Talk:2016 National Assembly for Wales election

Created Article
Was annoyed that no one had bothered to create this page when Scotland and Northern Ireland have had theirs done so I decided to find out how to do it myself. This is my first article, so please be patient with me, I will always act in good faith and try and give clear commentary on talk pages etc. If I make a mistake please be polite about it, I have noticed on other pages that some editors find this difficult. I have used the previous elections article as a template and have amended it already and shall continue to add detail. Quite a few opinion polls have been published already so I will focus on those initially.JamesCocksworth (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of MadmanBot message
I have removed the warning message below on the basis that there is no copyright violation etc and that all election articles will be very similar to their previous election pages. I will endeavor to make this distinctive and informatively different and hope that others decide to help with this.JamesCocksworth (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a courtesy note that you're good; the page madmanbot tagged was a wikimirror so there's no copyright issue. Wizardman  21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Change Opinion Polling Tables
Had to remove Greens from regional opinion polling table as the polls seem to include them as others, their figures also seem to be quite low so this does seem to be consistent with decisions made on other opinion polling pages. If anybody disagrees with that decision I am of course prepared to discuss the issue sensibly and have a look at any evidence etc. Please do not simply change the page without discussion.JamesCocksworth (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Opinion Poll Background
Labour's percentage for the very first regional opinion poll should not be highlighted in red as it's percentage is tied with that of Plaid Cymru. Either both parties percentages are highlighted, or like Opinion Polling for the Next UK General Election, neither parties percentages are highlighted. - Wednesday 21 May 2014, 17:02 (UTC)

Infobox
It seems appropriate to remove the Lim Dems from the info box for a number of reasons.
 * a) The LibDems only got 5seats at the previous election (far below the other opposition parties).
 * b) They are being out polled by the UK Independence Party. These polls also predict UKIP to gain more seats than the LibDems.

The alternative to removing the LibDems would be to include UKIP in the info box which does not seem in any way appropriate as a solution to this issue for a number of reasons.
 * a) UKIP does not currently have any seats (this is not reason enough on its own though)
 * b) UKIP do not have an official Welsh Leader and it would be inappropriate to include Nigel Farage in the info box given that he isn't Welsh and more importantly, has not and states no intention to stand in these elections.
 * c) If UKIP were to select an official Welsh Leader for these elections and he/she were to be top of one of the regional lists then the evidence could support adding them to the box. However, a leader of a parliamentary (or in this case Assembly) leader needs to be done by the elected members of the party in that chamber (as with ever other party), so even in the instance that a leader is selected prior to the election, there would be questions about the legitimacy of the individuals leadership.

For these reasons I think we should rule out including the Lib Dem's and UKIP from the info box until after the election has taken place, or until at least after the Next United Kingdom general election has taken place. It is important to remember that the InfoBox is merely a summary, they are not designed to include all the parties with representation. In similar elections such action has been taken. Note that the Scottish Green Party are not included in the info boxes of the Scottish Parliament elections (see:2007, 2011 and 2016. It is also significant to note that if we look at the opinion polling for the regional vote in Scotland that UKIP and the Greens are neck and neck in those polls, so the situations are comparable.

