technical reasons or because otherwise the infobox would be huge), so we should use TILE. This will stay the case until at least the outcome of the election is obvious (when most seats have declared their results). So I disagree with Czello that now or at dissolution is the time to change the infobox, that time will be at the earliest around 03:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (that's 4am in the UK) when we know which parties have a significant number of seats for sure. Then TIE will likely be the best infobox. -- Ted Edwards 14:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ TedEdwards It's interesting you should bring up MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE's statement "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". TILE does not meet this. Is knowing all 15 parties and their leaders and their candidates really needed at a glance? Does "Speaker" need to be included in the infobox? "Speaker" is obviously not going to win a landslide of seats, which is the same rationale applied to the rest of the parties- for example, the DUP, SF, PC, Alliance, and SDLP all cannot win huge majorities because they only run in their own regions.
Counter to this, it is much more important for the reader to know what the main parties' standings are. Labour and Conservative are being put on the same list as WPGB. Is knowing how many seats Speaker currently has really key information, vital to the election? I don't think so. DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
To return to what this section actually began talking about, I would support dropping the election series template. It's unnecessary clutter. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ CipherRephic: Since this discussion immediately went off-topic because the editor who replied to you first only bothered to read what they wanted to see and not what you actually said, do you think it would be worth splitting this discussion into two? Or renaming this discussion to refer to the infobox, and start a fresh discussion about Template:2024 United Kingdom general election series somewhere else? -- Ted Edwards 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ TedEdwards I'd favour starting a new section with a less ambiguous header but as the significantly less experienced editor I feel I ought to defer to you on matters of procedure such as this - what would you suggest? CipherRephic ( talk) 15:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ CipherRephic: Since RealTaxiDriver started a separate discussion on the infobox at #Infobox, I suggest further comments about the infobox go there. As for this header being ambiguous, the thing is I don't think it is, and I can't see what anyone could change it to. You were crystal clear with what you wanted to dicuss, but DimensionalFusion, who only bothered to look at the word "infobox", drove the topic off-piste so she could talk about what she wanted. So it's not your fault this happened.
To summarise to all editors: This discussion is on including Template:2024 United Kingdom general election series in the article, not on the infobox (bolding for emphasis). Further comments on the infobox should go under #Infobox-- Ted Edwards 22:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Apologies, I misread "2024 election series template (below infobox)" as "2024 election series template (infobox)" DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I am going to WP:BOLDly remove the series template using CipherRephic's rationale. If contested the reverting editor can discuss it here. -- Ted Edwards 17:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Infobox

Lets settle this
What should be the infobox:
A - Classic election infobox as seen in 2019
B - Current infobox
RealTaxiDriver ( talk) 17:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

