Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election/Archive 6

fix the information box please - unfairness is wrong on wikipedia
I changed the information box as it was still the same as the last time i looked. I thought a discussion was going on about changing it but nothing has changed.It is clearly wrong that just because the Lib Dems got beaten into fourth the information box is suddenly made to include 4 parties. That is biased. So I have changed it ( though it took me a few time to manage.) What I want to know is why lots of experienced editors have not dont that already? Are they all Liberal Democrat supporters? I hope not. I have only changed a few things in the years I have visited wikipedia as it is normally pretty good - but i hate to see unfairness. No doubt a Lib Dem supporter will just change back what I have changed but i feel i had to make the point that readers like me expect to see things done fairly on wikipedia. Thanks for reading this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.199.48 (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2016‎ (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contribution. There was a discussion, as you say, but it does seem to have ground to a halt. I happen to agree that the top three is sufficient as the top three parties have particular status in the House of Commons. Please stay around and help improve other articles as well. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have re-reverted the infobox. This is a difficult issue and it has proven difficult to resolve, however the answer to that is not to edit-war. We should leave the infobox as is until a new consensus has been established. Fairness comes from having a respectful process to resolve our differences; and I also note that there is no rush to fix this immediately. Last I can make out, there seemed to be some support to switching to the Dutch-style infobox and including all parties that won seats. I'm happy with that if everyone else is? However, there were also strong arguments put for the status quo and a number of other options. Bondegezou (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reverted as I think some editors are using a 'lack of consensus' argument to maintain a version that is really indefensible. The previous discussion had indeed stopped so the ip has a point that the discussion was going no where. Consensus does not mean unanimous agreement and from reading previous comment i would suggest that the 3 top party option had more support than a 4 party option just to allow the Lib Dems to be included. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Fishiehelper2: there was a discussion about changing the infobox. There was insufficient support to reduce to three parties in the infobox, so no change happened. I am entirely happy to see this discussion re-opened and to seek a way forward, but please do not edit war on this. Respect standard process. Everyone else: would it be useful to have a show of hands, so to speak? Do you prefer 3 parties or 4 parties or something else? I still support something else (Dutch-style box or >4 parties) most, but prefer 4 parties over 3. Bondegezou (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have always been in favour of the 3 party infobox because all other parties are in the single digits and the 3 largest parties command 95% of the parliament. Additionally previous UK election pages for some time have had the 3 largest parties shown and there is status in the HoC for a 3rd party not a 4th. However I am against the Dutch style infobox because in the UK as Ive already said 3 parties control the vast majority of seats with the others holding significantly less. While in the Netherlands the parliament is divided among many parties with similar numbers of seats. However in order to avoid infinite disagreement I would settle with the status quo if there is no consensus around the 3 party infobox. Humongous125 (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Preference: Dutch-style with - as things stand - all Parties in Parliament. 2nd preference: 3 parties.  DrArsenal (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Preference: Dutch-style showing all Parties who won seats at this election to Parliament. 2nd preference: four parties (three isn't enough to adequately summarise this first-past-the-post election result). Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Preference: Top 3 has logic behind it as top three parties in UK parliament have special status, rights etc (so winning the position of third party counts for something more than just bragging rights.) Definitely not 4 parties - that's just a fix to keep the Liberal Democrats in the infobox. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If the Liberal Democrats were to be included, why would the DUP not be? They won the same number of seats (eight). AusLondonder (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with an infobox which displayed all elected parties. Failing that, I'd prefer 4 for this election. I'll give a rationale, based on three key points:
 * Plenty of UK election pages show more than 3 parties, where relevant to the election
 * The Lib Dems were a major part of the election
 * The information is useful for readers scanning multiple different election articles
 * To expand - the article is about the election, not the result. The Lib Dems went into the election with 57 seats, as part of the governing coalition. During the election period, significant debates considered the possibility of the Lib Dems forming part of a new coalition. They were a much bigger part of the election story than the DUP, who also only stood in 16 seats, compared to 631. In addition, the Lib Dems and their predecessors are present in the infoboxes for elections dating back until the nineteenth century. Someone flicking through previous elections would see an unexplained disappearance in 2015.
 * It's this mixture of factors which, for me, makes it right to display the Lib Dems here. Some of the statements about the Lib Dems are true for other parties - big part of election story and millions of votes (UKIP); fourth highest total seats (DUP); present at debates and in coalition discussions (PC/Greens) - but the Lib Dems are the only party for whom all of this is true, in addition to them entering the election as the 3rd biggest party and part of the government. None of these conditions is sufficient for them to be in the infobox in isolation, but in combination they are. If Lib Dems repeat their performance in 2020 and we maintain the current infobox format, I'd be happy to see them excluded from the infobox then. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Another one in favour of showing all parties. Second choice is the three party option. Number   5  7  10:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No preference, but if we are going with select parties, we should use Ofcom's list of major parties instead of our own criteria, per NOR. Sceptre (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to echo the idea of using the Ofcom list, something I proposed a while back. The slight problem is that Ofcom gives a list for each nation separately, so they currently say for the 2015 election...

At present in Great Britain, major parties are defined as: the Conservative Party; the Labour Party; and the Liberal Democrats.

4. In addition, major parties in Scotland and Wales respectively are the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cyrmu.

5. The major parties in Northern Ireland are: the Alliance Party; the Democratic Unionist Party; Sinn Fein; the Social Democratic and Labour Party; and the Ulster Unionist Party.

6. In addition to the above, in England and Wales the major parties for the purposes of the Parliamentary General Election and the English local (and mayoral) elections taking place on 7 May 2015 includes the United Kingdom Independence Party.

Which is pretty close to every party that won a seat, although they include Alliance (didn't win a seat this time, did last time) and exclude the Greens. The other problem is that Ofcom are prospective, so they don't comment after the election and so don't include the rather important factor of how well parties actually did! Bondegezou (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Results?
So, if I've got this right that's three people for a 3-party infobox:


 * 86.130.199.48
 * User:Fishiehelper2
 * User:Humongous125

And five people for an expanded, every-party-who-won-seats:
 * User:DrArsenal
 * User:Number 57
 * me
 * User:Drchriswilliams
 * User:Super Nintendo Chalmers

... but the first two of those prefer a 3-party box to the current 4-party box and the latter three prefer 4 to 3.

Plus Sceptre says "no preference" but wants to follow Ofcom (which, as far as I can see, would be pretty close to all parties who won seats). And User:AusLondonder, you're arguing against a 4-party box, and suggesting a 5-party solution instead?

That remains a distinct lack of consensus. No-one now is arguing for the current infobox as the best approach, and 6/10 are firmly arguing against it. We're 5 to 3 on 3-party box over 4-party box, excluding Sceptre and AusLondonder, but we're also 5 to 3 on every-party-who-won-seats over a 3-party box.

And other people have previously expressed other viewpoints.

