Talk:2017 Northern Ireland Assembly election

Upcoming Poll?
Given the resignation of the deputy First Minister, and the potential for a new election to be called as soon as 7 days time, should this still be a redirect? - Cheers, Burwellian (Talk) 18:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Bondegezou (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Naomi Long
Any chance we could find a better photo of her? The current wrong is landscape and doesn't fit very well at all. Maswimelleu (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Notional 2016 result
Has someone done a notional result for the last election had it been to elect 90 seats? That will facilitate the comparison with the new election result? Bondegezou (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've cited one piece discussing the changes, although more material from there could probably be added. Bondegezou (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything from initial searches. It would be quite hard to do, considering parties will be fielding more/less candidates to maximise their vote. st  170  e  13:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've taken off the sixth placed candidate from each constituency to find a projected result for five seats if you want to treat that as the notional result. Sinn Fein -5 (23), DUP -5 (33), SDLP -5 (7), UUP -1 (15), Alliance -1 (7), Green 0 (2), PBP -1 (1), TUV 0 (1) Maswimelleu (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Use this link to the NI Elections Guru, Nicholas Whyte - https://sluggerotoole.com/2016/12/22/if-the-2016-assembly-election-had-had-five-seats-per-constituency/ giving his projections with caveats etc:  Counterfactual seats with five per constituency: DUP 33, SF 23, UUP 11, SDLP 11, Alliance 8, Green 2, TUV 1, PBP 1  Gavin Lisburn (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that doesn't wash. That's just a guesstimate of what would have happened with a different quota and assumed transfers. For a notional one there are only two different options, multiply seat numbers by (90/108=)0.833 or take away the sixth seat in each constituency. As the point of the notional figure is to help understanding, and as shown sixth seats are quite all over the place, I have amended the figure to show 83.33% of previous seats. (Which, because of rounding, gives us 91 seats, but that cannot be helped.) In fact, if you actually read the comments under the Slugger piece quoted as source, you see quite a few suggestions for different notional outcomes, based on the same type of number crunching 195.194.75.226 (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Designations
MLAs in the Assembly are designated unionist, nationalist and other. This should be noted in the article, I think, but I couldn't work out what the current designations are. Well, DUP/UUP/TUV + 1 independent are unionist, SF/SDLP are nationalist, and Alliance are other. Am I right in thinking the Greens are other? And what about PBP? Bondegezou (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, Greens are designated as 'other' alongside PBP. When the two PBP MLAs had to choose a side, they wrote 'socialist' rather than unionist, nationalist, or other. This defaulted them to other. st  170  e  16:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We could possibly make a custom infobox line entitled 'Designation' if that's easier in future. Maswimelleu (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Predicted MLAs
Per this diff, I'm not entirely sure if this belongs here. Should we not move it into a separate section of the article? st 170  e  19:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think all the information in the table is useful, and I think it makes more sense to have one table than several tables. Precisely where to put the table, I wasn't certain. I think the best approach might be to subsume 'Designation' and 'Procedure' under 'Background' in some way...? Bondegezou (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The current format now looks fine. It's a pity there aren't any opinion polls to add to the article, but I suspect there will be some coming in the next few weeks. st  170  e  00:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

2022 Election
Will the election after this one be held in 2021 or 2022? I'm unsure whether "fixed intervals" makes allowances for snap elections. It would suggest that all subsequent NI elections will be misaligned from the rest of the devolved timetable. I would appreciate clarification of what legislation actually says, otherwise I think we should simply leave the next election part of the infobox blank for now.Maswimelleu (talk) 09:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't know! Given the instability still in Northern Irish politics, I think "next" is all we should use for now. Bondegezou (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Last election was not even a year ago (May 2016), so talking about if the new parliament will last all the way to 2022 or even 2021 may be just very premature. Impru20 (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * From what I can make out, the election after this one is due in 2022.
 * The NI Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2014 section 7 says "In section 31(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (dates of elections and dissolutions), for “fourth” substitute “ fifth ”."
 * The relevant section of the 1998 act states "the date of the poll for the election of each Assembly shall be the first Thursday in May in the fourth calendar year following that in which its predecessor was elected;" Section 32 deals with extraordinary elections and makes no mention of the election after the extraordinary election being held at the same time as it would have been without the extra one.
 * By contrast the Scotland Act 1998 is clear that the date of a general election depends on the date of the previous ordinary general election, and not any subsequent extraordinary election: "The poll at subsequent ordinary general elections shall be held on the first Thursday in May in the fourth calendar year following that in which the previous ordinary general election was held," (Section 2.2). So a Scottish GE held today would not put back the 2021 election.
 * Given that the NI Acts make no mention of this, it seems to me that there will not - if everything goes according to plan - be a NI election in 2021.