B, until the result is declared. For the reasons outlined further up this page, several times.
I genuinely can’t believe we’re still having this conversation. OGBC1992 ( talk) 19:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
There are other options: (C) No infobox, (D) Party-free infobox (showing a map or other details, but not parties).
The classic election (TIE) infobox is used now for the 2019 general election, but (mostly) wasn't used for that article before the vote. There has been considerable discussion of what infobox to use before an election over the years, and the most stable consensus has been to use the current (TILE) infobox. However, I note (D) was also used at times during the 2019 campaign.
MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Infoboxes should be smaller, not bigger. That's why I favour the TILE format over the bloated TIE format. We also have to avoid WP:CRYSTALBALL predictions and take a WP:NPOV. A TIE format has to exclude multiple parties, which introduces bias, and ends up making a guess about the results. So, I favour (B), but would be fine with (C) or (D). Bondegezou ( talk) 20:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes. Wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. I believe the numeruous small parties mandated within TILE is unnecessary content. That's why I favour the TIE format over the bloated TIE format. DimensionalFusion (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ RealTaxiDriver B (TILE) seems most appropriate for now - using A (TIE) would necessitate speculating as to whether certain parties (e.g. the greens, reform, plaid) would gain sufficient foothold to be considered major, contravening WP:CRYSTALBALL. I'd concede the TIE box looks nicer, but (especially this early in the campaign) that shouldn't be the primary goal. CipherRephic ( talk) 22:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
First of all I need to mention that a discussion on this ended up starting in a discussion on a different topic at #2024 election series template (below infobox) because someone only got as far as reading the word "infobox" before replying. I have attempted now to redirect all discussion on the infobox in that section to here.
To reiterate my view, it is to support B, and I quote myself here to explain why:
Since the topic of this dicussion has diverted to the infobox, I believe I need to explain the reason why I believe TILE is better than TIE until the results of the election are in, since I wrote the note Mapperman03 quoted. There was a discussion now at Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1#Infobox (2) where I explained my rationale in more detail than that note, and I note DimensionalFusion and Bondegezou took part in that discussion. I criticised DimensionalFusion's arguments as unsubstantiated then and I do again now. They have said nothing in this dicussion that they didn't say in that discussion, and so I reiterate my criticisms: "less sightly" is a subjective opinion that falls foul of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and comparing to precedence goes against WP:OTHERCONTENT and is an example of the false equivalence fallacy, as past and future elections are not comparable. I take it when they say "redundant" they are referring to TILE including more parties, but that is a necessity to avoid failing WP:CRYSTAL.
On the subject of WP:CRYSTAL, the reason why I believe all the parties with MPs in the House of Commons now/at dissolution (and therefore my reason for using TILE) need to be included is that we don't know the results of the election, and therefore which parties will have a significant number of MPs after the next election. This means to avoid creating an infobox that implies we are presuming only some parties (probably Con, Lab, SNP and LD) will get a significant number of seats in an election we don't know the results of, we have to use TILE, as that is able to list all the parties in a reasonably small amount of space. It's important the infobox is relatively small, as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE's statement "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." TIE cannot list all the parties necessary to include (either for technical reasons or because otherwise the infobox would be huge), so we should use TILE. This will stay the case until at least the outcome of the election is obvious (when most seats have declared their results). So I disagree with Czello that now or at dissolution is the time to change the infobox, that time will be at the earliest around 03:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (that's 4am in the UK) when we know which parties have a significant number of seats for sure. Then TIE will likely be the best infobox.
To reply to something written by DimensionalFusion in response to the above comment, the choice is TIE with all parties or TILE with all parties, as excluding parties will fall foul of WP:Crystal (also pointed out by Bondegezou above). We can't even exclude the Northern Irish parties/Plaid Cymru because the DUP is included in the infobox at 2017 United Kingdom general election because they had a major impact on politics after that election (gave Tories enough seats for a confidence and supply agreement) (Sinn Fein is also included, but that's to avoid white space I think) so it's entirely possible these parties that don't stand in England will still have a significant impact after the election. So while including 15 parties might seem bloated, it's necessary as we can't exclude any of them as that would imply e.g. the Greens, Reform, WPGB or the NI parties definitely won't win a significant number of seats and aren't worth anyone's attention. All we can do is state what the composition of the house at the last election or now (or just prior to dissolution when that happens), as that's the only way to make an infobox with parties that doesn't imply that we're making predictions. TIE with all parties is impossible, so TILE with all parties is the only option if we want an infobox with any parties at all. -- Ted Edwards 22:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
For what it's worth, I strongly favour option B, for essentially the reasons laid out above. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 08:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I strongly favour option A above. DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • B, preferably, or D. TILE lets us include all the parties and not entirely seconcary details like leader's seats, dates of leadership elections, and so on, for a handful of parties, which almost never deserve to be in the infobox. Ralbegen ( talk) 18:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
