Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election

Possible Date of election AGAIN

It seems that one person has more control over this page than every one else, and wont even speak with us. Kevin removed which I have reinstated:

• In the six weeks before the May local elections, a number of political commentators made statements that an election would be called for June, due to continuing issues around Sunak's authority.However, a June election was seen as less likely following the elections, because the Conservatives had retained the Tees Valley mayoralty.

The simple fact is If he think it all speculation then the bit about May needs to come out SO do the Universities warning about not having enough time. There was only ever going to be six rough date, I did write a short piece on here and agree overall we can't have EVERY SINGLE Thursday as possible date, but there is six Thursdays were it is possible and we should be looking at them. The same user isn't happy about "Predictions one month/week before the vote" even thought it been done for the past 5 election pages, so I can see another flash point coming. Crazyseiko (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Please enumerate the "number of political commentators" in the first paragraph. Looking at the citations, I count one.

Please clarify the logical link between a Conservative mayor retaining his post and the diminishing probability of a June election.

Please desist from making attacks on individual editors. I claim no more authority here than anyone else, and am trying, as I assume all others are, to make the article best fit its purpose as an accurate, verifiable and encyclopaedic record of enduring relevance. I have frequently posted on this talk page, so your accusation is inaccurate. Kevin McE (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for reply, And highlighting the issues you have with the above statement. I will double check the above citations, however Numerous people in podcast and in legitimate media outlets made the same independent claim, I but I will revised teh ref included. Secondly link to Tees vally major and diminishing probability of a June election was in part to numerous report that if both were lost there would be trouble as seen here

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sunak-labour-tory-local-elections-tees-valley-west-midlands-b2535347.html https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/ben-houchen-and-tees-valley-danger-for-rishi-sunak

Sunak is on the record saying he would call an election if there was moves to replace him. However the other point I made " Most of the rebels now believe, sunak needs to own the loses which have accrued from the local election" was taken out which is actually the more important point reported. I shall taken your third on on broad. I will double check everything this evening or tomorrow at lastest and provide a revised statement here, and we can then move forward. --Crazyseiko (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Please found the revised statement with revised ref:

In the six weeks before the May local elections, a number of political commentators made statements that an election would be called for June, due to continuing issues around Sunak's authority. Following the results of the 2024 United Kingdom local elections,in which Conservatives lost nearly 500 councillor but were able to retained the Tees Valley mayoralty, the Majority of the rebels decided that Sunak would need to own the loses which have accrued from these results thus a leadership challenge did not materialise, which resulted in Sunak been given some breathing space to call election for the Autumn . Following these events, the liberal democrats table no confidence vote in Government

There is no value in this speculation and it doesn't represent mainstream scholarship or the balance of sources. Of course, as the days roll by the media will print speculation about the date being this one or that one, with various reasons offered - they have to fill their pages after all - but there is no evidence of any sort of concrete knowledge of when the election might be, and it doesn't warrant inclusion until the date is known with more certainty.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Then there NO value in section about May election OR how Autumn election MAY might effect students as that is also speculation, this has to come out. --Crazyseiko (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

IT seems the uni sentence REALLY was speculation as it has NO baring or relation to this election as there closed for months. I would like to See a note put in about how it the start Scottish and Northern Ireland School holidays which might effect some people. Maybe to come to common ground about putting back in the talk what most political commentary said for the past 3 months, Sunak had to either go for MAY or summer election, We now know there were heading in the right direction. I doubt we could every put in a bit saying how people were surprised and stil expected Auttum election --Crazyseiko (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Election announcement

The announcement is happening soon, when it happens we can update the article. No need to edit war over it. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't WP:CRYSTALBALL. The press are getting pinged from cabinet ministers but Sunak could theoretically get stage fright and bottle it again. Until the words leave the PM's lips, we don't update the article. Wikipedia doesn't announce elections before the government. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

No. Read WP:PRIMARY. We announce something based on what reliable secondary sources say. We don't wait for a primary source. Bondegezou (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Bondezegouu, we also update wikipedia pages when media sources have some results, even though it's not the official electoral commission. Thomediter (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, secondary sources speculating isn't better than a primary source which isn't. Just because something is secondary doesn't make it manna sent from heaven. I'm saying that we should only update using news sources which have happened after No. 10's announcement. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

No, sources are saying it is "expected". See BBC News for example. That's not sufficient to start putting dates in fields etc. Just wait, there really is no hurry on this and we'll probably know al lot more in the coming hours.

