Talk:2017 United Kingdom general election/Archive 3

Name
As per past naming conventions, this should now become either Next United Kingdom general election or United Kingdom general election, 2020. Bondegezou (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 8 May 2015

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. New move request opened on 12 May. DrKiernan (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

56th United Kingdom general election → United Kingdom general election, 2020 – As per previous naming pattern (& Conservative majority in 2015 means chance of early election receded) Bondegezou (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. ONR (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A slim majority does not guarantee that the government will last for 5 years. -- Kndimov (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - The general election is scheduled to take place in 2020, David Cameron has a majority government, not a minority government so it should be relatively stable. On most wikipedia articles we see a date, but everything has the chance to be cancelled or put forward, no matter how unlikely so for now, we should defiantly put it under 2020 election.. -- (Z2a (talk)) 16:57, 8 May 2015
 * Having a majority at the beginning of a parliament - particularly such a slim one - does not guarantee a majority throughout the parliament.  Major was elected in 1992 with a larger majority than Cameron has, but he was still in minority government by the end of his term. Kahastok talk 18:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Per the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, as anything else would be WP:OR. And it's already been moved.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose – Are people forgetting that the Fixed Term Parliaments Act still allows for earlier elections? Especially given the slim nature of this majority, an earlier election is not impossible. The article should be moved to Next United Kingdom general election, which is where the United Kingdom general election, 2015 used to sit until the election date was clear. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not forgetting it, but as things stand right now, 2020 is the date of the next election. I'm quite happy for it to move to Next United Kingdom general election though.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment There are other articles for future elections where a date is given yet where there is the possibility of change. We spent ages discussing this with United Kingdom general election, 2015 and we would have been fine had we just used that title throughout. Reliable sources now are all talking about the next election being in 2020 as far as I've seen so far. But it doesn't really matter that much, I suggest. Whichever, I have no strong feelings. Bondegezou (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: I have moved the article without spotting the discussion first, as I saw the issue as non-controversial. My apologies, I will see the outcome we have here and see if I supports my move. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 17:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose: per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Please note I reverted page back to original title to avoid this move request becoming malformed, I have requested talk page be moved back. Ebonelm (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per WP:CRYSTALBALL. But I support a move to Next United Kingdom general election as we did with the 2015 article. Kahastok talk 18:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How is it against CRYSTAL? The date is currently set at 2020 through all the current reliable sources. How is this any different from the 2022 FIFA World Cup? Or 2020 Summer Olympics? They could change to another year (or not take place at all), but we don't have them at "Next FIFA World Cup", etc.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't know for sure that this new government will not fall to a confidence vote within the next four and a half years. Confidence motions are an entirely standard constitutional device under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.  There exists no equivalent device for the World Cup and Summer Olympics.


 * For the same reason, the 2015 election article did not refer to 2015 until it was clear that the election was not going to take place in 2014. Kahastok talk 14:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:CBALL, this is not a fixed event (the act does not specify that it cannot occur at any other time if the government were to fail confidence), unlike US Presidential elections. The government can fall and an election can be held without meeting the target date -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Move to Next United Kingdom general election - current title is rather awkward, but using an exact year is problematic when the year in question isn't certain. Better to follow the convention of prior election article names. Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 02:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: per WP:CRYSTALBALL. – Smyth\talk 13:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. While it is more likely to be held on 7 May 2020 than any other given date between now and then, it is not guaranteed to happen. I have no preference between this and the "Next..." title, as long as both exist as either the article or a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The next election will be the 56th. No matter if it is in 2020 or sooner.  Keep it as it is.  The 56th is definite, the year isn't, although it is likely to be.Screen42 (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with the reasoning above, and the practice for other countries is similar. However, the naming convention for UK general elections, unlike Canadian jurisidictions, is to you use "Next United Kingdom general election" rather than "Nth ... election". I therefore agree with Kahastok that it should be named "Next..." until either a snap election happens or it becomes impossible for the election to occur earlier than 2020. -Rrius (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox
I would like to note that I do not feel there is a consensus for the infobox that has been recently added. I'm not going to get into an edit war about it, but I suggest we should establish a consensus on the matter in concordance with the infobox discussion for the 2015 article. Bondegezou (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In contrast, I'd like to express my strong support for the infobox. It contains exactly the sort of information that many people come to election articles to find out. Additionally, the preceding election articles have infoboxes and allow one to progress through them, finding the same information in the same place - to not have one for this does readers a disservice. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe they support using Infobox legislative election. Alakzi (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I support the infobox, too. All the UK general election articles have one. It's just not yet complete. That will have to wait until the new party chairmen have been elected, as some have retired. --Maxl (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think most of us agree on having an infobox. The question is what infobox, what form, listing what parties. Bondegezou (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I remember that the article on this year's election had an infobox with the party leaders from the beginning. There was no need to change the infobox. --Maxl (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We should use the Israeli-style infobox when the actual event is far away and we don't know the runners and riders (who to include and who not to). However after the event it makes sense to change to a traditional infobox and to only include the relevant parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptographic.2014 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

polls
First polls Post-election Survation poll (08 - 09 May): CON - 40% LAB - 31% UKIP - 12% LDEM - 6% GRN - 3%83.80.208.22 (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not of much use without a link. Where does this poll come from? --Maxl (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a poll predicting the result in five year's time? How much value can we attach to that? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Opinion polling is notable for tracking how public opinion changes over time, not just to predict an election result. However, we have a separate article for this at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. Bondegezou (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Phew, just in the nick of time, it seems. Maybe we could have a "days-to-polling-day" countdown number? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 12 May 2015

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

The result of the move request was: moved. DrKiernan (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

