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)

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)

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. --TedEdwards 22:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

I second supporting option A (2019 format, unless someone sneakily tries to change it), or the TIE format. There frankly, was no real issue (except maybe aesthetics, for a minority) for using TIE in previous elections - it’s not like Indonesia, or Israel, or Netherlands where there are nearly a dozen parties and the bugs ones can barely get above 25%.

There are only a handful number of pivotal parties, and it’s fine to have TIE just include them, which there were no issues before then. Even with TILE, sometimes someone will have to judge where the cutoff is, or else you end up with 60+ rows for a page when previously 6 parties was considered adequate (2022 Philippines legislative elections).

I would also like to suggest that TILE is, essentially just a mini copy of the results table anyway, and so generally less valuable (and closer to supplanting results table) than using TIE, where information like leaders seat (quite notable for UK, where there are no list MPs of any sort) and images (can’t “roll over” links on mobile) are in an easy place rather than buried around the article or just not included

With this, I think whatever benefits TILE may have over TIE, used almost since day dot, are not particularly applicable to here, and the supposed consensus around using TILE here relatively recent and flimsy, having come through with few eyes watching iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 05:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The claim that this is a relatively recent decision is wrong. We’ve had the same discussion before multiple general elections and are following the same practice agreed then. We’ve discussed the infobox for this particular article now three or four times already,

MOS:INFOBOX is clear that an infobox should, with very limited exceptions, only include information that is also in the article, so an infobox is always a copy of article content.

If people want the article to cover leaders’ seats and to have their photos, they can be added to the article. Bondegezou (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Bondegezou, arguably under MOS:INFOBOXEXCEPTIONS, this is information that is hard to integrate into the body text of the article in a coherent way. Putting a one liner about - eg Boris Johnson representing Uxbridge in 2019, would get buried under the other text, and their face too, doesn’t clearly fit under the other sections (eg Background) - when it can just go in the infobox - rather than simply culling it.

And unless if we live in a radio only world, or a world where news sites steadfastly avoid photographing politicians, images are linked to, and useful representations of parties and their leaders. The infobox MOS specifically has a whole section on styling images too, rather than a proscriptive ban on them, along with pushing for consistency as per MOS:INFOBOXSTYLE

I am hunting through Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1#Infobox (2), but I am not finding the agreement. I have found that you have discussed TILE before, and have said that it had been agreed on earlier, but I’m not sure where the consensus is for this major change.

It hasn’t been agreed for 2019. Nor 2017. Nor 2015 United Kingdom general elections. Or to clarify, there was no discussion on those talk pages of even moving to TILE, so I don’t get how this TILE discussion has been had multiple general elections?

At this point, this use of TILE is trying to foist a different aesthetic preference (unless if people using TILE somehow believe TILE looks worse?) onto the UK General Election pages, and causing inconsistency with the infoboxes used for past elections. iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 07:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Very well stated DimensionalFusion (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

and come to think about it, if someone did create a section for party leaders with photographs, people against TIE leader photos could then say photos are a needless duplication of article content...

As for "consensus", so far what I have found is

- Discussion that TILE can be kept for "next UK general election", and TIE once election is called Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1#Switch to standard election template

- Vigorous discussion, once again between similar users in this thread, but no consensus, and trying to frame existing TIE as WP:I don't like it

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1#Infobox (2)

I've found discussion, but no consensus. iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 03:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Awesome stuff DimensionalFusion (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ralbegen Why'd you revert the election infobox DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It's been discussed to death with more editors supporting and giving reasons for TILE. As an indication of the level of consensus, there is a widely-participated-in discussion on this page about how the infobox will change to TIE after the election. I can see no indication that that view among editors has changed. Ralbegen (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I can see no indication that there was a single "view" amongst editors in the first place, therefore how could it have "changed"? DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

B, current infobox as it is more inclusive unlike the classic classist system. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Maurnxiao How is the current infobox "classist"?? DimensionalFusion (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You mean the one with the pictures of the party leaders? It's basically the Rupert Murdoch & ITV News selected candidates at that point. We can see this with the hostility shown towards including Galloway in an infobox with party leaders' pictures, whereas the current system includes the Workers Party, Plaid Cymru, the Northern Irish parties etc Maurnxiao (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Seriously, @Maurnxiao are you some sort of appologist for Galloway'sparty? The 6 shown are the main contenders and that's why they were selected for the ITN debate. — Iadmc♫^talk  01:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologist? What do I need to apologize for, or deflect from, or protect? Obviously I feel a desire to defend my integrity in light of your suggestion that I am an "apologist", but this is a Wikipedia talk page where we discuss how aspects of an article should look like. We don't discuss apologetics or the political views of someone who happens to believe a political party is much more noteworthy than it is given credit for. Maurnxiao (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Then find the sources to show that they are significantly covered. As a side, the NI parties are not covered as they are exclusively in NI and and won't affect the outcome nationally much at all (like Galloway, indeed). — Iadmc♫^talk  01:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

We already had that discussion in the Workers Party topic, which unsurprisingly degenerated into personal and political attacks against Galloway. The DUP had a deal with the Conservatives in 2017, by the way, and the SNP is also only active in Scotland. At what point do only local parties become notable enough to merit an inclusion, such as the SNP? Maurnxiao (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Maurnxiao

> The DUP had a deal with the Conservatives in 2017

Yes, that is why they're included in the 2017 infobox.

> and the SNP is also only active in Scotland

They're also the third largest party.

> At what point do only local parties become notable enough to merit an inclusion, such as the SNP?

When they are notable enough to do so. It's a mix of polling, MP numbers, and coverage. DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

When there is any indication that the Workers' Party is likely to be the third biggest in parliament, you can be assured that they will be included. Similarly if they are expected to win, or have an appreciable effect on the outcome of a considerable number of seats, if they are polling significantly at a national or regional level, or otherwise become a truly significant player in an election.

Right now, I see three possibilities:

1) you wish to militate to have Wikipedia included regardless of any objective inclusion criteria, in which case you are trying to break its NPOV rule;

2) you do not trust the processes by which consensus is built at Wikipedia, in which case I politely suggest that it is not the place for you;

3) you are simply a troll who is enjoying being disruptive here.

You have made your points, I am sure that all of us active in building this article are now alert to the arguments for the inclusion of the Workers' Party here and are capable of discerning, collectively, a justification for greater reference to the group than they already have. Thank you for that, and goodbye. I shall, however, initiate steps towards a topic ban if you persist when it is clear that you do not have consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity - an apologist is not someone who is or should be apologising. Rather, it means a person who explains or defends a belief - particularly where the belief is unpopular or controversial. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Compromise proposal for Debates and Interviews sub-sections

Based on all of the recent discussions, as well as past precedent, I propose the following compromise proposal for the Debates and Interviews sub-sections:

1. In the Debates table, include the venue (eg, dock10, University of York, etc), but in the same column as the town/city. This corresponds exactly to what was done in the 2019 UK general election article.
2. In the Debates table, include the start time of the debate in an additional column (called simply "Time"), but not the end time. This maintains a record of the time of day of these events, without capturing the extra detail of how long each debate lasted.
3. Keep the Debates sub-section called "Debates", for conciseness, but accept that it includes some high-profile town hall-style events (such as the Sky News leaders' event and Question Time).
4. Keep the Interviews sub-section, but with prose only. Remove the Interviews table.

Comments invited. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, can we stop creating new sections interpolated further up the page, please? It's really hard to keep track of.

Secondly, I think you (Kennethmac2000) are under a misapprehension about 'compromise' and 'consensus'. You don't own this page, any more than the rest of us do. It feels like you're trying to trade off different sets of proposals for the interview and debate sections against each other, as though you have some particular right to make offers and cut deals. That's not how any of this works. We're trying to find a consensus in the sense that we have a common interest in developing a page that conveys the right information in an accessible way, but none of us specifically controls it or any part of it, and I'm not interested in any kind of 'bargaining' approach.

Thirdly, I don't find the tables particularly informative. As I said above, these events are only of interest for what is said in them, and yet that's the one thing that none of these tables conveys. If it were solely up to me, I'd scrap them and simply incorporate elements from them which are reported in reliable sources (that are independent of the ones who carried the original debates/interviews) into the narrative of the 'campaign' section. There's an argument for splitting the debates out into their own article, in which the table could be used to introduce a substantial amount of prose describing the content and its impact in proper context. But I don't think the same can be said of the interviews table - we'd be much better off putting this material into prose only. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I am very well aware I don’t own this page. However, we are dealing here with things which are marginal and incremental, and we can all come up with arguments in support of our respective positions. If we are to reach a consensus, that will likely involve compromise, which means some/most people getting some of what they want but not all. You may prefer to be less candid and transparent than I am about what is going on, which is perhaps strategically very wise of you, but inevitably how this will work mechanically is that people will argue most vociferously for the things they feel most strongly about, while quietly backing down on the things they are happy to let slide. That is an implicit cutting of a deal, compared to my admittedly more explicit version. Anyway, hopefully we can resolve this soon. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a time column in the Debates table at all. Can most of the colours be removed? I'm good with the proposed venue column. I don't see the need for an Interviews section. Interview content can be folded into the Campaign section. Bondegezou (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

1) That level of detail is just cruft, and has neither importance, wide coverage or enduring interest. It might (but only might) be worth mentioning in the pages of those institutions that these took place there, but no relevance here. No argument has been put forward as to why it would fit within policy to include them.

2) Wikipedia is not a listings magazine. Anyone with experience of UK television will now that such programmes tend to be mid to late evening, but the exact hour is not encyclopaedically relevant. No argument has been put forward as to why it would fit within policy to include them.

3) A note below the heading could suffice for explaining that not all are head to head debates; the phrase town-hall meeting would not fit with the appropriare ENGVAR. (Each leader took questions individually from a studio audience)

4) Interviews should be adequately covered within the chronological report of the campaign: any table is a false prioritisation of one broadcast format over another.

I don't have strong opinions over the colours, but would like input from someone with colour differentiation difficulties on the matter. Kevin McE (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the debates table, I also don't see the need to include either start or end times. There are many far more important times worth noting in this election campaign: the time of day Rishi Sunak called the election from Downing Street, for instance, or the time he left the D-Day commemorations. Neither of these are given in the article text, and I can't see any argument for the times of every debate being more deserving of inclusion than these. Similarly, locations such as where each party chose to launch their individual manifestos are arguably far more significant than where various debates and not-a-debates took place, and none of these are included in the article text either. However, I concede that previous debates tables have included city/town information, so I suppose this should be retained here for consistency.

I find it ever so slightly bizarre that, within a table headed '2024 United Kingdom general election debates in Great Britain', there are a whole five events actually tagged as 'not a debate' - one of which is literally Rhun ap Iorwerth on his tod. In other words, over a third of the 2024 GB debates table is comprised of not-a-debates. As a metaphor for the absurdity of a general election campaign, it's perfect. As a model for constructing a table purporting to consist of debates, not so much.

