Jump to content

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cakelot1 (talk | contribs) at 09:15, 8 July 2024 (→‎RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Post-result infobox

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

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

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

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

as i said previously, it seems fairly off to exclude a party getting (potentially) a popular vote in the high teen %ages from the infobox given the political impact of such a party, but if it's really that "completely unacceptable" and going to cause this much trouble then it's probably just easier to do a 4x4 box (LAB, CON, LDM, SNP, adjust order to preference). A seperate NI box seems unnecessary. CipherRephic (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also, I'd personally avoid using TILE in any form like the plague in this case. given the many recent scuffles it seems there's a fairly solid consensus not to use TILE outside of countries with loads of small parties like the netherlands and israel. CipherRephic (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You suggest TILE is acceptable for countries with loads of small parties like the netherlands and israel. I suggest the UK is a country with loads of small parties. 10 parties won seats at the 2019 general election. The figure will probably be 11-12 this time around. That compares to 15 at the last Dutch election and 10 at the last Israeli election. If we're electing more parties than Israel and TILE works for Israel, then the conclusion that TILE could work for the UK seems obvious to me. What am I missing? Bondegezou (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the small parties in NL and israel are important to include in the infobox because a. governments there are almost always formed as broad coalitions of several small parties and b. all the parties are fairly small, unlike other countries where, yes, there are a lot of small parties, but there are also a few major parties that tend to be the only real factors in a big-picture view of the election. see the debates around south africa and france, where we quite recently had a fairly vigorous discussion leading to an anti-TILE consensus. the situation in the UK is similar to that in south africa and france, in that we have a select few large parties which control the vast majority of seats, even though there are a number of smaller parties - thus using TIE would be better because it provides a better summary of the major players at a glance (plus, subjectively, a strong majority of people think it looks way better) CipherRephic (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the UK has a select few large parties which control the vast majority of seats, even though there are a number of smaller parties, so, while not my first preference, I don't mind if we have a TIE infobox with as few as 4 parties shown, or we could have 6, or I see South Africa has 9 for their last election. (I prefer TILE; I get that I'm probably in a minority on that.) As long as those are the 4 (or 6 or 9) parties that control the most seats. Bondegezou (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I favour TIE here. — Czello (music) 09:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bondegezou How would you feel about an infobox a la the second and third ones here? I'd prefer the second out of the two but i'm very much amenable to either. CipherRephic (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If those are the top 4 or 6 parties, then, great, I'm OK with those infoboxes. Thanks for putting them together. Bondegezou (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the possibility of a hybrid TIE/TILE box if needed. Here's my attempt (using dummy data mostly from the most recent MRP): User:Chessrat/sandbox/UK2024 Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a great idea. unncessary duplication of the data and v. bulky CipherRephic (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda like it. I'm all for minimalist infoboxes, as per MOS:INFOBOX, so my first preference would be just the TILE box, but I think the mash-up does kind of give everyone something. I could go with that. That said, there are a million and one arguments, always, over infoboxes. I have my preferences, but other people have other preferences! My main concern here is that whatever we do, it cannot mislead casual readers or break WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/WP:NPOV. So I strongly believe that means we have to list parties in order by how many people they get elected. I can live with most things that follow that obvious rule. Bondegezou (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that if there are equal seat numbers it's fine to include one party on that number but not another (e.g. DUP and Lib Dems both on 8 seats in 2015 but only the Lib Dems are featured in the infobox there).
Out of the feasible results, it's highly unlikely that the Greens achieve more seats than the DUP/SF, and including the NI parties but not the Greens doesn't feel right, so my preferred options depending on the feasible results would be:
1) If the Lib Dems finish ahead of Reform in vote share and ahead of the SNP in seats: three-way infobox (Lab, Con, LD).
2) If Reform finishes ahead of the Lib Dems in vote share and ahead of the Northern Irish parties in seats: five-way infobox (Lab, Con, LD, SNP, Reform)
3) If Reform and the Greens are both in the top eight/nine (outright or tied), include the top eight/nine respectively. Most likely Lab, Con, LD, SNP, DUP, Sinn Fein, Reform, Green, and a maximum of one out of Plaid/Alliance/SDLP/UUP.
4) If none of these events pass- go for the hybrid TIE/TILE box. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 21:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If parties are tied on seats won, perfectly sensible to split the tie by vote share. Bondegezou (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says the purpose of an infobox is to summarise key facts that appear in the article - if Reform UK was to get a significant vote share, that sounds like a key fact that would appear in the body of the article. DimensionalFusion (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not object to an infobox that says "Reform UK got a significant vote share". I do object to an infobox that ranks the parties and puts a party in (say) fifth position that did not come fifth in the election results. That is misleading when every or nearly every other election article infobox puts parties in order by seats won. You cannot mislead readers. You cannot pretend a party came fifth when they didn't to make a point: that's violating WP:OR/WP:V. Entirely happy to discuss how to highlight Reform UK's significant vote share in other ways, and have made suggestions to that effect. If Reform UK come within the top 9 on seats won (as they might well), problem solved: use a 9-way TIE infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Women's 3000 metres. The story of the race was all about Zola Budd and our article talks at length about Budd. But Budd fell and didn’t medal. The infobox shows the three women who did medal. Should we just show Budd in the Bronze medal position because she’s a key fact? No, of course not. We have to respect the actual result of the race. When an infobox shows the result of an election, it has to reflect the actual result too. Bondegezou (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is precisely one circumstance in which I could support violating this rule- namely, the "Canada 1993" style result. If the Conservatives were to fail to get any MPs, including them in the infobox would be useful for the purpose of highlighting the decline in support of the previously governing party. Aside from this very specific scenario, I agree with you. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 22:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My take on this:
1) On the use of TILE: yes, it was originally intended for countries with loads of small parties like the netherlands and israel. And I'll add: for countries with loads of small parties whose results are fairly proportional and fragmented (and thus, close to each other). It makes no sense for countries such as the UK (or Spain, or France, or Italy) where yes, you may have about 10-20 parties getting into parliament depending on the election, but where only about 3 to 5 of these parties get a significant amount of seats: it feels weird and close to WP:UNDUE to put at a party with 100, 200, 300 seats next to one with 1 seat (and I should note here that I'm aware of this applying to UKIP in 2015 or to Reform/Greens now; that's why I spoke of including additional criteria. But barred any such criteria, my position is that of using TIE with no more than 6 parties appearing and sorted by number of seats, even if that excludes UKIP/Reform, though I'll elaborate on why I think those should appear based on other criteria). On this, I (almost) wholeheartedly agree with Bondegezou's position in this edit (except for the TILE-preference bit :P).
2) I'm also against this proposal because of the reasons exposed by CipherRephic (unncessary duplication of the data and v. bulky) as well as because of MOS:INFOBOX (An infobox is a panel [...] that summarizes key facts about the page's subject). Adding the full seat results is not a summary and (in my opinion) should only be done in extreme situations where you cannot fully grasp the overall picture of results without adding all of these (which is what happens in Israel or the Netherlands).
3) When I talk of additional criteria I mean some restrictive ones, i.e. ones that should not apply in "normal" circumstances because the system works by itself, but rather in "abnormal" situations where weird electoral (but still notable) things happen, which is more frequent for FPTP systems than for other systems. UK 2015 was one, UK 2024 will probably be another one (though we will have to wait and see the actual results first). Canada 1993, as Chessrat is also a good example: the PCs are currently in the infobox by virtue of (barely) having 2 seats, but imagine a situation where they got 0. Bondegezou's view would imply that they got out of the infobox in such a situation, despite they being the ruling party and their decline being the whole story of the election. You also have 1935 Prince Edward Island general election or 1987 New Brunswick general election in which extreme situations did happen, with infobox inclusion criteria relying mostly on vote share because of a single party getting all of the seats and all other ones 0 seats. Remember: notability is a master guideline in Wikipedia, and while it mostly applies to article creation, it ultimately also covers article content. And the infobox is meant to summarize article content. Yes, you can highlight this in text, but isn't acknowledging the importance of this in text but omitting it from the infobox (which is meant to summarize key facts about the page's subject) in itself contradictory? Btw, I would not compare this with sports events since those work out differently (I would only agree if parties got medals or any other actual thropies based on their seat count, but that's clearly not the case).
This said, I understand Bondegezou's reasoning and ultimately, if no additional criteria can be agreed for, I'd rather have TIE with the 3 to 6 parties getting more seats than other solutions where the infobox is packed with minor parties (because that, ultimately, would not fully satisfy anyone). Any agreement should be crystal clear and as little interventionist as possible on current consensus for party inclusion, as only that would ensure that the issue is not re-opened in the future (or, at the very least, not as many times as would be the case for other alternatives). Impru20talk 08:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Impru20 Thanks for your considered thoughts. To be clear on one point, I have no objection to including parties who win 0 seats, as long as they come after the parties winning >0 seats. This "solves" the Canadian examples you give. Bondegezou (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer TILE because TIE seems far too bloated, massively too presidential, and goes way beyond the stated purpose of an infobox. The purpose of an infobox ("Key facts about the page's subject") is not served by details of the party leader's constituency or date of election, details of numbers from previous elections, etc. Looking at the 2019 election article, there are many details on the infobox there that are not even mentioned in the article itself (election of party leaders other than main 2, constituency name even of Johnson, numbers outside of tables) so the infobox's contents are evidently not 'key'. Even photos of party leaders are gratuitous: only about 0.15% of the population even have a chance to vote directly for Starmer or Sunak: entire countries within the UK don't get to vote for even the parties of some others. 4 1/2 years after the 2019 election, how many people would recognise the photo of Jo Swinson?
Other than precedent, what are the arguments in favour of TIE? Kevin McE (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I, personally dislike TILE is that it is ugly. However in terms of an actual reason; TILE is repetitive, and it is not a summary - which is what an infobox should be. The full election results are available at the bottom of the page in the results section - why is it entirely duplicated at the top? If that's what a person wants to see, they should go to the results section. TIE is a summary, showing the key factors and important parties. DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does TIE show the key factors? Bondegezou (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vote totals, turnout, party leaders, their seats, last election results, seats before, seats change, swing. These are all key in determining the outcome of an election - TILE has some of these, but not all. DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer. I thought you meant factors more broadly (e.g. Brexit in 2019) and was confused. I note party leaders' seats is not a key factor and usually gets no mention in the article text, and thus should not be in the infobox at all. MOS:INFOBOX is clear that everything in the infobox needs to be covered in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah that’s on my, should’ve worded that better DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But MOS:INFOBOXEXCEPTIONS says that if information is hard to naturally fit into an article, it can/should be added to the info box; I believe this applies to leader’s seat here DimensionalFusion (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the language at MOS:INFOBOXEXCEPTIONS or, if I remember it correctly, past discussion of the rule's application there supports that. Bondegezou (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s the great thing though- Leader’s seat doesn’t have to be included. Although I see no reason why it should be omitted DimensionalFusion (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(OK, this was the discussion I was thinking of: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes/Archive_18#RfC_about_exceptions_to_WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE_and_commanders/leaders_in_Template:Infobox_military_conflict.) Bondegezou (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is TILE what we have at the moment? It's absolutely hideous and I despise it. Literally EVERY other British election has the other style. If people are saying "oh no we have to have the ugly one because there are too many parties", just have the top four parties in the infobox. Simple. Dhantegge (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have long used TILE for forthcoming UK elections, for reasons that have been discussed previously at length. While I prefer TILE, I'm fine with TIE with the top four parties by seats once the results are in. Bondegezou (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to Template:Infobox election ! Dhantegge (talk) 09:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Even the subpages of this election use TIE, but this one specific page uses TILE for... reasons? DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It goes against the entire point of having an infobox. If people want to read binary results for every single party in small font, they can go deeper into the article. People want a bold snapshot of the big winners for the lead, with the swing and seat numbers. TILE ignores this, and also entirely ignores the nuances of British politics - the fact, for example, that Northern Ireland's political environment and party system has been entirely seperate from the United Kingdom since Sunningdale in the 1970s. Dhantegge (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Northern Ireland does have a different political environment from Great Britain, but it's still part of the UK and of this election. We can't just ignore Northern Ireland, as per WP:NPOV. Bondegezou (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've seen it used for elections that are a long way off, just as a temporary measure, especially when leaders are prone to change. The article reads like an election article from 2021, when the election is literally happening now. Dhantegge (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It feels like the majority of users here are in favour of TIE. — Czello (music) 09:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add my support for using TIE, but maybe only once the results come in. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also a strong support for using TIE. CuriousCabbage (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those comments, but this section wasn't intended to be about TIE versus TILE. There's no voting going on here! The question at hand is about the order of parties and what parties to include in the infobox, in the context of an election result that might be rather different to the vote shares obtained. Bondegezou (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now the exit poll is out– TIE infobox of Lab, Con, LD, Reform if it's accurate? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 21:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reform and the Greens were on the infobox here a few hours ago, but they're missing now which is extremely questionable. What is the reasoning for this, when they both received millions of votes? 675930s (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The exact same thing happened with the 2015 infobox with UKIP. There's a very obvious agenda at play, and it is very hard to justify not including the 3rd most popular vote on the infobox. Yet, they still persist to obscure the information and make it harder to access at a glance. 86.137.148.183 (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UKIP and Green* might I correct myself. 86.137.148.183 (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What parties should be included in the infobox?