OK, so now what? If I've made any errors, do say so. Anyone else, please jump in with thoughts. If anyone wants to change their position in order to move towards a consensus, do say so. Bondegezou (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As this was a first-past-the-post election, perhaps we should also apply this to the results of the !vote count ;) But seriously, I think when there is definitely consensus that the status quo is not acceptable, ultimately we might have to put the alternatives to a simple !vote, otherwise we'll never get progress beyond what we all seem to agree is a undesirable situation (and for those who will undoubtedly point out that we don't do voting, we do do straw polls to try and settle matters like this). Number   5  7  16:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So we do a vote and 3-parties beats 4-parties, then we do another and all-parties-with-seats beats 3-parties...? Can we just jump to the latter then? ;-) Bondegezou (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We could, if we're discussing electoral systems, do two round version? All up in the first round, front two into a vote-off? Alternatively, we could open up for more comments, though I'm not sure what else could be added Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As one who is included in the 3-party infobox group, I'm happy to be move to the all-party group if we agree that the infobox be set out three parties per row. What is clear is that there is consensus against the current infobox and clear preference for all parties to be included. I propose that change be made - and then, if necessary the debate can be between those who would wish to retain an all-party infobox and those who would wish to change it from that. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The 'all-party' infobox will have to change format. The current format can't do more than 9 parties. The suggestion is to copy the Dutch election format. Bondegezou (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bondegezou for trying to collate that and thanks, Fishiehelper2, for 'in principle' willingness to shift in the interests of consensus. DrArsenal (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We have also a work ongoing on the Spanish election to a new infobox style. I think we go in the same direction so that we update an old system of representing election results which has evolved in other WP languages pages but not yet in the English-WP.... Wykx  (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Wykx. Could you point us to some of the pages in other languages, please, for those of us with little idea where to look?  DrArsenal (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One model was something like this from the fr. Wikipedia about the recent Spanish general election. Bondegezou (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That fr. Wikipedia template looks great. It also looks like it would offer a useful solution here. It doesn't waste space on big photos or leader's seat. It is compact enough to show more than 9 parties and therefore able to show all those parties who won seats in this election. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussions and templates for inspiration are grouped in Module_talk:Infobox_election. Wykx  (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Even if our wee election wasn't FPTP and was STV or preferential, the all party group would have won on the first round having gained more than 50% of the vote. Totally against the dutch infobox but am more in favour of the french and spanish ones. However would it be possible to add elements of our current infobox such as how many seats needed for a majority, seats before, leader since and forego the purple boxes? Humongous125 (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * im alarmed by this sudden desire to change to an info box that dos not acutely represent uk politics and doses not fit with a the history of uk election info boxes and im happy with 4 parties as this tells the reader the most important results like Howe labour and toris finished the rises of the SNP and the collapse of the lib dems there is apserlutley no need to change the info box 2.26.206.85 (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to change the infobox for this election you will have to do it for all UK General elections. Also, this was a 'parliamentary election' so at the end of the day what matters is seats won in parliament not the popular vote.SomewhereInLondon (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Equal area map
I think we should find space for this map in the article. The current map overemphasises rural areas, especially in Scotland and Wales. While the zoomed in bits do help to show the areas they cover, other densely populated areas are barely visible. --Cavrdg (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but you should create a similar map for the 2010 General election to make seat changes more visible and comparisons between the 2 elections easier. SomewhereInLondon (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Infobox, as per talk.
This is pretty much what consensus (eventually) agreed upon, as far as I can tell. 92.25.140.65 (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Love it. Many thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Doesn't this just replicate the results table, and put things out of line with all other election articles - both those of other European countries, and previous British elections? In my opinion the infobox ought to be left as it is, on the basis that in previous articles the pattern is generally to have the four largest or so parties in terms of seats. I think the Lib Dems' inclusion as fourth party is warranted by the historic drop in their support, which is perhaps the most striking feature of the election (especially as they were previously in government), and the fact that national parties (such as the Liberals in the '50s to '70s) who won a similar number or smaller number of seats have been included. But regardless of that I don't think that the fact that we have this editing dispute should necessitate removing the consistency of this article with other similar ones. Dionysodorus (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Why don't we, say, just put a asterisk and note on the previous infobox (say as part of the Map caption, which is something done on some previous infoboxes) observing that UKIP got more votes than the Lib Dems? Also I think we should have the geographical map in the infobox; the blobby map should find somewhere lower down the article, because although it is useful it throws up the same inconsistency issue. Dionysodorus (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Dionysodorus, this has been discussed at length previously and we appeared to have a consensus for an infobox showing all parties that won seats.
 * Looking at other articles, UK election infoboxes have generally just shown the larger parties, but infoboxes for other European countries and other countries around the world usually take an inclusive approach and include every party that's won a seat or at least many more parties than 4, e.g. Irish general election, 2016, Slovak parliamentary election, 2016, Spanish general election, 2015, Polish parliamentary election, 2015, Canadian federal election, 2015, Swiss federal election, 2015, Portuguese legislative election, 2015. Bondegezou (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Can we still keep the geographic results map somewhere in the article, allowing the readers (those aware of the constituency boundary outlines) to quickly find out which party won which constituency? Or even put it back in the infobox, since the hexogen-based map is clearly less informative (in many areas, for instance, the West Midlands region, one can only guess as to who won which seat). --glossologist (talk) 10:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree that it's useful having both maps somewhere. They each bring something different. Bondegezou (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The infobox proposed here is not used on any other British General Election page. It is obvious the motive behind change comes as a result of a General Election result unlike any other. There seems to be a desire to impose rationality onto something that simply has to be subjective. The parties that deserve a place in the infobox for 2015 really should be:
 * Conservatives and Labour, as a matter of course
 * Liberal Democrats, as part of the outgoing coalition government (there is precedent with the 1931 election page.
 * SNP, for a landslide victory in the part of the UK in which they stood
 * Arguably UKIP, for 13% of the vote and third-place in vote share.

But let us not try to apply some universal set of rules and come to the conclusion we must either misrepresent the result, or otherwise use the Dutch/Israeli infobox for this election only and include every party. Particularly as the pages for this election in England, Scotland, Wales, London and Cornwall retain the existing infobox). Full results are in the result boxes halfway down the page.Marplesmustgo (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There has been a lengthy discussion on this already, covering those issues and many more, and a consensus was reached to switch the style of infobox. Sorry, Marplesmustgo, I don't personally see that your dissent alone is sufficient to change that consensus. Bondegezou (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I rather think, Bondegezou, that you sound like Spleodrach (or rather Snappy as he was before changing his handle) when this sort of change was discussed in the matter of the latest Irish election recently. You are pointing at a discussion which you yourself summed up as 5 in favour of change, 3 against - not an overwhelming consensus, and not a terribly high turnout. Especially as I have just noticed it, and am here to make it 5-4. And you seem unwilling to change the 40 or so General Election pages preceding 2015, nor to change the 5 sub-pages for 2015 for specific parts of the UK. Either change the lot, or change none.Marplesmustgo (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not just Marplesmustgo; I just said exactly the same thing more or less. Cf. the comments of 2.26.206.85 and Super Nintendo Chalmers above, which you really never dealt with. I'm not entirely sure you ever had a consensus, exactly, before, or any really good arguments why the status quo was unsatisfactory. Naturally you are going to attract additional interest when you change it - but I think you ought to get a second consensus behind your actual proposed infobox, having drafted it and posted it on the talk page, before actually changing things, given the manifest disagreement on the issue. Dionysodorus (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just been pinged here; I like this infobox - I have an issue with its use for Next United Kingdom General Election because it would result in missing out relevant details but I can't see any objections that I've made to this one unless I've missed something? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I only mean you provided a good rationale, in your comment of 25 January, for why it makes sense to have the four parties, Super Nintendo Chalmers. Even if you personally like the proposed infobox, the points you made make a good case for the status quo, in terms of arguments. (And, personally, I think the issue you mention now of missing out relevant details, and the inappropriateness of the proposed format's use for the next election or for previous ones, is itself also a good reason not to use it.) Dionysodorus (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. Yes, 4 party is 'good enough' and better than 3, but I prefer this one. The use of it in relation to a future election is a slightly different matter - I think that we can work with having differing infoboxes for existing and forthcoming elections. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

