Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election

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)

@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)

Switching infobox would be more concise and look far less clunky, completely agree. Ebm2002 (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@Bondegezou Hi, you reverted the infobox change despite there being a consensus here. Why? DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. --TedEdwards 14:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@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? --TedEdwards 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@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)

@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--TedEdwards 22:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I misread "2024 election series template (below infobox)" as "2024 election series template (infobox)" DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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. --TedEdwards 22:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

I strongly favour option A above. DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

Do they currently have seats, or not?

We have the current number of seats held for each political party, in the House of Commons. Yet, on the separate party pages, we list 'no' seats. Why the inconsistencies? GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. Are you talking about this article's infobox? It's "at dissolution". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I've recently done a somewhat counterintiutive edit so the infobox now says "seats". With the text in the infobox it should be clear that these are seats at dissolution. --TedEdwards 01:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no current seats as Parliament is dissolved. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC))

@MOTORAL1987: I know there aren't any current seats. That's why I changed the infobox so it says "seats", not "current seats" with a previously written note at the top saying it's the number of seats at dissolution. That's also why I said what I said two lines up. So it's clear those numbers are seats at dissolution. --TedEdwards 13:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, it's handled differently at the Canadian Parliament. We keep them as current seats, in both the 'active' election page & party infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

BTW - Within this article itself, there's inconsistency with the numbers at dissolution. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Thank you for alerting us to that inconsistency, where it says there are 345 Conservative seats, 206 Labour seats and 15 independent seats in the infobox, but 344 Conservative seats, 205 Labour seats and 17 independent seats in Template:UK House of Commons composition, which is transcluded onto this page in the background section. I will try to find the reason for this, and which figures are correct, but if any editors know why this is the case, please correct it. --TedEdwards 16:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this is about Lloyd Russell-Moyle, who was suspended from Labour just before Parliament was dissolved, so there's been some uncertainty and conflicting editing about how to count him. I think we should count him as gone, so Labour 205 is more accurate, but I've not edited the infobox to allow for further discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Trying to mine through the edit histories of various articles trying to find where the discrepancy started and why, but it's three separate articles (including List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election, where at the bottom it gives same figures as the composition template). And at dissolution the numbers were already different. But the Russell-Moyle thing Bondegezou pointed out is plausible. --TedEdwards 13:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

So at start of 28 May, all 3 had 345 Conservative and 205 Labour. Infobox said 15 independents but that's definitely incorrect as the numbers don't add to 650, so must have been 16 independents at the time, as said by composition template and party totals in List of MPs article. Since 28 May and before dissolution, Mark Logan defected from Tories to being an independent (may be confusion as he supports Labour, but I can't see evidence he took Labour whip. And the defection was announced after dissolution), Diane Abbott regained the Labour whip and Lloyd Russell-Moyle, as Bondegezou said, lost the whip. So maybe 344 Conservative, 205 Labour and 17 independents (so composition template is correct)? I will look more into how the discrepancy actually arose though. --TedEdwards 13:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

So I found this on the parliament website, saying what the state of parliament on 29 May was, the last date were that website says there were MPs. The numbers there are the same as in the infobox. However that website I think says before dissolution that Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Mark Logan were respectively Labour and Conservative MPs. If they became independent shortly before dissolution, the numbers would be the same as in the composition template. --TedEdwards 16:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Lloyd Russell-Moyle became an independent very shortly before dissolution and this change wasn't noted by the Parliament website, but was been noted by secondary sources, so I think we should count it. Bondegezou (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

What is the significance of seats at dissolution?

Hi.

I started a topic a few days ago, which somewhat also concerned this issue, but I didn't feel I got my point through, so I'll try to put it here.

I'm not really familiar with arguments behind the infobox informing about the distribution of seats on the dissolution. Why is this considered more important than each party's latest election result? Why are we not informing about the latest election's result in the infobox?

The media rarely talks about current seats, and I do not know a single media outlet who is going to compare the results of the upcoming election with the seats that each party had at the dissolution. On the contrary, the media compares GAINS and HOLDS to the last election result. People is, in my view, more likely to come to the page, to see how many seats each party got at the last election. After all, this is still what we are gonna compare the 2024 results to.

I'm not thinking that seats at dissolution is irrelevant information, I just think it belongs further down the page or at the House of Commons page.

So I just wanted to understand why the current decision is to have seats at dissolution being such a main thing of the page.

Have a nice evening 😊 Thomediter (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

"On the contrary, the media compares GAINS and HOLDS to the last election result." I really do not believe that the media does that at all. If (as it surely will) Labour wins the constituency of Blackpool South (a recent by-election gain, won by Conservatives in 2019) it will be considered a Labour hold by all main outlets. Swing, nationally, may be compared to the last election, but not holds and gains. Kevin McE (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

"I really do not believe that the media does that at all."