56th United Kingdom general election → Next United Kingdom general election – There is consensus that we should move away from the current title. Previous discussion above opposed "United Kingdom general election, 2020" but there appears to be consensus for "Next..." Bondegezou (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm very confused. There was no need to close the other RM. There appears to have been consensus for "next". There is no need for yet another RM. Please stop this bureaucratic nonsense. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Let's just move it. Alakzi (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I started a new RM to kickstart a process, that I had initially presumed would be straightforward, but that had stalled: it was not my intention to introduce extra bureaucracy. I concur with User:RGloucester and Alakzi. Bondegezou (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Leadership elections
There's a big section in the article on leadership elections before the next general election. We've not had an equivalent in "next general election" articles before as far as I remember. It seems to me that the current leadership elections are best covered under the 2015 article or on their own articles, not here. So I boldly deleted the section. Martinevans123 reverted that, but, Martinevans123, your comment seems to support my rationale for deletion, so I'm confused why you reverted...? Bondegezou (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Have self-reverted. Apologies, but I lost track of which article was which.... 56th? 57th? 2020? Next? It's hard to tell what is what any more. Especially when there are almost identical info boxes. But then, as you may have realised, I'm yet to be convinced of the need for this article yet at all.Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick reply.
 * On your broader point, I think a placeholder article here is appropriate. Wikipedia abhors a vacuum and an article would be created if none existed. I agree the name is poor and have requested a move. Bondegezou (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're thinking of "nature". What Wikipedia abhors is a load of balls, allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL says, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2016 U.S. presidential election and 2020 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research."
 * I think this article is akin to the 2016 U.S. presidential election and thus allowed. But if you're feeling strongly about it, I suggest you go to an WP:AfD. Bondegezou (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How did I guess you might say that? I'm sure you are right that it is wholly akin to the 2016 U.S. presidential election. I just wish WP:CRYSTAL would give stronger advice about timing - five years in advance and created two weeks before the last one took place, just seems a little too soon to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's very little original content here. The page could be reasonably redirect to List of United Kingdom general elections. Alakzi (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In the US presidential election articles, the nominations are an integral part. The leadership elections are the British equivilant of presidential primaries, as the party leader is their candidate for Prime Minister (SNP be damned) That goes for the micro-parties that don't expect to get more than keeping their deposits. Who runs for Prime Minister in '20 is very much a part of the '20 election. It's the focus of oppostion politics.Ericl (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Party inclusion criteria
Are there any specific guidelines on which parties should be included? Currently we have the 4 largest parties, but that would also extend to the DUP if the Lib Dems are in. If we included UKIP, would they be at the end (due to having fewest seats) or in the third position due to having the third largest popular vote? As a point of comparison, Spanish general election, 2015 contains 6 parties, 2 of which are regionalist and unable to form a government. Would the inclusion of the 5 "main" English parties plus the SNP be appropriate, given that these parties would have all surpassed 3% of the popular vote? For now I've tried to establish stylistic consistency, marking the SNP as unable to form a government and given the Lib Dems their required seat tally for a majority. It'd be nice if there was some degree of consensus over how the major parties should be laid out, even if this is altered due to changing circumstances in coming years. The exclusion of UKIP doesn't seem to reflect its large following in the UK and its convincing second place in a number of Parliamentary constituencies (putting it closer to victory). I defer to your thoughts. Maswimelleu (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * We don't know what the landscape's gonna look like in five years time - or whenever the next election might be. I suggest we use Infobox legislative election and list all parties which have now got seats in parliament. Alakzi (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Does showing it by seat tally only really do justice to parties with large vote shares but few seats? FPTP heavily distorts which parties appear to be minor and which are electorally significant. I fear that the infobox alone might be uninformative for visitors. Maswimelleu (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alakzi that the legislative infobox is better. I also agree with Maswimelleu that vote shares should also be listed, but I think that's possible in this infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that the criteria should be all parties with seats and that they should be sorted by most-least seats not by vote share. Given those criteria this infobox is the only one which meets the criteria. A lack of grinning mug shots of politicians is not a reason to reject this more useful and informative infobox.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that the infobox can and should be used if we can include legislative vote share, but I'm not so sure about ranking by seat tally. Doesn't ranking UKIP and the Greens under the UUP or SDLP distort their comparative strength? Also, could someone demonstrate this infobox with vote share (doesn't need to be correct for the purposes of demonstration)? Maswimelleu (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Previous vote share is in fact not one of the new template's possible fields, and unless a workaround is found I'm very much against the new infobox as it's rather misleading. — Nizolan  (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What is it that we want here? To list the previous election's results? Alakzi (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, compare the info that was in the infobox at the 2010 election page before the event: 1. In any event, if previous results are to be listed at all, as others have pointed out given the FPTP system both the seats and the vote share should be there. The current list makes UKIP and, to a lesser extent, the Greens seem far less significant than they actually are. — Nizolan  (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