If I may, let me ping the participants in the last round of discussion in January (as above) when, after a very large amount of discussion, we managed to hash out a way forward: User:Fishiehelper2, User:Humongous125, User:DrArsenal, User:Number 57, User:Drchriswilliams, User:Sceptre, User:Wykx, User:Humongous125. Bondegezou (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea: I will summarise, then. The point is, for anyone who has just pinged, that having this different style of infobox is inconsistent with the previous general election pages, and is acknowledged to be likely to be inconsistent with future general election pages. (It is also rather less attractive and informative than the current infobox, but that's a matter of opinion.) It is the view of myself, and if I understand correctly of Marplesmustgo, that consistency on this point is important.
 * I am not entirely sure why the status quo is supposed to be such a problem. But if it is UKIP's omission that is considered to be a serious problem, then personally I think it would raise far less of an inconsistency, either to add a tidy note in the infobox somewhere recognising that they outdid the SNP and Lib Dems in terms of votes, or to simply add them in as a fifth party (despite that throwing up an inconsistency of a less severe sort with previous articles). Dionysodorus (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Lets think about what we are trying to represent (and not be afraid of change). I don’t think big portrait photos of the main party leaders are helpful, nor is listing their constituency. I think the infobox is the opportunity to provide an overview of the election result, there are other places to describe what follow, such as who forms a government, for example. What tends not to get recognised too often is that the Infobox undergoes quite a bit of change after the election results start to be declared. In this election there are 11 parties (and an independent and a speaker) that all have won seats. Where you draw the cut-off about which parties to list actually gets tricky. I’m not at all comfortable with some of the reasons put forward to dismiss the idea of listing the smaller parties. Why not list them all? After all, in first-past-the-post winning a seat is no mean feat. It is easier to scan the list of parties with candidates returned when they appear in a list in the Infobox. How quickly, it seems, that all the mid-campaign discussions about possible coalition arrangements are forgotten. Saying we haven't used this type of Infobox before isn't really giving adequate thought to how things look at present. The equal area diagram is interesting too, but please lets call it a diagram, or a visualisation, rather than referring to it as a map. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please, do take a look at the infobox for every Anglosphere election on this site - be it US House since 1788, US Senate ditto, Australian federal elections since 1901, Canadian federal elections since the 1860s, and UK General Elections since the 1700s. Each has an accepted style of showing leaders' portraits, their seats, and of omitting minor parties. What is a minor party is largely a matter of opinion, and the 2015 UK election throws up contention. That is not a reason for throwing the whole infobox over and inserting a new one, seemingly for this election only.Marplesmustgo (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * New infobox please. This has dragged on long enough and the current infobox is clearly an NPOV violation. Let's update all the previous elections too if inconsistency is really a problem. UK election results tables are quite dreadful and very difficult to read, so this kind of summary at the top of the page would be far more useful. Number   5  7  21:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's bordering on the frivolous: there's certainly no consensus to change all the general election infoboxes, and I don't suppose I'm the only one who thinks the UK election tables are clearer and more informative. If not having UKIP is an NPOV violation (which I don't really think it is, because it only reflects the unfairness that is itself inherent in the UK's election system, which is what determines the results), I have already suggested how that might be accommodated within the current infobox by way of a note or fifth party. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There are strong and irreconcilable views on this topic, so we're not going to find something that works for everyone. I suggest, for now, we find the best option for this article. In January, we agreed that was a new style infobox with all the parties that won seats. We have some new voices in the discussion now: the question then is whether these are enough to overturn the January consensus? Bondegezou (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But there wasn't a consensus at all. Before you suggested the Dutch-style infobox, you had a 5/3 majority against removing the Lib Dems, which is not a consensus on the Dutch-style infobox; after you suggested the Dutch-style infobox, other people suggested French-style and other infoboxes, and there was certainly no agreement on your suggestion. When the prototype was proposed (and you changed it on the page), then naturally there was a further discussion, from which it is clear that there are consistency problems that were not considered before. So no consensus yet; personally I think the four-party infobox is the one to which fewest positive objections are being made.
 * The possibilities are (a) three-party box, excluding the Lib Dems (problems: inconsistency because Lib Dems have more seats and votes than the Liberals did say in 1955, and their decline from third-party position is a major feature of this election); (b) four-party box (problems: arguable NPOV violation through not including UKIP); (c) five-party box with UKIP as fifth party (problems: mild inconsistency); (d) Dutch-style box as proposed by Bondegezou (problems: inconsistency, arguable unattractiveness); (e) other multi-party box as e.g. here (problems: inconsistency, inasmuch as this is used nowhere else on English Wikipedia to my knowledge). We could, say, move forward by all commenting as to which of these positions we positively object to, and why? I positively object to (a), (d), and (e), for the reasons outlined in this and previous comments. Dionysodorus (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (a) and (d) are the only realistic options for conforming with NPOV, and (d) contains more useful information. The argument about consistency is moot as the other articles can easily be amended. Number   5  7  18:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But there isn't any support for amending the other articles as far as I can tell, and we can't do it off the back of this discussion without a broader consensus, which I do not think will be achieved. Can you explain more clearly what the NPOV issue is, please, and why (c) would not resolve it? Or are you suggesting that this type of infobox is intrinsically NPOV because it does not list all parties? Dionysodorus (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I do lean towards the latter opinion, which is why I never put infoboxes on any of the election articles I create. The NPOV issue is that infoboxes of the current form usually include either all the parties (in countries where few enter parliament) or include the ones with the largest number of seats that are well ahead of the rest. The inclusion of the Lib Dems, in my view, is unacceptable from an NPOV standpoint as (a) they are well away fro the top three, and more importantly (b) they have the same number of seats as an excluded party (the DUP). Number   5  7  19:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh right, I see what you're getting at, although I can't agree that the Lib Dems/DUP problem is a significant NPOV issue. I had thought excluding UKIP was the main problem, but I suppose we'll see what other people think. Dionysodorus (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should be careful not to confuse tradition and consistency. Wikipedia continues to benefit from new ways of displaying information. If anything we should want to change previous Infoboxes if they don't conform to a NPOV. I reckon that the recent discussions brought new types of Infoboxes to the attention of editors who had only been used to the traditional "big-face" style Infobox. Pursuit of NPOV should be the most important consideration here and so (d) is one of the least worst of all the options. While (d) might not offer the pretty images of the "big-face" Infobox, this wasn't a presidential election. There is a huge amount of information available to include in a modern election articles, and only a fraction can be represented in the Infobox. People in Northern Ireland must wonder why none of the parties they elect are currently represented in the Infobox. There are some entirely different ways of doing the Infobox too, for example: this in the French Wikipedia. Why would not want our election Infoboxes to show the total number of people eligible to vote, or the number of those that voted, and so the overall turnout ? Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed with Drchriswilliams and Number 57. Dionysodorus: you're raising points that have been discussed to death before and overlooking several key issues. Your suggested options are not the only possibilities: we should be mindful of the performance of the DUP etc. I note consensus across multiple election article pages that seats won is more significant than votes won (i.e. we shouldn't include UKIP while excluding any party that got more seats). An infobox, as per guidelines, should carry key information and not trivial issues (like the party leader's constituency). I also note that it is very well established that NPOV and other core Wikipedia principles are considered more important than local consistency. UK election results used to be much simpler: developments have made them more complicated. We need to react to that, not be slaves to a particular style of infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this DUP thing is slightly absurd. No-one really thinks the DUP is a major party in the same way the SNP, Lib Dems, and even UKIP are; they weren't included in the leaders' debates and aren't a national party. WP:NPOV doesn't say anything that exactly entails that a strict principle of always listing the top few parties by seats must apply to what parties we put in infoboxes, and there are very good reasons, outlined in the January discussion, why the Lib Dems deserve more weight than the DUP. The fact that the points I am making have been raised before - which I had not noticed - only makes it clearer that there isn't a consensus for changing it to an all-party infobox. Dionysodorus (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I find it hard to think how the infobox suggested by 92.25.140.65 could be improved on in our circumstances. Pictures of all the party leaders would be nice, but in the end they don't justify the space they take up in a multi-party polity, compared with real information, and the listing of the names of the leaders' seats is irrelevant trivia in most elections (and even when it is of some relevance to the election the mere mention of the constituency name is unlikely to carry any great meaning without some sentences about the constituency and the controversy in the article). The diagramme representing the constituencies won is colourful and as informative as a static image of that sort of size could be. Consistency between one election and another is valuable, but doesn't trump other considerations, and in any case is not a significant argument for one style rather than another. As Number 57 points out, if this is the right infobox here, and consistency is important, then there should be a consideration of whether other election pages should change, considering an infobox design that they almost certainly didn't consider when they were written. I think to do that, we would first need to change the infobox here, then discuss on other pages whether they should be brought into line with this one or not. If none of the others came into line with this and it was still considered that consistency was very important, we would then, and only then, come back to considering whether to revert this infobox, or whether the benefits of this infobox outweigh consistency. But before we even consider whether another election page should be changed to be consistent with this, arguing from consistency is just an underhanded way to argue for the status quo. It's time the infobox on the page was changed: the opposition of a single user should not block a broad agreement amongst others. DrArsenal (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't wish to be awkward. It isn't just me, though; Marplesmustgo was saying the same, and apparently people have made the same objections in the past, and I rather think that if you change the infobox more opposition might turn up. There is clearly a persistent lack of consensus about this. You might reasonably change it provisionally perhaps on the basis of the balance of opinion, and I shall not revert or anything myself; but I don't think you will be able to reasonably claim a firm consensus against any future reversion/objections. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not your fault, Dionysodorus, that you haven't seen all the prior discussion. There's been a lot of it, over multiple articles. On the specific issue of the importance of seats vs. votes -- which comes up here in terms of whether we should be worrying about including the DUP or UKIP -- the key recent discussion on this topic was at Talk:Spanish general election, 2015. Starting at Talk:Spanish_general_election,_2015, you can see we looked at a lot of different examples from election articles for countries around the world, and indeed other language Wikipedias. Some of the discussion there also influenced ideas here. Bondegezou (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, but all that a glance at it seems to show is that it is thought that the norm is to order infoboxes by seat order. Considering the exceptional position of UKIP coming third in seats but tenth in votes, which is far more extreme than anything in the Spanish election, I don't think the Spanish discussion can be taken as a very good parallel. A general guiding principle of seats being the key factor doesn't mean that we have to be cloth-eared and give unnecessary weight to the DUP, a minor regional party that was not even involved in the leader debates (unlike e.g. Plaid Cymri). Dionysodorus (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We were discussing the Spanish 2015 result there, but the discussion looked very broadly. Consensus again and again, across article after article, is that seats trump vote share. An election is about winning seats: a party with a high vote share despite poor seat performance might well be more significant in that nation's politics, but in an article about an election, it's the election result that matters most. We've stuck to that in other situations where seat and vote share order is markedly different (including in past UK general election article infoboxes). Dionysodorus, you were earlier arguing one way because of consistency, but now you're ignoring consistency in favour of your own opinion!
 * Anyway, you've agreed to allow the change we were initially discussing and Marplesmustgo has not weighed in further. Meanwhile, multiple other editors have voiced support for the change. So... shall we take that as a provisional agreement to change...? Bondegezou (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have never voiced any objection to inconsistency between Britain and Spain; I just don't think there should be inconsistency in the format used within the series of articles on British elections. (Worrying about the DUP is just splitting hairs in my view; it's an entirely theoretical NPOV consideration, and dubious whether it's within the spirit of WP:NPOV, since no reasonable person could possibly object to such a minor party being excluded in any other context, such as BBC coverage, and no practical dispute is ever likely to arise over them, except among Wikipedians being pedantic.)
 * Can we have the geographical map at the top though? I rather thought opinion was in favour of that, and it ends up all squashed the way you've put it down the bottom (whereas the diagram one looked fine). And consistency, again, would be in favour of the geographical map. Dionysodorus (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to see the maps swapped round the other way. Bondegezou (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have switched the maps. (I still don't altogether like how it ends up squashed - in either position, because the new infobox is narrower it seems.) Dionysodorus (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Swing needs to be shown in the infobox to make comparisons between elections easier. Election geeks (such as myself) calculate party swings between elections, so it needs to be shown. SomewhereInLondon (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Can the original infobox be reinstated?
Keep the original infobox, at least until there is REAL consensus SomewhereInLondon (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you comment on the question in the section above, "Infobox controversy again"? It's rather difficult to build consensus unless people state clearly their position on which versions of the box are unacceptable to them in some detail. The discussion is to close and a summary of consensus to be suggested tomorrow evening. Dionysodorus (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the 'original' infobox? There has barely been a post election infobox present for more than 1 month without edits. I'd suggest we're all better just leaving it and letting the infobox be for the sake of a couple of weeks. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * TBH I think we need a formal RFC where there are four or five options (e.g. three-party, four-party, six-party, the one in "The Table Way" section and the current one) and people give a simple preference; then if there is no clear winner, narrow it down to the final two and ask people to choose between them. Number   5  7  22:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox controversy again
It seems to me that, whereas the Dutch-style infobox did not exactly attain consensus at any point, it is now, in my view, rather untenable. The Dutch infobox is attracting more frequent reverts than the four-party one did (I think - others may correct me). It seems to me that there are legitimate arguments on all sides. We are never likely to agree on a single infobox.

I am therefore of the opinion, which I have stated before, that it might be a good idea to form a consensus on which solutions are overall unacceptable, which would allow us to choose between the remaining choices. (This might allow us ultimately to determine what type of infobox is least problematic, and choose that one.) Do people think that this might be a sensible way to proceed?