On a less flippant note, I appreciate that there are always arguments for why things can be included. As an example, take the very straightforward table of parties and candidates just below the debates and interviews. Any number of arguments could be made for additional columns to be bolted on to this: the year each party was established would help in differentiating new-ish parties (such as Alba) from established yet less familiar parties (such as the SDP); listing the leader/s of each party would assist those who can remember the name George Galloway but not the Workers Party of Britain; showing the nation or region each party is running in would aid in differentiating parties contesting 100% of seats in Northern Ireland from those contesting 3% of seats in England. All of this information could be included, but to do so would merely overcomplicate and detract from the table's actual stated purpose, which is to show the relative standing of various political parties in this election. Just because something is interesting doesn't mean it's essential.

On that principle, I come down on the side of removing all not-a-debates from the debates table, and deleting the interviews sub-section altogether. On the latter point, I would have agreed with prosifying its information, as has previously been suggested. But on reflection, the very few genuine points of interest from these interviews so far - ie, the controversy over Rishi Sunak's ITV appearance and Nigel Farage's Panorama comments on the Russian invasion of Ukraine - are already covered in the main campaign section of the article, and so there seems little justification for merely reiterating them in a dedicated subsection.

I don't have a strong opinion about table colours either, but would note that (at present) two of the six colours in both the GB and NI table keys are just legacy items from the 2019 table: 'Absent' and 'No debate', both of which should be removed. Likewise, 'Invited' will presumably disappear from the table as of 28th June, provided both Adrian Ramsay and Nigel Farage take part in that day's reboot of The Odd Couple. The 'Surrogate' colour could then be changed to something less similar to 'Present', so as to better differentiate between the two, if others have found this an issue? (Personally, I think the whole 'Surrogate' concept is an odd way of saying 'this person is not a party leader', but heaven knows this conversation doesn't require yet another subplot. Although don't get me started on the fact that one of the participants in the 21st June debate is an unspecified 'Lewis'....) 2A00:23C8:3FA2:D201:9966:4166:7FDB:37C (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Consolidating the most recent discussions, can we live with the following compromise proposal?

1. In the Debates table, include the venue (eg, dock10, University of York, etc), but in the same column as the town/city. This corresponds exactly to what was done in the 2019 UK general election article.
2. In the Debates table, do not include either start or end times.
3. Keep the Debates sub-section/tables called "Debates", for conciseness, but, per Kevin McE‘s suggestion, add an italicised note immediately below the “Debates” heading explaining that not all were head-to-head debates.
4. Remove the Interviews sub-section.

Kennethmac2000 (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Once again, it is about consensus, not compromise. What evidence of consensus do you claim you have for the inclusion of information about location beyond the city? Kevin McE (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I've reviewed this page for all references to "venue" and "location" and find the following mentions in support:

• 2A0A:EF40:E4A:E101:698A:BD05:47AD:E241: "Greater consistency with precedents would not go amiss: the debates table in the 2019 article included neither start/end times, individual host names, nor a bifurcated column for venue vs town/city. I think alignment with previous years is ample justification for scrapping these innovations here."
  [Alignment with previous years would mean a single "Venue" column including both the venue itself and the town/city.]
• Bondegezou I'm good with the proposed venue column.
• ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter This looks good! A big improvement.
  [This refers to my proposed compromise which includes a single column including both the venue itself and the town/city.]
• I obviously support my own proposal.

The only direct opposition I can find is from yourself User:Kevin McE.

WP:CON literally is about compromise, so I'm not sure why you keep saying it isn't:

"Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision making. It involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise ..." Kennethmac2000 (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

As an update on the above:

1. As already set out, there is a consensus to re-add venue information (to a single column combined with town/city), so I have now done this.
2. There is a consensus to not add either start or end times. The current version of the table already doesn't include these, so no further action is required here.
3. I have added a note immediately below the "Debates" heading which says:
   "This section includes reference to some events which were not head-to-head debates."
4. Someone else has already removed the Interviews table again - I will leave others to decide whether to remove the Interviews section entirely, or whether to leave the current stub. I am relaxed either way.

Kennethmac2000 (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

"This section includes reference to some events which were not head-to-head debates." - I really think this is a mistake. It's stepping into an editorial voice instead of an encyclopedic one, in order to announce that the section you're about to read doesn't follow its own heading properly.

On the subject of compromise and consensus - your earlier posts repeatedly framed this as "I will accept X if you accept Y". This presents editing as an exercise in compromise, in which there are defined positions which editors, or groups of editors, are entitled and expected to promote and defend, and from which elements may be traded out in order to reach a text which incorporates some parts from each position. This is not necessarily the case, and as I said above, it leans towards WP:OWN issues. I would rather think of consensus as a collective exploration of the possible space an article might fill, working out which directions are productive, and working together to achieve something which is comprehensible and accessible to the majority of the readership. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It was actually Kevin McE who suggested this, when he wrote: “A note below the heading could suffice for explaining that not all are head to head debates”. I then included this in my consolidated compromise proposal 2 days ago and no-one objected to that part of it.

The Sky News ‘debate’ in Grimsby and the various Question Time Leaders’ Specials (particularly the one in York) were widely referred to as “debates” and discussed extensively afterwards (in the way that many of the other interviews weren’t), so I think they merit inclusion in some sort of table of the tier-1 TV events of the campaign. (Drawing the line only at strict debates would imply the inclusion of the Channel 4 News debate in Colchester, but not the Question Time Leaders’ Special in York, which seems an unhelpfully strict place to draw the line).

I would be more than happy if we decided to rename the section from “Debates” to “Debates and <something else>”. Or we could accept that it isn’t a perfect world and keep the current italicised note. The one thing I am against is removing the high-profile events mentioned above. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I see College2021 has now added a "Format" column. Even if I'm unsure about the values 'Debate' and 'Individual', I think this is another reasonable option. (I'm also content enough with 'Debate' and 'Individual' if we can't think of any alternatives.) Kennethmac2000 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I further note that, following College2021's addition of the "Format" column, Scotlandshire44 has now removed the line "This section includes reference to some events which were not head-to-head debates." which was added immediately below the "Debates" heading per the discussion above.

If the view is that the new column now clarifies things, such that the line immediately below the "Debates" heading is no longer necessary, I think that makes sense (though I also wouldn't mind if the line was re-added).

The one thing I am wondering is whether "Individual" is the right term - "One at a time" could be better, although it is 3 characters longer. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Hierarchy of headings

Betting Issue

Currently, 'Betting Scandal' sits alongside 'Timetable' as a subsection of 'Date of election'. This cannot be right. Make it a stand-alone section in its own right, or a subheading under Campaign (although that is chromologically subdivided), or (my own favourite) as a subsection of 'Candidates', because in time it will be just a footnote that affected three (at the present count) candidates, two of whom were not likely to be elected anyway.

Thoughts? Kevin McE (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

How about an entire section dedicated to controversies? Farage's comments about Ukraine also seemed to stir up some controversy, and the entire situation with Diane Abbott, the House of Lords and the Labour Party whip, so I would guess you could muster an entire section without relying too much on a single story. Maurnxiao (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia advises against Controversy sections.

I put the betting scandal under date of election originally because it was about betting on the date of the election, and it seemed somewhat tangential to the rest of the campaign. It has since become a bigger issue, so I'm happy for us to look at that again. I think it still sort of works where it is, and it has its own spin-off article for detail.

We have a chronological campaign section and that works for many purposes. We do have some issues that might sit better in their own subsections. If we're going to move the betting scandal section, I would suggest moving it to the end of the campaign chronology. Bondegezou (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Debates

Quite apart from discussion elsewhere on this page about the tabulation of debates and interviews, they are surely a subject within the scope of Media coverage, so I would propose lowering that 'Debates' (or 'Debates and interviews', or whatever is settled upon) heading to a subheading under 'Media coverage'

Do people agree? Kevin McE (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Sound idea. They are too prominent at the moment — Iadmc♫^talk  20:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Fine with me. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Endorsements

This is essentially a single line saying that ther are endorsements, and a link that is not even in the same line of prose. I know there are many WP articles with such sections, but would it not make more sense to just have it in the See Also at the bottom? Kevin McE (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

In previous elections these have included newspaper endorsements (as the endorsements that typically get most coverage) excerpted from the endorsements article. Ralbegen (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I endorse George Galloway!194.120.133.41 (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Forecasts section

A few issues here have arisen overnight:

a) The heading had been changed from projections to predictions. I would argue that as a mathematical/psephological extrapolation, projections is better.

b) The format has been changed, apparently to match previous elections (something that there is no obligation to do) to a format that has the projections as columns and the parties as rows. I find the previous arrangement (columns for parties, rows for projections) more natural to read, and a lot neater: I'm not sure that there is anything other than personal preference to bring to this, but I think the change merits discussion.

c) A 'One week to go' projection has been introduced, which bears the date of 23rd June in the 'accessed' field in the reference, and 22nd June on the target website, so obviously more than a week to go. But had been (I have edited it) marked as on 26th June. But those weeks are at best unclear. Monday of this week was was 24th June, 10 days before the election. So is that 1 or two weeks? And by Friday it will be less than a week, but still the same calendar week as the 24th. As a header, it is very imprecise, without even checking whether stated date is that of polling of of publishing. Kevin McE (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with you on (a).

The format with parties as columns was better, clearer and more concise. We should return to it—the format it has been changed to is worse. One projection from each source that's either authoritative (pollster, newspaper, magazine) or covered by reliable sources as close as possible to the Thursday in the relevant week makes sense to me.

I would also support including fewer tables if we can. Ralbegen (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

That section has just been blanked by @Ralbegen with "sc" whatever that means. — Iadmc♫^talk  11:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I replaced it with the more readable version, but accidentally left in one of the projection tables. My second edit removed that table as a self-correction. My third edit replaced the projection from 22 June with one that's actually from today. Ralbegen (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh. OK fair enough — Iadmc♫^talk  11:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The current format looks good to me. Bondegezou (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

A) I can agree on that, projections probably does sound better.