I am open minded to discussion on this issue but I will remove the Lib Dems from the info box based on the case above. Please feel free to discuss this. JamesCocksworth (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It is also worth taking note of the Ynys Môn by-election, 2013 result (see below).JamesCocksworth (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * UKIP does have a Welsh leader, Nathan Gill, and the Greens have a leader in Wales as well. So by this premise, it indeed makes sense to keep these parties in the infobox. --RaviC (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I have removed UKIP and the Greens from the info box as their inclusion would be inconsistent with other articles for elections held in the United Kingdom. While I accept and understand that UKIP are out polling the Lib Dems and are predicted to gain more seats then the Lib Dems. This is not grounds enough for their inclusion or indeed the Lib Dems removal. The Lib Dems currently hold 5 seats, this is nationally significant when there are only 60 seats (1 of which being the Presiding officers seat). We do not second quess election results, we go off of the facts as they are and we amend the info box as and when the political reality changes. Furthermore, if in the event UKIP do gain a nationally significant number of seats and are then included in the info box, it should be Nathan Gill who should appear in the infobox as the leader of UKIP in Wales - this would be treating the same as all other parties. I do not see any arguable grounds for inclusion of the Green Party, they gained fewer constituency votes than the BNP last time round, they are not consistently polling stronger than any other party already included and yes, they have no electoral representation in Wales at all (be that MEPs, MPs, MLAs or councillors). I have reverted the inclusion of both UKIP & The Greens part of and England and Wales. 2.98.38.127 (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The Women's Equality Party
WEP are fielding four candidates in South Wales Central: Sharon Lovell, Ruth Williams, Sarah Rees and Emma Rose. I don't really know enough about Welsh politics to know how they should be added to the article, can they be put in? There's a Cardiff Times piece on the four, if it helps. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources?
I'm rather concerned by the lack of sources. I just found one UKIP candidate, Jeanette Bassford-Barton listed as "Green" candidate. Who knows what else may be wrong here? I'm tempted to remove all constituency candidates until better sources are available. Huon (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Very minor parties
Is it still appropriate to include columns for tiny parties, they seem to have got in via copypasta from 5 years ago?...the BNP doesn't even actually exist currently, they didn't pay their £25 annual fee, and can't legally use the BNP name/logo to campaign....even if they have any candidates, they might have to stand as independants...92.26.141.246 (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. In fact, there's no need for the list of candidates section at all. I have been removing this pointless and duplicated information on the list of candidates in each constituency, but it's being reverted without explanation. Information on the candidates is available on the constituency/region links and there is no need to repeat it here. Tiller54 (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Including parties in the regional lists that cannot stand is, as you say, pointless. Including the constituency nominations, however, is not. The constituency nominations section is a useful overview of the election and, once the election has concluded, will be updated to show the results - see articles on previous elections e.g. National Assembly for Wales election, 2011. I have reinstated the constituency nominations section. Please leave it there unless consensus is reached here to remove it. Daicaregos (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there really a point including the Welsh Communist and Welsh Christian Party as well? There's no guarantee either of them will actually field any candidates, they've been very quiet on it so far — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.70.59 (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, not really. As you say, they don't seem active in this election. If any of their candidates stand they can, of course, be added back. Daicaregos (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Issues
THEREs no mention of the issues on and that play a part (UKIP and the referendum and Tata Steel). This I notable.Lihaas (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Election pages don't reference the issues, largely because they are subjective (how far do you go etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.8.180.209 (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Mid and West Wales
! colspan=2 style="width: 200px"|Constituency ! style="width: 150px"|Elected member ! style="width: 300px"|Result

! colspan="2" style="width: 150px"|Party ! Elected candidates ! style="width: 40px"|Seats ! style="width: 40px"|+/− ! style="width: 50px"|Votes ! style="width: 40px"|% ! style="width: 40px"|+/−%

I think that instead of having these massive tables for regional seats instead we use the constituency and regional tables like how it is done on elections to the Scottish Parliament. As a prototype, I have done Mid and West Wales' 2011 results. JackWilfred (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Once the election is over perhaps, right now it's useful to know who the candidates are as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.8.180.209 (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Liberal Democrat infobox inclusion
Should the Liberal Democrats be included on the infobox? My view is that they shouldn't. There's no solid rule for inclusion but the Liberal Democrats have only 1 seat, for comparison the Scottish Greens have not been included on the infobox for their 1 and 2 seat results, just 5 and 6 seat results. JackWilfred (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion that they should be included - as the infobox will then show the entire change in votes. --RaviC (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed on inclusion. Having all 5 parties represented is not excessive and shows a full picture.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.8.180.209 (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see a case either way. I think the best approach generally is to include everyone who won seats, so, yes, put the LibDems in. Bondegezou (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