To return to this topic, the new infobox was based on that used for Israeli elections (see Israeli legislative election, 2015) and we previously were working with vote shares, so let's go back to that. If we need to tweak the infobox format, we can do that. Bondegezou (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox
I support having the usual UK style infobox, with the Conservatives, Labour and the SNP. This has been well established practice over a very long time, for every UK election. Still cannot see any rationale for change. AusLondonder (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have made the infobox but was reverted back. Lmmnhn (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This topic has been discussed at very great length here and at United Kingdom general election, 2015 and consensus eventually settled on the new style infobox for use here. You will have to delve into the Talk archives to see the full discussions going back years... The key advantage of the new infobox is that it can show all parties, thus avoiding subjective decisions of which parties to include (e.g. it seems odd to include the SNP while excluding UKIP and the LibDems who both got many, many more votes in 2015). The reality is that the UK is now a multi-party democracy across all 4 constituent nations, so why not show that in the infobox? The only advantage of the old style infobox is that you get pictures of the leaders, but these seem of limited value: one, Cameron, probably isn't going to be the leader at the election, and you can get reasonable odds Corbyn won't be either. I strongly support sticking with consensus to date and the new infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ... but I do support the plan to include a vote share column along with seats won in the infobox. We talked about that, but it just hasn't been done yet. Bondegezou (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The simple list is much better for future elections, as it doesn't pre-empt the result as much! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree – the concern about subjectivity and bias is nonsense. Looking at other countries, such as the United States (example here), Australia (example here) and Switzerland (example here), to name but few, the usual style of infobox is practiced far more so than the current 'list' style (even though someone could argue that the US article is biased in favour of the Democrats or Republicans, or the Australian article in favour of the ALP and the Lib/Nat Coalition, etc.) Willwal (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The current infobox was based on that used for Israeli elections. The question is whether UK party politics is now like the US and Australia, or like Israel. It's neither, of course, but I think it's enough like the latter that this is the right solution. Any infobox that is selective on what parties to include gets endlessly edit-warred and argued over. We've seen that again and again with UK articles and for other countries. Bondegezou (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I note the US example referenced lists every party who won seats previously (which is only 2 parties!), and the Australian example also lists every party who won seats previously. The Swiss example lists 9 parties (the maximum the infobox holds), which is nearly but not quite all parties that won seats, but does include parties with very low seats numbers and vote shares. If those infoboxes are to be exemplars, then the infobox here should not only show Con, Lab and SNP: by analogy, it should list probably Con, Lab, SNP, LDem, DUP, Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru, SDLP and UUP... although in doing so it would be omitting UKIP (who got more votes than all but two of those) and the Greens (who got more votes than several of those)! So I'm not convinced that the argument given really helps much. Bondegezou (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You say that British politics is more like Israeli politics than, for example, Australian. But that just is not true. At the Israeli legislative election, 2015 the largest party won 25% of seats. At the British general election in May, the largest party won 50.77% of the seats. At the Israeli election in March the two largest parties didn't even win more than 50% of seats, instead winning a combined total of 45%. In May, the Tories and Labour won a combined total number of seats of 86.46%. With the SNP included, that rises to 94.15%. The UK is not a multi-party democracy, it is still broadly a two-party system, leaning towards three. Certainly not more than that. UKIP and the Greens won a single seat each, out of 650. In a first-past-the-post system, that is simply not notable. Votes are irrelevant, seats are what counts. In addition, you argue that consensus was to include the Israeli-style infobox. Yet, the United Kingdom general election, 2015 article does not use that. Nor does any other UK election infobox. AusLondonder (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, most of the elections with multi-party system do not use the Israeli legislative election infobox instead of Israel itself, see the Dutch and Nordic examples.Lmmnhn (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect to infoboxes on articles for other countries, I note Next Dutch general election and Dutch general election, 2012 do use an "Israeli-style" infobox, although you are right that Norwegian parliamentary election, 2017 etc. don't. However, Lmmnhn, can you clarify what you are proposing? Norwegian parliamentary election, 2017, like the Australian and Swiss examples discussed above, is maximally inclusive of parties. Are you proposing the infobox as shown above (Con, Lab, SNP only) because that is clearly not consistent with infoboxes for most countries, certainly not with the examples discussed here. If those are our model, as you appear to argue, then we would need an infobox with Con, Lab, SNP, LDem, DUP, Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru, SDLP and UUP. Is that what you are suggesting? Well, if we did that, expect month after month after month of edit-warring and argument as UKIP and Green supporters complain at their parties' exclusion, as we had in the run up to this year's general election. Personally, I would favour more articles following the UK/Israeli/Dutch model and going with something compact.
 * In response to AusLondonder, as far as I remember -- but feel free to delve into the Talk archive to check -- the consensus reached was to use the compact, all-parties form for future elections, where we don't know the result and it's important to avoid bias in presentation, switching to the 'old' format once the election is over and the result is clear. (I'd rather use the compact form throughout.) I also note that the 2015 election infobox includes Con, Lab, SNP and LDem, so are you suggesting that, or what's shown above (no LibDems)?
 * Your comparison of vote shares by top parties shows that the UK system has similarities to the Australian and US systems, and on other metrics it has similarities to the Israeli one: we have more parties represented in the Commons than the US and Australia have in their systems.
 * As for votes and seats... most countries in Europe, and indeed the world, use proportional representation, so there's basically no distinction between votes and seats and the issue doesn't arise. The UK, of course, does not. Seats won is, I would concur, more important than votes, but I think it is wrong to say that "Votes are irrelevant". Vote shares are considered and discussed by reliable sources, and elements of the UK system do draw on vote shares (e.g. appointments to the Lords are, to a degree, meant to roughly match vote shares). Parties with small seat counts but more significant vote shares claim greater legitimacy, and the press and broadcasters recognise that. UKIP and the Greens get more airtime and media attention in the UK than parties with more MPs, like the SDLP or Plaid Cymru.
 * In summary, I think the current, agreed infobox compactly carries maximal information without the subjective cutoff being applied of which parties to include, whereas the 'old' style wastes space with pictures of party leaders (who may well be gone by the time of the next election) and irrelevant details (is the party leader's constituency really a key piece of information? saying the SNP need to win 270 seats for a majority is pointless). Those proposing a switch to the 'old' style of infobox need to say what parties they would include (3? 4? 9? which 4? which 9?): arguments of consistency with other articles would argue for 9 or possibly 4, yet the illustration given above is only 3, so which is being suggested?
 * (Perhaps discussion should move to a WikiProject if we wish to ensure better consistency across different countries.) Bondegezou (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Bondegezou that the current Infobox is the only way to avoid 5 years of endless drama over who should or shouldn't be included in the Infobox. The only thing we ever achieved anything like consensus on was that the British system requires taking seats in House of Commons as the primary method of ordering parties in the Infobox. Given the fall to 1 MP by UKIP and failure to gain an MP by Greens and the fact that the UUP have gained 2 MPs the situation has got worse since the last election. A traditional UK Infobox simply cannot list UKIP or Greens as they are not in the top 9 parties by MPs and we would spend 5 years reverting edits by supporters of those 2 parties to include them in the infobox. By all means suggest improvements to this Infobox but reverting to an old style one just won't work to create a stable article.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I strongly support this, with the caveat that we switch over to the older infobox after the election. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not one to understand technical infobox changes but one of the main objections seems to be people want to see the Leader's photos. Is it possible to alter the current infobox to stick pictures of Cameron and Corbyn at the top as well?Andrewdpcotton (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The technicalities of infoboxes are fiddly, so I don't know either! We can, of course, also utilise leaders' photos elsewhere in the article. The issue I've already raised is that these may well not be the leaders at the next election, which is what this article is about. Cameron has said he's going. Corbyn has said he's staying, but media and bookmakers express some doubt! Bondegezou (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this, to be honest the current info box is just a mess and has a large amount of parties who do not satisfy the need of major, and if we are including them we might as well include the Monster Raving Loony Society (I'm not saying to do that). I think we should revert back to the old style, as I feel with details on MP's, total votes and images, it is a lot nicer and better. I think it should include : UKIP, SNP, Labour, Lib-Dems and Conservatives and we could always add other parties if they is demand, but I feel this would be much better I do feel another option would be to use the dutch style info box, which is more clearer and simply nicer than this one, and it also can include all the parties hence contributing to a more stable article. (Z2a (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC))
 * I don't think you understand. Here's some simple facts:

•Every British Election Infobox has always ordered parties by number of seats won in House of Commons

•Dutch Style (and previous UK) Infoboxes can only have 9 parties in them

•UKIP have 1 MP

•Nine parties have 2+ MPs

Therefore you can only include UKIP (and Greens) by using the current Infobox. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC) I agree that the info box should be the the uk standard as the current info box just dos not fit uk elections or Evan uk political establishment 2.26.206.85 (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This matter has been discussed extensively. Personally, I am happy with the current consensus. Infoboxes should be compact summaries of the key points. The old-style infobox is, to my eyes, way too big and difficult to read. We don't need big pictures of party leaders there (particularly given these will change before the election). We don't need to know what seat they stood in. What matters in an election is how many seats parties won.
 * Infoboxes for other countries' election article infoboxes tend to be more inclusive, often including all parties that won seats. So I think we should do the same.
 * Can I clear up a point about the Dutch infobox? Dutch general election, 2012 uses an infobox like the one currently used here, but slightly different. I support switching to that infobox, because it includes vote share. Earlier Dutch election articles use the infobox as on earlier UK election articles, with party leaders mugshots.
 * There is another style of infobox used on some other Wikipedias, e.g. here, that might be also worth considering as a compromise. Bondegezou (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I rather like that French one. Gets rid of the real trivia of leaders seats but keeps photos for those people who like that sort of thing. I see the example linked has 10 parties. What (if any) is the limit for that infobox?Andrewdpcotton (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I only recently discovered it. I don't know if we can use it directly on en.wikipedia.org or whether we'd need to copy over the template here too. Not certain how many parties it can include. I quite like it too for the reasons you say and prefer it to the traditional election infobox, although I still prefer the more compact infobox we currently have here just for being super clear. Bondegezou (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixing the info box
This info box is not weight for uk elections as it is difficult to read at a glance and gives to much importance to parties that are simply meaning less in paliment especially on the national scale 2.26.206.85 (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As you can see above, discussion over the infobox has gone back and forth. There's currently a discussion at Talk:United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015 about the 2015 election article's infobox and maybe decisions there will come up with new suggestions for what to do here. I'm personally happy with the current consensus. Bondegezou (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The current version should show the % of the vote, but isn't....and I can't work out how to make it. This is a major error. 92.26.141.246 (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that previous vote share would be good to include. This comes down to template design, which is fiddly, but hopefully someone will solve! Bondegezou (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Cameron standing
It's perhaps worth noting here that although Cameron's speech on the EU made it sound as though he would not stand again as an MP, he has since said he will. --Cavrdg (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox
Simple suggestion: until the results are published the infobox is only to show the 'previous' results, so how about this. There might need some tweaking, but you get the idea. The order is all wrong, don't ask me why....someone was doing something like this on the template talk sandbox thingy. It can be fixed...tl;dr - show 2015 results like this until 2020 election, then show 2020 results.