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

I think wait until the full returns are in before making any decisive moves, and then go with a simple 3x2 of the top six. If there's ties, break it by vote share. I don't think anything more complicated will be necessary. CipherRephic (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lengths people will go to get Farage's mugshot in the infobox. After the exit poll grossly overstated Reform's seats, many editors were happy to go with 3x2 or even 2x2 as Reform were in fourth place with 13 seats. What excuses will they come up with to shoehorn Reform into infobox now that they've only got four seats? The infobox is meant to be a summary of the key facts. The top three parties have won more than 90% of the seats. We don't need to include the also rans.--Obi2canibe (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They got over 5% of the vote, and got the same number of seats as greens, so I think both should be included. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People aren’t trying to get Reform in the infobox, but they are recognizing the party recieved 9% of the vote nationally, and to avoid putting it in the infobox, I believe, is a grave misrepresentation of the outcome of the election. NathanBru (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say getting over 15% of the vote is a very good reason to include Reform and this comment suggests only that "Obi2canibe" is motivated by their personal dislike of Farage than any commitment to having a factually accurate Wikipedia article.
I concur with "A Socialist Trans Girl" that Reform, the Greens and other parties should be included. This is the least proportional election in British history, with a larger than usual proportion of the vote going to third parties and the infobox ought to reflect this. Radiatia (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how lopsized the results are in favour of the three largest parties, I also concur that leaving a TIE infobox with Lab, Con and LDs will do the job. Impru20talk 06:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the greens should be included, and reform too. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second this PitterPatter533 (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
based??? 98.240.113.219 (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a top 3 with Lab, Cons, and LibDems will do. I don't see the point in including Farage when he got less seats than SF and the SNP. River10000 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seat number isn't the only factors, there's also vote number. Which, SF got less than 1% of the vote, and SNP got less than 2.5% of the vote. I think the vote number threshold should be 5%. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the percentage of the vote actually mean anything though? 87.75.143.188 (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it implies a degree of legitimacy and media noteworthiness, which itself indicates notability. This discussion was already had in regards to the 2021 Canadian federal election article, specifically on whether the PPC (which won no seats) should be included. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Top three only, given that's over 600 out of 650. If you include Reform, then you have to include the SNP and DUP too. Sceptre (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well greens should be included I think. If you include reform, you do not need to include SNP and DUP too, because they got less than 5% of the vote. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favour of including all nine. It would coincidentally also mean the largest nine by vote share, and have the advantages that 1) the Reform and Green surges, whilst not leading to a large seat total, were significant events, 2) the SNP decline is a major story of the election in NI, 3) Sinn Fein becoming the largest party for the first time is a significant story for the election in Northern Ireland, and 4) the minor parties in general having a larger presence is relevant.
A nine party box is clunkier so I don't strongly oppose the three party one, but of the two nine party is my preference Chessrat (talk, contributions) 06:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue with including 9 parties (other than it being cluttier), is the fact that if you do that, and have the threshold for inclusion be parties winning ~3 seats, then the previous articles would also have to be changed in order to be consistent. It would be odd for only this articles to include 9 parties, while all others include up to 6, typically 4 parties. In other words, if we were to have 9 parties, Gust Justice (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hard disagree with only the top three. I think two or three rows is fine - if you look at other European countries' election pages, they frequently have 5, 6, 7 even 8. So I would be fine with up to 9. PitterPatter533 (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This I second. I come to these pages to see the entire results, including what the small parties got in a quick glance, not for it to be hidden somewhere in the depths where I & 99% of other visitors to the page will never check. It's stupid to hide the small parties for aesthetic reasons. Election infoboxes have been ruined recently by people more concerned with "aesthetics" than their actual purpose. Fluffy89502 (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support only top 3. The infobox can't tell the whole story of the election (that being the point of the body of the article). Including 9 is far too clunky. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that 9 is perhaps too much for this election, but I think top 3 is far too small. I think top 5 is reasonable. A Socialist Trans Girl 06:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think at this point top 6 would be better than top 5. Then both SF and DUP (the latter is now at 5 seats) would be included. Essentially like the 2017 infobox. Gust Justice (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know about SF and DUP, they didn't even get 1% of the vote. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SF is the fifth largest parties by number of seats. Gust Justice (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But they got less than 1% of the vote A Socialist Trans Girl 07:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the threshold should be at least getting 5% of the votes. This would therefore include Labour, Libdems, Tories, Reform, and the Greens. A Socialist Trans Girl 06:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would sort of prefer that too, even if such a format isn't perfect either. Gust Justice (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This feels (admittedly cynically) manufactured to represent English parties over Northern Irish ones. The Sinn Fein lead in NI is significant, and arbitrarily creating a vote share threshold for display in the infobox for a non-proportional election, especially when reliable sources aren't doing the same, has dubious adherence to WP:OR. If more than 3 parties are shown, SNP and Sinn Fein should be included. Irltoad (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, SF's number is not insignificant. Should not only be three. PitterPatter533 (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2015 United Kingdom general election infobox shows the LibDems with 8 seats, but not the DUP with the same number. I think that even if Reform's seat value is lower than some other parties, the fact their voter share is third of all parties means it would be painting an erroneous picture to simply leave them off entirely. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As well, taking into account the Reform UK–TUV alliance, the number could be counted as 5, and thus above the 4-way tie of 4 seat parties, leaving a comfortable compromise of 6 parties in the infobox. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reform UK–TUV alliance is not an official thing as far as I understand. Basically all media sources treat the two as separate parties for statistical purposes. Gust Justice (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware they're still mutually endorsed and TUV campaigned under a joint logo. I'm not sure how "official" it is but it seems as though they are de-facto allied electorally, and since the election infobox allows for alliances to be shown I think a case could be made, if not handled a-la Co-operative Party. Regardless, I still think showing the top 6 is the most elegant solution, what with Reform coming third in popular vote. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although Farage then kinda broke the alliance by endorsing two DUP candidates against the TUV during the campaign. Bondegezou (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated on the page itself, the alliance was not dissolved[1]. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About 30.3% of voters this election voted for candidates other than the top 3 parties (top 3 by vote share, that is), which is highly unusual and not statistically insignificant. Back in 2019, that figure was only 12.7%, so it is definitely relevant to include all the smaller parties who've made gains (which includes LibDems) in the infobox. 675930s (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Include Greens and Reform, they won millions of votes and have parliamentary representation? Maurnxiao (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could it potentially use a collapsed section? i.e., have 3(?) in the main part and display the next 6 in a collapsed section. I appreciate that this breaks convention, and I'm not entirely sure about the plausibility of it (I haven't played about with infoboxes enough to be sure it would look OK!) but it could provide a compromise between keeping the infobox from being cumbersome while acknowledging the relevance & importance of the changes in smaller parties like Sinn Fein, Reform, and Greens. Irltoad (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reform UK has just been awarded its 5th seats. Now I lean towards a 3x2 infobox that includes Labour, Conservative, LibDem, SNP, Sinn Fein and Reform. I think that would be a good compromiso as we would show the parties in order as they won the seats and we can include Reform. I'm aware the Greens wouldn't be included, but I reckon it's the best we can achieve. Basque mapping (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Labour, Conservative, LibDem, SNP, Sinn Fein and Independent (7 seats) you mean? CNC (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under the map it literally says "A map presenting the results of the election, by party of the MP elected from each constituency." The Infobox only has 4 colors now bc of "aesthetics" and there is no template on the map. HOW IS AN AVERAGE READER SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHAT PARTIES ARE THOSE OTHER COLORS NOW ?? THIS IS STUPID 😔 Fluffy89502 (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this question is also being discussed over at the 2015 UK election article talk page. I personally am in favor of including all parties which won seats. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not possible based on the template limit of 9, thanks for info though. CNC (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is to switch to the {{Infobox Legislative Election}} style instead. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be a 2x3 infobox similar to the one at 2021 Canadian federal election. It's evident that Reform's 14% or vote and 5 seats shows they are a relevant party on the populist right. Greens got 7% of the vote and 4 seats so they also have relevance among the British public. The sixth party should be SNP, since while they got 9 seats it was a dismal loss compared to the past election. Having a hard-right party, green party and autonomist party would match the infobox for Canada. There is currently a discussion over the PPC's inclusion there. As of now there is no consensus and this is a party with 5% of the vote and no seats. Two of the UK parties listed above have seats in parliament and are above 5% of votes while the SNP's losses compared to 2019 are very notable. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by the "The sixth party should be SNP", they are the fourth party. CNC (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the sixth party to be added. I'm not sure what the order for the fourth, fifth and sixth parties should be but I know those parties should be added in some capacity HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