But what if we did that with the General Election pages, the infoboxes would take up half the entire article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.245.154 (talk) 10:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If there were a very large number of parties with seats, like in the UK HoC, then it would not make sense. But in this individual case, the Liberal Democrats are the only such party - and have been represented in larger numbers in the past. The performance of the Lib Dems was a substantial topic of the election. --RaviC (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I am of the view they should not be included in the infobox for a number of reasons:
 * 1. The Infobox is a national summary of the result, it is not a results table and should not be used as one. 1 seat in any election is not nationally significant.
 * 2. This would be inconsistent with other UK election articles. If we were to include the Lib Dem's 1 seat in this election, then surely we would have to include the BNP's 2 seats in the 2009 EU election, numerically and proportionally they gained more seats than the Lib Dems did in this election. The consensus for these infoboxes has never been to include every Tom, Dick and Harry (though we do in the results table below obviously).
 * 3. I agree that the Liberal Democrats are a nationally significant party in the United Kingdom, I see little evidence that they are in Wales alone though and certainly on the merits of this election (which was what the infobox is to summarise). If there was a huge disparity between their share of the vote and their seats I would see a route to arguing for their inclusion but there is no significant disparity, they just didn't get the votes that they use to get and thats why they don't get the seats it really is that simple.

Including myself, looking at the contributions above, there are 3 in favour of the Lib Dems being removed and 3 in in favour of them being included. The established format/grounds for inclusion which is the only prior consensus established would not include the Lib Dems (as per above explaination). I am therefore removing the Lib Dems from the infobox of this article. 118.92.141.142 (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Liberal Democrats have been included in the infobox since before the election took place... since the article was started, I think. There was then an inconclusive discussion (above) in May that did not produce a consensus for change, and no change was made. To come back now, 8 months later, and argue that this is a reason to remove the LibDems from the infobox seems tendentious to me. If you wish to press this point, start a new discussion, do an RFC if you want, and show sufficient consensus for change.
 * I systematically went through election infoboxes across multiple elections a few months back, just observing what is done. Practice varies wildly, but including every party who won seats is the nearest we've got to a standard approach. Bondegezou (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Neil Hamilton infobox inclusion
Should we not have Nathan Gill in the infobox rather than Neil Hamilton? Since Nathan Gill was the leader at the time of the election and for an (admittedly brief) period afterwards, it'd be a bit like including Jeremy Corbyn in the infobox for the 2015 general election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.70.69 (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree it should be Gill he was the leader at the Election (ditto Kirsty was the Welsh Lib Dems, but isn't anymore). Neil Hamilton can go on the 2021 page when someone wants to make that - in the same way the 2020GE page lists the leaders as they currently stand. Paulharding150 (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I've made the change. As noted, Hamilton was not leader at the time of the election. 80.68.32.198 (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Nathan Gill in the infobox rather than Neil Hamilton?
Nathan Gill has never been the leader in the assembly. He is the leader of UKIP wales members. There was not a leader until Neil Hamilton was elected leader of UKIP in the welsh assembly, as voted for by a majority of UKIP Assembly Members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelbread (talk • contribs) 19:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The infobox shows the situation at the time of the election, which was clearly before Hamilton was elected leader in the Assembly. Hamilton should be shown for the article for the next election, but not here. Bondegezou (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Neil Hamilton first LEADER of UKIP in the National Assembly for Wales.
NATHAN GILL NEVER WAS LEADER of UKIP in the National Assembly for Wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.176.59 (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody said he was. However, he was leader of UKIP in Wales at the time (!) of the election. Redverton (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

YOUR ORIGINAL SUBMISSION - However, a leader of a parliamentary (or in this case Assembly) leader needs to be done by the elected members of the party in that chamber (as with ever other party), so even in the instance that a leader is selected prior to the election, there would be questions about the legitimacy of the individuals leadership. Why nathan gill? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelbread (talk • contribs) 22:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is about the election. During the election, Gill was clearly UKIP leader, e.g. this article. Bondegezou (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)