Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election/Archive 2

Remove UKIP from polling

If they're not relevant enough for the infobox, there's no need to factor them in to the polling section of this election. 83.109.2.4 (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

They have been polling higher than the LibDems for over a year now, to not include them would be odd.--Britannicus (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Then why aren't they in the infobox? It's weird to exclude them from one part and include them in another. 83.109.2.4 (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me that the real question is "should we include UKIP in the info box?". Removing them from the polling would be a misrepresentation of our reliable sources, so that is not an option. A similar conversation about who is included in polling has just been concluded on the polling talk page, reconfirming the current polling layout. By the way 83.109.2.4, can you confirm whether or not you are the same person as the IP who was involved in that discussion. Owl In The House (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I have not been aware of the discussion on that talk page. 83.109.2.4 (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, fair enough. In any case the issue of polling has been discussed thoroughly on the polling talk page, this isn't the place for a polling discussion...especially one that has very recently been resolved. You do however raise an interesting question as to what we do about the info box.

Do we:

a) Remove Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems or

b) Add Nigel Farage and UKIP

c) Stick with the status Quo until after the conference season

For now at least (especially since the summer is politically irrelevant) I think we should wait until after the conference season in September before re-assessing the info box. Although I do think it seems some what inevitable that UKIP should be added to the info box, that or Nick Clegg removed. As things stand, the status quo just seems completely untenable in the run up to the election. Owl In The House (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No, UKIP should not be included in the infobox, at least not yet anyway. If they win a significant number of seats next year then there is justification for them to be included. However within the current parliament they have no seats, therefor there is currently no justification for them to be included. Same goes for the Green Party. Bluecrime 11:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluecrime (talk • contribs)

So the fact that UKIP was the largest party in the recent EU-elections are completely irrelevant to you? 83.109.2.4 (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bluecrime. That is not the only criteria for deciding who goes in the info box and when they go in it and it certainly isn't the be all and end all. While I agree that we should probably hold off until the party conference season, I disagree with your reasoning. Owl In The House (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Green Party - TV debates

I have removed the boldly added section below added by User:JMPhillips92. I shall explain why;

"The Green Party of England and Wales has also requested to take part in the debates, citing the fact that they have an MP, Caroline Lucas, (unlike the UK Independence Party), 3 members of the European Parliament, many Councillors across the country (including being the largest party in Brighton and Hove), and polled third in the 2012 London Mayoral Election. Following the 2014 European Parliament election, they have also called for increased media coverage of the party in general, claiming that the fact they now poll at the same level or higher than the Liberal Democrats, and are the official opposition on a number of councils, provides a strong case for equal coverage."

The first thing to point out is that this is very poorly sourced. Indeed the only sources comes from an e-petition and a petition from a lobbying website, these are simply not considered to be reliable sources. Furthermore we have a very clear precedent of rejecting such sources, indeed if you look at the edit history of this article a Government e-petition was rejected for exactly the same purposes for UKIP about two years ago. This is also a clear example of Wikipedia being used to promote a partisan cause by using a link to the petition in the article,this is simply not on, it wasn't when it was proUKIP editors doing it and it still isn't now that proGreen editors are doing it.

Aside from the sourcing and the lack of encyclopedic relevance of the content, the manner in which this is written is just not appropriate for Wikipedia. The above text is clearly a political argument with a clear narrative trying to make a case for a partisan cause, it is not neutrally written. It is written more like an opinion piece for a newspaper article. May I remind you Wikipedia is not a newspaper (WP:NOTNEWS).

May I also point out that it is not a "fact" that the Green Party "now poll at the same level or higher than the Liberal Democrats", this is clearly illustrated by recent and historic opinion polls but proGreen editors seem to be incredibly selective over which polls they acknowledge. This is just one example of an unsubstantiatable and false claim...something that obviously has no place in an encyclopedia.

Of course the Green Party have "requested to take part in the debates", many parties have but that doesn't make it relevant or encyclopedic. There have been a lot of incidents over the last few months of this sort of proGreen Party editing. Recently a discussion has been concluded on the [page for the opinion poll article] and a comment from an RFC commenter summed it up in my view: "Honestly this seems very much to be a political dispute. From what I have displayed before me it seems listing the Green Party as other is standard not only on wikipedia but in the polls. I have to question if this is an attempt to further legitimize the Green Party. I feel they can do this without help from wikipedia. I can not recommend changing the status quo at the moment.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)"....seems very fitting in this case too.

Anyway, I have removed this section for now as it is clearly not appropriate. These proGreen edits have got to stop, that does not mean there is no place for the Green Party in this article but any edits such as this will simply just be removed, they're completely disproportionate and indeed inappropriate. Anyway just thought I'd put this on the talk page as opposed to quietly and sneakily removing it like some editors occasionally do. Owl In The House (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding UKIP to the info box

United Kingdom general election, 2015

7 May 2015
All 650 seats to the House of Commons 326 seats needed for a majority.
Leader David Cameron Ed Miliband Party Conservative Labour Leader since 6 December 2005 25 September 2010 Leader's seat Witney Doncaster North Last election 306 seats, 36.1% 258 seats, 29% Seats needed 20 68   Leader Nick Clegg Nigel Farage Party Liberal Democrats UKIP Leader since 18 December 2007 5 November 2010 Leader's seat Sheffield Hallam South East (MEP) Last election 57 seats, 23% 0 seats, 3.1% Seats needed 269 326
Incumbent Prime Minister David Cameron Conservative

Ok, so people have recently started adding UKIP into the info box again. I previously thought it would be better to hold off until after the summer, perhaps until the party conference season but since people are bringing it up now, I don't see any harm in the discussion starting. I've quickly thrown together a template info box, so that we have something to scrutinise the merits of. I'll not add my view yet...although I have expressed views on the matter previously. I'm merely getting the ball rolling for others to contribute to the discussion, instead of boldly editing and having their edits reversed without explanation or discussion. Owl In The House (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a difficult choice. They will probably get only a tiny number of seats, or none at all, but a notable vote share. At present, my feeling is that most reliable sources talk about UKIP as a significant part of the election and so they should be included. Bondegezou (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there any likeliness for Torey to make a pact with UKIP to seal a conservative government and keep Labour out? If there is any possibility for that, they can quickly become very relevant. How many votes do they need to get seats? 83.109.3.157 (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

In relation to the direct question at the end, there is no way to answer that as the number of votes a party needs for a seat is incalculable as it is a First Past the Post system on individual constituencies. A party could receive 2 million votes and receive no seats or a party could get 19,000 votes and get a seat. IT is an unanswerable question which has no relation to the influence of a party. Sport and politics (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Further to Sport and politics's answer, your question is not relevant because it is based on hearsay and opinion (hardly encyclopedic). If anyone has any source based arguments either way I would be most interested, I've tried to avoid being the one to get the ball rolling on that one, just thought I'd try facilitate contributions from others. Frankly, hearsay and opinion of "whats going to happen" should have no place in this discussion. Owl In The House (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

RS Say there are 4 main parties contesting this election. However they also say there are only 3 parties who stand a reasonable chance of being in the next government (though a few months before 2010 lib-dems prospects in this regard were the butt of every joke). For the time being, I'mma do something bold. Though probably uncontroversial. Iliekinfo (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, apparently my idea wasn't as much of a pro tem solution as I thought. I'd suggest removal of infobox entirely until we get consensus. It appears there's no more consensus to exclude ukip than there is to include. Iliekinfo (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Broken infobox

The infobox is broken, but looks the same for at least 500 edits so I suspect it's a problem with {{Infobox election}} rather than with the article's own code. Can anyone help? Haave also raised this at Template talk:Infobox election and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. PamD 10:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem now been fixed: see Template_talk:Infobox_election#What.27s_wrong_at_Next_United_Kingdom_general_election.3F for details. Bondegezou (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

326 seats are needed for a majority to form a government.

You can form a government without a (simple) majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.191.234 (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. I have amended the text. Bondegezou (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Revert infobox to 3 largest parties

There is talk of adding Ukip to the infobox, however I believe until the next election has been cast and the results announced, the infobox should remain restricted to the 3 largest parties in the context of seats at Westminster.

True at the last election Ukip received the 4th largest share of the vote but they received no seats and currently only has 1 seat. From analysing previous uk election infoboxes it can be seen that parties are listed in order by the number of seats they have won, not votes.

Therefore using that logic, if ukip is added to the infobox then the other parties with currently more seats must also be included as well. Starting after the Conservative Party, Labour Party and Liberal Democrats, the list would continue with Democratic Unionist Party 8 seats, Scottish National Party 6 seats, Sinn Fein 5 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, SDLP 3 seats. And as the Green Party and Alliance both won a seat in the last election and Ukip did not, they would then be listed on the infobox before Ukip. However as the election Template:Infobox election can only hold 9 candidates and Ukip would be the eleventh, it would therefore be omitted from that list and not appear anyway.

Therefore I believe it would be best that until the results of next election has been announced and to save a messy looking page with the smaller parties cluttering, only the 3 largest parties by seats should appear. Humongous125 (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The counter-argument is that the other parties could only ever be minor-parties. UKIP is a national party with a potentially unlimited upside, running third in the polls currently. If UKIP suddenly jumped to second in the polls would they still be excluded? RodCrosby (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Another thing you all should consider is what is done in other countries. Look at Swedish general election, 2014. That article has EIGHT parties listed. SteelMariner^Talk 03:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

In response to RodCrosby. Though UKIP is ahead in the poles at the moment, we have no way in telling if that will continue, or indeed if it suddenly became unpopular and only recieve a couple percent of the vote. However, the infobox has always been listed in order of seats won (if an article of a previous election) or seats that have been won in the last election, (if an article of a future election) So I don't think that should change in this case either.

I ofcourse could place the SNP in third place now, because with the indications in the polls of the LibDems likely to loose 30+ seats (if not all of them which would then exclude them completely from the infobox in that event) while the SNP is the highest in the polls in scotland at the moment and they're also the third biggest party in terms of membership in the UK it looks likely to win 20+ seats. However the Libdems might recover and the SNP might not win more than them.

Indeed, if UKIP for arguments sake gained 4 million votes and ended up with no seats (which is a possibility, even though it has a seat now it may loose ) it would not appear on the infobox anyway so to place it there now is presumptuous.

In response to SteelMariner the infobox can only hold NINE parties. Alliance would be TENTH and Ukip would be the ELEVENTH if we started to list the parties, so to list all the parties would indeed be less than informative. Humongous125 (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there are two issues. I can quite agree that looking at an election from a historical perspective one can be quite ruthless in summarising the results with the main players in the info box and the also-rans excluded. However, is there not a duty of WP to be unbiased, neutral and to inform the reader, particularly in relation to an upcoming democratic election, not least for those voters who are actually about to participate? To restrict information to that which only fits a previous pattern is surely to negate those principles. British politics may be about to undergo a step-change to a four-party system. The media and pundits are awash with estimates of how UKIP may perform, seemingly improving by the day, and there is long-standing and ongoing debate over whether Farage will participate in the leaders' debates. As far as the polls, forecasting and reportage are concerned, 4-party politics is already a reality. A thought experiment. If this was 1931, would the Next United Kingdom General Election page infobox exclude Ramsay Macdonald and National Labour on the grounds that they had not won any seats in 1929? If it was 1983, and the SDP had fought separately from the Liberals, would they be excluded? RodCrosby (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

In response to RodCrosby I can see where your coming from as we want to appear unbiased. However the infobox is only mean't to be a summary, in the circumstances of a future election such as this one, the summary of some of the parties from the previous election. In the Scottish Parliament General Election pages, the Scottish Green Party and the Scottish Socialist Party are excluded from the infoboxes under the grounds of it just being a summary and to add them could cause the cliff edge effect of having to add every party that wins a seat, perhaps resulting in even independent candidates being included (why not in that case?).

Podemos in spain does not appear in the Spanish general election, 2015 as they, like UKIP are up and coming now, but in the previous election, did not win any seats. (Therefore if today was 1931, National Labour would not appear, nor would the SDP if they were seperate from the Liberals)

It has been conventional in wikipedia to add parties that have won seats in the previous election to the infobox in the order of seats won. Therefore (ignoring the problematic issue that the infobox can only hold nine parties), if we were to add Ukip to the infobox we would also need to include every single party that won more seats than it did in the previous election. (It would then bring up the argument, should we then also include the Respect Party which had no seats in the previous election but now has one). To do so without the other parties would appear that wikipedia is being biased toward Ukip which is also what we want to avoid.

To remedy any biased impression you may see in the article, we could create a table that shows the previous results of all the successful parties in the 2010 uk election, similar to the table produced in the Scottish Parliament general election, 2016#2011 results. Or even somewhere in the article having a list of all the parties that have seats in the parliament now and intend on standing in 2015.

Also if users scroll down to the opinion poll section, they can clearly see that Ukip is making opinion poll gains. Humongous125 (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

As I've said before, the Wikipedia way is to follow reliable sources. In the UK, Ofcom publish an independent list of major and minor parties to guide election coverage. (Here's the one for May 2014.) The obvious thing for the infobox to do is to follow Ofcom's decision for the 2015 election when it is published. Bondegezou (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

How is it obvious to follow Ofcom's decision? Wikipedia is not broadcasting anything in terms for airing times or debates. For arguments sake, lets say Ofcom says Ukip is a major player in the election due to its recent advances and standing in the opinion polls, the fact is that it has been conventional to list parties in order of the seats won in the previous election, nothing to do with public opinion or vote share. It would not just be breaking convention, but it would definitely appear biased if we had Ukip listed in the infobox before the DUP, SNP or Sinn Fein who all individually have more seats (nevermind the fact ukip didnt win anything last time). Plus, if Ukip doesn't win any seats at the next election at all, do we then simply delete them off the infobox as if they were never suppose to be there.

That is why, we should continue with the convention of having parties on the infobox in the order of seats and to save cluttering, only have the three parties that are individually considerably larger than any of the smaller parties put together.

Ofcourse, after the results have been announced it may appear that the UK has turned into a 4,5 or 6 party system where Ukip may be 4th for example, then in that case, it would be appropriate to have Ukip included and alter the infobox to involve the 6 parties, however anything before the results are announced would appear presumptuous on the part of wikipedia. Humongous125 (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A little side issue of a personal question I'd like to ask? If we are now considering a change to the infobox due to changing opinion polls and Ukip being considered a major party by a variety of sources (even though most predict no win for Ukip), why previously on other pages such as the Indian general election, 2014 or even the United Kingdom general election, 2010, did the parties on the infobox remain as I have described above. Even though for months before the election, opinion polls and many sources predicted a win for the opposition, Labour and the Indian National Congress remained in the number one position and the predicted winners remained in the second position. (At one point the Lib Dems were even predicted to top that election with Labour definite to loose in all polls) It was only after the results were announced that the infobox's were altered to show the new size of the parties and were ordered appropriately. Therefore why is it that Ukip is being given special treatment with talk of placing it on the infobox ahead of parties that clearly have won and still have considerably more seats than it does? Plus we have no way of knowing if the polls will continue to rise for Ukip to win any seats at all. Humongous125 (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

After the election the infobox should be about results, before the election...it's a little dubious, but if we are to have one we should absolutely follow RS (which ofcom is the king of in this context...but has yet to provide a list). As alternative suggestion, how about no infobox before the election; the primary purpose of the infobox is to give the results afterwards, so does a beforehand one make much sense? Or, how about the infobox is, until the election, the previous infobox. 2010 results. Individual constituency articles all make a big deal of the previous result. I think the problem is approaching CRYSTAL. All RS are essentially saying that it's too early to say who is a major player at the 2015 GE, so an infobox on such a basis is awkward. I'd also note that Humongouses assesment of what the RS were saying before 2010 is wrong, sensationalist speculation against all expert opinion does not become 'RS' just because it appears in a newspaper. Would you say that RS are now predicting UKIP to win 128 seats? Cos they ain't. Also "Therefore why is it that Ukip is being given special treatment with talk of placing it on the infobox ahead of parties that clearly have won and still have considerably more seats than it does?" UKIP is only seriously being considered to be put 4th. As having the same # of seats as the Greens in HoC, far more in other elections, and polling much higher...UKIP inarguably are currently 4th on results. Iliekinfo (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

In answer to Humongous125: Wikipedia is meant to follow reliable sources. I feel too much of the discussion here and previously constitutes original research with Wikipedians coming up with rules to govern the infobox. I argue that the infobox should be a summary of the main players in the election, and who those are should be based on what reliable sources say. The neatest and most widely used summary of that will be from Ofcom, which is why I suggest them, but we can and should look at other sources too, like the BBC. Bondegezou (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

So, it's stuff like this that I suggest should determine who goes in the infobox. On the basis of that, I think UKIP should be in the infobox, but I'm happy to wait until consensus here is clear. Bondegezou (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

In response to Iliekinfo and Bondegezou, I was trying to say what you suggested. That we should remain with the 2010 election info box until after the election when the results have been announced and we can then see who the major and minor players are. Im not disputing that Ukip is currently the 4th largest party in the UK in terms of votes from the last election, but the infobox is mean't to be a summary in the order of seats won, not votes (Otherwise in the 1974 February election for example the conservatives would appear first instead of labour). Therefore currently the 4th largest political party in the HoC currently and in the previous election is the DUP, not Ukip. Therefore placing Ukip 4th on this infobox would not be consistent with the other pre-election info boxes throughout Wikipedia and out of step with what previous infoboxes have represented. Humongous125 (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Also on a side note, there is sources out there where the SNP and Greens are claiming the media is being biased for including Ukip and not them, (SNP is the 3rd largest party in the UK in terms of membership) so if we add Ukip to the infobox, when they have previously been in order of seats, (not a new rule im trying to introduce, its always been that way) then Wikipedia would be treading in the territory of being biased. (Though I don't want this point to snowball, there is legitimate sources out there that show that some of the BBC's articles are biased, so perhaps not the best idea to solely base how the infobox looks on how the BBC displays articles and at the end of the day, they are merely a source of information, not a template on how to display information) Therefore it is best to use the infobox from the previous election or no infobox at all. Humongous125 (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I will ofcourse go with the general consensus and perhaps a Third opinion would be best to resolve this dilemma, however the last point I'd like to make is that not only is Ukip 11th in the terms of seat order in the HoC currently, if after the election, say for example the SNP has 20 seats, DUP has 16 and Ukip have 15 seats. Then the SNP and DUP would appear in the infobox before Ukip, therefore to place Ukip in 4th now or even 3rd as suggested by others would definitely be in the territory of original research. Humongous125 (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article should focus on seats won as that's what the election is about, but vote share has some relevance too. I agree that once the election results are out, the parties should be listed in the infobox in order of seats won. I agree that one is left with an odd position if UKIP are, say, 7th in seats but 3rd in national vote and I don't know how best to handle that. However, I note that infoboxes for elections in other countries have, before those elections, included parties that did not exist or did not do well in the previous elections on the basis that they were likely to perform well (based on reliable sources). I think that's what we should do with this article too, but I note that those countries had PR systems so this vote share v. seats won wasn't an issue in those cases. So, while the seats won issue is a concern for me, I feel, at the moment, on balance, that UKIP should be included in the infobox in 4th place. Bondegezou (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of NPOV, would it be best to remove the infobox until we get consensus on this issue? I'd go for UKIP as 4th too, (arguments about parties which only stand in local areas don't stand up IMO), but I'm not convinced we'll get consensus until there's much stronger indication from RS that UKIP will be (not 'will they be?') major for this election, eg when ofcoms decision comes out. I'm not sure the infobox does much for the article, and it's gonna seem biased one way or another. Alternative, as IIRC I tried already, rework the infobox to display (& be titled) 2010 results for the time being. Or (mad idea), just have lab&cons for now. Having libs but not UKIP seems definitely POV, but putting the cut off higher would remove that controversy. LD>UKIP is dubious, L&C>LD&UKIP is straightforward...

Whatever the outcome, I don't think things can stay as they are, while there doesn't yet seem to be consensus to have ukip, there's even less for having an infobox excluding them. Iliekinfo (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand the fact that Ukip was 4th in public opinion last time and currently, seem very likely to come 3rd in the popular vote. Perhaps as you say if the Uk was a PR system, though I would still need convincing, there would be more of a case to have Ukip on the infobox, however due to the awkwardness of First past the post, popular opinion is more or less irrelevant, Ukip could win absolutely no seats. I still stand by the point that due to the infobox showing seats that were won previously, only the 3 by far the largest parties should appear, as to add Ukip in my view would then be ignoring the other parties who won more seats and to add Ukip now only to have them removed would look premature and confuse readers on what the infobox was representing. (Also, generally parties of government regain some support in the final month or so of the election campaign, so in the final run up, it could be possible that the lib-dems move ahead and ukip lose support, perhaps substantially, - though unlikely, it could happen) So instead could we set up a table somewhere in the article until we finally get consensus (or indeed the election comes) of a list of currently known parties contesting with the seats and popular vote won in the previous election? like what was done with the New Zealand general election, 2014 Humongous125 (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Iliekinfo, I favour keeping the infobox as is until such time as a new consensus emerges. There has been extensive prior discussion of this matter that decided to stick with the current box, which I think we should respect. Humongous125, I find your argument around seat numbers to be quite persuasive. On the other hand, a large popular vote for UKIP with zero or a sub-DUP number of seats will, I'm sure, be extensively highlighted by reliable sources and we need to follow what RS say. If all the newspapers the day after the election have tables about 4 parties (Con, Lab, LD, UKIP), so should we. What I think we need to do is to focus more on the rest of the article and less on the infobox! The article should highlight the rise of UKIP, the collapse in support for the LibDems, events in Scotland and maybe the rise in support for the Greens as well. The article should also have sufficient explanation for those not familiar with the UK's electoral system as to how votes translate -- or often don't translate -- into seats. While I like how you're thinking, Humongous125, I'm not certain a new list of parties contesting is necessary given that there are many links back to the previous election result and a summary of opinion polling. However, keep the ideas coming! Or can you do a mock-up of what your list would look like? Bondegezou (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Table to represent contesting parties

Due to the ongoing discussions on the infobox on whether it properly represents the current parties in the House of Commons or not, (due to the fact the infobox is only a summary and can't show all the facts). I thought it was best we add a table into the article that shows all the parties that contested the 2010 election and/or currently have seats, like what has been done in the New Zealand general election, 2014 and the Scottish Parliament general election, 2016. Because around 60 individual parties and candidates contested the last election, I decided that the table should be limited to parties that either won seats and or currently have seats. It will also give the reader an opportunity to see the seat changes that have taken place between the two elections. If everyone is happy with the table, shall we add it to the article or if anyone sees an improvement that could be made, please feel free to change it before adding it. Humongous125 (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

	Political Party	Party votes %	Seats elected 2010 election	Current Seats October 2014
	Conservative	36.1	306	303
	Labour	29.0	258	257
	Liberal Democrats	23.0	57	56
	UKIP	3.1	0	1
	SNP	1.7	6	6
	Green	0.9	1	1
	Sinn Féin	0.6	5	5
	DUP	0.6	8	8
	Plaid Cymru	0.6	3	3
	SDLP	0.4	3	3
	Alliance	0.1	1	1
	Respect	0.1	0	1
	Speaker	0.1	1	1
	Independents	0.2	1	3

Looks good. I think it needs to be labelled so the reader sees the criteria used (i.e., parties represented in the Commons). However, is there a template that already has this information, or should this be made a template? Bondegezou (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

At what point is this moved to United Kingdom general election, 2015?

Are we not getting close to the date where it would be legally impossible to hold a general election in 2014? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Close, yes, but we aren't there yet. This came up (as you would expect) in 2009 and the discussion is here.

We can do roughly the same calculation. The law in question is now the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, which lengthens the time limit to 25 working days (from 17 as in 2010), still excluding weekends and bank holidays. The last 25 working days of 2014 are:

• 25-28 November (4 days)
• 1-5 December (5 days)
• 8-12 December (5 days)
• 15-19 December (5 days)
• 22-24 December (3 days)
• 29-31 December (3 days)

An election on 31 December would require a dissolution on 24 November, so on previous precedent the date to move is 25 November. Kahastok talk 09:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Convention, but I don't think law, is that elections are on a Thursday, so that would push the last possible day to dissolve Parliament back to 13 November. That's presuming a 2/3 vote in support: a loss of confidence vote alone would require an additional 14 day waiting period, so we've already crossed that point. None of this is remotely likely, of course. Numerous reliable sources -- and that's the most important decider -- say the election will be in 2015. I'd be happy to see the article re-named now. Bondegezou (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Text to describe shifts and trends in public opinion

Bondegezou suggested on the 'Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election' talk page that it would be appropriate to have on this page a prose summary of the major shifts and trends in public opinion over the Parliament (where that can be seen reported in reliable sources). I would tend to agree, and have started to draft, but would like others' views before I put too much work into it. DrArsenal (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought the key thing to do is to work out what reliable source citations you're using...? Bondegezou (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

On the 'Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election' talk page it has been accepted that Ukpollingreport is a reliable source, and around the turn of each year it has good summaries of the major developments of the year in the polls (and from time-to-time in between). So I was thinking of using that as a starting point. It seems pretty consistent with Wikipedia:NPOV as well as being a reliable source. DrArsenal (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely think that this would be a good idea. I understand the difficulty that there has been regarding the issue as to whether UKIP should be included in the infobox or not. However, I always thought that it was pretty remarkable that the rest of the article could in no way account and explain the fact that they will be a major part of this election. For a long time the only reference to the party in the entire article has been the labelling in the opinion polling graph. It should be perfectly acceptable and reasonable for Wikipedia to give some detail about how the election is being portrayed. Obviously any such text should be worded very carefully so that it maintains relevance to the election itself.

By the way, in response to a separate point, no, I am not retired. I never have been. I don't know why it says so. I didn't put that message there. RedvBlue 10:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ann Clwyd

Ann Clwyd has announced her intention to stand down, and then changed her mind, it seems. Over the last couple of days, she has been deleted from the list of MPs standing down, and then reinstated. I can see arguments for including and not including, but I think it probably needs discussion rather than edit warring. My own suggestion would be that mention should be made in a note, rather than in the full listing, because inclusion in the full listing of an MP that isn't standing down is very odd, and also means that the total isn't the immediately obvious number. DrArsenal (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DrArsenal, you probably have stopped me from edit warring. I think it is probably best if we keep her in the list for now, with the note indicating her intention to stand again, as this is more accurate than removing her completely. I can see the other side of the argument, but would rather include her not not. doktorb _words^deeds 14:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

UKIP Target Seats

Recently, after the European elections and local elections, UKIP leader, Nigel Farage has repeatedly emphasised that he want to follow the "Paddy Ashdown" strategy and "ruthlessly" target "10-20 seats" at this election. If there is an announcement of a target seat list from UKIP, could it be included on this page, considering that the main media narrative is how many seats will UKIP win it seems odd to keep them off the target seats section Guyb123321 (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC) The article is here - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/24/ukip-hitlist-20-seats-commons Guyb123321 (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Bondegezou (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

... but any list of target seats needs to come from reliable sources. I don't think we can come up with that list ourselves. Bondegezou (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It might be some time before reliable sources emerge with a formal list of target seats but really we do need a reliable source for this. I shouldn't expect one will emerge until after the summer. That said there is nothing to stop us putting a note in the article that UKIP are preparing a list of target seats, or whatever, if of course we can find a reliable source that says that they are. To me this seems a sensible interim solution until any such list is produced/can be reliably sourced. Owl In The House (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with that. Note can say that Farage has said the party will select some seats and target efforts, referencing Paddy Ashdown's approach with the Liberal Democrats. Bondegezou (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe that UKIP may come out with a target seat list in September, at the same time as they unveil their parties policy manifesto, until then a note sounds good Guyb123321 (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like I was right, a tiny bit earlier than September - Here's the list of twelve seats http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-reveals-list-of-12-seats-it-plans-to-target-in-general-election--and-nine-of-them-are-tory-9691712.html

Can it be added? Guyb123321 (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Heywood and Middleton is a ukip target seat, 2,2 difference.81.58.144.30 (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Now end of 2014 UKIP 2 MPs and in the lead in several other constituencies e.g. Skegness. Should be added as if this trend stays they would have bigge share of vote than Liberal Democrats and a similar number of MPs. 30/12/14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.26.36 (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Manifesto section

I like it. Let's include it. I don't see as much challenge as with the infobox over who to include. Bondegezou (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You are probably right about it not being so much of a challenge, BUT the edits by User:Gyste didn't result in anything even remotely tidy. DrArsenal (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I like the concept, but yeah, it needs to be kept tidy. I wonder if we just need to record the title of the manifesto and cross-media coverage, rather than getting to much into replicating the bullet points of each party's policies. doktorb _words^deeds 05:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I see at BBC news there is a manifesto watch, that might be a useful source, but I can see problems moving it from what is there to what can be on this page while maintaining a neutral point of view and without plagiarism. DrArsenal (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Correct infobox

Which parties in the infobox?

- Conservative Party - Labour Party - Liberal Democrats

- UK Independence Party? - Green Party?

- Scottish National Party?????

What you think?81.58.144.30 (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

UKIP is third in the polls and therefore should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.26.36 (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, 81.141.26.36. If you look further down this Talk page, you'll see a lengthy discussion over what to do with the infobox. Feel free to chime in there. Bondegezou (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Political parties

I have massively and boldly expanded the political parties section to describe the major players at the election according to reliable sources. I felt this was needed following the above infobox discussion: whatever we do with the infobox, the article as a whole should reflect reliable source coverage and I've built on that discussion to inform the text I've added. I hope others feel the text is appropriate and that it provides a balance to whatever we end up doing with the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible coalitions

Would it be appropriate to describe what parties say about possible coalitions? Such is usual in election articles for countries more used to multiparty politics. Here's a relevant cite: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30672904 Bondegezou (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Another cite: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/02/tory-labour-unity-7-may-national-government-constitutional-crisis Chessrat (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC) More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11325940/Ed-Miliband-hints-he-may-back-replacing-Trident-with-cheaper-system.html, http://opinion.publicfinance.co.uk/2014/04/the-election-unknowns/ Lib–Lab pact#Possible coalition after 2015 general election http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30396237 http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/16/snp-plaid-cymru-greens-join-forces-austerity-election http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11322674/A-rainbow-Coalition-after-May-would-lead-to-a-second-general-election-this-year-says-Tory-minister.html http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/29/2015-general-election-multi-party-coalition-ukip-snp

DrArsenal (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all those cites. Bondegezou (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Election Counts

Was wondering for information purposes how many of the 650 constituencies are counting overnight and how many other constituencies are doing day counts if any at all? (46.65.97.8 (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC))

The press association did an estimate of times not that long ago. it can be found here and reported here => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The Telegraph says here that 'Each seat must begin counting votes within four hours of polls closing at 10pm.' I'm not sure if that fits with some seats not _expecting_ to declare until lunchtime. Inevitably, some will see recounts and be delayed.--Cavrdg (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Two local authorities - Northumberland and Warwickshire - have made a decision not to start counting until the next morning. This covers 6 Constituencies. In addition Cornwall will not be counting the St Ives constituency, presumably due to difficulties in getting ballot boxes from the Isles of Scilly to the Count. By contrast island constituencies in na'h Eileanan Siar, Argyll & Bute and Orkney & Shetland will count overnight despite this requiring specific measures such as helicopter and plane charters to deliver the votes to the count.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox again

We've seen a round of infobox edits be contested recently. We have discussed the infobox at length before: see above at Talk:United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015#New_infobox_proposal. In the absence of any consensus, the infobox has remained with the three largest parties at the last election, Con/Lab/LD. There are many reasons to consider expanding the infobox to include other parties likely to do well in seats (notably SNP) or votes (notably UKIP). I think the discussion above is still largely valid (although the SNP has surged since in predicted seats, the Greens have dropped back a touch in polling and the leaders' debates were finalised) and includes many sound points from multiple editors. My personal view is that the logic of election infoboxes means the infobox should be driven by seats last time or at dissolution, plus that we can't skip parties (include a party with fewer seats while excluding another with more). I also think that the logic of Wikipedia means we should look to reliable sources as to who the major parties are (e.g. Ofcom). Above all, an infobox is only a summary: it is not meant to be the complete story. The article now has considerable content discussing the significance of numerous parties from various perspectives. Such content can balance out any omissions in the infobox. (Likewise, we also now have Scotland, England and NI spin-off articles.)

Given all that, I remain of the view that the best infobox, consistent with precedent, logic and WP:RS, is for 9 parties (the most the template can hold) listed by Commons seats at the dissolution of Parliament: i.e., Con, Lab, LibDem, DUP, SNP, SF, PC, SDLP, UKIP. The edit disputes over the weekend sought to add UKIP, SNP and PC to the infobox: my proposed solution would encompass all those. I recognise there are counter-arguments and, personally, I can see merit in some of the other suggestions made previously too (e.g. User:Chessrat's Northern Ireland hack).

The alternate solution that appeals is to hack the Israeli election infobox so that it works here. User:Bondegezou/sandbox gives you some idea of what could be done, but hacking Template:Infobox Israeli Election as required is somewhat beyond me. Bondegezou (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if we're easiest to wait until after the election now but if it's becoming unstable and people are trying to change it all the time it may be easiest to implement some sort of interim solution. My views are much the same as before - the list has to reflect number of seats. The problem with this both pre and post election is that a 9 leader limit is likely to exclude the Green Party (E&W) which may jar with people who've been watching the debates with Natalie Bennett featuring. So your Israeli hack does have some appeal although I'd suggest if doing it pre election it should contain all parties with at least 1 MP so you would need Respect and Alliance in addition to those in your Sandbox. If post election then those 2 parties may lose their seats but others (UUP?) may require to be added. I still like Chessrat's NI hack version as that sort of reflects the way the debates were structured but I recognise that it wasn't universally popular last time it was proposed. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If someone can do something with the Israeli template, I'd be happy to see it cover every party with an MP at dissolution. It is compact and can easily accommodate another couple of lines. Unfortunately, at present it cannot list the previous seats until the new seats are entered too. I'll continue to work on the sandbox version. Others are welcome to do so too. Bondegezou (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

An Israeli-style compromise seems best. Thus I forked the Israeli template, making a new one at Template: Infobox UK election. We can edit that template to better suit UK elections.

I propose that we keep the current infobox till the election, and then change to an Israel-style infobox post-election. All parties with at least 1 seat or 1% of the public vote should be included.Chessrat (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

From now too election I feel that current 3 parties con/lab/libdem should be the only 3 in info box all three have had a presence in 2010, and previous elections. It also should be noted its currently mainly 1 user that currently keeps adding ukip, against the common consensus. However after election the election info box will need to be looked at again if snp, as predicted gain significant amount seats (same would tru for ukip, but currently not looking likely to gain significant amount seats). Remind non UK user that number votes cast in election is irrelavent, it amount seats gained that is important. (by seat logic SNP, PC, SF, DUP and SDLP all have more seats than UKIP in last parliament, whether they national or regional party is irrelevant in parliamentary democracy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.238.221 (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 2015

7 May 2015

Party Leader % Seats +/– Conservative Labour Liberal Democrats Democratic Unionist Party Scottish National Party Sinn Féin Plaid Cymru SDLP UKIP Green Party of England and Wales Alliance Party of Northern Ireland Respect (Total number of seats) 650 This lists parties that won seats. See the complete results below.

Go Chessrat! You rock! The result, everyone, is now at User:Bondegezou/sandbox and to the right.

I suspect the pressure for change on this article is just going to increase, so how would people feel about switching to this now? Bondegezou (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me. But rather than create a separate UK elections template, why not simply make the Israeli one into a {{Infobox mutiple party election}} and make it applicable to numerous countries. Could also work well for the Netherlands and other countries with lots of parties. Number 57 20:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, making an any-country-infobox. I don't know how to actually make a template like that, but if you do, feel free to make one.

I have one issue with using that proposed infobox: It doesn't stand out much, and misses out a lot of info contained in the current one. I can't really think of a good way around this problem, though. Chessrat (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The obvious addition to Infobox UK election or an any-country-infobox would be an additional column or 2 columns on current seats (for a forthcoming election) or previous seats (for a past election). That brings in more information without making the infobox too big again. The current template includes a +/- column, but that only works after the election has happened. Templates are new to me, so I may have a go, but if anyone has more template experience, can they do it? Bondegezou (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Is that really needed though? Once the election has happened, it's kind of superfluous. Perhaps the seat column could be switched from "Current seats" to "Seats won" after the election is over (like the main election infobox does when ongoing=no). Number 57 20:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with using the Israeli election-style multi-party template as proposed. This is the most fair, impartial as well as comprehensive way we can cover the results. JJARichardson (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I have created the template at {{Infobox multiple party election}}, complete with documentation and example usage. Number 57 12:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Number 57! You also rock! Bondegezou (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This is User:Number 57's template in action, completed for 2015 election, but with mock data! Bondegezou (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC) {{Infobox multiple party election/testcases}}

If anyone cares, I used data from the https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/ website to calculate vote share in England, Scotland and Wales (combining the E&W and Scottish Green parties), and the most recent poll for NI on Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2015. Then assigned seats proportionally. Number 57 15:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice infobox there! I would support the use of an Israeli styled one. --ERAGON (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there any chance the political party color templates can be used on this template? With those, we could have an automatic legend for a map, and use the shortened party names. This means more space and probably bigger font because I hate small fonts (gotta think the people with bad eyesight too). Also, I don't think we have to add the seat changes in the infobox. The vote percentage and seats won should be enough, plus total seats and seats needed to win. –HTD 12:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Posts moved to new section on infobox for consistency of debate; please continue in updated section --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk Archiving

I was wondering about archiving this talk page - it would seem to make a sense to have a clearout of all inactive discussions at some point on Wednesday 6th, before the election and any associated incidents: any objections to this? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a bot that is supposed to be archiving anything over 3 months old. Is there a way of forcing it to archive some of the 'dead' discussions? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 15:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure - the bot's page is a bit confusing! However there are some discussions that date back to January which haven't been archived. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I have archived all inactive conversations, except for recent discussions about the infobox, to Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015/Archive 3. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox - May 4th Update

(Initial posts moved from 'Infobox Again' section)

The idea of having a Israeli election infobox is really bad:

1. It is not consistent with the previous elections
2. No pictures for the leaders
3. No party colours
4. No swing and no. of votes
5. No opinion pollings, turnout rate, and leader's seat
6. No map

I believe we will find something to agree on with the old election infobox after the election results come out. (most likely including the four parties Con/Lab/SNP/LD who will win double figures of the seats). We should be in rush of changing the status quo now, as for now it is still a three-party system. Lmmnhn (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The point of the info box is not to include all of the information within an article but summarise the key points. I would say that the items you raise are not key points of the article. Leaders images, maps, swing, opinion polling, turnout and leaders seats are not key points as the average passing reader is not looking for that. The info should be in the article somewhere just not the info box. As to the party colours I doubt it would be too difficult to add it as an option to the template. With regards to the consistency with the older articles; that can be easily rectified. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 15:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

They are the key points though, when I come to an election page I want to see: the major parties, seats gained or lost, voteshare, a map and the images help to frame the thing and make it more aesthetically leasing (the colours also help). The Israeli style one looks bland and is harder to read. Cryptographic.2014 (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Lmmnhn. As you can see, there has been extensive debate about this. The discussion has gone round and round. After the election, the situation may be clearer, although even then we will probably have parties on significant vote shares excluded because they're on few seats (notably UKIP, expected to be third in votes at above 10%). However, before the election, there is considerable editing pressure to include parties and, personally, I think this is the best situation for now.

In terms of consistency with past UK election articles, British politics has shifted over time: I'm OK with the idea that as it does, a different infobox style may be more appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be no consensus on what should happen to the infobox so I'll revert it to the least controversial - last election's infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.52.161 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Signing Cryptographic.2014 (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we not spend the day reverting the infobox? It's really not that important. It's been stable for a few days - and we can always revisit this after the election. There's a lot of things to do here and we don't need the article protecting/semi-protecting. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

To expand on my comments - I share some of Lmmnhn's concerns about the infobox. I liked having the pictures and I agree with the key points argument. Equally, the new box is more succinct, which I think is a positive. What I think's important, though, is that we have a stable page over the next few days - there's a lot more editing to do. I suggest leaving the new infobox and coming back to the question in a week or so's time...!Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'll leave the box alone and we can come back to it after the election. However it would perhaps be sensible to come up with guidelines for which parties to include or not before the election. Since it is FPTP I'd recommend basing it on seat numbers and suggest either 50 or 20 seats where parties are large enough to be significant but there aren't likely to be more than four seats - or alternatively use the three largest parties. Cryptographic.2014 (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

We've had very long discussions about this in the past (see above and, indeed, earlier and on other articles, like the annual local election ones). I would recommend those discussions: we covered much ground, considered an array of factors and possible scenarios, and reviewed practice on a range of other articles.

I see no precedent or particular reason to merely use the three largest parties: that was appropriate for much of the post-war period, but prior UK elections have more parties in their infoboxes, and it seems unlikely to capture the situation after this election. I am, more generally, wary of trying to draw up guidelines: Wikipedia policy is that editors shouldn't be inventing arbitrary rules. We need to reflect the reality and circumstances of each election, and how that election is covered by reliable sources. And looking at other election articles helped persuade me that we should err on the side of inclusiveness: have more parties if we're uncertain. Bondegezou (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Party Colours

United Kingdom general election, 2015

7 May 2015

Party Leader % Seats +/–   Conservative David Cameron   Labour Ed Miliband   Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg   DUP Peter Robinson   SNP Nicola Sturgeon   Sinn Féin Gerry Adams   Plaid Cymru Leanne Wood   SDLP Alasdair McDonnell   UKIP Nigel Farage   Green (England & Wales) Natalie Bennett   Alliance David Ford   Respect George Galloway Total number of seats 650 This lists parties that won seats. See the complete results below. Prime Minister before Prime Minister after David Cameron Conservative TBD TBD

Would people be OK with including the party colours in the new box, as shown on the right? It's a very minor edit, but since it's a controversial topic I thought it would be best to ask. In my opinion it removes a lot of the blandness.

Also shouldn't there be a line for independents? 23230 ^talk 08:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes to all of it! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Definite improvement using the colours. Go for it.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Does improve whats there now - Galloglass 09:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I like colours too. And I hadn't thought about independents... would be straightforward to include as a line. Sure. Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes but I don't like the box as it dose not fit with other uk elections and dose not reflec the reality of uk politics80.43.77.211 (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely misleading at best.Cryptographic.2014 (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm totally in favour of the new inbox but it is bland without colour. Make this change ASAP. JJARichardson (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I sincerely hope when the election is over, the previous infobox is restored with the appropiate updates. GoodDay (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Frankly I think that they're much of a muchness. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

SNP added to Infobox

The Infobox needed to include the SNP, so I've added it. The basic reasons are that an infobox is meant to provide information, not misinformation, and that the 5th of Wikipedia's 5 Pillars is that 'Wikipedia has no firm rules', also known as WP:IAR (Ignore all rules that prevent you from improving the encyclopedia). All reliable sources agree the SNP will almost certainly finish 3rd in seats with 40 to 60 seats, and is thus quite likely to hold the balance of power. So to omit them from the infobox is to deeply mislead anybody unfamiliar with the situation (probably including most non-British readers, who are looking at the infobox for quick summary info about the election), and is thus profoundly unencyclopedic, in violation of the 1st of Wikipedia's 5 Pillars, and to try to justify doing this by quoting some technical rule is also to violate WP:5P5, aka WP:IAR. If somebody also wants to include the DUP (as they had 8 seats to the SNP's 6 at dissolution), that's OK by me, but not particularly important, as their omission doesn't deeply mislead readers about what all reliable sources expect to happen (and the same goes for various other parties such as UKIP, etc). Tlhslobus (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The main principle of for editing pages is to try and gain a WP:consensus. There have been a number of attempts to start discussions on the topic of who should or should not be included within the infobox. While adding the SNP could be considered being WP:Bold adding them alone and without consultation is likely to result in the changes being reverted. Which I will do after adding this comment. Please read, and contribute to, the discussions already included on this talk page before adding it again unilaterally. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

What consensus? I only see walls of text that are partly a long time out of date, and whose result (which is in no sense a proper consensus) has led to a grossly misleading and unencyclopaedic infobox by some kind of default without any kind of genuine consensus. And your revert of sensible edits that improve the article on the basis of what others might do in future has seriously disimproved the article, for the reasons I have clearly stated above. But there is not enough time for a debate to achieve a new consensus (whether real or pseudo) as the election will be over long before we could all agree to change the above 'pseudo-consensus' on having a misleading and unencyclopedic misinfobox in violation of common sense and at least two already-mentioned pillars of Wikipedia (and I could add a third violated pillar, since the claim that the SNP is not a major party in this election is clearly Original Research that contradicts thousands of reliable sources, and is unsupported by any reliable source). You can improve the article by undoing your revert, but if you choose not to do so, there's nothing I can do about it, so I will waste no more time on this. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Even a cursory glance at either the history of the articles edits or the talk page would have shown that this is a topic of continued disagreement. This means that unilateral adding of one party is going against the consensus; which is to leave it as the 'big three' until another consensus has been reached. There is a new suggestion for a different type of infobox (infobox again) which is worth contributing to. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's switch to the new template then. Bondegezou (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

My thanks and compliments on a very reasonable idea, Bondegezou, and one which will presumably improve the article and conform to all the pillars of Wikipedia, and therefore presumably one which, if attempted, will be promptly reverted as a wicked 'bold' move (never mind that Wikipedia actually says that Wikipedians are encouraged to be bold) that violates the alleged 'consensus' to keep the article in a condition that self-evidently violates every principle of Wikipedia, and every principle of common sense, and achieves nothing except ensuring that uninformed readers remain uninformed and/or get misled, thereby obviously harming Wikipedia and its readers in all sorts of ways (as well as probably encouraging yet more good editors to think about quitting in despair). However we are of course all generously encouraged to waste yet more of our time by spending the next 5 days discussing it elsewhere in a hopeless attempt to achieve 'consensus', after which the end of the election will have rendered the entire issue irrelevant. But I really shouldn't pointlessly be wasting any more of my time on this. But, once again, thanks. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to lead you into the position where you were discussing either the new template proposal or the debate as to who gets included without getting embroiled in the discussion as to whether the SNP should or should not be included (as it's being discussed elsewhere). Personally I think adding the SNP without adding considering DUP, SF, UKIP, PC, Greens, SDLP, respect (and other parties with representation) gives them undue prominence. This is something that the new template will fix. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 11:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

| have added the SNP back. I don't think this is edit-warring as no consensus has been reached. As the SNP will be the 3rd largest party with around 1/7th of the seats it is important they are included. Plaid, UKIP and the N.Irish parties won't individually reach 10 seats, so the SNP are different.92.237.213.253 (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I would remind all to assume good faith. If no-one objects to using the new template now, I'll add it later today. K? Bondegezou (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

do it. It'd stop the edit warring. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a bit of a futile debate to be having. With the Lib Dems having finished third in the last one and only opinion polls to go on at present I don't see a strong case for making the change right now. If the SNP do indeed end up in third or a close fourth we can bump the Lib Dems or switch to a four-party infobox when the time comes. There's less than a week to go now and whatever the outcome there'll be a whole raft of major changes to make.GideonF (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Without getting into any arguments I'd suggest we leave it empty of all the leaders until after the election and then discuss it on the basis of the actual result. Otherwise it's just going to be a continual edit war until Thursday evening. - Galloglass 18:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Whatever we do, there will be a continual edit war! My feeling is that an inclusive approach, listing every party anyone could want to see there, is the best way of minimising edit disputes. Bondegezou (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the infobox then becomes misleading for FPTP elections as it makes you think that more parties are relevant than actually are - we should include all parties on double figures for seats and at least 5% nationwide imho. Although a good argument could be made for including the SNP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptographic.2014 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The main problem is there is good arguments for all permutations and there is no concensus for any of them. - Galloglass 22:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, so in this case I'd argue for the status quo - the top three parties by seats, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptographic.2014 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The status quo was not the top three parties by seats. Look back at pre-World War II UK general election articles and you can see the infobox expanded and shrank depending on the result. You can also look at the recent local election articles, which have expanded to 4 parties, including UKIP. Bondegezou (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Leaders in the Infobox

Apparently there is some disagreement as to which individuals should be listed in the "Leader" column in the infobox. Should it be the actual party leader or the Westminster Leader for the party (if the party has such a position)? I would think it should be the actual party leader, as they are the individuals who participated in debates and have been known as the face of the party. Using the Westminster Leader, as opposed to the actual party leader, would also be problematic for Sinn Féin, as it would mean there is no actual leader. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That is correct. We are talking about a general election for PARLIAMENT, not the national assamblies, or the parties in general. The leader of the party in Parliament is the candidate for PRIME MINISTER. in a coalition, Clegg was Deputy PM, not just an undersecretary for berks and wankers (sorry,couldn't help myself). None of the regional parties leaders would be in line for a ministry. Dwyfor Meirionnydd, the westminster leader for PC, for example, might be a second deputy PM and minister for Welsh affairs in a Labour/Nat coalition. Gerry Adams, BTW, is standing for a seat in NI, but won't show up for work (That's a different kettle of fish entirely). The leaders for the SNP and PC shouldn't have been in the debates.Ericl (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that in 2010, we used the party leader in the results table. Ieuan Wyn Jones is listed as the leader, even though he was not an MP. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

We should go with the actual party leaders, irrespective of whether they are standing for Westminster. It was Sturgeon who took part in multiple leaders' debates, for example, and indeed Sturgeon has said she will lead on any post-election negotiations. Bondegezou (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

PS: Ericl, you are mistaken: Gerry Adams is not standing for a NI seat: see here. Your comments that the leaders for the SNP and PC should not have been in the debates suggests you may be letting your personal opinions get in the way of what we should be doing on Wikipedia, which is following what reliable sources do. Reliable sources refer to the actual party leaders, not the leaders in Westminster. Please revert your edit. Bondegezou (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I prefer the actual party leaders. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

But they actually AREN'T the party leaders, who are the designees for prime minister and candidates for Parliament. How could Sturgeon lead any post election negotiations when she is not allowed to participate in them? Only the membership of Parliament is allowed to do that. The leaders in Westminster ARE the actual party leaders, that's what Westminster is FOR. The party leader is the leader in the Commons and has been for over a century. The First Lord of the Treasury is required to be a sitting member of the Commons (except during election run-ups), which is why he wasn't Prime Minister under several governments of the Salsibury regime prior to 1902 (the events of 1963 were an unconstitutional anomaly). The regional leadership of the Nationalist parties have no standing unless they're personally in parliament.Ericl (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they are the party leaders; Sturgeon (and if needed Wood, Farage or Bennett, whether or not they're elected), will be leading the negotiations ([1], [2]) for their parties. There's no rule about who can be involved. And who is elected in Parliament has nothing to do with being party leader. Ask yourself - who was leader of UKIP in December 2014? Nigel Farage? Or Mark Reckless/Douglas Carswell? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Ericl, I believe you are mistaken. There is no formal thing as a "designee for prime minister" in UK law. Anyone can be involved in post-election negotiations. Such negotiations are a private affair between politicians. You are right that the Prime Minister is usually the leader of a party in the Commons (although no rule says s/he has to be and the most recent exception is only half a century ago and not "an unconstitutional anomaly"), but it is obvious that most of the parties do not expect to be providing the next Prime Minister (most of them have explicitly said that), so that point is irrelevant.

More importantly, Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say. That is a core Wikipedia policy. Reliable sources call Sturgeon the leader of the SNP and focus on her; ditto the other parties. If you wish to continue to advance your argument, I would suggest you need to provide reliable sources to back up your argument. Bondegezou (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hansard. When was the last time that Hansard shows non-members participating in voting and debates in Parliament? The Cabinet is a committee of the Parliament, after all. Ministers are responsible to it, which is why there is question time and the like. As to the above question, "Who was leader of UKIP in December 2014?" The answer is immaterial, as UKIP had only one seat. It wasn't a parliamentary party. As to Lord Home, it WAS an unconstitutional anomaly, otherwise he wouldn't have been forced to resign his peerage and stand for the Commons. Churchill became Prime Minister because Lord Halifax was in the Lords and the PM had to be in the Commons, otherwise the permanent undersecretaries would all be ministers like they are in the European Commission. The leader of a party's delegation to Parliament HAS to be a member of the House of Commons in order to be held accountable to said body. Other ministers CAN be in the House of Lords, but not the Prime Minister. Otherwise Lord Home would have remained where he was and Hitler would have probably won WW2.Ericl (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a Canadian's comment: I'm a tad confused as to how the Scottish first minister was allowed to participate in the leaders' debate. IF the SNP were to win a majority in the UK House of Commons, would that mean Sturgeon would become Prime Minister of the UK, while serving as First Minister of Scotland?? GoodDay (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear GoodDay, the SNP only stand in Scotland, so they could never win a majority in the Commons. They're like the Bloc Quebecois. The Prime Minister of the UK is generally someone in the House of Commons, but the smaller parties never had any expectation of providing the next Prime Minister, so the point is moot. Bondegezou (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Why was Sturgeon in the debates? Doesn't the federal SNP have its own leader? GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The UK doesn't have the same familiarity with federalism as Canada. The equivalent of the federal SNP leader would be their leader in the House of Commons, but he has less autonomy. As far as the SNP are concerned, Sturgeon is the leader and it is Sturgeon who was in the debates and leading the election campaign. The same approach was taken by Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein, Alliance Party of Northern Ireland and others. Bondegezou (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes - there's the 'Parliamentary Group Leader' - Angus Robertson, but as Bondegezou states above this is a junior position to the overall party leader who sets the direction of party policy, including how MPs vote. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, though confusing for a Canadian. Anyways, hopefully the previous infobox will be restored, after today. GoodDay (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice confirms that the office of Leader of the Opposition was first given statutory recognition in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1937.

• Section 5 states that "There shall be paid to the Leader of the Opposition an annual salary of two thousand pounds".

• Section 10(1) includes a definition (which codifies the usual situation under the previous custom) -" "Leader of the Opposition" means that member of the House of Commons who is for the time being the leader in that House of the party in opposition to His Majesty's Government having the greatest numerical strength in that House".

• The 1937 Act also contains an important provision to decide who is the Leader of the Opposition, if this is in doubt. Under section 10(3) "If any doubt arises as to which is or was at any material time the party in opposition to His Majesty's Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons, or as to who is or was at any material time the leader in that House of such a party the question shall be decided for the purposes of this Act by the Speaker of the House of Commons, and his decision, certified in writing under his hand, shall be final and conclusive".

In other words, the leader of a party is a recognized member of Parliament. There is also, a "shadow cabinet" who are recognized as a "front bench. The "lesser leaders" get perks too. Not "one member" parties or independents, though.Ericl (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we might be talking a cross-purposes here. The party leaders as elected by the party are the 'acutal' party leaders. The SNP have made it clear that Nicola Sturgeon, the party leader, will be in charge of their negotiations - and she can be because those won't happen in Parliament, they'll happen behind closed doors in May. I'd expect the parliamentary leader to be present too, but the point stands that she's the party leader. The status of ministers/ability to become Prime Minister doesn't affect this in any way.

There's the second question, then, of whether we should in the infobox list the party leaders or the leader of the parliamentary block - those people who might become ministers, Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition etc (note the word there by the way "the leader in that House of the party" ie it is the leader of the parliamentary block and not, inherently, the party leader. You're right of course that for any party which was aiming to lead a government, it would be untenable for the leader to not be an MP). I prefer listing the party leader over the leader of the parliamentary block. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The whole "leader of the party that doesn't want to be in Parliament" stuff is unprecedented. IT physically cannot work. If the leader of a party refuses to even stand for election, it's an insult to the House.Ericl (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

But that's all getting beyond why the leader is shown in the infobox. It is to indicate to readers who the major player for that party is. Sturgeon is going to be doing the post-election negotiations (if the SNP is involved in any). She participated in the debate. If the SNP does well today, it will be credited as her success by the media, not Angus Robertson's success. It doesn't matter if Sturgeon will not be Prime Minister after today's election, because Robertson won't be Prime Minister either. The reason the leader is shown in the infobox is so that readers know who the face of the party is. And like I said above, it is not unprecedented that the leader of the party isn't running in a constituency. For the 2010 election, Ieuan Wyn Jones is listed as the leader of Plaid Cymru, even though he was not running for a seat. The change you want to make does not match up with what we have done in the past and does not match up with how the media is reporting the election or the purpose for why the leader column exists in the infobox. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, only one editor is arguing for using the Commons leaders. Until such time as anyone else supports that view, I think we can consider this matter settled: consensus is for the current descriptions. Bondegezou (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice simple link

I saw this "Time" article on the UK elections and was struck by its simplicity. It'd probably make a good entry under "External Links" when the kerfuffle dies down.

http://time.com/3848663/uk-election-what-to-know/ Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Current Tagging

It's great we are tagging articles involved in this as current, but if they are a person, please use {{Current person}} which categorises it correctly. I personally recommend using {{Current person|3=current election|date=May 2015}}. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Bug

Could someone please fix the bug. I'm getting the letter L displayed as W and TH replaced with D. That makes the article very hard to read. 2602:306:30BA:28A0:61CB:5A1C:2123:63BC (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Thanks it's better now. --2602:306:30BA:28A0:61CB:5A1C:2123:63BC (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Venues

A number of unusual venues have been used as polling stations (Daily Mail, BBC. Is there any mileage in mentioning this.? I've added a bit to the West Blatchington Windmill article mentioning its use as a polling station. Mjroots (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Are they specific to this general election? I think many of these are used every year - perhaps local articles or maybe at Polling place?--Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. Polling stations do tend to be pretty stable locations, but changes do occur. Politics articles are not my area of editing, which is why I asked here. Mjroots (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

One could consider something on the relevant constituency pages? Bondegezou (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Leave it to the social media sites and 'human interest' sections of the papers. This has no relevance here. FanN | talk | 06:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Adjusting the info box ero the results

Now that the result looks like a con mojoretey then the old style info box sued be resen stated with the party's as apropret for the vots and sets it sued include con lab snp lib ukip (as they came 3rd in the vot) other party's haven't reley moved the new box also dose not fit with other election pagers and dose not acuretley reflect uk politics 88.107.184.52 (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Page Broken?

The main page is badly broken by the new infobox, and beyond my ability to put it right. Should I do a revert? Hang on, it;'s just been fixed. Stub Mandrel (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I was trying to add Caroline Lucas in place of Natalie Bennett (see question below). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Nicola Sturgeon

Nicola Sturgeon is Chief Minister of Scotland. She did not run (stand) for a seat in Parliament and is not going to participate in it in any way. While she is the leader of the Party in Scotland, and is indeed Chief Minister there, she is not, I repeat is NOT the leader of the SNP in the Westminster Parliament and shouldn't be in the info box. Nor should he person who led the PC in debates nor Gerry Adams, who didn't participate and didn't win a seat.Ericl (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Turnout

I really appreciate the work that editors put into these election articles compiling results & statistics. They always make good reading. One thing I would like to see added to articles is to see stats that show percentages of votes which take turnout into consideration. I think this is a vital illustration of election results which always seems to be missing from election articles, and would be especially significant in elections where turnout has been low - a particular example is the 2014 European Parliament election, where turnout was 35.6% but this is not reflected in the results stats. The results reflect a UKIP victory (4.37m votes) but the very low turnout is not taken into account elsewhere in the article, which I find lacking. This is best illustrated by this graphic - I would like to see similar charts in Wikipedia articles to assist my understanding. Cnbrb (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

BBC have turnout maps - but I doubt we can copy them here ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't advocate that! But a pie chart or histogram showing results adjusted with voter turnout to complement the actual results - i think this would add to my depth of understanding of these elections.Cnbrb (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Main coloured map of constituencies

On British General Election pages I find the main map confusing. It shows a country that it mostly Conservative. Even in the years 1997 and 2001 when it was mostly Labour. I understand that this is because, in terms of area, the constituencies are of different sizes and most of the large rural ones are Conservative? Is this true?

If so, it seems to me that it would show people outside of the UK a truer picture if a different sort of map was used. I also feel that to keep the map as it is and has been is to bias (however slightly) the articles in favour of the Blue party. Wikipedia ought primarily to be impartial.

To that end I propose using maps which show the constituences represented by hexagons rather than by georgaphic size. I have seen such maps in use for this election and they much more accurately reflect the political geography of the UK. They shows, for example, the north of the country mainly red. The south mainly blue.

It would be a good idea if a template for such maps could be produced and applied retrospectively to earlier General Elections too. When I look at the articles on those, I find the maps very confusing. Even Labour landslides do not look like such. And that cannot be right. 213.114.44.178 (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The current map is fine and shouldn't be changed. It is quite apparent from the currently used map that some constituencies in the country are geographically smaller than others, consequently electing more seats (= cities); that's shown on the insert maps (File:2010UKElectionMap.svg ) In contrast, a map similar to the one you suggest, is used on The Independent's webpage (right-hand side "Britian changes colour", listed under "sources") and looks so different from the actual map of the UK (shown left on the same page), that one might as well have replaced it with rows of dots in party colours; then again that would have no benefits at all compared to a standard table listing just party names and figues. The current map is fine. 2.110.54.193 (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason why we can't have both.

PS: Thanks to all the Wikipedians who edited through the night, and indeed still are, to keep the site up-to-date. Bondegezou (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed - amazing editing work that people are putting in! Cnbrb (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we respect consensus?

We're seeing a lot of editing back and forth on the infobox. There is disagreement on what is appropriate. We had reached consensus before the vote. It would be more appropriate to establish a new consensus here before changes are made. Bondegezou (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Final polls

2 new Final polls: https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3572/The-Ipsos-MORI-Final-Election-poll.aspx and http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/OmOnline_Vote_Final_BPC.pdf83.80.208.22 (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Ta! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank goodness editors aren't jumping the gun like BBC news. That network is calling the election over & there's only 'bout 10 seats decided, at the momment. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

We could include this one too. Bondegezou (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2015

In the contesting political parties and candidates section, under the Great Britain based sub section, Nicola Sturgeon is the First Minister of Scotland, not the [sic] 'Cheif' Minister. 151.229.181.207 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Has now been corrected, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Post Election Infobox

Well there is good news and bad news!

First the Good News. The 11 parties that have won at least one seat correspond exactly to the top 11 parties by vote share. No need to worry about parties with a large vote share but no MPs.

Now the bad news. The parties who came 3rd (UKIP) and 6th (Green) in vote share are likely to be 10th and 11th respectively so wouldn't be included in a nine party traditional style Infobox.

This suggests to me that the Israeli style Infobox is the way forward and we should be debating how to improve it. It is implausible not to include UKIP or Greens in the Infobox but in a representative Parliamentary Democracy we need to include those parties who have gained multiple seats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.249.202 (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Forgot to sign in but it was me who posted thisAndrewdpcotton (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The Israel style box is not right as it dose not fit uk elections it makes this seam disconnected for other pages on uk elections also uk elections are about sets and not vote share due to 1st past the post so the box sipley dos not fit the smaller party's below 10 sets problem shud be listed elsewhere espesley as this election produced a mejorety gover ment the format of the info box dose not need a major overall compared to other uk elections 88.107.184.52 (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The Israeli style infobox should be replaced by the standard infobox used for all UK general election articles. GoodDay (talk) 10:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have a six-people infobox (as United Kingdom general election, 1931) but to have the final column an Israel-style table of 'others' I wonder? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the others need to be in the info box as they are not in aney other info box on elections and ther results are in the artical text88.107.184.52 (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

But maybe one outcome of this is that we go to past elections eg 2010 and think that actually we should have been including smaller parties eg DUP in 2010.Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Andrewdpcotton: the UKIP problem (or, rather, the FPTP problem) means that the traditional infobox format would exclude the party who came third in votes.

Some have suggested including UKIP, while excluding parties winning more seats. There is no precedent for this. In every prior FPTP election infobox I looked at on the English-language Wikipedia, a party with more seats has never been missed out when including a part with fewer seats.

So, what do you do? You could have a traditional infobox with Con, Lab & SNP, but you'd be omitting UKIP and the LibDems with many more votes than the SNP. Or a traditional infobox adding in the LibDems but then you've got to include the DUP on about the same seats, but you're still omitting UKIP and now omitting the Greens with many more votes than the DUP.

Ergo, I favour retaining the Israeli-style infobox. I like its compact format: using the screen space to give you party seats and votes is more important than showing pictures of party leaders' heads.

If we go for a traditional infobox, it's useful to take a look at United Kingdom general election, January 1910 and United Kingdom general election, December 1910 that include All-for-Ireland on 8 seats. Bondegezou (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@AdamFouracre: Your attention here please. Alakzi (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There is clearly no accepted precedent on consensus on the aspect of ranking parties, even in a six party infobox - for instance should it be ranked on the basis of the popular vote or on the basis of the number of seats held? Clearly, in a First Past The Post System seats are what are important, not the popular vote. @Alakzi: AdamFouracre (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. There is clear precedence. All the prior infoboxes rank by number of seats. Bondegezou (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The info box shoud let the reader see the bigist party's by election result which in uk elections is the sets won menig the traditional info box is best and reley the dison abut the cut off for parteys peticuley as aney one out side of con lab snp will be marginalised in the coming parliament then ukip did well in popular vot and mint be influential in the palemant elected 88.107.184.52 (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

FWIW I think that the Israeli box works well pre-election and should be used for 56th United Kingdom general election until the election itself. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Bondegezou makes several very good points. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Ukip should be in the box because they reach more then 10%83.80.208.22 (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

ukip are not included because they only got 1 mp and it is sets in parliament which mater in this election the ukip isue shud be in the artical text88.107.184.52 (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought(and if not I suggest)the rule was more then 5% and minimal 1 seat for the infobox. So then we add the libdemms en Ukip.83.80.208.22 (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There was no prior rule of that nature as far as I can make out. Bondegezou (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox going back and forth. We either need to change UKIP and Green to SDLP and UUP as they have more seats, or go back to the Israeli style.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Having just Con, Lab and SNP is going to be quite misleading due to the vote shares, I think the israel-style box makes it much more fair and neutral. Øln (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This is getting silly, lots of parties have been removed from the infobox -yet the aim of using it was to make sure all parties are included. I'm fed up of the media not mentioning the smaller regional parties in the main reports, disgusted if Wikipedia follows the same trend. Stub Mandrel (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Labo in Scotland

Bbc reporting that labor vot in Scotland was the lowest pourer vot sense 191888.107.184.52 (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe the BBC was reporting that the Labour vote in Scotland was the lowest popular vote since 1918? I guess that could be added, although the Labour Party (UK) was only 18 years old in 1918? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

that's what I was tring to say and the fact that the percentage in Scotland is so low is a mojer sine of how far labour in Scotland has fallen 88.107.184.52 (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that statistic? Or indeed any support for that analysis? Then perhaps it could be added. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Leaders in info box?

Should these be Party leaders or Commons leaders? (Farage has already gone on both counts of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Commons Leaders. The Constitution was changed to prevent leaders being in the House of Lords, and the leaders who are not MPS have no standing.Ericl (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

But the theme of the info box seems to be based on the Parties? What's the precedent in all the previous election articles? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. There was a clear consensus in favour of the Israeli-style infobox, so why is it being vandalized now? JJARichardson (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Now we've seen the final results it's pretty clear that only Con/Lab/SNP should be included in a graphical info box. The Israeli one is misleading for a FPTP System. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.109 (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The fact of UKIP not being included despite being the third party in the popular vote shows why the three party only infobox is completely obsolete, as the original consensus concluded. JJARichardson (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

We have to put Likud in?! Consensus can change. I don't that this is necessarily "vandalism". Just to clarify - my question was about who not how many. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

it's not being vandilisd people are tring to improve the artical also ther has not be a condense for the Israeli style as it dose not fit with uk elections in aney way peticuley now that the results are know and onley the snp and ld have atuley chengd in a way that moves ther standing in the uk palemant 88.107.184.52 (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the infobox is misleading as it links to Sturgeon's Scottish parliament seat which is not the Commons that the infobox refers to the elections of. JJARichardson (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Um, did you read my question? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Party leaders, rather than Commons. They are the recognized leaders who operated as leaders in the election (through debates etc) and are described as such in all reliable sources. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

That makes a great deal of sense. Without Wood, Sturgeon, Bennett and Farage, the "smaller" parties would have had hardly any profile. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I feel the Info box should include the top 3 parties by seats, and then another row showing the top 3 by popular vote.Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, if only we had AV, eh? I think a sortable table, lower down in the article, might be justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Whay has ukip been added to the info box when Thayer have onley one mp given this is purely for the results and not ther profile in the media 88.107.184.52 (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, Sturgeon & Robinson should be removed. If either their parties had won the most seats, neither of them would've become Prime Minister. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Additions to infobox requested

Could somebody please add all conceivable parties to the infobox? I am esp. interested in allowing people to calculate votes-per-seat which varies from about 40,000 for Con & Lab to 750,000 for UKIP, Greens etc.

It wd also be useful to list how many seats each party contested. That might enable more sensible comparisons with SNP and PC to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.150.126 (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The information you are looking for is located in the results section of the article. Enjoy. Nub Cake (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Seats Before

The seats before for cons and lib gems are wrong 5.151.168.44 (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean in the info box? The Conservative number is 302 and the Lib Dem number is 57. Why do you think those are wrong? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone appears to have changed this, either unaware of or ignoring the changes in Parliament since the 2010 election. It should show the number of seats on the eve of the 2015 election. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Info box, " 'Elected' Prime Minister "

This needs to be better worded, as it seems someone has failed to grasp the basic tenets of the Westminster System here. Most crucially, a new Prime Minister is appointed (by the Monarch), not elected.

Furthermore, once appointed, the Prime Minister then continues in office at the Monarch's pleasure. The PM does not serve "terms" and the winning of an intervening general election by the governing party does not result in the "re-appointment" of the PM. A new PM is appointed only when their predecessor can no longer command the confidence of the House of Commons and consequently resigns.

Yes - The result of a general election will ultimately determine the composition of the government, but the election itself is strictly for Members of Parliament to sit in the House of Commons. Although the Prime Minister is always one of the MPs (or, at least theoretically, a member of the House of Lords), the make-up of the executive is only indirectly related to the legislative election.

I know this is constitutional pedantry, but surely accuracy is important? P M C 13:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The israeli-style election box which people agreed to use before the election has this fixed, but others keep reverting back to the one with party leader images instead.Øln (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The infobox should probably read Prime Minster before election and Prime Minister after election. That way it can reflect the facts, while being more accurate without getting bogged down in the constitutional minutiae of how one actually becomes PM. P M C 14:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Subsequent Prime Minister, is used for all the UK general election article infoboxes. Afterall, one is not elected Prime Minister. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Mistake on the Electoral Map

First post here but I noticed that there is a mistake on the electoral map. Ilford North in North London should be Labour not Conservative. [3]. Pepperminttea59 (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There is also one is Vale of Clywd. I'll upload a fixed map asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptographic.2014 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Done Cryptographic.2014 (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Sixth party result

If the parties' orders in the graph at right are determined by number of seats, shouldn't Sinn Fein be the sixth party? They have four times as many MPs as UKIP.Amyzex (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Though they did win a considerable amount of the vote, the infobox is a summary of seats won not votes as has been discussed many times. Seats won in an election is essential to the shape of the parliament in the election, not votes won by the parties. As there is at least 4 parties after the DUP that have more seats than UKIP it would be misleading and showing bias toward UKIP by having them included in the infobox and not them. Therefore unless every party that has a seat is included on the infobox (if not multiple infoboxes that would be required) then I suggest only the 3 largest parties with seats in the double digits and above should be included. Humongous125 (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The Info box is not just a summary of seats won although that has to be the order in which parties are listed in order of success. both the LDs and UKIP won many more votes than the SNP so need to be included also - Galloglass 16:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

We can't just include and remove parties based on some arbitrary measure of success, that would surely violate WP:NPOV. Øln (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

the info box in this election shud not includ ukip as they onley have one mp and in uk elections it is the number of mps that count not the pourer vot ukips success shud be discusst inthe articul and not the info box88.107.184.52 (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. If measured by seats, UKIP is 10th behind Sinn Fein, the SDLP, Plaid Cyrmu, and the UUP. If measured by votes, UKIP is 3rd. There is no measure by which they're 6th. Akwdb (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This is why we had previously gone with an Israeli-style infobox, as a way of covering these complexities. It seems to me inappropriate to exclude the significant result by UKIP despite their getting only 1 MP. Looking at the discussion today, there does not seem to me to have been a consensus established for the switch to the traditional style infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate my support for a two-party infobox with Conservatives and Labour, especially now we have a majority government. The results have pratically eliminated any need for an Israeli-style infobox, which is good because it was very unappealing anyway. One thing's for sure: Conservatives came first in terms of both seats and votes, Labour came second in terms of both seats and votes. But then UKIP came third in terms of votes but 10th in terms of seats, although SNP came third in terms of seats but not votes. If we start including third, fourth, firth, sixth place etc then this discussion and disagreement about who to include and who not to include will be going on for a long time, mark my words. Simple solution is to include none and just have a Con-Lab infobox, and thus long arduous debates will be avoided. Nub Cake (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I would go with the 3 party box as previous election pages have gone for used it. I am not normally in favour of arbitrary measures of success but the SNP gains make up a large percentage of parliament, not these 3 parties make up 95% of the new parliament. But unless we are wanting to add all the other smaller parties who have won more than 1 seat, it would be inappropriate to add UKIP before others. It is seats rather than votes which matters in elections.Humongous125 (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right, but won't people who know less about the first past the post system think its odd that parties with a large share of the vote aren't included at all? It's true that its the seats that matter, and most people here seem to agree with that. However, it has also come to my attention that most of the debates on this talk page actually originate because of the disparities in vote share, which is why there is so much disagreement on whether or not to include UKIP, etc. That's why I'm for a two-party infobox that avoids these arguments entirely. Nub Cake (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. This was a historic result both for the Lib Dems and SNP. Election coverage has focused at least as much on those parties as on the Tories romping to victory. If I were to guess, I'd say this election will be remembered at least as much for those results as for Cameron's big win. They should be listed in the infobox, absolutely. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think surprising results should guarantee a party a spot on the infobox. If we take this logic forward, then UKIP should be included for winning 13% of the vote. Isn't this a historic result? The point I'm trying to make is what you think is a significant result isn't the same thing as someone else's perception of a significant result. For example, why is the DUP on there then? Hardly a significant result for them? Also, we haven't previously included parties that won only 8 seats in the previous election infoboxes, and rightly so. This is why, unless we keep the infobox to the limits on what we all agree on, you're in for a long week of debates. Nub Cake (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not about "suprising" results, UKIP gained a notably high share of the vote, and SNP gained a lot of seats, excluding them is problematic with regards to WP:NPOV. Most election articles on wikipedia include parties that gain seats, even single-winner elections include candidates with 10% of the vote. I don't see why this should be any different, and I think the multi-party infobox does this much better. Øln (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a case to add the SNP and Lib Dems I suppose in a 4 party election box due to them having more seats than the other parties and also having massive seat changes. I do not see a case for UKIP, yes there is a discrepancy between seats and votes, but that's the issues with FPTP and if someone looks at the graphs in the article, they can see that. But having infoboxes are mainly used as a summary of seats and if ukip is included, it will appear as if there is bias to them despite there being parties with more seats. Humongous125 (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right in not seeing a case for UKIP, but I'm certainly sure there are some people out there who will strongly disagree that the DUP for example is included but UKIP isn't, and to be fair I think they'd have a point. Perhaps a four-way infobox is the right way to go. Should I change it or wait for more consensus? Nub Cake (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Excluding the 3rd and 4th party by number of votes and including the 5th in the info box is quite a serious breath of WP:NPOV. Its not as if we've only included 3 in all previous election pages. Just to give one example, 1918 has several of the party leaders included. This needs to be fair to everyone here and I think people are letting their opinions of one party in particular get in the way. - Galloglass 20:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The UK uses a first past the post system. It is not "unfair" to omit from the infobox a party that won all of one constituency despite fielding more than 600 candidates throughout Great Britain. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

MPs who lost their seats

The section is clearly incomplete as it does not include Ed Balls or Esther McVey. Is someone working on it? Should it be commented out until it is finished? -Rrius (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Photos

This article, and indeed the various related ones (e.g. constituency pages), could do with a lot more pictures (as is Wikipedia policy). With the election now over, we also don't have to worry as much about getting a party balanced set of images. I took a bunch of photos yesterday, but they only represent where I happen to be. Anyway, I offer these up and encourage others to submit their own photos or find others we can use. Bondegezou (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• 
  A poster that was part of a campaign to encourage electoral registration before the 2015 general election, at a bus stop in Archway, London
• 
  Two stakeboards showing support for the Liberal Democrats and their candidate Lynne Featherstone during the 2015 general election campaign, in the constituency of Hornsey & Wood Green
• 
  A stakeboard showing support for Labour during the 2015 general election campaign, in the constituency of Hornsey & Wood Green
• 
  A stakeboard showing support for the Liberal Democrat candidate Lynne Featherstone during the 2015 general election campaign, in the constituency of Hornsey & Wood Green
• 
  A sign with directions to a polling station, Hornsey & Wood Green constituency
• 
  A sign with directions to a polling station, Holborn & St Pancras constituency. At the front of Highgate Library.
• 
  A sign with directions to a polling station, Holborn & St Pancras constituency. At the corner of Highgate Library.
• 
  A sign with directions to a polling station, Holborn & St Pancras constituency. At the side of Highgate Library.

Good Stuff! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Which parties to include in the infobox?

Which parties should we include in the infobox? Personally I back only including the Conservatives, Labour and the SNP and not include the DUP & LDs as they are not (that) important to the make up of parliament and previously we haven't included parties on 8 seats (~1% of the House). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptographic.2014 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I am in favour of the 3 party box as we have used in the previous uk election pages so keeping to continuity. Also Conservative (50.9%) Labour (35.7%) and SNP (8.6%) make up the vast majority of the parliament at 95.2% seats. We haven't previously added parties with 8 seats and if we start adding other parties, such as the DUP and UKIP, then we would need to add the other smaller parties which is not possible due to the limitations on the infobox. That is why we should stick with what has gone before and keep the 3 parties

Humongous125 (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

As a foreigner who came for a quick look and has been watching the infobox change, I have to say I prefer the expanded 6 party one. As someone who watches British politics sporadically, I wanted to know:

1. What happened to the Liberal Democrats who held the balance of power last election?

2. What's with the SNP sweep? How did they do in previous elections? I was actually under the impression that they held the majority of Scotish seats in the UK Parliament before. Sorry for the ignorance.

3. What's with this New UKI party that took over 10% of the vote but only has one seat? Where the hell did they come from? How did they do last time? There will be a referendum ont he EU because fo them. Like them or not it's important they be there.

That's why I liked the expanded box better. Much more informative. Answers a lot of these questions to someone who is interested but did not follow this very closely until now. At least the Liberal Democrats and UKI party should be there.

I fully understand the reasons for the 3-party box before as the Liberal Democrats were the third party for a very long time and held the balance of power in the last Parliament. This made it very easy to scroll through the different elections.

But that has obviously changed now and the infobox needs to very quickly reflect that or Wiki will no longer be informative. Even if you are scrolling through the different elections, a person could easily ask what happened to the Librral Democrats all of a sudden. I agree they're not important anymore, but their collapse is what gave the Conservatives a majority. Please someone make the bold edit and bring back the six party infobox.

--Soul scanner (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I would go for the six-party infobox as well. UKIP did get third place and 12.4% of the vote, we should include them if we're including the SNP and Lib Dems. Since there's space for another party, we could add the Greens which also came relatively high in the polls (3.7%) compared to all other parties. These are the six parties that did get more than a million votes. AlexTeddy888 (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Majority?

If 326 seats are needed for a majority and the Conservatives have 331, why does the article say they have a majority of 12? 213.123.199.119 (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Because of maths. There are 650 seats, the Conservatives have 331 and all the rest have 319 between them. The difference is 12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.35.58 (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I think there's a concern in terminology here – the "differential" is 12; but the Conservatives are 8 over the "needed majority" (which is 323 once the Sinn Féin seats are subtracted out). --IJBall (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

For God's sake, will someone with an elementary knowledge of arithmetic please fix that stupid majority of 8 nonsense?

There are 650 seats. The Tories have 331. Therefore, everyone else has 650-331=319.

Therefore, the Tories have a majority of 331-319=12, that's TWELVE.

Please don't go into the issue of Sinn Fein not swearing allegiance (which makes the Tories' effective majority equal to 16). Let's try to get over this elementary hurdle first.

While we're at it, Prime Ministers ARE NOT ELECTED in the Westminster system. Individual MPs are elected and as a result, The Prime Minister does or does not continue in office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:5000:12BC:1C8C:9D5C:E71:1D3A (talk) 08:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, what you describe is what's known as a "parliamentary majority" or "overall majority", not a "majority" (8 would be the (simple) "majority", while the "parliamentary majority" is 15; see: majority). The text now makes this clear (I missed that the first time), so there's no issue. --IJBall (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)