Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election

Template:Hidden information

Majority?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

United Kingdom general election, 2015

7 May 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SNP added to Infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Election Counts

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

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

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

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

Talk Archiving

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

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

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

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

Infobox - May 4th Update

(Initial posts moved from 'Infobox Again' section)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Party Colours

United Kingdom general election, 2015

7 May 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox: perspective from a neutral third party

Can I first say that I haven't participated in the infobox debate and due to the extensiveness of it I haven't read up on all the arguments. I may be repeating concerns that had already been raised and settled, but in any case please interpret my concerns/proposals as a neutral third party view on the ongoing infobox dilemma that this election is having.

My main proposal is this: decide on the infobox after the next government is formed, avoid the Israeli-style one at all costs.

The reason why, I believe, the infobox debate on this talk page has been so lengthy (I admit I haven't read all of it), is probably because no-one knows what the results or the forthcoming government will look like. There was a possibility that we could see a Labour-SNP coalition quite early on in the campaign before Miliband ruled it out and similar potential outcomes involving Plaid, DUP, UKIP etc. This is probably why the best bet BEFORE the election was to just have all of them in an Israeli-style infobox so that people could see all the parties that could be involved in the next government.

Firstly, I really don't believe the Israeli-style infobox is appropriate, and should be avoided unless absolutely inevitable. I honestly don't think Respect's single MP (if he wins) is going to be part of a coalition, and I might be right in saying that some other parties won more votes than Respect yet didn't get any seats. Isn't it unfair that Respect is on the infobox, while parties such as the English Democrats (who are likely to win more votes) are not? The UK doesn't have a proportionally representative system like Israel, meaning that you can't sort parties in descending order in terms of both votes and seats at the same time. A very simple example: UKIP look set to win about 14%, but just 3 seats. SNP set to win 5%, but around 50 seats. Sorting these parties in an Israeli-style infobox (in a descending fashion) is therefore going to be controversial and will probably spark a lot of debate after the election in terms of which order they are listed.

• People who say UKIP first because they got the most votes: an Israeli-style infobox is probably there because people are more interested in seat distribution and how it influences a coalition.
• People who say SNP first because they got the most seats: this is going to look plain weird, where a party with 5% is going to be followed by a party winning 14%. Rather odd, especially in the descending format of the Israeli-style infobox.

Also, it results in a substantial loss of information about percentage swing, leader names, pictures etc. A full list of parties and the seats they win is always going to be available in detail in the results section anyway, so why sacrifice such information on what is supposed to be a summary infobox to provide a mini replica of the results table? I can't also help adding that it simply looks rather ugly when flicking through the previous elections with a standard Con-Lab-Lib infobox and then suddenly arriving at this election with a sudden change of infobox format.

Conclusion: decide according to the outcome of the next government.

• Labour minority: Two-party infobox with Con and Lab
• Conservative minority:Two-party infobox with Con and Lab
• Either party coalition with Lib Dems: Three party infobox with Con, Lab and Lib
• Lab-SNP-Lib-Green-SDLP coalition: this is very very unlikely, but I think this is an example of when it is appropriate to use an Israel-style infobox or a 9-party standard infobox if applicable.

Criticisms

I fear some criticisms of my proposal will be:
a) A minority con/lab government would be relying on support of smaller parties. How can just having the two parties in an infobox be justifiable in this case?

My response: a lab minority won't be looking to the SNP for support all the time. One day it might turn to the Lib Dems and one day maybe even the conservatives. It is simply unfair to include some parties which a minority government will look for support to while excluding others. Unless there is a formal negotiation/coalition between a minority government and a smaller party, I don't think we should include any of them on the main infobox. Simply because, for it to be fair and objective, you'll have to include none or all of them.

Also: Ed Miliband and David Cameron are the only two realistic party leaders who can be prime minister

b) You're only considering including the government parties and the main opposition in the infobox

This is not because I don't think other opposition parties should be excluded as a general principle, but because of how the outcome is going to look. Tories and Labour look set to win 260-290. They are then followed by the SNP on around 50, Lib Dems on around 30 and so on. The seats being won by parties apart from Con and Lab are substantially smaller in relation, apart from perhaps the SNP. This is why as I say above, it becomes an issue of either including one or all (such as Sinn Fein who don't even take their seats, single issue parties etc)

c) Exclusion of UKIP?

UKIP is exactly one of the problems. 3rd largest party in terms of votes but minuscule in terms of seats. Similar with the Greens. Fifth largest yet only one seat projected. This is why I've emphasised the best option to have a two-way infobox with the Prime Minister's Party and the Leader of the Main Opposition's party unless the Lib Dems are included in a coalition. Nub Cake (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you realise yourself that your proposals will be unworkable. The main drive to change the infobox has been instability due to different party supporters wanting "their" party included. It will be easier after the results are in but still not simple. Broadly we gained agreement that in the British representative parliamentary system we must sort by seats and not by votes. However this raises problems where you have parties like UKIP and Greens with lots of votes and not many seats. It is almost certain that we will need 5-10 parties in the infobox after the election to reach a stable position. Perhaps the best hope for UK electoral infoboxes is for a more proportional electoral system to be introduced in future and thus lessen these arguments!Andrewdpcotton (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The article for the 1918 election has six parties in the infobox, so it's not without precedence. Gsnedders (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The answer is simple, the election is all about who gets the seats. There should be six parties mentioned, Lib, Lab, Con, SDP, DUP, and PC (for a full visual effect). Also, Keep the absentee leaders pictures off and have the Parliamentary leaders in, as they are officers of the Commons, and Sturgeon and her ilk are most definitely NOT. I know that Sturgeon was in the debates, but she is NOT going to be an MP. Letting her in and her position as Leader are unprecedented. In the last election, Salmond was an MP. Also, someone should tear this whole thing down and start putting up a skeleton article which will be filled out with the election results...Ericl (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I definitely do not think my propositions will be unworkable at all... And I absolutely don't agree that we will need 5-10 parties. I'm not a supporter of the minor parties that are currently causing this whole dilemma, so I'm definitely not biased in favour or against any in what I'm trying to say. Although editors may have reached the consensus that seats should come before votes in UK election articles (and probably rightly so), we must accept that this causes some problems in itself when a party with around 14% of the vote (UKIP) is suddenly placed 6th, confusing and looking very odd to readers with relatively little knowledge of the first past the post system. If it is the case that most people are arguing over the infobox over party lines, then I'm sure an Israeli-style infobox will probably cause a huge second post-election debate between the English Democrats, UKIP supporters and others in terms of where their party should stand in the infobox. We know one thing for certain. Conservatives and Labour are going to come first or second, and both parties will have the most and second most seats in the Commons. The third place is where the dilema begins, because it will be UKIP in terms of votes and SNP in terms of seats. Fourth place is similarly contestable and so is fifth, sixth etc. This is why my proposal is to have a two-party Con-Lab infobox in the event of either party leading a minority government, thereby eliminating partisan debates between SNP, UKIP, Lib Dem supporters etc. I would like to reiterate that I think we should avoid the Israeli-style infobox at all costs, since it incurrs a frightful loss of information, does not conform to the previous UK general election articles and is simply a miniature replica of the results table available further down the article page that includes parties with both a miniscule number of votes and seats. A straight up Con-Lab infobox will eliminate partisan arguments from supporters of the smaller parties and will also solve the votes first or seats first dilema that may cause confusion to the objective reader. Nub Cake (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Leaders in the Infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final polls

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

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

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

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

Nice simple link

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

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

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

Venues

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

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

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

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

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

Current Tagging

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

Bug

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

Adjusting the info box ero the results

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

Post Election Infobox

Well there is good news and bad news!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Main coloured map of constituencies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Turnout

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

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

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

Post-election infobox

United Kingdom general election, 2015

7 May 2015 (2015-05-07)
All 650 seats in the House of Commons 326 seats needed for a majority
Turnout	66.1%
First party Second party   Leader David Cameron Ed Miliband Party Conservative Labour Leader since 6 December 2005 25 September 2010 Leader's seat Witney Doncaster North Last election 306 seats, 36.1% 258 seats, 29.0% Seats before 306 258 Seats won 327 (so far declared) 235 Seat change 21* 23* Popular vote 11,240,882 9,303,900 Percentage 36.9% 30.5% Swing 0.8% 1.4%   Third party Fourth party   Leader Nicola Sturgeon Nick Clegg Party SNP Liberal Democrats Leader since 14 November 2014 18 December 2007 Leader's seat did not run Sheffield Hallam Last election 6 seats, 1.7% 57 seats, 23.0% Seats before 6 56 Seats won 56 8 Seat change 50* 47 Popular vote 1,454,436 2,362,551 Percentage 4.8% 7.8% Swing 3.1% 15.1%
Prime Minister before election David Cameron Conservative Elected Prime Minister David Cameron Conservative

I will suggest a Con/Lab/SNP/LD infobox since there will be no point to include DUP/Sinn Fein/SDLP/Plaid Cymru/UUP but exclude Greens and UKIP (as the infobox only offers nine parties at most). I think including SNP and LD and excluding the others would be a reasonable decision. Lmmnhn (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to exclude UKIP and the Greens, despite them posting respectable vote totals (mostly because they contested a large number of constituencies, unlike the regional parties), but if we're going to include the Liberal Democrats, we need to include the DUP...since they now have the exact same number of MPs. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:Kudzu1, but then the vote share of DUP is far less than the LD. Lmmnhn (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. They won the same number of seats and will have the same vote share where it matters, in the House of Commons. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

UKIP got 4 million votes, which combined across the UK is the 3rd highest so UKIP should appear on this information box too, despite only winning 1 MP it is fair and I feel it is only right that the party with the 3rd highest amount of votes from the British public is featured. (Z2a (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC))

Page Broken?