This seems to have stalled, so:
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says that an infobox's purpose is:
to summarize—and not supplant—key facts that appear in the article.
Both TIE and TILE accomplish this.
The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.
Arguably, both TIE and TILE achieve this, but in different ways. TIE gives important context about leaders and important parties, which excludes unecessary parties that won't win any more than a few seats. In my opinion, unless there are more than 6 major parties, such as in Belgium, then TIE should be used. This article is about the 2024 GE, and it's very clear from polling and other such indicators who should be included: Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, SNP. These are who is going into the election, so this provides important context to the viewer about the election. When the results come in, the infobox can be re-formulated.
I can already hear the "what about WP:CRYSTALBALL"s coming in, so yes. This is, techically, speculation. However, WP:CRYSTALBALL says Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. TIE is not this! TIE is using the current standings of the parties to give context about the state of the election before it happens. In the run up to an election, should an election article not be focused on what the states of the parties are before the election happens?
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE continues:
Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, present information in short form wherever possible, and exclude any unnecessary content.
I'd argue that unnecessary content is including multiple parties that are not particularly relevant to the national political scene. These can be, and are, incorporated in the more detailled later parts of the article. I'd argue that the Alliance Party doesn't really need to be incorporated into the infobox, which is for short form information.
There will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information may be placed in the infobox, but is difficult to integrate into the body text.
TIE does meet this! I've heard several arguments about how TIE is "cluttered" and the example everybody uses is leader's seat. However Leader's seat is
- difficult to integrate into the body text, and
- gives important context about the party (e.g. a hypothetical party with a leader's seat in London provides context about the kind of party and policies they may offer very quickly)
DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
You can flog the dead horse as much as you like, but it's not getting up.
To again rebut your arguments, not including parties that didn't get a significant number of seats is breaching WP:CRYSTALBALL, because since the infobox is about this election, what you're saying by not including smaller parties that were in the HoC is "ignore them, they'll be irrelevant in the aftermath", when you have no evidence that is the case. You say the APNI doesn't need to be in the infobox, but they could get some more seats, so much that they will form a Confidence and Supply argreement with the next governing party, a bit like the DUP in 2017, and so it may be worth putting them in the infobox after the election. Of course what I just said is speculation, but saying they won't be relevant to the national political scene after the election is equally speculative. You and I don't know the outcome of the election, and therefore which parties should be or shouldn't be in the infobox, and therefore we have to include a non-objective selection of parties e.g. ones with seats at the end of the last parliament, so the infobox doesn't suggest which parties should or shouldn't be ignored. And polling is predicting, so when talking about it, we say that is predicting, and we do not base anything else in any article on this election (e.g. order of parties in a list) on predictions made in opinion polls. Including only parties projected to get a significant number of seats in opinion polls in the infobox, which you seem to suggest when you say it's very clear from polling and other such indicators who should be included, is definitely in breach of WP:CRYSTALBALL.
As for quoting There will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information may be placed in the infobox, but is difficult to integrate into the body text, that is, by no stretch of the imagination, a requirement to put such information in the infobox. It is always ideal to include information in the infobox elsewhere in the article, it's not always possible. And you say the leaders' seats give important context. So would you like to tell everyone how knowing Keir Starmer and Ed Davey having seats in London allows people to work out the kind of party and policies they offer, and what those policies you can work out are?
You said When the results come in, the infobox can be re-formulated and, yes, that will of course happen. On 5 July the infobox will probably change because they we'll know who the major players the new parliament are, and TIE will almost certainly be the best infobox to display that information. But it is very clear that your support for TIE is emotional, not logical. -- Ted Edwards 22:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ TedEdwards
Hi! “But it is very clear that your support for TIE is emotional, not logical.”
Do you have a source for this? Or are you breaching WP:CRYSTALBALL by speculating?
“So would you like to tell everyone how knowing Keir Starmer and Ed Davey having seats in London allows people to work out the kind of party and policies they offer, and what those policies you can work out are?”
Absolutely. Parties that have their leaders in rural seats suggest conservative platforms, whereas in urban seats this suggests Centerist to Left wing platforms. That’s common sense.
“saying by not including smaller parties that were in the HoC is "ignore them, they'll be irrelevant in the aftermath"”
You’re putting words in my mouth there. I’m not saying that they won’t be relevant in the aftermath of the election. I’m saying that, in the run up to an election, knowing who the major players are going in gives better context to the reader than a HTML table. DimensionalFusion (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Just dropping in my strong support for Option A (2019 format) as this has extremely useful information and reader-friendly, I see no reason personally to remove it. - Internet is Freedom ( talk) 16:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Rhun ap Iorwerth / Liz Saville Roberts