We discussed this at Talk:2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#Post-result_infobox above and broadly agreed that we have to list parties by how many seats they won. You can't put a party who came 7th in 5th place just because you feel like it: that violates WP:OR. Bondegezou (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I reverted your change, but only because it broke the infobox; I should have realised you were in the discussion already, so ignore my edit summary. Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He did not win a seat so possibly Reform and Greens should take priority? Maurnxiao (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The IPP of the 1918 United Kingdom general election did not come 6th either, yet are the 6th box, and the LibDems of the 2015 United Kingdom general election tied with the DUP, yet the DUP is missing. The same goes with the 1935 United Kingdom general election, as the ILP tied for seat count with the Independent Liberals, yet the latter is left off entirely. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If parties are tied on seats, it's perfectly sensible to split the tie with vote share (which is what the BBC and Guardian results for 2024 do). That's not a counter-example. I'll take a look at 1918. If it is doing something different, it is clearly an exception. The 2019, 2017 and 2015 infoboxes all follow seat order, despite the LibDems getting way more votes than the SNP. The 1951 article is another classic example: Labour got a higher vote share, but the Tories got more seats. We put the Tories first. Editors cannot just make up their own order for the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, with Reform now at 5 seats — a tie with the DUP but a far greater popular vote — would they not fit into the 6th spot of a 3x2 infobox? It seems as though a compromise has made itself available as the election unfolded DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Independents are in 6th place with 7 seats. CNC (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Independents are, by definition, not a party. If you look at the 2020 Irish general election, despite independents being the 4th largest group by seat number, they are not in the party box, as it would be completely erroneous to group them together as they share no platform, nor party, nor any sort of unified alliance, electorally or otherwise. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough re independents, indeed they've been left out of that example for good reason. I'm not opposed to 2x3 format, as long it features the 6 parties with the most seats. This issue being that there are two parties tied for 6th place, with no way to decide between them while retaining a NPOV. The irony being that it's an argument for adding the full 9 (which would be up to Green and Plaid Cymru), to avoid favouring including Reform or DUP for no good reason. Adding 6 would be controversial, and I think including 9 would be considered unnecessary. CNC (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous elections have handled this by breaking ties by largest voter share, a solution which, while I think can be inelegant at times, is not the absolute worst. A 3x3 would definitely be way too much, and although a 3x2 might not be the absolute ideal, it certainly comes close, and since there already is a standard set for handling the matter, I think the road ahead is as clear as can be for situations like this. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is already a standard for it, then no issues from me. CNC (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox, right now, include significantly less information that it should. Why not have six parties? Then you can include SNP, Reform, and Greens.
I came here to check the seat and vote share differences from 2019 for all the parties, and I can't do that very easily now, because only 3 parties are in the infobox.
I don't care about "getting Farage's mugshot in the infobox". (although SNP losses and Reform gains are huge stories from this election - Reform destroyed the Conservatives and the SNP self-destructed). JM (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think Reform would be added with (currently) 4 seats, over the 6 parties who have more? I thought it should go without saying that out of say 6 parties in the infobox, you pick those with the most seats. If it was a section over vote share, or analysis, then granted, Reform would be right up there. There seems to be a general confusion over what is WP:DUE in the infobox. It's not based on % of votes, as this isn't what the election is about, it's only ever about seats gained to remain NPOV. CNC (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I made the comment I believed Reform was in the top 6 because I neglected Northern Ireland. JM (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Per comments below, I've added SNP and changed to 2/2 per row format with this edit [2]. I think it gives necessary room to the lead which is fast expanding, hopefully others will agree with the change. CNC (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, why not use a criterion of 5% of the vote or more? It seems undue to include parties which only won a handful of seats, but Reform and the Greens won a non-insignificant amount of votes despite only winning 4 seats each so it seems reasonable to me at least that they both would be included if only due to their vote share being higher than that of the SNP, which is included in the infobox. Talthiel (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because this isn't the format of these articles infoboxes, for good reason. Look back over all of the previous articles and the parties with the most seats are included, because that is how the election is decided. As someone explained below, it would be highly misleading to suggest that other parties are more notable and therefore due in the infobox based on their vote share. To suggest 5% or over would effectively be swapping SNP with Reform and Greens that won less seats than SNP as well as SF. Personally I'm shocked over what appears to be a basic lack of understandings of how this articles infobox works. We shouldn't be debating "Is Reform more relevant in the infobox", "let's exclude parties that didn't field candidates in all countries", or otherwise, when the "choice" of parties included in the infobox shouldn't be up for debate, the election itself has decided that for us. The only debate should be whether it includes 3, 4, 6, or more parties, based on seats gained. CNC (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Talthiel Because that would mislead the casual reader. Other election article infobox do not take the approach of excluding parties with more seats in favour of parties with fewer seats but more votes. The results are the results. We can't make up arbitrary rules: see WP:OR. Bondegezou (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said to exclude other parties, in mentioning the 5% rule, but that it could be an additional pre-requisite to be included in the infobox. Reform would be, if included, listed after the SNP because they only won 5 seats while the SNP won 9.
And additionally, in first past the post elections, national seat counts don't really matter, which is why parties with more votes but fewer seats, are not placed before parties which win more seats but less votes (see such examples as the 1951 United Kingdom general election, where Labour won more votes but was listed 2nd in the infobox because they won the 2nd most seats. Legislative elections are sorted first and foremost by seat totals. As others have said, the infobox is supposed to summarize, not detail, the key parts of an election. @CommunityNotesContributor & @Bondegezou, it does not violate WP:OR, see the 1993 Canadian federal election , 2021 Canadian federal election, 1940 Canadian federal election, 2012 Wisconsin State Assembly election and others for how parties such as Reform, the DUP, or the Greens, or others too if preferred, could be displayed in the infobox in ways that do not violate any WP policies, norms, or precedents Talthiel (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough, and you're speaking my language with your rationale. I think I misunderstood when you said >5%, whereas if you had said >5 seats I wouldn't have objected as I did. Ultimately I'm not opposed to a 2x3 format, similar to 2017 United Kingdom general election, even if I think 2x2 is a slicker format. CNC (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If parties are to be listed in the infobox I think it should be Labour (412/11), Conservative (121), LibDem (71), SNP (9), Reform (5), DUP (5), and perhaps the Greens too (4). Ideally the infobox would have a max of 6 candidates without being too bloated. I also feel Sinn Fein could be excluded because they abstain from voting or taking their seats in parliament and their bloc doesn't count towards the majority of seats needed to form a government. Another big conundrum though is that the infobox, with the parties I listed, would have 7 parties, whereas 6 seems to be the ideal maximum, so one of the parties would have to not be included. @CommunityNotesContributor Talthiel (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this comes back to the POV arguments such as "SF doesn't count", despite being included in the 2017 election article as expected. There is already pretty clear opposition below that excluding parties based on A, B and C reasons is unacceptable and breach of NPOV (see further discussion below on this re excluding NI). Respectfully, let's move forward to where the consensus lies; that of including parties with most seats. The only question is how many (3/4/6/9). What we think might "look better" in the infobox is irrelevant to what we are able to include, which is purely based on seat count and quantity of entities as explained. CNC (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, what SF does with their seats or not, the size of their party or number of candidates, is completely irrelevant to the results of the election. I think this is what some people are misunderstanding here. This article isn't about representation, it's purely based on the results of the election. CNC (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria pre-2015 was to include Lab, Con and LDs because of the sheer amount of seats these three had. Issues arose for 2015, 2017 and 2019 because of the LD collapse and the SNP surge, but situation has now reverted to three parties collecting the vast majority of seats. There is little reason for including the SNP (9) and not Sinn Féin (7) and Reform (5), and if we include these, then the situation previous to 2015 should be reviewed as well for consistency's sake. Impru20talk 18:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor who made that addition, I hear what you're saying. The relevance is that SNP lost 38 seats, while Lib Dems gained 63, in order to become the 3rd largest party (again). The seat change seems significant in itself, in order to document the collapse. Bare in mind that 2019 the Lib Dems only had 11 seats post-collapse, which was also documented, even though insigificant. If the argument is to exclude SNP because of only having 9 seats, then Lib Dems shouldn't have been included in the 2019 article either. CNC (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Losing seats should not be by itself a criterion for infobox inclusion. It can be if you have room for more parties, but you are basically reconfiguring the infobox's design (from 3x1 to 2x2) and altering long-standing practice to fit a party having 9 seats when the one before it has 71. For 2019 there was a specific consensus, but it's worth reminding that 1) it was not the seat loss (just 1), but the vote share (>10%, compared to SNP's 2.5% here) that did the deal, 2) both the third and fourth parties were in the double digits (48 to 11) which is not the case here (71 to 9), 3) the seat difference here is too extreme. Impru20talk 18:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's understandable, appreciate the context. It seems clear this article will need to be craft it's own specific consensus on this issue, as at present arguments include 1x3, 2x2, and 2x3. Bare in mind Reform's >10% vote share could seal the deal for a 2x3 format, combined with the SNP seat loss. This sounds like the identical conditions. CNC (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to ask, do you know what the "specific consensus" was for 2017 to include 2x3, similar to what editors are suggesting here? I'd appreciated links to these consensus decisions if possible. Thanks in advance. CNC (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the context would require a party with 9 seats and 2.5% of the vote being put together with three parties the smallest of which has 71 seats and 12% of the vote (that's basically close to WP:UNDUE). If you include SNP, it's impossible not to include SF and Reform at the very least, and you would be opening a true can of worms there. Let me counsel you to read all of the discussions on the previous four UK elections' talk pages, related to infobox inclusion criteria (specially regarding UKIP in 2015 and Reform in 2024). With the current 2024 results, the 1x3 solution is the one that would attain the most consensus (or, at the very least, would cause the less disturbance).
On 2017, if I recall it correctly the consensus was like that because it was a hung parliament and DUP was decisive in securing the majority for May. Impru20talk 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for counsel, still waiting for the links to such discussions. CNC (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can check it yourself (as I typically do when others point me out to such consensuses). It's public! It'll also useful for you to read all of it (several discussions took place across several years) since you seem new to UK election articles. It's you the one aiming to change previously-established consensus, remember ;) Impru20talk 19:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally for an RfC these discussions which led to consensus would be presented. Otherwise people (such as myself) might be !voting without being aware of previous decisions that have been made regarding these topics. As you said, it'd be useful for me to read, as well as others for a more informed opinion. CNC (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I missed the part in which you were not able to get aware by yourself on the discussions pertaining infoboxes. I comprehend some help is always welcome, let me instruct you, look:
  1. Check Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election, Talk:2017 United Kingdom general election and Talk:2019 United Kingdom general election.
  2. Look for the "Search archives" field.
  3. Type "infobox" in.
  4. A whole world of possibilities opens up to you.
There are many discussions and RfCs, so cherry-picking which ones you should read is not something I think I should do. It may take a while for you to read all of it, but context is important on such a revisited issue! Impru20talk 19:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point. If this comes to an RfC, that seems quite likely, then it would be in the interest of those who have more experience in these topics to provide the relevant discussions of consensus to those with less experience. As you said, context is important, such as discussing an article so closely related and in connection to others. I'm aware of how to search archives, thanks, but I'm not going to spend hours searching through them for relevant discussions, and I guarantee others won't either. Those who have been engaged in these topics for longer should be able to reference these relevant discussions with ease, as editors who have already followed and participated in such discussions. I have nothing to lose from not reading those discussions, and without older editors providing these references, I'm simply assume they don't exist. No offence, but this is 101 of consensus building: provide the list of previous discussions. CNC (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the people with experience, I think Bondegezou (among others) can help out with this as one of the most stable editors pertaining UK elections. They may also brief you on the overall consensus reached for the infoboxes of these articles.
Nonetheless, 1) I'm not going to spend hours searching through them for relevant discussions, and I guarantee others won't either. Well, that's not my issue. The discussions exist and the consensus is there; it's you wanting to possibly alter such consensus, so the onus is on you to argue for the change and to know what the previous consensus was. "I'm not gonna do that" does not seem like a good argument to me; 2) I'm simply assume they don't exist. No offence, but this is 101 of consensus building: provide the list of previous discussions.
I can do exactly the same as you are able to: search for the discussions. The list is not exhaustive as I may have missed something, but hopefully you may get the picture:
Impru20talk 20:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, but it does bear noting that the Reform vote split played a huge role in the Tories' massive loss, with as many as 166 of the 244 Tory losses to some extent attributable to Reform's surge. With more than 14% of the vote and 5 seats - solidly in sixth place, and without a tie in seat count to complicate matters - I think it is a good idea to have them be placed on a 3-by-2 grid, alongside SNP and Sinn Féin, both of which have more seats but far less of a voter base. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Double-checked my own reply. Yes the DUP tied in vote count with Reform, but their vote share is far lower and thus there's no need to open a third row with the DUP. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I can agree with the rationale behind including the three largest parties, I think the best option is to include the six largest ones because 1) It's important to show the collapse of the SNP 2) Reform UK is one of the important players this election, right now they are on levels of the Liberal Party in the early post-war, so they deserve inclusion just as them.
Yo have pointed out that were we to include six parties we should review pre-2015 infoboxes. I don't think so, that would mean including the early micro-SNP and the NI parties, which I think is not necessary. This election has been atypical and that's why we should include more parties than usual, including SF is just a side effect in order not to break the rule. Basque mapping (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Atypical in which sense? 2015 was atypical. 2017 and 2019 were, too. What's the difference between 2024 and 1997, for instance? There you had UUP at 10 seats, SNP at 6, PC at 4... in fact, the third party got 46 seats (it currently has 71) and the fourth party 10 (9 now). Yes, reviewing the criteria for this election would mean to review them for these as well; except for Reform's 4 million votes, we have basically returned to the pre-2015 situation. Impru20talk 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like 2015 with a huge loss for one particular party, and a huge gain for another. CNC (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same: fourth party in 2015 had 2.4 million votes. It was not a matter of gains or losses. I'm attempting to take you seriously, CNC; please, do the same with me. Impru20talk 19:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly arguing for a 2x2 format here, as I agree despite the Lib Dem loss, the vote share % isn't very significant (that's me taking you seriously and not reverting your changes). The Reform vote with 4 million votes does appear significant in combination with the Lib Dem loss, similar to 2019 election (4 million votes, >10%). CNC (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On this note: I agree with you that 4 million votes is significant. In fact (should you check past discussions on UK infoboxes, as recently as the past month) you'd see that my position is actually in favour of adding parties with such a tremendous amount of popular votes. But:
1) You should first consider what the actual consensus for UK election articles is, and that is to arrange parties by seats. Doing this on solely this criterion would mean that parties such as SF (which practises abstentionism and does not take its seats) are given more prominence in infoboxes that UKIP on 2015 or Reform in 2024 (which attracted large media attention and their results countrywide affected the outcome of dozens if not hundreds of seats), which would fall closely under WP:UNDUE). Con, Lab, SNP, LD was the version for which consensus was achieved in 2015 (an election with two strong national parties, a strong regional one and a third national party that was mauled but still scored fourth); similarly to 2017 (which ended up being 3x3 because of it being a hung parliament and the fifth party having a strong role in government formation and support) and 2019 basically using the same scheme as 2015. 2024 is returning to the pre-2015 status, i.e. three strong national parties, no strong regional party, no hung parliament dependant on a fourth or fifth or seventh party.
2) This is a contentious issue. Not because I want it to be, but because it has been for over a decade, with many edit warrings and many editors involved through time. I agree with you in many points (really), but I am also respectful of past consensus and of long-achieved equilibrium. My aim is for infoboxes to be as representative as possible of the elections they aim to represent without the equilibrium being broken. I am also of the thought that each time an election happens, we tend to think that it is a blank check, but that may not be the case: past consensuses may exist, some issues may have been already addressed or visited before, etc.
3) This does not mean that consensus cannot change. As you said, WP:CON should be encouraged to be built, not deterred because previous consensus exists. But: consensus must be coherent, or you may end up re-opening a can of worms on an issue which (as I have said) is and has been contentious. As I told you, it has been years of talk page discussions and RfCs which are there for anyone willing to go and calmly read these. From there: consensus can change, but it cannot just be "forgotten".
I am acting on good faith here. I assume you do, too; that is why I am taking my time to explain this throughly to you. Impru20talk 20:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely too many photos in table?