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

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

Nicola Sturgeon

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

Leaders in info box?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Info box, " 'Elected' Prime Minister "

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservative number - include speaker or not?

Quick question - do we include the Speaker in with the Conservative total or not? The BBC does but the House of Commons doesn't. If the answer is no then the Conservative total should drop by 1. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

That woudl be premature - you are assuming that the speaker will come from the ruling party and this is not always the case as the speaker is elected on a free vote by MPs. Stub Mandrel (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Bercow has been re-elected in his constituency as Speaker. The Commons may choose a new Speaker soon, but for now Bercow is still Speaker. Bondegezou (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair point, I hadn't heard that Bercow had been re-elected.

But the article shows the position as vacant. Is that incorrect? Surely Bercow was re-elected as an MP, not "as The Speaker"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Mr Bercow stood as "the Speaker seeking re-election". If he's re-elected Speaker when the House meets he won't count as a Conservative. If he were not to be re-elected Speaker, he still wouldn't be a Conservative. Therefore he shouldn't be counted as a Conservative now.85.255.232.55 (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Was that on the ballot form in Buckingham (UK Parliament constituency)? The electorate vote for candidates, not for government posts or Commons positions. You're saying he's now stopped being a Conservative? I'd be interested to see your sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Here we see Bercow with his cute little "Bercow pin" standing next to the UKIP guy with his UKIP pin. This means he didn't run as a Conservative. I wanna see how the person that announced the result referred to Bercow's "party". –HTD 17:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I now see his article says " Prior to his election to Speaker, he was a member of the Conservative Party." So it seems he has stopped being a Conservative, at least until 18 May. It seems the electorate were as confused as me. He's not really an MP at all, is he, as only UKIP and the Greens could stand against him. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

From what I understand, he gave up his Conservative Party "membership" when he was elected Speaker. Then in elections, the major parties don't run against him, as Speakers are supposed to be "neutral". See Speaker Denison's rule and Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom)#Non-partisanship: "If the current Speaker decides to contest a general election, he/she does not stand under a party label, but is entitled to describe himself/herself on the ballot as 'The Speaker seeking re-election', under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act." –HTD 17:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, so I'm not sure why he should be included in the 331 Conservative total. It seems to be a contradiction. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The Parliament itself reports 330 seats for the Conservatives (and 1 for the Speaker). That should be conclusive - Skuipers (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we respect consensus?

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

Proposal to add to the page, needs someone to complete it

This table depicts how the constituencies changed hands between parties from the previous election in 2010 to this election in Great Britain, based on the table in the local elections last year (United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2014#Shift_of_control). I thought this would be useful due to the gains and losses between Labour and the Conservatives.

Would everyone agree this should be included?

I would ask someone to adjust the colours, as I don't know how to do this.

after election →	Conservative	Labour	SNP	Liberal Democrats	Plaid Cymru	UKIP	Green	losses
↓ befere election
Conservative	296	10	-	-	-	1	-	− 11
Labour	8	210	40	-	-	-	-	− 48
SNP	-	-	6	-	-	-	-	± 0
Liberal Democrats	26	12	10	8	-	-	-	− 48
Plaid Cymru	-	-	-	-	3	-	-	± 0
UKIP	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	± 0
Green	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	± 0
New total	330	232	56	8	3	1	1	-
gains	+ 34	+ 22	+ 50	-	-	+ 1	-	-
Net change	+ 23	- 26	+ 50	−	-	+ 1	-	-

MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

That looks lovely, thanks, and we could have a separate one for Northern Ireland too. Bondegezou (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The Conservative total should be 331? Martinevans123 (talk)

Actually, Conservative total is 330 - for some reason BBC & others are counting 'Speaker' as a Conservative seat. --Mrodowicz (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably because John Bercow was returned to the Commons as a Conservative. He's currently not the Speaker, as the post is vacant Yes, he was returned by his constituency as The Speaker and will remain as such at least until the 18 May re-election? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to make a seperate one for Northn Ireland too, I thoought not to include them in the same table in order to make it too clutered. I made the table before St Ives declared. Now 331. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Are these tables going to be updated and added? They look really useful!

I propose a slight change to the format:

after election →	Conservative	Labour	SNP	Liberal Democrats	Plaid Cymru	UKIP	Green	Previous total	losses
↓ last election
Conservative	296	10	-	-	-	1	-	306	− 11
Labour	8	210	40	-	-	-	-	258	− 48
SNP	-	-	6	-	-	-	-	6	-
Liberal Democrats	26	12	10	8	-	-	-	57	− 48
Plaid Cymru	-	-	-	-	3	-	-	3	-
UKIP	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Green	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	-
New total	330	232	56	8	3	1	1	631	− 107
gains	+ 34	+ 22	+ 50	-	-	+ 1	-	+ 107
Net change	+ 23	− 26	+ 50	−	−	+ 1	−	−

NB A Conservatives seem 1 too high and Lib Dems 1 too few for the last election (according to the table they work out at 307 and 56) Robertm25 (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It would be good to have a similar table for 'before election' as well as 'last election' Robertm25 (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, changes taken on board. Had a bit of time to look at it to see how to change the colours. The reason for the error was that when making the table at first I was using the BBC results page, which listed the Speaker as Conservative. Ammending that, the only way for the sums to add up is to add one to the Con gains from LD. I'd ask someone to check it before I add it to the page. Hopefully the layout now looks good.

2015 election →	Conservative	Labour	Scottish National Party	Liberal Democrats	Plaid Cymru	UKIP	Green	Speaker	2010 Total	losses
↓ 2010 election
Conservative	style="background:Template:Conservative Party (UK)/meta/color" | 295	10	-	-	-	1	-	-	style="background:Template:Conservative Party (UK)/meta/color; color:white"| 306	− 11
Labour	8	style="background:Template:Labour Party (UK)/meta/color"| 210	40	-	-	-	-	-	style="background:Template:Labour Party (UK)/meta/color; color:white" | 258	− 48
SNP	-	-	style="background:Template:Scottish National Party/meta/color" | 6	-	-	-	-	-	style="background:Template:Scottish National Party/meta/color; color:black" | 6	-
Liberal Democrats	27	12	10	style="background:Template:Liberal Democrats/meta/color" | 8	-	-	-	-	style="background:Template:Liberal Democrats/meta/color; color:white" | 57	− 48
Plaid Cymru	-	-	-	-	style="background:Template:Plaid Cymru/meta/color"| 3	-	-	-	style="background:Template:Plaid Cymru/meta/color; color:white"| 3	-
UKIP	-	-	-	-	-	style="background:Template:UK Independence Party/meta/color"| -	-	-	style="background:Template:UK Independence Party/meta/color; color:white"| 0	-
Green	-	-	-	-	-	-	style="background:Template:Green Party (UK)/meta/color"| 1	-	style="background:Template:Green Party (UK)/meta/color; color:white"| 1	-
Speaker	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	style="background:Template:Independent (politics)/meta/color; color:white"| 1	-
2015 total	style="background:Template:Conservative Party (UK)/meta/color; color:white"| 330	style="background:Template:Labour Party (UK)/meta/color; color:white" | 232	style="background:Template:Scottish National Party/meta/color; color:black" | 56	style="background:Template:Liberal Democrats/meta/color; color:white" | 8	style="background:Template:Plaid Cymru/meta/color; color:white"| 3	style="background:Template:UK Independence Party/meta/color; color:white"| 1	style="background:Template:Green Party (UK)/meta/color; color:white"| 1	style="background:Template:Independent (politics)/meta/color; color:white"| 1	631
gains	+ 34	+ 22	+ 50	-	-	+ 1	-	-		± 107
Net change	+ 23	- 26	+ 50	−	-	+ 1	-	-

