Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election

SDLP in infobox

In the infobox, the SDLP is displaying as Social Democratic and Labour, which makes the infobox overly wide and isn’t how the party is usually referred to. How do we change it to say “SDLP” while maintaining the template colour? Bondegezou (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

it'd have to be changed in the political party module by changing the shortname to SDLP I believe. CipherRephic (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I have no idea how to do that! Anyone...? Bondegezou (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Done! Ralbegen (talk) 09:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ralbegen, it appears to have changed back. Where can I make these edits? Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I get as far as Wikipedia:Index of United Kingdom political parties meta attributes, but then get stuck. Bondegezou (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bondegezou — I did it by editing the source of Module:Political party/S. You have to scroll all the way past the article to get to the editing panel. The editor was GoldRingChip, who also set "SNP" as the short name of the SNP with "Scottish National" and reverted my change. I don't think either of those reflect usage in the vast majority of reliable sources ("Social Democratic and Labour MPs" is a phrase which appears a handful of times compared to "Social Democratic and Labour Party MPs" or "SDLP MPs" (which is introduced in high quality sources without explaining the acronym). The short names as actually used are the acronyms rather than the party names sans "party" and that should be reflected by the encyclopaedia. Ralbegen (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

2024 election series template (below infobox)

Seeking opinion on this before I do anything too destructive - do we feel this is strictly necessary? Most of the links in the template are in the infobox directly above it already and those that aren't are either elsewhere in the article or can quite reasonably added to a more appropriate spot, so the template feels a bit redundant. Would appreciate any thoughts you may have.

CipherRephic (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@CipherRephicI 100% agree. The current info box is

- redundant

- inconsistent with previous articles

- generally just less sightly than the regular one.

So I think we should switch to Template:Infobox election DimensionalFusion (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Switching infobox would be more concise and look far less clunky, completely agree. Ebm2002 (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this change and the rationale presented here. I can understand having TILE much in advance of an election, but it's standard that once the election is announced (and to my knowledge, even before then) we switch to TIE. There's no good reason why we shouldn't have TIE at this point. — Czello ^(music) 08:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

So the rationale behind the current style is:

"There is a consensus to use this infobox style, not Template:Infobox election. This is because the latter cannot include all the parties, and therefore if we included it before the results of the election are known, we would have to guess which parties will make a significant impact, against what WP:CRYSTAL says. So do NOT change the infobox without consulting the talk page to change the consensus."

I am not inclined to agree with this argument. The use of Template:Infobox election format is on the basis of the last election results (and typically how many seats are needed for a majority), not, as is argued here, what we think will or is likely to happen in the upcoming election. Mapperman03 (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bondegezou Hi, you reverted the infobox change despite there being a consensus here. Why? DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

We have a longstanding consensus to use TILE before the election. We did this before previous general elections. We should not change from that until a new consensus has been demonstrated. You don't get to make the change you want and then tell people to wait for a consensus: we stick with the long-standing arrangement until the matter is settled. Bondegezou (talk) 09:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, to demonstrate you have consensus for a major change to the article, you need more than a few comments in a Talk section not even on the topic, and a discussion that has had more than 12 hours to take place. An RfC might be necessary. Bondegezou (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Czello, are you being serious with this? You are an experienced editor and you should know you need more evidence of consensus than the above. Do not start an WP:EDITWAR. Bondegezou (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Since the topic of this dicussion has diverted to the infobox, I believe I need to explain the reason why I believe TILE is better than TIE until the results of the election are in, since I wrote the note Mapperman03 quoted. There was a discussion now at Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1#Infobox (2) where I explained my rationale in more detail than that note, and I note DimensionalFusion and Bondegezou took part in that discussion. I criticised DimensionalFusion's arguments as unsubstantiated then and I do again now. They have said nothing in this dicussion that they didn't say in that discussion, and so I reiterate my criticisms: "less sightly" is a subjective opinion that falls foul of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and comparing to precedence goes against WP:OTHERCONTENT and is an example of the false equivalence fallacy, as past and future elections are not comparable. I take it when they say "redundant" they are referring to TILE including more parties, but that is a necessity to avoid failing WP:CRYSTAL.

