Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election/Archive 3

New infobox proposal
Not sure where to put my message, but I love the proposal for all the candidates in the infobox plus the Northern Ireland box. It makes the page a LOT more informative. Should be ordered by the number of seats in parliament.

So, the debate about UKIP being infobox repeatedly resurfaces. But if UKIP is included, then it's difficult to see why the Greens and SNP shouldn't be included. After all, the Greens are regularly polling as having the same level of support as the Lib Dems, and the SNP are predicted to win about 20-30 seats. In addition, these parties are mentioned in the news fairly often (as opposed to, say, the DUP, who are almost never mentioned) Some have said this election is heading for a six-party race.

In light of this, wouldn't it be a good idea to have the three traditional main parties on the first line, followed underneath by the other three noteworthy parties? This is only a rough idea, something to think about. I don't know how it sits in relation to current policy. Chessrat (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I quite like it, it looks nice, it feels kinda right, but I'm afraid I'm not convinced by it. What I've long said is that we should follow what reliable sources do, e.g. we should follow the Ofcom list of major parties. However, that hasn't been published for the 2015 general election yet. (You can see the 2014 report here to see what they look like and what was concluded then.) What Ofcom do is consider several factors -- support last time, support in other elections, polling &c. -- to come to an overall conclusion. That mixed approach of considering several indicators seems sensible and, I presume, is what Chessrat has done also.
 * If I had to choose right now, based on seats last time, current polling and probable seats next time, I'd go with Con, Lab, LDem and UKIP. Chessrat argues that "the Greens are regularly polling as having the same level of support as the Lib Dems". I think one could quibble over that: they're about the same, but the LibDems are higher slightly more often. The SNP are, of course, polling lower than either party. But this election is about winning seats, not vote share. The SNP are indeed likely to get many more seats (probably more than UKIP or the Greens), and indeed the LibDems are predicted to win many more seats than UKIP (who may well get a higher vote share) or the Greens (on around the same vote share). This seat/vote share balance complicates things. Why include the Greens, who could well get 0 seats and, at best, are probably only looking at 2 seats, when the SNP, Plaid Cymru, DUP, Sinn Fein and SDLP are all likely to get more seats? Indeed, the DUP could well get more seats than UKIP.
 * Current spread betting (see here) puts the LibDems on 30 seats, SNP on 20 seats and UKIP on 9.5 seats. Other betting has the odds on the Greens winning no more than 1 seat. There's less betting or polling interest in Northern Ireland, but only 3 Northern Irish seats have majorities below 5%, I think (SF could lose Fermanagh and South Tyrone to a joint unionist candidate; the DUP could regain Belfast East from Alliance; the UUP's best chance is to take South Antrim from the DUP), so the DUP could win 8 or 9 seats and SF are likely to be on 5. So, if we just think seats, current predictions would suggest this ordering: Lab, Con, LDem, SNP, UKIP, DUP, SF, Plaid/SDLP, Greens/Alliance/maybe Respect. That would imply a 6-party infobox should be Con, Lab, LDem in the top row, then SNP, DUP and UKIP in the second row. Bondegezou (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestion, but I oppose this change. Having six leaders on the infobox prior to the election would work only if we had a proportional voting system. We don't. It would give to much prominence to them all (and if the SNP, why not Plaid?). doktorb wordsdeeds 21:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile an IP editor replaced Clegg's photo with Farage's (etc). In the process of sorting it out, I deleted, and it struck me that the current situation with the LDs being listed is pretty absurd, the biggest absurdity being the 'seats needed' for them. When they are as likely to be in 5th place in the polls as 4th, having them listed as 3rd is looking increasingly out-of-touch with reality.  It took a real effort of will to add Clegg and the LDs back against my better judgement.  Could consensus be achieved for a two party info box? DrArsenal (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But the last election result showed that the LibDems can form part of a government, so they should still be included on that basis. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing we should remove the Lib Dems but including them on the basis that they might form part of a coalition is not a great argument for the status quo as so might any of the other parties likely to be elected to seats in 2015. Indeed I think we'd struggle to find any reliable sources stating that Lib Dems can gain 269 seats and form a majority government. To that extent I'd support removing the seats needed information from the Lib Dem entry while leaving them in the infobox.


 * I agree we need to await reliable sources but a couple of technical questions for people in the meantime:


 * I think it has been stated further up the page that the maximum number of parties that can be accommodated in the infobox is 9? Is this correct?


 * Also can we only have a single infobox on the article? One thought that occurred to me was to have an initial infobox for the parties that reliable sources suggest can form a majority government including information like the seat required for a majority. It seems likely at present this would only contain Conservatives and Labour. You could then have a secondary infobox for the other parties that reliable sources suggest are likely to: receive a significant share of the vote, return MPs, form part of a government etc. The bar might be set as reliable sources stating a party could win in more than one seat and thus possibly forming part of a future coalition government. This could be something like: Lib Dem, UKIP, Green, SNP, DUP, Sinn Féin, PC, SDLP.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say again that it's seats that matter, not vote share. The LibDems could come 5th in vote share (although I think there are reasons to think that unlikely), but nearly all predictions put them third on seats (they could be overtaken by the SNP). Bondegezou (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It's useful to look at what other election articles do. I note, for example, that United Kingdom general election, 1951 includes the Liberals in the infobox when they got just 6 seats and 2.5% of the vote. I guess that partly reflects a historical perspective of the Liberals as the clear third party for much of the 20th century, so it makes sense to include them in the infobox even at their lowest ebb. The most recent UK general election article to have an infobox with other than Con/Lab/LDem is United Kingdom general election, 1931, which has Con, Lab, Liberal National, Liberal, National Labour (13 seats, 1.5% vote share) and Independent Liberal (4 seats, 0.5% vote share). Again, that partly represents a historical perspective, I guess. The Liberal and Labour splits were politically significant, even if their eventual performance was low. United Kingdom general election, 1922 has 4 parties in the infobox, which seems right for that election. The 6 party infobox for United Kingdom general election, 1918 also seems right. However, it seems odd to me that United Kingdom general election, December 1910 and United Kingdom general election, January 1910 include All-for-Ireland League. It's also interesting to see when Labour are first included in the infobox. Labour won no seats in 1895 and aren't in the infobox. They are included in United Kingdom general election, 1900 even though they only got 2 seats and 1.8% of the vote. Again, through the lens of history, we can the significance of this result. Well, that was mildly interesting, but what does it tell us? I'm not certain, but I guess it persuades me that we should be being more inclusive. If historically parties like the Liberals in 1951, National Labour, All-for-Ireland and the Labour party at its beginnings get included, then we can surely include more parties now. However, what I also see is that infoboxes have a historical perspective: it's much easier to see what's significant after the fact! But the most telling observation is that infoboxes are ordered by seats won and do not skip parties. If, after the election, the Greens have 2 seats in the Commons, if you want them in the infobox, you'll have to include every party with more than 2 seats. If UKIP get fewer seats than the DUP and you want to include UKIP, then you'll have to include the DUP. Bondegezou (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What about infoboxes for other forthcoming elections? Consider Spanish general election, 2015. This has 6 parties in its infobox, the six biggest parties at the previous election. Look at Opinion polling for the Spanish general election, 2015 and you will see that new party Podemos, which didn't exist last time around, is currently leading in the polls and has been in the top three for the last 6 months. So far, editors there have chosen to leave the infobox reflecting the previous election result and not acknowledging the rise of Podemos, although the article text does talk about their phenomenal rise.
 * Consider also Next Greek legislative election, where "seats needed" is given even for the smallest parties in the infobox. That's also true of Spanish general election, 2015, where "seats needed" is given for UPyD, a party as unlikely to win that election as the LibDems are to win here. However, Spanish general election, 2015 says "Unable" for "seats needed" for two regional parties in their infobox.
 * Danish general election, 2015 is very inclusive, an infobox with 9 parties, down to the Christian Democrats who didn't win any seats at the previous election, on a vote share of 0.9%. That article, meanwhile, doesn't use "seats needed" at all.
 * Next Irish general election also doesn't use "seats needed". That infobox only has 4 parties, yet Irish general election, 2011 includes 8 parties, including some tiny ones.
 * Polish parliamentary election, 2015 also doesn't use "seats needed", and is again very inclusive: 6 parties, down to the KNP who got 0 seats and 1% at the previous election.
 * So, if we are to go for a more inclusive infobox, but respect current seats, what about a 9-party infobox listed by current MPs, going Con, Lab, LDem, DUP, SNP, SF, Plaid, SDLP and finishing with UKIP? Bondegezou (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bondegezou, every single example you give for a future election the order is that of the vote share at the last election - that happens in those polities to be the same as the order of the number of seats. In the UK, where they often differ, we have a more difficult decision to make, and it is no good pretending that we don't. DrArsenal (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Which is why we need a compromise solution using many methods. Putting only Lab/Con, as DrArsenal suggested, doesn't really show enough information. By vote share, the top six are Con/Lab/Lib/UKIP/SNP/Green (by both last election and opinion polling, I believe). In addition, those are the only parties mentioned seriously and regularly in reliable sources. Using only one source will inevitably generate inaccuracies; the only argument for Plaid/SF/DUP/SDLP's inclusion is current number of seats. Hence why it's probably not appropriate to include them instead of, say, the Green Party, despite the Green Party having taken fewer seats in 2010. Chessrat (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Or if we went to the other extreme, given 9 is the maximum in the info box, the 9 parties with the highest share of the vote at the 2010 General Election who also have had at least one MP at some point in the Parliament, ie Con/Lab/LD/UKIP/SNP/Green/SF/DUP/Plaid Cymru? This means that Plaid are included as well as SNP, and there is one party from each side of the divide in NorthernIreland.  DrArsenal (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * DrArsenal, I recognise that vote share and seats can differ and that this raises complications. Indeed, it's the main problem we face. What I am saying is that the solution to the problem already exists in established practice, and it is that seats trump vote share.
 * Seat order and vote share order is generally the same for the bigger parties, but when they have differed, prior UK general election article infoboxes have always listed parties by seats won, not by votes (see United Kingdom general election, 1931, United Kingdom general election, 1918 and of course United Kingdom general election, 1951). If we look at Indian elections, as somewhere else using FPTP, again we see parties listed by seats won, not by votes (Indian general election, 1996). The same is true of Canada: see Canadian federal election, 2006 or Canadian federal election, 2008.
 * Once the results are in of the 2015 UK election, it would be a major shift in practice were we to list parties by vote share rather than by seats. And if we look at seats won after the election, I think that should guide our thinking now, before the election.
 * This is an article about an election, not about the proportion of the populace who support different parties. An election is ultimately about winning seats. I'd abolish FPTP tomorrow if I could, but dem's da rules the election is under. I recognise Chessrat's point: the Greens get more attention than the SDLP or Plaid Cymru. It is a challenge, but if seats don't trump vote share, we're going to get into all sorts of problems IMHO.
 * (42nd Canadian federal election is another interesting example, BTW. It lists all 6 parties currently represented in Parliament, including Forces et Démocratie, who are new and polling more or less nothing. So, another example erring on the side of inclusion. This suggests to me that we should be thinking of a 9-party infobox, whichever 9 we pick!) Bondegezou (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's all very well, Bondegezou, but there is no reliable way to determine now how many seats each party will get: what basis do we have now for deciding which party to list first? Should we list SNP before LDs because many commentators think they will get more seats than the LDs?  The key question is what we do for the 5 months until we do know .  To me, we need to either go for 'just two' or 'as many as possible'.  Pretty much anything inbetween is too controversial, although there would, I think, be some logic in excluding Northern Ireland parties from the infobox, because they have a completely different political system there.  DrArsenal (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree as to the nature of the problem. Indeed, there is no reliable way to determine now how many votes each party will get either. What I suggest is that we agree on what the post-election infobox might look like (and it seems to me that has to be by number of seats) and then we work backwards to what is reasonable to do now.

