Template talk:United Kingdom parliamentary election, 2010

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Why does this table look different on its template page to the way it looks in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 article? In that article, it doesn't show several of the results shown here, so is misleading. (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


I've removed the column that states the amount of seats the parties would supposedly have won under PR. This is complete conjecture. It would have depended on the PR system used. Also, if PR had been used people would have voted differently (lots of people vote tactically), parties would have campaigned differently (targeting different seats or areas) and numerous other factors would have come into play. The figures given were completely meaningless and make no contribution to a table intended to show the actual results of the election. TomPhil 19:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No. of seats contested[edit]

There should be an additional column showing no. of seats contested so as to show proportionally how many votes each party got. (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Good work! That makes it much better! (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Votes per seat[edit]

What's the point of the "votes per seat" column? It looks POV-pushing. Wereon (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Green Party[edit]

Green party vote previously gave total Green vote for the UK, though the table labels suggest that this should just be the total for England and Wales (as Scotland and NI have their own entries). This led to some double counting, which I've corrected. For consistency with other parties, should these figures be combined? Drpknight (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Good work on this. The parties should be kept separate, as they are independent of each other - just as the Conservatives and UCUNF are listed separately. Warofdreams talk 17:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Small discrepancies[edit]

I've updated some of the numbers using Electoral Commission figures. Some small discrepancies may remain in the very minor parties. Drpknight (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)