92.26.141.246 (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I like. Bondegezou (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm putting this in. Order is nation wide parties by seat then vote share, then local parties by same, then independent(s). For the actual results on 2015 article all parties will be ordered by seats won, then voteshare....seems made to put the NIs above UKIP&Greens, but blame weird fptpness I guess. 92.25.140.65 (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I'm keen on this. I don't think Nick Clegg/Ed Miliband hold any relevance to the next election. The map is nice but could sit quite comfortably in the article body instead, or could be incorporated into the existing infobox perhaps?. Incoming seats to the election (ie, including by-elections etc) are important to capture too (think to 2015: the infobox was much more useful in noting that UKIP had 2 MPs and Respect had 1 MP before the election, rather than the 0 from the 2010 GE). Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Good points (though I disagree wrt map, It's there in most of these infoboxes isn't it). This was mostly an attempt to get the % vote share in. Probably some version of this suggestion using 'current' seats & leaders would be my suggested option, but I can't hack this, or the articles current, infobox to do it... I'mma tweak the current version & add map, but I'm pretty sure it should be regarded as 'broken' until we can get the % vote in there. 92.25.140.65 (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I love the new infobox, but for the 2015 election article rather than here, where, as per Super Nintendo Chalmers, I concur we should focus on the current (or expected) leaders and current MP numbers. I like the map. Bondegezou (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox consensus
See Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015 - there has been no consensus for the israeli-only infobox displayed above. the infobox i've changed to is what all UK election articles use and therefore has consensus. Timeshift (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a broader RfC regarding the infobox here and at United Kingdom general election, 2015 should possibly be opened to settle this issue. I oppose the Israeli infobox. It does not suit the British parliamentary system. Maybe at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom? AusLondonder (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We previously agreed to have a different infobox for the Next... article compared to the 2015 article given their different contexts, and to use the Dutch-style infobox here. More recently, after some more discussion, the 2015 article was also switched to the Dutch-style, but that has proven more contentious and there's an ongoing discussion on that article about whether to change that further.
 * We've had arguments over election infoboxes for years and I find it hard to imagine they will ever end! I hope we can keep those discussions polite and respectful and I think we should leave both articles as they were (Dutch-style) until (if) a new consensus is established.
 * A RfC may be a good way to bring the current 2015 Talk page discussion to a conclusion. I urge all editors to follow standard Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures in the mean time. Bondegezou (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The infobox you're reverting to is used only for Israeli and Dutch (extremely multi-party) elections, they don't even compare to the 2015 UK result in the slightest. The rest of the world uses the infobox that 99% of all UK election articles use. Truly embarrassing, what a disgrace. This has now gone to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Timeshift (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nearly all Wikipdia articles list parties in seat order. Your exclusion of the SNP breaks that. The multi-party infobox better fits usage elsewhere then your suggestion to exclude the SNP. Bondegezou (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a little late to the party here, so forgive me for retreading lost ground, but I really vehemently disagree with having the boring, ugly, PR-style box for the UK elections on a number of grounds. The first is simple convention - UK general elections have the more detailed TIE box at present, and considering there is no good reason to discard them, I think it should be maintained for stylistic consistency. The second is that TIE simply gives more information - seat numbers, seat changes, vote numbers, vote share, leaders' seats, leaders' photos, the electoral map, etc. The current grid on the current page doesn't have that, and if it were to contain the same amount of detail, it would be almost unreadable as such a dense table. The third is more minor but very simply aesthetic. TIE just looks so much prettier than a pure, cold, scientific, PR box, and the leaders' photos adds a sense of... I don't know - gravitas?
 * I notice the question of seats vs vote share and how many parties to include has arisen as well. Personally I think the test is very simple - it's a relevancy test. If the party is a national party with more than one MP, then they are clearly relevant enough to include. If, like the SNP, the party has so many MPs that they become significant to important Parliamentary votes and public discourse, then they should be included too. I understand people are trying to be unbiased, but the fact is that there simply are major parties in Britain, despite the Greens or UKIP occasionally picking up a seat, and in a Parliamentary system, notability should be derived from being able to win seats across the country. Hence, I think a 4-box should be used here. But frankly I am entirely unbothered if we were to have a 6-box (Con, Lab, LD, UKIP, Green as the national seat-winning parties, and SNP for pure notability) or a 9-box or a whatever-box: any TIE box with any number of parties is infinitely superior to the ugly, incongruous, convention-breaking TILE box we have at the moment.CuriousCabbage (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are late to the party, yes, and there have been many discussions about this. I don't think that there are many new points to bring the table, especially when 'I think this is ugly' is one of your main arguments. The decision is a good one for now; we can revisit it when the election is announced and we have relevant polling, and full knowledge of leaders etc. The current box is a good holding place for a forthcoming election. I don't see any appetite for going back over old ground rehashing previous arguments until something in the world changes, which it hasn't. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It being ugly makes it unreadable, which makes it inferior as an information box to the precedent. The election won't be "announced" because by law it will be in 2020 (and Theresa May has ruled out holding one earlier), and I disagree that the decision is "a good one", because I see no justification for it whatsoever - you seem to think it's a good decision simply because it is the one you agree with. Surely we should stick with the precedent, and go for TIE, unless there is a particularly compelling argument for TILE? It seems to me as well that the broad consensus of people on this page as well as the number of people reverting it back to the picture-style TIE box is in favour of ditching TILE - I can only see two people here, yourself and Bondegezou, in favour of the Israeli-style box. Beyond this as well, every single page for the next election in every single major European country uses the picture-based infobox. This is completely out of precedent for the UK, and completely out of precedent for every other country in Europe as well, not to mention favoured by what looks like a majority on this talk page. I can't fathom why we are keeping TILE.