On the subject of WP:CRYSTAL, the reason why I believe all the parties with MPs in the House of Commons now/at dissolution (and therefore my reason for using TILE) need to be included is that we don't know the results of the election, and therefore which parties will have a significant number of MPs after the next election. This means to avoid creating an infobox that implies we are presuming only some parties (probably Con, Lab, SNP and LD) will get a significant number of seats in an election we don't know the results of, we have to use TILE, as that is able to list all the parties in a reasonably small amount of space. It's important the infobox is relatively small, as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE's statement The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. TIE cannot list all the parties necessary to include (either for technical reasons or because otherwise the infobox would be huge), so we should use TILE. This will stay the case until at least the outcome of the election is obvious (when most seats have declared their results). So I disagree with Czello that now or at dissolution is the time to change the infobox, that time will be at the earliest around 03:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (that's 4am in the UK) when we know which parties have a significant number of seats for sure. Then TIE will likely be the best infobox. --TedEdwards 14:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@TedEdwards It's interesting you should bring up MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE's statement "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". TILE does not meet this. Is knowing all 15 parties and their leaders and their candidates really needed at a glance? Does "Speaker" need to be included in the infobox? "Speaker" is obviously not going to win a landslide of seats, which is the same rationale applied to the rest of the parties- for example, the DUP, SF, PC, Alliance, and SDLP all cannot win huge majorities because they only run in their own regions.

Counter to this, it is much more important for the reader to know what the main parties' standings are. Labour and Conservative are being put on the same list as WPGB. Is knowing how many seats Speaker currently has really key information, vital to the election? I don't think so. DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

To return to what this section actually began talking about, I would support dropping the election series template. It's unnecessary clutter. Bondegezou (talk) 09:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@CipherRephic: Since this discussion immediately went off-topic because the editor who replied to you first only bothered to read what they wanted to see and not what you actually said, do you think it would be worth splitting this discussion into two? Or renaming this discussion to refer to the infobox, and start a fresh discussion about Template:2024 United Kingdom general election series somewhere else? --TedEdwards 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@TedEdwards I'd favour starting a new section with a less ambiguous header but as the significantly less experienced editor I feel I ought to defer to you on matters of procedure such as this - what would you suggest? CipherRephic (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@CipherRephic: Since RealTaxiDriver started a separate discussion on the infobox at #Infobox, I suggest further comments about the infobox go there. As for this header being ambiguous, the thing is I don't think it is, and I can't see what anyone could change it to. You were crystal clear with what you wanted to dicuss, but DimensionalFusion, who only bothered to look at the word "infobox", drove the topic off-piste so she could talk about what she wanted. So it's not your fault this happened.

To summarise to all editors: This discussion is on including Template:2024 United Kingdom general election series in the article, not on the infobox (bolding for emphasis). Further comments on the infobox should go under #Infobox--TedEdwards 22:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I misread "2024 election series template (below infobox)" as "2024 election series template (infobox)" DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I am going to WP:BOLDly remove the series template using CipherRephic's rationale. If contested the reverting editor can discuss it here. --TedEdwards 17:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Candidate details

A large amount of this article at present -- maybe half? -- consists of various large tables about candidates not standing again, candidates moving constituency, candidates who used to be MPs etc. This seems to me like too much focus on minutiae rather than on the core narrative of the election.