OK, now it's confirmed as 4 July. Have at it. Stifle (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Yep. This should have been the start of the edits, but hey-ho. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2024

Date has been set for july 4tg

 Not done - Not just yet it hasn't. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty Reopen this asit's now official. BSMIsEditing (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't need to. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton

The campaign section refers to the morning of the 22nd suggesting this is for the announcement and not the inflation news, clarification of the timeline would be made 2A02:C7C:59B0:8F00:5426:1584:174B:635C (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Dissolution Policy

Please see my proposal in the WikiProject. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Election map

A map has been added to the infobox. It has a large number of insets, text, decorative lines, and empty charts that appear ready to fill in a chloropleth with constituencies shaded by both winner and winner's voteshare. This is a kind of map which has been added over previous, simpler, maps in a number of articles. Please can we consider not using this kind of map? Insets with random levels of zoom do not effectively counteract geographic discrepancy in constituency sizes. They just add another confounding factor while making it harder to read the results by having arbitrary built up areas shuffled around into arbitrary positions. The additional dotted lines to demonstrate inset locations on the map or the Isles of Scilly are part of the St Ives constituency are distracting. Additional charts can be their own graphics, ideally produced with Wikipedia markup so that users of screen readers can understand them—doubling up a map to include extra graphs, numbers and text does not improve it.

Worst of all is having a map with multiple (apparently more or less infinite for the one currently in the infobox) shades of multiple different colours. These are hard to read and hard to interpret. Shaded maps showing levels of support are great for a single party, but with multiple parties winning seats it is an unusable and poor data visualisation technique. I strongly feel that we should be showing a simple geographical map with constituencies that should be coloured in with a single shade of the official colour of the winning party. We can also have a secondary map with equal area geometric representations of constituencies, also coloured with a single shade of the official colour of the winning party. Shaded chloropleths are great for showing distributions of support. Let's have several, elsewhere on the page: one for each party of interest, showing that party's voteshare in each constituency along four or five different shades selected to be accessible to colour-blind readers. That's so much more useful than combining it with winners.

If that sounds sensible to other editors I'm very happy to produce these maps myself. But I do think we should have an idea of what data visualisation we want to see on the page before we end up with more maps that are stuffed with an assortment of information to an extent that they obscure information in the guise of revealing it. Ralbegen (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. The infinite tones of different colours will undoubtedly make the final product very cluttered and hard to read. The main map should be simple and easy to read with solid colours. Quite often with election maps on Wikipedia, people are too focused on cramming every piece of statistical information into one visual representation.

In terms of the map's layout, although I like the consideration of the bodies of water (lakes, rivers, reservoirs etc.), I'm not entirely sure whether it is necessary with an election map; it blurs the borders between constituencies in certain areas (see SW London for example).

Moreover, I think the borders between the constituencies are somewhat flawed in their design. Firstly, the thickness of the borders is very low; when completed with colours it might be difficult to distinguish where the borders are. Secondly, they are white in colour, which not only contributes to the difficulties I've mentioned with the bodies of water, but it also could make it difficult to distinguish where the borders are when throwing the bright party colours into the mix. So, perhaps changing the colour to a dark grey or black and increasing their thickness should be considered.

Finally, I also think the number of insets with different degrees of zoom is quite excessive. Whether they ought to be removed entirely is up for debate. The Wikipedia maps for UK general elections pre-2010 do not have them at all. Post-2010, they focus on the same areas: 1) Belfast, 2) Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire, 3) South Wales, 4) Scottish Central Belt, 5) North East England, 6) West Midlands, 7) Greater London, 8) South Wessex, Brighton and Hove. For some reason, from 2017 onwards, 9) Aberdeen is added. If we are to keep these insets as a feature of the main map, it should be in line with previous maps, focusing on those areas with a high concentration of constituencies in a smaller area (with a uniform level of zoom). Mapperman03 (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

We have previously agreed not to have "empty" maps: that is, maps before the results are out to colour them in. So, until the election, definitely no map. Bondegezou (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Very happy to hold off until there are results. I will produce less cluttered versions of the notional results map in the body of the article, though, and hopefully there's a general view that simpler and more direct maps are better practice. Ralbegen (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Great. I very strongly agree that there are too many unreadable election result maps all over Wikipedia. Whatever we use should be readable at the size it is shown in an article. Bondegezou (talk) 10:07, 23 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)

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)

We have a royal sycophant here^

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)

@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)

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)