Why not cap at 5 seats or more?

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

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

Why not just add UKIP to 2015 then? A Socialist Trans Girl 07:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your terms are agreeable — Czello (music) 07:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend removing the Irish parties as NI tends to be its "own thing" in elections. — Czello (music) 07:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regional parties that didn't contest seats in all countries of the UK ought to be removed, in my opinion. Collorizador (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But SNP has been included since 2015 A Socialist Trans Girl 07:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SNP could be a possible exception due to its outsized impact on politics. NI parties should definitely be moved, though. Collorizador (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I also dont think plaid should be shown either A Socialist Trans Girl 07:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The outsized impact of having a grand total of 9 seats? Maurnxiao (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The impact of being the party with the 4th most seats, while losing 38. CNC (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that makes them more notable than Reform which stands candidates nationwide and not just in Scotland? Maurnxiao (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, based on the concept of the election. CNC (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with this in principle, but I think an exception should be made for the SNP. Their seats plummeting is pretty notable and one of the defining things to come out of this election. — Czello (music) 07:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were also the third largest party at the last election. It's probably important to inclde them for that reason Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, a top 6 sans NI is a good way to handle things. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That would give a full picture of the vote. River10000 (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would do you mean excluding NI? The 7 parties with the most seats is pretty clear cut so far, notably the tie for 6th place. We can't just cut a party out because they aren't based in England, that's POV to the extreme. CNC (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree A Socialist Trans Girl 07:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UKIP not being in 2015 with 12.6% of the vote is egregious and Reform should absolutely be here. They have been a focal part of this campaign, won a huge share of the vote, and have received substantial media attention. Maurnxiao (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why does 2015 United Kingdom general election not include the DUP's 8 seats, the same as the LibDems? Why does 1935 United Kingdom general election have the ILP, but not the Independent Liberals? Why does 1918 United Kingdom general election have the IPP but not the NDP? Clearly, the standard here is not the raw numbers of seats with no other factors accounted into it. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The appearance of Reform with more than 14% of the vote, even if it only translates to 4 seats (and a fifth with their pact with TUV) warrants their inclusion at minimum. Reform UK is a major reason why a lot of the seats flipped from the Tories to Labour, and it would be a failure to show the political reality should we refuse to include them in the infobox. I would endorse either the six-party without NI, or the nine-party model. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed strange not to include parties with substantial amounts of seats. And if nothing else, I will say, a 2x2 box just looks weird. PitterPatter533 (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

To add to this, BBC and other websites depict the Northern Irish parties the same way it depicts all other parties. If we decide seats (not vote share) is decisive for the inclusion of parties in the infobox, then it would not reflect what sources say to exclude SF and DUP on the basis of only winning seats in Northern Ireland. Gust Justice (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a problem with including nine parties. Excluding Reform feels wrong--they played spoiler in numerous constituencies, there's a significant swing to them and away from the Conservatives. A major emerging narrative for this election appears to be the growth of smaller parties at the expense of the two major parties. The infobox ought to acknowledge that. Mackensen (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that Reform have caught up with SF, the argument is resurfacing again 🙄 If we end up with a 2x3 infobox, there will be a clear conflict between those who want Reform included and those that want SF included. Recipe for disaster. CNC (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Looking at previous election articles, I think the 2/2 perrow format (2015 and 2019) is much better than the 3/3 perrow format (2017) that his simply too wide and dominating, and doesn't fit well into the infobox. In this case, the 4 parties (2/2) listed should be the ones with the most seats; Labour, Conservative, Lib Dems and SNP. I'm not convinced adding parties with 5 and 7 seats is worthwhile for 3/3 format to be worthwhile. Also arguably, despite SNP only getting 9 seats, the decline of 37 seems very significant. CNC (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also surely we should be adding SF and DUP prior to Reform, Green and PC, simply based on seats gained? This is why I'm not convinced about adding anyone of them and just stick with the top 4 for convenient formatting. CNC (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there needs to be a like RFC for this topic, as there's several opened threads on this very topic Talthiel (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth making a bold first and the change to 2x3, then see if anyone opposes the change. Since Reform got 5 seats I haven't seen any opposition for such a change (as long as it's not removing any parties with more seats). I was initially concerned over the idea of including Reform over DUP when they both have 5 seats, but apparently there is a precedent for this. CNC (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There already exists one at this link. I am hesitant to redirect people here for now but if we believe it's the best path forward we can do so. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Reform have won 5 seats, a 2 row 3 column table of parties works well, ordered by seat total (with Reform beating the DUP to 6th place by popular vote share as a tiebreaker). It's the neatest and smallest table that still communicates the really important role of Reform this election. As much as I personally dislike them, you can't understand this election without understanding Reform's vote count and its role in spoiling seats against the Conservatives.
Table would therefore go Lab -> Con -> LD -> SNP -> SF -> Ref.
However I do think that if we can't agree immediately and clearly on this solution, we need an RFC just to make sure the discussion is clearly signposted and understood. Sparkledriver (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Either this or a 2x2 or a 1x3. Anything that can have an actual consensus by this point, honestly. River10000 (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on recent revert, [3], I now agree. Ideally we can specify what the included parties would be, as some editors still believe we can exclude parties for certain reasons, rather than including parties based purely on number of seats. Ie:
  • 1x3: Labour, Conservative, Lib Dems
  • 2x2: Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems, SNP
  • 2x3: Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems, SNP, SF, Reform*
  • 3x3: Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems, SNP, SF, Reform, DUP, Green, PC
Those are the realistic options, at least those proposed in these discussions.
*Based on a TIE, then Reform would be included over DUP based on % of vote share CNC (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely in favor of a 2x3 personally, showcasing the top 6 parties while covering as many of the major takeaways as possible without oversizing; if push did come to shove however, I would rather err on the side of oversizing with a 3x3 or something of the like than a 2x2 or 1x3, both of which really fail to convey much of the actual details at all DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1x3: Lab, Con, LDs. If we add more, then we should revisit all elections previous to 2015 since some of these mirror the situation we see here (2010, 2005, 1997...). It would essentially mean a change of long-established consensus and of consistency, since there are no particular seat-wise situations pertaining to this election that are substantially different to any previous election. Impru20talk 19:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revisionism can occur later if further consensus is established. If consensus was established for a 2x3 format, then it wouldn't resptrospecively apply to all other articles, based on an RfC on this article. Unless the RfC was centralized and based on all election articles past and present, which isn't necessary, consensus on this article would have no effect on previous articles. WP:CON should be encouraged to be built, not deterred because previous consensus exists. CNC (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus was established for a 2x3 format based on situation X happening, you cannot argue that such format should not be applied to the same situation X happening elsewhere. You know why? Because it will lead to conflict between this article and the others, and people will raise such conflict (eventually leading to potential edit wars). Yes, this has happened before in UK election articles (and you are free to calmly check all the past discussions on the issue). So yes, if other articles have the same situation happening, then a collective discussion for situation X should happen and affect all articles involved. Cherrypicking articles just because you happened to come across one is not a good take, actually; editors should be aware that if a consensus is reached here, it could (and probably should) be applied in those cases where a similar situation is happening. Impru20talk 19:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can easily argue that such formats don't apply to other articles, as you have pointed out numerous times; elections are different, and that's why there have been different formats, such as pre-2015 and post-2015. Fear of change is not a good argument here, though you're obviously welcome to your opinion and future !vote. CNC (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I can easily argue that there is no reason for elections sharing similar features to be depicted using different standards. Of course, you were bold and added your infobox proposal despite many people agreeing to the 1x3 version in this discussion, and as you said you were free to be contested (which you were). You are obviously welcome to your opinion and future !vote too, as we all contribute to Wikipedia in equal conditions :) Impru20talk 19:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about:
  • 2x3: Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems, SNP, Reform, DUP
I think a reasonable case can be made to exclude Sinn Féin as they don't take their seats in Westminster. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See above about excluding NI. This article is about the election results, it has nothing to do with representation in Westminster. I can't believe this suggestion keeps reappearing. CNC (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would make no sense to exclude SF but have DUP in. But if anything, both SF and DUP have little relevance in the overall picture of the election (I again point out to the fact that the only instance they where added was 2017, and because they were actually relevant following the May-DUP agreement). I would rather keep my preference for the 1x3 option (Lab, Con, LDs) on the current results. Impru20talk 21:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether they actually take their seats, they won election. This article is on the election, not the parliament that followed it SecretName101 (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As discussion around this very topic is happening for the 2015 article, it is fair to say that there is indeed a hunger to revisit the old articles too. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should! What I argue is that it doesn't make sense to apply one set of criteria for one article and another wholly different set for other articles. These should be 1) similar criteria under similar situations & 2) consistent, recognizable criteria even on non-similar situations. Impru20talk 23:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is why there's an RfC on this topic, which I think it might make sense to redirect people here towards. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have an RfC on this topic? Where? Impru20talk 08:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this page. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, then probably should get more notice because it is a relevant topic and I see very few people involved there... I myself did not become aware of this until now. Also, it's even active? For now I think we can leave this RfC relatively dormant and keep discussion on the 2015 UK page. message from you there two days ago. Impru20talk 19:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a bit of pushback, as you can see, from editors who are more active on the 2015 page, since we weren't able to really come up with any constructive solutions or bullet-point options to end the debate. I still don't know if we can do that - if we can, then I absolutely think we should go back to the RfC. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like many others, and for the same reasons as expressed by others above, I support 1x3: Lab, Con, LD. CuriousCabbage (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting to think this might just be the move. It's a vast majority of the seats and the only ones that have won above 10 seats. Plus, it's the current page, and there's no clear consensus for anything else. River10000 (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no consensus for keeping 1x3 either; I believe it has minority support. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of my main concerns is that, effectively, if a 2x3 infobox is added in order to accomodate Reform (which it could, since it's sixth in seat count), there is going to be people calling for a 3x3 infobox in order to accomodate the Greens, which is basically out of consistency with all previous elections (not even 2017, which was a hung parliament dependant on these minor parties) and unmanageable. Plus there are people somehow calling for the Independents to be shown in sixth place, which is ridiculous (they are not a single unitary force). That is why, as of currently, 1x3 is the less conflictive infobox, as we can all agree that these three should be shown in that order (but there is not any agreement on the other ones). Impru20talk 09:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is on a 2x3 format. As I have said before, with Reform now firmly sitting at 6th place (five seats and a far larger voteshare than the DUP) it makes sense to show their impact. The fourth and fifth placers are also significant in that 1) the SNP suffered a catastrophic loss in seats compared to their third place finish in 2019, and 2) Sinn Féin became the largest party in Northern Ireland, the first time the Abstentionists are the largest faction there. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Use a list format as is done on 2022 Italian general election listing each party that won seats. This is the most neutral and fair format and stops any grumblings about "why didn't you include party X". Helper201 (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To let everyone know, there is also an RfC thread that has been made about this topic, primarily out of similar discussion on the talk page for the 2015 UK general election. Since I don't believe a consensus is in sight in this thread's discussion, I would like to move for us to consider two options forward:

