Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

What parties should be included in the infobox?

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

---

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Labour, Conservative, LibDem, SNP, Sinn Fein and Independent (7 seats) you mean? CNC (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Not possible based on the template limit of 9, thanks for info though. CNC (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The idea is to switch to the {{Infobox Legislative Election}} style instead. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

We know that seats under FPTP are not a very good measure of the underlying political dynamic. In theory, a party could win every seat with 33.3% of the vote or less. Should that election be represented as a coming from a one-party state? Of course not.

We need some unbiased, objective rule. I suggest Effective number of parties in term of votes (rounded up).

In 2024 it was 4.75 (5). In 2019 it was 3.24 (4). So in 2024 we should show the top 5 parties by votes.

With the additional adjustment that a party that was in the group last time, but is not this time should also be included. That would add the SNP. RodCrosby (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Independents are in 6th place with 7 seats. CNC (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

If there is already a standard for it, then no issues from me. CNC (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Simply because this isn't the format of these articles infoboxes, for good reason. Look back over all of the previous articles and the parties with the most seats are included, because that is how the election is decided. As someone explained 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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Impru20^talk 18:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. Impru20^talk 18:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Impru20^talk 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for counsel, still waiting for the links to such discussions. CNC (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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 ;) Impru20^talk 19:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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! Impru20^talk 19:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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:

• These pertain to the 2015 election, but are listed in the 2017 article talk page because someone messed it up when moving the article or something:
  • Talk:2017 United Kingdom general election/Archive 2#So, are we adding UKIP to the infobox or not?
  • Talk:2017 United Kingdom general election/Archive 2#I've added UKIP
  • Talk:2017 United Kingdom general election/Archive 2#Infobox inclusion criteria
  • Talk:2017 United Kingdom general election/Archive 2#RFC on UKIP
  • Talk:2017 United Kingdom general election/Archive 2#No infobox, no problem
  • Talk:2017 United Kingdom general election/Archive 2#UKIP - some logic to this in the current circumstances
  • Talk:2017 United Kingdom general election/Archive 3#Infobox
  • Talk:2017 United Kingdom general election/Archive 3#Infobox 2
• 2015 election proper:
  • Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election/Archive 2#SNP_added to Infobox
  • Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election/Archive 2#Adding UKIP to the info box
  • Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election/Archive 3#New infobox proposal
  • Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election/Archive 4#Post-election infobox
  • Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election/Archive 4#"4th largest party"
  • Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election/Archive 4#Infobox: perspective from a neutral third party
  • Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election/Archive 4#"Fourth Party"?
  • Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election/Archive 4#Infobox again (again)
  • Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election/Archive 5#Lead infobox
  • Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election/Archive 7#Request for Comment: Which Infobox? (Choice of Two)
  • Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election#UKIP?
• 2017 election:
  • Talk:2017 United Kingdom general election/Archive 3#Infobox 3
  • Talk:2017 United Kingdom general election/Archive 3#Infobox consensus
  • Talk:2017 United Kingdom general election/Archive 4#Infobox for forthcoming election vs past election
  • Talk:2017 United Kingdom general election/Archive 5#Infobox consensus 2017
  • Talk:2017 United Kingdom general election#Remove the Northern Irish Parties from the infobox
• 2019 election:
  • Talk:2019 United Kingdom general election/Archive 2#Infobox edit-warring
  • Talk:2019 United Kingdom general election/Archive 3#RfC about the infobox
  • Talk:2019 United Kingdom general election/Archive 3#Infobox, part 2
  • Talk:2019 United_Kingdom general election/Archive 3#Infobox, part 3
  • Talk:2019 United Kingdom general election/Archive 6#Massive infobox
• 2024 election:
  • Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#Infobox

Impru20^talk 20:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. Impru20^talk 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. Impru20^talk 19:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. Impru20^talk 20:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Surely too many photos in table?

Why not cap at 5 seats or more?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Yes, based on the concept of the election. CNC (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Agreed. That would give a full picture of the vote. River10000 (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  There also exists the {{Infobox Legislative Election}} option. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Impru20^talk 19:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. Impru20^talk 19:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 :) Impru20^talk 19:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Impru20^talk 21:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Impru20^talk 23:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

We have an RfC on this topic? Where? Impru20^talk 08:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

At this page. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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. Impru20^talk 19:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

There's no consensus for keeping 1x3 either; I believe it has minority support. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• My !vote would be for the 3x3 option. I think we have to include Reform, due to the outsize effect they had and that their vote share exceeded the Lib Dems. Also think Greens had a significant role to play as well, and we don't lose that much by just giving all the info.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  There's currently a bit of an edit war over whether the fourth to sixth places are to be included. Has a decision been made? 2601:249:9301:D570:F833:C3AF:F37D:5715 (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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). Impru20^talk 09:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Now the 3x3 was added to the page. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It was just reverted back. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Shouldn't the SNP be in the infobox?

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

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Reform Party not shown

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

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

What parties to put in infobox

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

---

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)

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)

Sinn Fein is permanently absent in parliament whereas the Greens received millions of votes. Maurnxiao (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Reform Party in infobox?

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

---

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)

This is being discussed elsewhere on the page. 2601:249:9301:D570:F833:C3AF:F37D:5715 (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

Third Party

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

---

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)

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)

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)

UKIP not being there and Reform UK not being included here either is scandalous. Maurnxiao (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion is being discussed elsewhere on this page. 2601:249:9301:D570:F833:C3AF:F37D:5715 (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

That's a discussion here. 2601:249:9301:D570:F833:C3AF:F37D:5715 (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Election is won on seats not votes. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. Impru20^talk 23:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

I agree it should be based off the notionals, with explanatory notes/asterisks. RodCrosby (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Most reliable sources (although not all) report changes against the notional results. This isn't perfect, but we should stick to common practice in the tables and then use prose (be that explanatory notes and/or in the main text) to explain what we are doing and any complications. And there are complications: notional results are poor for smaller parties with local concentrations of support. Thus, Plaid went from 4 seats last Parliament to 4 seats this Parliament, but we describe this as +2 change on the notional results. Plaid didn't really gain 2 seats; it's just the notional numbers are misleading. But we can explain that with text. Bondegezou (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

As do I. Notional results are both more used and a more useful metric in this regard. CipherRephic (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course it should be based off of the notionals. If someone can plonk in a footnote for the infobox, that'd be grand. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Will get on that. CipherRephic (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Projections: aftermath text

There has been some complaints about the lack of text surround those Projections, Maybe its worth while having some text after the fact staying how most of them got it wrong, New statesman was the closest to get it right while Election Calculus did explain what happened https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_summary24_20240706.html Crazyseiko (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Or else possibly indies could be split into GB and NI.Romomusicfan (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

One can refer to The Muslim Vote and Palestine Solidarity Campaign's respective endorsements. Independent candidates (as in, unaffiliated with any party) receiving either endorsement would meet the threshold for a "Independents (Gaza)" list. Out of the 459 independent candidates I identified 104 candidates as running on a ceasefire platform and having the endorsement at least one of The Muslim Vote or PSC - totalling 296,133 votes (1.03%) - and 1 Independent Network candidate (not among the 459 but an Independent in all but banner) running on a ceasefire platform and having an endorsement of either.

104 endorsed Independent candidates:

Bedford: Tarek Javed

Bethnal Green and Stepney: Ajmal Masroor

Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk: Ellie Merton

Birmingham Edgbaston: Ammar Waraich

Birmingham Erdington: Shaukat Ali

Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley: Babar Saleem Raja, Mohammad Hafeez, Shakeel Afsar

Birmingham Ladywood: Akhmed Yakoob

Birmingham Perry Barr: Ayoub Khan

Birmingham Selly Oak: Kamel Hawwash

Blackburn: Adnan Hussain

Bolton North East: Kevin Allsop

Bradford South: Rehiana Ali

Brent East: Aadil Shaikh, Amin Moafi, Jenner Clarence Joseph Folwell

Brentford and Isleworth: Zebunisa Rao

Bristol East: Farooq Ahmed Siddique

Bromsgrove: Sam Ammar

Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket: Jeremy Lee

Central Devon: Arthur Price

Chingford and Woodford Green: Faiza Shaheen

Chippenham: Ed Deedigan

Cramlington and Killingworth: Scott Lee

Derbyshire Dales: Rachel Elnaugh-Love

Dewsbury and Batley: Iqbal Hussain Mohamed

Ealing North: Helmi Alharahsheh

Ealing Southall: Pedro Da Conceicao

East Ham: Tahir Mirza

East Thanet: Mo Shafaei

Edinburgh East and Musselburgh: Jane Mackenzie Gould

Edinburgh North and Leith: Caroline Waterloo

Edinburgh South: Alex Martin, Mark Rowbotham

Edinburgh South West: Marc Richard Wilkinson

Edinburgh West: David Henry, Nick Hornig

Edmonton and Winchmore Hill: Khalid Sadur

Enfield North: Ertan Karpazli

Erewash: John William Kirby

Feltham and Heston: Abdul Majid Tramboo, Damian Read

Halifax: Perveen Hussain

Harrow East: Sabira Lakha

Harrow West: Pamela Fitzpatrick

Heywood and Middleton North: Chris Furlong

Holborn and St Pancras: Andrew Feinstein

Hove and Portslade: Tanushka Marah

Ilford North: Leanne Mohamad

Ilford South: Noor Jahan Begum

Islington North: Jeremy Corbyn

Kensington and Bayswater: Emma Dent Coad

Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham: Ahmet Cinalp

Leicester East: Claudia Webbe

Leicester South: Shockat Adam

Leyton and Wanstead: Shanell Johnson

Liverpool Wavertree: Ann San

Luton North: Toqueer Shah

Luton South and South Bedfordshire: Attiq Ahmed Malik

Maidenhead: Qazi Yasir Irshad

Mid Cheshire: Helen Clawson

Monmouthshire: Owen Lewis

na h-Eileanan an Lar: Angus MacNeil

Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West: Habib Rahman, Yvonne Ridley

Newcastle upon Tyne North: King Teare

Newport East: Pippa Bartolotti

Nottingham South: Mohammed Sayeed

Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton: Tony Wilson

Oxford East: Jabu Nala-Hartley

Pendle and Clitheroe: Tony Johnson

Pontypridd: Jonathan Bishop

Poplar and Limehouse: Ehtashamul Haque

Preston: Michael Lavalette, Yousuf Mohamed Ibrahim Bhailok

Queen's Park and Maida Vale: Abdulla Janmohamed Dharamsi

Rotherham: Ishtiaq Ahmad

Scunthorpe: Abdul R Butt

Sefton Central: Ralph Norgate James

Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough: Maxine Bowler

Sheffield Central: Alison Clare Teal

Skipton and Ripon: Keith Graham Tordoff

Slough: Diana Coad

South Dorset: Giovanna Lewis

Southend West and Leigh: Tom Darwood

Southport: Sean Robert Halsall

Spen Valley: Javed Bashir

Stoke-on-Trent Central: AliRom Alirom, Navid Kaleem

Stoke-on-Trent South: Carla Parrish

Stratford and Bow: Fiona Lali

Swindon South: Martin Costello

Tottenham: Nandita Lal

Tunbridge Wells: Hassan Kassem

Warrington North: Maddison Wheeldon

West Suffolk: Katie Parker

Wigan: Jan Cunliffe

Wimbledon: Amy Lynch

Witham: Chelsey Jay

Wycombe: Ajaz Rehman

Yeovil: Steve Ashton

Walsall and Bloxwich: Aftab Nawaz

1 endorsed Independent Network candidate:

Slough: Azhar Chohan

Hope this helps. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

I don't support separating the independents, mainly because of how Australia handled its group of independents, namely the teal independents, and didn't separate them from the other independents (such as Dai Le), despite being in a similar structural position as the independents in this election, perhaps even more so. If they had run explicitly together, despite running as independents, then separating them could be an option, like what was done with Better Way in Jersey. AnOpenBook (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Suggested footnote to figure of six independents:

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

References

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)

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

Aside from The Muslim Vote, there's also the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Left Foot Forward made an exhaustive list of such candidates.

Counting only Independent Candidates (by the strictest definition) endorsed by The Muslim Vote and/or PSC, and all candidates combined garnered 296,133 votes (1.03%). Counting the only Independent Network (which is an independent non-profit registered as a "party") candidate endorsed by The Muslim Vote and/or PSC (Azhar Chohan) into the total brings us to 307,152 votes (1.07%). Beyond this point and we enter local parties which happens to have Independent in the name. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

1761 British general election

... was the last time any incarnation of the Tories did even worse (112 MPs). Worth adding to the lede(next to the bit about it being the modern party's worst ever) to show how historically poor this performance is - you have to go back 263 years to find worse.Romomusicfan (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I can see what you're getting at, however the modern Conservative Party is generally held to date from 1834, or 1912 in its current form. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The Tories in the 1832 United Kingdom general election were not yet the modern post-Tamworth Manifesto Conservative party but 1832 is commonly brought up in discussions about the 1997 result (lowesr share of the vote since ... ) The 13 years of opposition 1997-2010 are mentioned on the 1997 United Kingdom general election article as "their longest continuous spell in opposition in the history of the present day (post–Tamworth Manifesto) Conservative Party – and indeed the longest such spell for any incarnation of the Tories/Conservatives since the 1760s and the end of the Whig Supremacy under Kings George I and George II – lasting 13 years, including the whole of the 2000s. Throughout this period, their representation in the Commons remained consistently below 200 MPs."
I would propose a similar statement in this article saying along the lines of "their score of 121 was the lowest in the history of the present day (post–Tamworth Manifesto) Conservative Party – and indeed the lowest score for any incarnation of the Tories/Conservatives since the 1761 British general election when they achieved 112 MPs."Romomusicfan (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Romomusicfan (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I've put in a couple of lines and tidied them.Romomusicfan (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Moved it to body of text. Romomusicfan (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Romomusicfan Maybe in terms of total seats yes, but in 1761 there were only 558 compared to today's 650 - the tories in 1761 got 20% of the seats, the tories today got 18.6%. Looking back the closest the Tories got to its current number was in the 1754 British general election, where they got 18.9% of the seats - still 0.3% higher DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, these figures have already been incorporated into the article. If you like I can add the word "numerically" in to the paragraph. The 1754 election, incidentally was the Tories' "glass floorboard" numeric score, 106 MPs. Romomusicfan (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Have also added the 1754 figures.Romomusicfan (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Change in seats should reflect actual change, not change from expected value in 2019 with modern boundaries.

The change in seats should reflect the actual change from election to election. Comparing it to a projection based on 2019 votes is fine and should be included in the article, but the info box should be consistent with other info boxes, which show the difference between actual results in the last election, not projected results if the previous election had used the same boundaries of the current election. 2A01:73C0:600:7880:0:0:3A67:9D8C (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe other infoboxes also show change against notional results, when there have been boundary changes. Wikipedia follows reliable sources. Reliable sources vary: some show change against notional results, some against actual result. However, in a UK context, most show change against notional results, so we do the same. Bondegezou (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

This is correct. It's also the case that after previous boundary changes, the UK election infoboxes have all shown notional changes instead of "actual" changes. There was a previous talk section I started that has been archived where the change was discussed and agreed to, if the initial commenter interested in reading that. AnOpenBook (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The playing-field changed, courtesy of the Boundary Commissioners. It is normal to indicate headline changes based on the notionals, both in aggregate and seat-by-seat. The aggregate changes compared to the old boundaries are explained fully in the article. RodCrosby (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Number of voters?

Copying my question over from the template results page: Adding up the BBC list, it appears the number of voters is 28,801,848. Adding up the parties in this list it comes out higher at 28,805,931. Which is correct? Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Parliament's full official election results are expected to be published on Monday 15th July, and will be available here. Probably easiest at this stage to wait and see what they have to say! 31.111.26.25 (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Add more than 3 parties to the main infobox!

Reform won 4M votes and 5 seats, Greens 2M and 4 seats, so I don't see what disqualifies them from this. By extension you could also add the nationalists and northern irish parties, but that's up to you. But it seems pretty misleading only having 3 parties shown. 92.8.39.68 (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you read any of the extensive discussion of this exact question further up the page? GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Runners up in each constituency

Either the map about the runners up in each constituency is incorrect in the constituencies of East Grinstead and Uckfield and Arundel and South Downs results, or the results at the BBC website are. East Grinstead and Uckfield results: https://www.bbc.com/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001212 Arundel and South Downs results: https://www.bbc.com/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001067 Mboneydeskagerath (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, Belfast South and Mid Down results: https://www.bbc.com/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/N05000003

Mboneydeskagerath (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Has this been fixed yet?Bondegezou (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Results table inconsistencies

The big results table is showing the Workers Party and Alba as having net losses of MPs, even though they saw no change compared to the last general election. We can't have the table showing changes against the status at dissolution for those parties, but changes against the last general election for the main parties. Bondegezou (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This should be fixed now! AnOpenBook (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Daggers

The infobox currently uses daggers for footnotes rather than standard refn/efn footnotes- I attempted to fix this but another editor reverted the change so I thought I'd open a discussion on the talkpage.

I really don't see any reason to use daggers when they aren't used on Wikipedia in general (the previous elections cited by the editor who reverted me are very much an anomaly), and using proper footnotes makes the explanation of the seat change clearer (which is clearly necessary given the existence of hidden comments to discourage new editors from changing the seats lost/gained numbers). Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Proper footnotes are clearly better than daggers, as per H:FOOT. If daggers have been added to other election articles, they should be replaced with proper footnotes. Bondegezou (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The footnotes are way overkill (and not sourced either). The daggers work just fine. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

If sourcing is needed, add sourcing. Daggers are not the usual approach on Wikipedia articles. Bondegezou (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

For the purposes of an infobox where footnotes need to be repeated several times, there is nothing wrong with daggers. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Footnotes are linked. You can hover over them to see their text or click on them. Daggers don't have this functionality. You have to work out where the legend is for them.

