Talk:Next United Kingdom general election

Notability

There is not a single source in this article which deals with this election - nor is it being discussed by the media in any detail. We follow the sources, not the other way around. Why does this article need to exist? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Because this page documents the next general election... That's why. Surely you can't say the next national election of a major country isn't notable DimensionalFusion (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Where else are we supposed to put the opinion polling that occurs in the next five years? 77.101.227.169 (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You could argue we should wait until there is opinion polling for this election though Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It would be a reasonable argument that this should have waited until some opinion polling was published, but on past experience it really won't take long, so it really isn't worth deleting in the interim. Meanwhile, I find it useful to check to see that there hasn't been any polling yet. DrArsenal (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Ordering of infobox parties

So my assertion is that, to obey NPOV, parties that have equal numbers of seats should be arranged alphabetically. Thoughts? DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I would definitely say vote share rather than alphabetical would give a fairer impression. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean vote share isn't necessarily relevant - alphabetical seems fairer DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If the main sorting criterion is number of seats, then it looks like we're ranking the parties by electoral success. Share of the vote is another indicator of that, whereas what letter they start with is not. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@DimensionalFusion: It would have been good manners to have mentioned the reasoning why your WP:BOLD edit was reverted, so we can come to a neutral concensus. My edit summary in reverting your change was I can't find any evidence supporting your assertion that tied parties should be listed in alphabetical order. We can discuss this, but the order I used was, if there's a tie, order by number of votes (so Reform above Green above Plaid).

I can't see how ordering by number of votes in the case of a tie violates WP:NPOV, as it's not based on any opinion but an empirical fact e.g. the Greens got more votes than Plaid. As for why I prefer the number of votes order, it's because secondary sources for the 2024 election results rank parties with the same number of seats by the number of votes they have. See 1 and 2. --TedEdwards 16:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your first paragraph DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@DimensionalFusion: You started the discussion by saying you think that the parties should be arranged alphabetically if there's a tie. What I criticised you for was not saying why your view was contested, even though you knew why it was contested (because I said why in my edit summary). That meant an editor looking at this discussion wouldn't know what other order the parties could be in, which unjustifiably slants the discussion in your favour because they wouldn't know what the opposing view was, and therefore couldn't decide if whether they supported the opposing view or your view. --TedEdwards 16:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say I was critisising you, I just want opinions for the best way to arrange them? DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I was criticising you for omitting the reason why I reverted you when you started this discussion (which then you could say you opposed). No biggie, but I'm mentioning it now so you won't do it again. And to avoid any doubt, I'm not criticising you for having an opinion different to mine, nor am I criticising you for asking for opinions. Sorry I'm not being that clear. --TedEdwards 19:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

So, you say that it's fairer for 5 seat-DUP (172,058 votes, 0.6%) to be arranged ahead of 5 seat-Reform (4,114,287 votes, 14.3%) only because it'd make sense alphabetically? Weird (and not what sources actually do...). Impru20^talk 16:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Impru20. DimensionalFusion's suggestion here is misguided. Bondegezou (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Why are current seats relevant for the next election, isn't it more relevant on the House of Commons page?

Hi :) So this is a debate I've attempted to start before but without real luck. I'm continuously struggling to see the arguments behind the parties current seat total being informed about in the infobox. I have never ever seen any election night or coverage, comparing seat polling number etc. to how many seats a party currrently has in the parliament. Instead it is always compared to each party's latest election result. I don't understand why we have to stand out so much from the norm. Therefore I'd love to either change it, or to hear the arguments for why we do something, no other media does.

Kind regards, Thomediter (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

An election produces a change in the number of seats. We don't know the election result yet, so showing the current situation, the situation that the election will change, has some logic to it. Bondegezou (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Some logic to it, I agree. I don't think it's entirely irrelevant, but for the life of me I can't see any argument to not have the last election result included in the infobox. It's such vital information, and numbers you will see every time any poll has been released. Wikipedia ends up standing out, and in my opinion, in a very weird way. Thomediter (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Use of TILE rather than TIE

There is a hidden comment saying "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'm not sure what the basis for that logic is- neither infobox template can include all parties. It is perfectly possible (albeit perhaps not likely!) that a party which currently has no MPs such as the SDP ends up having a major impact in the election, yet it is not included in the infobox.

However, there is one criterion which is already known when it comes to the chances of a party making a significant impact in the next election: if a party only stands in Scotland, or Northern Ireland, or Wales, then it is mathematically impossible for it to exceed 56 seats. Exclude all such parties and there are five remaining: Labour, the Conservatives, the Lib Dems, Reform, and the Greens. All five of those parties are clear in their intention to stand across the country as they have always done. They are also the five parties which are all included in regular opinion polls. So I really don't see how using TIE with a five-party layout would violate WP:CRYSTAL any more than using TILE does, and TIE fits in with the practice in past election articles. This would be my proposal. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 05:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Next United Kingdom general election

TBD
All 650 seats in the House of Commons 326 seats needed for a majority
Opinion polls
First party Second party Third party   Leader Keir Starmer TBD Ed Davey Party Labour Conservative Liberal Democrats Leader since 4 April 2020 31 October 2024 27 August 2020 Leader's seat Holborn and St Pancras Kingston and Surbiton Last election 411 seats, 33.7% 121 seats, 23.7% 72 seats, 12.2% Seats before 404 121 72   Fourth party Fifth party   Leader Nigel Farage Carla Denyer Adrian Ramsay Party Reform UK Green Leader since 3 June 2024 1 October 2021 Leader's seat Clacton Bristol Central Waveney Valley Last election 5 seats, 14.3% 4 seats, 6.7% Seats before 5 4
Prime Minister before election Keir Starmer Labour Elected Prime Minister TBD

Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 05:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree; I don't think it's unreasonable of us to go for TIE for an election like this. TILE is better suited for electoral systems where seats are spread across dozens of smaller parties, rather than concentrated in five or so bigger parties. — Czello ^(music) 07:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Introducing a criterion around parties that only stand in some regions would be WP:OR.

We’ve had this format of TILE for the “Next…” article for several election cycles. Bondegezou (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

"It has been done in previous articles therefore it should be done here" isn't a great argument for using it. But as I recall, there was significant pushback from using TILE in previous "Next..." articles DimensionalFusion (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at other countries' election articles' infoboxes, I can't see any that do something similar (exclude parties which won more seats because of some sort of judgement of their significance). Bondegezou (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

2024 British Columbia general election doesn't show the currently-second-largest party in the infobox, BC United, as it is not standing candidates in the election. By extension, it is certainly not unreasonable to exclude parties which are known to be only standing a small number of candidates in the election.

We obviously have no way of knowing yet which parties will have the most seats, until after the election! But we can follow the reporting of reliable sources such as opinion polls, which primarily include the five major national parties. I really don't think it is unreasonable to follow the practice of reliable sources here (that cannot possibly count as original research). Similarly, consensus has already been agreed on Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election to only include columns for the main five national parties. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

A party saying they are not standing is a good reason to exclude it. We do not have that here. The SNP, DUP, PC, SF etc. are all expected to stand in the next election. Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election still includes the SNP in its main table, although there has been a recent Talk page discussion on removing them. I'd say that's still a bit up in the air rather than a settled consensus.

Your logic presumes that what matters is only the party that "wins" the election, i.e. gets most seats. However, in the event of a hung Parliament (as happened in 2010 and 2017), it matters how many seats other parties have won. It is WP:CRYSTALBALL to presume that seats won by regional parties won't matter for coalition formation after the next election (cf. the DUP in 2017).

If you want this article to use TIE, it would make more sense to copy the TIE infobox at 2024 United Kingdom general election, not to make up a different TIE infobox with different parties based on a rule with no precedence anywhere on Wikipedia. Bondegezou (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I remember that when I initially created the article that I added Infobox election instead of Infobox legislative election because I disliked using Legislative Election in the previous "Next..." article, but within a short while (literally 1 day) it was changed to TILE for whatever reason. The edit summary was Infobox should be this style until next election has happened. This was the consensus for the 2024 election, and the arguments to support that consensus hold for this article as well (having to guess who might do well at the next election). So changing despite seeing note about consensus.

I think that the point of the infobox is to display information pertinent to the Next election, but currently Infobox election would display identical information to 2024 United Kingdom general election, which isn't great. Wikipedia:Table dos and don'ts says to not use tables for visual layout, and I think Infobox legislative election fundamentally misunderstands this. An infobox is inherently visual, so an infobox that's mainly a table fails at its task. DimensionalFusion (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thinking about it, this is a good argument for including the latest polls in the infobox (see the poll1 parameter at Template:Infobox election), as for all the flaws of polls, they are at least something which is unequivocally about the next election (the subject of the article) rather than simply repeating the results of the last election.

Bizarrely, I can't get the poll1 parameter to show (not sure if I'm doing something wrong)- can ask on the template talk page about it if we want to take this route. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ve reverted to TILE. The use of TILE has been a long-standing consensus, although I agree it’s often been debated. I suggest we need more discussion and clearer consensus before switching from that.

Also, Chessrat is making two changes: (1) a change to TIE, something that has often been discussed; and (2) excluding certain parties from the infobox. The latter is a more novel suggestion and has gotten lost in the discussion. I definitely do not see sufficient support for it. For a contentious subject like this, I suggest an RfC is in order. Bondegezou (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above has been up 4 days and seen 4 people comment. Those are 3 for TIE and 1 (me) for TILE. No-one has explicitly supported Chessrat's initial suggestion to exclude regional parties. The infobox discussion going on for the 2024 United Kingdom general election has seen over 40 editors commenting. I think this demonstrates that it was premature of Chessrat to make a change to the article and is why I have reverted. Bondegezou (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I included the demonstration infobox (including only the five national parties with seats, which are also the five parties commonly included by reliable sources in opinion polls for the next election) when starting the discussion. There were no suggestions of alternative layouts to be used, other than your own suggestion to not use TIE at all.

Happy to wait a few more days just in case others chime in, but I think the consensus is fairly clear so far- not sure there's a need for an RfC as I don't think the use of TIE is particularly contentious aside from your own objection. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Czello, DimensionalFusion, are you happy with the proposal for an infobox that includes smaller parties, but excludes parties that won more seats than them at the 2024 election (SNP, Sinn Féin and DUP)? As far as I know, this would be without precedence on Wikipedia. Bondegezou (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I've changed my views on having the Infobox here since the 2024 article. Why do we need an infobox with a list of parties at all before the Next United Kingdom general election has even taken place? All it does it display the current number of MPs per party, which is already listed at House of Commons of the United Kingdom. Would anything be lost the party list were removed? DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I am quite happy with having no infobox, or a small infobox that doesn't show the 2024 results or current seats. Bondegezou (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I have asked for more input at some WikiProjects and the 2024 election article's Talk page. I think you're being a little sneaky, Chessrat, trying to get this through while few people are thinking about the page! You know this is a contentious issue and lots of Wikipedians will have views. Bondegezou (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Not really? The rationale used in the hidden note's claim for using TILE is nonsensical, and there was certainly no longstanding consensus at this article to adopt TILE (indeed I believe TIE was used first). The fact is that the little sourcing there is about the next election discusses five parties (in terms of polls on voting intention, leadership approval, etc) more than it discusses the rest.

Use of TIE with a limited number of parties has justification from sources, whereas usage of TILE with all parties represented in Parliament would have had the absurd consequence that, for example, a year ago when Reclaim had parliamentary presence with Andrew Bridgen but Reform UK did not have any parliamentary presence, then Reclaim would have been included in the TILE infobox but Reform would not have been, despite reliable sources only discussing Reform out of the two as being a potential significant factor in the election.

It is entirely WP:OR to imply that the most relevant parties in the next election will just happen to be the parties which currently have MPs. When it comes to coverage of the next election, we need to reflect the way reliable sources treat it. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• I support using the TILE version on the basis that it lists all parties, rather than editors choosing (on what are IMO quite flimsy grounds) to list only five of the 13 that hold seats (and excludes three parties that hold as many seats as two that get included). I think infobox space is better used by having information on more parties than photos of a small number of party leaders. Number 57 15:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t think infobox space is a relevant factor in this - Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER and readers can simply scroll down DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that's a relevant to my point; the TIE infobox contains fewer parties (despite being significantly larger) and is not capable of having 13 parties (the maximum is nine), so even if readers have to scroll, they still see fewer parties' details. Number 57 15:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  This is true, but what details is the reader actually getting? Just a list of parties currently in the House of Commoms and their MP counts. I don’t think this information needs to be in the infobox DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  So you support a version of TIE without party names, leaders or current seats? Joking aside, I disagree with what you say, hence the preference for TILE. Number 57 16:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Number 57 I disagree with what you say, hence the preference for TILE Could you clarify this? What is it you disagree with. I don't necessarily support either Infobox election or Infobox legislative election DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree with "I don’t think this information needs to be in the infobox". Number 57 17:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Does it, though? It's just a list of parties and their MP counts. It has no bearing on the subject of the article, which is Next United Kingdom general election. We cannot populate the infobox if the election hasn't taken place yet DimensionalFusion (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well, obviously we can as nearly all future elections have a populated infobox. The question is more whether we ought to – ultimately whether it is helpful or not to readers. I personally think it is useful context to see which parties are currently in parliament, who their leaders are and how many seats they currently have. Number 57 17:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  It may be useful, but I don't think it needs to be in the infobox as it is only slightly related to the subject of the article – Next United Kingdom general election. Maybe in the "Background" section as it's part of the previous election, not the current one. Alternatively we could just do what is done in House of Commons of the United Kingdom and instead of doing it as Infobox legislative election does (a wikitable), it could just be an apportionment diagram with a legend below it. DimensionalFusion (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Is it not more useful for readers to actually find information that is pertinent to the next election in the infobox, rather than simply information about the present House of Commons makeup? For example, recent opinion polls (which can only be added with TIE) are actually about the next election. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  While I don't think listing individual opinion polls an infobox (which is what TIE can in theory do) is a good idea due to the frequent updates required and likely disputes over reliability, what we could do is include the polling graph in the infobox in the map section (which can be done in both infobox types) – this would be much more useful as it would show the entire range of polling for all parties polling at a suitable level. It could look like this. Number 57 19:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support TILE, best have a United Kingdom infobox for a United Kingdom article rather than "parties that stand in England are the only ones worthy". We shouldn't only promote the most popular parties (which always rely on England), but ideally represent all (with seats) likely to contest the next election across the UK not one part of it, even if England dominates. Of course, past practice is to switch to TIE when the election results begin counting, trimming it to the most popular then. The TIE proposed here would be perfect for Next United Kingdom general election in England. Non-England parties shouldn't be ostracised from a United Kingdom article's infobox. Understand the argument of whether we need an infobox here at all, but the results of the last election and the current MPs already do not match, so not duplicate? DankJae 15:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

References