Template talk:2005 United Kingdom general election

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles

This template was considered for deletion on 24 August 2021. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

Logos and small parties

The logos are certainly attractive, but being different heights, the table rows are forced to also be of different heights, and we don't have them for every party (indeed, it's unclear whether some of the parties even have logos). Is there a way around this? Another problem is the insertion of "Party" into the descriptions of many groups, rendering the table more difficult to scan quickly, and there also seems to have been some loss of information - I've reinserted groups with 500 - 1000 votes and independents, but some changes in the votes from the last election also seem to have gone missing. Warofdreams talk 01:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-off point

Might I suggest that unless a party wins an MP, the cutoff point for inclusion in tables is 0.1% Harry Hayfield 13:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've included all parties for earlier elections, and all parties winning 500 votes or more in recent elections, which more parties have contested. This allows us, for instance, to follow the early progress of Plaid Cymru or the long decline of the CPGB. Warofdreams talk 16:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seats contested

It would be nice to add a column for the number of seats contested by a party. For all but the top 3, it would add a lot of perspective. jnestorius^(talk) 23:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good suggestion. --Woodgreener 23:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to include brackets along with the 'seats' column. For example, the column heading should read "Seats (contested)" whilst the results for a party - for example, the Democratic Unionists would read "9 (18)".

Addition to table

I think the results table should also include a column denoting the party leader at the time, as the Northern Ireland pages (2003 and 2007) do. This gives people a bigger idea of the personalities and issues at hand, amongst other things. For example, a column should be added between 'Party' and 'seats', with columns stating (in order); 'Tony Blair', 'Michael Howard', 'Charles Kennedy', 'Roger Knapman', 'Alex Salmond', '(? for Greens)', 'Ian Paisley', etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.216.84 (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It has come to my knowledge that the British National Party have obtained more seats than stated in the table. Also, I am not under the influence that the Scotish National Party obatined asuch a high result. Richard Bell

Have you got any sources? I suspect not! It would have made the news rather prominently if the BNP had won a seat! Warofdreams talk 12:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making the table sortable

Does anyone else think it be a good idea to make the table sortable by each column? This would make it possible, for example, to quickly see the number of seats of all parties. I wouldn't know how to do this myself, could someone else? Cider86 (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - see Template:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007, and it reduces the POV of the presentation order. Does anyone know the code for this? Timrollpickering (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just set the first line to {| class="wikitable sortable". I'll do that now. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not quite that easy. I'll need to ask someone to make that change to {{Electiontable}}. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to make to make this sortable, if/when my changes are adopted into the template:

{{electiontable|United Kingdom parliamentary election, 2005|Summary of the 5 May 2005 [[British House of Commons|House of Commons of the United Kingdom]] [[United Kingdom general election, 2005|election results]]|sortable=yes}}
|-
! class="unsortable" | &nbsp;
! Parties<br /><small>This table indicates those parties with over 500 votes nationwide</small>

...

|- class="unsortable"
!colspan=2|Total!!646!! !! !! !! !! !!27,110,727!!
|}

--h2g2bob (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Party

"Your Party" (as shown on the wiki page) is a Japanese party. The correct UK party is listed at the Electoral Commission page at http://registers.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm as just "You Party". They have their own website at http://youparty.org.uk/ in case anyone is motivated to give them their own page, but for now I just fixed the table. 212.44.43.80 (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this change. I've corrected it back to "Your Party"; "You Party" is a different organisation. Warofdreams talk 13:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grrr. The EC appears to believe in the existence of You Party, but not in Your Party. OTOH after checking again, You Party was registered in 2007, too late for the 2005 election. You have to dig *very* deep to find the whole truth: http://wikibin.org/articles/your-party.html and http://www.freebase.com/view/en/your_party appear to be ex-WP (bah!) content which describes the situation quite well. (Summary: Your Party registered 2004, stood two candidates (Southport and Banbury), deregistered in 2006. You Party registered in 2007, apparently unrelated to Your Party, stood two candidates (Bolton NE and Bolton W) in 2010.) 212.44.43.80 (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]