I believe the options are:
 * (a) two-party box with Conservatives and Labour (problems: inconsistency, in that previous election pages invariably list parties that get as many seats as the SNP and generally parties that get as many as the Lib Dems; uninformativeness, because the rise of the SNP and the decline of the Lib Dems are two major features of the election);
 * (b) three-party box with the Conservatives, Labour and the SNP (problems: inconsistency because Lib Dems have more seats and votes than the Liberals did say in 1955, and their decline from third-party position is a major feature of this election);
 * (c) three-party box with the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems (problems: NPOV difficulties because the SNP has more seats than the Lib Dems; inconsistency because elsewhere election pages generally orders parties by number of seats);
 * (d) four-party box with the Conservatives, Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems (problems: arguable NPOV violation through not including UKIP/Greens; arguable NPOV violation through not including DUP);
 * (e) five-party box with UKIP as fifth party (problems: inconsistency with the wider principle on election pages that we order parties in infoboxes by seats; arguable NPOV violation through not including DUP, Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymri, UUP, SDLP, Greens when these parties got as many or more seats);
 * (f) six-party box with UKIP and Greens as fifth and sixth parties (problems: inconsistency with the wider principle on election pages that we order parties in infoboxes by seats; arguable NPOV violation through not including DUP, Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymri when these parties got more seats);
 * (g) Dutch-style box (problems: inconsistency with the style of box used on other pages; arguable unattractiveness);
 * (h) other multi-party box as e.g. here [2] (problems: inconsistency, inasmuch as this is used nowhere else on English Wikipedia to my knowledge).

Can I suggest that we move forward by each explaining which of these we think are unacceptable? That way, as I say, we can eliminate some of them by consensus. I think that actual progress might be made in this discussion, if the format I suggest is generally acceptable (?)

My own view is that (a)-(c) are entirely inappropriate, misleading and uninformative for the reasons outlined above; (d)-(f) are fine, because the problems over NPOV associated with them are honestly rather trivial, pedantic and artificial, especially the question of the DUP etc.; (g) and (h) I dislike because they raise inconsistencies of format with the other articles. My preferred option is (d), because I think it raises least inconsistency and cannot easily be taken as misleading - perhaps with a note to point out that UKIP outdid the SNP and Lib Dems in votes. Dionysodorus (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think a fair summary, though I would say that any of D-H are much of a muchness for me. A works on its own terms, so I suppose probably only 'b' or 'c' would seem to be actively misleading and therefore unacceptable. There's also the option, as presented above, with 9 parties I think that we should consider and I would rank in the D-H group. If I had to pick, I'd have a mild preference for either D or G. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with the six party box, because we must find who parties are in the mainstream at the elections, Using the 3% of vote as the criteria to be in or out in the infobox, but usig an order of seats. This criteria could justified the 2005, 2010 3party infobox (Con, Lab, LidDem) and a Six-party infobox for the 2015 elections — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuarénDeBiblioteca (talk • contribs) 12:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an error to decided how we want to display the parties, then come up with criteria which justifies this. We don't need to invent criteria, we just need to agree a consensus on what would be a suitable infobox which represents the election as neutrally, concisely and informatively as possible. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, but we can't exclude UKIP and the Greens, in the Westminster system even it's possible than a party with 12% of votes only have 1 seat. --GuarénDeBiblioteca (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course we can. We might decide not to on the grounds that they were significantly covered and got a significant vote, but I don't think that justifying that with arbitrary figures (3%, 1 million votes etc etc) is the right way to do it. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And other trouble, can we justify the appearence of the DUP in this article but not in the other ones. ??? 	--GuarénDeBiblioteca (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dionysodorus, for trying to lay options out in this manner. In terms of overall principles, I suggest the following:
 * I think that content matters more than formatting. Consistent formatting is a good thing, but I don't feel it should trump other principles, like NPOV &c. So, while I do prefer the Dutch-style infobox from a visual point of view, my main reason for supporting it is that I think we should list all the parties that won seats and that number of parties simply does not fit the old-style infobox. We should decide on content, then pick formatting to best deliver that content.
 * Remember that there are other infobox formats available that we began exploring back in January. There's the style used by fr. Wikipedia, e.g. here. Or a slight variant on that is used by the es. Wikipedia here. If you want different combinations of details or a different visual style, take a look at those. They haven't been used on en. Wikipedia before, but if they suit our purposes, then let's introduce them here. We are allowed to innovate!
 * Why do I think we should list all the parties that won seats? I think this is the best, NPOV solution to which parties to include, which is the biggest source of edit-warring. People will always say "but why don't you include my favoured party?" The criterion of winning a seat is clear and simple. It also, importantly, matches how reliable sources frequently summarise the election results.
 * As I've said previously, every election article infobox for a 'Western democracy' I've seen respects seat order: that is, parties are listed by number of seats won (not votes) and a party with more seats is not omitted in favour of a party with fewer seats. This applies to UK general election articles (e.g. United Kingdom general election, 1951), but also across the EU, Canada and India (countries with similar electoral systems to the UK), and elsewhere. Ergo, we should either include all parties that won seats, or we include the top seat winners, thus if you want the LibDems in the box, you've got to include the SNP, if you want UKIP, you've got to include Plaid, SDLP &c.
 * Thus, I also think (c), (e) and (f) from Dionysodorus's list above are not acceptable on grounds of NPOV. We should not be making editorial decisions that certain parties "count" while others do not.
 * But that doesn't mean I think we can entirely ignore vote share. Given UKIP's and the LibDems' notable vote share, it would be odd to exclude them, so that leads me back to the conclusion that we have to list all the parties. In other words, (b) from Dionysodorus's list above is not acceptable on grounds of NPOV. (d), which we used to have, is a bit better, but still problematic IMHO.
 * I am particularly concerned with the mainland-centric views expressed that seek to exclude the Northern Irish parties. While the DUP or Sinn Fein may not be of great concern to the London media, these are important parties in one of the UK's four nations. Wikipedia should have a neutral perspective and respect the views of Northern Ireland. The way Northern Irish politics has diverged from the rest of the UK does make the infobox difficult, but that's not the fault of Northern Ireland or a reason to pretend that somehow their MPs are not the same as all the other MPs.
 * I haven't yet presented much of an argument against (a). UK general elections have seen a steady decrease in the vote share for Con+Lab compared to everyone else. I think we need to recognise that, and it would be odd for the 2015 election to stick to only 2 parties when previous UK election article infoboxes -- that have results closer to a 2-party system! -- did not.
 * In conclusion, as a result of the fracturing of UK party politics, we have many more parties to handle than before. Listing all parties winning seats is a neutral and objective criterion that matches reliable sources. It's also probably the commonest approach taken by election article infoboxes. Seat order trumps vote order, yet NPOV means we can't ignore the significant vote shares achieved by UKIP and the LibDems, thus the only way to satisfy both those points is to list all parties winning seats. If we list all the parties winning seats, we can't use the old-style infobox, ergo I favour the status quo. Bondegezou (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased that has articulated the situation so clearly. I am entirely in agreement with Bondegezou's summary of the difficulties and to the extent that the available courses of action might help us overcome these problems. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a compelling case. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Jolly good. I still disagree with some of what you say, Bondegezou, but you put it well. Shall we give it, say, ten days (until next Saturday), so that everyone who might be interested can comment? We could ping people to weigh in if we see fit. Then, if we are all happy with this, I (or someone else) can propose which options there is a consensus to exclude, and we can hopefully agree on that at least. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Another one in agreement with Bondegezou. The only objections to the current infobox appear to be aesthetics (which is purely subjective; I think the traditional infobox is awful – it's supposed to be a summary of the election, yet ends up with most of the space taken up with pictures of the leaders and details about them (I wonder whether it was originally designed for presidential elections)) and consistency (which can be dealt with quite easily by amending other articles). The objections to the traditional infobox (e.g. NPOV) are far more substantive. Number   5  7  08:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a bit of a problem with people reverting without participating at all in the discussion. I don't favour the Dutch-style infobox, but edit-warring over this doesn't help at all; and edit-warring is all it is unless these editors are willing to work towards a consensus. So I will ping them.
 * User:Bartek200450, User:Gwiber, User:Timeshift9, User:Gilang Bayu Rakasiwi, User:201.215.218.70, we are trying to reach a consensus on which of the various options (listed on this thread's opening statement) to exclude. Could you please state which of the options you positively object to, with reasons as appropriate, so we can reach a consensus on that point? I think it will be possible to eliminate some of the options that way. Also, User:Marplesmustgo, User:SamWilson989, User:AusLondoner, User:DrArsenal may have something to add about the specific question of what options to exclude. (Have I missed anyone?) Dionysodorus (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bondegezou. I would also say that knowing that one objection from Dionysodorus is inconsistency with other articles, I would suggest progressively to move other articles to the new infobox style for the same NPOV reason, at least when many parties have won seats. Wykx  (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what Number 57 says too. But I think that's a bad principle to work on: if there is to be a widespread change as to what infobox we use, there should be a consensus reached on that - perhaps through an RfC advertised on all talk pages concerned. I don't think a few editors ought to gradually foist the Dutch-style infobox on all election articles on the basis of a consensus to use the Dutch-style infobox on this article - even if there were such a consensus here, which there isn't. That question needs to be discussed on its own merits, and is partly a matter of preference. But until a broad consensus has been reached, the consistency argument has weight for the purposes of this article. In any case, as I have said before, I take the view that the Dutch-style infobox is less clearly formatted and less attractive than the old infobox, and that the NPOV considerations against (d) are very dubious and of minor importance - and I am therefore also against putting it on the other articles. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I personally think that option (d) is the best option we have gotten so far, as we had implemented it for the last few months: firstly it evenly distributes the largest four parties in the parliament, Tories, Labour, SNP and LD...even though people would argue that DUP had the same amount of seats, but it was a regional party as the consensus we had reached the last time. When we talk about "seats trump votes", we should really mean it and should not take votes into account (it would also raise the problem of whether to include regional parties like DUP, PC and others), therefore UKIP and Greens are out of consideration. LD, furthermore, have stronger reason to be included as they were the junior partner in the last government. I would go for the four-party infobox as it had been for a while until few weeks ago. Lmmnhn (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm a fan of d or a variation of g. One obvious advantage that 'g' - that is, an infobox which lists all parties with seats - has is that, if we can get it right, we can settle the matter. Infobox 'd' will result in perpetual disputes on future election pages as to when a party 'counts' enough to get on the infobox. If we can make 'G' a bit prettier, then we can avoid that problem. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm another endorsing Bondegezou's conclusions. G or H for me. To put it bluntly I cannot accept any infobox that does not follow the convention of seats being more important than votes. UKIP and Greens should never be listed ahead of DUP etc. Given this and the fact that UKIP / Green supporters are unlikely to leave a stable article until they are included I feel that only a solution listing all 11 parties winning seats is viable long term. As far as the consistency argument goes, I'm not unduly worried by inconsistency but my preferred solution would be to expand previous infoboxes to include all parties winning seats, though I agree this should probably follow a wider RFC. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I also feel we must exclude all except G and H for reasons given above. We have a problem that two parties that got really substantial numbers of votes (>1 million) only got one seat.  I would tend to say that any party that gets over about 2.5% of the UK-wide vote should be in the infobox regardless of whether it wins a seat, and the rationale for including parties means that any party that wins more seats than such a party with substantial vote share should be listed, too DrArsenal (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * a dose not work as there are more than 2 mayor prtis in UK elections b sort of works as it lists just the largest parties but there are more than 3 important parties c,e and f are unacseptical as seats are more important than votes g is completely wrong for uk elections d is my preferd choice i whood be happy with a different infobox ilke the one in the tabul way section if it can be implemented n all uk election pages2.28.220.166 (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Protection
The last 3 days have seen roughly 17 reverts of the infobox. Following general policy, we should really be sticking with the version of the infobox that was stable from the end of January to the end of March, before the most recent discussion started, until this discussion ends. I've reverted to this once, but will not do again. If the current frequency of reversions continues then I think a request for a short period of full protection will become necessary. Therefore, I think if more disruptive editors are going to continue to insist on having 'their' version of the infobox up during this discussion, we should probably just let them.... --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've asked for full protection for a week and have informed the IP who's reverted five times in the last 24 hours that they'll be blocked if they continue. Number   5  7  15:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * So now you have a version of the info box which is totally and completely different to every single other UK General Election article. Which makes this article ridiculous! Very well played Alun (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, I hardly ever edit Wikipedia these days, but I do use it a lot. I especially use it for election data, consistency between different articles about elections is important for regular users, so they can find the data they need. Having this article as an outlier for no good reason just makes it difficult for regular users of Wikipedia. This wasn't done for the benefit of making the encyclopaedia more user friendly, regular users are familiar with the layout of election articles. Changing a single article for no good reason is unwarranted. Alun (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We have reasons, you'll note the discussions about them. But you're right, all of this is for our own fun, none of this is aiming to improve the information and readability of the encyclopedia, and our intention is to change this page and then never look at another election page to consider if changes would be suitable. No one has once mentioned consistency as a consideration, the current infobox is the final one that we're going to use forever, and that's ruined the way it can be used by everyone. Thank god you've pointed that out. If you can't deal with change or discussion, I suggest setting up your own website of election data that no-one else will contribute to and where you can live in a fantasy land where politics remains the same forever. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * (PS - perhaps next time you comment, make constructive criticisms or don't bother. Thanks for the feedback!)Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is perfectly constructive to point out that the page has been protected in a form that is entirely inconsistent with every other UK General Election page, and to suggest that it is more rational to protect the page in a form more consistent with other UK GE pages. This is an encyclopaedia, expecting consistency between the styles of related pages is not unreasonable. Perhaps you should learn the meaning of "constructive criticism", and learn to assume good faith, instead of being needlessly confrontational and aggressive. I nowhere claimed this was done for "fun", that is a straw man argument. I claimed only that it is inconsistent, and that this makes the article more difficult for users to follow, who are likely to be familiar with the layout that is usual for Uk GE articles (and indeed pretty much every other election article in every other country). But you know, let's not let what I actually said, get in the way of you throwing your toys out of the pram, eh? Alun (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 17 revertions means there's not a real consensus on the current one, so we have to back to the old infobox (Con, Lab, SNP, LibDems) till the talks are not over yet. --GuarénDeBiblioteca (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