Feedback appreciated MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

And the Northern Ireland Table updated to the same style:

2015 election →	Democratic Unionist Party	Sinn Féin	Social Democratic and Labour Party	Ulster Unionist Party	Alliance Party of Northern Ireland	Independent	2010 Total	losses
↓ 2010 election
Democratic Unionist Party	style="background:Template:Democratic Unionist Party/meta/color" | 7	-	-	1	-	-	style="background:Template:Democratic Unionist Party/meta/color; color:white"| 8	− 1
Sinn Féin	-	style="background:Template:Sinn Féin/meta/color"| 4	-	1	-	-	style="background:Template:Sinn Féin/meta/color; color:white" | 5	− 1
Social Democratic and Labour Party	-	-	style="background:Template:Social Democratic and Labour Party/meta/color" | 3	-	-	-	style="background:Template:Social Democratic and Labour Party/meta/color; color:white" | 3	-
Ulster Unionist Party	-	-	-	style="background:Template:Ulster Unionist Party/meta/color" | -	-	-	style="background:Template:Ulster Unionist Party/meta/color; color:white" | 0	-
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland	1	-	-	-	style="background:Template:Alliance Party of Northern Ireland/meta/color"| -	-	style="background:Template:Alliance Party of Northern Ireland/meta/color; color:white"| 1	- 1
Independent	-	-	-	-	-	1	style="background:Template:Independent (politics)/meta/color; color:white"| 1	-
2015 total	style="background:Template:Democratic Unionist Party/meta/color; color:white"| 8	style="background:Template:Sinn Féin/meta/color; color:white" | 4	style="background:Template:Social Democratic and Labour Party/meta/color; color:white" | 3	style="background:Template:Ulster Unionist Party/meta/color; color:white" | 2	style="background:Template:Alliance Party of Northern Ireland/meta/color; color:white"| 0	style="background:Template:Independent (politics)/meta/color; color:white"| 1	18
gains	+ 1	-	-	+ 2	-	-		± 3
Net change	-	- 1	-	+ 2	- 1	-

MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Table

Template table for Northern Ireland. Once again, I would ask someone to adjust the colours, as I don't know how to do that. As for whether the Speaker should be counted separately,I made the GB table using the BBC News results, which is why I came to 331 (330 before St Ives), but I leave for others to decide how Speaker should be included on the table.

after election →	DUP	Sinn Fein	SDLP	UUP	APNI	Independent	losses
↓ befere election
Democratic Unionist Party	7	-	-	1	-	-	− 1
Sinn Fein	-	5	-	1	-	-	− 1
Social Democratic and Labour Party	-	-	3	-	-	-	-
Ulster Unionist Party	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Alliance Party	1	-	-	-	-	-	− 1
Independent	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
New total	8	5	3	2	0	1	-
gains	+ 1	-	-	+ 2	-	-	-
Net change	-	- 1	-	+ 2	- 1	-	-

MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Colors trick: Use bgcolor={{Birthday Party/meta/color}}. If the hex is changed, it is changed automatically everywhere too. –HTD 15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Labo in Scotland

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

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

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

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

Size of Conservative Majority

Should be 12, no? Article says 15.

650 - 331 = 319 (number of other MPs in commons)

331 - 319 = 12 (Conservative advantage over others)

Multiple sources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32659720\ http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/may/08/election-2015-live-labour-and-libdems-crushed-in-shock-election-result http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedukpolitics/general-election-2015-live

Sinn Fein won't send its MPs to Westminster, so really, there are 314 other MPs in commons. Even still, that's a working majority of 17. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It is in a very strict sense 12, BUT in practice (and that's of course what actually matters) 15 once both the Sinn Fein members and the Speaker are taken into account.

650 -4 -1 = 645 effective seats in the Commons

645 -330 = 15 effective majority Argovian (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2015

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

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

UKIP 6th largest?

didn't Sinn Fein win more seats? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. So did Plaid Cymru and the SDLP. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

that's whay they shuod be removed from the info box it shuood ever be 3 parteys with con lab snp or 5 with con lab snp ld and dup due to the way uk politics works. 88.107.184.52 (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Sinn Fein won't be seated and the other groupings are so small as to be negligible. I do think the Lib Dems should go in the box because they were third party before the election, and if they're in, DUP must be as well as their seat totals are the same. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

on this point, why is lib dems 4th when the DUP received the same amount of seats and UKIP received more votes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.116.170 (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Sixth party result

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seats Before

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

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

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

Photos

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

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

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

Additions to infobox requested

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

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

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

Which parties to include in the infobox?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bercow in results tables

John Bercow appears in the summary table as speaker, giving a Conservative total of 330, but not in the full table where the Conservative total becomes 331. Bercow was eleceted as the Speaker, not as a Conservative. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering whether the 331 shown in the BBC results table does include the Speaker? The table also shows that one 'other' has been elected but this may be an independent in northenr Ireland. Nub Cake (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems it does include him. The BBC full table doesn't mention the Speaker, so I assume he's included in the 331. I had also assumed that the "Other" seat in the list is the Independent Sylvia Hermon. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I see, thanks for clearing it up. Maybe it currently includes him because Bercow hasn't formally yet been elected speaker by parliament. Nub Cake (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Haha, I'm not sure is that's good reason for including him or excluding him! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe some constitutional precedent that the speaker is partisan until formally elected by parliament or something. He's coloured blue on the BBC's map. You'll probably know better than me. Nub Cake (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah well, if Auntie has coloured him in blue, that's decided it then! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:List_of_United_Kingdom_general_elections#Majorities

Thanks, that's a useful discussion. Do you think any consensus emerged there? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

But now neither tables show him? But the total is still 650? Would it help to enter a name for "Others" and for "Independent" in each table? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

My view on that is that is not relevant to the reporting of the election results – all sources agree with 331. What happens after the election, in terms of the Speaker, I don't think is relevant to the immediate election results that this article reports. So the correct number is 331. Anything else strikes me as WP:OR-y... --IJBall (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The info box now clearly explains that the 331 includes Bercow. If he's not re-elected in the house as Speaker, he will revert to being a Conservative (one assumes). At least we've coloured him grey on the map. And I see he now appears again in the large table as the Speaker. I'm just saying it would be less confusing if he also had his own entry in the summary table as the "Speaker" (and I'd suggest that "Others" should say "Independent", i.e. Sylvia Hermon). At least then everything would line up? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

And now we're back to 330 in the info box and 331 in the results table..... Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. --IJBall (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The map note also now fixed. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC) But I still think the Conservative totals in the two tables should match!?

Actually, I've reworded that 'note' a little (it was confusing once the number was changed to 331) – hopefully it's clearer now. As for the table lower down, another 'note' could be added to clear up the "331 vs. 330+1" discrepancy. And there already is a 'note' in the lower table to that effect... --IJBall (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, there is a note for the full table. I've now added yet another a note for the summary table, although I'm not sure it's in the best place. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

While it makes sense to not include him in the Conservative vote share on the full results table, its probably best to go with what every single major news site is saying in terms of the vote share on the infobox. Especially when the country's electoral commission points to the BBC's results page and the BBC gives the Tories 11,334,920 with 36.9%. Nub Cake (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

That's how we have it, yes? Personally, I don't see how that figure should be 331 anywhere - not only did he not stand as a Conservative, but the other two main parties could not even stand against him. Another "quaint anachronism" of our wonderful electoral system I guess. But we are indeed tied to ("the most") reliable sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I am as confused as most people. What matters is whether the official results count Bercow as a Conservative or as a speaker. The BBC seems to count him as a bit of both, colouring his constituency blue and counting him in with the Tories, but when you hover over his constituency it says 'SPE HOLD'. So what it seems to me is that they are saying that yes he's the speaker, but the speaker's a Tory. We know that the speaker is in fact non partisan, but does he only truly become non-partisan when he is officially elected speaker by the House of Commons? What might be the best thing to do is use the figure 331 in the infobox simply because the official results and all the other main news site sources say so, but then add a note that this figure does include the speaker's seat. This might be the best way to do it without confusing people and also keeping to what official sources are saying? Nub Cake (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