B) As you said this is largely down to personal preference, but I strongly think the previous format (columns for projections, rows for parties; see example) looks better and is a lot more readable. First off, the new format (columns parties, rows projections) feels 'cramped' in a way, the seat numbers feel too close together and the whole thing is too condensed to be easily readable. The old format was a lot more flexible; e.g. you could more easily read each pollster's projection of one party's seat number. Secondly, while consistency across articles isn't obligatory it's still very much preferable as it makes for more continuative reading rather than switching-up the format on each article just 'cause. Overall, even if the consensus decides on columns for parties and rows for projections, I also think we should re-introduce party colour shadings on the majority party's seat tally and solid party colour as a BG on the overall result / majority number (if applicable of course although in this instance it very much is) as again it just improves readability. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• This orientation is clearer, but I don't think we should make the majority text bold white on a dark red background. That's not an improvement. It makes the tables much larger, spreads out the numbers so they are harder to see next to each other, and looks garish. Ralbegen (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Ralbegen. The Manual of Style does not support whacky formatting without good reasons. Plain text is fine. Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Projections xxxx weeks before the vote - someone changes the format

Someone keeps on changing the format back to the old style, however they crit 2017 and 2019 HOWEVER there modified those tables included more blue etc, so it looks like there is a patten. Personnel I like the new format as it more slick and not over powering on the page esp since this time around there is alot more data and projections. What is everyone views on this? You can see the old sytle here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_Kingdom_general_election&oldid=1231325130#Predictions_four_weeks_before_the_vote

Also we need to add more text to this section, but some people dont seem to like this point. like can we trust them: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv22y07ggy6o or how reform will actully pick up half a dozen seats which should be worth a simple metion? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/18/reform-farage-tice-survation-poll-election-lee-anderson/ Crazyseiko (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we should maintain the current system that lists all the parties with MPs until the election is over, after which we should go back to the one with party leader's pictures. I however disagree with others on here in that I think we should include the leaders of ALL parties with MPs. There's actually precedence for this in other countries' election articles, but, unless I'm mistaken, there's already an old consensus against this... Maurnxiao (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I think your replyed to the wrong section. --Crazyseiko (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Scottish Postal Vote Issues

I think this developing issue from the BBC ought to be mentioned in the election article somewhere possibly on here or on the Scottish article.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2g5y6nyr0o MOTORAL1987 (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe under Electoral system? Bondegezou (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it should come under a voting section with the mention making it clear that the election date in Scotland falls within its school summer holidays as they have July as their main summer month off as opposed to August in England however since my first post a little while another article on this matter has come to my attention which is here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8vdpvqe24jo (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC))

This may be a bigger issue than first thought I have some unofficial reports from areas within England who are reporting issues now with Postal Votes i have a link here from the telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/28/general-election-postal-votes-marginal-seats/ and also from Ipswich https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/24418362.ipswich-residents-not-got-postal-ballots/ (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC))

Details have Already been added to the page as its its bigger issues and more councils have had to deal with whats going on. --Crazyseiko (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Why has interview box gone?

There use to be a box under the debates for all the leaders interviews. Why has it gone? It was really useful. I use to use it like a tv guide 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:49F9:2E29:663:6218 (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a TV guide. There was extensive discussion on this page about the utility of that table, and it was removed from the article following that discussion. As I argued then, interviews are only notable for what is said in them, which was the one thing that table did not provide. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Several firsts

It will also be the first general election held under the reign of King Charles III. Should we add this? 79.148.174.160 (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The 1955 United Kingdom general election mentions the fact that it was the first general election under the new monarch, so either we should remove it there or add it here, and I happen to think we should add it here. Maurnxiao (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

There was previously discussion supporting including this material in the body of the article but not the lead, which I think would be fine. I don't think it belongs in the lead.

(The format and content of the 1955 article has very little bearing on how we should write this article.) Ralbegen (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be in the background section, and I support the existing consensus that it should not be in the lead. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need to include this in the lead. Charles III is already mentioned throughout the article, so readers will already be aware this election is the first to take place with him as the King. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Additional manifestos

Please can someone add the following manifestos to the external links at the bottom of the article? I can't, due to semi-protection. Both are from modestly substantial parties contesting more overall seats than, for example, Alba (who are also currently represented in this section).

Scottish Greens, contesting 44 seats: https://greens.scot/sites/default/files/SGP-Westminster-Manifesto-2024-web.pdf

Social Democratic Party, contesting 122 seats: https://sdp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/SDP_Manifesto_2024.pdf 2A00:23C8:3FA2:D201:6408:F88B:4A0C:2642 (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'd knock Alba out. We don't need every Tom, Dick and Sheila. Same goes for Alliance and Workers. — Iadmc♫^talk  14:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Alba and Workers have 3 MPs between them, and their leaders, Alex Salmond and George Galloway, with the latter being a sitting MP, are extremely famous and notable figues in the British political landscape. Maurnxiao (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not a popularity contest. Farage would win hands down if it were. (...) It just get cluttered with all the minor parties being mentioned. — Iadmc♫^talk  14:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not a popularity contest but popularity is an additional piece of evidence in support of the possibility of both Alba and the workers Party, which have sitting MPs, being important political forces in the British state. Maurnxiao (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

How are "popularity" or "importance" assessed? Number of MPs or seats being contested aren't good enough or the article will become cumbersome. It should, as far as I'm concerned, take after notability guidelines: significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I'm not sure that Alba, Scottish Greens, Workers, ..., get the media coverage that, say, the Eng/Wales Greens or Reform do, despite comparable numbers of MPs. Information on SGs is likely more relevant to 2024 United Kingdom general election in Scotland, if it isn't there already. Irltoad (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

These are legitimate political parties with parliamentary representation and you don't want their include their manifestos? It's not, say, the English Democrats. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

You totally ignored my argument. It is not for us to decide the "legitimacy" of parties, and even if it were this is irrelevant to the matter at hand. We can't discuss everything about every party or the article will become far too long. Media coverage is a good way to assess notability, and not every party in each parliament of the country gets a high level of coverage. Irltoad (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

There is extensive media coverage of the Alba and Workers parties. And they both currently have sitting MPs; in the case of the Workers Party, theirs was directly elected. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I think would disagree with knocking out the parties mentioned, but I think it's acceptable to only include parties that either already have MPs, or that have significant coverage e.g. in the opinion polls. This would probably include the Scottish Greens but maybe exclude SDP. The other question would be significant media coverage. It's also clear that Alba/Alliance have significant mentions in the opinion polls, being listed in more or less every opinion poll in their respective countries (and Alliance polling in first place on one). Workers party and SDP are not listed in most opinion polls however. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, in favour of the SDP/Workers being added, is that they come 6th and 7th respectively in number of candidates, which is significant. These parties have candidates in a large number of seats across the country which might warrant more coverage? Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I think every party with MPs when Parliament was dissolved is a sensible starting point. I’m not against further parties being included, e.g. on the basis of # candidates. Certainly, any party that has received significant secondary RS coverage should be included. Bondegezou (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Did not expect to find this level of convo when I remembered to check on this today!

To clarify my original request, I was thinking on the basis of including all ten of the largest parties in terms of seats contested: hence adding the SDP (#7) and Scottish Greens (#10). (The Co-operative Party have, of course, not produced a separate manifesto for this election.) Plaid Cymru and Alba make sense to retain as parties that are contesting a third or more of the seats in their respective nation; Plaid are of course standing in every Welsh seat, whilst Alba are contesting 19 of the 57 seats in Scotland (which is a greater proportion than, for example, the Workers Party of Britain, who are only contesting 27% of English constituencies).

The idea of leaving out Alliance is quixotic at best. Anyone who follows Northern Irish politics will know that the parties currently represented are very much the five canonical parties contesting this election, as evidenced by the fact they were all included in both the BBC and ITV debates. Indeed, Alliance actually had an MP elected in 2019, which is more than can be said for the UUP, who haven't returned a Westminster candidate for almost a decade. 2A00:23C8:3FA2:D201:C8F1:B3CD:EA9D:434C (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that we should respect the usual RS approach of seeing 5 canonical parties in NI and include all of their manifestos. Bondegezou (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Background section

The background section is becoming increasingly long. Anyone have any ideas on how to best condense it? ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I actually think it's pretty tight. Compared to how it was shortly after the election was called, it's clear and relevant throughout. The subsection headings help to keep it organised. If anything, I'd add a short introductory paragraph above the 'Conservative party' subheading, introducing the general situation - COVID-19, Brexit, the new monarch. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I've trimmed it down a bit now. Bondegezou (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Background section verifiabilty

I must say that after reading, and attempting to verify the content, I am quite shocked at the poor quality of sourcing in the section. WP:V says Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. I've added a few tags, but got fed up in the end, but am sure there are many other gaps. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

No, DeFacto, that was just egregious WP:TAGBOMBing, out of all proportion to any problems in the text. Bondegezou (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

No, that implies unjustified tagging. These were clearly necessary and clearly reasoned to attract attention to the problems, and with enough precision to allow willing editors to easily fix the problems I discovered. I could justifiably have added more. I see you've already helped with the problems I've raised by adding more references, which is good, and is a better way to spend your time than being unnecessarily aggressive here and wasting our time. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The Conservative section is now fully cited. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Sub-headings for campaign section

Hi all, soliciting opinions here: how should the dates for the sub-headings in the campaign section be arranged? I've been tweaking things so that 20-26 June and 27 June - Present is now a heading instead of 21 June - Present. This is on the basis of "weeks until election", i.e. 20-26 June is the second week until polling day and 27 June - Present is the final week. But opinions welcome here - should this be done another way? Such as splitting it where it feels natural, etc. DimensionalFusion (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Party slogans section

(CCing in @Nolbraltar1704)

I've removed the party slogans section on the grounds that it's extremely bulky and contributes to the general tablespam problem this article has while giving arguably undue coverage to a number of v. fringe parties. I don't think it's worth inclusion unless notable external coverage can be found and would probably better fit a brief mention for the major parties in the campaign(?) section. Would appreciate any thoughts. CipherRephic (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed! We need to be looking at where reliable sources are focusing and follow them. They are not focusing on slogans. Bondegezou (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

What happens when party endorsement is removed?

According to Swedish media (e.g. this article in Aftonbladet), candidates Craig Williams and Laura Saunders no longer have the support of their party. As the ballots are already printed, they remain Tory candidates, but will - if elected - be seated as independents. This seems to be confirmed by British media too (e.g. Sky News).

The electoral systems varying much between countries, I think this might merit mentionning/explaining in the article. In a tight race, this could be very important. In this race, it will probably not affect the general outcome but will explain the election results.

1. Should it be mentionned?
2. If so, where? (This article, the Betting Scandal Article, other articles...?)
3. If so, how specific should the mention be? (With 650 seats, this might happen a lot. If so, a more general mention would be suitable, unless it is very uncommon and thus merits a lot of detail.)

Personally, I was thinking something along the lines of

"Both major major parties have withdrawn support for several of their candidates, resulting in the candidates standing as independent. When loss of support occured after deadline XYZ, the candidates remain party candidates on the ballot, but will not be extended (correct wording?) the party whip if returned to Parliament."

OJH (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

It's generally always the case if MPs or candidates have the support withdrawn by their party, they sit as independents if they are elected (these cases are still standing under their party affiliation, because nominations had closed). It's not something specific to this election. The specific examples above are already mentioned in the 2024 United Kingdom general election betting scandal and (as are all candidates that have been disowned) on their respective constituency articles. Sionk (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I've just realised that Reform has done the same thing, over racial comments (TT article in Swedish).