 * However, regarding the article, I suggest keeping it as "next" for the reasons above, and also suggest we unlink it as it just links back to the 2017 election page.
 * Frinton100 (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Once this election is out of the way and we have some indication of a date for the next one we should again set up a 'Next Northern Ireland Assembly Election' page with everything we know. If it's not clear to us then it almost certainly wont be to ordinary page visitors reading this series of articles for an answer. Maswimelleu (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Martin McGuinness
I'm sure all of you know that he's not standing again. Does that mean that he no longer counts as the 'leader' with regards to the infobox. Gerry Adams is the actual leader of Sinn Fein and it may be worth changing the infobox to show him given that McGuinness will not be the leader in the Assembly. I don't know whether Sinn Fein will indicate a replacement before polling day, but either way I don't think McGuinness should be denoted there. Perhaps do something similar to PBP and put it down as 'Vacant' or 'Undetermined'? Maswimelleu (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Precedent at some other election articles would have been always to have Gerry Adams listed there. The general election articles list the party leader, not the leader in the Commons, for example. So, what about Gerry Adams for now, but we can switch to "designated (Deputy) First Minister candidate" when we know it? Bondegezou (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * He is leader of SF at NIA until his replacement is announced next week. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For now, I've added to the footnote already there to say some of that. Bondegezou (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The |Electoral commission has listed the party leader as "Mr Gerry Adams", why are we rejecting legal definition of party leader submitted by that party?

Community designation
Apollo, individual MLAs don't designate themselves into the Stormont categories, their parties do so en bloc. Your wording confuses this simple fact and is liable to mislead. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I know. What is your point?Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that the wording that has been added is unnecessary and confusing. How about the following:
 * According to the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, each party elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly designates all of its members as belonging to the nationalist community, the unionist community, or 'other'. Important votes require cross-community support.
 * Frinton100 (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wrote the text originally and invited feedback on the edit summary when I added it. I'm happy for you to do what you want with it. Maswimelleu (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Candidates/campaign websites
Alliance has released a list of all their candidates and I presume other parties will. How should we be covering this?