I've recently noticed that the name of the leader of Plaid Cymru, as given in the Debates section, has been repeatedly reverted from the correct 'ap Iorwerth' to the incorrect 'Rhun'. This seems to be in line with Rhun ap Iorwerth's Wikipedia article, which bizarrely insists on referring to him throughout on a first-name basis, presumably from a fundamental misunderstanding of the Welsh language and Welsh naming conventions.

Without going into great detail on all that, suffice it to say that the BBC, as well as dozens of Welsh newspapers, refer to the Plaid Cymru leader as 'Mr ap Iorwerth' rather than 'Rhun' or 'Mr Rhun'. And if that isn't sufficient proof, his own party's website likewise refers to him, correctly and consistently, as 'Mr ap Iorwerth' in both its English-language and Welsh-language articles. Presumably one can trust Plaid Cymru to get their leader's name correct?

On the other hand, the name of the party's Westminster leader is, at time of writing, given in the same table as 'Roberts'. In this instance, her Wikipedia article correctly identifies her double-barrelled surname, 'Saville Roberts', and this should be replicated in the Debates table here. 150.143.153.242 ( talk) 00:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I have edited his article to use ap Iorwerth, as that is what reliable sources, including Welsh ones, do. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn or disowned candidates

We should have a section for candidates who loose the support of their party now that nominations have closed. There is a precedent for this.

Here is a table with the first example.


Candidate Party Constituency Reason for withdrawal Date
Rahman Sharifah Plaid Cymru Cardiff South and Penarth Plaid Cymru withdrew support due to social media posts about the "situation in the Middle East" [1] 7 June

Kalamikid ( talk) 10:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Kalamikid ( talk) 10:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The Candidates in the 2024 United Kingdom general election page would be a good place for this! Ralbegen ( talk) 11:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree Candidates in the 2024 United Kingdom general election is probably the best place for it, and for it already being quite long. Seems 2019 is the outlier, with previous elections not having such a table. Dank Jae 10:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Lewis, Rhodri. "Plaid withdraws candidate support over Middle East posts". BBC News. Retrieved 8 June 2024.

Infobox (II)

Until the election is held, Sunak should be described in the infobox as the incumbent prime minister. GoodDay ( talk) 17:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ GoodDay: Just seen this. So the options are either have the infobox saying "current seats" in the third column (when all seats are vacant) and have the infobox say "incumbent prime minister", or have the infobox saying just "seats" in the third column and have the infobox say "prime minister before". Or we could edit the template itself so it works better for dissolved legislatures (I'll have a look at that). -- Ted Edwards 00:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ GoodDay: I've just sandboxed some changes to the template in my sandbox ( User:TedEdwards/sandbox1, the sandbox also transcludes from User:TedEdwards/sandbox2). If I were to make an edit request to add these changes to Template:Infobox legislative election, we could a) make that column say "Seats at dissolution" and b) have the infobox say "incumbent Prime Minister".
I also got carried away and made it that the infobox can now say what the seats won at the last election instead of current seats/seats at dissolution were (this is the only reason I needed my sandbox2). The two infoboxes in sandbox1 to the right are identical and were just to check which parameter overrides the other. -- Ted Edwards 22:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The infobox was removed, and now replaced with England's? Dank Jae 23:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
just fixed that. CipherRephic ( talk) 00:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ GoodDay: I haven't made an proper edit request as my suggestions are pretty extensive, but I have suggested those changes at Template talk:Infobox legislative election#Suggested changes to change possible row headers for future election. -- Ted Edwards 18:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Debate viewing figures

The 7-way BBC Debate was watched by 3.2M people https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/bbc-angela-rayner-penny-mordaunt-labour-daisy-cooper-b2559158.html 2A02:C7C:823D:F200:32D2:D0E0:C2CB:2658 ( talk) 19:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2024

Add after it will also be the first to take place under the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022. a reference to be the first election called by or taking place with Charles III as Sovereign AlexMayE96 ( talk) 23:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

 Done '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
And undone, as it has been the subject of much discussion here and consensus has been to place it in the background, not in the lead. Kevin McE ( talk) 09:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2024

The infobox contains two sentences which should not be added until after the election. They read This lists parties that won seats. See the complete results below. Those sentences should be removed, as they are factually inaccurate until the election actually takes place. 64.66.123.248 ( talk) 00:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Annoyingly, i think that's an integral part of the legislative election infobox template which would need fixing by someone with template level permisson and can't be done page-side (at least for now) CipherRephic ( talk) 10:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Removing "Polling Report" as a forecast source