The general approach has been to list parties by how well they did last time, but adding any new(er) parties that have risen significantly since then, often by sticking them at the end.

In terms of 'just two' or 'as many as possible', I vote for 'as many as possible'.

Northern Ireland does have a different political system, but the article is about the United Kingdom general election, not just about the Great British general election. Our readers in Northern Ireland should not be excluded, and seats won by Northern Irish parties may matter if there's a close result. While many of us are reading a London-based media that often focuses on UKIP or the Greens, the media in Northern Ireland are talking about the DUP and SF, the media in Wales talk about Plaid, the media in Scotland talk about the SNP.

If one agrees with all those principles, putting all that together, that implies to me a 9-party infobox, ordered by current seats, i.e. Con, Lab, LibDem, DUP, SNP, SF, Plaid, SDLP, UKIP. However, I acknowledge that that is rather different from earlier suggestions of an infobox based on current (GB) polling, which would have UKIP and the Greens higher. But I can't see how the Greens are going to be in a post-election infobox without a radical change in infobox practice (or a radical change in their levels of support), so why include them now?

Or, we leave it as it is until Ofcom say who the "major parties" are. Bondegezou (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Relevant reliable source coverage: "All the possible coalition combinations for next year's election" and "Traditional model of politics 'cracking apart' as hung parliament looms again" mention Con, Lab, LDem, UKIP, Greens, DUP and SNP. "The parties prepare for a hung, drawn and quartered parliament" mentions Con, Lab, LDem, UKIP, Greens, DUP, SNP and UUP. But then "2015 Elections: Labour won't win a majority, and neither will the Tories" completely ignores Northern Ireland and just mentions Con, Lab, LDem, UKIP, Greens and SNP. While "Projecting the result of the May 2015 general election" gives a quite detailed projection of Lab 278, Con 277, SNP/PC combined 48, LDem 27, DUP 9, SF 5, SDLP 3, UKIP 1, Green 1, Sylvia Harmon 1. Bondegezou (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree the NI parties need to be included in the article. I'm less sure about the info box, though, because whatever happens, they will be 18 'others' - they don't influence the election across the rest of the UK.  By contrast 5 parties will each contest, and influence (in their different ways), the outcome in the large majority of seats across the UK.  SNP and Plaid Cymru will, similarly, each have an influence on a larger number of constituencies than the all the NI parties put together will.
 * Thanks, Bondegezou, for those really useful links to coverage in reliable sources. I'm not sure the inclusion of NI in the last of them should be seen as significant - the Belfast Telegraph would always look for an NI angle whatever.  Of the other sources, we have mentioned x3 Con, Lab, LDem, UKIP, Greens, and SNP.  mentioned x2 DUP.  mentioned once UUP.   DrArsenal (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Belfast Telegraph does have a NI perspective, but we have to reflect all perspectives. And their article stands as a detailed prediction of the election result. My views on what to do have changed as I've thought through the different perspectives and challenges. What currently dominates my thinking is this: it would be a significant break from precedent were we to list in the infobox a party with fewer seats than a party omitted from the infobox. I can't see any examples of that having been done before. So, after the 2015 election, it would be odd to include the Greens while excluding parties with (probably) more seats, like DUP and SF. If that's odd after the election, it must be odd before it too. However, I take your point about constituencies being stood in. Bondegezou (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The way I see it, seven parties were included in the major parties leaders debate, so all seven parties should be included in the infobox. UKIP are outpolling the Lib Dems and the SNP will win a far greater number of seats than the Lib Dems yet the Lib Dems are included and UKIP and the SNP are not.

Radical idea
So, we could break the article into 4, for the four constituent nations. Keep an overall infobox, but then also have an infobox for England (Con, Lab, LD, UKIP, GPE&W, ?Respect), Wales (Lab, Con, LD, Plaid, UKIP, ?GPE&W), Scotland (Lab, SNP, LD, Con, ?UKIP, ?SGP) and Northern Ireland (DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance, UUP, ?TUV, ?UKIP, ?NI21). Each section could then also discuss particular election issues relevant to each area (the independence referendum and surge in SNP support in Scotland; UUP and DUP talking about a partial electoral pact in NI). Bondegezou (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

On a separate note, I've been looking through Template_talk:Infobox_election for any help on these issues. I didn't find much. The only vaguely relevant thing was this past discussion: Template_talk:Infobox_election/Archive_3. This was about the 2000 US Presidential election where the winner didn't get the most votes, so this is a bit like our problem where parties may have stronger vote shares but win fewer seats. The discussion was bit inconclusive, but the end result at United States presidential election, 2000 is that Bush is listed before Gore as winner and his electoral votes line is bolded, but the popular vote share is bolded for Gore. Not certain that helps much, but I thought I'd mention it... Bondegezou (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with a less radical version of this- NI politics are utterly different to the rest of the UK, but Wales and Scotland are pretty similar. So how about a seven-party Great Britain infobox with Cons, Lab, Lib Dem, UKIP, Green, SNP, PC. The infobox would have a note pointing to the Northern Ireland parties further down. And, further down the page, have a Northern Ireland section with five parties: DUP, SF, SDLP, UUP, Alliance. The main (Great Britain) infobox would have three rows: Lab and Con on first row, LD and UKIP on second row (3rd and 4th parties by both expected seat count and expected vote share); and Green, SNP, PC on third row (5th, 6th, and 7th parties by both expected seat count and expected vote share). This somewhat reconciles the vote share/seat number differences.Chessrat (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd support the split between NI and GB infoboxes as being a neat way to split the article and reflect the fundamentally different situation in NI. In terms of parties and ordering though the NI infobox should probably have 6 parties to also include Sylvia Hermon as an incumbent MP. For a GB infobox I'd agree with Bondegezou that we stick to listing by number of seats as this has been the historic precedent and makes most sense in the FPTP system. This then only leaves a decision as whether this should be by current seats (Con, Lab, Lib Dem, SNP, PC, UKIP, Green and probably also Respect) or predicted seats in RS (Con or Lab, Lib Dem or SNP, UKIP, PC or Green, exclude Respect?). Not sure where Chessrat's seat count estimates come from but not aware of any RS suggesting Green will get more than 1-2 seats while RS are suggesting SNP could get 20-40 seats. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Andrewdpcotton, Bondegezou and Chessrat. These seem like interesting ideas that are worth taking further.  Is anybody able to mock them up?  Personally, I very much doubt that 'predicted seats' will work as an organising basis - there are too many different predictions already, and there will be so many more, with some in what we might otherwise think of as 'reliable sources' being wildly different from others.  I would suggest sequence should be number of seats at last General Election, with share of the vote at the last GE as a tie-breaker if needed (including Con, Lab, Lib Dem, SNP, PC, UKIP, Green and Respect).   The 'last General Election' criterion is also relevant in showing the difference between Sylvia Hermon and independents in Britain who were originally elected for a party.  DrArsenal (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose – One United Kingdom, one general election. The idea of making separate article areas only to satisfy people's desire for more infoboxes is absurd. Infoboxes are not important, nor a necessity. The best solution is just to kibosh it all together. The idea of Wikipedia partitioning the UK is absurd. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I respect User:RGloucester's point. I am keen that there remains an overall infobox for the whole election at the top of the article, as we have for every other UK general election article. My suggestion -- and it is radical and maybe a step too far -- is for additional infoboxes for subsections, but ultimately this is one election (with two parties standing across GB and NI: Conservative and UKIP), so I think there has to be one infobox at the top. When someone is trying to assemble a majority after the next election, it doesn't matter one bit whether the supporting MPs come from GB or NI!
 * Infoboxes generally (but not always, I think) order by results at the previous election or current seat totals.
 * As for who to include for Northern Ireland (if we do have a separate infobox), among current MPs, there are 8 DUP, 5 SF, 3 SDLP, 1 Alliance and Lady Hermon. In the NI Assembly, there is 38 DUP, 29 SF, 14 SDLP, 13 UUP, 8 Alliance, 2 independents and 1 each TUV, Green, UKIP and NI21 (the latter two being defections). There are 3 NI MEPs: 1 DUP, 1 SF, 1 UUP. The most recent polling had DUP 25.9%, SF, 24.0%, SDLP 15.1%, UUP 11.8%, Alliance 6.2%, TUV 5.2%, UKIP 0.9%, Green 0.5%, NI21 0.4% and 10.0% for others. So, I think one would definitely include DUP, SF, UUP (no current MP, but do have an MEP, solid Assembly representation and polling and generally recognised by reliable sources as one of the main parties), SDLP and Alliance, ordered by number of current seats. I don't think it makes sense to include Lady Hermon as an independent. The argument, it seems to me, is whether one should include TUV, who did get someone elected to the Assembly and poll above 5%, and just below Alliance. Bondegezou (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove all infoboxes from the article. Let the prose do the work. Clearly this is controversial, and there is no need over-simplify the situation into a clunky box. Multiple boxes would ruin the design of the article. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On an entirely unrelated note, I hope you all enjoyed my recent research study on Wikipedia editors: http://www.jmir.org/2014/12/e260 (focusing on health, rather than politics)! (There's also a Signpost article at Wikipedia Signpost/2014-12-03/Op-ed.) Bondegezou (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