 * Also, the current wall of text in the PR-style TILE lacks information on vote share from the last election, required change in the number of seats, and the seat of the party leader, which needs to be fixed. CuriousCabbage (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you're over-estimating my degree of investment into which infobox on a Wikipedia page. I'm happy with whichever box people want to use. The point is that we've held extensive discussions and there's been a relatively stable consensus for the current box for a long-off election (I see three or four people changing the infobox since April, though I haven't counted in detail?). I see your points, but I see several arguments for using TILE against using TIE at the moment, as have been previously outlined.
 * Frankly I stand by my previous comment: let's keep TIE until a year or so out from the election, or when an early election is announced (I'm aware that 'announced' does not reflect the legal mechanisms here, but that's really quite irrelevant here. TM may not intend for there to be a vote to dissolve Parliament, but then DC did not intend to stand down a few weeks ago - things change). At that time, we'll know who is leader of which party, which seat they're contesting, how parties are doing in the opinion polls, whether Scotland will be part of the UK for the election, whether there will be a Labour party for the election, etc. etc. etc. At that time, we'll be able to make an enforcable, stable decision about which parties to include, rather than face up to 4 years of dull bickering about UKIP/DUP/GREEN/PC/LD, which gets in the way of making edits to this page to provide a clear and concise description of the forthcoming election. At that time, the details of TIE, such as leader's seat - which I agree are a huge advantage - will have a basis in fact, rather than speculation.
 * Let's be clear - if we change to TIE now, then we have to engage in a lengthy and speculative debate about the parties to include and details to include, which will all probably have to change before the election anyway. I see no reason to get into this now, when we can do it nearer the time and keep it stable till then.Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * CuriousCabbage, you want consistency on some points, but ignore consistency on others. No election article infobox omits a party with more seats while listing a party with fewer seats, yet that's what would happen if we were to include UKIP and the Greens while omitting Plaid, DUP etc.
 * You argue that TIE includes more info, like leaders' seats. But TIE omits info on any of the excluded parties: it's TILE that shows all that useful info. And who cares about party leaders' seats? It's not something that gets mentioned in the article text and general infobox rules are clear that an infobox shouldn't include information that's not in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Super Nintendo Chalmers, I don't see the arguments for keeping TIE until we get closer to the election - every future election page for every other major European (and indeed non-European) country uses TIE for elections which are a long way off and highly speculative. If the facts of the party leaders change, we can just change the boxes' information, as we'd expect Wikipedia to do anyway. I don't think there's any need to have dull bickering about the parties included - as I outlined above, you go simply on national parties which show they can attain national Parliamentary support (that is, any pan-UK party with more than 1 seat) and then can ad hoc add exceptions like the SNP which are crucial to understanding the dynamics of the election itself. This leads me to thinking four parties (Con, Lab, LD, SNP) should be included.
 * Bondegezou, there is basically no other system which has regional parties to the same extent as the UK does, but again, your problem is solved by simply only including national parties with broad national Parliamentary support, that is, any pan-UK party with more than 1 seat.
 * The infobox is not designed to be an exact precis of everything that might possibly happen in the election - it's meant to show headlines and act as a summary of the key players and actors. If people want to see the full details of how every party did, then we should include that in a section detailing 2015's results in full. TIE includes the key information about the major players such as (a) seat totals, (b) vote share percentage, (c) raw vote numbers and (d) a picture of the leader (which I'd argue is necessary and informative), and presents it in a far clearer, far more legible way, that also ties into the precedent for every UK election on this site to date as well as every other Parliamentary election for every other major democracy on this site. With this in mind, I genuinely cannot see any reason at all to opt for TILE rather than TIE. As for leaders' constituencies, displaying constituencies is just a pretty established feature of British elections (as well as something with precedent in all other election boxes on Wikipedia).
 * A brief count on this page also shows that 8 people favour TIE while only 4 favour TILE, which seems like a pretty broad consensus to me. I really think we should stick with TIE unless a majority can be shown in favour of TILE. CuriousCabbage (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If I can answer one point now... CuriousCabbage says that, "there is basically no other system which has regional parties to the same extent as the UK does". That's simply not true: there are significant regional parties in Spain, Belgium, Italy, Canada, India and many, many other countries. Yet they all stick to the same simple rule: infobox order follows seats won order. We have election articles using both TIE and TILE. We have election article infoboxes with more and with fewer parties included. But no election infobox omits parties with more seats. Bondegezou (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My point was that no other country has such a variety of them taking so many seats, and also that we need not be sniffy about excluding them on grounds of national notability. Take a look at Next_Italian_general_election - lots of regional parties are excluded here. Take a look at Next_Spanish_general_election - lots of regional parties are excluded here. But as I've said before, I'm perfectly happy to list the top nine seat-winning parties in a TIE box if it means we get TIE. I'd personally suggest cutting it off at parties which have won a sizeable (>5) number of seats in that case (Con, Lab, SNP, LD, DUP), but I'm still overall in favour of TIE, however many parties we include or don't include. CuriousCabbage (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Correct uk info box
Just changed to the corecet uk info box 2.28.220.166 (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that simply will not do. There is a very well established precedent to use the picture-style infobox, as used in every previous general election page. This topic was discussed on the 2015 election page, and the result was that people preferred the picture-style box. There is no substantive reason to change. ArticulateSlug99 (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The last big discussion here agreed on the TILE template, before the 2015 infobox was changed to TILE and for a variety of reasons specific to this being an article for a forthcoming election. Several of us still actively support that, so I think any chance to the infobox of this article should demonstrate consensus before being made, regardless of the current (and still ongoing) RfC for the 2015 article. If necessary, we can do an RfC here too. Bondegezou (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see this as a separate issue. For a far-away, forthcoming election, the current infobox has several advantages over the picture-style. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should have the picture-style one, in line with all other UK elections, and have an RfC over it in due course if necessary. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might read over the above infobox discussion and give your view as to what's missing from that discussion? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see - sorry, I somehow failed to notice that discussion. Well, I am inclined to think consistency of format is the most important thing - but I will think about it and comment again later. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 2016

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

The result of the move request was: withdrawn by proposer. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Next United Kingdom general election → United Kingdom general election, 2020 – There seems to be a pattern in the names of other UK general election articles, such as United Kingdom general election, 2010 and United Kingdom general election, 2015. I see no reason why the 2020 election's article title should not adhere to the pattern. YITYNR My work • What's wrong? 11:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no guarantee the election will be in 2020, especially with the divisions in the Conservative Party surrounding the EU referendum. Per WP:NC-GAL "For future elections of uncertain date, use a form similar to Next Irish general election" AusLondonder (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose The reason is because all those previous elections have been already held, while this article refers to a future election to be held at an undetermined date. It could be 2020, it could be earlier. As such, and as per WP:NCGAL ("For future elections of uncertain date, use a form similar to Next Irish general election") the current title should remain. Impru20 (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the same reason as above - it will not definitely be in 2020. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Even under the "Fixed Parliaments Act", the date of the election is not truly fixed, such as in the event of a no confidence vote. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I did not realise that the date is not fixed, as I don't know much about the British political system. As such, I am sorry for making this request and wasting all of your time.  Can this move request be withdrawn? -- YITYNR My work • What's wrong? 16:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

David Cameron standing down as an MP
Someone added David Cameron standing down as an MP, I've added the only source I can find to support this (a really badly worded BBC report) but I can't find any others. In fact when I search all I can find is articles (albeit from earlier in the day) stating the exact opposite and that he wants to do a Ted Heath. If anyone finds some better sources for it can you add them. If they don't turn up it'll still need removing => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 20:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed it - the source added did sort of appear to confirm it but was very vague. I think we should wait until we have a better and more explicit source. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Corbyn/Labour leadership contest
I see that there is currently a consensus to revert edits to replace Corbyn with TBC in the table. However, the situation has materially changed today, in that Angela Eagle has now actually issued a leadership challenge to Corbyn, so that a leadership contest now definitely is happening, whereas previously it was not.

Admittedly Corbyn has not resigned, but this nevertheless places the Labour party in a parallel position to the Conservatives, UKIP and the Greens. The parallel with the Conservatives is particularly close, as both Cameron and Corbyn remain in place until removed. I think it is therefore unnecessarily pedantic, and perhaps even misleading, to keep Corbyn there. (Also, it is possible that he may not be on the ballot; this is a matter of legal and political dispute at the moment.)

Today's developments therefore, in my view, alter the situation here. The question of whether Corbyn contests the next election is very much up in the air; it might be him, and it might not be. Wikipedia aspires to present accurate information; therefore saying Corbyn will lead Labour at the next election seems inappropriate.

I think, therefore, that the IP editor is right: Corbyn should probably change to TBD at this stage. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Corbyn is contesting the leadership election, unlike Cameron, Farage or Bennett for their own parties. As a result, there's the possibility of Corbyn clinging on to office, whereas for Cameron, Farage or Bennet the chances for that are nigh to zero. Common practice elsewhere is to keep incumbent leaders on the infobox until they're replaced, unless it is known for sure beforehand they will not contest the next election (and sometimes not even this; check Canada). Corbyn is still Leader and aims at remaining leader, whereas all others are just kept as leaders on a caretaker role, knowing by this point that they'll go anyway whatever happens. This is a material difference, and an important one. As a result, Corbyn shouldn't be replaced unless he is defeated or steps down.
 * As you yourself say, "The question of whether Corbyn contests the next election is very much up in the air; it might be him, and it might not be". For the Conservatives, UKIP and the Greens we already know for sure they won't be. Let the Labour contest solve itself. If a Leader other than Corbyn emerges from it, it'll be changed by then, but shouldn't before. Impru20 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, he might still be leader; but then he might not. Isn't that a situation better described by "TBD" than by indicating, without immediate qualification, that Corbyn will be the leader at the next election - which is the conclusion an unsuspecting reader might naturally draw from the article? For the box to say "Jeremy Corbyn", in my view, counts as "unverifiable speculation" under WP:CRYSTALBALL; "TBD" is eminently accurate, and avoids being crystal-ball-y. (I think the situation at Next Canadian federal election has the same problem, and if I followed Canadian election articles I would raise it there too. But there's no categorical reason why British and Canadian elections have to do exactly the same thing on a minor point like this, and the Canadian election article is at least clear and explicit - which the infobox here isn't.) Dionysodorus (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * He is still Leader. What you pretend is what actually constitutes WP:CRYSTALBALL, because you pretend to remove Corbyn on the basis that he might not be Leader on the future. Yet he currently is, and is contesting. We still don't know if he will be removed, unlike what happens with Cameron, Farage or Bennett. We know for sure that, by the time a new general election is held, those three won't be leaders (unless they come back later on, but that's highly speculative). But we don't know that for Corbyn. So, while he's still Leader (since he is) and there's a chance for he still remaining leader, I can't see why should he be removed. He hasn't resigned nor has him been defeated yet, and customary practice among election articles in Wikipedia is clearly in favour of keeping a leader that has not resigned, no matter if he/she is involved in an internal party election. Can't see where the WP:CRYSTALBALL is here. Impru20 (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But isn't the table supposed to show who the leaders at the next election (presumably) will be, all being equal - not who is leader right now? It's just inaccurate to put Corbyn there, when it is very possibly not the case. Since he isn't necessarily going to be leader, it is speculation to imply that he is; hence, in my view, it is a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. I don't see how saying that "he might not be" leader is WP:CRYSTALBALL, since saying "he might be or might not be" isn't a prediction or speculation at all - it's exactly the opposite, and avoids speculation. But it's a minor point, and if nobody else agrees with me then there's no point in debating it much more. Dionysodorus (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is, but it is supposed to do that based on currently known data. If we were to abide to your reasoning, then leaders for all parties, including those not currently facing internal leadership elections, should be removed, because lots of things could happen until 2020 and those "might not be" leaders by then. We won't know for sure if those will be who lead their parties into the general election until 2020, so we obviously must abide to currently-known data. That's why Corbyn is there right know, because he is the current Labour leader, is contesting the leadership election (and thus may be re-elected, something Cameron and the others don't have a chance to) and, despite the ongoing leadership election, will remain leader for the duration of it unless it results in a defeat for him. He "might not be leader" in 2020, just as (to put an example) Scotland "might not be" within the UK by then as a result of Brexit and the SNP may very well not contest the election. But the fact is that Corbyn is already the party leader, has a self-declared intention to remain so and to contest the next general election. And unless Eagle effectively topples him, that will be the situation. Removing him on the basis that he "might not be" leader by 2020 based on just the fact of a leadership election is what constitutes speculation and, thus, WP:CRYSTALBALL. This is not what is done in settled customary practice, and could set a dangerous precedent on whether a thing should be done one way or the other based on just whether it "might be" or "might not be". Impru20 (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, and I believe you understand what I'm saying, so there's no need to repeat ourselves further. I think that, since the impending leadership election will decide the next leader, TBD is less crystal-ball-y than "Jeremy Corbyn", and also more accurate. The fact that Corbyn is currently leader has no bearing on whether he is leader in 2020, since the party membership will now have a free choice between him, Angela Eagle, and perhaps others. Dionysodorus (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support reverting previous edits to only list the current leader for all parties. If we follow it logically, the leader of all parties is 'TBD' in 2020. David Cameron is the leader of the Tories; Natalie Bennett is the leader of the Green Party; Nigel Farage is the leader of UKIP; Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of Labour. Given that we don't (for sure) know when any forthcoming election would be, I would suggest that we list the current leader, with a suitable footnote. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the point. We won't know for sure who party leaders will be until already in 2020. It'd be perfectly possible even to have Cameron, Farage and/or Bennett returning some time later on (highly unlikely, specially for Cameron and Bennett, but could be hypothesized). Lots of things may happen, and given that we'll never know 100% sure who party leaders will be until the election actually takes place, we can't just manage things based on whether things "might be" or "might not be". Base them on how things are right know; they'll be changed once actual changes happen.
 * Nonetheless, I do support having Cameron, Farage and Bennett out in this case at least, since leadership elections for their respective parties are already underway and we know for sure they are not contesting them (thus virtually assuring they won't be there leading their parties anytime soon). Impru20 (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Until the party membership elects another person, you can't just hypothesize on it. Leaving Corbyn is actually less crystal-ball-y than TBD. "TBD" is a placeholder term that indicates that something, in this case a party's leader, is yet to be announced/confirmed. But that'd be misleading, because this is not a full-fledged leadership election (that is, electing one leader because the previous one has resigned/is not in office anymore) but a leadership challenge (the previous leader is still in office). We know that Corbyn is still the leader now and that he is not retiring. Yet you are proposing to put it in the same way as the Conservative, UKIP and Green parties, when we know that the situation for those is not the same, with the incumbent leaders retiring.