From looking at the UK Polling Report site, there seems to be a lot of areas where no care or attention has been paid - missing candidate names even now after nominations have closed, and silly mistakes like Rochdale being predicted as a win for Jess Philips (Labour) despite her being the incumbent (and standing again) in Birmingham. I've removed it as a forecast per WP:BOLD. Eilidhmax ( talk) 22:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2024

BBC Wales Cymru has announced who will be taking part in the BBC Wales debate sp it should be added into the debate template. -- 78.149.98.83 ( talk) 22:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

 Done   M2Ys4U ( talk) 21:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

One of the most significant part of the election is missing from the infobox

Hi.

So it seems like the infobox is talked about a lot. I really have a strong frustration over why we do not have information about the latest election result in the infobox. This information, is what the media will compare the polls and the upcoming election results to. The media coverage of the structure of the parliament at the dissolution is rare to non-existent.

Therefore I really struggle to see why the information about the parliament at May 30 is relevant enough to be part of the infobox.

Alternatively we could have information regarding the parties' seat count at the last election as well as the parties' seat count at the dissolution, although I still struggle to see why the seat count at the dissolution is relevant on any page but House of Commons.

Have a nice day. Thomediter ( talk) 00:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi Thomediter. While I'm neutral at the moment on what set of seat numbers should be in the infobox, I have just suggested an edit to Template:Infobox legislative election, which would, if made, make it easier to display the seats at the last election. I've put more details about this discussion in Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#Infobox suggested edit. -- Ted Edwards 18:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Amazing. For me the important part just is the inclusion of seats at last election being in the infobox, and I see these are included in your suggested infobox. Thomediter ( talk) 10:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Predictions box rejig

Hi all (particularly ccing in @ Errora 404 and @ Ralbegen due to the earlier kerfuffle)

I've noticed there appears to be a bit of confusion over what the predictions box is supposed to contain (i.e. whether it's supposed to serve as a record of previous predictions made or reflect the most recent predictions) so per WP:BOLD i've bifurcated the box into four weeks pre and three weeks pre, as is the case on the GE2019 page. The former contains predictions made last week and the latter should contain all the predictions made this week. next week's should go in a section entitled two weeks from the vote and so on and so forth. I'll be cleaning up the citations in this week's one in a bit. lmk any thoughts.

CipherRephic ( talk) 18:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for tagging me! I think there are a couple of things here. It's clearly true that reliable sources cover seat projections quite widely and it makes sense for us to cover them here. However, the amount of the encyclopaedia article we dedicate to them should reflect the prominence in reliable source coverage of the election. I don't think there's been a recent burst of new coverage of seat projections this week compared to last week that justifes a second large table. If there had been projections showing something noteworthy (a Labour collapse and Conservative recovery, Reform or the Greens winning lots more seats, the Conservatives being overtaken by the Liberal Democrats), I feel confident that we would be able to justify adding a second table from media coverage of seat projections.
As it stands, I think sticking to the four-week one only for now is best. We don't have sources to justify giving so much more weight to them at the moment. As a reader, it's also not particularly interesting. Either the small changes are part of a trend, which will be matched by the polling charts and will be clearer in a week's time; or they are noise that will disappear in a week's time. Neither option justifies a second table yet.
I also think we ought to be judicious in who we include. There are lots of bloggers who produce seat projections but as in previous years it would be sensible for us to limit ourselves to those produced by reliable news outlets (the FT, the New Statesman, the Economist) or those which have been covered by multiple reliable sources. I don't think Election Polling or Principalfish have received any reliable source coverage, so we should remove them. Ralbegen ( talk) 22:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Crazyseiko:: Please see my reasoning here. Past articles having too many tables is not a reason to include indiscriminate numbers here without RS justification. We have discussed this topic before on multiple occasions. The default should not just be to add in a new large table!
In particular, there was agreement about removing predictions without reliable source coverage in 2019. I can't see any justification for including Election Polling or Principalfish. Ralbegen ( talk) 14:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Ralbegen: I originally stated on here, that we should have 3 tables: 4 weeks before, 2 weeks before and day before. Mainly because there was a longer campaign, that has happened this time around. The only reason to included 3 weeks is if there was a major change compared to the last one, and looking between the two tables there isn't. So I could agree to removing 3 weeks before, as long as we can have 2 weeks before as that would prove without a doubt the the direction of travel for the polls. In relation to Election Polling or Principalfish If think your right however "Fish" was included as it covered Yougov. I also tried to add in some commentary about the table but it was removed. -- Crazyseiko ( talk) 14:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Here is the template for 2 weeks before: Are the following good reliable sources:

Parties YouGOv Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
as of 21 June 2024 		ElectionMapsUK Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
as of 21 June 2024 		Financial timesCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
as of 21 June 2024 		THe Economist Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
as of 21 June 2024 		Britain Elects/
New Statesman Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
as of 21 June 2024 		Polling ReportCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
as of 21 June 2024 		Electoral calculusCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
as of 21 June 2024 		Elections etcCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
as of 21 June 2024
Labour Party
Conservatives
Liberal Democrats
SNP
Plaid Cymru
Green Party 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2
Reform UK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Others 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
Overall result (probability) Labour
majority
Thanks—I think we should wait and see what each week brings before deciding in advance whether to include a new table. If there's something interesting enough next week that news sources cover it I think we should include another table; if it's the same again I'm not so sure. The New Statesman, the Economist and the FT are all worth including on their own merits. YouGov and Electoral Calculus projections are very widely covered. Election Maps UK projections have been covered by some local news sources so probably makes the cut. I can't find anybody covering Election Polling (though it's a tough name to search for), Elections Etc or Principalfish so I would be minded to exclude those for now. Ralbegen ( talk) 16:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Seconded. I'd say it might also be worth distinguishing between predictions made based on poll aggregations (e.g. the FT's) and ones made based on bespoke polling (e.g. YouGov's) - but not entirely sure where i'd put that in the table. CipherRephic ( talk) 16:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Infobox suggested edit

Hi editors. I have started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox legislative election#Suggested changes to change possible row headers for future election, suggesting an edit that would allow e.g. this page to say "seats at dissolution" or list the number of seats won at the last election when the "ongoing" parameter in the template is set to "yes" (which it technically should be). -- Ted Edwards 18:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

predictions boxes edit

Hi @ DeFacto,

Just to let you know, the edit you just made to the prediction boxes has wiped out the Labour figures for a few of the columns. I'm not going to touch it because i'm pretty sure i've already done three reverts today and a *very* liberal interpretation of what a revert is could include this (better safe than sorry, yk). BTW, re: the pink shading, it's supposed to be a saturated version of the party colour meant to indicate the largest party in a given prediction as it was used on the 2019, 2017 and 2015 pages. I think it's worth keeping because the emphasis makes the table marginally more legible and there is precedent for it - this could be clarified in the bit above the boxes, maybe? CipherRephic ( talk) 20:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ah, missed that you've just fixed that. Ignore the top bit :) CipherRephic ( talk) 20:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Yep, there was an edit conflict, which I fixed.
If the colouring adds something, complies with WP:COLOUR, and is fully explained near the table(s) I see no problem, but currently there is no explanation, so I cannot see the point of it. -- DeFacto ( talk). 20:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ DeFacto it copied 2017/ 2019 when the tories were in the lead -- Crazyseiko ( talk) 13:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Crazyseiko, that's not necessarily a good reason to keep it in this article. Do you know what the use it is? Does it comply with WP:COLOUR? -- DeFacto ( talk). 14:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ DeFacto I believe its complys with WP:COLOUR. The reason it was used was to highlight the winning party, ie in the case of 2019 the tories. In one section of the tables they only got 20 seat maj.-- Crazyseiko ( talk) 18:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Debates table

The debates table has become very complicated, which is good in some ways, in terms of conveying a lot of information, but which is bad in other ways if it becomes too confusing to understand. On the latter, it has become very complex in terms of different colours used, and there's no explanation for all those different colours. I don't think we're complying with WP:COLOUR. Cutting back on some of the colours would seem like a good idea for me: e.g. the purple for when the venue hasn't been announced, or the different shade of green for party leaders vs surrogates. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Candidates table

There seems to be a bit of a scuffle over whether or not to include the candidate summary table and what to put in it, so in the interests of establishing consensus:

  1. Should we include the table in the article?
  2. If yes, what would constitute the criteria for a party's inclusion?

Discuss - I'll put my own thoughts as a reply. Most recent table below for reference.