We should link to campaign websites for the significant parties too. Bondegezou (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've created a list of all similar pages that I can find, but we'll definitely need other people to add to it prior to the formal statement of persons nominated on the 8th or 9th of February. Maswimelleu (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Gerry Mullan is apparently standing as an independent after the SDLP didn't reselect him - not sure what this means for his inclusion in the standing down section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm6852 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't include him. Once nominations close we can source the claim that he is standing as an independent in the 'candidates' section. Maswimelleu (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Poll
Here! But I haven't seen the full tables yet. Bondegezou (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That's the one we already have showing on the page, according to the disclaimer at the bottom. Maswimelleu (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Then ignore me, I'm being slow! ;-) Bondegezou (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think Lucid Poll results for poll 2 are out and poll 3 are due 27/02/2017, if anyone can find a press release. Poll 2 - NI OPINION PANEL ‘TRACKER’ POLL: Pre NI Assembly Election 2017   9th to 11th February 2017 – Results: 13th February 2017  Poll 3 - NI OPINION PANEL ‘TRACKER’ POLL: Pre NI Assembly Election 2017  23rd to 25th February 2017 – Results: 27th February 2017   Gavin Lisburn (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Candidates Table
Shouldn't PBP have a dedicated column and the NI Conservatives be part of 'Others'? NI Conservatives are a minor party thats trailing in the polls, so I don't see why it should be given more prominence over a party that has MLAs, even if they have more candidates. Maswimelleu (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * J Bell has not been expelled from DUP. He has been suspended.  (Erroneously repeated expelled in comments on amendment).  Gavin Lisburn (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The PBP are only standing in 6 of the constituencies, versus 13 for the Conservatives, so there's some logic to how the table looks now. But I'm not bothered if someone wants to change it. Bondegezou (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason I set it up that way is that a separate column for PBP would be a waste of space because there would be very little in it - they are only standing in 6 of 18 constituencies. Adding Cons to the Other box would make that column look even more cluttered than it does. There is an argument for a separate Independents column in place of Cons or TUV, but I generally prefer to keep Independents in "others" rather than treating them as one bloc. Either way, I don't think we should have a separate PBP column - the point of the table is to illustrate the parties and candidates that are standing where, rather than to be representative of the outgoing assembly. Frinton100 (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, PBP absolutely merit a column, regardless of how many candidates they choose to select, purely for the fact that they have sitting members in the Assembly, and the Conservatives do not. All parties with elected members merit a column. I appreciate the clutter argument, but this table misrepresents the parties that have an elected voice in Northern Ireland. Frenchie1309 (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The table of candidates is not meant to represent the assembly, it's meant to represent the election, and there are Conservatives in twice as many constituencies as PBP. The infobox is representative of the outgoing assembly and shows - in a more prominent location - the parties which had representation pre-election. Frinton100 (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly either way on this, but I am rather persuaded by Frinton100's argument. Bondegezou (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * PBP should definitely have a place instead of the Conservatives. The NI Conservatives have no representation in the Assembly and only managed to get 1 council seat, so they would be considered to be a minority/Other party. The inclusion of PBP would be better placed; all other parties in that table listed separately have representation. There is no point in including Conservatives, simply because they have more candidates throughout the country. Alternatively, the Conservatives column could be changed to 'Independents'. st  170  e  11:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been playing about with the table here - User:Frinton100/sandbox and including both PBP and Conservatives is possible without making the table look awful. I've also tried adding an extra column (version 2, further down the page) for independents as I'd suggested above, but I think that makes other columns look too cramped. The Conservatives definitely should have a column as they are standing in the majority of constituencies. My preference would still to be to include PBP in others because of the amount of blank space in their column otherwise, but we could include both them and the Cons. Frinton100 (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer verison 1 to version 2. Bondegezou (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know if we'll keep the candidates' table post-election, but I certainly think the Conservatives should be treated as a minor party in this election, and today's result bears that out. So if they get the dignity of a column, so should PBP. Incidentally, the order of columns should probably also reflect their size, so PBP ahead of TUV. --William Quill (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest it's still worth keeping, and possibly adding a new table in the results section to list the elected MLAs. I mentioned above that the table is not supposed to reflect the outgoing assembly, and I would also argue that it is not supposed to represent the result either! I did create a couple of other versions in my sandbox which could be used, but there was (almost) a deathly silence on here after I created them so I left it as it was. Frinton100 (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I support keeping the candidates table too. As for elected MLAs, they're being covered at Members of the 6th Northern Ireland Assembly, which we link to. Bondegezou (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If we're going to keep the candidates table, then I suggest that, in terms of clarity, the Version 2 at your sandbox is best, Version 1 is second best, and the article's current Version is worst, but I'll leave any change up to you. Incidentally, another reason for including either Version 1 or Version 2 is that you've put the work in in response to a perfectly reasonable request (I came here with the same issue as Maswimelleu, who started this thread), and it seems to me that causing such sensible effort to go to waste is one way of harming Wikipedia in the long run by aggravating the problem of editor retention. Don't bother making any further changes to those versions unless and until one has been included in the article and somebody subsequently requests a change.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Manifestos
Is is worth adding a section for manifestos, with links to them? A number have been published now, including the DUP today and Sinn Fein last week.

TUV, NI Conservatives, UUP and Green Party of NI also been published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm6852 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. Bondegezou (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Have added a section with SF, DUP and UUP. Couldn't find Alliance or SDLP on a quick look. Bondegezou (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Added TUV, Green (NI) and Conservatives (NI) which I think is all that have been published to date. Nothing from Alliance, SDLP, People Before Profit Alliance or UKIP NI yet it seems. Is the plural not "manifestos"? jm6852 (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just checked and apparently -tos and -toes are both accepted. Don't mind which myself. Bondegezou (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

New Map Idea


I wondered for the front page of the article we adopt this style of map with blocks to represent who has seats for each of the 18 Westminster Constituencies as the current maps for showing who won seats doesn't look easy to understand where as a map like this would make it very clear. Could someone draw a map up of Northern Ireland like the UK map used for European Parliament elections. (109.147.129.170 (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC))