However this is the case, for at least Sky and the House of Commons official website.

House of Commons Library calls it "gain", even though the tories held the seat as a result of the by-election [1].

I can't post Youtube, but if you go on Youtube, you can see that Sky News calls Brecon and Radnoshire a "CON HOLD", despite the seat prior to the election being Lib Dems. Video is "The Brexit Election: Part 3 (3am-6am)" and the constituency is visible at 40:27 in the video. Thomediter (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The media often compare gains/losses to the last election, ignoring by-elections/defections, and that's what our results tables in general election articles do. Sometimes, however, the media do compare to the situation at dissolution, so accounting for by-elections/defections. There isn't unanimity in the approach. To complicate things, after boundary changes, the media normally compare to the notional results at the last election. I expect Tim Farron will win Westmorland and Lonsdale, as he did in 2019, and yet it will be reported as a LibDem gain because the notional result for the new boundaries makes it a 2019 Conservative win.

More broadly, the media do pay attention to by-elections and defections in their election coverage. Even if they are more often comparing gains/losses to the last election, they will talk about by-election wins and defections. Galloway winning, Anderson defecting, these attracted considerable media attention in the run-up to the election being called.

We have a table in the background section describing the 2019 results and subsequent changes. That seems appropriate to me. It shows both sets of figures. However, Thomediter raises the question around the infobox. Infobox discussions are frequent and fraught! I can live with the infobox either showing the state at dissolution or just the 2019 results, although I think the former is preferable. We could also switch to an "empty" infobox that doesn't list any parties, which we had for periods in the run-up to the 2019 election. Bondegezou (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

To me, this currently seems more like a discussion about the infobox, than answering my first question (this is also partly my fault for swaying the topic that way). I am still interested in the arguments for showcasing seats at dissolution as the main thing of the page.

I think that an infobox is good to have, so I do think we should keep one with the parties. But I really struggle to see, why information about the parliament on May 30 is more important than the latest election result. When it's election night, the show will tell viewers about some of the defections/by-elections that has happended in the latest period, but it will be a secondary or tertiary thing. The main thing the media will talk about, and comapre the results to, is going to be the latest election result. Therefore I really believe, that readers will have a larger interest in seeing how the parties did at the latest election, instead of how the parliament looked before the election campaign started. I don't see how there being 17 Independent MP's at the dissolution is such a major thing, that it has to be in the infobox. The media is very unlikely to talk about all of these defections. Thomediter (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

England listed as "UK" in the 2024 United Kingdom general election debates in Great Britain section

I've not changed it as there might be some reasoning behind it being listed as such, but each location (Salford, Grimsby, York, and Nottingham) is in England, which is a constituent country of the UK. This is in contrast to both Wales and Scotland being listed separately on the infobox. Is there any reasoning behind this or should I change it? SirDoor (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Changed it, revert if this is the wrong course of action. SirDoor (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The STV debate and the BBC debate on 21 June are focused specifically on Scotland and Wales, respectively, whereas the other debates are UK/GB-wide. They're not specifically England-only even though they take place in England - the SNP and Plaid Cymru are invited to some of them so they're clearly not English-only debates.  M2Ys4U ^(talk) 15:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright, reverted my change SirDoor (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Error that needs fixing

Background section says "The Conservative Party changed leader twice during the 2019 -2024 parliament" as Boris Johnson was the leader who led the party in the last election. By that logic, the sentence "The SNP also changed leader three times" should be changed to "The SNP also changed leader twice" as Nicola Sturgeon led the SNP in the last election. 150.143.27.147 (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

This has now been fixed. Bondegezou (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

12 June Sky debate not a debate

In the Debates section, we list a 12 June Sky News event. However, this is not a debate. The two party leaders are being interviewed separately.[2] I suggest we remove this or add a note explaining the difference. Bondegezou (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Notional Map - relates to revised proposals rather than the actual final constituencies

The notional result map does not actually relate to the final boundaries - Wimbledon near me is a completely different configuration to its final one and the seat names in Croydon are wrong - this will no doubt cause issues in quite a few areas. Trimfrim20 (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

We are in desperate need for both reconfigured, national and regional results maps for the 2024 Election (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC))

Display Speaker separately under "Predictions: A month before the vote"?

I was wondering if it would make sense to display the 1 seat of the Speaker separately from "Other" under the section mentioned in the title considering the other 18 seats seem to all be Northern Irish seats and there appears to be no clarification that the Speaker is included in this count. I suggest adding either a note in the "Other" field or adding a separate row for the Speaker. Anondoggo (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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"	7 June

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

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)

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. DankJae 10:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

References

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)

@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). --TedEdwards 00:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

 Done '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)