So, your point is that, since this happens all the time, it does not need explaining in this article? But that said, I should go look for an article on UK elections and make sure that it can be found there? Have I got you right? Thanks again. OJH (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@OJH, is Candidates in the 2024 United Kingdom general election#Deselected and disowned candidates what you're looking for? DankJae 13:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@DankJae Yes! Perfect! OJH (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Election Infobox and Maps

Isn’t it time now that we are at the Monday before the election to change the infobox to show all the usual percentages and seats ect as showing the old number of seats that each party had is now kinda irrelevant and also where are we with the blank SVG maps we will need for the results come late Thursday and into Friday? (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC))

No. The rationale for the current infobox applies until the voting has concluded. We have previously agreed not to have blank SVG maps. Wait until they're not blank! Bondegezou (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Good afternoon @Bondegezou thank you for replying as no one else has done until now and I have asked this question at least three times over the campaign with no answer, I appreciate the answer and I do accept that you don’t want blank SVG maps on the main page before results come in however do we have a plan in place for the results and if so does that include regional maps as well. I will appreciate also that this is much more complicated with the new boundaries so I hope you understand why I am asking this. Thank you (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC))

I'm sorry, MOTORAL1987, that no-one else has answered your question! I see what you mean now about blank SVG maps now. Sorry I can't help there. Bondegezou (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

No problem @ Bondegezou and I can’t help either, is there anyone that can help at all as we are very short of time now (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC))

Projected seats values

I'm not certain of the convention regarding this, so any input is appreciated: it seems that some of the values in the "Projections" section have been adjusted from their sources to aid consistency, such as adding the NI seats to the "Others" section on those sources which only cover GB, and transferring the Speaker's seat to "Others". I understand that this may be helpful for comparison, though since this appears to have been applied inconsistently, I should like to question whether it would be better to have the displayed values match exactly their counterparts in the cited sources for ease of verification. It would be nice to ascertain consensus before adding the polls for this week.

On a side note, I've been unable to verify the values listed for The Economist, since their site doesn't seem to work through archive.org. The values listed do not appear to add to 632/650, which is probably deserving of an explanatory refn.

Cheers, Closingbrackettalk 17:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I've started the process of verifying these myself, and have decided to maintain the original format (as described in the note at the top of the section) given a fair number of the sources choose to publish thereas. Unfortunately, many of the sites, in choosing to update "live", have failed to maintain a static, archivable version.

I'm unsure as to the benefit of retaining the headers organising the tables into separate weeks; this was mentioned above but not resolved. Currently, "three weeks before the election" is missing, and the "weeks" are not well-defined in the slightest. Closingbrackettalk 22:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Reform colour on the electoral map (when the results come)

Hello everyone,

Just a quick concern about the colour of Reform on the map of constituencies that will be created as usual when the results come through. Reform's light blue / turquoise colour is far too similar to the Conservatives. Look here, for instance, at Survation's latest prediction. When viewing it small (as it will be seen in the infobox), it's impossible to tell which of the blue seats are Reform seats. On closer inspection, it becomes easier, but still the colours are just too similar.

I propose, for the electoral map, making the colour of the Reform seats either a lighter or darker shade than the blue of the Conservatives. Something like this perhaps -

  Conservative Party: 85 seats

  Original Reform colour (too similar for a map)

  Reform: 4 seats (#9CF2FF instead of #12B6CF)

There is still a chance Reform could not win any seats, in which case none of this will be an issue. Dhantegge (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I should add that the lighter shade of turquoise I've chosen as an example resembles that of the National Liberal Party as in, for example, the 1935 United Kingdom general election, which is easily distinguished from the Conservative party blue. Dhantegge (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this light blue hough distinct is too different from Reform's turquoise colour. Something like this is better IMO:

  Con

  Official Ref

  Con

  Light Blue (#9CF2FF)

  Con

  My Proposal (#00E5E5)

沁水湾 (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. — Czello ^(music) 09:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Cool :) can we get some more people on board for this? @Czello @Closingbracket @DimensionalFusion Dhantegge (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Wicked Dhantegge (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I also feel strongly that a combo of two similar blues for Con / Reform and TILE would be a bad choice for visually impaired users... or even anyone short sighted lol Dhantegge (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus for abandoning TILE once the results are in in favour of TIE, so infobox shouldn't be too troublesome. — Czello ^(music) 10:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd only be concerned for the contrast against the grey/white backdrop (perhaps more so in the seats composition diagram beneath, where there isn't the benefit of the constituencies being outlined in black), but it doesn't seem to be an issue in the 1935 article. Closingbrackettalk 14:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Post-result infobox

There was an earlier discussion about the post-results infobox, now archived. CipherRephic shared their sandbox suggestion showing 6 parties (Con, Lab, LibDem, SNP, Green, RefUK, in that order). There was discussion on what parties to include and how, with some suggesting the infobox should show parties like Reform UK and the Greens in preference to parties winning more seats (e.g. maybe DUP, Sinn Fein) given their significance in the story of the election. I said back then that we need to respect the standard infobox approach and show parties in order of how many seats they win. We don't know what the results will be, with a lot of uncertainty around smaller parties, but there is a possibility that first past the post will deliver a significant mismatch between seats won and vote share. As we get nearer polling day, I thought it important to re-visit this. Maybe the results will come out such that a traditional TIE infobox, with 6 or 9 parties, works normally. If so, we can stop worrying!

I think it is completely unacceptable to have an infobox like CipherRephic's proposal if that does not reflect the election results (i.e. seats won). You can't have a party coming, say, seventh on seats and third on votes (as could happen to Reform UK), and list them sixth. That's just nonsense; specifically, it violates WP:OR. We have to write for the casual reader. A casual reader coming to this infobox will presume it works like other election infoboxes. That is, the party listed sixth did sixth best in the election results. Deviating from that is highly misleading.

Impru20 suggests we could include additional criteria around the infobox. I suspect it would be hard to agree on such, but more importantly, it's not a workable solution. You can't expect casual readers to trawl through a Talk page to find out criteria being used. They see an infobox: they will expect it to work like other election infoboxes. It needs to be clear to the casual reader what we are saying. Chessrat came up with an approach that I think is on a better track, including the Northern Irish parties, but lumping them together. I don't think that works, as such. It's hard to think of two more diametrically opposed political parties in the UK than the DUP and SF: to lump them together is misleading. Also, we have to obey WP:NPOV. We in GB may tend to ignore the NI results (except in 2017 when May needed DUP support), but readers in Northern Ireland, or indeed southern Ireland, will be more interested in those results (as Kevin McE pointed out). But if we are to deviate from usual practice, it has to be something where it is immediately clear to the reader what we are doing and at least with Chessrat's suggestion, you can see something is going on.

I am not blind to the problem. (I'd happily switch the UK away from FPTP just to avoid infobox arguments!) So, what can we do? I have suggestions. (1) The infobox can't do everything, so let's make sure the WP:LEAD text is good and flags up these issues of certain parties getting lots of votes, but few seats. (2) Stick to the usual infobox approach, even if some parties are excluded, but have a graphic in the infobox that tells the rest of the story, e.g. of vote share vs seat share. (3) Can we do a TILE-style infobox that shows seats and vote share? Then we can list lots of parties compactly and it will be clear if parties like Reform UK and the Greens do well on votes while winning few seats. (4) It's my least favourite option, but what about some sort of TIE infobox where it is very clearly indicated that we're not showing the straight results, like maybe a 6-party GB infobox (following seat order in GB) followed by a 3-party NI infobox (following seat order in NI)? But what we absolutely cannot do is list a party fifth who didn't come fifth! Bondegezou (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

as i said previously, it seems fairly off to exclude a party getting (potentially) a popular vote in the high teen %ages from the infobox given the political impact of such a party, but if it's really that "completely unacceptable" and going to cause this much trouble then it's probably just easier to do a 4x4 box (LAB, CON, LDM, SNP, adjust order to preference). A seperate NI box seems unnecessary. CipherRephic (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

also, I'd personally avoid using TILE in any form like the plague in this case. given the many recent scuffles it seems there's a fairly solid consensus not to use TILE outside of countries with loads of small parties like the netherlands and israel. CipherRephic (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

You suggest TILE is acceptable for countries with loads of small parties like the netherlands and israel. I suggest the UK is a country with loads of small parties. 10 parties won seats at the 2019 general election. The figure will probably be 11-12 this time around. That compares to 15 at the last Dutch election and 10 at the last Israeli election. If we're electing more parties than Israel and TILE works for Israel, then the conclusion that TILE could work for the UK seems obvious to me. What am I missing? Bondegezou (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

the small parties in NL and israel are important to include in the infobox because a. governments there are almost always formed as broad coalitions of several small parties and b. all the parties are fairly small, unlike other countries where, yes, there are a lot of small parties, but there are also a few major parties that tend to be the only real factors in a big-picture view of the election. see the debates around south africa and france, where we quite recently had a fairly vigorous discussion leading to an anti-TILE consensus. the situation in the UK is similar to that in south africa and france, in that we have a select few large parties which control the vast majority of seats, even though there are a number of smaller parties - thus using TIE would be better because it provides a better summary of the major players at a glance (plus, subjectively, a strong majority of people think it looks way better) CipherRephic (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the UK has a select few large parties which control the vast majority of seats, even though there are a number of smaller parties, so, while not my first preference, I don't mind if we have a TIE infobox with as few as 4 parties shown, or we could have 6, or I see South Africa has 9 for their last election. (I prefer TILE; I get that I'm probably in a minority on that.) As long as those are the 4 (or 6 or 9) parties that control the most seats. Bondegezou (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree, I favour TIE here. — Czello ^(music) 09:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bondegezou How would you feel about an infobox a la the second and third ones here? I'd prefer the second out of the two but i'm very much amenable to either. CipherRephic (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

If those are the top 4 or 6 parties, then, great, I'm OK with those infoboxes. Thanks for putting them together. Bondegezou (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

There's also the possibility of a hybrid TIE/TILE box if needed. Here's my attempt (using dummy data mostly from the most recent MRP): User:Chessrat/sandbox/UK2024 Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's a great idea. unncessary duplication of the data and v. bulky CipherRephic (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I kinda like it. I'm all for minimalist infoboxes, as per MOS:INFOBOX, so my first preference would be just the TILE box, but I think the mash-up does kind of give everyone something. I could go with that. That said, there are a million and one arguments, always, over infoboxes. I have my preferences, but other people have other preferences! My main concern here is that whatever we do, it cannot mislead casual readers or break WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/WP:NPOV. So I strongly believe that means we have to list parties in order by how many people they get elected. I can live with most things that follow that obvious rule. Bondegezou (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I would say that if there are equal seat numbers it's fine to include one party on that number but not another (e.g. DUP and Lib Dems both on 8 seats in 2015 but only the Lib Dems are featured in the infobox there).