Results
Should the results table show seat changes on the last election (with a larger Assembly) or change compared to the notional results (cited in the article) or both? Or should we wait to see what the BBC etc. do in their coverage? Bondegezou (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually sure what to do in this case. I think for consistency, we should keep seat changes for each party. The bigger parties will have some losses, but I suppose we could always have a footnote to explain that the seat losses are due to the smaller Assembly. st  170  e  11:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just came up with an idea: have an extra column for seat change in comparison to notional result? st  170  e  11:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * An extra column sounds good to me, but happy to re-consider if it makes the table too complicated. It's not clear yet, but it looks like the BBC results site is going with change from the actual results. Bondegezou (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the table and the extra column complicates things and makes the column a lot wider than the rest. I did see that, perhaps we should leave it for now. st  170  e  11:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , The notional results is just that. It is perhaps worth linking to, but isn't an encyclopaedic fact. No one can say what each party might have won last year had there been five seats in each constituencies. So compare in absolute terms with the last election. For comparison, see Irish general election, 2016, where there was a reduction by 8 in the overall number of seats. This is shown by a reduction in the Total row as well as each of the parties. --William Quill (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But United Kingdom general election, 2010 shows results compared to the notional result, so different articles do it different ways. That being a more high profile election, there was more work behind the notional result and it was widely used, whereas the one here, while a RS, hasn't had the same impact, so I'm fine with not using it. Just wanted to flag up that different approaches have been taken. Bondegezou (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I fully support using it, as suggested by Bondegezou, as it is far more informative, and it's based on a RS. However, if desired, we can 'keep it simple' by including it in the table that shows the notional starting point. It would seem silly and unencyclopedic to include that table, as we quite sensibly do, without showing gains and losses relative to it, since that is the whole point of having such a table.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To save time, I'm now going to add it there per WP:BOLD, and see what happens.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, though on reflection I decided to leave the original table unchanged where it was, and to amend a copy of it in a new Section under Results.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed the notional result comparison, as I don't believe Whyte's estimation, useful as it is, reaches encyclopaedic standard, and they have not been covered by the media in the results yesterday and today (do continue to read Whyte though, one of the best political sources on NI politics!). For example, the SDLP are reported as holding their 12, rather than an effective gain of a seat. Apologies if my change seems like an impolite edit war without discussion, I mixed up where the discussion was on this page. As to the 2010 UK election, it is also different as a FPTP election; it's much harder to assert with authority how seats would have been distributed differently under STV, where parties would have employed different strategies, etc. As long it's expressed in the infobox and in the results table that there's a different overall base, readers of the page are sufficiently informed that this isn't a plain like-for-like comparison. —William Quill (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Slugger O'Toole is certainly reliable as commentary, or any fact stated on it. But it's not a fact that there were 11 SDLP seats before the election, for example, so it shouldn't as such in the infobox. —William Quill (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Infobox currently appears split between notional and actual, showing DUP on 33 pre-election and SF on 28! There does not appear a consensus so I have returned to actual 2016 result FriendlyDataNerd (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed the first such table, simply to avoid duplication. But I'd maintain my position, that the notional result does not belong on this page as an authoritative fact. As Whyte himself writes, "(Obligatory health warning: if there had been only five seats at stake rather than six, parties would have pursued different nominating and campaigning strategies, so this is a strictly counter-factual exercise.)" This is particularly true in the case of an STV election, where whole strategies change depending on the number of seats. What I'd propose is that it be included in the links at the end of the page. —William Quill (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should present Whyte's notional result as authoritative fact, agreed. But I do think we should show it in the article somewhere, or somewheres. And when tables use the 'raw' results, they should have clear notes that the overall Assembly size has been reduced. We must remember readers who come to the article cold and explain these things clearly. Bondegezou (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I definitely don't think we should in any way make it difficult for someone coming to this article cold to see that there was a reduction in seats, so I'm all for clear notification of this. At the moment though, we still have some duplication. I'd recommend keeping the separate table showing the Notional 2016 and change to Actual 2017, with the small note about Whyte's research, but not including it in the overall results page. What do you think? —William Quill (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The duplication at present is silly. We should get rid of one or other. I am undecided on which.
 * On another subject, why do people keep re-adding a subheading "First preference votes" at the beginning of the results section, on top of a table that covers much more than first preference votes, and when later subsections also cover first preference votes? I've changed it to overall results, or we could just omit a subheading there. Bondegezou (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

There is something wrong with the infobox
When you go to edit the page it says Alliance gained 2.1% more votes but it actually says the Alliance lost 0.4% of first preference votes.Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of independent in InfoBox
We have not included independents in previous infoboxes, nor have I seen them included anywhere else, so I have removed them from. FriendlyDataNerd (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Sentence needs clarifiying
"..and other issues, such as the DUP's failure to support funding for inquests into killings during The Troubles and to end funding for an Irish language project."

I'm guessing that the "project" is the Líofa Gaeltacht Bursary Scheme? There'd be no harm in mentioning it by name. In any case, the grammar of the sentence ("..the DUP's failure to ... and to..") means that the DUP is being criticised for failing to end funding to the project, which surely isn't right. Harfarhs (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox sort order
Why are SDLP listed 3rd and UUP 4th, when UUP got more votes than SDLP? Fob.schools (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Because the UUP got less seats, number of votes is virtually meaningless. FDW777 (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)