That infobox shown at the top is what it should be like anyway. UKIP, Greens and the SNP will win seats in Westminster at the 2015 General Election. Ignore the polls, they are, in my opinion, useless in trying to work out the results of a general election because they do not represent the opinion of the whole country. Only a small region and number of people. Also a separate infobox is needed for NI, All those parties in one box will get crowded. Maybe even create another NI Election results section. ExtraTropical11 (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Another useful citation: Bondegezou (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * One UK, one article, one infobox. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Another possible citation of relevance, saying the SNP could be the 3rd largest party by seats. Bondegezou (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we agree on any general principles?
We're still going round in circles on this one. Would it be useful to try to agree on some underlying general principles? Do we, or do we not, agree on the following? Feel free to comment on each point separately, as I have done below, or to add additional principles. Bondegezou (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Seats trump votes: while votes cast or likely votes to be cast has some significance, the infobox is primarily about seats.
 * Agreed. This has been the practice for all prior FPTP Parliamentary elections I've looked at. Bondegezou (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Follow precedent and UK system based on seats not votes. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The UK system, and perhaps most importantly Wikipedia policy, puts seats above votes. There's no reason to change this. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. “Seats above votes” is fair enough, but “Seats trump votes” actually means ‘totally ignore votes except where parties are level on seats’, which by implication totally ignores what reliable sources will be doing with respect to the election.  We simply can’t totally ignore who reliable sources include and don’t include for the sake of a local consensus about a ‘principle’.   And what count of seats is used?  Seats declared as results in 2010, or current seats?  Are the three independents counted as a group of three, or as three entirely separate individuals?  Are Sinn Féin included because they were elected, or excluded because they don’t take up their seats?   On some combinations of answers to those questions, SDLP will be included, but UKIP won’t be, and trying to discuss the principles without any attention to such an implication could just lead us to a situation with near endless attempts by those aggrieved to change the box.  So some decisions about how you count seats lead to situations where I would vehemently oppose ‘seats trump votes’.  A formula that includes both seats and votes, where seats virtually always trump votes would, however, be a different matter.  DrArsenal (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * One UK, one infobox.
 * Agreed. I suggested extra infoboxes above, but my suggestion was that these would be supplementary to the main article infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Partially Agreed. I still think NI is sufficiently different that it could be better covered by a separate infobox but perhaps an additional infobox is a better solution allowing the larger NI parties (DUP, Sinn Fein, SDLP) to be in main UK infobox and secondary one to cover other NI parties. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We have to reflect the electoral system as well as the constitutional situation to be accurate. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agnostic. I don’t see any great reason to include Northern Irish parties that don’t organise in the rest of the UK in the main info box.  Whether that means two info boxes or NI parties being excluded from info box inclusion, when a number of parties with less MPs (but more electoral and political significance across the UK as a whole) are included in the only infobox is not an issue I am enormously bothered about either way.  DrArsenal (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The infobox can take into account what happened at the last election, the current state of play (e.g. defections and by-elections since then) and reliably sourced predictions. None of those trumps the other.
 * Agreed. Infoboxes for forthcoming elections are often based on the previous result. I think that's a good starting point, but I think if the situation has shifted (and that is reliably shown), then it would be wrong to ignore developments. A common approach to date has been to keep the infobox based on the previous result, but to add any new/rising parties at the end of the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But this needs to be based on predicted state of play as regards seats likely to be won rather than likely vote share or number of seats contested. If a party isn't going to get any seats, it shouldn't be in the infobox. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dubious. I accept that the situation vis-a-vis UKIP/Greens is significant, but we have to be careful about any precedent caused by adding them to the infobox. This is only the second general election Wikipedia has covered properly "live", so we're still feeling around for rules I guess. We have gone back-and-forth with IP editors adding UKIP to the box for about 4 years, I suppose we'll have to make a decision eventually. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but it is important that the resultant decisions are consistent, not arbitrary, and reflect reliable sources, which will be difficult balance to achieve. DrArsenal (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The infobox is a summary: it does not need to cover every party, or every party winning seats.
 * Agreed. Some infoboxes, to avoid controversy, have opted to be very inclusive. I'm happy for infoboxes to be inclusive and list a fair few parties, but an infobox is ultimately a summary. It shouldn't include everyone: there should be limits on its size. Bondegezou (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But if including Party X predicted to win 5 seats, you can't exclude Party Y who are predicted to win 10 seats even if they're contesting less seats overall.( Basically I'm saying if you want to include UKIP/Greens, I can't see any way to exclude SNP, DUP etc who are also predicted to get 5+ seats.) Andrewdpcotton (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We've always set limits for infoboxes (by-election articles only for those candidates saving deposits etc). We should have the same principle of summary/limitation here. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but it shouldn't exclude parties that are routinely included by reliable sources, while including other parties that are rarely mentioned by reliable sources, so the size chosen should probably be consistent with including all the parties that can regularly be seen in reliable sources. DrArsenal (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Attempted summary so far and suggestion
I realise some people may not be looking at Wikipedia over the festive period, so I don't wish to claim that the discussion above has necessarily run its course. It would be nice if more people could still wade in.

However, so far, discussion immediately above is mostly supportive of the basic principles I suggested, although there is not unanimity. I think we can also see more clearly where the fault lines are. There are, it seems to me, two big issues:

(1) Seats vs. votes, which is kind of tied up with past vs. present. On the one hand, we have an approach that looks at number of seats won in 2010/number of current seats/probable seats in 2015 (which favours parties like the LibDems, DUP and SF). On the other hand, we have an approach that looks at current polling/probable 2015 vote share/general political buzz (which favours parties like UKIP and the Greens).

(2) What to do about Northern Ireland? NI's distinct political parties fill up the infobox, making it harder to find a compromise that includes the likes of UKIP and the Greens.

To go into this in more detail: if we stuck with seats won last time, splitting ties by votes won, the ordering goes: Con, Lab, LibDem, DUP, SNP, SF, PC, SDLP, Green Party of England & Wales [which is 9, the biggest infobox possible, I believe], then Alliance, the Speaker, Lady Harmon, UKIP, BNP, UUP, Eng Dem, Respect, TUV.

If we go with current seats, splitting ties by 2010 votes won, we get: Con, Lab, LibDem, DUP, SNP, SF, PC, SDLP, UKIP [max infobox], Green Party of England & Wales, Alliance, Respect, the Speaker, Lady Harmon, BNP, UUP, Eng Dem, TUV.

If we go by polling, we run into the problem that there are no UK-wide polls. GB polling goes: Lab, Con (or the other way around), UKIP, LibDem, Greens (sometimes above LDs; note pollsters don't split between GPE&W and Scottish Greens, although the latter are so small they make little difference), with sometimes mention made of SNP, PC, and BNP. NI is ~2.9% of the UK population, so if you combined the GB and NI polling, the best polling NI parties (DUP and SF) would be around 0.7%, so below the SNP and battling it out with PC and BNP. So let's call current polling: Lab, Con, UKIP, LibDem, Greens, SNP, then uncertain. For reference, vote share in 2010 was: Con, Lab, LibDem, UKIP, BNP, SNP, GPE&W, SF, DUP [max infobox], PC, SDLP, UUP, Eng Dem, Alliance, Respect, TUV, the Speaker, Rodney Connor (a losing independent unionist in NI), Lady Harmon, Christian, Scottish Green, Health Concern.

In terms of what reliable sources are talking about, London-based ones talk about Con, Lab, LibDem and UKIP most, with a fair bit of discussion about SNP and Greens. (Obviously NI-based media have a different focus.) If you just look at reliable source articles specifically talking about probable election results, they talk most about Con, Lab, LibDem and UKIP, a fair bit about SNP and Greens (probably in that order), with some mention of the DUP, and occasionally SF, PC, SDLP and UUP. If you look for concrete seat predictions though, the GPE&W is only predicted to be on 0-2 seats, below predictions for, say, DUP and SF. No-one quite knows what will happen with the SNP (could overtake the LibDems on seats) or UKIP (could overtake the DUP), but they're generally thought to be well above the Greens.

So, here's my revised suggestion. We make the infobox as big as possible to best allow compromise, so 9 parties. We have a UK-wide infobox (seems most popular position; logical; sticks with convention). We prioritise seats over votes (seems most popular; sticks with convention). We look at current seats (sort of a compromise between sticking with the 2010 results versus predicting 2015). That yields: Con, Lab, LibDem, DUP, SNP, SF, PC, SDLP, UKIP. Pros: we're not changing any clear conventions around infobox usage; we're sticking to some basic principles; we include nearly all the parties that people want included and reflect the current interest and likely future success of the likes of the SNP and UKIP; we also include parties who may play a significant role in a hung Parliament, like the DUP. Cons: the big sticking point is that we do not include the Greens, who are getting a lot of attention and are fifth in the polls (and sometimes fourth). It's not going to please everyone, but that seems the best approach to me. Bondegezou (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Or, the other compromise, and there's some logic to it, is to treat the SNP and PC as one combined block, then one can squeeze in 10 parties and add GPE&W! Bondegezou (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent summary of the issues and it seems a very reasonable proposal based on current available sources. I'd Strongly Oppose any proposal to merge PC and SNP, they are very different parties with very different aims, albeit one main similarity. I agree the main sticking point is the absence of the E&W Green party but even if we were going by RS reports of predicted seats it's tricky to find any suggesting they will get more seats (3-4) than any of those 9 parties listed above. Most people seem to expect PC and SDLP to retain their 3 seats each while Greens are expected to gain 1 seat at most so it's hard to see them finishing better than 10th in seats won even if they do poll 5-10% nationally as some polls/experts predict.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - this infobox proposal unfairly glorifies NI parties relative to RS coverage, in addition to the obvious drawbacks of the Greens being excluded and UKIP being placed far too low down. Hmm, how about this? Infobox has: row one- Labour and Cons. Row two- Lib Dems, combined NI parties, and UKIP. Row 3: SNP, Green, PC. I'm not sure how the NI parties would be grouped together, especially considering how different they are. But it's the only reasonable way to include both the six main parties by RS coverage and NI parties due to number of MPs.Chessrat (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But RS all agree that 3 of the NI Parties, SNP and PC will get more seats than the Greens so that isn't "glorifying" them but a reflection of their relative strength. I can't see any RS suggesting Greens are likely to get more than 2 seats. Equally RS suggest SNP on current polling would get more seats than Lib Dems and UKIP (see the Prof John Curtice link). So why would SNP be listed on row 3 below all the others? And how on earth can you combine NI parties in one entry? I'm afraid it's a totally unworkable suggestion that has no logic and doesn't follow RS.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you find any RS mentioning the NI parties in relation to the next election, but not the Greens? Note that few reliable sources determine notability solely based on current seats; most of them prefer listening to current popularity. As a rough estimate from news articles I've seen about the 2015 election, 100% mention Con, Lab and Lib Dem; 90% mention UKIP; 40% mention SNP; 30% mention Greens; 10% mention DUP; 5% mention other NI parties. Even though seat numbers are obviously most important for the Election, Wikipedia always follows reliable sources. To do differently (as Bondegzou proposed with his/her NI ordering), would arguably be a violation of Wikipedia policy. Chessrat (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So are you proposing that election infoboxes should be ordered by how many times a party is mentioned in RS rather than by how many seats or votes the RS predicts they will get?... That strikes me as rather bizarre to say the least. Surely we need to actually read RS and see how many seats they are suggesting different parties will get. For example the Peter Kellner article here has 5 scenarios https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/12/15/tricky-politics-hung-parliaments/ Lib Dem vary from 24 to 40, SNP vary from 7 to 35, UKIP from 1 to 10. We can assume he's predicting 3 PC and 1 Green as he predicts them at 4 combined in every scenario. NI parties will always elect 18 between them so at least 2-3 of the NI parties will have 2+ MPs. If you don't think UK election infoboxes should be ordered by seats then fair enough but surely you can't be proposing we order by number of times a party is mentioned in a newspaper. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not the role of wikipedia to predict election outcomes WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, and neither is it appropriate to base an important element of content on predictions. We should be following reliable sources directly: ie which parties do RS tend to view as most important/significant, not what predictions do RS make.  DrArsenal (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand DrArsenal and Chessrat's concern. (Indeed, I've long supported reforming the electoral system from FPTP to something more proportional, which would do away with all these problems because UKIP, the Greens &c. would be winning many more seats!) However -- and I'm repeating myself here, I fear -- every infobox I've seen for prior UK elections or elections in other countries orders parties by how many seats they've won. So, DrA, Chessrat: are you suggesting that, once the 2015 election is over, we break from that convention? That is, once the election is over, should we list the Greens above the DUP even if (as seems likely) the DUP get many more seats? I realise the election isn't over yet, but it will be in due course and what to do then helps us decide what to do now.
 * What I would like to see is the text of this article being expanded. The article as a whole should, I believe, reflect coverage in reliable sources, which is Wikipedia policy, as Chessrat points out. Reliable sources talk about the rise of multi-party politics, of UKIP and the Greens, and the implications of that. Many of those implications will be indirect: the Greens may not win many seats, but voters choosing the Greens can still be significant in terms of reduced LD or Lab votes. The article should talk about that (as the opinion polling article already notes the rise of UKIP and the Greens). An article that better covers these issues will be better and balance whatever the infobox says. I think we'd have a better article overall if we all spent more time on the text and less worrying about the tokenism of infobox inclusion!
 * That said, we're still left with what to do with the infobox. DrA reminds us of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL: that's why most infoboxes for future elections are based on what happened last time. We can do that, but I don't think the result would be any more to DrA and Chessrat's liking. We could not have an infobox at all, or something that lists no parties.
 * Ultimately, what is the infobox for? The standard format works for elections that have been held (although we may still have the same arguments afterwards). It is less successful for forthcoming elections because you either fall back on what happened last time, or you're into crystal ball territory. Maybe we need a whole new design of infobox for upcoming elections that can list parties that reliable sources consider important without any implication that importance equates to seats likely to be won? Or, we can say that the infobox is not intended as a summary of what parties are important (the article text can cover that): rather, it is something that specifically focuses on the result (i.e. seats won). That would be my preference.
 * Sorry for another long comment! Bondegezou (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I've put requests at Template_talk:Infobox_election and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums for additional opinions. Bondegezou (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bondegezou for putting in the requests for additional opinions.
 * I had come to the conclusion that we needed outside help in resolving this, too.
 * I think there may be a case for the infobox to not work purely on seats won after the election, but I would say that is very largely a different question from the one at hand now, because we don't know how many seats will be won after the election, and reliable sources have a good level of disagreement and fuzzyness - eg we don't know which will be 1st or 2nd party in terms of seats, or 2nd/3rd, or 4th/5th etc.
 * As for your call for additional text. You may recall that I have been working on additional text to describe the major shifts in opinion polling through the parliament.  I didn't imagine I wouldn't have it completed by the end of the year, but it seems worth waiting now to see if Anthony Wells at UKPollingReport produces a summary of the year again.  When it does arrive, I hope you will constructively edit it.
 * I agree it is important to remember that "Ultimately, what is the infobox for? The standard format works for elections that have been held": but meanwhile we have a little over four months trying to cope with it in a situation where the problems are magnified and intensified. DrArsenal (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, also Bondegezou for reminding me to look at talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums - at #Infoboxes, candidates there is an interesting and highly relevant comment, with links to various relevant wikipolicies DrArsenal (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

How about this? Uses a bit of fudging with two infoboxes. Pre-election, the parties would retain this order as per RS coverage. Post-election, the parties in each infobox would be ordered in terms of number of seats. See, having NI always be below rest of UK prevents many of the problems that would occur otherwise. Chessrat (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks DrA for the link. Thanks Chessrat for the suggestion: the model of having 2 infoboxes immediately next to each other is an interesting one. Bondegezou (talk) 09:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Another cite: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30587686 Bondegezou (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And another cite (GB only): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/poll-of-the-pollsters-labour-by-a-whisker-the-polling-firms-place-their-bets-for-may-9955994.html Bondegezou (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I also note that Israeli legislative election, 2015 has chosen to not list any parties in their infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bondegezou for those two. Interesting, and I would say significant, that none of the pollsters even mentioned the NornIrn MPs having a possible role in making or breaking coalitions, given how none of them are convinced we are in overall majority territory.  DrArsenal (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but one should note they are pollsters polling GB. They don't poll NI, so why would they be getting into predicting NI results? Bondegezou (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: note Talk:Israeli_legislative_election,_2015! Bondegezou (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Another cite: "There are six parties involved" discussing the election and referring to Con, Lab, LD, UKIP, SNP and Green, Newsnight, BBC2, 5 Jan 2015. I feel that sort of coverage needs to be addressed in the article, whether or not in the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * .., although subsequent discussion on the programme also raised the possibility of the DUP's involvement in a coalition. Bondegezou (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ... And then the first forecast of the Newsnight index is 90% probability of a hung parliament, with Lab 286, Con 280 (but highest vote share), SNP 33, LD 26, DUP 8, UKIP 3, SDLP 3, PC 2, Greens 1, other 8. That's what they put on screen. Bondegezou (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the website with the details for the forecast Newsnight are using. Bondegezou (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * As he/she is the one clear-cut advocate of "One UK, one infobox." who hasn't responded to Chessrat's suggestion, I left a message on the talk page of DoktorB: no response. I suggest it might be time for a bold change of the infobox, as Chessrat suggested, fully expecting it will provoke people to come to want to debate it (and may well result in a revertion).  DrArsenal (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. If Bondegezou doesn't object, we should BOLDly implement my ten-party suggested infobox, as it seems to be the only suggestion so far that we all accept. Chessrat (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOLD does not really apply, people. See WP:BRD: we are clearly in the 'discuss' phase and I fear such a bold change may be overly provocative. I realise things have dragged on for ages now and can see why people would be frustrated. I -- and perhaps this is a false optimism! -- do feel we are inching towards a solution. It seems to me that we are closer to agreement about what to do after the election, so I wondered if we could nail that down, while leaving the problem of what to do before the election for later? Do we at least all agree that the post-election infobox should be ordered by seats won?

If people here feel continuing the discussion as we have been doing is not enough, then the next step in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process is not another bold edit but an WP:RFC.

In case it is useful for further discussion or an RfC, I thought I would enumerate our options. These are, it seems to me:


 * 1) Status quo: infobox with Con, Lab & LD
 * 2) No parties listed: as per Israeli legislative election, 2015, we have an infobox, but leave it blank until the election results
 * 3) Maxi-infobox based on current seats: so, Con, Lab, LibDem, DUP, SNP, SF, PC, SDLP, UKIP. This is my suggestion from above: parties listed by current seats in the Commons (ties split by 2010 vote share)
 * 4) Combi 2-part infobox for GB and NI: we use Chessrat's hack with two infoboxes made to look kind of like one infobox to include more GB parties (including the Greens) and listing NI parties separately. This would require some further discussion of which parties to include and in what order. (I'd suggest sticking with ordering by current seats (ties split by 2010) to give Con, Lab, LibDem, SNP, PC, SDLP, UKIP, Green Party of England & Wales in the GB box and then DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance, UUP in the NI box. There may be debate about whether to include Respect and BNP in the former, whether to drop UUP in the latter, and whether to add TUV or others in the latter.)

I'm uncertain myself what the best option is. Right now, I'm leaning towards (4) with caveats. Bondegezou (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: I've been thinking of some text for the article content as a balance to these issues. I'll try to get to that in the next couple of days. Bondegezou (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Great! At last we're all in tentative agreement as to the design. Good point, it is still a bit early for the BOLD stage of the process. You must have mistakenly suggested SDLP for the GB infobox as I don't think it operates outside NI? And I would argue that the GB infobox should be, for now, ordered by RS coverage. That would change to number of seats after the election, though. So we'd have Con, Lab, LibDem, UKIP, SNP, Green Party of England & Wales, PC, (Respect? BNP?) in the GB box and then DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance, (UUP? TUV?) in the NI box. Change this order to number of seats after election results are released. If we can agree on this, which we seem to be getting close to, then at last we can finish the infobox and get onto the article content. Chessrat (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, SDLP in the GB list was a mistake.
 * I think ordering by RS coverage is a difficult concept. It is hard to measure objectively: it is unclear what RS coverage is relevant to what infobox; there is no way of scanning all the RS coverage; and how do you weight different RS material? Ordering by the previous result (or current standing) is the norm for infoboxes for a good reason, I suspect, and I am reluctant to abandon that position. For me, the RS coverage argument is a good reason to try to include parties in the infobox, but I do not currently see it as workable as a way of ordering them.
 * After the election, would you still want to have the GB/NI split?
 * Finally, I hope we can improve article content before we finish the infobox! Indeed, I hope improved article content will reduce worries about the emphasis produced by the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Delete the infobox from the article. It is not serving any purpose other than to make a mess, and any idea of having a giant infobox is absurd and bad for page design. Let the prose do the talking. After the election, add the usual infobox. This hairsplitting over what to include is WP:CRYSTAL. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * User:RGloucester it's good to get another view, but it seems unlikely to me that there would be consensus to delete the infobox altogether (admittedly, certainly one, and perhaps two of Bondegezou's 'options' would be worse than deletion from my perspective).
 * However, I think there is consensus that the best thing to do is to increase and improve the prose. Bondegezou and I have both added chunks of prose in the last week, and below there are two suggestions of topics where prose coverage could very usefully be added: perhaps you could suggest some text towards one of them?  DrArsenal (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, User:RGloucester, some more info would be welcome. Infoboxes are routine in all sorts of election pages on wikipedia - are you saying they should be gone from them all for prospective elections, or just that the particular circumstances of this one means it is better being got rid of?  Would the much-reduced Israeli legislative election, 2015-style infobox still meet with your objection? DrArsenal (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't care about other articles. I care about this article. A giant infobox does not serve the interests of the reader, and the hand-wringing over this matter has wasted much more time than it is worth. The pragmatic solution is to get rid of it, and put it in once the election occurs. That's the only reasonable solution. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to respond to the 15:22 from Bondegezou. I did write a reply earlier, but it disappeared between an edit conflict and injudicious use of a 'back' button. ...  Anyway, no Bondegezou, I don't agree to a simple order post-election info-box by seats won, since on this electoral system, it is possible for a party to get 25% of the vote and get no MPs, despite having the most votes nationwide, while (say) two other parties get the bulk of the seats with 23% each (less evenly distributed), and others get substantial numbers of seats with <5%.
 * There is nothing about the wp:brd cycle that means we have to go to dispute resolution now. However, given User:RGloucester's opposition, perhaps it is worthwhile.


 * As for the options -1) I don't think this is sustainable until polling day, to say the least it's hard to support with reliable sources.
 * 2)If that is the best consensus that can be achieved, so be it.
 * 3)As suggested, it does not reflect reliable sources at all. This is the clear-cut "no info box would be better" for me.
 * 4)I think it's the best option, but with RGloucester opposing now, we have a problem.
 * Thank heavens for the text Bondegezou added to the article. DrArsenal (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

DrArsenal, to pick up on one point you make, I'm well aware that vote share and seats won can be very divergent under the UK electoral system. However, the system is what it is and an election is about winning seats. If a party gets 25% of the vote and no seats, then the most important 'take home' from that, the summary that should go in the infobox, is that they won no seats. I think the article text should explain that seats won is not directly proportional to votes won and, in your hypothetical case, what happened to that party should be explained and discussed in the text. But it's not the job of a Wikipedia article infobox to fix the UK electoral system: we reflect what is. I am, thus, comfortable with sticking with what all infoboxes I've seen for FPTP elections do, that is that ordering is by seats won, not votes won.

Do we need to go to an RfC now? I don't know. I suspect we will need a process like that if we're to come to any conclusion. Bondegezou (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I note that Greek legislative election, 2015 has an infobox ordered by seats (or votes - it's basically the same) won last time, not by current seats, not by current polling and not by RS coverage. Bondegezou (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bondegezou, I wasn't doubting you would understand that: I was simply giving my reason for saying I can't commit before an election to the principles you suggest for determining what it contains after the election.
 * Anyway: RGloucester's intervention has persuaded me we should go for RfC now. DrArsenal (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop the presses - Ofcom consultation out
We've discussed before that the most obvious reliable source of who is a major party and who is not is Ofcom. They published their consultation today, which has received subsequent press attention. This, as I understand it, is the beginning of the process. Ofcom here put forward their initial view, but there is then a consultation before a final statement due March 2015.

Do go read the full details at the link provided, but in short, Ofcom say there is no strong argument to remove any parties from their current list of major parties, i.e. Con, Lab, LibDem in GB, SNP in Scotland, Plaid in Wales, and in Northern Ireland, Alliance, DUP, SF, SDLP and UUP. They have then considered whether to add to this list. They conclude that UKIP should be added to the list for England and Wales, but they conclude not to add TUV for NI and not to add the Greens (for England & Wales, or the Scottish Greens). They go on to give reasons for all this.

I've always argued that we should follow Ofcom in this. Obviously, their final statement may differ from this initial view. But as it stands, it seems to me a key reliable source say the Greens are not a major party. So, now I feel like going back to my earlier suggestion for a 9-party infobox (based on current seats, ties split by 2010 vote share) of Con, Lab, LibDem, DUP, SNP, SF, PC, SDLP, UKIP. That then covers every party Ofcom considers major in some part of the UK, except the UUP, who have been without an MP since before the 2010 election. Bondegezou (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Counter-stop-press: Cameron stated that he will not partake in televised debates, (usually considered as showing major parties) unless the Greens are included. Should we take Ofcom's word over the PM?
 * I think the only thing these latest revelations show is just how up-in-the-air the whole thing is. If Cameron's threat is acknowledged and the Greens are thus included, it would make Wikipedia's stance of not including the fifth-largest party look very biased, despite following Ofcom's guidance.
 * How would everyone think about using the current infobox until the debates' lineup is finalized, before changing the infobox to only include the parties of the debates?
 * Remember that being a major party in NI does not necessarily imply being a major party in the UK as a whole. Chessrat (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, to be literal, yes, Wikipedia rules would suggest that an Ofcom report is a more reliable source than something the PM says. The PM is clearly not an unbiased participant here, and several RS reports have discussed reasons why Cameron may be saying this for his own reasons (as an excuse to scupper the debates, because he feels the Greens would take more support from his opponents).
 * However, yes, I take your point that who gets included in the debates, if they happen, would be another key piece of evidence. (If we went with precisely who was in the debates, then that would almost certainly mean no SNP, currently the 5th largest party in the Commons and expected by many commentators to be 4th or 3rd after the election. There were, of course, also additional debates in Scotland, Wales and NI last time, so do you consider those?)
 * I don't think I'm happy with only going with who's in the debates (if they happen), but if the Greens, or whoever, are in the debates, then, yes, that would be a strong reason to include them in the infobox in my view too. Bondegezou (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Another cite: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/09/leaders-five-main-uk-parties-invited-digital-debate-general-election-30-march
 * Fair enough. Wikipedia may follow Ofcom as an RS. But Ofcom did not say which parties were notable in the UK as a whole! They only included each region. Can you find any source that suggests, for example, that the SDLP will be relevant in the UK general election?
 * If not, it seems undue emphasis will be placed on the NI parties.
 * I think this is the major problem we keep returning to. It's an election across the whole UK, but most sources only focus on what will be happening in each individual region. I can't see any obvious way around this problem.
 * As far as I can see, we have eight options for the infobox, proposed by various users. (pre-election, at least)
 * A) No infobox
 * B) Con/Lab
 * C) Con/Lab/Lib
 * D) Con/Lab/Lib/Ukip
 * E) Con/Lab/Lib/Ukip/Green/SNP
 * F) Con/Lab/Lib/DUP/SNP/SF/PC/SDLP/Ukip
 * G) Con/Lab/Lib/Ukip/Green/SNP/PC///DUP/SF/SDLP
 * H) Con/Lab/Lib/Ukip/Green/SNP/PC/Respect/BNP///DUP/SF/SDLP/Alliance/UUP/TUV

Chessrat (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * FDGHACEB! Bondegezou (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * EGDCHBAF are my prefences... Chessrat (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The BBC has drawn up their own guidance for election coverage. The draft for consultation (so same deal as Ofcom) is here and it pretty much says the same as Ofcom, i.e. The Greens and, in NI, TUV are not major parties. So both the BBC and Ofcom documents are your for comments and we don't know what will happen with the debates, but it seems to me, at present, that 2 key reliable sources say the same thing, and I also think the best way to translate that into an infobox is F above. But I entirely recognise there are merits in other suggestions. Bondegezou (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * EBAGHCDF would be my view.DrArsenal (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * FGHBAECD would be mine. Not sure this guidance really helps us resolve the issue at all to be honest. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * another move of the goalposts - http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-01-22/bbc-and-itv-bid-for-seven-way-leaders-debates DrArsenal (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And the DUP have responded saying they should be included. I don't think speculation and unagreed suggestions for the debates should be given much weight. Ofcom and the BBC both have current guidance listing major parties. Those are obvious reliable sources to settle the matter here. Bondegezou (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Ofcom have now concluded their consultation and reported: They have stuck with their proposals: Lab, Con, LD major in England, Scotland and Wales, SNP in Scotland, Plaid in Wales, UKIP in England and Wales, DUP/UUP/SF/SDLP/Alliance in Northern Ireland. Greens (inc. Scottish Greens) not major anywhere, TUV not major in NI. I recommend the document: they go into detail about their reasoning. Bondegezou (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Comparison to other articles
The United States presidential election, 1996 includes a party that received a significant proportion of the popular vote (8%) despite getting no seats. This supports inclusion of popular parties that don't get many seats, like UKIP and Green. Looking at other language wikipedia articles for the UK election 2015, of the ones with infoboxes: About half of them have Con, Lab, LD, UKIP. Most of the remainder have Con, Lab, LD. Welsh has Con, Lab, LD, UKIP, SNP, PC. Given that Ofcom states that Con, Lab, LD and UKIP are major parties in England, would anyone support a four-party infobox for now? (Con-Lab-LD-Ukip) As an interim measure? Chessrat (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Chessrat. US presidential elections are rather different elections, of course. Perot's 8.4% is also higher than the Greens did at the last general election, at any subsequent national election and in nearly every poll, although UKIP has done better on several of those counts. To clarify, my concern is less whether the Greens have won enough seats and more that it seems inappropriate to me to include parties (e.g. Greens, UKIP) while excluding other parties who have won more seats previously and are likely to win more seats in due course. That's the stumbling block for me, and that's something I've never seen done (on the English-language Wikipedia) for any UK, US, Canadian or Indian elections (as the main examples of countries using FPTP) or, indeed, for any other election article. And that's why a 4-party selection of Con/Lab/LD/UKIP doesn't appeal to me, although I will bow to consensus should one emerge.
 * Interesting to see what other language Wikipedia articles do. I hadn't thought to look at those! Perhaps not surprising that the Welsh language one should include SNP and PC. Interesting that none others include SNP or PC and that none of them include the Greens or the Northern Irish parties. Bondegezou (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox references
Why are not all the political parties that took part in the election, along with their relevant election information, listed in the infobox? Surely, there is enough "room"?

Predictions section
Isn't it time to add a section with predictions of *seats*? There are at least three or four websites doing seat predictions, and these of course have the potential to be much more useful than opinion polls, because of the electoral system we have here. KarlFrei (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about that myself, so, yes, agreed it would be a good idea. I wasn't certain whether such a section would be better here or as part of Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election or even as its own article. I think such a section should list those predictions that pass WP:RS criteria, so that would include ElectionForecast.co.uk being used by Newsnight. There's also the New Statesman one here. Some predictions, like ElectionForecast.co.uk, give ranges, not just a single prediction: how do we describe that? A section should also discuss some of the issues in prediction (why it's difficult, should you use uniform national swing (UNS), the need to model Scotland separately, what to do with Northern Ireland, do you use constituency-level polling). Bondegezou (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Me again. I note the New Statesman site here helpfully lists other predictors: they give their model, Election Forecast, the well-known Electoral Calculus, betting odds at Ladbrokes and Elections Etc. (which I've not heard of before). I note some of these seem to be doing automatic daily updates now: it will be a lot of work to copy those over here. Is there some sensible way to note what they're saying without doing that? Bondegezou (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure (sorry for my late reply). I still think it is nice to have a table here, in a central location for people looking for information about this upcoming election. I suppose we don't need to copy over every single daily update - maybe update it once per week? That said, I do think it could be interesting to track how these predictions change over time, very much like the graph of opinion polls that we have. But of course it would be a lot of work to create it and keep it up to date, and it is going to be hard to source...KarlFrei (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, May2015's table of other predictions is not terribly up-to-date, so I guess it is worthwhile to keep Wikipedia's table as current as possible.KarlFrei (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In Electoral Calculus, NAT is, I think, Nationalist, i.e. SNP+PC combined, and MIN is minority parties, I think... but I can't get the site to load at the moment to check. Bondegezou (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I should point out that Electoral Calculus is a "Nowcast", not a Forecast. RodCrosby (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I really can't see how anything based on betting, like sporting index, can be justified for inclusion - it is not a reliable source, it is inherently biassed (and open to intentional bias) because ability to take part in betting markets is greater for those with more money. An aggregation of such bets is just an aggregation of a biassed section of the electorate - we don't report opinion polls that are similarly biassed.  DrArsenal (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting point, I never thought of that. Do rich people bet more? I guess individual rich people might bet larger amounts, but I would be interested to see a graph of income/wealth vs how many people do betting. Anyway, I like to have something in there which represents the wisdom of the crowd, but of course I cannot guarantee that people who bet form an accurate representation of the population. Is that necessary, though? They all have the same goal: to make money... KarlFrei (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think overall what rich people do is often called 'investing' or 'speculating' whereas what poor people do is almost always called 'betting', but rich people play for higher stakes in markets that are less loaded in favour of the 'house'.  These higher stakes are the essence of why political betting is biassed (especially when combined with being niche markets, so the 'speculation' of a small number can move the market.  I recall a story told by Clement Freud, of how in the bye-election that he won to first become an MP, one of the papers ran a story that the 'wise money' was on Freud, whereas Freud knew it was in fact just his own money at that stage).  DrArsenal (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And Freud did win, so the betting proved accurate. Times have changed since then in terms of the amounts bet and the liquidity of the markets. Reliable sources discuss the value of political betting as a predictive tool, including some arguments why it may be better than other approaches. We follow reliable sources. So I see an argument for including such data. Whether that's the right markets to be quoting, whether we should be doing so in this section... those are harder questions. May2015.com quotes betting odds, but uses Ladbrokes instead. Bondegezou (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The liquidity on betting markets actually isn't that much. I bet £200 on one of the Northern Ireland seats last time out. Ladbrokes immediately suspended the market and then restored it a while later with lower odds. If you look at the markets for individual constituencies on betfair and the like, there's often only a few hundred matched whereas the top football games can see 5-10 million matched. The point of this anecdote is that I don't think that there's much to be gained by including it here. Maybe in an article on political betting, but not here. Valenciano (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There may not be much liquidity on individual seat betting, but there's rather more on seat spreads, albeit still much less than on football... I'll look for some more cites on the issue. Bondegezou (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Rigged boundaries
Shouldn't the article mention that Labour is guaranteed to win the election because the boundaries are so massively rigged in its favour? The boundaries require the Conservatives to get 41% just to get a hung parliament, whereas Labour can win a majority on just 29% of the vote. (Morboso (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC))
 * Any content should be supported by reliable sources. There are reliable sources discussing how the electoral system works and how Labour currently tend to get more seats for the same vote share. That would be useful content to add, although it is already eluded to in the seat predictions section. However, any content must be accurate and represent a neutral point of view. Labour are not guaranteed to win the election. Much, possibly most, of this effect is not a result of boundaries but due to differential turnout. The boundaries are not "rigged": this is a result of demographic changes that happen to benefit Labour, but the boundaries were drawn up in a fair manner. I also note that the effect is expected to be reduced by the SNP's rise in Scotland and an increasing Green vote: your suggested percentages are doubtful. Bondegezou (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The boundaries are rigged in Labour's favour, and have been since the late 1990s. Labour is guaranteed to win the General Election because of the rigged boundaries and the demographic changes caused by mass immigration. Labour constituencies need far fewer votes to elect an MP than Conservative constituencies. (Morboso (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC))
 * Some possible citations include: "Labour's electoral advantage isn't mainly due to the boundaries", New Statesman, UK Polling Report: "Electoral bias", "Commons boundaries 'favour Labour seats’", The Telegraph, Extract from "Explaining Cameron’s Coalition" by Robert Worcester, Roger Mortimore, Paul Baines and Mark Gill. Bondegezou (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The unfair boundaries must be mentioned in the article. It is why Labour ended up with a huge majority of 66 on just 35% of the vote in 2005, whereas the Conservatives did not win a majority on 37% of the vote at the last election. Thatcher could not have won a General Election on today's boundaries. (Morboso (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC))
 * Morboso, there has been a tendency in the past for Labour to be able to get a majority with a lower share of the vote than the Tories, but I agree with Bondegezou on this occasion. The evidence really doesn't support it being unfair boundaries, so much as demographic changes and differential turnout.  If the article were to mention the possibility of unfair boundaries, it would have to follow the balance of opinion in reliable sources and show that there is less evidence for the boundaries being unfair than for the effect having other causes.  (and neither I nor Bondegezou are Labour Party supporters, by the way).  DrArsenal (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Labour and the Liberal Democrats voted against making the boundaries fair in 2013. I've no idea why the election is even going ahead when only one party can win on the current boundaries. (Morboso (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC))
 * Thank you for your enthusiasm, but this Talk page is for discussion of article content, not for a general discussion of the election. If you would like to suggest some reliable sources to support an edit along the lines you've suggested, that would be welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article needs to mention that, due to the unfair boundaries, only Labour can win this election. If the boundaries had been equalized then the Conservatives would have a chance. (Morboso (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC))
 * I appreciate this debate is a few days old and this isn't really the place for it, but I'd suggest you wait and see what the results throw up in May - the only area where there is really a pro-Labour bias in the boundaries now is Wales (Wales has about 8 more seats than it would have if its seats were the same size as England's - and the likelihood is these 8 probably break down as 5/6 for Labour and 2/3 for others - Plaid Cymru, the LibDems and Tories actually have many of the very smallest seats in Wales). As for the boundaries in England, the average electorate of a Labour seat may be slightly lower (mainly because the data is 14 years out of date), but there are over-sized and under-sized seats represented by all parties (e.g. Holborn & St Pancras/NE Cambs - large, and Islington South/Wirral West - small). There are two main reasons for Labour bias in the last couple of elections - 1. Turnout - Labour seats tend to have much lower turnouts so contribute fewer votes to the UK-wide total; and 2. Incumbency - Labour benefitted from having more incumbents in place at the last 2 elections. The second issue will not be as big a factor this time round, as the Conservatives have a lot more incumbents (and many of them are first-time defenders who tend to get the best results). It is quite likely that if the vote shares of Lab and Con this year are close, their seat tallies will be too, and much of the supposed pro-Labour bias will vanish.Frinton100 (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of the Labour seats in the north of England are much smaller than Conservative seats in the south. It takes almost twice as many voters to elect a Conservative MP as it does to elect a Labour MP. (CWLilius (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC))
 * More than a slight exaggeration there CWLilius. As has been pointed out above, turnout is lower in Labour seats than Conservative ones. Looking at the number of electors, which the boundary commissioners are legally obliged to do there is not actually much difference. Also it takes many many more voters to elect candidates outside the main two parties, but that then is the nature of 1st past the post. -  Gallo glass  14:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The electoral geography does not arise because the boundaries are "rigged". It arises because potential Labour voters tend, because of the historical development of the country's economy, to be more heavily concentrated in certain areas - especially the larger cities -  than potential Conservative voters, who tend to be more widely dispersed across the whole country.  Clearly, however, that does not mean that "only one party can win".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The boundaries have been rigged in Labour's favour for the past 15 years. Only Labour could win the last election, even though Cameron got two million more votes than Blair managed in 2005. As the boundary reforms were voted down by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, only Labour can win this year's election. Until the extreme bias in the boundaries is removed, only Labour can win a General Election. (CWLilius (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC))
 * If you check your facts CWLilius the proposed boundary changes would have made very little difference indeed at the last election. Indeed Cameron received 47% of the seats at the 2010 election despite only getting 36% of votes cast. Rather a good return for just over one third of votes cast..... -  Gallo glass  15:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Btw CWLilius would you be familiar with GeorgeJefferys by any chance? -  Gallo glass  15:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * May I remind everyone that this isn't a forum for generally discussing the election or electoral system? If you have edits to suggest, supported by reliable source citations, that would be useful. Bondegezou (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy to have you Archive the discussion Bondegezou. The whole section is only being generated by GeorgeJefferys Sockpuppet accounts. -  Gallo glass  15:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Labour and the Liberal Democrats voted to maintain a rigged system which ensures the Conservatives can never win a majority. Labour got 35% of the vote in 2005 and a majority of 66, the Conservatives got 37% of the vote in 2010 and were 20 seats short of a majority. Without the unfair boundaries the Conservatives would have won a majority at the last election. (CWLilius (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC))
 * The Tories would still have been short of a majority on the proposed boundary changes that were rejected (UKPollingReport calculation was 299 Con seats out of 600 if I recall correctly). Labour won a majority on a low vote share in 2005 because of a a stronger "ground campaign" in marginals and a divided opposition in many individual constituencies - the same reasons Thatcher made gains in 1983 despite a slight drop in vote share. If the Tories were to poll 42% on the current boundaries, they would win a large overall majority, just as they did in 1983 and 1987. And in fact, most of the seat projections (May2015, ElectionsEtc, and others) suggest that the number of Labour and Conservative seats will be similar after May, despite Labour holding a small lead in vote share - now the Conservatives will benefit most from incumbency, the "bias" will shift in their direction. Frinton100 (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Conservatives would have won a small majority at the last election without the rigged boundaries. Unfortunately they need 42% of the vote just to get a majority of one on the present rigged boundaries which ensure that only Labour can win a majority. (CWLilius (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC))
 * I have posted a link on my talk page with some data about the aborted boundary review, and am happy to continue discussion there, but I'm collapsing this again as per Bondegezou's previous edit.

Government majority
I was trying to recalculate the government majorities, but I got differing numbers:

After the 2010 election:


 * Government seats = Conservatives (306) + LibDems (57) - Conservative speaker (1) - Conservative deputy speaker (1) = 361


 * Opposition seats = Total number of seats (650) - Sinn Féin (5) - Labour deputy speakers (2) - Conservatives (306) - LibDems (57) = 280


 * The difference (presumed government majority) is 361 - 280 = 81 seats.

Current:


 * Government seats = 302 + 56 - 1 - 1 = 356


 * Opposition = 650 - 5 - 2 - 302 - 56 = 285


 * Difference: 356 - 285 = 71 seats.

Where is the error ?

--Furfur (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The difference is that you're counting the speaker as one of the 306 Conservatives, whereas he is actually tabulated separately. The count is:


 * Government: 306 (Con) + 57 (LD) - 1 (Con Dep. Speaker) = 362
 * Opposition: 258 (Lab) + 8 (DUP) + 6 (SNP) + 3 (PC) + 3 (SDLP) + 1 (Grn) + 1 (Alliance) + 1 (Ind) - 2 (Lab Dep. Speaker) = 279
 * Not present: 5 (SF) + 1 (Speaker) + 3 (Dep. Speakers) = 9
 * 362 - 279 = 83


 * And today:


 * Government: 302 (Con) + 56 (LD) - 1 (Con Dep. Speaker) = 357
 * Opposition: 256 (Lab) + 8 (DUP) + 6 (SNP) + 5 (Ind) + 3 (PC) + 3 (SDLP) + 2 (UKIP) + 1 (Grn) + 1 (Alliance) + 1 (Respect) - 2 (Lab Dep. Speaker) = 284
 * Not present: 5 (SF) + 1 (Speaker) + 3 (Dep. Speakers) = 9
 * 357 - 284 = 73


 * And to finish the sum, 362 + 279 + 9 = 650 and 357 + 284 + 9 = 650. Kahastok talk 19:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. I was confused by the fact that the speaker is noted separately in the table but not the deputy speakers. --Furfur (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Seat predictions polls

 * add by Seat predictions? http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-10-11/study-ukip-could-win-128-seats-in-next-election/83.80.208.22 (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * and maybe http://ukgeneralelection2015.blogspot.nl/83.80.208.22 (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The seat prediction section tracks a number of regularly updated, reliable, detailed forecasts (or 'nowcasts'). The ITV.com article is speculation off the back of a single poll some months ago, not a detailed forecast, so I suggest we do not include it. The Blogspot site has no indication it would pass WP:RS: judging by the graphics, it looks like it is just repeating the predictions of one of the sites already covered. So, again, I suggest we do not include it. Bondegezou (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

All night editathon?

 * At the latest Meetup there was an appetite for an all night editathon on election night. We are trying for a prestigious venue, but have the basement in Development House booked as a fall back. This seemed the obvious place to canvas opinion as regards whether people would be up for it. Fabian Tompsett (WMUK) (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was at the meetup and missed this particular discussion. In normal circumstances I would love to take part, but I'll have just arrived in Berlin that night for a holiday. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Put me down as a possibly. Bondegezou (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Candidates photos?

 * We had some discussion about populating the pages for each constituency with photos of the candidates, and obviously this would have to be done in a fair way. I note that Publication of statement of persons nominated is 9th/10th April (depending on whether there are any objections to the candidature, not us having photos). Any thoughts on this would be welcome, as well as on ways in which we could make Wikipedia a fair and effective source of information during the election? Fabian Tompsett (WMUK) (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem we've run into in the past is, looking around, one might find photos of a couple of candidates in the relevant constituency, but not others, so is it fair to use the ones we find, which then may mean the article is unbalanced? Or should we focus our efforts on finding a photo for the more prominent candidates (if we can even define who they are)? Another option for photos in articles is of campaigning activity in the constituency (posters, leaflets, street stalls &c.). Bondegezou (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I read through the discussion above, and feel that trying to decide who the more prominent candidates are might well be problematic. Perhaps we need guidance as regards election laws, so that we do not face possible complaints. We could work on the basis of all or none, constituency by constituency. We might be able to get large numbers of photos from the major parties through their central offices, but this would leave the task of dealing with smaller parties and independents. I am not sure how large a task this would be and what appetite there would be to achieve such a goal. The advantage is that we would thereby ensure that on Friday morning we would have photographs of the new MPs whose electoral success would thereby bestow them with notability. It might also make sense to ensure that all pages are properly patrolled as regards any vandalism/POV pushing during the election. Fabian Tompsett (WMUK) (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly agree about the danger of vandalism/POV pushing on election pages, we see plenty of that, and also more well-meaning edits that don't meet Wikipedia policy! I have not the foggiest about how election law applies to a Wikipedia article. My guess is that it doesn't. If I find any info, I'll bring it here. Bondegezou (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This page says that while broadcasters have strict impartiality laws, other coverage, which would include Wikipedia, can do what it wants. IANAL, but I think we're only bound by Wikipedia's only rules on bias. Bondegezou (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ... but photos from within the polling station or of completed postal vote ballots are not allowed: see here. Bondegezou (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Seat predictions
Is there a reason for the non chronological order of the predictions? --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is just the most recent prediction of each site that we have. They all update at different times. KarlFrei (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Might be useful to include some kind of text to explain that. It's hard to know whether the most "recent" is that on the left or right. Do we discard in order of recency or order of announcement? It's a bit messy/confusing. --Dweller (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The columns stay the same (& are in no particular order). Each is then regularly updated as the sources publish updated predictions. Bondegezou (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

UKIP in Northern Ireland
Section 3.2 Parties in Northern Ireland should also have 'UKIP in NI' detailed. It has a different name and leader to the main party. --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * UKIP are listed in the Northern Ireland section about the political parties. It's not in the bullet pointed list of major parties (as per Ofcom), but is in the subsequent paragraph. Bondegezou (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Formatting in political parties section
When I originally wrote the political parties section, I listed the more significant parties (Con, Lab, LD, UKIP, Green, SNP and PC in GB; UUP, DUP, SDLP, SF and Alliance in NI) in bullet pointed lists. I then had a final sentence in each sub-section listing smaller parties (e.g. Respect, BNP, TUV). I felt this was a good way to respect WP:UNDUE. The Wikipedia article shouldn't simply be a list of every party (we have that at List of political parties in the United Kingdom), but should discuss who the significant parties are in this election, as in other national election articles. The text is designed to describe each party's significance, e.g. in terms of past electoral performance. But I also thought that the formatting itself could help with establishing due weight: the bullet pointed lists give each bullet point, i.e. each party, more significance, whereas the final sentence on several smaller parties de-emphasises them in comparison.

User:Ground Zero and User:Ehrenkater have now changed those final sentences into additional bullet pointed lists on the grounds that they are easier to read. I agree that they are easier to read in that form, and indeed had become somewhat unwieldy as sentences. However, I feel that produces an unintended consequence of now giving undue weight to these minor parties. They now appear to be as equally significant to the election as the larger parties.

So, I'd still favour going back to sentences rather than bullet points. The sentences could give less detail so as to be less unwieldy. Or the smaller parties could be omitted entirely. However, what do other people think? Bondegezou (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The sentences had become not just unwieldy, but unreadable because of the desire of some editors to add details on the smaller parties. I would oppose going back to sentences unless the details were removed. Removing the details, or removing the smaller parties entirely are both sensible options. Ground Zero | t 18:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have changed the text back to sentences, but with most of the past details removed. That was easy for the GB minor parties. With the NI minor parties, I've tried something more discursive. See what you all think. Bondegezou (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

London Meetup/Editathon 7th/8th May
The all night editathon has been confirmed. Please go here for more details and sign up.

For those Wikimedians outside London who would like to link up with the ediathon please show your interest here. Fabian Tompsett (WMUK) (talk) 09:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Keeping month before hand: Seat predictions
I would like to suggest once the election is over we reinsert a table with Seat predictions from one month before hand to allow people to compère and how it changed. --Crazyseiko (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Something like that seems like a good idea. I too have wondered about how to preserve the historical record of the predictions. Bondegezou (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good idea. JRPG (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So which point do we want to go for? 7th April?  Or course we could have two have one one set at the start of the campaign in around 24th March?--Crazyseiko (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this the one we should use OR

Other predictions have been published.

MPs standing down & UKIP target seats
Technically speaking all MPs stand down and then re-contest their seats at the election. It would be more accurate to say "MPs not contesting seat held prior to election". Alternatively we could keep the current title because it's in common usage. Either way it would be worth discussing this. We can also comment on what de-selection means here (which we use in the body of the list)

Also we have a comment saying UKIP is targeting 10 seats. We should try and get a list seeing as we have one for the other parties.

I'd be bold, but I don't have sources at present Philipwhiuk (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I moved this above the below section because the collapse thing seems to collapse all sections below it... 13:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Go UKIP
Yes, only Farage will do what is right for Britain, and what is right for the people. UKIP is not racist and only suggest we should tighten our belts and prevent the influx of immigration. No way will UKIP expel existing persons living in Britain. So for a better future out of the EU, and if you know what is best for you, vote your your UKIP candidate on the day, you know it makes sense. For more information, please write to me at my user talk. --94.197.45.119 (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is just the party opinion, and not the place to discuss that topic. --FAT RAT (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong mister! UKIP will on this occasion win seats, unlike last time, their popularity has overtaken LibDem (hardly a shock). So yes the party believes itself to be the best, and many many voters including myself do. Last time I voted CON, before that I voted LAB, I got it right both times, and got let down both times! So this time, something has to give!!!! 94.197.45.119 (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sir can vote for whom he chooses! But please read WP:NOTAFORUM! There's a good UKIP supporter! :) --FAT RAT (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

England having its own general election article!
A few minutes ago I created a specific page for the for the election that is to take place within England yet within seconds was made a redirect to the main election article. What's wrong with England having its own election article there are 532 constituencies with an England and yet there are smaller parties that have potential to get in where they won't get in in Scotland and Wales or Northern Ireland and yet they can have their own election pages so why can't England, what's wrong with that? (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC))
 * I totally agree what a good idea, England does vote differently now in its own way, yes not in the same way as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but it's vaild especially with UKIP. (46.64.134.171 (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC))
 * The relevant guideline is WP:CFORK. I don't have a strong view on this. I'm not certain why we need a separate Scotland page or England page personally. Relevant content can be included here (although this article is getting rather long). Bondegezou (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose separate article. This is an election to the UK Parliament.  Discussion of different parties in the election, in different parts of the UK, can and should take place within that one article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree there should be separate articles FOR RESULTS and detailed background in england  you try having details about all 650 seats in this one page and your going to have a really long page.  To be honest I would rather have five pages to cover all part of the UK ie North east, North West, south east, south west and Midlands and london which has been created    This page: United Kingdom general election, 2015 is a overview of the election, yet it does not have contain all the details bout the opinion polls .  The Opinion polling have two pages.   I have looked the page created and to be fair it was pretty poor  " A general election is to be held on Thursday, May 7, 2015 across 532 constituencies in England." which is not good enough.


 * I was the person who creates first of all created the England section for the election and apologise that the particular sentence that it started off was just as such but I was only merely starting the page off and thought the sentence which you described above was the most appropriate way to start off the article, I cant hope to put in the countless details that would always hoping that would've followed in fact I was hoping for help more than anything so I would ask you to please reconsider to create that article because I think England should have its own section and I would also like to see a section created specifically for Wales as well. The Idea I would like to explain a little further.

1.Scotland and Northern Ireland already have their own specific pages for this general election and is currently sufficient. 2. My idea to create a page specifically for England allows for the expansion of the information with regards to UKIP, The Greens who are unlikely to win any seats outside of England. also A specific English page would allow for easier access for the results of the results of each constituency within England as well as further analysis of the results to show how England as a country voted in terms of Figures and Analysis witout the influence of Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland. 3. In fairness if England Scotland and Northern Ireland has its own election pages then quite rightly while should have a page of it so so results will be easy to access that side of the UK as well and would also be able to cover Plaid Cymu in further detail.

Overall it would be easy to set up and could easily be linked to the main general election page and I think would provide much better coverage of role. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC))


 * Would cover all the local cities? could you created the page in your sandbox so we can see what it might look like?  I think part of the reason it got cut was for the lack of anything in . --Crazyseiko (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am unable to use the sandbox as I don't have the know-how all the knowledge so I was hoping if someone else could do it please but I am very passionate about this another leave it is what's this article really knows I just want to help make it as good as it can be which is why the original page was lacking in so much information I was just trying to start it off, thanks for your support Crazyseiko (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC))


 * look what I found a 2010 page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010_(England)  is it would see a 2015 page would make since,  that 2010 page is rather poor, and lack details especial l if you compare it to the Scottish page.

So the question has to be Can the 2015 english be at the same level as Scottish or others.


 * Yes that page you have found for the 2010 results in England is a perfect starting block, can we Please start on a 2015 article, I noticed the 2010 page does lack in some details but if we make a start now we can make it to the same level as the Sottish and Irish pages. don't forget we keep putting a lot more focus on marginal English seats as well as a greater Focus on UKIP a and the Greens, I will help wherever I can but I do find it differcult to set up a article.(MOTORAL1987 (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC))


 * We will need to give it to the rest of the day, just to be safe. IF most people agree, I will try and create a page to get you started later this evening. --Crazyseiko (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, if you could get started on a temp late with sufficient information to start the article laugh with a few tweaks here and there with help from my party then we could probably get the page going on tonight please for England and also we need to create a separate page for Wales as well and finally add these links into the main page so everyone will have easy, full and proper access. Thanks again [User:Crazyseiko|Crazyseiko]] (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC))


 * Support separate article I think each of the four parts of the United Kingdom needs their own election pages, it's very possible that for the first time in many many years England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will vote very differently to each other (ie England votes largely Conservative, Wales votes Labour, Scotland votes SNP and the usual in Northern Ireland) and having separate pages will be able to reflect on the different opinions of the United Kingdom, yes we need a overall page but it's a overall page and with separate pages we would be better able to cover the whole of the general election from within each of the four countries that make up the UK. Devolution has and is changing the political landscape of the UK to the point that one page doesn't tell the whole story even with regards to Westminister elections. (46.64.134.171 (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC))

Since there is English page in 2010, adding the fact most replys have been to say yes, I've got started on the page:  United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015_(England). Hopeful more people can help expand the page with more content etc. --Crazyseiko (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Has the page been removed again as the link you gave Crazyseiko just redirects back to the main page and if so why? (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC))


 * its seems its been reverted due to a misunderstanding.


 * The page is now up and running, but there are many incomplete sections which will needed to bring it up to good level. --Crazyseiko (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection
With the election approaching and a bout of edit-warring over the weekend, would semi-protection (preventing non-registered users from editing the page) be in order to protect the article from both vandalism and those pushing a particular political agenda? WP:ROUGH lays out the rules and guidelines. Bondegezou (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me. For one thing, I see that an anonymous IP removed 538's seat projections with the false explanation that it just repeated another column of the table. KarlFrei (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 538 does repeat another column. I quote: "FiveThirtyEight is publishing forecasts for the 2015 parliamentary election developed by Chris Hanretty, Ben Lauderdale and Nick Vivyan, a group of U.K. academics. Their model combines opinion polls, historical election results and census data." and "FiveThirtyEight is launching United Kingdom general election predictions, developed by me and my colleagues at electionforecast.co.uk." Bondegezou (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I had just looked at the numbers and noticed they were different - must have been a question of (WP) updates happening at different times. Anyway, I'm all in favour of semi-protection. KarlFrei (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Respect and the Greens
Respect and the Greens do have 1 MP in the commons.90.244.88.64 (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Bloomberg endorsement
"Let David Cameron Finish the Job" by Michael R. Bloomberg. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Policy notes-
 My notes on the 2015 UK general election- 

90.244.88.64 (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your contribution. Material on Wikipedia needs to be written in neutral language, accurate and backed up by citations, so your table would need more work before inclusion. However, something on policy would be nice in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

SNP on all parties in Scotland

 * 1) Glasgow East
 * 2) Edinburgh West
 * 3) Aberdeen Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party offices
 * 4) South Lanarkshire, East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow
 * 5) Glasgow
 * 6) Scotland

Labour on all parties in parts of London

 * 1) Bromley South
 * 2) Tower Hamlets
 * (The Tower Hamlets case refers to the mayoral election and is covered well on Wikipedia already. It has no relevance to the general election. Bondegezou (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC))

Labour on all parties in Lancashire

 * 1) Pendle, Brierfield and Reedley
 * 2) Pendal
 * 3) Lancashire

Labour against UKIP in parts of Kent

 * 1) Ramsgate
 * 2) Thanet South

Class War on all parties in Croydon South

 * 1) Croydon South

Labour in Wrecsam/Wrexham on independents and Plaid Cymru

 * 1) Wrecsam/Wrexham

Unknown on Labour in Worcester

 * 1) Worcester voter's home

Hampshire UKIP on Conservatives

 * 1) Hampshire

Thanet South UKIP on Labour

 * 1) Thanet South

Labour on Respect in Bradford

 * 1) Bradford W.

All on Darlington UKIP

 * 1) Darlington

All on all in Hackney

 * 1) Hackney N.
 * 2) Hackney S.

All on all in Oxford

 * 1) Oxford E.
 * 2) Oxford W.

All on all in the UK as a whole
850,000 inexplicably struck off UK wide.

All on all towards ex-pats and overseas troopers
Ex-pats and overseas troopers stripped of votes or told to postal vote hopelessly to late.

Responses and ideas by users
It would be good to have a campaign section in this article, although it would have to be balanced and cover a wide range of issues. Discussion of SNP/nationalist tactics could perhaps best be covered in the SNP article (and of course would have to be balanced). It is an issue that has attracted a certain amount of RS coverage as a general issue with this election and before.

You cite a number of investigations around Labour candidates: if those investigations find something significant, then that might be best covered in the relevant constituency page(s). We must be careful of WP:SYNTH: we can't stick together disparate reports and claim a pattern. A reliable source has to do that. Bondegezou (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for expanding your list. Most of these are local issues of insufficient significance for coverage in this article. If any case makes it to an election court, of course Wikipedia should cover it, but the evidence isn't there yet. It would be helpful if you could discuss what edits you think should be made. Bondegezou (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have removed all the parenthetical comments in the above as per WP:BLP. One summary accused an individual of libel, but this wasn't supported in the cite given. Given WP:BLP, anything we say about candidates' behaviour has to be well-sourced. I haven't checked all the parenthetical comments, but have gone for a safety-first approach and deleted all of them! Bondegezou (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Article bloat
This article has become quite large and it tends to keep expanding. There is an understandable desire to add detail, like complete lists of every minor party. But all this detail makes the article unwieldy and is undue given the significance of such groups. I think the appropriate Wikipedia approach is to spin off lists of details to other articles, like the list of political parties, or the articles for Scotland, Wales, NI, England and London. I've just chopped some material out. I'm wondering what else we could move. Perhaps the details around candidates? List of MPs standing down? Target seats? Thoughts everyone? Bondegezou (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that brevity is important, although comprehensiveness is also important. I agree that chopping out of parties running in 3 or fewer constituencies is OK, but I think parties running in 4 or more constituencies merit a brief mention - essentially their name (with a link to the article on them, which provides more detail), how many seats they are running for, and perhaps any other relevant fact (e.g., if they are only running in one region). These would essentially be bullet points confined to a single section - so I don't think it would contribute much to bloat. Neutralitytalk 18:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * One additional thought - as you note, a much greater contributor to the length of the article are the long lists of (1) MPs standing down and (2) target seats/marginals. If we want to reduce the length of the article, I would have no objection to spinning those lists off into stand-alone lists. In fact, I think that's a very good idea. Neutralitytalk 18:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about some material that could be moved elsewhere. However, I think these very small parties merit less mention than they currently receive. Yorkshire First, a party that has never won a contested election, gets two mentions in this article. That does not reflect the coverage of the election by mainstream reliable sources. I suggest the number of candidates list is turned into a table as a more compact format. I think some of the earlier mentions of the likes of Mebyon Kernow and Yorkshire First can be chopped. Look at, say, Finnish parliamentary election, 2015, as a recent election article: minor parties get listed in the table of results, but get no other coverage. WP:UNDUE is relevant here. Bondegezou (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Some comments below on this too. I agree that cutting material from Candidates: the gender, age and ethnicity breakdown seems relevant but could be covered in 1 combined paragraph. The rest of this section could then be deleted. 'Likely or potential target seats' could also go, and list of MPs standing down could be spun-off or deleted. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Super Nintendo Chalmers boldly chopped some big chunks of material out of this article. I have boldly resurrected that material in two spin-out articles. This constitutes a lot of boldness all round. I hope others approve. Bondegezou (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Minor parties mentioned in Political Parties section
In the Political Parties section, in the Great Britain sub-section, at the end, there is a paragraph listing various minor parties, which has seen some editing back and forth. Currently listed there are Respect, the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, the British National Party, the English Democrats, Cannabis is Safer than Alcohol, Yorkshire First and Mebyon Kernow.

I am concerned about that choice under WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE. It is not clear how we have ended up with that particular set of parties. The number of candidates the parties are putting up seems to be one factor. However, I note that Ofcom guidance states:

"We also note the argument that Ofcom should take account of the number of candidates being fielded by parties to gauge whether a party should be a major party. We consider that the number of candidates being fielded by a party does not readily correlate to wider support within the electorate, and that a range of parties in elections are able to field a large number of candidates without demonstrating significant support electorally."

(The classic case being the Natural Law Party, who stood 310 candidates in the 1992 general election, garnering a mere 0.19% of the vote.) Thus, I don't think we should be overly swayed by candidate numbers. Considering the parties in detail, I think we all agree on including Respect, who currently have 1 MP, who has a reasonable chance of being re-elected.

I've previously argued for including the BNP, but I'm not certain about that. They were significant in the past. They got the 5th highest vote share in 2010, at 1.9%. In the 21 by-elections during the last Parliament, the BNP stood 9 times, with their best result being third place with 8.4% in Rotherham by-election, 2012. They've had elected MEPs recently. However the party has imploded since.

The TUSC are standing a lot of candidates. They stood in 4 Parliamentary by-elections, their best result being 7th with 1.6% in Middlesbrough by-election, 2012. They have 5 councillors across the country. They've received a bit of media coverage.

The English Democrats were 13th overall in 2010. They've stood in a couple of by-elections, their best performance being (I think) 6th place with 3.3% in Rotherham by-election, 2012. They currently only have 1 councillor, but had an elected Mayor in Doncaster until recently.

CISTA is a new party standing in quite a few constituencies, but with no track record.

Yorkshire First is a relatively new party. They have 1 councillor, who got in unopposed. They have never won a competitive election. They got 1.5% in the Euro-elections in the Yorkshire Euro-constituency. They have attracted a former LibDem MEP, now standing for them this election.

Mebyon Kernow is a long-standing party, with 4 councillors.

I question the choice of some of these parties. To include these and not some other parties seems questionable. For example, the minor party after Respect most likely to actually get an MP elected is the National Health Action Party, with former MP Richard Taylor standing in Wyre Forest (4/1 second favourite in betting). They stood in the Eastleigh by-election, coming 6th with 0.9%. They got 1.1% in the one Euro-constituency they stood in. They are connected to Independent Community and Health Concern, who have 11 councillors.

Or what about Independence from Europe? Standing 5 candidates, they were 11th overall in the Euro-elections (8th out of GB parties), coming above the BNP and English Democrats?

I'm not arguing to include these additional parties. The solution for me is to exclude most of those currently listed as simply not very significant, and not receiving much attention from reliable sources (as per WP:UNDUE). The focus on candidate numbers is an error. A link is already given to List of parties contesting the United Kingdom general election, 2015, which lists all parties (with candidate numbers) and the Candidates section of this article lists several parties again. I say we definitely should excise CISTA, Yorkshire First and MK here, and consider dumping the BNP, Eng Dem and TUSC. Bondegezou (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, I added that section, due to the presence of a short and crappy looking unrefernced sentence - I was hoping that a referenced and rationalized paragraph would help things. The whole thing could easily go, of course, but equally I felt that something on these other parties would offer a more completist coverage. See a comment above for more on the article bloat, but I don't think that this paragraph is the bit to target. The rationale behind the choices is pretty much as you've analysed.
 * I felt that three 'definite' includes were: Respect (with a well-known MP and some coverage); TUSC (some coverage and 4 times the candidates of any other minor party); and the BNP (well-known; the collapse in their presence from 5th in last election itself seems itself notable).
 * Beyond these the choices do get fuzzier. CISTA and Eng Dems are in terms of candidates the only parties with over 30 (and indeed over 20) candidates. While I agree that there is a danger of overly focusing on candidates numbers (and we are talking about ~4.5% of constituencies here): 1. OFCOM are defining 'major' parties these, not minor parties (of which this is a list); 2. we're meant to be documenting the event and as such having a large number of candidates, even if they are not elected, seems somewhat notable. That said, CISTA in particular are an obscure party. Eng Dems have had a little more coverage over time and some history of electoral success. Yorkshire First and MK | were not in my first draft of the paragraph - but I reflected that MK have total presence in their region (all 6 Cornish constituencies) and received 1.9% of the Cornish vote last time round, as well as being a long standing party with some elected representatives and some coverage, while YF are standing in over 25% of their region.
 * As for others - the two which I strongly considered including were National Health Action Party, due to the presence of Richard Taylor and the fact that they've received some coverage more broadly, and the Monster Raving Loony Party, due to their well-established notoriety. I also gave some consideration to the Liberal Party (some history of elected members and a 3rd place in Liverpool West Derby in 2010) and Pirate Party UK due to their connections with successful parties in the rest of Europe.
 * Ultimately it depends how long and how much weight we want to put on this. If we're going to the lower end then I'd agree with cutting CISTA and Yorkshire First. MK and the English Democrats are a bit more borderline for me, would be interesting in other views...? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)