There are arguments on both sides. The Commons can't conduct any business until they have elected a Speaker, so Bercow being a Tory until then is slightly immaterial. The Speaker can decide on tied-votes, but I don't think he's under the control of the Chief Whip. I was hoping for consistency across info box, all tables and the article text. Maybe that's too much to hope for. What do other editors think? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think its right to add or subtract and do our own calculations with the vote share while all other sources (including the official one endorsed by the Electoral Commission) has included the Speaker's votes in the Conservative tally. Whatever decision is taken, I think it needs to respect the official sources. Nub Cake (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Are you saying that, because of that, consistency is impossible? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to have to say that the BBC contradicts itself, and indeed, since Parliament itself says that the Speaker is not a Conservative, he should not be counted as one here. The Electoral Commission did endorse the BBC's results, but as I've said before, they contradict themselves, and it seems that any generally reliable source that includes the Speaker as a Conservative is simply wrong. It may help to look at the pages for previous elections (2005, 2010); they all list the Speaker separately even though he hadn't been formally elected Speaker yet. Esszet (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

See also discussion at Talk:List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2015. Alekksandr (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

(I'll try and return within 24 hours, by when a "sound consensus" will surely have been reached). (lol) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should write to the BBC and ask them if they meant not to include the Speaker as a Conservative? Esszet (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

What are the objections to giving the BBC's results in both the infobox and results tables with Bercow included in the Tory tally, and then adding a note saying 'results include the Speaker John Bercow'. This would simply be the opposite of the current situation, where there are notes by the Conservative votes (and seats in the infobox) saying that the speaker isn't included.

Apart from this, I think the only other way of rectifying the problem is by doing something like this.

 Summary of the May 2015 House of Commons of the United Kingdom results

	Political party	Leader	Candidates	Number of votes	Elected	Seats gained	Seats lost	Net change in seats	% of seats	% of votes	Change in % of vote
style="background-color:Template:Conservative Party (UK)/meta/color" rowspan="2"|	Conservative	David Cameron	647	11,300,303	330	38	10	+28	50.8	36.8	+0.7
Speaker	John Bercow	1	34,617	1	0	0	0	0.2	0.1	0.0
	Labour	Ed Miliband	631	9,344,328	232	22	46	−24	35.7	30.4	+1.5
	UKIP	Nigel Farage	624	3,881,129	1	0	1	-1	0.2	12.6	+9.5
	Liberal Democrats	Nick Clegg	631	2,415,888	8	0	48	-48	1.2	7.9	-15.1
etc...

If this doesn't work out, then it probably won't be too much of a problem if the infobox gives 36.9% and 331, with the note at the bottom of the infobox reading 'Figure includes the Speaker, detailed results are available in the results section'. This both justifies and explains the lack of consistency with the results table. The results table can then remain as it is now with the speaker and the Conservatives separate? Nub Cake (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: If there is any support for changing the results table as above, then this alternative seems to be a better option, since it preserves the natural flow of the table (as in Labour comes below Con, not Con then Speaker then Labour).

 Summary of the May 2015 House of Commons of the United Kingdom results

	Political party	Leader	Candidates	Number of votes	Elected	Seats gained	Seats lost	Net change in seats	% of seats	% of votes	Change in % of vote
style="background-color:Template:Conservative Party (UK)/meta/color" rowspan="2"|	Conservative	David Cameron	647	11,334,920	331	38	10	+28	50.9	36.9	+0.8
Speaker	John Bercow	1
	Labour	Ed Miliband	631	9,344,328	232	22	46	−24	35.7	30.4	+1.5
	UKIP	Nigel Farage	624	3,881,129	1	0	1	-1	0.2	12.6	+9.5
	Liberal Democrats	Nick Clegg	631	2,415,888	8	0	48	-48	1.2	7.9	-15.1
etc...

Nub Cake (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

1) Parliament itself (as well as previous election pages; see above for links) does list the Speaker separately 2) we can just write to the BBC and try to resolve this discrepancy. Esszet (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand that. I was just experimenting with possible alternatives and compromises. By all means write to the BBC, though with it and all other main news sites giving the same result, I'm beginning to think that they know something we don't - such as some constitutional convention that the speaker remains partisan and is elected with his former partisan allegiance until formally elected by the Commons or something. Anyway, there's no harm in using the BBC results on the infobox (with a note saying it includes the speaker and that the detailed results are available in the results) and keeping the full results table as it is with the Speaker separate. In fact, it would be better. Nub Cake (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm still in favor of listing throughout the article the Conservatives as having 330 seats; it simply wouldn't make sense to include the Speaker with them in one place but not in another. I've written to the BBC, so hopefully we'll be able to get some sort of clarification on this. Esszet (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears that I should've read this page before writing to them; it says:

The Speaker is a neutral figure in Parliament, so Mr Bercow is no longer a member of the Conservative Party as he was before his election to the role (by parliament).

However, for the purposes of calculating the number of seats belonging to each party - and calculating those held, gained or lost by each party - Mr Bercow's seat is regarded as being a Conservative constituency as he won it for the party in 1997, 2001 and 2005 before being elected speaker.

Since the BBC explicitly acknowledges that the Speaker is not a Conservative but includes him in the Conservative seat and vote tallies anyway, I think we have a little leeway in deciding exactly how to report the results. Since a very authoritative source – namely, Parliament itself (see above) – does not list him as a Conservative, I say we list him separately. Esszet (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

See Chairman of Ways and Means#History and functions. "Once appointed, both the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy Chairmen follow the same tradition of neither speaking nor voting on any matter before the House (unless a casting vote is required). Unlike the Speaker, though, they remain members of their political party and campaign in general elections as party politicians. The Chairman and Second Deputy Chairman are elected from the opposite side of the House to the Speaker, while the First Deputy Chairman comes from the same side. Because the four do not vote (except to break a tie), this effectively pairs the occupants of the chair (their presumed support for their side cancelling each other out), which means no party loses a voting advantage on account of having one of the four drawn from its ranks." My own understanding (FWIW) is that this is the basis for counting the Speaker as a member of his former party. I.e. the Conservatives won 331 seats, including sitting Speaker John Bercow and sitting First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means Eleanor Laing. Others won 319 seats, including sitting Chairman of Ways and Means Lindsay Hoyle (Labour). Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means Dawn Primarolo (Labour) stood down, and on the basis set out above will be replaced by an Opposition member. If you count the four of them as members of their parties, 331 - 319 = a majority of 12. If you do not count the four of them as members of their parties, 329 - 317 = a majority of 12. See also http://www.election.demon.co.uk/strengths.html - 'The right of David Boothroyd to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted' - he is the author of The History of British Political Parties, so I suggest that that makes that site RS. By the time Deputy Speakers had been elected on 9th June 2010, Labour had suspended the whip to Eric Illsley. And by the time the delayed polls had taken place in 2005, Patsy Calton had died. So it looks as if 2001 was the last time that the 4 presiding officers were selected from a full-strength House. That page gives a Labour majority of 167 'at the 2001 Election (7th June 2001)', dropping to 166 on 13th June when Michael Martin was elected as Speaker, but returning to 167 on 20th June when the Deputy Speakers were chosen. I therefore suggest that the Speaker and three Deputies (when elected/chosen) should all be counted as members of their parties/previous parties, with a note explaining that this is being done, and why. Alekksandr (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Upon further examination of our results tables for past elections, it appears that we haven't been entirely consistent on this; the Speaker is listed separately for all previous elections going back to 1997, but for elections prior to that, he isn't. I'm still in favor of listing him separately; he is not, I repeat, not a member of any political party. If we wish to achieve total unambiguity on the issue, we can simply do what other editors have done for previous elections (see here for an example): include in the main infobox a footnote that says that the figure does not include the Speaker. Esszet (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that the inconsistency arises from British Electoral Facts 1832-1999, compiled and edited by Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher (Ashgate 2000), PP xviii and 68. P xviii contains an introductory note that 'Until 1997 the Speaker has been regarded as a candidate of the party he represented before his appointment. For the 1997 general election the votes cast for the Speaker are included among 'Others'.' P 68 contains a table where the Speaker is shown as a Conservative in the two 1974 elections, as Labour in 1979, not at all in 1983 (George Thomas had retired), as a Conservative in 1987, not at all in 1992 (Bernard Weatherill had retired) and as an Other in 1997. Alekksandr (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

That seems to account for the inconsistency. But it's not clear whether or not there is yet any consensus here about how the results are presented in the article. It seems we are driven to show 331 as the Conservative total by the reliable sources - BBC and The Guardian. My main reservation is that the 331 in the summary table (and the votes bar beneath it) is not qualified with any note. Do the other interested editors think the article has to change at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, the BBC explicitly acknowledges that he isn't a Conservative (see above), so I think we have a little leeway in deciding exactly how to report it. Esszet (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Mistake on the Electoral Map