1. Move this discussion to the RfC page.
2. Reframe this discussion around a vote between various options, which would include:
  • Sticking with the 1x3 infobox (Lab, Con, LD)
  • Moving to a 2x3 infobox (Above, plus SNP, Sinn Fein, and Reform UK)
  • Moving to a 3x3 infobox (Above, plus DUP, Green Party, and Plaid)
  • Moving to an {{Infobox Legislative Election}} style, which would include all parties that won seats in the election.

My personal preference is to move this discussion to the RfC, since this topic clearly has interest beyond just this talk page. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now the 3x3 was added to the page. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was just reverted back. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2024

I propose changing the following sentence in the lede:

"The Scottish National Party (SNP) lost around three quarters of its seats to Scottish Labour and the Conservative Party.[1]"

To either

"The Scottish National Party (SNP) lost around three quarters of its seats to Scottish Labour[1]"

Or

"The Scottish National Party (SNP) lost around three quarters of its seats to Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats[1]"

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

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

 Done Irltoad (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but it seems @Gust Justice reverted this in this edit. I don't know the protocol for this as I'm quite new to wikipedia, but Gust Justice is objectively incorrect, the Scottish Conservatives did not gain any seats from the Scottish National Party, so claiming "The Scottish National Party (SNP) lost around three quarters of its seats to Scottish Labour and the Conservative Party" is objectively wrong. I tried to look up what to do here but since I have to do everything through requests I'm not 100% sure, sorry. Would appreciate an answer by @Gust Justice as to why they are putting incorrect information into this article.
Thanks. SurprisedPika (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a mistake on my part. I only intended to change the results section. It seems like I edited an old version of the article, which inadvertently reverted the change that was made to the lead. Gust Justice (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c "UK general election results live: Labour set for landslide as results come in across country". BBC News. 4 July 2024. Archived from the original on 4 July 2024. Retrieved 4 July 2024.

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

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

They're on the third count... Very close between SPN and Lib Dems. — Iadmc♫talk  15:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you. NesserWiki (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not that we should include it, but it's looking likely the LibDem will win.
https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/drew-hendry-will-not-be-attending-tomorrow-s-recount-of-the-354939/
https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/liberal-democrat-is-privately-acknowledged-to-have-been-the-354931/ River10000 (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the SNP has conceded, so that bumps up the LD total to 72. Right? My math might be wrong River10000 (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that the SNP candidate has conceded by email that the LibDems have won this (bringing them to 72 seats) by between 1500 and 2000 votes (about 3/4 boxes ahead, of 500 votes each). The SNP candidate will not be attending the technical second re-count, which will start at 10.30 this (Saturday) morning and is now a formality due to a small discrepancy in the original count. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Ligaturama (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017, 2019 comparison

I think it would be a good idea for the article to note that Labour's vote total this time around was actually significantly less than it was under Corbyn in the 2017 election, and even the 2019 election. Labour was electorally quite successful, but this wasn't because of enthusiasm for Starmer or his party, but simply due to a massive collapse in support for the Tories. -2003:CA:873F:5669:7EAE:408C:D4B0:99B1 (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already compare the vote of this election to the 2019 one, and the Labour vote was actually higher this time round (as a percentage). I encourage editors to debate as to whether we should compare the Labour vote this time round to the 2017 election, however.--TedEdwards 16:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking about as a percentage, but as the actual number of votes. Obviously Labour's percentage was higher, because, as I noted above, support for the Conservatives massively collapsed. But more people voted for Labour under Corbyn in 2017, and even in 2019 than voted for Labour in 2024 under Starmer. That's just a fact. This election was much more a failure for the Tories than it was a success for Labour. The latter simply succeeded by default, as a huge portion the Torries' traditional voting base either switched to Reform UK or didn't bother voting at all. The number of people voting for Labour also declined, just not as much. -2003:CA:873F:5669:7EAE:408C:D4B0:99B1 (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So often when people say the vote is lower, without context, they referring to percentages, so if we said that about the number of votes, we would have to make that clear. Your part about This election was much more a failure for the Tories than it was a success for Labour. The latter simply succeeded by default, as a huge portion the Torries' traditional voting base either switched to Reform UK or didn't bother voting at all. could not include as is, as it is not a neutral point of view. But if reliable secondary sources (which in this case basically means news organisations that aren't tabloids, but not necesssarily impartial) talk about what you're saying, we can include discussion of the result and compare it to 2017 and 2019. So if you wanted this sort of discussion based on what reliable news organisations are publishing (probably best to steer clear of self-published media e.g. tweets) it would be helpful if you could post some links here. The only thing we on Wikipedia would have to do is ensure it's clear it's not our opinion, rather we are describing other people's opinions. --TedEdwards 19:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about this article?
"But while Starmer’s stonking 400-plus seats may look good on paper, dig a little deeper and those shiny new Labour MPs heading off to Westminster would be wise not to be complacent about their prospects of remaining there for long.
There is little doubt that this election was a loss for the Conservatives rather than Labour’s gain; there was no surge of enthusiasm for the party, as there was when Tony Blair captured the mood of the country in 1997." [4]
I think Politico is generally considered a rather reputable source, no? -2003:CA:873F:5669:7EAE:408C:D4B0:99B1 (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Politico is reliable, but it doesn't mention anything about the vote share/number Labour got. Rather it claims Reform has a foothold and Labour voters may vote for Reform at the next election. --TedEdwards 18:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It talks about the lack of enthusiasm for Labour, contrasting it with '97, and this lack of enthusiasm is evidenced by the low voter turnout. There's also this article from the Guardian, which notes that "The Tories vote share plunged — but Labour's didn't rise." [5] Now, to be fair, it's talking about percentages there, rather than raw vote totals but it also illustrates the same general theme (along with the Politico article) that the results were more a matter of a collapse in support for the Tories, rather than a rise in support for Labour. So it seems that we have adequate citations for a statement along these lines, and the raw vote share numbers are already listed in Wikipedia articles, and could be noted, as an additional basis of comparison. -2003:CA:873F:56F2:DDAA:675:ED3F:84BE (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bang for the buck?

Is it worthwhile to include in the article that Liberal Democrats received 85 percent of the votes that Reform UK received, but 12.8 times as many seats? A Reform UK MP is worth 822,857.4 votes, while a Liberal Democrat MP only has 54,703.75 votes behind him or her. GBC (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media discussion of the proportionality of the seats: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c886pl6ldy9o. This is something that could be included in the article somewhere as it's quite relevant to the result. In the 2019 election page there is a chart relating to the proportionality of the vote using the Gallagher Index. Probably best to wait for the one remaining seat in Scotland before doing complicated calculations but something like that should probably be included here, particularly given the media discussion. I'd add that remarkably the Liberal Democrats still got a lower proportion of seats than votes. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely worth discussing in the Aftermath section. Bondegezou (talk) 07:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think that in terms of the discussion about proportionality, it's far more important that the 4th place party (vote share) got 72 seats and the 3rd place party got only 5, than some minor discrepancies between Labour and the Tories seat/vote share. Nealokelly (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Party leader incorrect

The Yorkshire Party co-leaders are Bob Buxton & Simon Biltcliffe - the article wrongly lists their Chair Andy Walker as leader 188.240.183.141 (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Inverness counted as lib dem on the map?

It's not been declared yet Swanstarr (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I'm guessing it's because the SNP candidate has conceded defeat to the Lib Dem already. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've decided to count as SNP have conceeded defeat. But I could see the arguments in not including until the official declaration. Thomediter (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Reform be counted as 6 MPs?

Regardless of media articles, Reform themselves count themselves as 6 as does the Electoral Commission as Jim Allister of TUV stood under Reform-TUV in NI. 145.40.150.167 (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We follow reliable secondary sources and reliable secondary sources are not reporting Allister in those terms. Bondegezou (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's best not to include TUV's one seat with the Reform (UK) total, or for that matter to include the Alliance Party's seat with the LibDems. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s the latest on whether Allister will sit with the Reform UK group. Bondegezou (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voter turnout

Voter turnout was 60%, yet in the infobox its stated incorrectly. I suggest a source change for that with the correct turnout. Scotlandshire44 (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scotlandshire44 the turnout is 59.9 percent according to the source cited. Please do not change that figure without a reliable source. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CanonNi​ I'm suggesting having a look at other reliable sources because many others are stating turnout was 60%. It's a bit confusing. Scotlandshire44 (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide an example of such source? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine that many reliable sources are just rounding the figure up to 60%, however the turnout was 59.9% and therefore that should be what's in the infobox. Alssa1 (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At time of writing, the BBC's Election 2024 UK results page shows total votes on 28,753,772 and total registered electorate as 48,214,128 - which actually yields 59.64%. This, however, excludes Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (UK Parliament constituency), which has yet to declare. 212.187.244.66 (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This number is also confirmed by the Times Newspaper (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Where the party vote is given as a percentage, the article doesn't make it clear whether this is of the votes cast or the vote of the electorate. If 40% of the electorate boycotted the election, this is a greater percentage than that gained by any party, which is surely significant? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2024 - Reconciling numbers of candidates with other encyclopedic sources

Double-counting "alliance" candidates

EDIT REQUEST - Change the number of candidates for United Kingdom Independence Party from 26 to 24

DETAIL

I'm resolving multiple discrepancies between party-based totals of candidates and votes per Wiki & other reliable sources. The only error found so far is this one.

Two of the parties, English Democrats and United Kingdom Independence Party entered into an electoral pact in 2023 as the Patriots Alliance.

In the 2024 general election, together they entered 39 candidates:

- 13 under the badge of English Democrats getting 4,956 votes,

- 2 as "Patriots Alliance" (which is not a new, separate party, and is without a Wikipage because of lack of importance) getting 226 votes, and

- 24 as United Kingdom Independence Party getting 6,530 votes,

a total of 11,712 votes.

The extant 2024 United Kingdom general election page shows English Democrats as 15 / 5,182 and United Kingdom Independence Party as 26 / 6,530, a total of 41 / 11,712. This is wrong.

(a) the vote total of 11,712 is correct and consistent with allotting (an arbitrary choice) the 2 "Patriots Alliance" candidates to English Democrats as 13 + 2 = 15 and 4,956 + 226 = 5,182, and

(b) the candidates total of 41 is wrong (should be 39) and has been caused by allotting the 2 "Patriots Alliance" candidates to both registered parties - 13 + 2 = 15 and 24 + 2 = 26

Please someone edit 2024 United Kingdom general election to reduce the number of United Kingdom Independence Party candidates from 26 to 24. 24 is the number shown by the party itself, on a page now password protected - https://archive.is/WjrmN https://www.ukip.org/ge-2024-candidates

The alternative, to reduce the number of English Democrats candidates from 15 to 13, would necessitate also changing its vote count from 5,182 to 4,956 as well as increasing that of United Kingdom Independence Party from 6,530 to 6,756.

Albin-Counter (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Ligaturama (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have successfully amended the template

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2024_United_Kingdom_parliamentary_election&action=edit) and after a webpage reload in the browser, the correct data now appears in the article. Albin-Counter (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2024

Remove party background colours from _data_ fields in the table in the section By nation and region. 92.39.194.142 (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Ligaturama (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Labour Majority to 180

Please correct the Labour Majority to 180 in the second paragraph at the start of the article. The current wording states “ Labour achieved a 172-seat majority …” it should be replaced with “ Labour achieved a 180-seat majority … 86.11.252.177 (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Labour have returned 411 MPs. There are 650 seats in Parliament and, although a handful (including the Speaker) do not participate in House of Commons votes, that is the figure used for calculating overall majorities; therefore, all other parties combined have elected 239 MPs. 411 Labour MPs - 239 opposition MPs = 172-seat majority. 185.104.136.54 (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To calculate the effective majority, it's easier to count the speaker as a Labour MP, because since Hoyle is a former labour MP, it will mean 2 of the 3 non voting deputy speakers will be from the opposition benches, and the other from the government. So by counting Hoyle as a non voting Labour MP, it means the speakers and deputy speakers cancel each other out when calculating the majority (as they're both 2 on each side). So 643 seats once you factor out Sinn Fein. Then 643 - 412 = 231 opposition seats (assuming Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire won't be won by Labour). 412 - 231 = 181 majority. --TedEdwards 14:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Parliamentary majorities are calculated as: Labour voting members 411 (not including the Labour speaker) less the total opposition voting members 231 (650 total members, less 411 Labour voting members, less 1 the Labour speaker, less 7 non-voting Sinn Féin members) equals 180 86.11.252.177 (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I did not read your post regarding deputy speakers before posting my response. Interestingly, the following is from the institute for government website … “Second, some MPs are ineligible to take part in votes. This is the case for the Speaker (unless the vote is tied, in which case the Speaker exercises the casting vote), the three deputy Speakers, and the four MPs who act as tellers on a vote. Any MPs who are elected to parliament, but choose not to take up their seat, are also forbidden from voting. That means that the seven Sinn Féin MPs do not vote, as historically that party does not take up its seats in the Commons.” So taking your post & the above …
Can we calculate the Labour Parliamentary Majority as 182 ?
Labour voting members 409 (including the Labour speaker, who has a casting vote, but not the Labour Deputy Speaker or the two Labour Tellers) less the total opposition voting members 227 (650 total members, less 409 Labour voting members, less 3 the Labour Deputy Speaker & two Labour Tellers, less 4 the two Opposition Deputy Speakers & Opposition Tellers, less 7 non-voting Sinn Féin members) equals 182. I think 182 is the important figure, incl. the casting vote ? 86.11.252.177 (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Institute for Government also states: 'At the 2024 general election, the Labour Party won 411 seats. The combined total of seats held by opposition parties and the Speaker is 239. This gives Keir Starmer’s new government a simple majority of 172 seats.'
The same page goes on to elaborate that Labour has 'an effective working majority of 181 votes in the House of Commons' [emphasis mine] - however, when most other sources refer to the government's majority, they mean the simple majority, not the working majority, because the working majority is slightly theoretical: for example, one could further argue that the two Social Democratic and Labour Party members aren't strictly opposition MPs, given their party's affiliation to UK Labour.
If there are any major sources who refer to the Labour 'majority' (rather than working majority) as 180-182, please do share them. But, at the moment, places like the BBC (who include the Speaker under their Labour totals) all appear to be opting for figures of 172 or 174, depending on how they count the Speaker, eg: 'The party has taken 412 seats giving it a majority of 174.' Since Wikipedia counts the Speaker separately to Labour, the 411/172 totals should continue to be used. 31.111.26.25 (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to accept the above, as agreed the text is majority rather than “working majority”. Thanks for everyone’s effort and explanations, much appreciated :-) 86.11.252.177 (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help! 👍 31.111.26.25 (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regional articles created

I have created redirects for the regional lists at

No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (UK Parliament constituency) and Angus MacDonald (Liberal Democrat politician)

why does the article for Angus MacDonald (Liberal Democrat politician) say he's been elected when the vote count is still underway/yet to be declared? per the BBC this and this?? 2A00:23C8:308D:9E00:39A3:6911:CEDF:4028 (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The recount is only due to a technicality, not because the vote is close. Based on the original count they are essentially certain Lib Dems have won (and SNP has conceded). spirit of the squirrel (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why has the 1st map been fixed but not the 2nd? As it still says undeclared and is the wrong color? 109.240.34.248 (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess whoever made the map hasn't got around to updating it spirit of the squirrel (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third Party

I think the Liberal Democrats should be removed from third place in the summary box because based on vote share Reform UK came in third place. The electoral system may have awarded more seats to the Liberal Democrats but Reform UK got half a million more votes (Lib Dems got 3,499,969 votes and 12.2% of the vote share versus Reform UK who got 4,072,947 votes and 14.3% of the vote share).

The article should place Nigel Farage and Reform UK in third place because this is a major change and reflects the outcome of the popular vote Aetheling1125 (talk) Aetheling1125 (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox appears to be based on seats won, not percentage of vote. 2601:249:9301:D570:F833:C3AF:F37D:5715 (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been standard across all elections for a long time. UKIP came third in vote count in 2015, but since the Liberal Democrats won more seats they made it into the infobox instead. The election is won on seats, not votes, so that's what we show. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UKIP not being there and Reform UK not being included here either is scandalous. Maurnxiao (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion is being discussed elsewhere on this page. 2601:249:9301:D570:F833:C3AF:F37D:5715 (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The situations in this article and the 2015 one have fluctuated somewhat but the status quo is exclusion. Is it not baffling? Maurnxiao (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, since it's based on number of seats won. The parties only received single digit numbers of seats. 2601:249:9301:D570:F833:C3AF:F37D:5715 (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And? The number of votes they received were enormous and substantially altered the results and in UKIP's case, the next several years of UK politics (Cameron's botched attempt to consolidate power with the referendum, his resignation, May's minority government and her several failed Brexit deals and the 2019 election under Boris Johnson)... Maurnxiao (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a discussion here. 2601:249:9301:D570:F833:C3AF:F37D:5715 (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Election is won on seats not votes. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We put Trump before Clinton in the infobox for the 2016 US Presidential election, even though Clinton got more votes. What matters is winning under the rules of the electoral system in place. That trumps vote share. Bondegezou (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There may be reasons to discuss whether UKIP/Reform should be in the infobox; definitely there are no understandable reasons for the LibDems at 72 seats to not be shown in third place. Impru20talk 23:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Labour votes and Speaker

Hi there! In the results table, Labour has 9,704,655 votes and the Speaker 25,238 votes. The BBC page doesn't show the Speaker's votes and I assume they are added into Labour's total. Should we correct the Labour total vote to 9,679,417? Tuesp1985 (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Maurnxiao (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independents (Gaza) Vs Independents (Other)

How many of each were there out of the six total?

And unless there were none of the latter, shouldn't they have separate lines on the results table? Or failing that, at least a footnote specifying which of the six were which?

For what it's worth, I saw the campaign literature of several "independent" Gaza candidates in the Midlands and can confirm they were visibly part of the same campaign (same graphic design, layout etc) even if they are not technically a party. Romomusicfan (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update - the article List of minor-party and independent MPs elected in the United Kingdom only lists five independents - Shockat Adam for Leicester South, Jeremy Corbyn for Islington North, Adnan Hussain for Blackburn, Ayoub Khan for Birmingham Perry Barr and Iqbal Mohamed for Dewsbury and Batley. All five ran on Gaza-related platforms against Labour main opponents. Who was the sixth and did they do likewise? Romomusicfan (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 6th was Alex Easton in North Down who is listed on the List of minor party MPs page (look in the Northern Ireland section) and certainly wasn't standing on a Gaza-related platform. I don't see how we can list the Gaza-related independents separately, as trying to break down who was a "Gaza independent" and who wasn't takes us into WP:OR. Valenciano (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of two ways of doing it - either find an article listing the five individually by name or else one source for each one of the five (possibly from their five individual articles) citing their Gaza related platform(s). A footnote would do if we just stick to elected MPs.Romomusicfan (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or else possibly indies could be split into GB and NI.Romomusicfan (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's very much original research to claim that it's all down to Gaza. For example Corbyn had speculation about running as an independent for years. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 22:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not OR if a RS says there are five of them. Such as this one. Romomusicfan (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the major problem, though, is that it's then inconsistent to split the elected Independents into Gaza vs 'other', whilst leaving the 459 Independent candidates as an undifferentiated group - especially since several unelected Independents were running on similar platforms (see below). Finding out exactly how many of these 459 people were running on a Gaza platform would require substantial OR.
The other problem is that this is largely one of editorialising. However clear they may have been in their campaign materials, etc, about their platforms for running, each of these 6 MPs (and 453 other candidates) were simply listed as 'Independent' on the ballot paper - as distinct from the Ashfield Independents, Lincolnshire Independents and Swale Independents, amongst others. One could probably just as easily go back to the 2015 general election and add a footnote about how many Conservative MPs supported (what would become) Leave vs Remain, but that would clearly be editorialising as well.
Further to this, I also think it would be highly misleading to group Corbyn in with Adam, Hussain, Khan and Mohamed, as there is a world of difference between four people with only grassroots support and little to no political background, who went on to unseat sitting Labour MPs, and the man who literally led the Labour Party until four years ago, was the incumbent MP in his constituency (and has been since 1983), and who had the support of former local Labour members in his campaign against a newly-selected Labour candidate. In this respect, Corbyn is arguably much closer to Easton than to the Gaza independents, as Easton had been a prominent DUP politican for two decades before splitting with the party a few years ago (although the DUP didn't field a candidate against him).
At the moment, the article already includes the following paragraph: 'Four independent candidates (Ayoub Khan, Adnan Hussain, Iqbal Mohamed, Shockat Adam) defeated Labour candidates in areas with large Muslim populations; the results were suggested to be a push-back against Labour's position on the Israel-Hamas war. Additionally, then Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting retained his seat by a margin of only 528 votes following a challenge by independent British-Palestinian candidate Leanne Mohamad, while prominent Labour MP Jess Phillips retained her Birmingham Yardley constituency by a margin of 693 votes.' This seems a perfectly sufficient explanation of the situation, without having to add an additional footnote elsewhere saying almost exactly the same thing. 31.111.26.25 (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be problematic to disaggregate the independents due to OR concerns. The best approach would be to just list the names of the 6 independents elected, along with their respective constituencies. But without grouping them together. Gust Justice (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the Northern Ireland MP of which the term in Northern Ireland is often used of unionist independent - which we could use here - I wouldn't advocate giving the others a label but just simply referring to them as independents. Helper201 (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested footnote to figure of six independents:

Total comprises one former DUP member[1] and five MPs who stood on platforms opposing the Israel–Hamas war.[2]
(Second ref will require formatting) Romomusicfan (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2024 (C)

References

  1. ^ "I am the only unionist who can oust Stephen Farry in North Down, insists MLA Alex Easton". 2024-04-30. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  2. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/05/pro-palestinian-mps-become-sixth-largest-party-labour-loss

The Muslim Vote

Related to this is The Muslim Vote, a group which produced a "who should I vote for?" list for most constituencies with over 10% Muslim population. Previous Talk from 20–23 June not enthusiastic about mentioning this group. By my count the recommended candidates were:

  • Independent (33)
  • Green (20)
  • Workers Party of Britain (19).
  • Liberal Democrat (3 incl Richard Kilpatrick)
  • Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (1, Karl Vidol)
  • (Otherwise the message is "We do not currently have an endorsed candidate for this seat. Please vote for a candidate from the Green Party, Workers Party, SNP, Plaid Cymru or Liberal Democrats.")

Perhaps some RS will comment on whether this endorsement helped/hindered some of the relevant candidates; not only the few winners, but also any who did better/worse than expected. jnestorius(talk) 08:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

e.g. The Guardian and perhaps The Jewish Chronicle jnestorius(talk) 08:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Party in infobox?

No horse in this race, but I heard they overtook the Conservatives in some polls and it was a big deal. Bremps... 02:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is being discussed elsewhere on the page. 2601:249:9301:D570:F833:C3AF:F37D:5715 (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You realise that story is nearly a month old, and the election has now happened, with only very moderate success for Reform, right? But also, the IP editor is right and there are extensive discussions of the general question elsewhere on this page. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What parties to put in infobox

While I do fully support putting the LibDems, SNP and ReformUK in the infobox, I do feel as though it would be best to replace Sinn Fein with the Greens, since it is pretty unorthodox to include Northern Irish parties in a UK general election infobox (except for 2017 for some reason). CY223 (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sinn Fein got 7 seats, while the Greens only got 4, so it doesn't make much sense to include the latter over the former. 2601:249:9301:D570:F833:C3AF:F37D:5715 (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sinn Fein is permanently absent in parliament whereas the Greens received millions of votes. Maurnxiao (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After 2017 the Conservatives had a minority government and signed a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP, so that is probably why they are included in that one. Maurnxiao (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason Northern Irish parties are not typically included is not because they don't contest seats in most of the UK (neither does the SNP), but because they normally don't win enough seats to warrant inclusion. Gust Justice (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should use a list format in the infobox as is done on 2022 Italian general election listing each party that won seats. Helper201 (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Bondegezou (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map in infobox

We have exactly the same map in the infobox as in the results section, which is not necessarily an endorsement of its being a summary of the article. It is a map that tries to include a huge amount of information, with a complex key and many insets. Congratulations to the compiler for managing to get so much details in, but that complexity is precisely what makes in unsuitable for display at the size it has to be for the infobox. Kevin McE (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I was bold and reverted that edit myself before seeing this (I imagined there would not be much of a consensus for that map being there, as happened for previous elections). Impru20talk 09:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ideal for the infobox would be a plain geographical map without insets or text and an equal-area hexagon map size by side. Shading by majority does not make a multi-party election map clearer, and nor does a 120% zoomed in picture of the two Hull seats etc. Shaded maps are great but should ideally show the voteshare for a single party with no more than five shades of a single colour. Ralbegen (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Party not shown

Reform Party won more votes than the Lib Dems, in what bloody universe would they be omitted from the infobox? 2402:8100:396C:4FD0:90DA:8F39:5A5:1A8D (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox shows the election results. Despite winning a lot of votes, Reform only came 6th in number of seats (which is what actually matters in terms of power). UKIP were omitted from the 2015 election infobox for the same reason. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think parties with more than 1 MP should be included. And Reform played a massive role in the election, omitting them feels like a disservice to readers. Years from now, people may look at the infobox and not get from it that Reform took the media by storm and with their four million votes no doubt contributed enormously to the historic Conservative massacre. By the way, where and when was the seats over votes, always consensus reached? Does it apply to elections in every country? Maurnxiao (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of parties with more than 1 MP - the infobox would be miles long if we included them all. I'm currently leaning in favour of going up to 6 - add SNP, SF and Reform. Greens have too few seats to be included imo - the election is about seat count, not vote count, and UKIP were excluded in 2015 with similar votes (and likely a significant impact on the Brexit referendum being called) Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't agree with UKIP's exclusion from the 2015 infobox. The Greens won only one seat less than Reform and received millions of votes. Why not include both? Maurnxiao (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because in order to not be unfairly biased agains the parties that beat them we'd have to include them too i.e. the DUP and Sinn Fein - it would mean an infobox of 9 parties which is probably too much Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen any complaints about nine candidates being included in the 2023 Finnish election. Why wouldn't it work in British elections too? Maurnxiao (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean a big one here is that the 7th placed party in Finland had almost 20% of the seats of the 1st placed. In this election the same percent would be ~1.2% Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the SNP be in the infobox?

I know there's been prior wider debate on inclusion, but specifically on the SNP their inclusion seems valid no?

the Liberal Democrats are on the 2015 United Kingdom general election infobox despite winning less seats than the SNP did this time, should they not be included this time also? Matthew McMullin (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The general idea was that the SNP is only a regional party and the reason they were included in 2015, 2017 and 2019 was because they were the third largest party in Parliament. That is no longer the case although I still personally support theirs as well as Reform and the Green's inclusion. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah I don't see why having those 6 included shouldn't be done, both reform & the greens are more than notable enough to be included Matthew McMullin (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with including the SNP on this basis - the SNP's large victory last time also is significant as the infobox then shows the defeat. In the 1993 Canadian federal election the losing PC party were included due to the scale of their loss which I think applies to the SNP here also. Green Party is too small to be included in terms of seats (which is what the election is actually won or lost on) - the Greens only came 8th there despite their vote share. Reform could be included, but probably only if Sinn Fein is also included. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly correct, @Eastwood Park and strabane:. Opposition is relying on a shadow consensus that never existed. There seems to be a majority view that 5-6 parties should be added. KlayCax (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

There is a clear consensus that Labour, the Conservatives, and the Lib Dems should be included in the infobox. Should more parties be included in the infobox, and if so, which?

The main viable options (examples linked) are:

  • A: Keeping the infobox as it is currently (3x1, LAB CON LDM. format used for elections 1950-2010)
  • B: Changing the infobox to a 2x2 layout and adding the SNP (format used for 2015, 2019 elections)
  • C: Changing the infobox to a 3x2 layout and adding the SNP, Sinn Fein and Reform (format used for 2017 election)
  • D: Changing the infobox to a 3x2 layout and adding the SNP, Reform and the Greens (excluding NI parties from the Infobox, see first box here)
  • E: Changing the infobox to a 3x3 layout and adding the SNP, Sinn Fein, Reform, the Greens, Plaid, and the DUP (see earlier edits to this page)
  • F: Changing the infobox to TILE (format not used for UK elections, but is used for elections e.g. in the Netherlands and Israel)