Party Party leader(s) Leader since Leader's seat 2019 election Seats at

dissolution

Contested seats
% of

votes

Seats
Conservative Party Rishi Sunak October 2022 Richmond (Yorks) 43.6% 365 346 635 seats in the United Kingdom
Labour Party Keir Starmer April 2020 Holborn and St Pancras 32.1% 202 205 631 seats in Great Britain
Scottish National Party John Swinney May 2024 None [n 1] 45.0% 48 43 59 seats in Scotland
Liberal Democrats Ed Davey August 2020 Kingston and Surbiton 7.4% 12 15 611 seats in Great Britain
Plaid Cymru Rhun ap Iorwerth June 2023 None [n 2] 0.6% 4 3 32 seats in Wales
Alba Alex Salmond March 2021 None [n 3] New party 2 19 seats in Scotland

CipherRephic ( talk) 16:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

This was in a section labelled 'Great Britain' without any clear explanation as to why, and no corresponding material for Northern Ireland. I'm not sure what useful function this table serves. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 17:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I don;t see what new information this brings to the page? ALL the information listed in that table is covered else where in the page-- Crazyseiko ( talk) 18:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Agreed. We have this info in other forms already in the article, don't we? And why the weird choice of parties? Why Alba, but not Reform UK? Why no Greens? Why the wrong number for LibDem candidates? Bondegezou ( talk) 21:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
And as I said when I removed it for a second time, it also contained unsourced commentary, an undue table, and was off topic in the 'Candidates' section. When I removed it the first time I said that it adds nothing to the topic other than confusion between UK, GB and NI and duplicates the 2019 results again in the article. I think it added nothing and was unencyclopaedic. -- DeFacto ( talk). 21:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Oh, right, I was going to put my opinion here.
Personally I think it's not worth keeping (it would be more fitting on the candidates page if it's anywhere at all) but if we do keep it then the criteria should probably be either 1. Had any MPs at dissolution (rather than multiple) or 2. Got >1% of the vote in 2019 (although this would exclude Plaid which feels like an oversight) CipherRephic ( talk) 12:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I would propose putting the table from the Candidates article as far as those that have 10 candidates (ie, to include all parties that have any real attention: I believe that in the context of NI, Aontú probably have enough profile to justify inclusion). There is then a mathematically objective cut off point that avoids any need for CRYSTAL BALL accusations, and avoids the accusation of bias against those not represented at the time of dissolution. 14 candidates could be an alternative cut off point: no party below that figure (assuming we are not counting Speaker as a party) has any real expectation of winning a seat or probably even retaining a deposit).
Text below the shortened box could explain the independents, that n other parties with fewer than 14/10 candidates are also contesting, and the situation regarding the speaker. A link to the full table could accompany it. Kevin McE ( talk) 00:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I have been WP:BOLD Kevin McE ( talk) 09:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Another option is to follow the BBC ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw55nk6yn01o) who only listed either parties that were standing in 25+ seats, or who were standing in more than 1/6 of seats in a single UK nation Eastwood Park and strabane ( talk) 10:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Seats @ Dissolution

Why, on the infobox and the table for seats at dissolution, does it say Conservatives has 344 Seats, when the source cited from the House of Commons website says 346?

I have changed this before but it got reverted. Thanks, Wikieditor019 ( Talk to me) 14:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I've rejigged the sources in the table to make clear where the numbers are coming from. -- Ted Edwards 16:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Revert to infobox with images, leader's seat, etc.