Out of the feasible results, it's highly unlikely that the Greens achieve more seats than the DUP/SF, and including the NI parties but not the Greens doesn't feel right, so my preferred options depending on the feasible results would be:

1) If the Lib Dems finish ahead of Reform in vote share and ahead of the SNP in seats: three-way infobox (Lab, Con, LD).

2) If Reform finishes ahead of the Lib Dems in vote share and ahead of the Northern Irish parties in seats: five-way infobox (Lab, Con, LD, SNP, Reform)

3) If Reform and the Greens are both in the top eight/nine (outright or tied), include the top eight/nine respectively. Most likely Lab, Con, LD, SNP, DUP, Sinn Fein, Reform, Green, and a maximum of one out of Plaid/Alliance/SDLP/UUP.

4) If none of these events pass- go for the hybrid TIE/TILE box. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

If parties are tied on seats won, perfectly sensible to split the tie by vote share. Bondegezou (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says the purpose of an infobox is to summarise key facts that appear in the article - if Reform UK was to get a significant vote share, that sounds like a key fact that would appear in the body of the article. DimensionalFusion (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not object to an infobox that says "Reform UK got a significant vote share". I do object to an infobox that ranks the parties and puts a party in (say) fifth position that did not come fifth in the election results. That is misleading when every or nearly every other election article infobox puts parties in order by seats won. You cannot mislead readers. You cannot pretend a party came fifth when they didn't to make a point: that's violating WP:OR/WP:V. Entirely happy to discuss how to highlight Reform UK's significant vote share in other ways, and have made suggestions to that effect. If Reform UK come within the top 9 on seats won (as they might well), problem solved: use a 9-way TIE infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I remember the Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Women's 3000 metres. The story of the race was all about Zola Budd and our article talks at length about Budd. But Budd fell and didn’t medal. The infobox shows the three women who did medal. Should we just show Budd in the Bronze medal position because she’s a key fact? No, of course not. We have to respect the actual result of the race. When an infobox shows the result of an election, it has to reflect the actual result too. Bondegezou (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

There is precisely one circumstance in which I could support violating this rule- namely, the "Canada 1993" style result. If the Conservatives were to fail to get any MPs, including them in the infobox would be useful for the purpose of highlighting the decline in support of the previously governing party. Aside from this very specific scenario, I agree with you. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

My take on this:

1) On the use of TILE: yes, it was originally intended for countries with loads of small parties like the netherlands and israel. And I'll add: for countries with loads of small parties whose results are fairly proportional and fragmented (and thus, close to each other). It makes no sense for countries such as the UK (or Spain, or France, or Italy) where yes, you may have about 10-20 parties getting into parliament depending on the election, but where only about 3 to 5 of these parties get a significant amount of seats: it feels weird and close to WP:UNDUE to put at a party with 100, 200, 300 seats next to one with 1 seat (and I should note here that I'm aware of this applying to UKIP in 2015 or to Reform/Greens now; that's why I spoke of including additional criteria. But barred any such criteria, my position is that of using TIE with no more than 6 parties appearing and sorted by number of seats, even if that excludes UKIP/Reform, though I'll elaborate on why I think those should appear based on other criteria). On this, I (almost) wholeheartedly agree with Bondegezou's position in this edit (except for the TILE-preference bit :P).

2) I'm also against this proposal because of the reasons exposed by CipherRephic (unncessary duplication of the data and v. bulky) as well as because of MOS:INFOBOX (An infobox is a panel [...] that summarizes key facts about the page's subject). Adding the full seat results is not a summary and (in my opinion) should only be done in extreme situations where you cannot fully grasp the overall picture of results without adding all of these (which is what happens in Israel or the Netherlands).

3) When I talk of additional criteria I mean some restrictive ones, i.e. ones that should not apply in "normal" circumstances because the system works by itself, but rather in "abnormal" situations where weird electoral (but still notable) things happen, which is more frequent for FPTP systems than for other systems. UK 2015 was one, UK 2024 will probably be another one (though we will have to wait and see the actual results first). Canada 1993, as Chessrat is also a good example: the PCs are currently in the infobox by virtue of (barely) having 2 seats, but imagine a situation where they got 0. Bondegezou's view would imply that they got out of the infobox in such a situation, despite they being the ruling party and their decline being the whole story of the election. You also have 1935 Prince Edward Island general election or 1987 New Brunswick general election in which extreme situations did happen, with infobox inclusion criteria relying mostly on vote share because of a single party getting all of the seats and all other ones 0 seats. Remember: notability is a master guideline in Wikipedia, and while it mostly applies to article creation, it ultimately also covers article content. And the infobox is meant to summarize article content. Yes, you can highlight this in text, but isn't acknowledging the importance of this in text but omitting it from the infobox (which is meant to summarize key facts about the page's subject) in itself contradictory? Btw, I would not compare this with sports events since those work out differently (I would only agree if parties got medals or any other actual thropies based on their seat count, but that's clearly not the case).

This said, I understand Bondegezou's reasoning and ultimately, if no additional criteria can be agreed for, I'd rather have TIE with the 3 to 6 parties getting more seats than other solutions where the infobox is packed with minor parties (because that, ultimately, would not fully satisfy anyone). Any agreement should be crystal clear and as little interventionist as possible on current consensus for party inclusion, as only that would ensure that the issue is not re-opened in the future (or, at the very least, not as many times as would be the case for other alternatives). Impru20^talk 08:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Impru20 Thanks for your considered thoughts. To be clear on one point, I have no objection to including parties who win 0 seats, as long as they come after the parties winning >0 seats. This "solves" the Canadian examples you give. Bondegezou (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I prefer TILE because TIE seems far too bloated, massively too presidential, and goes way beyond the stated purpose of an infobox. The purpose of an infobox ("Key facts about the page's subject") is not served by details of the party leader's constituency or date of election, details of numbers from previous elections, etc. Looking at the 2019 election article, there are many details on the infobox there that are not even mentioned in the article itself (election of party leaders other than main 2, constituency name even of Johnson, numbers outside of tables) so the infobox's contents are evidently not 'key'. Even photos of party leaders are gratuitous: only about 0.15% of the population even have a chance to vote directly for Starmer or Sunak: entire countries within the UK don't get to vote for even the parties of some others. 4 1/2 years after the 2019 election, how many people would recognise the photo of Jo Swinson?

Other than precedent, what are the arguments in favour of TIE? Kevin McE (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The reason I, personally dislike TILE is that it is ugly. However in terms of an actual reason; TILE is repetitive, and it is not a summary - which is what an infobox should be. The full election results are available at the bottom of the page in the results section - why is it entirely duplicated at the top? If that's what a person wants to see, they should go to the results section. TIE is a summary, showing the key factors and important parties. DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

In what way does TIE show the key factors? Bondegezou (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Vote totals, turnout, party leaders, their seats, last election results, seats before, seats change, swing. These are all key in determining the outcome of an election - TILE has some of these, but not all. DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I thought you meant factors more broadly (e.g. Brexit in 2019) and was confused. I note party leaders' seats is not a key factor and usually gets no mention in the article text, and thus should not be in the infobox at all. MOS:INFOBOX is clear that everything in the infobox needs to be covered in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah that’s on my, should’ve worded that better DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

But MOS:INFOBOXEXCEPTIONS says that if information is hard to naturally fit into an article, it can/should be added to the info box; I believe this applies to leader’s seat here DimensionalFusion (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the language at MOS:INFOBOXEXCEPTIONS or, if I remember it correctly, past discussion of the rule's application there supports that. Bondegezou (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s the great thing though- Leader’s seat doesn’t have to be included. Although I see no reason why it should be omitted DimensionalFusion (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

(OK, this was the discussion I was thinking of: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes/Archive_18#RfC_about_exceptions_to_WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE_and_commanders/leaders_in_Template:Infobox_military_conflict.) Bondegezou (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Is TILE what we have at the moment? It's absolutely hideous and I despise it. Literally EVERY other British election has the other style. If people are saying "oh no we have to have the ugly one because there are too many parties", just have the top four parties in the infobox. Simple. Dhantegge (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

We have long used TILE for forthcoming UK elections, for reasons that have been discussed previously at length. While I prefer TILE, I'm fine with TIE with the top four parties by seats once the results are in. Bondegezou (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Switch to Template:Infobox election ! Dhantegge (talk) 09:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Even the subpages of this election use TIE, but this one specific page uses TILE for... reasons? DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It goes against the entire point of having an infobox. If people want to read binary results for every single party in small font, they can go deeper into the article. People want a bold snapshot of the big winners for the lead, with the swing and seat numbers. TILE ignores this, and also entirely ignores the nuances of British politics - the fact, for example, that Northern Ireland's political environment and party system has been entirely seperate from the United Kingdom since Sunningdale in the 1970s. Dhantegge (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Northern Ireland does have a different political environment from Great Britain, but it's still part of the UK and of this election. We can't just ignore Northern Ireland, as per WP:NPOV. Bondegezou (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I've seen it used for elections that are a long way off, just as a temporary measure, especially when leaders are prone to change. The article reads like an election article from 2021, when the election is literally happening now. Dhantegge (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. It feels like the majority of users here are in favour of TIE. — Czello ^(music) 09:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll add my support for using TIE, but maybe only once the results come in. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I am also a strong support for using TIE. CuriousCabbage (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments, but this section wasn't intended to be about TIE versus TILE. There's no voting going on here! The question at hand is about the order of parties and what parties to include in the infobox, in the context of an election result that might be rather different to the vote shares obtained. Bondegezou (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Now the exit poll is out– TIE infobox of Lab, Con, LD, Reform if it's accurate? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Reform and the Greens were on the infobox here a few hours ago, but they're missing now which is extremely questionable. What is the reasoning for this, when they both received millions of votes? 675930s (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Jeffrey Donaldson

A couple of editors have removed the text about Jeffrey Donaldson:

Jeffrey Donaldson, who was the the DUP leader until March 2024, appeared in court on 3 July to face additional sex offence charges.

They have said it is not part of the campaign. I suggest that they are editorialising. Reliable sources are discussing these events in the context of the election. They are expected to have an impact on the election. We should follow reliable sources, not editors' personal views.

But what do others think?

References

Bondegezou (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this is an important thing to include within the article, although I’m 50/50 as to whether it should be in the campaign section DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe add it to 2024 United Kingdom general election in Northern Ireland? 2A0A:EF40:E4A:E101:1D3D:909:A1B3:2F4B (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

He is not a candidate, and not a holder of a major position in his party. I am inclined to be opposed to him in just about every possible issue, but his direct relevance to the election is very very low. How much profile did whatever canvassing he had done since the calling of the election generate? Kevin McE (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources, as given, talk about this in the context of the election. If reliable sources think it's relevant, it's not for us to dispute that. Bondegezou (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Bondegezou. The change of three leaders in a few months is also very much relevant as background for the DUP election results, which will be added later on tonight/tomorrow. OJH (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I've put something under Background for now. (There was something under Background previously, but it got cut somewhere along the way.) Bondegezou (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Put it in background section. 2A0A:EF40:E4A:E101:1D3D:909:A1B3:2F4B (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Eligibility

Should a section about eligibility on voting be added? 81.154.237.37 (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You could put something under Electoral System if you want. Bondegezou (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Alliance and Workers Party removal intentional?