The daggers are the recent innovation. If you want daggers, show a consensus for them. Until then, let's stick with what we've happily used for many years. 15:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

We've had daggers for at least 6 years now. They are still on the article. How long is it before we have implicit consensus for a change? 7 years? 8 years? 10 years? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This article has used footnotes since 20 May 2020. 2019 United Kingdom general election has used footnotes from 9 Jun 2017 until today. 2017 United Kingdom general election has used footnotes from 9 Jun 2015 until today. The 1997 article is the outlier, not the model to be followed. You have clearly not shown any consensus for this article to drop its longstanding usage of footnotes, which matches the two previous elections.

Footnotes are also used for 1935 United Kingdom general election, 1945 United Kingdom general election, 1950 United Kingdom general election, 1951 United Kingdom general election, 1955 United Kingdom general election, 1964 United Kingdom general election, 1966 United Kingdom general election, 1970 United Kingdom general election, February 1974 United Kingdom general election, October 1974 United Kingdom general election, 1979 United Kingdom general election and I'm getting bored of typing now... Bondegezou (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

2017 and 2019 were not fought on new boundaries. The reason for the daggers are to clarify 1, the Speaker, and 2, the boundary changes. 2010 (excluded from your list) was fought under different boundaries to 2005: it uses daggers. 2005, different (in Scotland) from 2001, uses a mix of asterisks and double daggers. 1997, fought on different boundaries to 1992, uses the same. The point regarding the Speaker is clarified using a dagger in 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2024. It is not mentioned at all in 2001 or 2017. The examples you listed in your first paragraph are not analogous to the 2024 election. Instead of comparing incompatible elections, compare them to compatible ones: article infoboxes which use daggers. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You say The reason for the daggers are to clarify 1, the Speaker, but all of 1935 United Kingdom general election, 1945 United Kingdom general election, 1950 United Kingdom general election etc. clarify the situation around the Speaker using footnotes. Nor is there any reason why one sort of thing requiring a note should use a footnote while another should use a dagger, so the use of footnotes on 2019 United Kingdom general election and 2017 United Kingdom general election are entirely germane.

Nor have you offered any explanation for what advantage daggers bring compared to footnotes.

Nor why we should ignore standard Wikipedia practice.

Nor has any other editor yet agreed with your position.

So I have no idea why you've chosen this of all things to take a stand on, but you've shown no consensus for your change. If we want consistency, we should replace those few earlier uses of daggers with footnotes. Bondegezou (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"you've shown no consensus for your change" - the daggers for the seat numbers were there first before they were changed to footnotes: forgive me if I don't get an explicit consensus against the change you are proposing to make. I'm very happy for the Speaker note to be a footnote, but I stand by the seat numbers being daggered for the reasons I've given above, in line with previous election articles. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

We can have properly sourced footnotes and also not use daggers. I don't see any reason to do otherwise. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

As the user who reverted the your edits and recommended you move this to the talk page, I actually agree that we should use footnotes. However, daggers are the consensus in UK elections for notional gains, so a change must be agreed to. Daggers lose much of the functionality that footnotes have, and I can see no real reason outside of the status quo to keep them. AnOpenBook (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on a small number of UK general election articles, but most UK general election articles use footnotes, and the manual of style supports footnotes, and only one editor here supports daggers. So I'm glad this matter has come up and we should be fixing those few articles using daggers. Bondegezou (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Still just 4 editors to 1, so I like waiting a little longer for more consensus, but solving issues with local consensus through discussion is definitely a good thing. AnOpenBook (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, I've looked at UK general election article infoboxes back to 1800 to see what they do.

UK general election article infoboxes using footnotes only: 2019, 2017, 1992, 1987, 1983, 1979, Oct 1974, Feb 1974, 1970, 1966, 1964, 1955, 1951, 1950, 1945, 1935, 1931, 1929, 1924, 1923, 1922, 1918, 1900, 1892, 1886, 1885, 1800, 1874, 1868, 1865, 1859, 1857, 1852, 1847, 1841, 1837, 1835, 1830, 1826

UK general election article infoboxes using daggers only: 2005

UK general election article infoboxes using a mix of footnotes and daggers: 2015, 2010, 1997

UK general election article infoboxes with no notes at all: 2001, Dec 1910, Jan 1910, 1906, 1895, 1832, 1831, 1820, 1818, 1812, 1807, 1806, 1802 Bondegezou (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)