We already have a spin-off Candidates in the 2024 United Kingdom general election article. Could we move some or all of the current content here to that article? What say people? Bondegezou (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Please, yes. I like having the information but I having so many bulky lists is not good for the main election article. Ralbegen (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it's in danger of getting a bit crowded and there could probably be a better home for it, likely the spin-off page you have suggested. As much as I think the list of candidates standing down is the most relevant, there is precedent for having an entirely separate article just for this information - 2019, 2017, 2015 and 2010. I don't know if this should be created now or post-election though? OGBC1992 (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Although actually 2017's list remains as part of the wider Election article, rather than being its own article. The others have distinct articles. OGBC1992 (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Happy to discuss different options. My initial thought was to include up to the table labelled "Number of MP retirements by party affiliation", but then move everything else out of this article. Bondegezou (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that would probably be fine. My impulse, as I say, would be to keep the table of retirements on this article and move all the tables beyond that, certainly for now while it's still being added to, but that's just a personal preference. OGBC1992 (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Given support here, I have moved all of these tables, except the table of retirements. I would also favour moving the table of retirements, but left that while there was a lack of unanimity on the matter. Bondegezou (talk) 08:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This is looking better now, but at present the long list of individual MPs not standing for re-election is still in the main article, and there's a long sentence in the body text describing which lists are in the separate article, which might be better as a hatnote. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, I've left the list of MPs not standing for re-election as the above discussion was not unanimous on moving it. We can continue that discussion and move or not move it later. Feel free to edit the sentence describing what is in the separate article. Bondegezou (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't checked the edit history - that wasn't meant to be a dig at you. Your revisions are good, and I'm not criticising the wording of the longer 'see also' - it's more a stylistic thing that those sorts of texts are better as notes than body text, but I don't feel confident enough with the appropriate style for hatnotes to make the change myself. Personally I strongly favour keeping only the summary table (and possibly re-adding summary tables for other changes), and moving every detail table to the other article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I would just like to add support for removing the list of retiring MPs from the article and keeping only the summary table. Even with the others removed it is by far the most prominent part of the article. It's a good detail to have, but the summary table would be the right amount of weight to apportion to it. Ralbegen (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I think most people here were in favour of keeping the summary table, which has now gone as well as the list. What's the best way we can cross-include it from the candidates article so that both can be updated together? A template? Ralbegen (talk) 09:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

First election for King Charles III

There seems to be a war as to whether this is included. As the original editor has notice there is precedent (cf 1955 United Kingdom general election), and it is as relevant as as it being the first election since Brexit, in terms of setting a historical context. Please can we restore it. Hoffie01 (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead should summarise the key points in the article. Reliable sources tell us what the key points are. Reliable sources, of which there are a large number, are not talking about the election being the first in Charles III's reign. It is clearly not a key fact about the election. Ergo, it should not be in the lead.

The role of the monarch was somewhat different in 1955. I don't feel able to comment on the appropriateness of such content in that article's lead. Bondegezou (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Fully agree - though it appears a vandal may have done the work for us already. CipherRephic (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the point about following what reliable sources say (I'm sure BBC News mentioned it being the first election under Charles III while I was watching their live coverage of the Prime Minister's announcement but it was probably just a passing mention), but I'd like to point out to @Bondegezou that the role of the monarch has not changed since 1955. Charles' powers are the same as Elizabeth's were. It is perhaps true that the public perception of the monarch's role which has changed, but not the actual role of the monarchy.

If reliable sources start mentioning it prominently, we absolutely should include this factoid. As it stands, it's just a largely irrelevant passing comment. Adam Black ^{t • c} 23:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, it deserves to be mentioned, but not in the lead, and not with a large amount of trivial embellishment. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy for it to be mentioned elsewhere. Maybe the Background section would be appropriate? Bondegezou (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I’d agree with this proposal. OGBC1992 (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that it's best included somewhere. A mention of the first or last general election under a certain monarch has in several articles been mentioned in the final paragraph of the lede (eg. 1935, 1951, 1955, 2019). I wouldn't be opposed to it being in the background, but I believe its best if its in the same place in each article. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

A brief mention ("the first general election during the reign of Charles III" or similar) would fit in well in the lede, alongside the other firsts. Constitutionally relevant. But no more than that: yesterday it had an explanation that Charles had taken over following his mum's death whenever that was, which was a bit much. Moscow Mule (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

In addition to this being the first General Election of the present reign, I request a correction is made to the common error that the Prime Minister advises the Sovereign to grant a Dissolution. The Prime Minister can only REQUEST a Dissolution of the Sovereign, and this is laid out quite clearly by Constitutional experts, both living and dead, along with the reasons why.

Newsflash almost nobody cares about who sits on the golden throne with stolen jewels bring on the republic