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

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

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

"4th largest party"

Every other GE page has only the top three listed parties on the right hand infobox, with none mentioning a fourth besides 2015. If nobody has any objection, I would like to remove Clegg.Oxr033 (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It's also a half-truth; the Lib Dems are tied with DUP as the fourth largest party in Parliament. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

yes indeed they are, and that's not even accounting for voteshare.Oxr033 (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to removing Clegg from the infobox, but I think there are solid grounds for including him and not the DUP: the Lib Dems received many more votes and they were a far more significant force prior to the election, meaning that people visiting the page are much more likely to want to know what happened to them at a glance than the DUP. Individually these aren't deciding factors, since the vote share argument comes down to the Lib Dems being a pan-UK party, which could be used to exclude the SNP as a regional party, and the reader interest argument raises the question of why UKIP isn't there too. Together I think they're quite convincing, however. —Nizolan ^(talk) 23:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Logistically, UKIP can't be listed in the infobox. They're not the third party, nor the fourth, nor the fifth, nor sixth, nor seventh, eighth, ninth. They're tied for tenth. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

They can if we use the new infobox that was agreed upon before the election. Øln (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

That infobox is harder to read and less visually appealing. Although I sincerely believe the current infobox must either include the DUP or exclude the Lib Dems (an argument I appear to have lost already), I believe the presentation preserves fidelity of information.

UKIP received the third-largest share of the votes, it's true. But in only one constituency was UKIP actually popular enough to receive the largest share of the votes. They're everywhere! -- just not in great numbers. They are a broad-based minority. Under the UK's election system, parties that can't win seats don't get seats. There's no need to list UKIP as it will have next to no influence in the Commons. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Keeping Clegg has the advantage of providing information to people reading the article who are interested in what changed since the governing party (minor partner) was soundly trounced. Thus a good reason why it should be kept there. (Indeed, that should apply to all cases of governmental change) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes I do object to the 4th parties removal. Bad enough we don't include the 3rd party by votes. - Galloglass 07:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 1931. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

HaHaHa. When I came to the article I thought it looked really messy with 4 parties crammed in the infobox. I KNEW if I went back and looked there would been 3 in previous years. There is no way to look at it other than politically motivated to make a 4th place for LibDems. If you don't believe me, imagine LibDems had come in 3rd and tell me honestly if you think people would be trying to put up the 4th party. Editors are breaking the convention of the previous articles because of the election result. I actually don't care if it stays 4 parties. If it gets removed, it's in keeping with previous articles, proves Wikipedia is non-political, and everything its okay. If it stays, it proves people can't bare than SNP got too many seats and decided to make an exception for them rather than remove the LibDems. It proves that people can't bare their precious unionist,3-party system is failing. Looks bad on Wikipedia but I'd be happy with that badge of honour for everyone viewing the article to see (and then they'll come to this talk page to see the lame arguments of people trying to justify it).80.189.219.75 (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest the six-party infobox. UKIP came in third place, so they should be included. For the sake of political impartiality, the DUP or the Greens should be added in as well. After all, these are the six parties that have gotten a million votes (bar the DUP, but it has 8 seats on par with LD). AlexTeddy888 (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Ukip did not come in "third place". Are you familiar with the British electoral system? Vote share is irrelevant. What matters in this system is whether a party have acquired seats in the Commons. RGloucester — ☎

RGloucester is right, the info box should reflect the quaint and outdated electoral system we voted to keep in the UK, however sad. But I agree with User:Super Nintendo Chalmers that United Kingdom general election, 1931 looks perfectly good. Why do we need these huge picture book images of the leaders here? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Exclusion of the DUP

From what I have read the reason for choosing top four parties is aesthetics, and not merit. In a westminster election the outcome is seats not votes, and on that basis the DUP have performed equally to the LD party and thus should get equal billing, whether that be no billing or fourth billing. Can someone explain why the 8 seat LD get listed and the 8 seat DUP don't? 82.18.177.13 (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it is merit. The LDP were (one of) the governing party prior to the election, so they should be shown regardless of how many seats they won, as it is the change in governing status that makes them worthy of being included in the infobox. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

IS the idea of nth party wrong? Should we be looking at listing government / official opposition both prior and post and ditch the SNP? 82.18.177.13 (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

proportional maps

i have no idea how to do it myself so i appreciate im asking without contributing but would it be possible to make and use a 'proportional map' template? it would give so much more detail about party strength Zaq12wsx (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I have added a section United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015#Voting_distribution_per_constituency - this might be what you were after Eelco de Vlieger (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

MPs who lost their seats

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

331

There seems to be a mistake. According to the BBC the Conservatives won 331 seats and not just 330 as given in the list! --Maxl (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Please eee #Conservative number - include speaker or not? and #Bercow in results tables. –HTD 08:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Category vs. article

As we know, 650 were elected. The category has 652 entries. One extra entry is accounted for by the main list. Any help finding the single rouge entry would be appreciated! Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

What!? The Honourable Member for Choeung Ek? But I think I know what you mean. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

For some reason Chris Philp is listed under "C" but not under "P"? And Catherine West is also under "C" instead of "W"? Helen Whately is listed under "H" but not under "W"? Clive Lewis is listed under "C" but not under "L"? But to answer your query - I've removed the Category from Paul Goggins who is now deceased. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The people showing under the incorrect letters were due to them not having the DEFAULTSORT tag above their categories. I've now added them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But I also had to add the Category to Conor McGinn, so I'm not sure that the figures add up even now? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC) I must say that a comparison task would be made much, much easier if that table sorted alphabetically by surname instead of by first name!

Found him (by chance) - David Watts stood down and McGinn won his seat. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Lib Dems worst result since 1970, 1959 or 1951?

So far there seems to be a disagreement on whether the Lib Dem result was the worst since 1970, 1959 and 1951.

• 2015: 7.9%, 8 seats
• 1970: 7.5%, 6 seats
• 1959: 5.9%, 6 seats
• 1951: 2.5%, 6 seats

Unless I'm missing something, the most recent election where the Lib Dems did worse in terms of both seats and votes was 1970, so the statement in the lead should read '...suffered their worst result since 1970'. Could the people who insist on reverting my edit to 1951 or 1959 please explain whether I'm missing something huge here? Here, have some references: Nub Cake (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The Liberal Democrats were founded on 3 March 1988. Any stats prior to that date must be either for the old Liberal Party or the old SDP. –HTD 15:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty widely accepted that the Liberal Democrats have continuity with the Liberal Party. Reliable sources bear that out. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm the one who changed it to 1951. The lead states "lowest share of the vote", which is certainly 1951 (2.5%) and not 1970 (7.5%), whereas your statement above talks about "worst result" which could mean all sorts of things. Besides, '51 was worse in terms of seats *and* share of the vote. Oxr033 (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaah. I now see where you're coming from, but still not sure its right. 1951 may be their worst election result, but the statement doesn't talk about that. 7.9% is their worst result since last election that they got worse in, which is 1970 (again for both votes and seats). If we sey this is their worst result since 1951, we are saying that they've won better results in every election between 1951 and 2015, which isn't true because of 1959 and 1970? Nub Cake (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Nub Cake. The last time the Liberal Democrats (though still as the Liberals) had a worse result than 2015 is, obviously, 1970. It's not just "worst result", @ Oxr033, it's worst result SINCE! You may have missed the word SINCE! ;) --Maxl (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I seeOxr033 (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

People in this discussion may be interested in this article's opening, by a historian of liberalism. Bondegezou (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Aftermath - and unreported dismay

"We are going to have no shortage of meanness over the next five years. There is going to be meanness to the disabled, meanness to immigrants, there is going to be meanness to the poor, so all we’ve got left is to be compassionate to one another and get involved in causes we care about." Russell Brand

Despite reported comments, outlining fears that Tory policy is likely to have an increasingly negative impact on the lives of the poor, disabled and immigrants, the Aftermath section does not mention any such comments. In fact, it does not appear to contain any reaction at all! Should not this over-site be addressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.58.11 (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's "oversight" and no, it's not an oversight. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for Russell Brand and others in his weird bubble. Argovian (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

And, hopefully, Wikipedia will never be a mouthpiece for the PM and or his weird policy? For whatever one’s view on Russell Brand, he did make a note-worthy point about the likely/possible 'meanness over the next five years”. Within an article about a general election, is it not reasonable that concerns and fears about government policy be highlighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.58.11 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