Not sure where to write this but a lot of people are particularly unhappy with the change - it's been spotted on Twitter (X) by followers of politics who may not be avid Wikipedia editors but regularly visit these pages. Please could we revert to the previous infobox which was far better with images, leader's seat, etc? Internet is Freedom ( talk) 16:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

While I'm generally in agreement that TIE (the one with the pictures) is preferable to TILE (the one without), because this election hasn't happened yet the current consensus is to use TILE because TIE requires us to guess which parties will or won't be major players (see: 2017 DUP), which contravenes WP:CRYSTAL. The idea is to change it to TIE once the election has happened and we have an idea of the major players. CipherRephic ( talk) 17:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
If people want images of the party leaders, they can be added to the article. Bondegezou ( talk) 21:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Greens clarity, there are three

I think the "Green Party" has to be clarified as the " Green Party of England and Wales"/GPEW/Greens (E&W), as both the separate Green parties, Scottish Greens and Green Party Northern Ireland are also standing candidates and not part of GPEW. An exception is for polling which seems they're considered as one, depending on the respondent's location, unless the outcome seat prediction is specifically for one of the Green parties. While the debates table already does it somewhat. Dank Jae 00:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

done :) CipherRephic ( talk) 12:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Campaign section: chronological or by party

The Campaign section was being written chronologically, but someone has now re-arranged it to be split by party. I can see pros and cons either way, but I think it makes more sense to do it chronologically, so you can understand how the story of the election unfolded. What do others think? Bondegezou ( talk) 21:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Arranging by date allows the section to be read as a singular contiguous narrative and makes the addition of new events (particularly ones which concern multiple parties, or no parties!) substantially easier. CipherRephic ( talk) 21:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sub-articles by English region

Pinging @ Moondragon21: as the creator of these sub-articles, like 2024 United Kingdom general election in North East England. The articles seem to be forks from the main list of candidates done on grounds of article size, but they're all bloated by a large number of unnecessary sources. Now that the SOPNs have been released, only one source is needed (e.g. https://candidates.democracyclub.org.uk/ ) for all candidates in the country, which would cut down article size a lot.

Going into the election, and planning out article layout after the election, it feels to me that some changes to the layout would be useful. For the list of candidates, a layout comparable to Results of the 2019 Canadian federal election by riding is readable and is probably something to aim for following the election, whilst the information on boundary changes is useful but clutters the table so may be useful to be separated out into a different article. As a result, I'd propose replacing the England sub-articles with two new articles: the first one being Results of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency and containing a table along the lines of this:

Constituency Labour Conservative Reform UK Liberal Democrats Green Party Others Incumbent
Bishop Auckland Sam Rushworth
25,000
50.00% 		Jane MacBean
15,000
30.00% 		Rhys Burriss
2,500
5.00% 		Helen Cross
2,500
5.00% 		Sarah Hannan
2,500
5.00% 		Rachel Maughan ( Transform) Conservative Dehenna Davison
Blaydon and Consett Liz Twist
25,000
50.00% 		Angela Sterling
15,000
30.00% 		David Ayre
2,500
5.00% 		Vicky Anderson
2,500
5.00% 		Richard Simpson
2,500
5.00% 		Paul Topping ( SDP)
Mark Logan ( Workers) 		Labour Liz Twist
Blyth and Ashington Ian Lavery
25,000
50.00% 		Maureen Levy
15,000
30.00% 		Mark Peart
2,500
5.00% 		Stephen Psallidas
2,500
5.00% 		Steve Leyland
2,500
5.00% 		Labour Ian Lavery

And the second one being something like 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies by constituency along the lines of this

Elected MP (2024–) Constituency (2024–) Constituency (2010–24) Succession % [note 1] Incumbent MP (before 2024)
Conservative Anne-Marie Trevelyan North Northumberland Berwick-upon-Tweed 95% Conservative Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Labour Sam Rushworth Bishop Auckland 75% Conservative Dehenna Davison
Labour Liz Twist Blaydon and Consett Blaydon 51% Labour Liz Twist
North West Durham 49% Conservative Richard Holden

My examples obviously have dummy data/results as designed for following the election. But I thought I would raise the general idea- I think this change in layout would be preferable to the status quo. Would appreciate all thoughts on this. Chessrat ( talk, contributions) 00:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC) Chessrat ( talk, contributions) 00:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
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).
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2024_United_Kingdom_general_election&oldid=1229471724"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE