Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Request for Comment: Which Infobox? (Choice of Two)

Despite the fact that the result seems unanimous, I'm formally closing this anyway. There is clear consensus here to use {{Infobox election}}. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Should this page use either the Template:Infobox election with the details of four parties (Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats, SNP) displayed, or the all-party version of Template:Infobox legislative election? In the absence of an agreed permanent alternative, editors have agreed that these options are the two most enforcable as a consensus 'least bad option' while debate continues as to the best infobox for this article.

You can see what they look like here. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)pre

Context
There has been significant debate about the infobox used on this page. UK elections normally use Template:Infobox election (TIE), with details of the major parties (usually defined on an election-by-election basis, reflecting sources) displayed. Following extensive debate, there is a rough consensus among editors that either of the two options for this RfC are 'good enough' to at least work with while we seek to develop potential different infoboxes.

In favour of T:IE is that it has a good mixture of the party leaders and details of the party, reflecting the election's role in choosing a legislature but also (indirectly) a Prime Minister. It has an intuitive use of colours, summarizes the main parties which fought to win the election, d is consistent with previous elections. Against it are three claims. First, as this infobox lists the largest parties by seats won, it excludes UKIP, who won the third highest percentage of votes. The second is that the four party version displays the Liberal Democrats, with 8 seats, but not the Democratic Unionist Party with 8 seats: here, the logic is that the Liberal Democrats entered the election as a major party (part of the ruling government coalition) and stood across the country, whereas the DUP stand only in one region. A third argument develops from this, namely, that this infobox encourages a non-neutral portrayal of parties as we have to pick the 'main parties' on unclear grounds.

The main suggested alternative has been Template:Infobox legislative election (TILE). The arguments for this is that it is concise, clear and, in displaying all parties, is neutral. It is flexible, and can easily deal with a range of election outcomes. Against it are the claims that it is ugly; that it overlooks the Prime Ministerial element of the election; that it gives undue attention to smaller parties, missing that the major narrative of the election is between the parties that are likely to govern; and that it lacks consistency with other UK election pages.

There has been significant debate to this point, and consensus has reached an agreement that, despite concerns about both, a four-party version of TIE or TILE are the 'least bad' options available to us at the moment. Creating a new style of infobox is possible, but there's a general belief that such a box shouldn't be created for simply one article - and either way, this will take time. We're therefore interested in this RfC in which option to use on this page, as a straight choice between the two. At this stage, we can presume that any change will not alter other UK election pages. You will find significant debate about alternative infoboxes, version of TIE with more parties and other options in the page's archives. I can recommend looking at #Infobox controversy again, which was useful in boiling us down to these two options. The posts of Dionysodorus (pro-TIE) and Bondegezou (pro-TILE) are often among the more articulate and well reasoned in these. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: But are you happy with a 4 party version? Please see the very deliberate and detailed wording of the RfC. Current consensus is that larger or smaller versions of TIE are less suitable, due to difficulty over who to chose and concerns about 'infobox bloat. This has been very carefully and very deliberately set up as a request for comments on a choice between a 4 party version of TIE or the full party TILE Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • {{Infobox legislative election}}Well, if we are restricted to those two, then the all-party version, since the four party version is not consistent with NPOV, which is VASTLY more significant than consistency between articles. DrArsenal (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • {{Infobox legislative election}} It's far more concise – far more information is given to readers in a smaller space. The four-party infobox is unacceptable for NPOV reasons (i.e. including one party with eight seats but not another). I would support changing all previous articles to use this infobox as well – whilst we have always had 2-3 major parties, there have always been a significant number of smaller parties represented in parliament and it would be good to convey this to readers in summary format. Number 57 10:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • i think the 4 party info box is best in till a new uk election info box is reedy to keep the articles consistent no matter how money votes ukip or the greens got the fact that they got 1 seat and in uk elections seats are wate maters votes can only be used to separate party's with the same seat counts if including lib dems dos violat NPOV wich I'd despite then don't include them I'm 2.28.220.166 (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • {{Infobox election}} for me. Though I would support the creation of a new infobox like the ones that have been already proposed, since those kind of issues are not just unique for this election and such an infobox could be useful for sorting out those. I reject the Israeli-style one for the reasons mostly given, as well as because that infobox was created specifically for Israeli elections back on its day (that is, it wasn't initially expected to be added to other countries and has serious shortcomings when applying it to them. It doesn't even include party % swings, which so far are practically a must in any serious election infobox). Impru20 (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Infobox election I completely and totally oppose the Israeli-style infobox. The British parliamentary system is still, broadly, a two-party system. Labour and the Conservatives have been the two largest parties in the House of Commons since the early 1900's. Elections are conducted by first-past-the-post in single member constituencies. Outside of Scotland and Northern Ireland virtually every single constituency was won by Labour or the Conservatives. UKIP, with one 1 of 650 seats is not a credible reason to change the electoral infobox at this article to be different from every single other British general election article. Furthermore, for example, at the Israeli legislative election, 2015 the two largest parties won 45% of seats. In this election, Labour and the Conservatives won 86% of seats. The Israeli-style infobox is not suited to the British political system. I think inclusion criteria needs to be separately debated however. AusLondonder (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • {{Infobox legislative election}}. The restriction to 4 parties is just not sustainable in an increasingly multi party environment. Showing all parties who gained a seat is the only long term solution and therefore from this choice of 2 options I pick TILE. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Infobox election: my personal preference is for the infobox that is consistent with other election articles, and not one that is out of place. We don't have to finalise on four – my personal preference would be Con–Lab–SNP–LD–UKIP. Sceptre (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't support the inclusion of UKIP. It won a single seat. The Democratic Unionist Party, Plaid Cymru, Ulster Unionist Party, Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labour Party all won more seats. AusLondonder (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Infobox election The Israeli style box is thoroughly inappropriate for a UK election. Any party outside the first three is essentially irrelevant to Parliament after the election. See the fact that the leader of the third party has an actual, substantive role in Prime Ministers Questions, and the third party's two chairmanships of select committees. When looking at the election at a glance, the most important thing is that the Conservatives won and Labour came second. Giving equal weight to the Greens, DUP, Sinn Fein, UUP, Lib Dems, PC, UKIP is unhelpful to someone looking at the top of the page. It is helpful to see pictures of the leaders, especially since the recent leaders' debates. Consistency is also vital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.210.253 (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Infobox election: No consistency with previous elections, which is what is most important to me. Infobox legislative election supporters should change all of the articles if they want that to be the new infobox. 2012 Dutch election infobox should also be reverted to Infobox election, and I agree with previous comments. Dayshade (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Infobox election: The legislative one doesn't suit the British political system. Conservatives and Labour just still dominate the results so strongly nationally that the differences in the amounts of seats each party gets are huge. You can easily put all parties in the House of Commons into three categories, the Conservatives and Labour are giants and they are the only ones to realistically compete for power. Then there's the SNP which is a mid sized third party, having taken Lib Dems former position, and then there are the tiny minor and/or regional other parties which are basically irrelevant in Parliament. We have to remember that the UK uses the First Past the Post system whereby vote shares don't really matter. The infobox needs to only summarize the election, and it stops being a simple summary when we add parties like Greens and UKIP whose single-seat wins are irrelevant to the national picture. The whole election can be summarised in two main points:
 1. Conservatives won Labour and Cameron remains as PM
 2. the SNP had an unbelievable landslide in Scotland by winning 56/59 of the seats up north.

Also I agree with above that the infobox needs to be consistent with the previous ones, especially when the election sort of returned to the old days of majority governments despite speculation thanks to the failing opinion polls that the "two and a half party" system would be broken after five years of coalition government. The traditional infobox also better reflects the increasingly "presidential" general elections (the media frenzy obsessed with the public images of Cameron and Miliband, take for example the bacon sandwich story), as the only sort of national thing in the elections is the race to the 10 Downing Street, because despite the election being fought in individual 650 races everyone still knows that by voting Conservative or Labour you are helping Cameron or Miliband get into number 10. I just don't see the reason why this election should break with the consistency of previous election articles. Regards Ransewiki (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Consistency with previous articles isn't a significant argument. 1) the nature of politics in the UK has changed over time. 2) if it is changed on this page, it can be changed on the others. They are not set in stone. There is no point editors going and doing that NOW though, since they don't know what the outcome of this RfC will be, and therefore what to be consistent with. DrArsenal (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Infobox election It seems quite apparent to me that there was no consensus on changing this infobox from the outset. Consistent formatting is actually an intention with regard to these articles on Wikipedia. Furthermore, as noted in a comment above, it seems quite apparent that the change in infobox has been pursued with particular emphasis on UKIP, thereby suggesting an ulterior motive. The UK does not have a multi-party system comparable to other countries, so this new style of infobox - which let's not forget is supposed to be a summary rather than a conclusive list - is not appropriate. Please revert! Jonesy1289 (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Infobox election Put it back. Not one asked for a change, various people have been running roughshod over clear consensus on very spurious grounds with no consensus. Infobox election works with our system, it gives useful information at a glance, it is consistent with other elections, both in the UK and around the world. NPOV is not an issue as there are clear arguments for every party in the infobox. It gives FAR too much attention to the smaller parties, which only serves to make the whole inbox look more complicated.

Ajdsmith (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Infobox election but include UKIP. I am a Tory Party member who is completely unsympathetic to UKIP, who will be campaigning and voting for Remain in the referendum and who despises third parties in general, wishing for a 1950s style straight fight against Labour. Nevertheless, UKIP got one-eighth of the votes in 2015 and that is a significant achievement; more so than the Lib Dems or SNP. The DUP winning 8xas many seats as UKIP is irrelevant when one considers NI is a closed world where a different political party set-up applies. One can point to the fact it is an FPTP election and UKIP only won 1 seat, but so are US Presidential/Senate elections and candidates with >5% of the vote get a 'headline' mention on the infobox. I loathe to say it, but UKIP did well enough in vote share to merit their inclusion in the 'headline' regardless of their seat numbers.
On the issue of the Dutch/Israeli infobox in general, that infobox does not suit British politics at all. Every election from 2010 back uses the other infobox. Anyone who wants the Dutch infobox for 2015 must, for consistency, apply it to all British election pages. It seems that question is settled and the only issue is who we include in it. It is an eye-catching, headline, "who did what" infobox. The actual figures are tucked away underneath. I think UKIP should be included. Marplesmustgo (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Marplesmustgo: the RfC is between the TIE infobox with 4 parties (excluding UKIP) or the TILE infobox with all parties winning seats (thus including UKIP). Right now, the option of TIE with UKIP is not on the table. Given a choice between TIE with Con, Lab, SNP and LDem, or TILE with everyone including UKIP, which do you think we should use? Bondegezou (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems we are returning to the original area of dispute (whether to include/exclude UKIP and the Lib Dems), which was the whole reason we the multi-party infobox to be introduced in the first place... If that isn't able to be resolved, then there's no point in changing back to the old one, as we'll have endless edit wars over that too... Number 57 16:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
If this RfC suggests that we should change back to the four-party one - which it looks like doing, given we're on 11 TIE to 3 TILE (all three of whom had expressed that opinion prior to the RfC anyway) - then that, unlike the all-party infobox, will constitute the agreed result of the process that we agreed, as a result of a lengthy discussion, to put in place. Anyway, the respondents are perfectly well aware that it's a two-way RfC as initially expressed by SNC, and Marplesmustgo, etc., clearly favour the four-party box over the all-party box. We have already reached a rough consensus to revert any versions other than the two proposed in this RfC, and a definite consensus to revert all versions with fewer than four parties. Besides, I don't think you're right - the four-party infobox was stable for months before the start of April.
Whether people edit war against the result of the RfC is neither here nor there. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, there was a period of edit warring (to remove the Lib Dems) in late January, and whilst the page itself was stable, there was several discussions on the talk page (see Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015/Archive 5). It's also disappointing that several editors seem unable to control themselves and wait for the RFC to be closed before making changes... Number 57 17:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that that's annoying, but it's not a reason to discard the result of the RfC. We have to go along with whatever the RfC concludes, as a two-way choice according to the setup, and then the onus is on Marplesmustgo, etc., to make their arguments and produce a consensus for adding UKIP, if they like. Either way, we can revert any edit that is contrary to the provisional consensus established by the RfC, if such a consensus emerges as it looks like doing, with protection or whatnot if necessary. Dionysodorus (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Infobox election per what every other UK election article and almost every other election article on wikipedia uses. The Infobox legislative election template appears only to be used for Israeli and the Dutch 2012 elections where it's always the case that a dozen parties all win, hung parliaments are the norm/never elects majorities, with the highest party result percentage AND proportion of seats percentage both very low - a pertentage in the mere 20s. This makes 10 for infobox election and a mere 3 for infobox legislative election. Consensus will not be reached here as it is a black or white, a or b choice, so majority rules in this situation. How many more/how much longer until we move on and go back to infobox election? Timeshift (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • {{Infobox legislative election}}, as I may have said before.

First, let me say that User:GuarénDeBiblioteca, User:Marplesmustgo and a number of IP editors must stop WP:EDITWARring during an RfC. We will never reach a solution if editors cannot respect dispute resolution processes and each other.

TIE supporters' main argument is consistency (as stated above by Timeshift, Dayshade, Sceptre, etc.), but that's kind of an "otherstuff" argument, something generally given little weight in Wikipedia decision making. Sure, other things being equal, consistency of infobox formatting is nice, but it's not one of the central pillars of Wikipedia. WP:NPOV is. I argue that the best, most neutral way of reporting an election is to show all the parties that won seats in the infobox.

The edit-warring on this article and related arguments at, e.g., Talk:United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2016#Infobox show how difficult it is to decide which parties to include in an infobox. While this RfC has been going on (4-8 May), the infobox was switched from its current TILE format to TIE with Con/Lab/SNP, then TIE with Con/Lab/SNP/LibDem/UKIP, then back to Con/Lab/SNP, then back to Con/Lab/SNP/LibDem/UKIP, then to a Con/Lab/SNP/LibDem infobox. This will just go on and on because there is no simple answer to which the top parties are. That's the problem: TIE fighters are so keen on consistent formatting, but they can't agree on what parties to include. (E.g. Redrose64, Sceptre and Marplesmustgo above are arguing for different TIE boxes than others.) That's because, while TIE worked fine for the two-party politics of the UK's past, British politics has fragmented. The TIE proposal includes the SNP (4.7% of the vote, fifth overall), but excludes UKIP, who were third on vote share (12.6%). It includes the LibDems on 8 seats, but excludes the DUP on 8 seats. This does not satisfy NPOV, which is why there's constant edit-warring when we have a TIE box. Editors have legitimate grievances over which parties are included.

So, how can we decide what parties to include in the infobox? First off, every election article infobox I've seen (except a special case involving one Bangladeshi election) orders parties by seats won. We had a long argument over that before at Talk:Spanish_general_election,_2015#Infobox:_Seats_vs._Votes seq. Election articles are not general descriptions of the politics of a country: they are about winning seats. How many seats you won is what matters most. I oppose any infobox arrangement that breaks that rule. As the TIE infobox can only take up to 9 parties, that means no UKIP and no Greens. If you want UKIP or the Greens included, you need TILE.

Many election article infoboxes include every party that won seats. Not all: some exclude some smaller parties, a few include parties that didn't win any seats. But most go for every party that won seats. For example: Irish general election, 2016 (ignore the unregistered Independent Alliance (Ireland)); South Korean legislative election, 2016; Turkish general election, November 2015; Polish parliamentary election, 2015; Canadian federal election, 2015; Portuguese legislative election, 2015 (leaving aside the complication of the Social Democratic party being in two forms); Greek legislative election, September 2015; Danish general election, 2015. They all include every party that won seats.

It's a straightforward, neutral criterion, which is what we desperately need. Most elections see no more than 9 parties winning seats, so the TIE infobox is compatible with including every party winning seats. When that doesn't happen, as with Dutch general election, 2012, Israeli legislative election, 2009 etc., the answer was to switch infobox formatting.

The TIE box is also a London-centric view of the world. Wikipedia is not just for people in England. What happens in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland count too. Northern Irish MPs count just as much as others. We must avoid systemic WP:BIAS.

There is surprisingly little reference to policy in the debate above. Let's go back to basic policy and guidelines. Contrary to Timeshift's statement above, this is not a vote: it has to be a policy-based argument. (Timeshift's count is also wrong as s/he lumps together people arguing for different TIE boxes. I see 6 for the TIE box stated in the RfC, 4 for different TIE boxes, and including me, 4 for TILE. But this still isn't a vote...) Policy is clear: NPOV is a core principle.

TL;DR: The need for an unbiased presentation -- NPOV -- trumps the desire for a consistency of formatting. TIE cannot satisfy NPOV. British politics has changed. New conditions require a new approach. Bondegezou (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

While I actually have a slight preference for TILE, it's simply wrong to say that TIE does not follow NPOV. If we go to reliable sources we see time and time again that the summary of this election: During the campaign, a close race between Labour and Tory in which SNP, Lib Dem or UKIP may be key part of a coalition; followed in actuality by a comfortable Tory win over Labour, SNP have a Scottish landslide, Lib Dems collapse and UKIP only get 1 MP. It's not wrong and non-neutral for an infobox to reflect this. See the Telegraph, the Independent, the BBC. Of course, there are lots of election articles, but these are the main summaries from these outlets. Now, I think we can justify excluding UKIP on the basis of its low seats won but I also think that the narrative and the role of RS justifies including the Lib Dems but not the DUP: in partiuclar, the infobox is not solely about the result.
I think that the best option would be to use TILE for now, and then develop a more visually advanced version of this to take to a wider range of UK election pages, because I think it's more robust for future election scenarios, for the nuances of local elections etc. But one of the five key points of WP:NPOV is that we "indicate the relative prominence of opposing views", and I think that we can justify the inclusion of these four parties on the basis of weight of relevance in a summary. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Bondegezou, having the RfC doesn't mean we have to do the whole argument again (does it?), since SNC summarised it so well, and since anyone can look at our discussions above. So I assume the arguments I have already made against your points need not be restated. The reason why this argument doesn't come down to policy is because WP:NPOV doesn't actually say, or imply, anything about what parties to include in infoboxes. What's the point in having an RfC, if you just say that your argument trumps everybody else's, when literally every editor so far who has responded to the RfC who had not previously participated thinks that the consistency argument is of force? We had an RfC partly in the hope of breaking the deadlock; this RfC looks like it might break the deadlock in TIE's favour; so you are undermining the RfC if you imply that those who have stated their preference for TIE should be discounted just because, although favouring TIE over TILE, they have additionally chosen to state a preference for a different version of TIE. That is irrelevant, because this is a two-way choice, and SNC made that altogether clear; there is no danger of a different version of TIE being introduced, unless subsequently there is consensus to this effect (which seems unlikely). Obviously I'm for Infobox election, so we're on 15 TIE (Redrose64, 2.28.220.166, Impru20, AusLondoner, Sceptre, 86.167.210.253, Dayshade, Ransewiki, Jonesy1289, Ajdsmith, Marplesmustgo, Timeshift, GuarénDeBiblioteca, JohnBlackburne, Dionysodorus); 4 TILE (Dr Arsenal, Number 57, Andrewdpcotton, Bondegozou). Dionysodorus (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think Bondegezou is doing that, they are just making the case for TILE, which is perfectly fine to do--Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I do think that dividing up the 10 (now 15) TIEs into 6 and 4 is muddying the waters a bit, given that everyone knows this RfC is meant to be a two-way choice, including the 4 people who expressed a subsidiary preference for a different version of TIE. (I'm not saying Bondegezou is trying to muddy the waters, just that Bondegezou's way of looking at things gives an unnecessarily grey colour to something that is perfectly transparent.) Dionysodorus (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
One person above has voted for TIE but only if it includes UKIP. I think you have to recognise that that is not a vote for the TIE infobox proposed at the start of the RfC, while nor is it a vote for TILE either. You need to pin that person down and say, "OK, but if it's a choice between TIE without UKIP or TILE (with UKIP), which do you think is better?" So, no, I absolutely reject the claim that it's 15:4. More generally, RfCs are not, of course, straight votes. The nature of the argument always matters. See WP:NOTVOTE and WP:DEM. But, sure, if the arguments balance out, at the end of the day, we have to go with a majority position and I respect that. Bondegezou (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I think it's a reasonable assumption, but even without those four, it's still 11:4. But, if you insist: User:Redrose64, User:Sceptre, User:Ransewiki, User:Marplesmustgo, could you state explicitly here whether you prefer four-party TIE as proposed over TILE, if other versions are excluded? That is the information we need for the RfC; of course you remain welcome to work for consensus towards a different version of TIE after the RfC, but for the RfC's purposes we really need your two-way choice. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm okay with four-party TIE. Sceptre (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I support Super Nintendo Chalmers's approach of looking at reliable sources and what they do. But I think we can simplify the approach: we don't need to extract RS's narratives and match those. We can just look at what parties they show in their summary boxes! So, e.g., the BBC's front page for results has an initial table with Con, Lab, SNP, LD, DUP and 'Other', then another table based on vote share with Con, Lab, UKIP, LD, SNP and Green. The Guardian leads with a table with Con, Lab, SNP, LDem, UKIP and Other. The Telegraph does similarly. But, at the same time, those are London/England-based. The BBC page then has links for Scotland, Wales, NI and England. And reliable sources in, say, Northern Ireland or Wales report the election very differently. So, a range of approaches, which brings us back to this being a difficult question without an easy answer. I continue to be of the view that the best, unbiased criterion to satisfy NPOV is winning a seat, as is used on so many election articles. And NPOV, whether you think this or that approach does satisfy NPOV, is more important than consistency of formatting in Wikipedia decision-making. Bondegezou (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
On this, yes, a difficult question without an easy answer. But since both proposed answers are perfectly compatible with the NPOV policy, it is legitimate to choose betweren the two on the basis of consistency. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Being the same guy who proposed the "Table Way" and the six-party table, I finally vote to stay with the Tempate:Infobox election. --GuarénDeBiblioteca (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Infobox election, just as it presents a much better, clearer picture of the election, and of elections in the UK.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Infobox election. To answer the question above from Dionysodorus, I'm fine with the four party TIE and I vehemently oppose changing UK election infoboxes into the legislative/newer one. Regards --Ransewiki (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Infobox election, without any question. Never try & fix something, that isn't broken. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The simple fact is that TILE gives less information than TIE. It doesn't even give numbers of votes! You lose a piece of useful information in return for knowing that the SDLP won 3 seats! You lose information about the previous election which gives a clear idea of the overall story of the election. Given that more than 9 parties have won seats in UK elections since February 1974, you can hardly say that it violates NPOV- no one cares that an Independent Republican won a seat in October '74. It might be interesting for the historical record, but it is not one of the headline features of the election.Ajdsmith (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Dionysodorus the problem is that a significant number of editors do not agree that TIE does meet the requirement of NPOV. GoodDay according to those of us who take that position, something is broken, and the four party infobox will not work, since there are continual edit wars as many users, like Ajdsmith and Marplesmustgo think that any infobox that doesn't include all parties should include UKIP. DrArsenal (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • DrArsenal Sorry but that's totally incorrect! Gosh I even removed UKIP from an edit because there was clear consensus for a four party inbox! I can't speak for Marplesmustgo but I am perfectly happy with a 4 party box, and certainly I don't think UKIP should be allowed anywhere near an inbox, since they have one MP and are largely irrelevant in Parliament. My own view is that it should be a three party box, as it is for most (if not all) elections since the War. This is because Parliament recognises the leading three parties, with questions at PMQs and chairmanship of select committees. However, I see that there is a perfectly valid argument for having the Lib Dems there given their historic loss in seats.

On your wider point that 'a significant number of editors do not agree that TIE does meet the requirement of NPOV', a significant number of editors appear to believe that it DOES. Clearly we are not going to agree, but there is guidance in the WP:NPOV article. It says that we should not give undue weight. The guidance mostly talks about theories, but I would argue that we are giving undue weight to minor parties by including them in an inbox. The simple fact is that only the Conservatives, Labour and SNP won a significant number of seats. The Conservatives, Labour and SNP represent 95% of seats in Parliament. With the Liberals, that makes 96%. That is what people are arguing for, in my view. TIE give more and better information than TILE. It shows the story of the election fairly clearly and succinctly, while TILE does not do as good a job, given that it does not include useful information and links, such as members, number of votes, the number of seats required to win a majority (clearly rather important with such a small majority!) and swing, which is a very important metric. All this in a standardised box which is used in articles about elections throughout the world and is very easy to understand and interpret!

I'd like to remind you all that this TILE was brought in unilaterally by an IP editor in March. He claimed that this was based on consensus, which I think happened in January, when Bondegezou announced that a simple majority of 5-3 was enough to change it, rather than talking about NPOV. Ajdsmith (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

DrArsenal: Yes, you and a few others think that. But many editors (most, this RfC suggests) think that that is a tendentious misapplication of NPOV, and that WP:NPOV by no means says anything that TIE goes against. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Ajdsmith. Not sure how I managed to mis-read things to think you had said that.
Dionysodorus that is sailing rather close to making accusations of bad faith. Can you please just accept that different people may have different criteria for judging neutrality from you, which would still be consistent with the policy?
Something I am seeing several times are claims that (usually unspecified) information that is in the TIE infobox is missing from the TILE infobox. Please, what information is present in TILE that you think it is important not to lose, please? I really cannot see any value in a mention of the party leaders' seats (after all Sturgeon didn't even have one, nor did Wood or Adams... etc). DrArsenal (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Bad faith has nothing to do with it; it's a tendentious misapplication of NPOV for the simple reason that NPOV says nothing directly applicable to the situation. Dionysodorus (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
"neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It is clear to me that to represent the 2015 General Election representing fairly and proportionately all of the significant views published by RS requires an infobox (unfortunately) that includes UKIP. I am not convinced it requires one that includes SDLP or UUP, but the either/or choice of this RFC forces us into a choice of either Con-Lab-SNP-LD or all parties that won a seat. For me, while both have flaws as far as NPOV, the one that is by a long way less problematic is TILE.
And perhaps Dionysodorus needs to look up the definition of "tendentious" again, and say what they mean, if "bad faith has nothing to do with it". Others, like me, can make mistakes, and if no allegation of bad faith is intended, it looks like the wrong word was used. DrArsenal (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, I think it is tendentious, in the sense that it is a misapplication of a policy to support a particular point of view, but in good faith inasmuch as you genuinely believe that the principle may be applied in this way. You do think it's a legitimate application of NPOV; I don't. The point I am making is that neither the letter nor the spirit of NPOV dictates that TIE should not be used; arguing about good faith is irrelevant. Dionysodorus (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I went back and looked at the manual of style on infoboxes. This clearly states that "an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored". In other words, there shouldn't be information in the infobox that isn't in the article. So party leaders' seats, which no-one bothers to mention in the article text, shouldn't be in the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
That might be a good reason to add party leaders' seats to the article body. Presumably one reason why no-one has so far bothered to add the seats to the article text is because they are helpfully displayed in the infobox already. Dionysodorus (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Show me a reliable source that mentions that party leaders' seats in its election summary? It's trivia and should be removed from whichever infobox we use, but I feel that in the context of this RfC this is off topic. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Given that some editors have said they prefer TIE because of the extra data it includes, it seems to me like it can't be off-topic for this RfC. We have been asked to chose between two infoboxes, each with imperfections. DrArsenal (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Infobox election The UK is in effect a two party state where the Conservatives and Labour formed the government for a century. This issue about the infobox has only arisen because supporters of smaller parties (UKIP etc) insist on using the infobox to promote their party. And please remember that the infobox isn't supposed to a provide comprehensive election results - that's the job of the "Results" section.--obi2canibetalk contr 19:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I think obi2canibe and some other TIE supporters are mistaken on a point here. The infobox is not merely for the parties of government. To be consistent with how election articles use infoboxes, look at the following, all of which includer smaller parties too: Irish general election, 2016, Spanish general election, 2016, Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2014, Portuguese legislative election, 2015, Swedish general election, 2014, and Danish general election, 2015. If you want consistency, we need to be consistent with all election articles, not just UK ones: we can't have a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. In prior discussions, some have argued that the use of PR in many countries mean we should treat them differently. OK, so let's look at the country in the world whose Parliament is most like ours in terms of electoral system and party dynamics: Canada. Look at Canadian federal election, 2015, Canadian federal election, 2011, Canadian federal election, 2008 and so on all list minor parties. Indeed, Canadian infoboxes generally list all parties that won seats -- as I suggest is the best, most NPOV-friendly way of doing it -- but when they deviate from that (as in 2008), it's to include a party that didn't win a seat. They err on inclusivity, not on leaving parties out. Let us be consistent with the content of most election infoboxes, not the formatting of UK articles.
How is a different approach for UK elections compatible with NPOV and indeed WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? If our fellow Wikipedias editing Canadian federal election, 2008 or Irish general election, 2016 avoid leaving parties out willy-nilly, why can we? Bondegezou (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
You could cite WP:LOCALCONSENSUS just as well the other way: standard practice on UK election articles should not be overriden by your exceptionalism regarding this election. (And there isn't even a consensus on that, not even a local one.) I entirely disagree that the principles other election series are run on should be held to, rather than those on the UK election series: if that's the issue, then you should propose a new infobox to change all the UK election articles to, after the RfC, and see if consensus can be obtained on that. Anyway LOCALCONSENSUS doesn't even apply, because there is no policy or overarching consensus on how to do election infoboxes: all I have seen you cite is a series of decisions taken as how to manage various particular countries' boxes. And WP:NPOV simply doesn't mandate what you seem to think it does. Dionysodorus (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I think that the issue in comparing to other UK elections that it's a huge task to change all the pages at once. No-one's saying that this RfC is the end of this debate, and that if a different infobox were chosen, that we'd not then look to suggest changes elsewhere. There's an egg and chicken relationship that's relevant here... Fundamentally, my problem with WP:TIE is that if we look at United Kingdom local elections, 2016, London mayoral election, 2016 , United Kingdom local elections, 2014, etc. etc. etc., we see tedious, tedious, tedious, and let's not pretend that these are anything otherwise, debates about which party to include or not in the election box. I think that we need to put a stop to this by coming up with some form of infobox that displays most if not all parties. TILE is an imperfect starting point on that road. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's a chicken and egg relationship - it's more of a cart and horse relationship. There's no difficulty attached to formulating an RfC to discuss the principle, across all pages, of what infobox we want, once we have a definite proposal to make as to what infobox to put on all pages; but in the meantime I don't think we should countenance a potentially indefinite inconsistency between this article and the rest of the series. Dionysodorus (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Dionysodorus, the point of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is precisely to make clear that we can't have a special rule that applies to UK election articles. When you say, "I entirely disagree that the principles other election series are run on should be held to, rather than those on the UK election series", then you appear to be invoking a local consensus for UK election articles. Articles have to stick to broad Wikipedia policy. We can see how that policy is enacted in election articles by looking at a broad range of election articles. Thus my approach. Bondegezou (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says that a local decision cannot override a policy or guideline. A broad range of other series of election articles, though, does not constitute a policy or guideline, just a series of individual decisions. LOCALCONSENSUS does not say that, if we have two conventions, neither amounting to a consensus, we always have to be consistent with the slightly more general one. Therefore LOCALCONSENSUS does not apply. Dionysodorus (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • TILE Of the two options presented, the more complete one is a better reflection of this election, My preference is to show 5 or 6 parties as this election was broader in the run up to it in terms of "major" parties. The reason I say 6 is the current infobox is 3 wide and completing the second row with the 6th most voted party (green) would look more presentable but they weren't as much a part of the discussion of this election as the big 4 and UKIP. SPACKlick (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Note
Because of ongoing edit-warring around the infobox, the article has now been locked (see section immediately below). It has perchance been locked with a 5-party TIE infobox: note that this is not one of the options being considered in this RfC, which is between the TILE format (a.k.a. Dutch-style or Israeli-style infobox) and the TIE infobox with only 4 parties (excluding UKIP). Both of these can be seen in the edit history. Bondegezou (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

On one editor's initiative, though. Given that that editor's edit has been reverted by two other editors, I rather think that that is a case of WP:NOCONSENSUS and might justifiably be reverted, pending further discussion on the talk page if necessary. Dionysodorus (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
And just as I wrote that, the original editor has, rightly in my view, changed his mind: [1]. So the Serbian election is back to TIE. Dionysodorus (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Akwdb and Spa-Franks have both commented on the current infobox below. Perhaps they will comment here at the rfc? DrArsenal (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, I hadn't noticed this thread earlier. If I ruled the world it'd stay with TIE, as that's what all previous UK elections use and there's nothing fundamentally different about this one. A party happened to get 3 million votes and only one seat - that's unfortunate for UKIP, but it's a type of result that can always happen in an plurality-winner, single-member-district election. But I understand that some people think it's an extenuating circumstance that calls for a different format, so don't have a strong preference. Akwdb (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
As has been said above, I did not notice this either, so thanks for asking. I'd use TIE as I think it looks nicer for an encyclopaedia as opposed to an Excel-style table. Does it have to remain at four parties, though? If anything we should just keep it to the Conservatives and Labour, but seeing as the broad consensus is to include the Lib Dems, then we must include the SNP and the DUP. If Labour had been wiped out to one or two at the election, there would be strong arguments for "where's [x], they had more seats..." Spa-Franks (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Spa-Franks the problem is that this RfC is for a four party TIE vs TILE that includes all parties that won seats - would you still support TIE even if it did remain at four parties? DrArsenal (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Spa-Franks (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: With due respect to WP:NOTVOTE, I thought it might be useful to tot up the views on this again. (If anyone disagrees with my enumeration with justification, I will edit it.) I make it:

16 TIE (2.28.220.166, Impru20, AusLondoner, Sceptre, 86.167.210.253, Dayshade, Ransewiki, Jonesy1289, Ajdsmith, Timeshift, GuarénDeBiblioteca, JohnBlackburne, Dionysodorus, GoodDay, obi2canibe, Spa-Franks); 5 TILE (Dr Arsenal, Number 57, Andrewdpcotton, Bondegozou, SPACKlick); 2 ambiguous (Redrose64, Marplesmustgo); 2 weak preference only (Akwdb, Super Nintendo Chalmers). Dionysodorus (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah; we could let this run for another week or we could request closure now? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:TIND, TIND, TIND. Let things run their course. Due process is worthwhile. Bondegezou (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes - we might as well leave it open for another week. Dionysodorus (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Infobox legislative election. The limitations of TIE are well documented. In this discussion I would highlight the helpful descriptions offered by Bondegezou and Super Nintendo Chalmers. Some people have commented that they prefer the comfort of recognising the appearance of the TIE infobox, but significantly there are aspects of this election that the TIE doesn't represent well- before, during and after the votes were cast. The infobox needs to be compact and to keep a NPOV, the template selected to be used for each article must be capable of reflecting all the key points of a specific election. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Closure

DCW's comment is the first new response since May 23rd. We could agree to close this among ourselves, or we can request formal closure. To my reading, there's a fairly clear consensus in favour for the 4 party with Lib Dems, regardless of my misgivings about this. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That sounds sensible to me. Perhaps you could close it, if no-one raises any objection to you doing so within three or four days? If, in the next few days, other people consider it necessary to request formal closure, then we can request formal closure. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. My major regret about using the current box is that it doesn't really solve any of the underlying problems; I look forward to being here in 5 years time going over the same ground! Still, consensus etc etc! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Are we not meant to ask for an uninvolved editor to close, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs? Bondegezou (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, according to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs, either we can (3) agree to close it, or (4) ask an uninvolved editor. I believe SNC is suggesting that we do (3), but we can do (4) if you or someone else wishes us to. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comment: Order of the list of candidates in the infobox

What should the order of the list of candidates in the infobox be? See Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Order of the list of candidates in the infobox Sparkie82 (t•c) 11:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Having an RfC on this is unncessary (and rather on the distracting side), seeing as we have a separate RfC going on regarding an overlapping issue. The result of that RfC will determine the answer to the current RfC: if we say four parties, then Con, Lab, SNP, Lib Dem. There is no ground whatsoever for suddenly changing the way we do British articles - nor is there any need to suddenly generate a cast-iron rule over the order we do parties in British election infoboxes, although there is a strong convention that we order by the number of seats. So whatever the ongoing RfC says. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I think the post is to advertise the RfC that's happening at Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Order of the list of candidates in the infobox, rather than to start a new one here (though that's also how I first red it). --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry about the confusion. Yeah, the RfC pertains to U.S. Presidential (general) elections only. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
This Request doesn't have clear limits, without clear options to choice we can't provide a fair resolution. Anyway, thank you Sparkie82 but i think it's better to start the RfC again but with more a limited question, and expressed alternatives. --GuarénDeBiblioteca (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Ranking of parties

Could this not also be shown in the right hand boxout with a ranking based on actual votes cast for each party. On that basis UKIP (not a supporter) would be third by a clear margin. Half(ish) Labour vote and as big as LibDems, Greens and SNP put together. Would put party popularity in perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.86.187 (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

There has been lengthy discussion over what to do with the infobox. The current consensus has been that parties should be ordered by how many seats they won (as this is what is done in nearly every Wikipedia election article with an infobox). A recent discussion decided on the current format including just the 4 parties shown. I, personally, think it is a mistake to exclude UKIP and others from the box, but I suspect there is little appetite to re-open this question right now! Bondegezou (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox photos

User:Nub Cake, as can be seen in the edit history, is insistent that the pictures in the infobox should be larger in size. This view has the merit that it makes the map clearer; and, NubCake says, is in line with usage on American election articles or others where there are two or four parties in the box.

I, however, think that this is inconsistent with other articles in the UK general election series, in which all elections have the leader photos at 160x160px. Also, the larger photos seem to me to be ugly, and on my computer screen make it impossible to see the tops of the photos under them, which I think is preferable in terms of clarity. (Compare also Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015/Archive 5#Infobox wrong).

(Incidentally, I think that Nub Cake is wrong to keep on reverting me on this: the photos in the example version of the infobox that we agreed on in the RfC were 160x160px, and if Nub Cake wants to change this, he/she should really be trying to get consensus for it, not just reverting me.)

What do other editors think on the size of the photos? I suggest we go with the balance of opinion. Dionysodorus (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Nub Cake, stop edit-warring against consensus, and please set out your arguments for discussion here, if you are insistent on changing the pictures - or just drop it. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 27 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


United Kingdom general election, 2015 → British general election, 2015 – Our naming guidelines recommend: For elections and referendums, use the format "Demonym type election/referendum, date". The appropriate demonym for the United Kingdom is "British" (see Terminology of the British Isles). Therefore, articles about elections in the UK should be titled "British xxx election, 20xx", not "United Kingdom xxx election, 20xx". To objections that "British" does not sound like "United Kingdom", we have a similar case with the Netherlands, having demonym "Dutch", whose elections are titled Dutch general election, 2012, not Netherlands general election, 2012. The currently-used title is also grammatically incorrect, using a noun adjunct instead of an adjective or a possessive 's. Finally, such titles would be shorter, satisfying both precision and conciseness naming criteria. This RM is intended to apply to all UK elections and referendums; it was inspired by a recent discussion at Talk:United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016#Requested move 22 July 2016. — JFG talk 02:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose An important point that will surely be made is that "British" is problematic, especially with respect to Northern Ireland. So, the current usage avoids unnecessary friction. The point I want to focus on is that the naming convention is wrong in using the word demonym. A demonym is the word used to describe a people. The Italian in Italian general election, YYYY is the adjectival form of the noun Italy, not the demonym, even though both look the same. There are some place names that do not have separate adjectival forms: the adjective is the same as the noun. One example is United States (note that the demonym is American and that the article is not at American presidential election, 2016, or United States's presidential election, 2016 for that matter). There are place names that serve as the root of a demonym that also do not have adjective siblings: Ontarian, Illinoisan, Queenslander, Newfoundlander and Labradorian, New Zealander, Michigander and more. In fact, all US states use their unmodified name as an adjective, and Hawaii is the only one I can think of that also uses another form (Hawaiian bread). These each use forms like Ontario general election, Illinois gubernatorial election, Queensland state election, Newfoundland and Labrador general election, etc. United Kingdom is of course another example—the adjectival form of United Kingdom is United Kingdom. The United Kingdom [noun] construction is a bit clunky, so it is generally abbreviated to UK [noun] or avoided in favour of noun of the United Kingdom" or, yes, British [noun]. We can see that it is the adjectival form being used by looking at the names of all US federal and state elections, all Canadian provincial and territorial elections, all New Zealand general elections, and New South Wales and Queensland elections, as well as ACT and Northern Territory elections. And this is done alongside all Canadian federal elections being "Canadian federal election, YYYY" and elections in Australia to the Commonwealth and four other state parliaments being "Australian federal election", "Western Australian state election", Victorian state election, etc. The premise for the move is faulty, and the article is where it is for a good reason. -Rrius (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per the naming guideline. The above claim above that the UK does not have an adjectival form of its name, or that it does and it's "United Kingdom" is patently untrue, otherwise phrases such as "British government" would not exist. The American articles (again, note the use of the adjectival form not in reference to people) need to be sorted out too. Number 57 07:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose
Short summary: I see no compelling reason to suggest that British is better under the 5 naming principles, therefore I follow the suggestion at WP:TITLECHANGES that "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed".
-Longer discussion: the proposed move cites 'precision' and 'conciseness'. I'm not convinced that 'British' is anymore precise than 'United Kingdom' - these are both shortened versions of the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. The proposed move is more concise, yes. There are three other guidelines though. British is arguably less recognizable than "United Kingdom", due to the (misguided) confusion as to what British refers. Rrius' arugments in this regards may be wrong, but they reveal a less recognizable title to many people. Consistency is important, but we see an existing mixed approach for titles on election articles, as noted above - some use the denonym, others don't. Certainly, the move would break consistency with England and Wales police and crime commissioner elections, 2016, United States presidential election, 2016, even if it adds consistency to French presidential election, 2012 and Austrian presidential election, 2016. So there's currently a mixed bag and the move creates no more consistency. Finally we come to naturalness. British seemed initially a little more natural to me than United Kingdom, but equally news websites such as the Daily Telegraph and official bodies such as the Electoral Comission use 'UK general election', so it's far from clear cut. With a count for me of 3 draws (consistency, precision and naturalness), 1 pro-British (conciseness) and 1 pro-United Kingdom (recongizability), I'm led to conclude that there's no good reason to move, therefore, we should not move. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think "British..." would be terrible, but I largely concur with Super Nintendo Chalmers and Rrius. If we want conciseness, would "UK" be acceptable instead of "United Kingdom"? (Have you ever noticed how "conciseness" is not a concise word...?) Bondegezou (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Ha - it's interesting but after writing the above I did also come to the conclusion that 'UK' probably beats 'United Kingdom' on all 5 of our naming criteria... it is, however, a Wiki-convention to use 'United Kingdom' in titles rather than UK I think! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • oppose. United Kingdom is both correct technically and the only unambiguous + widely recognised name for the state. Britain/British is far more ambiguous, see Britain. Yes, informally Britain is often used as the name of the UK, but in this context, when contrasting with the results of Scotland, Wales etc. United Kingdom or UK is almost always used.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 10:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - current title is unambiguous and unproblematic. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all the reasons expressed above. I think it's not broken, and therefore there's no need to fix it. Also, there's something to be said for maintaining consistency with USA elections, where the titles say "United States", and not "USA" or "American" (for similar reasons in the latter case). Dionysodorus (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per JohnBlackburne. Particularly that British is not precisely defined, sometimes including the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Rwendland (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
Y..es, though the date acts as a clue though! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Just a side comment - I think a link to this RfC should have been posted on all other UK election talk pages too, since it is supposed to affect them. (But it doesn't matter since there seems to be little appetite for the move.) Dionysodorus (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Record-breaking Cameron performance

Apologies if the heading is rather startling.

"..David Cameron became the first Prime Minister to continue in office immediately after a full term with a larger popular vote share since 1900 and the only Prime Minister other than Margaret Thatcher to continue in office immediately after a full term with a greater number of seats (and the first to do both since 1895)."

There seem to me to be two difficulties here, of different sizes:

a) "Full term" here is, surely, a disputable phrase. In the years 1895 and 1900 the Septennial Act 1716 was in force, whereby the maximum term length of a British Parliament was seven years. Can it really be said that in 1895 (after a Parliament of three years) or in 1900 (after a Parliament of a little over five years) any government had served a "full term"?

b) In any case, I fail to see the reason for referring to 1895 in the text, given that the record is stated to be on the basis of a government being able "to continue in office" after an election. 1895 saw a change of government, so surely no comparison can hold.

Apologies also if this was discussed on the talk page at any previous time, but I scanned through the post-2015 pages and didn't see any mention of this paragraph. Harfarhs (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I've revised the sentence, removing the reference to 1895 and substituting for "full term" the phrase "term of at least four years". Admittedly, four years doesn't mean much in the context of the Septennial Act referred to above. However, between the Parliament Act 1911 and the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 it was generally supposed that a parliamentary term was of four years but could without action be extended to a maximum of five - hence the frequent occurrence of four-year intervals between British general elections in the twentieth century. Harfarhs (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Labour Votes

In the summary table, Labour is listed as having 9,344,328 votes. However, BBC News and The Guardian list Labour as having 9,347,304 and 9,347,324, respectively. I was wondering where the Labour total came from and why it isn't sourced with the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpperJeans (talk • contribs) 13:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The spreadsheet available on the election commission claims 9,347,273 for Labour and Labour Co-Op. This matches the results on their webpage http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/uk-general-elections/2015-uk-general-election-results. They have different numbers for Conservative (including Speaker) and Lib Dem. Paul Weaver (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United Kingdom general election, 2015. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United Kingdom general election, 2015. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Map

The map on this page incorrectly marks the constituency of Ashfield in the East Midlands as Conservative. Can this be corrected? 86.19.130.219 (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_United_Kingdom_general_election/Archive_7&oldid=1142750688"