How is it specific to this article? Obviously those who oppose the Conservatives are going to voice their opposition to the result. It's just not encyclopedic. By all means add it to the Russell Brand article, about his reaction to the result. Argovian (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

“...The crisis of growing poverty among Britons who have been impacted by these reforms has been laid bare by a series of damning studies published in recent months. In April, hundreds of psychotherapists, counselors and mental health practitioners warned “malign” welfare changes are having a detrimental effect on Britons’ psychological and emotional wellbeing. An open letter, published by the Guardian, said the “profoundly disturbing” implications for Britons wrought by the coalition’s austerity policies were largely ignored in the general election campaign...” Russia Today, 11/05/2015

If the timely warning from Russell Brand is not of interest, news-worthy or "encyclopedic", then what about the report from RT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.108.221 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Not encyclopaedic, and arguably not a reliable source. 86.145.151.207 (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Can someone produce evidence that RT is less reliable than other news outlets? Is it that Russia Today is "not a reliable source" - or not a reliable source of pro-Western/anti-Putin (dis)information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.111.203 (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Gains and Losses in Infobox, and other discrepancies

Unless there is some weird Wikipedia rule of which I'm unaware, Reliable Sources normally report seat changes since the previous election, not since dissolution. As such the utterly confusing 'seats before' should be suppressed (or, if kept, should be clearly explained as seats at dissolution), and the changes figures should be corrected. I've done that for the Tory gains, and I'm now going to do it for the othersTlhslobus (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

However it seems there may be some weird Wikipedia rule, judging by the 2010 Infobox, so I've self-reverted pending clarification. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth it seems pretty obvious to me, at least, that "Seats before" means the seats held by the party just before this election, not the seats they gained in the previous election. —Nizolan ^(talk) 02:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile there seems to be a need to fix discrepancies between the infobox (such as Tories 36.9%, swing 0.8%) and the detailed table (Tories 36.8%, swing 0.7%), as well as footnotes explaining such things as why infobox has Tories +28 seats and table has Tories +24, and explaining the Speaker is counted as 331st Tory seat in some sources, and that UKIP is 3rd in votes and DUP also has 8 seats. Also a fix and/or footnote on why the Table shows Tories up 24 since last election but UKIP down 1 (when they're down 1 since dissolution, but up 1 since the last election). Also the lead (and an infobox footnote) should say UKIP are up 9.5% (this is by far the biggest gain in votes in the election, but currently seemingly well tucked away in the 'small print'). I'd try doing all this myself , but my computer is misbehaving, so perhaps somebody else might try instead.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I have amended this with regards to UKIP's gains as, illogical or otherwise, this is the established precedent for reporting gains and losses at UK General Elections: by-election gains are disregarded and changes are weighed against the last general election. Most likely this came about because by-election results are often somewhat atypical, occurring at a different point in the political cycle, garnering much lower turnouts and coming with the attached knowledge that voters know they are almost certainly not going to determine any changes to government, as outlined in Wikpedia's own article on UK by-elections BroSwerve (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Resigned leaders of Labour and Lib Dem

In the current infobox, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg are both listed as leaders of Labour and the Lib Dems respectively. Yet on 8 May, the day of the results, they both resigned as leaders because of poor results in the election (www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32633388 and www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32633462), so shouldn't they be removed as the leaders in the infobox and the deputy leader/acting leader be shown instead (Harriet Harman for Labour and Baroness Brinton for Lib Dems) (www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/every-major-british-political-party--except-the-conservatives--currently-led-by-a-woman-10238390.html) ? --Seagull123 (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Look at previous election pages, the leader who lost the election is listed and photoed in the infoboxOxr033 (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

They were both the leaders of their respective parties throughout the election campaign. Many will see them as part of the reason, maybe even the main reason, why the Conservatives won! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! It's just confusing to see them there when the news has reported them to have resigned. Seagull123 (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Endorsements - of right-wing newspapers

While various newspapers endorsed parties for this general election, might not the negative and damaging impact of a (generally) right-wing media be mentioned?

And what about the impact of other biased sections of the media, internet, organisations, etc? Why specifically the right-wing newspapers? BBC? The Mirror? You've been watching Question Time haven't you... *rolls eyes* Argovian (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I see you're the same anon. IP editor who's been writing in the "Aftermath - and unreported dismay" section above. Just to put that on record and highlight it for other editors. Interesting. Argovian (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.108.221 (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Breakdown of Results Page?

I've noticed that no one has set up a breakdown of the results page for this election so far, the past two elections have this important page is so results can be broken down to the English Counties and regions as well as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. can we please set this page up? (46.65.97.8 (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC))

I have created links for the pages in question but at the moment I am unable to actually create the article is needed through I'm very much more keeping the format of the pages to what it was back in 2010. Can someone please get on and create the page as well as the maps in question. Thanks. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2015

"The Labour Party, led by Ed Miliband, won 30.4% and 232 seats, faring below polling expectations and suffering their worst defeat since 1987" This sentence is misleading. The Labour Party actually improved its vote share by about 1.5%. '... their worst defeat in terms of number of seats ...' would be more accurate. Laworr1 (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added "in terns of seats" as a qualifier. But I think another editor should endorse this before the request is closed. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems fine, so I'm ticking the box. Alakzi (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Notional majority

The article at present reads:

The incumbent Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, having governed since 2010 in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, was elected for a second term with 36.9% of the vote and 331 seats, this time with a parliamentary majority of 15 (with Sinn Féin's 4 MPs abstaining and the Speaker taken into account).

In fact it is 17:

• Seats: 650
• Less: 4 SF/IRA MPs and the Speaker: 645
• Conservative seats: 331
• Therefore non-Conservative seats: 314
• 331 less 314 = 17

This should be amended. 91.213.110.4 (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You've forgot about the Speaker, who is taken from the 331... the Tories therefore have 330 on their benches. The majority is therefore 15. Argovian (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Maths says 330 minus 314 is actually 16.

should only be top three parties like after previous elections

In all articles about previous elections, only the top three parties are in infobox. This article should be changed to reflect that agreed format - or is this just politically motivated by those who don't want to accept that the Lib Dems are now insignificant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.110.75 (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

the argument is that since the LDs were part of the Government & there was a dramatic reversal in their fortunes so they should be shown. There has been no rule that it was only the three largest parties; there just happened to be three main parties w/little (relative) movement. Personally I'm ambivalent on whether to include the LDs or not, but if pushed wouldn't include them either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptographic.2014 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

In all articles about previous elections? Did you read the articles about the elections in 1920s? Lmmnhn (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

there is kowe rule that there shud be 3 partis in the info box as shown by elections like the 1931 election which contains 6 partis it's just that at elctions sinse then onley 3 partis have had sugnificent presans at Westminster even when the liberals wher getting 6 mps they wher far ahead of the next partis and at one election ther wher onley 3 partis this election have proud used major Chang to the standing of the lib dems and the snp justifying expanding the info box to 4 partis88.107.184.52 (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

British politics has changed with this election, and defining a meaningful "big three" has become almost impossible. The SNP has only a modest share of the national vote, but a very substantial number of the seats due to regional concentration; the Lib Dems, formerly one of the "big three", has a much larger share of the overall vote than the SNP but now only a few MPs; and UKIP has an even larger share of the vote than the Lib Dems, but only one seat. No serious discussion of British politics can avoid taking into account all three of these in addition to the Labour and Conservative parties. -- The Anome (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

"Fourth Party"?

Surely the Lib Dems are tied for 'fourth party' with the DUP? Both parties got eight seats in Parliament, yet only one is listed as being the 'fourth party'. --24.88.64.22 (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The LD were in power prior the election, so if there were only 3 parties listed, it should be Tories, Labour and LD, as there are four parties listed, it should still include the LD because they were voted out of power, thus indicating a change in the governing party coalition (ie, what people are likely wanting to read about, the change in power, what changed in the election). -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think a good argument can be made that UKIP should be in there too. Although absolutely insignificant in terms of parliamentary seats (one seat!) they were actually the third largest party in terms of national vote at 12.6%, way ahead of the SNP (4.7%) and Lib Dems (7.9%). See [4] for data. -- The Anome (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no argument. I'm sorry, but the British parliamentary system is not proportional. It is based on winning constituencies, first-past-the-post. Ukip had a horrid result. Vote share is irrelevant. RGloucester — ☎ 22:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It's true ukip shuod not be included as they onley have one seat and it's seats that count not vot share the leb dems also problely shude not be included ever88.107.184.52 (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the UKIP should be included, as they had a bad record of actually getting elected - only one seat for how ever many candidates they put forward. The Lib-Dems and the DUP fared much better, with eight seats each.