The conduct and result of the election is in no way determined or influenced by this factoid. It is more relevant that it is the first election called by a drenched PM who was being heckled by a boom box. Also thoughly irrelevant that it is the first since Brexit or the repeal of the Dissolution Act. Far more relevant that it is the first since the Truss lunacy, the first in which one of the main leaders hoping to be Prime Minister has been fined for breaching the law in a manner related to his role in government, and the first since the Rwanda project. The July factoid is incredibly tedious too: there are 12 months in the year, so 2 out of 21 elections being in a particular month is exactly what anyone might expect. Kevin McE (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The edit warring over this has gone on long enough, earlier discussions appear to indicate a consensus on keeping the info in the article but moving it to the background section. I'll thus be doing so, unless anyone has any particular objections? CipherRephic (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be a persistent IP editor who keeps adding this to the lead. The appropriate response is to treat this as disruptive editing, promptly revert them and seek a ban. Bondegezou (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have a particular objection. Nobody has even attempted to give any reason why either the occupant of the throne, nor the number of elections to have been held during the current reign, is of any relevance at all. Constitutionally, it is relevant that there is a monarch, but the identity of that post-holder and the amount of time they have been there changes absolutely nothing in terms of the election itself. Kevin McE (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate personal attack, please do not respond Adam Black t • c 23:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We have a royal sycophant here^— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7c:db33:8300:b44c:a60a:8b92:21 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

Lets settle this
What should be the infobox:
A - Classic election infobox as seen in 2019
B - Current infobox
RealTaxiDriver (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

B, until the result is declared. For the reasons outlined further up this page, several times.

I genuinely can’t believe we’re still having this conversation. OGBC1992 (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There are other options: (C) No infobox, (D) Party-free infobox (showing a map or other details, but not parties).

The classic election (TIE) infobox is used now for the 2019 general election, but (mostly) wasn't used for that article before the vote. There has been considerable discussion of what infobox to use before an election over the years, and the most stable consensus has been to use the current (TILE) infobox. However, I note (D) was also used at times during the 2019 campaign.

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Infoboxes should be smaller, not bigger. That's why I favour the TILE format over the bloated TIE format. We also have to avoid WP:CRYSTALBALL predictions and take a WP:NPOV. A TIE format has to exclude multiple parties, which introduces bias, and ends up making a guess about the results. So, I favour (B), but would be fine with (C) or (D). Bondegezou (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. I believe the numeruous small parties mandated within TILE is unnecessary content. That's why I favour the TIE format over the bloated TIE format. DimensionalFusion (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@RealTaxiDriver B (TILE) seems most appropriate for now - using A (TIE) would necessitate speculating as to whether certain parties (e.g. the greens, reform, plaid) would gain sufficient foothold to be considered major, contravening WP:CRYSTALBALL. I'd concede the TIE box looks nicer, but (especially this early in the campaign) that shouldn't be the primary goal. CipherRephic (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

First of all I need to mention that a discussion on this ended up starting in a discussion on a different topic at #2024 election series template (below infobox) because someone only got as far as reading the word "infobox" before replying. I have attempted now to redirect all discussion on the infobox in that section to here.

To reiterate my view, it is to support B, and I quote myself here to explain why:
Since the topic of this dicussion has diverted to the infobox, I believe I need to explain the reason why I believe TILE is better than TIE until the results of the election are in, since I wrote the note Mapperman03 quoted. There was a discussion now at Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1#Infobox (2) where I explained my rationale in more detail than that note, and I note DimensionalFusion and Bondegezou took part in that discussion. I criticised DimensionalFusion's arguments as unsubstantiated then and I do again now. They have said nothing in this dicussion that they didn't say in that discussion, and so I reiterate my criticisms: "less sightly" is a subjective opinion that falls foul of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and comparing to precedence goes against WP:OTHERCONTENT and is an example of the false equivalence fallacy, as past and future elections are not comparable. I take it when they say "redundant" they are referring to TILE including more parties, but that is a necessity to avoid failing WP:CRYSTAL.
On the subject of WP:CRYSTAL, the reason why I believe all the parties with MPs in the House of Commons now/at dissolution (and therefore my reason for using TILE) need to be included is that we don't know the results of the election, and therefore which parties will have a significant number of MPs after the next election. This means to avoid creating an infobox that implies we are presuming only some parties (probably Con, Lab, SNP and LD) will get a significant number of seats in an election we don't know the results of, we have to use TILE, as that is able to list all the parties in a reasonably small amount of space. It's important the infobox is relatively small, as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE's statement "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." TIE cannot list all the parties necessary to include (either for technical reasons or because otherwise the infobox would be huge), so we should use TILE. This will stay the case until at least the outcome of the election is obvious (when most seats have declared their results). So I disagree with Czello that now or at dissolution is the time to change the infobox, that time will be at the earliest around 03:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (that's 4am in the UK) when we know which parties have a significant number of seats for sure. Then TIE will likely be the best infobox.

To reply to something written by DimensionalFusion in response to the above comment, the choice is TIE with all parties or TILE with all parties, as excluding parties will fall foul of WP:Crystal (also pointed out by Bondegezou above). We can't even exclude the Northern Irish parties/Plaid Cymru because the DUP is included in the infobox at 2017 United Kingdom general election because they had a major impact on politics after that election (gave Tories enough seats for a confidence and supply agreement) (Sinn Fein is also included, but that's to avoid white space I think) so it's entirely possible these parties that don't stand in England will still have a significant impact after the election. So while including 15 parties might seem bloated, it's necessary as we can't exclude any of them as that would imply e.g. the Greens, Reform, WPGB or the NI parties definitely won't win a significant number of seats and aren't worth anyone's attention. All we can do is state what the composition of the house at the last election or now (or just prior to dissolution when that happens), as that's the only way to make an infobox with parties that doesn't imply that we're making predictions. TIE with all parties is impossible, so TILE with all parties is the only option if we want an infobox with any parties at all. --TedEdwards 22:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I strongly favour option B, for essentially the reasons laid out above. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I strongly favour option A above. DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• B, preferably, or D. TILE lets us include all the parties and not entirely seconcary details like leader's seats, dates of leadership elections, and so on, for a handful of parties, which almost never deserve to be in the infobox. Ralbegen (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Timetable

The timetable includes, under 5 July, the text: "New Ministry expected to be formed." which also comes with a footnote saying "The only likelihood of a ministry not being formed the day after the election is if no party wins a majority and a hung parliament ensues." I removed this and an IP editor has restored, so I'm bringing it here for discussion. I think the text should be removed as (a) this is WP:CRYSTALBALLy, we don't know when this will happen; and (b) no citation is given. What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

A citation is given for the timetable overall, but that citation does not include this item. Bondegezou (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bondegezou It may not be in the citation but it's true, no? If a party has a majority they form the government, if they don't then, as in 2010, coalition talks begin DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

But we don't know which of those is going to happen, so it's WP:CRYSTALBALL to present this as the former, with a footnote to the latter. Bondegezou (talk) 09:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

If we want to discuss the formation of a new government, we could cite the Cabinet Manual for this, assuming it can be justified under WP:PRIMARY:

2.10 The application of these principles depends on the specific circumstances and it remains a matter for the Prime Minister, as the Sovereign’s principal adviser, to judge the appropriate time at which to resign, either from their individual position as Prime Minister or on behalf of the government. Recent examples suggest that previous Prime Ministers have not offered their resignations until there was a situation in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government. It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will be regarded in future as having established a constitutional convention.

 M2Ys4U ^(talk) 12:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how that gives us a date and it's all getting rather WP:SYNTHy. We don't have to put everything on the timetable. Some things are a bit uncertain or complicated. They can just be left off the timetable and, if we wish, discussed elsewhere. Bondegezou (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, we should not include this line. Ralbegen (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

MPs standing down

As there seems to be some contention over this, is it better we create a "List of MPs who stood down at 2024 election" page now? Naturally, with 100+ members having announced their stepping down it will need to be created; we have created such an article for every election since 2010, with the exception of 2017 as not many (only 30 or so) stood down then because it was a very sudden election. This being the first time since 2010-15 a parliament has run its full course, more have announced their retirements in good time. 2A02:C7C:DB33:8300:A5F9:4FE1:BD33:91EB (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the job's been done it’s now on the page entitled Candidates in the 2024 United Kingdom general election; thank you.

Predictions........ before the vote

AS with the pervious election pages I dare say we will have these again but what I would liked to suggest is we have it as follows:

• Predictions Four weeks before the vote
• Predictions two weeks before the vote
• Predictions one weeks before the vote
• Final predictions

Difference being Three weeks moving to four to give a better gap: Crazyseiko (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the amount of space given to these in the last article defies due weight. Let's take our cue from reliable sources: when do they single out a time to take a snapshot of predictions? Which predictions are made by reputable media organisatins and which are done by bloggers with scant secondary coverage? No matter what we end up going for, we should be aiming at smaller, tighter coverage of seat predictions than the 2019 article ended up with. Ralbegen (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Your ignoring 2017 and 2015 ones which ALSO had this set up but with date points.? --Crazyseiko (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I also think that those articles dedicate more space to seat prediction tables than is justified by reliable source coverage! Ralbegen (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd support this, but I suppose we'll be crossing that bridge when we come to it. It may be worth having a discussion as to which predictions to include and which not to beforehand. CipherRephic (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I current have a Shortlist (includes many which were USED over the past few elections) which people could look at over the course of next week and we could then pick the best or all if they need be for the first rought date of 4th June for Predictions Four weeks before the vote? --Crazyseiko (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we generally need fewer tables and more prose. We’re meant to be an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias use words. We can have these tables of predictions if editors want them, but we should be discussing the significance of predictions throughout the campaign, with reference to reliable sources having those discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

we better get rid of all the graphic, pics etc if that is the case.

Anyways here is the short list:

• https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast
• https://britainelects.com/
• https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
• https://principalfish.co.uk/electionmaps/?map=predictit
• https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49061-yougov-mrp-labour-now-projected-to-win-over-400-seats
• https://ko-fi.com/electionmapsuk which is of course: https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK
• https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/

All data in ‘2024 United Kingdom general election’ table is wrong.

The sub heading says it’s for the 2024 election. This is wrong. All that data should be listed for the 2019 election. There is no data yet for the 2024 election. Either change the sub heading to say it’s the results of the 2019 election, or remove the table completley, or input all the parties with zero as their number of seats … and update after the election. 94.105.120.41 (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I take it you mean the infobox? Yes, I agree we could be clearer that this is showing the Commons at dissolution. Could we add some wording to that effect? Bondegezou (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I’ve added some explanatory text. Do people think that’s better?

Another option is to have an “empty” infobox that doesn’t show any MP numbers. Bondegezou (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Technically, from the moment of dissolution, there are no MPs, so I guess there cannot be numbers of current MPs Kevin McE (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Correct, dissolution formally takes place today so technically after today (May 30) there are no MP’s please can the election info box be changed to reflect, also we need more of the election maps updating to reflect the new boundaries. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC))

The text has already been changed to say these were the figures at dissolution. Bondegezou (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That is no longer sufficient as election infobox shows the current number of MP’s. Well there are now no current MP’s, we should now be using a infobox with images of the main party leaders in line with previous elections. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC))

Lucy Allan - Reform?

Lucy Allan recently left the Conservative Party and endorsed a Reform UK candidate in the election. We counted her as an independent MP. The i now reports she is discussing being a Reform UK candidate. I take that to be sufficient to show her as being in Reform UK and thus for Reform UK to have 2 MPs at dissolution, given dissolution is tomorrow. But it’s a messy situation, so I’ve made that edit, but happy to discuss. This also has implications for how we edit her own page, the House of Commons template and the Reform UK article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't get through that article because of the paywall, but it looks like all the claims that she might stand from Reform come from someone anonymous within Reform. This BBC article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kkzv12wndo doesn't include those claims, and I think it's reasonable to suggest that the i's source is not reliable or neutral. If she had actually crossed the floor to Reform, that would be clearly stated in multiple news sources at this point, as it was when Lee Anderson did it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we should hold off until/unless a reliable secondary source is explicit about it. Ralbegen (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Regional UK election maps of 2024

Please can SVG election maps with the updated boundaries for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and each of the nine regions of England be created please as we only have currently really have National maps only available at this time. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC))

Notional result table Workers Party?!

The table of notional results now claims that the Workers Party won a notional seat in 2019. This is nonsense. Has someone been vandalising the page? Can we work out when that got added and whether any other errors were added? Bondegezou (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Added here by an IP editor whose edits have mostly been about Workers Party candidate Wayne Adlem. They also moved the Workers Party in the infobox, which has been reverted. Ralbegen (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

There are no "Current seats"

The infobox heading of "Current seats" should say "Previous seats" or "Old number of seats"? There are no current seats as all MPs have ceased to be MPs on the dissolution of Parliament. Every party therefore currently has 0 seats. Nonetheless, this wouldn't be a helpful presentation to show all parties at zero. Therefore the heading should refer to the seats they have most recently had (but don't currently have). aspaa (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)