A proposed statement of Consensus, and a suggestion
I promised I would post a summary of the discussion at, so here goes, also trying to take account of the sections on the talk page that have been started subsequently. I hope this is a conservative summary that will not cause too many objections:


 * (i) I propose that there is consensus that (a), (b), and (c) are inappropriate. That is to say, any reversions to an infobox with fewer than four parties can rightly be reverted on sight from now on.


 * (ii) There are four main bodies of opinion. Firstly, those who prefer (d), such as me; secondly, those who prefer (f), such as GDB; thirdly, those who prefer (g) or (h) for this election only, such as Bondegozou; fourthly, those who think (g) or (h) should be added for all elections, such as Number 57. In the view of the third and fourth bodies of opinion, (d) is preferable to (f). (No-one seems to prefer (e).) Therefore, the immediate choice should be between (d) and (g), with the possibility that (with further consensus) it might be decided that (h) is preferable to (g).


 * (iii) Some people who are not of the first opinion have stated that, since no consensus has been reached to change it, the norms of Wikipedia might suggest changing it back to (d) until a consensus is reached. See.


 * (iv) There is also a sense (although I do not think this is universal) that a new infobox (g) should not be introduced without general agreement across other election pages.

I therefore suggest the following course of action:


 * Provisionally, (d) should be reinstated. Those who favour (g) or (h) should determine what the ideal form of the infobox they we would like to have on all UK general election pages is - probably including Scottish, Welsh etc. elections - whether it be the Dutch-style box (g), or one such as GDB's Table Way box or one modelled on the French or Spanish Wikipedias (h). When that has been designed in infobox format, there should be a centralised discussion, advertised on all UK election talk pages; and the decision as to whether to adopt it will need to be based on the a general consensus as to whether the proposed box is an improvement on the existing one for UK elections in general.

So I suggest that - unless there is a multiple objections to (i)-(iv) - we take them to constitute a consensus. Of course, of those statements only (i) states anything very categorical. As for the suggestion, clearly that's just a suggestion, but I hope it may command some agreement beyond myself, as a way of moving forward constructively. Dionysodorus (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, broadly agree. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * OK - please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. We'll see how people respond and then look to develop an RfC if needed. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dionysodorus, for your summary. I broadly concur but with one important difference.
 * I agree that (i) and (iv) reflect the general views of most editors. Those are good starting points, and we should hang on to what agreement we can find! I agree on (ii) that the choice thus comes down to (d) or (g) (with the possibility of then moving on to (h)). I wouldn't make the distinction you do between your third and fourth bodies of opinion ((g)/(h) here vs. (g)/(h) for all elections): I don't particularly disagree with Number 57 on our preferred final outcomes -- I just think we often need to make decisions and explore consensus one article at a time.
 * I disagree on (iii). We went through an appropriate process of discussion and reached about as good a consensus as we ever do to switch to the current Dutch-style infobox ((g)) in January of this year. I realise some of the people in the discussion now were not present in that discussion then, and thus the discussion has been re-opened, but I do not accept the characterisation that Wikipedia norms were broken. We worked in good faith then and it is counter-productive to reject such a process. I also note that, before then, there was a clear consensus reached for (g) for the Next United Kingdom general election article. Thus I think, as per Wikipedia norms, we should resist any edit-warring over the current (g)-type infoboxes here or at Next United Kingdom general election, or over the "(d)-type" infobox for the 2010 article or earlier. And I am unsympathetic to drive-by edits by editors who do not participate in Talk page discussion!
 * As per others, I agree a formal RfC of (d) vs. (g) may be the best way forward. It looks to me that (g) has more support among regular contributors here, but an RfC is a good way of focusing on what the choices are and encouraging broad participation.
 * Super Nintendo Chalmers has started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, but has focused more on the (g)/(h) issue. There are two points here, albeit interconnected: one of formatting (Dutch-style table vs. something with headshots) and one of content (which parties to include). It may be simpler to have those separately, but I may be wrong about that. Bondegezou (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't the slightest doubt that you, in good faith, think that a consensus was reached - but, as far as I can see, it is only you that is willing to refer to it as such, even among those who agree with you on all other points. The problem with an RfC for this talk page alone is that the opinion of many people (including my own) will depend partly on the result of the consultation as to what infobox to place on all UK election pages; indeed, if that results in a useful conclusion, then such an RfC would, helpfully, be rendered unnecessary. So I still feel that provisionally we should return to the four-party infobox, unless others besides yourself express themselves to be still of the contrary opinion in the next few days. Dionysodorus (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the best thing is if you, in collaboration with GDB etc., use Super Nintendo Chalmers' discussion as a place for narrowing down, and if necessary designing, what infobox you would like to replace the election box with, across all election pages - presumably an all-party box, since that's what you're proposing. Once you have worked it out, you should post on all election talk pages to invite widespread discussion as to whether to adopt the proposed infobox or not, in a second, wider discussion. Dionysodorus (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Or to put it another way, I don't see how we can form a widespread consensus as to whether (d) or (g)/(h) is preferable, until we know what (g)/(h) is, and until it has been put into a proper infobox format for our consideration - since some forms of (h) might command broader acceptance than (g). Dionysodorus (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to put another cat amongst the pigeons, one thing that hasn't really been discussed is the nature of the arguments presented. In any debate on Wikipedia, policy/guideline-based arguments should be given more weight than those that are not. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but no policy-based rationale has been presented for the traditional infobox and the opposition to the current one seems to be heavily based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, together with concerns about consistency (which is a decent argument, but isn't actually a policy, whereas NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia). Number   5  7  20:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think NPOV actually necessitates using an all-party infobox, or listing invariably by seats. I mean, of what WP:NPOV says, those principles can perhaps be derived very indirectly from due/undue weight - although that principle seems mostly designed against conspiracy theories, or at least against actual editors' points of view. Here, though, we aren't excluding anything on the basis of "editorial bias" - none of us hate Northern Irish parties - but in the interests of consistency and producing an easily comprehensible summary. But major national parties, and parties that got large numbers of seats, arguably are due more weight than, say, the SDLP. If the principle is a general one, then it should be made across all UK election pages, and see if you convince the community; if the principle is a specific one then we run into consistency problems. But, with due regard for what you have just said, Number 57, what do you think about the principle that we ought to put it back to (d) while we work out what to do? I think that actually does follow from WP:NOCONSENSUS, inasmuch as (if Bondegozou is the only one who positively maintains that there was a consensus) there wasn't a consensus for changing to the Dutch-style box. Dionysodorus (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * TBH, I think there was just about consensus a while ago to change. The issue is that new people keep arriving with different opinions, meaning wider opinion on the infobox is constantly in a state of flux. Number   5  7  22:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Dionysodorus says, "I don't see how we can form a widespread consensus as to whether (d) or (g)/(h) is preferable, until we know what (g)/(h) is, [...] some forms of (h) might command broader acceptance than (g)." Is it possible to reduce an RfC or other discussion to the which-parties-to-include decision ((d) vs. (g)/(h)), leaving the formatting decision ((g) vs. (h)) until later? Alternatively, can we have an RfC (or other discussion) with three options, (d), (g) and prototype (h)?
 * You've done some solid work, Dionysodorus, pushing us to consider what the key, viable options are, and it seems to me that it really comes down to (d) vs. all parties that won seats. If we want all parties that won seats, we stick with (g), and we can worry about the (g)/(h) formatting distinction later. If everyone feels we need to talk about (h) now, then we've got a prototype (h) already (thanks to GDB and others) -- it can be polished up later if we choose to go down that route.
 * I don't feel strongly about (g)/(h) -- although I personally prefer (g) -- I just would like to maintain some momentum in the decision making and don't want to get bogged down in formatting detail leaving editors feeling disenfranchised by the lack of a resolution. Bondegezou (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's all fair. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Bondegezou, you can't reasonably ask the community to decide to adopt an infobox, until they have seen what the proposed infobox looks like. Infoboxes vary in clarity, etc., and are not purely a matter of principle. As for keeping momentum going on making a decision here, a vital element of the discussion is consistency. How can we decide what value to put on consistency with the rest of the UK election series, until we have decided what infobox is best for the UK election series as a whole? Therefore the outcome of the discussion here - which is manifestly unresolvable on its current terms - depends on firstly deciding (a) what exactly the candidate is to replace the infobox style used across UK elections with; (b) whether we actually want to adopt this candidate for all pages, whatever it is. That is a definite and clear process towards possible consensus: if we skimp on the detail and don't have a single, coherent, and implementable suggestion as to what infobox we are supposed to be adopting, we are never going to get a yes/no consensus on it. I for one am not willing to endorse (g)/(h) merely on the basis that GDB has proposed a box that, in some remote scenario, could possibly somehow be turned into a feasible infobox - when it is not even clear that that is the infobox we would be getting in the end. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyway, who's actually going to do the legwork when it comes to turning GDB's design into an actual infobox with parameters and all that? I mean to say, trying to make decisions on principle, as to what should be done, and then hoping that someone eventually puts them into action - isn't that a cliché of bureaucracy worthy of Yes, Minister or the like? That's not momentum, that's inefficiency. Dionysodorus (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The obvious answer to that, then, is that the choice for this article now is between (d) and (g). There is no (h) at this time. If the work gets done, great, we can then consider that option. For now, we have two frontrunners: the earlier headshots infobox with Con/Lab/SNP/LDem or the current Dutch-style infobox with all parties that won seats. If the good work on developing an (h) continues and produces an alternate template, I expect we will re-open the discussion (presuming we ever manage to close it!). Bondegezou (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Do you mean (1) that we should decide between (d) and (g) now, here; or (2) that you want to propose (g) for all UK election pages now? As I see it, (1) is just rather unlikely to happen, since we've mostly had that debate about three times already, and we know where we all stand on that. (2) is a waste of time and effort if we're going to bring forward (h) subsequently, isn't it - so, if that's what you mean, it would be better if you debated with GDB etc. as to whether (g) or some version of (h) is what you want to propose to the community, and then propose it. Dionysodorus (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant (1). That's the conversation I thought we were happening. I am happy with the current (g) infobox for this article, but you and others had re-opened the discussion. If you now see that discussion as unlikely to produce change, I'm fine with leaving things as they are.
 * I am not, at this time, making any proposals for all UK election pages. Personally, I don't think that is practical or worth doing. I am content to consider articles on a case by case basis.
 * I'm happy to support the work of GuarénDeBiblioteca and others in developing a new template akin to the .fr infobox. When that work concludes, we will have an additional tool that may help resolve some differences. Until then, we have to work with what we've got. Bondegezou (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, of course you're happy with the current position; that's what you've been arguing for all along. But I still don't think there's a consensus on instating the Dutch infobox, or ever has been, inasmuch as, as soon as it was proposed, I and another editor immediately disputed it. I think that, per WP:NOCONSENSUS, we should revert to the four-party infobox, i.e. "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit", viz. your edit, which has been constantly disputed since the very day it was proposed in its specific form; and the burden of demonstrating that another infobox is superior, i.e. of producing consensus for some version (g) or (h), should fall on you and on others who wish to change it. Otherwise, there's no momentum towards consensus at all; that's arguably just you sitting on a non-consensus version whose maintenance you are supporting partly by collective edit-warring (annoying as the drive-by editors certainly are). If you dispute this, then maybe the thing to do is to find a neutral admin or two to decide which version WP:NOCONSENSUS requires that we keep (is there such a procedure?), which personally I think is the four-party version.
 * I don't want to kick off the edit warring again, but I do feel that it would be soundest and most in the spirit of that Wikipedia policy if you let me revert to the four-party version, as it stood before your controversial edit, and then we proceeded from there, by proceeding on the basis I have suggested. After all, that would basically put us back to where we stood after the consensus that you maintain we do have, namely that of January, where it was decided that there are problems with (d) and that it would be good, in principle and if such an infobox could be found, to investigate other possibilities - not that the first infobox that fitted the bill, (g), should immediately be instated. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't want you to kick off the edit warring again. That would be entirely inappropriate. We have clear dispute resolution procedures. Please follow them.
 * If I might clarify some details: I did not first put the Dutch-style infobox on this article. It was not my edit. It was done here, if I've read the history correctly, by an IP editor. I have since reverted edits back to this style, generally when made by individuals who did not engage in any Talk page discussion. I am not the only one who has reverted to keep the Dutch-style infobox up, nor am I the only one in this discussion who argues that consensus was reached for that change. Numerous editors in sections above have voiced support for the Dutch-style infobox as the best solution or as a least-worst solution. Let us not personalise this (WP:FOC).
 * As per WP:DISPUTE, I imagine the next step would be an WP:RFC, if you wish to take it. I am happy to suggest how that RfC should be phrased, but of course you are free to start any RFC you want. I would suggest that the RfC should mention the work you've done to narrow done options and ask people to pick between (d) or (g) for this article. (Of course, people will be able to make other suggestions in their responses.)
 * You could start an RfC about whether consensus policy has been appropriately followed in order to decide what the article infobox should be while we then have an RfC to decide what it should be. Personally, that seems to me a bit pointless under WP:TIND/WP:AGF, but then, as you say, I am on the other side of the argument there! Bondegezou (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have every confidence that you are in good faith - I don't have to assume it - and indeed you are being helpful and polite. I do think you're wrong though, and perhaps being slightly intransigent on this point. Anyway, I see no urgency to start an RfC right now, and in any case other editors may have something to add here. Dionysodorus (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think we need an RfC. The idea that we've got consensus for either box is wrong. I agree that your experiment above was useful in determining that (d) or (g) are the best options for this article, I think a further round of discussion would be useful focused on selecting between those two specific options. I agree with the idea of focusing on those; if we chose 'g' we can then look at developing a new 'improved' version of that, if needed. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This is pretty similar to a debate that's been going on for years, since the rise of UKIP, about what political parties are included and which aren't. The huge variance of boxes suggested has made this debate complex, so I'm gonna give my view as it applies to this infobox.

Step one, you can either change the infobox or not.

If you don't change it, the 3 parties are Con, Lab, SNP. No possible argument for otherwise, yes this means the lib-dems are excluded, tough. This is a reasonable option on the basis of consistency with previous elections (I don't think all uk ges need the same box, but it's fair to think otherwise), but I don't think there's any consensus at all for it. I'm gonna call this option Traditional

So, you change the box to "more than three" parties, you have to decide the number. It seems to me you cannot possibly get away with having some sort of arbitrary cut off that excludes UKIP and the lib-dems. Given this, excluding the DUP & the greens would also seem extremely problematic. It could be argued the seat numbers aren't everything, it certainly wouldn't be hard to find sources saying UKIP were more important to the election than some NI parties...but I can't see that flying. For one, what order if not seats? % vote? I'm pretty sure there's no consensus for that. I've seen someone up thread suggesting a cut off of 1mil votes, the outcome of con,lab,snp,lib-dem,ukip,green...probably actually does give a very fair and reasonable (and likely to survive accusations of bias) account of the 6 most important parties in & after the GE. This is, ofc, fudging the rules to fit the situation, which I don't like, and there seems to be a consensus against it for this reason. In an IAR way though option Fair Fudge does seem to end up with a good result.

There's a straightforward option of listing all parties that won seats. There are competing designs for this, but that's a somewhat separate issue from what I'm discussing. There's not much to say about this, it's very simple (pending design discussions), there's no possibility of accusations of bias, the main objection seems to be that it's "different", which is odd considering nobody's really pumping for keeping the old 3 party box, they're all different, and I had thought we'd got consensus for option All Of Them.

Nevertheless, unless someone can suggest another number, as far as I'm concerned these are the only options for numbers of parties that can be entertained, exact design is a separate issue, but any designs that mean a number of parties other than:

3 (con,lab,snp) - the rules we've always used, hard luck on those excluded, they 'lost' the election. 6 (con,lab,snp,libdem,ukip,green) - anyone with >million votes, totally post-hoc, but actually comes up with a good list vis a vis weight & neutrality All (I'm,not,listing,them,here) - Obvious, no possibility of bias.

Break NPOV. 80.42.24.219 (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, Super Nintendo Chalmers, you could start an RfC, perhaps, depending on what others have to say, between options (d) and (g)? I do still feel, though, that the problem is that some people will say, "I would be willing to accept (g), but only if all election pages were changed to it", or "I would be willing to accept (h), depending on what it is, but not (g)." So probably you will only get a clear answer if you express it as a strict choice between (d) or (g), the assumption being that other election articles remain as they are and that (g) as it stands is the option on the table (not another version such as (h)). So please do frame it as a simple binary choice, as far as possible, or we won't get anywhere. I have edited the box from (f), where an editor had put it on his/her third revert, to (d), which is at least one of the two possible solutions, and the WP:NOCONSENSUS version. I do think that leaving it there would probably help stop the interminable edit-warring. Dionysodorus (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Protection
This page should really be protected until consensus on the infobox issue is reached. Page is being swarmed by a large number of edit warring users (both IP and autoconfirmed) who keep reverting the infobox without consensus having being reached here and without even participating in such a discussion. Impru20 (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The pattern of edit-warring over this looks strange to me. A variety of different editors who have not previously been involved in this page, repeating the same arguments, aware of 3RR, but not saying anything on Talk. Does this look odd to anyone else? Is further investigation warranted? Bondegezou (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Its because its annoying to see the lack of consistency for the 2015 election page compared to past elections. Keep the same format to make comparisons easier!SomewhereInLondon (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Bondegezou, have you looked through their contributions lists? It's probably just because, as SomewhereInLondon says, it's patently rather annoying to the average passing IP editor to have inconsistency. Dionysodorus (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * also how far back are you going as this topic has been debated in one form or another for over a year since before the results meaning people my very well have simply stopped posting here as they have nothing new to say I know I coment at the time of the election and it seemed settled on the 4 party traditional info box after wich I saw no signs of the discussion in till January and then the issue send to die with no chenge then it suddenly changed to the new info box when everyone else's was talking brake form endlessly debate that's whay people aren't comenting hear 2.28.220.166 (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Inconsistency in formatting is, indeed, more obvious than neutral point of view violations. However, the latter is covered by Wikipedia policy and the former isn't. A hidden note might help if that is the issue. Bondegezou (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In any case, I believe the continuous edit warring over this is exposing a huge flaw in the current seat order criteria combined with the traditional infobox style. We already discussed this back for the Spanish general election, 2015 too, when it was decided to leave IU-UPeC out of the infobox. The current, traditional style infobox simply doesn't allow for that many parties in without looking enormously awful. And that can't be sorted out due to the imposition of the seat-only order criteria. The solution of having all parties with seats in would be the most neutral, but that would just kill the principle that infoboxes are intended as mere summaries, not as reflections of the full results (if you're going to have a table with results in the lead section, just don't have anything at all and redirect to the Results section itself).
 * For this election, it's just obvious that UKIP and Greens have much more notoriety and importance than parties such as DUP or Sinn Féin, but the seat order criteria limits their addition to the infobox unless all other minor parties are added (which is even more weird considering that UKIP and Greens are constantly being shown in opinion polls, whereas others aren't). For the Spanish election, we had something similar happening with IU-UPeC, despite it having more notoriety in the media than parties such as DL (and more so now that a new election is going to be held in June 2016, in which both Podemos and IU are likely to run together, potentially attracting further attention to it).
 * I think that a rethinking of election infoboxes should be discussed beyond this article, because it's obvious this is not a single-election issue, but can potentially turn into a Wikipedia-wide conflict spanning lots of election articles (specially if people is going to abide by the principle of consistency in formatting for all elections for a given country). Either the seat order criteria is removed or reimagined, or a new infobox style is spawned. The current situation is only going to grow untenable in the future, and this very article is an example of it. Impru20 (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is an easy, short-term solution to edit-warring, and that's that people don't edit war. For example, User:GuarénDeBiblioteca, why are you making edits that you know will just be reverted? We can achieve progress through discussion. We will not achieve progress through edit warring. There is no deadline: it does not matter if the article is not how you want it while we have that discussion. If people are serious about improving the article, but feel the current infobox is wrong, then go to an RfC, or further the work developing a different infobox template. But respect WP:DISPUTE. We had a very long discussion at Spanish general election, 2015, but we waited until that discussion had gone through the processes before a change was made. We can do the same here. Dionysodorus found a way forward above and clarified the acceptable options: that wasn't an end to the process, but it was a useful beginning. And, ultimately, as I know many people in this discussion have done in the past, accept that sometimes the final answer will not be what you want. Bondegezou (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Bondegezou and Impru20, I do think you might consider that it takes two parties to edit war. You're both edit-warring egregiously, and entirely ignoring WP:NOCONSENSUS. The change that is being disputed is the one made at the start of April, for which there was no consensus; it has been disputed since the day it was put into action. No-one's denying that the final answer remains unknown, but as you say there are procedures in place. Per NOCONSENSUS, we should return to the version antedating the present dispute; then, considering that there is no deadline, we should follow WP:DISPUTE, etc., as desired. And Impru20, that may be so; indeed it certainly is true that consistency is a main issue; but in that case this article should revert to the four-party infobox while a more widespread discussion is put in motion. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You've advanced this argument before. You know full well that several of us disagree: we achieved a consensus in January and carried out those changes accordingly, if a little belatedly. The change has been contested, yes, but then there has been near constant contestation of the infobox for years. I don't see much support for your position that a consensus was not sufficiently establised: just you and GDB, as far as I can see, hold to this. We can, if you want, go through dispute resolution procedures over the matter, before we go through dispute resolution procedures over a longer term solution, but that just seems pointless.
 * What's the hold up with just doing an RfC on (d) vs. (g)? Bondegezou (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing much, except that one gets the sense, from the comments of Impru20, Number 57, etc., that there is a wider issue at stake. I think the important thing is to phrase the RfC so that we get a clear answer about this page, on the assumption that everything else remains as it is; then further consensus could be sought for wider change. Do you want to set it up? Dionysodorus (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Realigning election
The 2015 election has all the hallmarks of what is known in political science as a "realigning election" where there is a massive change in the political system. However, this is not mentioned in the page, so I thought maybe someone could flesh something out, possibly in the analysis section.