In this diff, you can see that the Alliance Party of NI and Reform UK were removed from the Other Parties Background section, on the basis of not being new parties. This was a good edit and based on sources etc.

Reform UK was later on returned to the section, not as a new party but on its own merits, Farage, leadership change etc.

Should the Alliance Party also be returned to this section, and on what basis? They tie up nicely with the DUP story in the second to last para, and SNP, Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru, and DUP have all got their mentions. What says the crowd? OJH (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm all for saying anything (relevant and appropriately sourced) about Alliance. I merely removed the claim that they are a new party on the grounds that they are not a new party (founded 1970)! Bondegezou (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes @Bondegezou, your edit was good. But is a mention relevant, based on them having a seat in the exiting parliament? Others are noted based on leadership change. Would the 2022 NI Assembly election be of interest enough ore am I construing encyclopedic value here? OJH (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

There is possibly a deliberate undermining of the Workers Party in the mainstream media of the UK, and it seems to have translated into one what might call a weak attempt to dismiss the Workers Party as dismal, forgettable, or unimportant... a lot of people are familiar with the policies espoused by this party. Especially after the Piers Morgan interview, I struggle to understand why one might claim Galloway is a nobody in this campaign. And keep in mind, there is more to the Workers Party than just their leader, George Galloway.

As for Alliance, I am willing to admit that I know next to nothing about them. But it appears that there is an ongoing effort to diminish the importance of Northern Ireland in these election articles. There's a few million people voting there, more than a dozen seats, so surely they ought to be mentioned? Maurnxiao (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

"Betting Scandal" subsection

I believe it would be best to axe this section under WP: CSECTION, it could be split elsewhere in the article. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not all criticism though? nor titled as a collection of such. DankJae 17:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? It is a controversy that has been dedicated an entire section despite not really being detached/breaking out from the general campaign Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:CSECTION, controversies are protracted public disputes – I would not say this is a "public dispute", rather an account of an event that happened & responses to said event. So long as the section remains neutral, I see no issue with it. Irltoad (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes per above, it is a balanced (in terms of pov, including responses) section documenting an event during this election. Not a section on all "controversies with the 2024 UK election". The scandal kinda happened separate from the main timeline, so should remain in a short balanced section. DankJae 17:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous suggestion and a profound misunderstanding of WP:CSECTION. Bondegezou (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Projections Table Column Doubling Error Overall result

"Overall result" column is in error all the day down. It looks doubled plus or minus one. Example: Final Projection Labor seats 453 - 326 = 127, not 256. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The majority is considered to be the difference between the winning group and the remainder. In your example: 650 seats total with 453 to Labour gives a combined opposition of 197; the difference between 453 and 197 is 256. Closingbrackettalk 20:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Time to switch the infobox? (or not?)

(ccing in @Bondegezou, @Chessrat, @Impru20, @DimensionalFusion as some of the more involved participants in previous infobox discussions)

Unless anyone has any particular objections I'll be switching out the infobox to a 3x2 TIE setup with blank results based on the exit poll (i.e. LAB CON LDM REF SNP, no 6th as that'll almost certainly be either DUP or SF and there's no data out on that yet) - any advances on that? CipherRephic (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Or not! Looks like that's already been done. Still, remains to be decided whether we do a 3x2, a 2x2 or something else. Suggestions welcomed CipherRephic (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep! It's TIE time DimensionalFusion (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Is tie in this context an analogy for strangling smaller parties out of the part of the article people are most interested? Maurnxiao (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It stands for Template:Infobox Election Gust Justice (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Maurnxiao Please stop trying to make everything about "small parties". Thanks DimensionalFusion (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

What is the meaning of this comment really? Maurnxiao (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

What was the meaning of your comment? Randomly bringing up the strangling of smaller parties in an unrelated thread about the infobox DimensionalFusion (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

An edit with various notable parties with a presence in the British parliament has been reverted without so much as an edit summary. Preposterous? Maurnxiao (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, its time. TheBritinator (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I suggest doing this, with the 3x2 format including the 5 largest parties in the exit poll. I would also use the same order as the exit poll's ranking by seats. Given that all major media is using the exit poll in its coverage, I think it's appropriate to take it into account for the infobox. Gust Justice (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with the caveat that if Reform does finish ahead of the SNP, there's no need to include the SNP and 2x2 should be used. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I do think October 1974 United Kingdom general election (where the SNP won 11 seats, yet was not included inthe infobox) could be a precedent for that. Either way, the current layout is preferable for now. Gust Justice (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agreed Andreandre011 (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Funnily enough, if the exit poll comes to be right, the issue on whether to add Reform based on their vote share alone may not be an issue any longer... Impru20^talk 21:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

these things do have a strange way of sorting themselves out! CipherRephic (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Bondegezou (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The updated BBC projection is now only 6 for the SNP and 4 for Reform UK. That would probably put both below the DUP and SF. 7-party infobox? Bondegezou (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a three-party infobox might be the most appropriate with such a result. That being said, the projections on each channel do differ, so I say we wait a bit to see how (poorly) the SNP and Reform UK do. If they end up at 6 and 4 respectively, there is a case for only including the 3 main parties. Otherwise we will unavoidably be arguing over whether or not Sinn Fein should be included. Gust Justice (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This seems premature and live updating of the infobox unwise. Wikipedia shouldn’t be trying to be a liveblog. Bondegezou (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2024

Make Keir Starmer’s name bolded because according to the exit polls, his party won. Ali1079 (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

This should not occur yet per WP:CRYSTALBALL. The exit poll is not the final result. No party has won before the votes are counted and declared. Gust Justice (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

No, for two reasons:

Firstly, the exit poll is just an indication. We wait for the full results.

More importantly, we don't put the winning leader's name in bold anyway - see 2019 United Kingdom general election for example. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Final results are not declared yet. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Past, present or future tense for this article?

This article is of course going to switch from one tense to another soon, but shouldn't it be done once the official results are out? So far, only an exit poll which is not an official result. Maurnxiao (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I'm aware that the voting has ended but the counting I think has not. Maurnxiao (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Managing results as they come in

So obviously, seats results are being declared at different times. I've added the "reporting" field inbuilt to the infobox and done some very simple maths (1/650)*100 to get the percentage of constituencies declared as Houghton and Sunderland South is the first constituency. Is this OR? Can this be included? DimensionalFusion (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

In principle we could do this, but I think most other editors would prefer the results not be shown live in the infobox, at the vrey least until most constituencies have declared. Gust Justice (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It's just some very simple maths showing how many seats have been declared - I think this wouldn't be OR(?) but that's what I'm getting opinions for. I personally think the seat counts themselves being added to parties in the infobox should be held off until all constituencies have been declared, but that's just me DimensionalFusion (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I would not have a problem with that, even though technically this isn't how it is normally used. But I think it makes the article better to use, just for the purposes of giving people an idea of how many of the votes have been published. Gust Justice (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The intention of Wikipedia was not that it would be used as a liveblog to report breaking news like this. I don’t see this as helpful. Bondegezou (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If this was the case then why would the "results reported" field be part of the template DimensionalFusion (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Because (a) some elections in the world count much slower than the UK, and (b) because infobox templates often contain inappropriate fields! The existence of a field doesn’t mean it should be used. Bondegezou (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Generally, frequent updates to a live count cause editing conflicts that de-facto lock the article. Live updates for sports articles are usually the main areas of concern for this. Player stats are usually not even updated during the season. DimensionalFusion if you are going to plow ahead and do it anyway, could you at least add a source for the live updates. Your source is showing the conservatives with about twce as many seats as the BBC is reporting, despite Labour seats being similar. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm getting them from https://election.news.sky.com/elections/general-election-2024 as it seems to be faster than other sources in giving count results DimensionalFusion (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@DimensionalFusion: could you please add it to the infobox during your next update. Thanks. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I've looked at different areas to put it but I haven't yet figured out a good place for it DimensionalFusion (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Put it, until you figure it out, next to the first seat count. Not having that is a clear violation of policy, it's not a facultative or optional feature. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@DimensionalFusion do you have a valid reason as to why you are still violating WP:REF, and why we shouldn't just tag every number in that infobox with a citation needed tag, or just revert your updates outright? Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Because every time I do that it messes up the div formatting DimensionalFusion (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

SNP should be above Reform UK in the infobox: they’re higher on seats won and on projections. Bondegezou (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Exit poll predicted Reform to surpasses SNP in seats. And currently they're equal with more votes. Maurnxiao (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Map

Grateful if we could please decide which map should be used this evening.

A:

B:

沁水湾 grateful if you could please acknowledge result majority of contributors choose.

My vote is for map A. AlloDoon (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

B. I think it's a fine map, but too many details to be used in the infobox (e.g. texts are a bit too small for infobox). The map style should be simple & harmonious with previous ones to form a set.

The map also have too many clipped water bodies for the main map. 沁水湾 (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Change is allowed on Wikipedia, keeping in style with other election maps shouldn't be a sole reason for or against a certain design. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

My vote is for B or a map more similar to 2019. But I do not think we should have a live map before the results are in (or almost all in). Gust Justice (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. CipherRephic (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

No strong preference but I'd go with map B on subjective aesthetic merit. CipherRephic (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think map A on purely subjective grounds DimensionalFusion (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

A is easier to read on smaller devices, the lines on B are too fine. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The legend on A is completely unreadable, so prefer B. Bondegezou (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

imo A, though I don't think we need a live updating map TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

B. I think that A is difficult to read, since there's too many small boxes of smaller cities and no lines connecting them to their place on the map, requiring prior knowledge of the names. The boxes are big enough in B that theres no difficulty telling where they show on the map, and the smaller ones have lines connecting them. I think all the lakes in A makes it worse to look at, and the map is showing how electorates voted, rather than showing lakes. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think A should go in the results tab, it could be a margins map while the one in the infobox should stay because it is more simplified and easier to read. GatewayPolitics (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

B - but if it's decided on A then the map creator should flip the labelings in order of either seat count or vote share (not bothered for any particular order). Tweedle, 09:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Should the map be included before most constituencies have declared?

Separate from the question of which map to use, some users are insisting that a map (which is to be live updated) should be in the infobox before most constituencies have declared. I suggest that this not be done, and that it is more appropriate that the infobox not be live updated. Gust Justice (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Map should be used if it is updated live(ish). Remove if it is not. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Map should be included AlloDoon (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Gust Justice. Bondegezou (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Articles to be undeleted

Starting this section so that @Number 57: or another admin can undelete significant articles on newly-elected MPs which have previously been deleted.

First one: Ben Obese-Jecty has been elected. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 01:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2024

the lib dem number of seats is too low it is now 47 it is still saying 40 Ozderplays (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Already done Ligaturama (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

What parties should be included in the infobox?