Other suggestions also welcome. CipherRephic (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support B or C I think. Adding the SNP is important for showing the defeat, also they were the third largest at the last election and that seems significant - I referenced the 1993 Canadian federal election further up as an example of a now small party that was previously large making it into the infobox to display the scale of the defeat. Another example would be the Scottish Socialist Party in the 2007 Scottish Parliament election. I think it might be biased to include the Greens but not SF/DUP since the Greens did get less seats, and that's actually what the election is won on. Not 100% opposed though. I'd also mention that UKIP was left out of the 2015 infobox for similar reasons to Reform/GPEW this time - lots of votes, but not that many seats (which is how the election is actually won). Oppose F - I think TILE is better for where there are many smaller parties - more than 6 parties with significant support. I would be amenable to A and I would not be completely opposed to D. Agree with the below comment that E is too bulky. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I support A on the grounds that it includes all parties with a major share of the seats in parliament and is the most compact and digestible of the options, while also being amenable to B and C on similar grounds. I'm not wholly opposed to D but I'm aware many other editors would consider its logic dubious and am not entirely convinced of it myself. I strongly oppose E and F - E is far too bulky to serve as a quick summary of the election results (it takes up nearly two 1920x1080 screens, not to mention the problems mobile users would have viewing it!), and F, while compact, is too dense to be legible at a glance, includes a number of parties that would be superfluous to a quick summary of the election. Not to veer too hard into WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, but I also think it's really rather dull aesthetically (an opinion echoed by a number of lay-readers in previous debates over the infobox in South African and French elections.) CipherRephic (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the willingness to start an RfC here, though as above, I'll note that there already exists one at another link sitewide.
I personally prefer Option F, as it is the most fair. I most strongly oppose A and B, while I have little preference between C, D, and E.
I think we should keep discussion on this talkpage relegated to the bigger thread above. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of opening up a second WP:CANOFWORMS here, perhaps it's time to think about creating a new style of infobox instead of choosing between TIE and TILE? We could steal some inspiration from other language wikipedias, like cawiki (example).  M2Ys4U (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The example you used seems to look very similar to TILE. Why not just go for it instead? AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They look very different to me...  M2Ys4U (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support A or B. I think A contains most of the important information related to specifically the resulting Parliament and disregarding any swings or stories of the election itself as well as containing the three parties which are clearly above the rest in terms of seats. However, I support B more than A, as I feel that the inclusion of the SNP, given the magnitude of their change in seats, is warranted, as was the inclusion of the Liberal Democrats in 2015. Now, while Reform and the Greens had a large gain of votes and their rise in seat totals is incredibly significant politically, neither had a large magnitude of change in seats, and I would object to their inclusion over parties with more or equal seats solely as a consequence of that. I strongly oppose C because, to me, it doesn't make much sense to either include Reform over the Greens, as both saw strong performances and I don't think the decision should be made solely on the basis of votes, or include Sinn Féin over the DUP, especially since doing so potentially gives the false impression that Northern Ireland was strongly republican when it was broadly fairly divided between the two groups. I also strongly oppose D as I feel it doesn't make sense to exclude Northern Ireland when neither Scotland nor Wales are removed and, to me, it feels as if the decision to remove the NI parties is made in order to include both Reform and the Greens rather than because there's a compelling reason to remove the NI parties. I oppose E for the reasons mentioned above, namely that it's too large. Finally, I strongly oppose F on the grounds that there isn't enough of a reason to change to this and remove a significant amount of information. I do think this would be the most fair way of doing things for all parties winning seats, but I think the reason why I don't feel as if that's a helpful thing to consider when making this decision becomes apparent when we look at what would be fairest for all parties, namely to list out every single party which ran, whether or not they won a seat. I think that that's a little ridiculous and I think most people would agree, even though it's the most fair. Now, there are definitely reasonable situations where option F should be used, the Netherlands and Israel are two of them, but I don't think it should be used solely on the basis of being fair. AnOpenBook (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I should add why I don't think, even though the rise of minor parties was a key part of this election, that the infobox should reflect that. While this is a story of the election, it isn't a story of the results. Reform got 5 seats and the Greens got 4 seats out of 650. While this is still an incredible shift from British political norms, it isn't a significant amount of seats, which is what Wikipedia normally bases infoboxes on, and so isn't a story of the results, and the infobox is supposed to be a summary of the results. The rise of minor parties needs to be discussed in the article, and it is, but that doesn't mean it needs to be in the infobox, especially since they didn't get a lot of seats. Plaid Cymru got 4 seats, but they aren't a part of this discussion because they didn't get the same number of votes. However, infoboxes are based on seats, since those are what determines the governance of the country. It may be true that votes should be considered above seats, but that isn't the current consensus for Wikipedia elections. AnOpenBook (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think option F makes the most sense if more than the 3 largest parties are to be included, and option A otherwise. With 13 parties elected, I'd say its pretty close to equivalent to the Dutch example above on 15; additionally, a line has to be drawn somewhere and there is no clear place to draw said line (besides the 3 largest parties by seats, hence option A), and certainly not without getting into arguments of "why include X and not Y". Curbon7 (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support Option F as this election had one of the largest share of non-major party votes and this should be represented accurately within the inbox. Option A makes this election seem as if it was a 1997 style election where only the 3 major parties had significant support where that just isn't the case. As a compromise I would also support Option C as the collapse of the SNP and the rise of Reform where significant events in this election. Smashedbandit (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support Option C as it will keep the parties in order of seats won and include Reform UK who had a massive impact on the election and came third in vote share. IMO it would be illogical for them to be excluded from the infobox. Option F should not be considered as it is not consistent with all other UK election articles. Kiwichris (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't out of the question to update the other UK election articles to match the TILE style as well, if needed. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would require a far bigger consensus than one for just this page though. Changing this page with the expectation of gaining consensus to change all others is foolhardy nor can a local consensus ignore a wider consensus. Kiwichris (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is why the other RfC has been set up - though the question remains as to whether we should move discussion there. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose Option F, as it doesn't really fit with the style of UK elections or their campaigns. Its use in the Netherlands election is a perfect example of why: the number of parties participating in Dutch debates is vast, with one radio broadcast somehow including sixteen separate parties! Furthermore, the Dutch House of Representatives operates a Hare quota system, by which any party receiving more than 0.67% of the vote is entitled to at least one seat. But because it only has 150 seats, a party returning a single representative works out at the same 0.67% of the legislature - but the equivalent proportion would mean returning 4 MPs to the House of Commons: in other words, like only the nine largest parties in the 2024 election.
On the basis of the infobox's purpose being to provide a picture of the election at a glance, and given that the largest of the UK debates this year featured seven parties, I would support Option E. The expansion of televised debates over recent elections is an excellent indicator of the corresponding expansion of British politics as a whole, given that the 2010 general election debates only featured three party leaders - not coincidentally, the same three leaders featured in the infobox for that election. Furthermore, expanding the infobox to 3x3 would allow it to include not just the three main GB-wide parties, but also the one or two largest parties that returned MPs only in England (Reform, Greens), Scotland (SNP), Wales (Plaid Cymru) or Northern Ireland (Sinn Féin, DUP).
For this latter reason, I strongly oppose Option D, and note that when most people talk about reflecting the 'story' of this election, they speak overwhelmingly in terms of the election in England. Reform, for example, fared far worse in Scotland, where it only came fifth in total vote share (on around 7%, substantially lower than the Lib Dems on 9.7%), got nowhere near second place in any constituency, and even lost its deposit in 15% of seats. By contrast, the idea that Sinn Féin should somehow be wilfully excluded from this infobox when - for the first time in actual history - a nationalist party has just won the most seats in Northern Ireland(!!!), is arguably to miss one of the real stories of this election, one that could potentially have far more lasting ramifications for the UK as a whole.
For that last reason alone, I would also support Option C, although not nearly as much as Option E; that said, I am a desktop user, and I appreciate that mobile users may find larger infoboxes disadvantageous in ways I'm not aware of. I am largely indifferent regarding Options A and B, but return to my earlier point that both of them seem to reflect an increasingly outdated picture of British elections in an era of fracturing votes, and when there is greater-than-ever recognition of devolution and its effects on the individual identities of all four nations. 31.111.26.25 (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support C or D, and Strongly oppose A or B. Both Reform party and Scottish National Party were notable in this election. The former gaining 14% of the vote is important, any lead box without Reform will leave an enormous gap. The conservatives lost something like 20% of their past vote yet Labour and Liberal Democrats only gained 2.5% votes among them. A reader will immediately question where the other 17.5% of the votes went. Having Reform on the infobox will allow readers to immediately see where a vast majority of those votes went.
Scottish National Party's massive loss in votes is also notable. The party went from a supermajority in Scotland to a distant second. Readers would easily access this info by adding SNP in the infobox. They would also see where many of the other parties seats came from as almost all if not all SNP seats went to Labour, Conservatives or Liberal Democrats.
I have no strong opinion on the sixth party. However, we should add whichever one is more relevant in the news. If there is more coverage of Greens then the sixth party box should reflect that, and vice versa. What matters here is not the number of seats got or votes (since both are low) but how much reliable sources are emphasizing one party over the other. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Option C, strongly oppose Options A and B. A and B eliminate way too much nuance from the actual election, D feels like it would just lead to more argumentation down the line of why certain seats are being entirely skipped, and E and F would be way too bulky. However, I would rather have F over D or E, and either of those three would be a vast improvement over A or B. C strikes the balance between keeping WP:NPOV (a seat tie being broken by popular vote is extremely well established), getting across all important information, and keeping things from becoming unwieldy and overburdened. While the Greens increasing their seat share is important, skipping over the Northern Irish parties would be a problem since this is a United Kingdom election, not an English one. Fundamentally, an infobox cannot get across every piece of information, and so should aim to get across all that it can without overburdening itself, something neither A nor B achieve, as they serve to cut out some of the most key changes of the race. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option E with secondary preferences for Option C. The election was pretty big for a wide range of parties and may be influential in the future e.g the DUP falling declining behind that if Sinn Féin . Oppose Option F and Option A as sort of concealing the big picture of election and the figures behind it behind a rather uninspiring blank table. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option A or Option F. Option D as a third option as it includes all the vote share outliers. This RFC has too many options and there’s a good chance there will be no consensus for any of them. Cherry-picked lists of parties, that ignore RS, such as those in Options B and C, fail to adhere to the WP:NPOV policy; local opinion here cannot override the site-wide consensus to maintain neutrality. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A or D. A keeps it simple – the top three by seats. However there are good arguments to make for SNP, Reform, and (to a lesser extent) the Greens all being included. All three of those parties have been prominent in the news because of their impact on this election (Reform especially) and the major change in parliament's makeup. Strong oppose to F for reasons others have said; extended details can already be found further down in the article, and the extra parties in TILE haven't received the coverage that parties in option D have. — Czello (music) 08:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support A, because 1) respects past precedent and consensus from previous UK election articles; 2024 is a return to pre-2015 politics with three strong national parties and no strong regional one, so there is no reason for behaving differently (this is why B is not suitable, as there was a strong SNP in 2015 and 2019, nor C, as that is based in 2017 which was a DUP-dependant hung parliament), 2) is the least conflictive one (everyone may agree to Lab, Con and LDs being in the infobox, but it's absolute chaos and disagreement on which parties should be next. From past precedent we also know that, of all of the options, this is the one that will be less prone to edit warring; adding more parties would mean some people would fight to get the Greens in and SF/DUP out, others would want to put Reform in fourth place... etc.). Strongly oppose F. TILE is only suitable for elections where there is a massive fragmentation with many smaller parties and the larger parties are not that large (here we have the first on 411, the second on 121, the third on 72... and then the next ones on 9 or less. It's clear there's quite a difference there). TILE has also created lots of conflict throughout Wikipedia because of its inability to properly show as much information as TIE does (as well as being, basically, a minimalist "results table", which is something you already can find in the "Results" section). Impru20talk 08:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about you saying there isn't a strong regional party - Sinn Féin is the 5th largest party now and the largest in NI, and isn't aligned with any of the mainland parties. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree with Fantastic Mr. Fox's point. The question should be one of proportionality when it comes to considering the four nations: Sinn Féin won 39% of seats in Northern Ireland - a strong regional party if ever there was one! By contrast, the Liberal Democrats won 12% of seats in England, 10.5% of seats in Scotland and 3% of seats in Wales. Even the Conservatives only won 19% of all the seats they were contesting. 31.111.26.25 (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2024 United Kingdom General Election
United Kingdom
← 2019 4 July 2024 next →
All 650 seats in the House of Commons
326 seats needed for a majority
Turnout59.9% (Decrease 7.4 pp)
Party Leader % Seats +/–
Labour Keir Starmer 33.8 411 +209
Conservative Rishi Sunak 23.7 121 −244
Liberal Democrats Ed Davey 12.2 72 +61
Scottish National John Swinney 2.5 9 −39
Sinn Féin Mary Lou McDonald 2.5 7 0
Reform UK Nigel Farage 14.3 5 +5
Democratic Unionist Gavin Robinson 0.8 5 −3
Green Party of England and Wales Carla Denyer
Adrian Ramsay 		6.4 4 +3
Plaid Cymru Rhun ap Iorwerth 0.7 4 0
Social Democratic and Labour Colum Eastwood 0.3 2 0
Alliance Naomi Long 0.4 1 0
Ulster Unionist Doug Beattie 0.3 1 0
Traditional Unionist Voice Jim Allister 0.2 1 0
Independent — 2 6 +6
Speaker Lindsay Hoyle 0.1 1 0
This lists parties that won seats. See the complete results below.
A hex map of the results of the election
Prime Minister before Prime Minister after
Rishi Sunak
Conservative		 Keir Starmer
Labour
  • Support option F in modified form. I happen to have mocked-up a TILE version of the infobox last night to see what it would look like, so this RfC is well-timed from my perspective. I've included it to help editors visualise what a change to this format would look like (please excuse any errors).
It seems clear that this election contained more than three significant parties, but it is not clear what the cut-off for inclusion should be. If 2x3 format is used, then the options above exclude either Sinn Féin or the Greens of E&W, which is not satisfactory, and a 3x3 still excludes significant information such as the increased number of independents. Three-column formats are also very wide, which makes the lead rather narrow on desktop.
An easy way around this would be to switch to the table format, which allows all parties to be listed in a relatively compact way. The information currently missing from the template which creates this form of infobox is 'leader since', 'leader's seat', 'last election seats', 'last election percentage', 'popular vote', and 'swing'. Of these, I would not include the first four; details on the leaders are not vital this high in the article, and while 'last election seats' and 'last election percentage' are useful for at-a-glance reference they ultimately repeat the information conveyed by 'seat change' and 'swing'. All four categories could be included in the body instead. I would include 'popular vote' and 'swing', as this is important information not otherwise conveyed. If it makes the infobox wider then at least it will be wide and comprehensive, rather than wide and incomplete. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Support A as this election has effectively returned us to the pre-2015 situation in terms of seats. There's no need to include all information in infobox as that's not what it's for, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. If somebody wants a fuller picture of the election we have an entire article for that. I would support option F in principle, as it avoids this hoopla of deciding and is well suited to parliamentary elections, but only if it was used for all the historical GEs which is a decision outside the scope of this RFC. I oppose E, as it would make the infobox much too cluttered and seem to make to strong a statement about the power and importance of e.g. Plaid as opposed to SDLP. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decision on Notional Shifts and Notional Results

In previous elections occurring after the electoral boundaries were redrawn, such as in 1997, 2005, and 2010, the seat changes have all been based off of the seats notionally won under the new boundaries, rather than under the old boundaries. This pattern is also matched with the reporting of results in this election, with Sky News and the BBC, the two sources used for the results given, both using the seat change from the notional results under the new boundaries. It doesn't appear as if there was any discussion I can find on why this wasn't followed for this election, so I was wondering if there was a reason for this, or if it should be changed in the infobox to match the consensus in past elections. Thanks! AnOpenBook (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_Kingdom_general_election&oldid=1233290429"