In the interest of symmetry in the infobox, maybe the sixth largest political party should also be included: Sinn Féin with four seats, although they don't represent their constituents in parliament. --24.88.64.22 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

if you want to includ shin fine then that is fine as they are included in the 1918 elction info box but I don't think they are segnificent Enoch the lib dems are at the botum of a resen blu cut of point 88.107.184.52 (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Update re Northern Ireland

The Northern Ireland section is written very much from the point of view of pre-election, e.g. Sinn Fein polling the highest vote in 2010 - could it be updated properly to reflect the outcome? Aldernodules (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Results of the 2015 United Kingdom general election by parliamentary constituency

I'm posting this here since the talk page for the 2010 results isn't active. For the creation of this article, I would like to start the discussion about that article before it's started. In contrast to the 2010 article, Results of the 2010 United Kingdom general election by parliamentary constituency, we should probably make some changes. I'd suggest we remove a column for the county, which looks incomplete and may be redundant by the region column. We should also remove a column for the BNP due to their electoral collapse, and separate the results for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I'm sure there are other possible changes that can be made, but these three alone would remove eight columns from most of the constituencies which would let the table fit into the page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That's the first time I've seen that page, and it's hideous. Burn it with fire, burn it with fire! Yes to all of your changes. I'd suggest breaking up the table further, perhaps by region + NI, Wal & Scot. And add some introductory text, some colour - anything but an illegible data dump! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The advantage of having a single table is that the column sort works across the UK dataset, same applies to the totals at the bottom. Eelco de Vlieger (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Add number of lost deposits to results table?

It would be interesting to know the number of lost deposits, particularly for the major parties (clearly those down the list will be all the candidates).

I don't know though how easy this would be source and add. Robertm25 (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea if someone can work out how to do it. Some sources list Liberal Democrat lost deposits. AusLondonder (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a bad Idea as it does not add to the table and is potentially a POV addition. the above comment is highly POV and the information would have little meaning if added. Parties which lost more deposits than other stood candidates could invite POV inferences on that party. Sport and politics (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Graphical composition bars on infobox

What does everyone think about the new graphical bars that represent the number of seats won on the infobox? Whoever uploaded it has already done it to the 2010, 2005 and 2001 articles. I'm personally not sure yet whether or not I like it but it is a welcome difference to the columns full of numbers and percentages. Nub Cake (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's an improvement. There are so many numbers in the infobox (which is supposed to be a summary!!) and this helps the important ones stand out. It also gives a minimal graphical representation of the percentage of seats won, which is doubly helpful. Number 57 16:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Its a confusion and does not add to the box, the numbers can be hard to read due to some of the colours used e.g. labour red or UKIP purple.Sport and politics (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Number 57, the infobox with just numbers and percentages can be quite overwhelming. Nub Cake (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I think they make the infobox too busy: it becomes overwhelming with details and colours and shapes. An infobox is meant to be a succinct summary, not some elaborate construct full of different things. We've got a whole article outside the infobox: put all those extra details in the article, not the infobox!

That said, I oppose the switch back to the traditional infobox anyway. That was made during the heat of the results coming in and bypassed the lengthy consensus-building we'd been through to agree the previous infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The infobox is already far too busy with too many rows of figures. The coloured bars actually help numbers stand out and make it less confusing.

Which infobox to use is a different issue, but I really can't see how the current infobox is compliant with NPOV when it has the Lib Dems as the fourth party when they got far fewer votes than UKIP and have the same number of seats as another excluded party. Number 57 17:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This is an addition for the sake of it. Pretty colours in the infobox is not a good thing, it creates an overly busy and confusing quick hit summary. So far it seems the addition i just because and not for any other reason. The pretty colours draw a focus only to that part of the infobox which is not good when trying to present the information in the rest of the infobox. Sport and politics (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This is also not a place for NPOV discussions on individual parties in the infobox please start a fresh discussion on that. Please no one take the bait on UKIP and get drawn off topic. From what has been previously said there is a long standing consensus built up over a prolonged period of tome it may well be best to feed this in to those discussions. Can a link to those please be provided. Sport and politics (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox again (again)

Sport and politics, above, rightly points out that discussion of what infobox to have is a broader question warranting its own section, so voilà...

We had many discussions in the run-up to the 2015 election as to what to do with the infobox given the rise of UKIP, the SNP and the Greens, and the collapse in the LibDems, while still respecting precedent and the presence of several Northern Ireland parties with seats. That discussion was lengthy and wide-ranging: highlights include Talk:United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015/Archive_2#Adding_UKIP_to_the_info_box and Talk:United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015/Archive_3#New_infobox_proposal. Debate also covered some other articles, e.g Talk:United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2014#UKIP_in_the_infobox.2C_as_3rd_or_4th_party.3F.

Eventually, not very long before the election, discussion (see above: Talk:United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015#Infobox_again) produced a consensus to switch to a new style of infobox (although after we did so, a few people then opposed the change). In brief, the traditional style with pictures of party leaders can only cover up to 9 parties, leading to endless arguments over who to leave out. The new style, developed from a model used on Israeli election articles, is more compact by dropping pictures and some other details, thus allowing all parties to be covered. This new infobox template is still quite new and being tweaked. It has, after discussion, been adopted for Next United Kingdom general election.

However -- soon after the results came out, as far as I remember -- this new infobox was replaced here with the old infobox, initially with just Con/Lab/SNP, which then became Con/Lab/SNP/LD/DUP and has now become Con/Lab/SNP/LD. Those changes do not seem to reflect a consensus, but there was a lot going on with this article; it was a busy time. Anyway... I suggest we return to the new style infobox, listing all parties that won any seats in the 2015 election. I am happy to go through my reasoning in depth, but I've said it all before in the links provided. Bondegezou (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

this info box is fitting for uk elections the problem with aney info box layout is that even the new style did not includ evrey party standing in the election as ther are lots of small partys and the debat about wher to dare the line and what ouder to put them in whoud hapen aney way the current info box workers fine given the voting system and the relates of elections to the house of comans where 3 party's have over 50 seats and partis like ukip have just 1 and will have lital impact when it come sto voting in the house of comans it is standard practis across all uk election pagers and coverage to include the partis with fuwe seats simply as others this page is abut the resutsls which put con lab and snp far Ahmed of aney other party so this in boxe shud remain peticuley as money of the other parteys dint Chang there reposition muche.88.107.184.52 (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Table of results

In the table of results, it lists UKIP as having lost one seat, and RESPECT also having lost one seat. These are based on by-election gains, and my understanding of UK general elections to most commentators, including how we record results on Wikipedia is that re-gaining seats lost in by-elections count as holds not gains. This leads to the second problem that the 'seats gained' and 'seats lost' totals should equal each other, but the seats gained totals 113, but seats lost totals 109, so these figures are wrong... MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right: we should follow general practice and show changes against the previous election. Bondegezou (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

In the table of results the total votes cast adds to 30,695,760, not 30,691,680 as shownDouglas169 (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

We actually haven't been entirely consistent on this; for the 2010 and 2005 elections, there are distinct ‘Last election’ and ‘Seats before’ rows in the main infobox and gains and losses are calculated on the basis of the number of seats each party had at the dissolution of Parliament, but for the 2001 election and earlier, there is no ‘Seats before’ row at all and gains and losses are calculated on the basis of the number of seats each party won at the previous election. This is something we should probably try to work out on the talk page for WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom; it doesn't affect this election in particular. Esszet (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Table of how many seats changed hands

I proposed this above, and after getting a bit of help on how to format the tables have the finished results here. Given that there were lots of seats that changed hands, and Labour and Conservatives lost a few to each other, I thought these tables would be useful, showing how many constituencies changed hands from one party to another between the 2010 and 2015 election:

Great Britain:

2015 election →	Conservative	Labour	Scottish National Party	Liberal Democrats	Plaid Cymru	UKIP	Green	Speaker	2010 Total	losses
↓ 2010 election
Conservative	style="background:Template:Conservative Party (UK)/meta/color" | 295	10	-	-	-	1	-	-	style="background:Template:Conservative Party (UK)/meta/color; color:white"| 306	− 11
Labour	8	style="background:Template:Labour Party (UK)/meta/color"| 210	40	-	-	-	-	-	style="background:Template:Labour Party (UK)/meta/color; color:white" | 258	− 48
SNP	-	-	style="background:Template:Scottish National Party/meta/color" | 6	-	-	-	-	-	style="background:Template:Scottish National Party/meta/color; color:black" | 6	-
Liberal Democrats	27	12	10	style="background:Template:Liberal Democrats/meta/color" | 8	-	-	-	-	style="background:Template:Liberal Democrats/meta/color; color:white" | 57	− 49
Plaid Cymru	-	-	-	-	style="background:Template:Plaid Cymru/meta/color"| 3	-	-	-	style="background:Template:Plaid Cymru/meta/color; color:white"| 3	-
UKIP	-	-	-	-	-	style="background:Template:UK Independence Party/meta/color"| -	-	-	style="background:Template:UK Independence Party/meta/color; color:white"| 0	-
Green	-	-	-	-	-	-	style="background:Template:Green Party (UK)/meta/color"| 1	-	style="background:Template:Green Party (UK)/meta/color; color:white"| 1	-
Speaker	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	style="background:Template:Independent (politics)/meta/color"| 1	1	-
2015 total	style="background:Template:Conservative Party (UK)/meta/color; color:white"| 330	style="background:Template:Labour Party (UK)/meta/color; color:white" | 232	style="background:Template:Scottish National Party/meta/color; color:black" | 56	style="background:Template:Liberal Democrats/meta/color; color:white" | 8	style="background:Template:Plaid Cymru/meta/color; color:white"| 3	style="background:Template:UK Independence Party/meta/color; color:white"| 1	style="background:Template:Green Party (UK)/meta/color; color:white"| 1	1	632
gains	+ 35	+ 22	+ 50	-	-	+ 1	-	-		± 108
Net change	+ 24	- 26	+ 50	− 49	-	+ 1	-	-

Northern Ireland:

2015 election →	Democratic Unionist Party	Sinn Féin	Social Democratic and Labour Party	Ulster Unionist Party	Alliance Party of Northern Ireland	Independent	2010 Total	losses
↓ 2010 election
Democratic Unionist Party	style="background:Template:Democratic Unionist Party/meta/color" | 7	-	-	1	-	-	style="background:Template:Democratic Unionist Party/meta/color; color:white"| 8	− 1
Sinn Féin	-	style="background:Template:Sinn Féin/meta/color"| 4	-	1	-	-	style="background:Template:Sinn Féin/meta/color; color:white" | 5	− 1
Social Democratic and Labour Party	-	-	style="background:Template:Social Democratic and Labour Party/meta/color" | 3	-	-	-	style="background:Template:Social Democratic and Labour Party/meta/color; color:white" | 3	-
Ulster Unionist Party	-	-	-	style="background:Template:Ulster Unionist Party/meta/color" | -	-	-	style="background:Template:Ulster Unionist Party/meta/color; color:white" | 0	-
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland	1	-	-	-	style="background:Template:Alliance Party of Northern Ireland/meta/color"| -	-	style="background:Template:Alliance Party of Northern Ireland/meta/color; color:white"| 1	- 1
Independent	-	-	-	-	-	style="background:Template:Independent (politics)/meta/color"| 1	1	-
2015 total	style="background:Template:Democratic Unionist Party/meta/color; color:white"| 8	style="background:Template:Sinn Féin/meta/color; color:white" | 4	style="background:Template:Social Democratic and Labour Party/meta/color; color:white" | 3	style="background:Template:Ulster Unionist Party/meta/color; color:white" | 2	style="background:Template:Alliance Party of Northern Ireland/meta/color; color:white"| 0	1	18
gains	+ 1	-	-	+ 2	-	-		± 3
Net change	-	- 1	-	+ 2	- 1	-

I'm pretty sure all the numbers are right, but is there are any amendments that need to be made, feel free.

MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you - I find these really difficult to follow. I think that the idea is admirable but it needs a key of some sort before going live. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

To go further - it's taken me a while to work out that we read left to right to see where the 2010 seats from the Conservatives have gone, and top to bottom to see where the 2015 seats have come from. It really isn't clear enough that we're meant to do this. One suggestion - could the column '2010 total' move to the left of the table somehow? It makes much more sense to me if we read that first, and then understand that the seats to the right are being taken away from that total. I'm not suggesting that it's finished, but something closer to this perhaps?

2015 election →		Conservative	Labour	Scottish National Party	Liberal Democrats	Plaid Cymru	UKIP	Green	Speaker	losses
↓ 2010 election
Conservative	style="background:Template:Conservative Party (UK)/meta/color; color:white"| 306	style="background:Template:Conservative Party (UK)/meta/color" | 295	10	-	-	-	1	-		− 11
Labour	style="background:Template:Labour Party (UK)/meta/color; color:white" | 258	8	style="background:Template:Labour Party (UK)/meta/color"| 210	40	-	-	-	-	-	− 48
SNP	style="background:Template:Scottish National Party/meta/color; color:black" | 6	-	-	style="background:Template:Scottish National Party/meta/color" | 6	-	-	-	-	-	-
Liberal Democrats	style="background:Template:Liberal Democrats/meta/color; color:white" | 57	27	12	10	style="background:Template:Liberal Democrats/meta/color" | 8	-	-	-	-	− 49
Plaid Cymru	style="background:Template:Plaid Cymru/meta/color; color:white"| 3	-	-	-	-	style="background:Template:Plaid Cymru/meta/color"| 3	-	-	-	-
UKIP	style="background:Template:UK Independence Party/meta/color; color:white"| 0	-	-	-	-	-	style="background:Template:UK Independence Party/meta/color"| -	-	-	-
Green	style="background:Template:Green Party (UK)/meta/color; color:black"| 1	-	-	-	-	-	-	style="background:Template:Green Party (UK)/meta/color"| 1	-	-
Speaker	style="background:Template:Independent (politics)/meta/color"| 1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
2015 total		style="background:Template:Conservative Party (UK)/meta/color; color:white"| 330	style="background:Template:Labour Party (UK)/meta/color; color:white" | 232	style="background:Template:Scottish National Party/meta/color; color:black" | 56	style="background:Template:Liberal Democrats/meta/color; color:white" | 8	style="background:Template:Plaid Cymru/meta/color; color:white"| 3	style="background:Template:UK Independence Party/meta/color; color:white"| 1	style="background:Template:Green Party (UK)/meta/color; color:white"| 1	1
gains		+ 35	+ 22	+ 50	-	-	+ 1	-	-
Net change		+ 24	- 26	+ 50	− 49	-	+ 1	-	-

They do take a moment or two to understand, but I really like these (don't mind where the 2010 results column goes). Thanks, MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really..., and I say let's add them to the article (and then produce similar tables for the 2010 result!). Bondegezou (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

New election result articles

User:MrPenguin20 has recently created United Kingdom general election, 2015 (Edinburgh), United Kingdom general election, 1997 (Edinburgh), United Kingdom general election, 2015 (West Yorkshire), United Kingdom general election, 2015 (Cornwall) &c. While I applaud MrPenguin20's boldness and diligence, it seems to me inappropriate to have so many spin-off articles. They are generally for small groups of constituencies, they are without reliable source citations (i.e. commentary or results describing those areas; I'm sure the numbers given are calculated from reliable sources) and may constitute WP:OR. There is no constitutional significance to these groupings. What do others feel? Would MrPenguin20 like to discuss his/her reasoning...? Bondegezou (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I had largely created the pages after seeing there were several similar articles on Glasgow, and was aware there were similar articles for certain other regions/areas (e.g. Cornwall, West Yorkshire etc). I didn't create the Cornwall and West Yorkshire pages, but I did fill the results in for the latter, and made a couple of changes on the former. The results were compiled using the BBC News constituency results page, and for the West Yorkshire page I relied on the Yorkshire Post (it had a handy list of all the results per constituency).

I understand your point about having new pages for every conglomeration/region though. My creation of the Edinburgh pages was, like I said, largely driven in response to the Glasgow pages out of a desire to give an account of the politics of Scotlands capital, which in some ways is different to the national trend. That being said, I suppose a different approach (with less pages) could be to move the result breakdowns from these pages to the Politics of Edinburgh page? MrPenguin20 (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I prodded the United Kingdom general election, 2015 (West Yorkshire) article (its creator subsequently deprodded it). Personally I don't see the point in these articles. What particular relevance does the outcome of the West Yorkshire seats have? Number 57 11:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, unnecessary. Delete them all I say! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, User:MrPenguin20, for my misattributions. That was careless of me. I like your suggestion to cover this sort of material on the Politics of Edinburgh article (or equivalents). However, I think that can be done better by finding a reliable source saying that the results in Edinburgh in some ways differ to the national trend rather than showing a breakdown of results. Bondegezou (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)