This probably won't be the last section on this, but I think we should establish which parties to include in the infobox. It seems some editors want to include all parties winning at least 3 seats -- this would mean 9 parties would be included in the infobox. To me this is not sustainable. I therefore propose only including the three largest parties by seat total (Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats) in the infobox. This is the only option that would sort the parties by seat total, and which would not arbitrarily include Sinn Fein ahead of Reform UK. Gust Justice (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think wait until the full returns are in before making any decisive moves, and then go with a simple 3x2 of the top six. If there's ties, break it by vote share. I don't think anything more complicated will be necessary. CipherRephic (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The lengths people will go to get Farage's mugshot in the infobox. After the exit poll grossly overstated Reform's seats, many editors were happy to go with 3x2 or even 2x2 as Reform were in fourth place with 13 seats. What excuses will they come up with to shoehorn Reform into infobox now that they've only got four seats? The infobox is meant to be a summary of the key facts. The top three parties have won more than 90% of the seats. We don't need to include the also rans.--Obi2canibe (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

They got over 5% of the vote, and got the same number of seats as greens, so I think both should be included. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Considering how lopsized the results are in favour of the three largest parties, I also concur that leaving a TIE infobox with Lab, Con and LDs will do the job. Impru20^talk 06:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the greens should be included, and reform too. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Second this PitterPatter533 (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

based??? 98.240.113.219 (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a top 3 with Lab, Cons, and LibDems will do. I don't see the point in including Farage when he got less seats than SF and the SNP. River10000 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Seat number isn't the only factors, there's also vote number. Which, SF got less than 1% of the vote, and SNP got less than 2.5% of the vote. I think the vote number threshold should be 5%. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Does the percentage of the vote actually mean anything though? 87.75.143.188 (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Top three only, given that's over 600 out of 650. If you include Reform, then you have to include the SNP and DUP too. Sceptre (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Well greens should be included I think. If you include reform, you do not need to include SNP and DUP too, because they got less than 5% of the vote. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm in favour of including all nine. It would coincidentally also mean the largest nine by vote share, and have the advantages that 1) the Reform and Green surges, whilst not leading to a large seat total, were significant events, 2) the SNP decline is a major story of the election in NI, 3) Sinn Fein becoming the largest party for the first time is a significant story for the election in Northern Ireland, and 4) the minor parties in general having a larger presence is relevant.

A nine party box is clunkier so I don't strongly oppose the three party one, but of the two nine party is my preference Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 06:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the issue with including 9 parties (other than it being cluttier), is the fact that if you do that, and have the threshold for inclusion be parties winning ~3 seats, then the previous articles would also have to be changed in order to be consistent. It would be odd for only this articles to include 9 parties, while all others include up to 6, typically 4 parties. In other words, if we were to have 9 parties, Gust Justice (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I hard disagree with only the top three. I think two or three rows is fine - if you look at other European countries' election pages, they frequently have 5, 6, 7 even 8. So I would be fine with up to 9. PitterPatter533 (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I support only top 3. The infobox can't tell the whole story of the election (that being the point of the body of the article). Including 9 is far too clunky. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that 9 is perhaps too much for this election, but I think top 3 is far too small. I think top 5 is reasonable. A Socialist Trans Girl 06:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think at this point top 6 would be better than top 5. Then both SF and DUP (the latter is now at 5 seats) would be included. Essentially like the 2017 infobox. Gust Justice (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I dont know about SF and DUP, they didn't even get 1% of the vote. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

SF is the fifth largest parties by number of seats. Gust Justice (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

But they got less than 1% of the vote A Socialist Trans Girl 07:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the threshold should be at least getting 5% of the votes. This would therefore include Labour, Libdems, Tories, Reform, and the Greens. A Socialist Trans Girl 06:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I would sort of prefer that too, even if such a format isn't perfect either. Gust Justice (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This feels (admittedly cynically) manufactured to represent English parties over Northern Irish ones. The Sinn Fein lead in NI is significant, and arbitrarily creating a vote share threshold for display in the infobox for a non-proportional election, especially when reliable sources aren't doing the same, has dubious adherence to WP:OR. If more than 3 parties are shown, SNP and Sinn Fein should be included. Irltoad (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You're right, SF's number is not insignificant. Should not only be three. PitterPatter533 (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The 2015 United Kingdom general election infobox shows the LibDems with 8 seats, but not the DUP with the same number. I think that even if Reform's seat value is lower than some other parties, the fact their voter share is third of all parties means it would be painting an erroneous picture to simply leave them off entirely. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

As well, taking into account the Reform UK–TUV alliance, the number could be counted as 5, and thus above the 4-way tie of 4 seat parties, leaving a comfortable compromise of 6 parties in the infobox. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Reform UK–TUV alliance is not an official thing as far as I understand. Basically all media sources treat the two as separate parties for statistical purposes. Gust Justice (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware they're still mutually endorsed and TUV campaigned under a joint logo. I'm not sure how "official" it is but it seems as though they are de-facto allied electorally, and since the election infobox allows for alliances to be shown I think a case could be made, if not handled a-la Co-operative Party. Regardless, I still think showing the top 6 is the most elegant solution, what with Reform coming third in popular vote. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Although Farage then kinda broke the alliance by endorsing two DUP candidates against the TUV during the campaign. Bondegezou (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

As stated on the page itself, the alliance was not dissolved[1]. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

About 30.3% of voters this election voted for candidates other than the top 3 parties (top 3 by vote share, that is), which is highly unusual and not statistically insignificant. Back in 2019, that figure was only 12.7%, so it is definitely relevant to include all the smaller parties who've made gains (which includes LibDems) in the infobox. 675930s (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Include Greens and Reform, they won millions of votes and have parliamentary representation? Maurnxiao (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Could it potentially use a collapsed section? i.e., have 3(?) in the main part and display the next 6 in a collapsed section. I appreciate that this breaks convention, and I'm not entirely sure about the plausibility of it (I haven't played about with infoboxes enough to be sure it would look OK!) but it could provide a compromise between keeping the infobox from being cumbersome while acknowledging the relevance & importance of the changes in smaller parties like Sinn Fein, Reform, and Greens. Irltoad (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I ALSO THINK WE SHOULD HAVE COUNT BINFACE FIRST IN THE INFOBOX, AS HE IS THE GREATEST CANDIDATE ^[Humour] A Socialist Trans Girl 07:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

We discussed this at Talk:2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#Post-result_infobox above and broadly agreed that we have to list parties by how many seats they won. You can't put a party who came 7th in 5th place just because you feel like it: that violates WP:OR. Bondegezou (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted your change, but only because it broke the infobox; I should have realised you were in the discussion already, so ignore my edit summary. Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

He did not win a seat so possibly Reform and Greens should take priority? Maurnxiao (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The BBC and The Guardian show Reform UK coming 7th in the election. On vote share, as shown by Sky, they came 3rd. They did not come 5th. We cannot list them as 5th in the infobox because some editors feel like it. What were some of you thinking? Bondegezou (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The IPP of the 1918 United Kingdom general election did not come 6th either, yet are the 6th box, and the LibDems of the 2015 United Kingdom general election tied with the DUP, yet the DUP is missing. The same goes with the 1935 United Kingdom general election, as the ILP tied for seat count with the Independent Liberals, yet the latter is left off entirely. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If parties are tied on seats, it's perfectly sensible to split the tie with vote share (which is what the BBC and Guardian results for 2024 do). That's not a counter-example. I'll take a look at 1918. If it is doing something different, it is clearly an exception. The 2019, 2017 and 2015 infoboxes all follow seat order, despite the LibDems getting way more votes than the SNP. The 1951 article is another classic example: Labour got a higher vote share, but the Tories got more seats. We put the Tories first. Editors cannot just make up their own order for the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The infobox, right now, include significantly less information that it should. Why not have six parties? Then you can include SNP, Reform, and Greens.

I came here to check the seat and vote share differences from 2019 for all the parties, and I can't do that very easily now, because only 3 parties are in the infobox.

I don't care about "getting Farage's mugshot in the infobox". (although SNP losses and Reform gains are huge stories from this election - Reform destroyed the Conservatives and the SNP self-destructed). JM (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

What makes you think Reform would be added with (currently) 4 seats, over the 6 parties who have more? I thought it should go without saying that out of say 6 parties in the infobox, you pick those with the most seats. If it was a section over vote share, or analysis, then granted, Reform would be right up there. There seems to be a general confusion over what is WP:DUE in the infobox. It's not based on % of votes, as this isn't what the election is about, it's only ever about seats gained to remain NPOV. CNC (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

At the time I made the comment I believed Reform was in the top 6 because I neglected Northern Ireland. JM (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Per comments below, I've added SNP and changed to 2/2 per row format with this edit [2]. I think it gives necessary room to the lead which is fast expanding, hopefully others will agree with the change. CNC (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If I may, why not use a criterion of 5% of the vote or more? It seems undue to include parties which only won a handful of seats, but Reform and the Greens won a non-insignificant amount of votes despite only winning 4 seats each so it seems reasonable to me at least that they both would be included if only due to their vote share being higher than that of the SNP, which is included in the infobox. Talthiel (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Simply because this isn't the format of these articles infoboxes, for good reason. Look back over all of the previous articles and the parties with the most seats are included, because that is how the election is decided. As someone explained above, it would be incredibly misleading to suggest that others parties are more notable and therefore due in the infobox based on their vote share. To suggest 5% or over would effectively be swapping SNP with Reform and Greens that won less seats than SNP as well as SF. Personally I'm shocked over what appears to be a basic lack of understandings of how this articles infobox works. We shouldn't be debating "Is Reform more relevant in the infobox", "let's exclude parties that didn't field candidates in all countries", or otherwise, when the "choice" of parties included in the infobox shouldn't be up for debate, the election itself has decided that for us. The only debate should be whether it includes 3, 4, 6, or more parties, based on seats gained. CNC (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Surely too many photos in table?

Why not cap at 5 seats or more?

UK election tables don't necessarily concentrate on vote share (UKIP in 2015 is absent, for example).

Having this many profiles just makes it look cluttered. Mythlike-Cell (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Why not just add UKIP to 2015 then? A Socialist Trans Girl 07:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Your terms are agreeable — Czello ^(music) 07:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I recommend removing the Irish parties as NI tends to be its "own thing" in elections. — Czello ^(music) 07:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Regional parties that didn't contest seats in all countries of the UK ought to be removed, in my opinion. Collorizador (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

But SNP has been included since 2015 A Socialist Trans Girl 07:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

SNP could be a possible exception due to its outsized impact on politics. NI parties should definitely be moved, though. Collorizador (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I also dont think plaid should be shown either A Socialist Trans Girl 07:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The outsized impact of having a grand total of 9 seats? Maurnxiao (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The impact of being the party with the 4th most seats, while losing 38. CNC (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I do agree with this in principle, but I think an exception should be made for the SNP. Their seats plummeting is pretty notable and one of the defining things to come out of this election. — Czello ^(music) 07:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

They were also the third largest party at the last election. It's probably important to inclde them for that reason Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, a top 6 sans NI is a good way to handle things. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree A Socialist Trans Girl 07:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

UKIP not being in 2015 with 12.6% of the vote is egregious and Reform should absolutely be here. They have been a focal part of this campaign, won a huge share of the vote, and have received substantial media attention. Maurnxiao (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Election infoboxes follow the order of how many seats were won. It would be highly misleading to deviate from that. We broadly agreed that higher up on this Talk page. Bondegezou (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Why does 2015 United Kingdom general election not include the DUP's 8 seats, the same as the LibDems? Why does 1935 United Kingdom general election have the ILP, but not the Independent Liberals? Why does 1918 United Kingdom general election have the IPP but not the NDP? Clearly, the standard here is not the raw numbers of seats with no other factors accounted into it. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The appearance of Reform with more than 14% of the vote, even if it only translates to 4 seats (and a fifth with their pact with TUV) warrants their inclusion at minimum. Reform UK is a major reason why a lot of the seats flipped from the Tories to Labour, and it would be a failure to show the political reality should we refuse to include them in the infobox. I would endorse either the six-party without NI, or the nine-party model. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed strange not to include parties with substantial amounts of seats. And if nothing else, I will say, a 2x2 box just looks weird. PitterPatter533 (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Excluding Northern Ireland violates WP:NPOV. Those seats have exactly the same status in Parliament as every other seat. Bondegezou (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed. Either we just have the three parties who won >10 seats (or four including the SNP), or we have all nine. Choosing those six is illogical. Black Kite (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

To add to this, BBC and other websites depict the Northern Irish parties the same way it depicts all other parties. If we decide seats (not vote share) is decisive for the inclusion of parties in the infobox, then it would not reflect what sources say to exclude SF and DUP on the basis of only winning seats in Northern Ireland. Gust Justice (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with including nine parties. Excluding Reform feels wrong--they played spoiler in numerous constituencies, there's a significant swing to them and away from the Conservatives. A major emerging narrative for this election appears to be the growth of smaller parties at the expense of the two major parties. The infobox ought to acknowledge that. Mackensen (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Reform UK deserves to be in the infobox. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

So far, between what's been said in the first section of this thread and the second subsection (can we all try and talk in the one section?), the emerging consensus is that at least Reform should be included in the infobox. There doesn't yet seem to be a consensus yet what to do about the SNP, the Greens, the Northern Irish parties or Plaid Cymru. I personally would suggest also including the SNP. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking at previous election articles, I think the 2/2 perrow format (2015 and 2019) is much better than the 3/3 perrow format (2017) that his simply too wide and dominating, and doesn't fit well into the infobox. In this case, the 4 parties (2/2) listed should be the ones with the most seats; Labour, Conservative, Lib Dems and SNP. I'm not convinced adding parties with 5 and 7 seats is worthwhile for 3/3 format to be worthwhile. Also arguably, despite SNP only getting 9 seats, the decline of 37 seems very significant. CNC (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Also surely we should be adding SF and DUP prior to Reform, Green and PC, simply based on seats gained? This is why I'm not convinced about adding anyone of them and just stick with the top 4 for convenient formatting. CNC (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• For finding the results easily, we surely need all the national parties which got people elected, or else a table to go with the map showing the results graphically. People must be going there to find the total of votes for Greens, Reform, SNP, PC, and a few others and then searching the article – im my case without success. Moonraker (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Technically not possible, the infobox only allows for 9 parties in total (3 rows of 3). CNC (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Seat change - use notional numbers or previous election?

Should the seat change (in the infobox for instance) use the notional results from the last election (in which case the Lib Dem increase would be 8 -> 71), or should it use the previous election results on different boundaries (in which case it would be 11 -> 71)? Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Previous election results I think. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The precedent from 2010 United Kingdom general election is to use notional numbers for the seat change parameter, but actual 2019 results for the last election parameter. This is also what most media outlets do. Gust Justice (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. We've used notional results previously, which is the practice most reliable sources follow. Bondegezou (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Change leader TBD to Keir Starmer

^ 59.102.22.11 (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Rishi Sunak hasn't resigned as PM officially from HM The King yet SferaEbbasta87 (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree on this. WP:CRYSTALBALL is important, but not including this in the infobox is pure formalism at this point. All reliable sources say Starmer will be appointed PM (see this as an example) No reason to pretend otherwise on this article. Gust Justice (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Percent of vote in last election

Where does the stat "Last election 202 seats, 32.1%" come from? It was 30% Turkeyphan^t 08:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Ignore this I was confused with 2017 result. Imo this is a little unclear (should say date or something). Turkeyphan^t 08:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Why? The last election result was 2019 and it says this at the top of the infobox DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you are projecting your confusion onto everyone else, they didn't get 30% either in 2017, they got 40% !! Tweedle (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Where is reform and why are u showing snp and lib dems but not them

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

?????? 2A06:5902:1402:C400:F4FA:D10F:D4F5:F06B (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Reform only won 4 seats; Lib Dems and SNP won 71 and 9 respectively. Irltoad (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

They won over 4 million votes. As dislikeable as Farage is, this kind of behaviour is detrimental to Wikipedia’s reputation.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boston and Skegness result

I am just wondering if the result in Boston and Skegness should have its own article regarding their remarkable result there, Matt Warman the Conservative candidate was defeated by a swing of some 43% to Richard Tice of the Reform Party there and also given that Boston was also the place where the highest vote in favour of Brexit was recorded back in the 2016 EU Referendum the circumstances seem appropriate for it should to be included for an article of its own just like Clacton. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC))

It already has its own article: Boston and Skegness (UK Parliament constituency), I'm sure you could add extra info in the elections section. PitterPatter533 (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed but why can’t the result have its own article under the title Boston and Skegness in the 2024 United Kingdom general election like the Clacton in the 2024 United Kingdom general election result article? (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 09:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC))

If there's enough in reliable sources to meet notability guidelines for an article rather than a section of the constituency article, then I see no reason why not. Irltoad (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

There are enough reliable sources to write separate articles on every result from last night, which is why we don't, and instead put that information in the constituency article. Black Kite (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. Irltoad (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If you want Boston and Skegness in the 2024 United Kingdom general election, then you can create Boston and Skegness in the 2024 United Kingdom general election. We could also comment on it in an analysis section. Bondegezou (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I will start the article but I need help to complete it, please tell me then why Clacton can have its own article but why not Boston and Skegness, I am not saying that every constituency result should have its own article but I do think Boston and Skegness is a unique result that does justify its own article? (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC))

It all depends on the amount of coverage the local contests get in reliable sources. Clacton has received a huge amount of focus owing to Farage's candidacy there. I don't have a strong opinion on Boston and Skegness, but if the sources support it, fine. That won't apply to every constituency, and in the longer run some of the individual constituency-at-election articles may be merged back to the main article for the relevant constituency. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Well Richard Tice was the leader of Reform UK until Nigel decided to stand in Clacton so he was quite notable indeed, the seat was taken on a massive swing from a sitting MP who had a majority of over 25,000 so i do generally believe it’s notable enough to have its own article which now has been started but I do need some help to get the overall result into the article as well as some background info too. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC))

Analysis

The small number of independents winning against Labour, focused on Gaza, may be noteworthy -- but should not take precedence over pressure exerted by e.g. the Liberal Democrats, Reform. The start of the analysis section should focus on the main story of the election, rather than an editor's wish to highlight Gaza. 31.94.72.87 (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice to highlight their role in nearly (or actually) wiping out multiple shadow ministers. Tweedle (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Starmer is officially PM now

See [3]. David O. Johnson (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

"Landslide for Labour"

Is this really an accurate characterization? Labour only went up 1% while Conservatives lost 20%. Labour only has the most seats now because they had the second most seats on the way in. Almost all the gains went to independents, but even then, LibDems picked up more seats than Labour did. It would seem more accurate to characterize this as a "Collapse of Conservatives" than a "Landslide for Labour" 2600:1702:27F0:1D40:D548:D7E:566D:582D (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I do think you could question how accurate it is, but this is the term sources are using, whether we like it or not. Here are just some examples. You can find many more I am sure. Gust Justice (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It was irrefutably a landslide victory by number of seats, which is the relevant part in FPTP elections. The same was said in 2019 United Kingdom general election when the Conservatives gained ~1 point in terms of votes but won a majority of 80 seats. Irltoad (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It fits the definition of a landslide as referenced above, hence reliable sources reference as such. CNC (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Minor edits and corrections

Under the heading "Candidates" the second paragraph reads, "A record number of Conservative MPs did not stan for re-election". This should be "stand for re-election". 7b8e6497 (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Y This has been corrected. Irltoad (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Final result will be on Saturday:

Just to point out the final result for this election will be on Saturday 6th July. STV news has tweeted out https://x.com/STVNews/status/1809150997341560967 Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire will be sorted tomorrow Crazyseiko (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I have added a sentence on this at the results section. Gust Justice (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2024

I propose changing the following sentence in the lede:

"The Scottish National Party (SNP) lost around three quarters of its seats to Scottish Labour and the Conservative Party."

To either

"The Scottish National Party (SNP) lost around three quarters of its seats to Scottish Labour"

Or

"The Scottish National Party (SNP) lost around three quarters of its seats to Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats"

This is due to the fact that the Scottish Conservatives did not gain any seats from the Scottish National Party (in fact, they lost the seat of Aberdeenshire North and Moray East). The Scottish Liberal Democrats have gained at least 3, possibly 4 seats from the SNP. I am not sure if that is notable enough to list them alongside Scottish Labour, which is why I have given both options.

Thanks. SurprisedPika (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Irltoad (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone know what's causing the delay in declaring in Invernees, Skye & West Ross and Basildon South & E Thurrock?

Just wondering. NesserWiki (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

They're on the third count... Very close between SPN and Lib Dems. — Iadmc♫^talk  15:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. NesserWiki (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Speaker in total for Labour

According to this page: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2024/jul/04/uk-general-election-results-2024-live-in-full "The speaker’s seat of Chorley, if he is re-elected, will be counted towards the Labour party total." So the 412 seats we have as Labour here includes the Speaker. Someone should add a note saying this, as it has usually been the convention that the Speaker is not included in the totals for their party in recent elections. TWM03 (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Where are the totals of votes for each party?

It is not very helpful to have only three parties in the infobox. One thing that leads to is that for all the other parties I can only find the number of seats won. Do we have the actual voting totals anywhere? Moonraker (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Until tomorrow we will NOT know the full results for all the parties. --Crazyseiko (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2024 (2)

JL Partners seat estimates should be added to the tables of final calls. They were in the original page and have now been removed. Clhunter (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)