Reasons why this was a realigning election:

SomewhereInLondon (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Conservative Party won their first majority victory in 23 years
 * SNP landslide in Scotland - Labour nearly wiped out after over 50 years of being largest party in Scotland
 * Liberal Democrats wiped out in their South West heartland as well as the rest of the country
 * Beginning of multiparty politics with UKIP and Greens winning over 16% of the vote
 * We obviously need reliable sources saying these things, but, agreed, some more commentary along these lines would be most valuable. Bondegezou (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Although can you call something a "realigning election" until you know the results of the following election? It might turn out to be a flash-in-the-pan election instead. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems unlikely that Labour will recover in Scotland and the Liberal Democrats across the country. UKIP and the Greens won't be going anywhere anytime soon, and we may be seeing the start of Conservative hegemony. SomewhereInLondon (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The Table Way
Watch it and comment --GuarénDeBiblioteca (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Good idea can it be implemented on all uk elections as consetensey between uk elections is important 2.28.220.166 (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Broadly, I like the format, though we can considert the details of what's in each column later. A quick and uncontroversial comment is that there's no need for BOTH the green/red arrow and the +/- sign in 'seats' and votes. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's far too big. The infobox is meant to be a summary, not something that extends over several pages worth of screen. If you can't see all the data on a single screen, it's not working. Number   5  7  19:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm; there are plenty of infoboxes in use on Wikipedia which don't follow that principle. Most countries, for example, or footballers with longish careers, professional cyclists etc... I'm not sure I agree an infobox need necessarily fit on a screen (though size should be a conisderation) Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * While the discussion is ongoing, can I just say thank you to GuarénDeBiblioteca for working on these different possible infobox formats? It's very useful to see different ways this could work. Bondegezou (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Now the images are smaller (50px)--GuarénDeBiblioteca (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd support it if it can be implemented on all uk election articles2.28.220.166 (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that might be a good idea, but we can't decide that here. If adopted, we could then go to relevant Wikiprojects and see if there's consensus to change that elsewhere. But without getting more people involved, we can't decide that now. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * can we get the wiki protects and users nesersary for a consensus involved then as other wise this issue will just ceap curing up no mater what is dissident here as the articles being consetent is important for users who look through the articles and whant to comper the results 2.28.220.166 (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Can't just a new infobox template, based on the ones from the French or Spanish Wikipedias, be made? The vertical style could help adding as many parties as needed to the infobox without it looking horribly weird (as it would happen with the current, horizontal one), neither using the Israeli-style infobox (which I personally don't like at all for an infobox, and which we should take into accound that was originally designed only for Israeli elections). Impru20 (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we could do that, but I also think that GDB's efforts are good here. Could we lose the leaders' constituencies from the table perhaps? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * One way of making the box more compact, GDB, might be to (a) reduce the font size to the size used in existing infoboxes (which would allow us to keep the leaders' constituencies), and (b) to reduce the number of columns by combining the "Party" and "Leader" rows. So you could have, from left to right, the party colour, then the leader's photo, then three lines in smaller type saying party (in bold), leader's name, and leader's seat? Dionysodorus (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Something like that? 	--GuarénDeBiblioteca (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you - but can you reduce the font size, too, to the size of the text in the current infobox style? I think the combination of those two things might have the right effect. Dionysodorus (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This box is coming along very well. I think if right it really could the way forward. I've been a little bold and suggested adding an 'independent/other' row? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a even near slight of consensus here to replace an infobox template by a table like this, specially when this table has been under modification until yesterday, and when many users participating in the template discussion have not even commented on this, and even less (only one or two users?) have shown their support to the table as it currently stands. I'm in favour of a vertical-like style for an infobox, but an infobox, not a made-up table. Such an infobox would be useful for several other countries having issues with the current, old-style infobox. A debate on this should be opened and discussed thoroughly. But regarding this table, there is not even a close enough consensus to add it. Impru20 (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed - there's no consensus for GDB's infobox so far. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I like what GDB has constructed here, I think it manages to show important information in a fairly concise way. Without taking up too much space, this format manages a good mix of figures, pictures, diagrams and colour. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is claiming that there is consensus for this. They're saying that they like it. I'm not a tech-y person, but can't a table simply be turned into an infobox by putting it at page called Template:This is my shiny infobox, with editable parameters? Or am I misunderstanding? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * GDB added it to the article, claiming consensus. But yes - it needs to have various changes made to it in my view, and then be turned into an infobox with editable parameters. Also, in my opinion it should not be introduced on the basis of a discussion here: we need a discussion on the preferred type of infobox advertised across all UK election pages, and I maintain that if there is no consensus to introduce the Dutch infobox or this one more widely, then we should return to the old four-party one: there still hasn't ever been a local consensus for an all-party infobox, let alone GDB's particular one - very useful though it is to have it as another option to consider. Dionysodorus (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, fair enough - I didn't realize that protection on the article had ended! I agree that this shouldn't be added until proper discussion; with regards to what we do before then, my inclination is to not edit the infobox until the discussion at is done. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely - the ten days' discussion I proposed ends this Saturday, so I will try to suggest a summary of what we largely agree on there at that point. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I strongly dislike the new layout. It is totally inconsistent with every other article on elections on Wikipedia and seems to have been pursued by those with particular focus on UKIP - this suggests a clear ulterior motive. The lack of consistency with Wikipedia formats elsewhere is reason enough not to implement this table, though the apparent agenda displayed in this talk page makes me even more against the change. Please revert! Jonesy1289 (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Non-infobox topic: Battlebus spending
I note that the topic of Conservative over-spending in target seats isn't covered, despite being a constant reporting item on Channel 4 and now at the stage that the Electoral Commission has asked the CPS to ask for the deadline for prosecution to be extended. Would anybody be willing to flesh out a section on this? Sceptre (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that its only been reported by Channel 4 News who is quite left wing/liberal. SomewhereInLondon (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been reported more widely than that. The following may be useful for content: Mirror, Thanet Gazette, Politics Home. Bondegezou (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And the Daily Mail DrArsenal (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And now the BBC DrArsenal (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And just on Radio4's "The World at One". The sole objection above seems to have been refuted or become outdated.  Sceptre do you want to draft something?  DrArsenal (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I have now added a section "Party election spending investigation" - please take a look Sceptre and Bondegezou. You will see I have used some, but not all of the links listed here, along with plenty of others from various sources.

Infobox
Can we please make one thing clear; the 'Dutch style' infobox showing every party and with no leader's faces is not acceptable for this page. It is only acceptable if someone is prepared to go back through every British election page from 1708 onwards to also insert the 'Dutch' infobox in place of the 'normal' infobox, so that there is consistency across British election pages. It is not acceptable that this page and this one alone has the 'Dutch' infobox whereas every British election from 2010 backwards does not.

My own view, expressed above, is that five parties merit inclusion on this page's infobox: Con, Lab, Lib D, SNP, UKIP; UKIP for getting 12.7% of the vote, in much the same way that candidates getting more than 5% of the vote usually turn up in American gubernatorial/Senate election infoboxes.

I have reverted the previous edit to reflect this although it plainly now only has three parties and two are left to be added. Marplesmustgo (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * while I seport this info box style I do not support the inclusion of ukip who only got one set as in uk elections it is seats that mater and not popular votes that is why minor parties like ukip greens and lib dems all campaign for a new voting system the 3 party's of con lab and snp have by far the most seats in parliament in fact all the minor parties combined do not surpass the snp the only reason the lib dems are a candidate for inclusion is that they where in government going in to the election 2.28.220.166 (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I broadly support the members arguments as outlined above. The current table format does not show pictures of the 3 parties that actually matter as a result of this election, i.e. it doesn't clearly show how becomes prime minister or what that person looks like. The table does not fit in with the visual style of any other UK parliamentary election. I suspect those who put it in place are those with ulterior motives campaigning against the current FPTP system (Greens, UKIP, LD). The whole thing reeks of unfairness. My last point is that the UK has no recognition of minor parties outside the big 3, so it should be those 3 that make the picture.ArticulateSlug99 (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree – it makes absolutely no sense to use the standard election infobox for every single election except 2015, just because some users demanded it at one point. I'd support a change to the former, with portraits etc. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, it seems that the sore losers of this election are constantly reverting back to the horrible table. Can someone please lock the normal infobox that is used for every single election since the 1700s back. Is there a specific talk page for this issue? ArticulateSlug99 (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Timrollpickering has now locked the page in response to the ongoing edit-warring. The article is now locked with the TIE infobox with 5 parties (Con, Lab, SNP, LD and UKIP), as per ArticulateSlug99's last edit.
 * Tim Roll-Pickering: would it be appropriate to revert the infobox to the TILE format (a.k.a. Dutch-style), which is what it was when the above RfC began? The 5-party infobox the article is now locked with is not even an option in the RfC (which is between TILE and a 4-party infobox) and has never had consensus support. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My approach to protecting articles is that I'm always going to lock The Wrong Version. Protection is not endorsement and when there's edit warring it shouldn't be adjusted whilst discussions are ongoing. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I have added a note to the RfC above to try to ensure people don't get confused what the options are. Bondegezou (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Timrollpickering I couldn't see a request at Requests for page protection/Rolling archive. What am I missing, please?  DrArsenal (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The infobox is CLEARLY incorrect. It lists UKIP as the "fifth party". If you're measuring by number of votes, they are third. If you're measuring by number of seats, they're 10th, behind Conservatives, Labour, SNP, Lib Dems, DUP, Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru, SDLP, and UUP, and tied with the Greens. There is no measure by which they're fifth. Akwdb (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

DUP
It may be seen as biased to the naked eye that the Democratic Unionist Party are not included. They achieved the fourth-largest amount of seats and are listed as such on the BBC website. It could be seen as biased that the Lib Dems are included but not the DUP. Personally, the infobox should either stay as it is, but with only the Conservatives, Labour, and the SNP, or it lists nine with the Lib Dems, DUP, PC, SF, UUP, and then UKIP. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's blatant WP:OR to list UKIP ahead of the DUP. UKIP should not be in the infobox. AusLondonder (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. UKIP appears as that was the 'frozen' version when the page was protected, but there's no serious support for the infobox with these 5 parties. There is a strong rationale, as has been noted several times in these discussions for including the Lib Dems and the not the DUP. To summarize, this is based on:
 * The Lib Dems entering as the 3rd largest party
 * The Lib Dems entering as part of the governing coalition
 * The Lib Dems standing in 631 seats (compared to the DUP in 18)
 * The Lib Dems centrality in the election debates, and discussions
 * The fundamental point being that the result is only part of the story; the article is about the election and in that context, the Lib Dems are much more important than the DUP. By contrast, if in 2020 both parties were to have the same number of seats, we could make a stronger case for either having both or neither of them. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I should note further too - it is possible to disagree with these arguments, but anyone stating that 'not including the DUP is biased' needs to convince other editors that the fact of having 8 seats makes them of equal importance as the Lib Dems to this election, despite of all of the above. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)