 * As he is neither an interim leader nor has resigned, there's no point to assume Corbyn won't be leader in 2020 unless he is effectively defeated by Eagle or someone else. That has not happened yet. I'll just suggest to await until that materially happens, because otherwise, it may lead to confusion as it'd seem like Corbyn is not the current Labour leader and/or that he has resigned/not contesting just in the same fashion that Cameron, Farage and Bennett have, which is not the case. As an example, just check how an IP user went on the other day to edit the article so as to make it that Corbyn was Labour leader from September 2015 to July 2016, which is obviously false (as of yet, at least). This leads to confusion.
 * I'm pretty sure no one would remove the SNP from the table until Scotland gets effectively independent, even in the event a new referendum is materially called yet it is still to take place. Because until that event unfolds, the status quo situation remains what it is. Same for Corbyn.
 * If it is really needed, however, a note could be added explaining that Corbyn is currently being challenged with a link to Labour's current election contest article. Impru20 (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The Labour Party's leader at the next election is yet to be decided, in the coming leadership election triggered by the leadership challenge. That, in my view, is the fundamental point. But let's not argue about it ad nauseam, especially if nobody agrees with me, or we will just create a wall of text. Dionysodorus (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The Labour Party's leader at the next election is already decided: Jeremy Corbyn. What will be decided now is whether he will keep that post or will lose it, but until he do actually loses it, he remains as the foreseable Labour Party's leader for the next general election. Don't precipitate events. If Corbyn loses, he will be replaced by whoever beats him. But until then, it makes no sense to remove him and to give the impression that Labour's leadership is in some short of vacancy it isn't. Impru20 (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think that is perhaps the essential point at disagreement. I think your statement, "The Labour Party's leader at the next election is already decided: Jeremy Corbyn", which is reflected in the current presentation of the box, is decidedly misleading. The current position has no bearing on who is leader in 2020; the leadership election result is the relevant datum, not the incumbent. Dionysodorus (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The essential point at disagreement is that you maintain the position that, since Corbyn has been challenged, there's somehow a vacancy in the Labour's leadership for 2020 because there is now a possibility of Corbyn being replaced for someone else. The issue is that you think such a "possibility" is relevant enough to entirely discard Corbyn as leader/candidate for 2020 until he manages to be re-elected (if he does). That's what is WP:CRYSTALBALL in the first place. You place the hypothesis of a possible future Corbyn's defeat still to be determined over the fact that he is still leader and is not retiring, and the fact that he "might not be" the leader in 2020 over the fact that, until he actually and materially is toppled from office, he will still be the foreseable leader for 2020. Taking Super Nintendo Chalmers' thoughts inversely, your arguing could very well lead to the removal of all leaders, since one will always be able to argue that there could be countless reasons for a party leader not to be 100% assured of leading his/her party into the next general election until it does actually take place. Impru20 (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly: I wouldn't put it quite like this, but there is "a vacancy in the Labour's leadership for 2020". Jeremy Corbyn won't be leader unless the Labour Party membership votes for him to be (again), and the Labour Party membership has an entirely open choice. Corbyn is not really the default position.
 * The fact that, say, Farron might equally be challenged is irrelevant: no-one's formally challenging him, and so Farron is the Lib Dems' prospective leader in 2020 in a distinct way that Corbyn now no longer is. If someone did challenge Farron, then I'd support putting TBD in his place in the infobox too. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly, that's the point: you say that "Jeremy Corbyn won't be leader", overlooking the fact that he is already the Labour Party leader. Only if he is defeated or quits will make him stop being Labour Leader, and neither has happened yet. You assume that the leadership challenge somehow makes the Labour leadership to be vacant, when rules don't say that nor is that stated anywhere. Maybe this is not so much WP:CRYSTALBALL but WP:OR instead. If that's the case, now you'll have to prove that Labour leadership is actually vacant, because otherwise Jeremy Corbyn is still the Labour Party leader and still the foreseeable candidate for 2020.
 * No one says this has to be limited to challenges. Scandals may arise, leaders may die suddenly, or resign right away without previous notice (Cameron and Farage are good examples of this). Yet until that factually happens, those are still party leaders. Yeah, you'd support that for Farron, and I'd just the same oppose that idea as wrong. But the point is not what'd you do, but what should be done, using your very same argument, for coherency. And that'd call for removing all party leaders unless there's a 100% guarantee that those will lead their parties into the general election, which means that no party leader would be eligible to be added to the infobox until well into 2020. Impru20 (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're mischaracterising my position now. Of course Corbyn's Labour leader now. What I'm saying is that it is an unreasonable and crystal-ball-y assumption to make for the infobox to imply that he will be leader in 2020. You're also making a strawman: I'm (fairly obviously) not saying that we should remove all leaders from the infobox owing to the general mutability of fortune, and that isn't remotely a necessary consequence of my position. All I'm saying is that leaders who are facing a formal leadership contest, and therefore may well not be leaders of the party in 2020 for clear and formal reasons, should not be listed as if they were - which is a reasonable suggestion that you are rubbishing in a quite unnecessarily heavy-handed and rhetorical manner. You don't agree with me - and by the look of it neither does anyone else, although they may comment in due course - so we might as well leave it. Dionysodorus (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But you're recognising it yourself. We're in 2016 nowadays, and you try to argue your position in what it "might be" in 2020! We of course don't know the Labour leadership result, that's why we should wait until we know it in order to take Corbyn out. Until then, the Labour leadership is clearly not vacant, and if you indeed think so, please provide sources. The triggering of a leadership election in Labour, so far, does not result in an automatic vacancy of the office nor does it hinder the incumbent leader's position. What you're telling me is exactly WP:CRYSTALBALL: you're thinking in what it might be in 2020 in order to base your stance. Having Corbyn in is absolutely not a crystal-ball-y assumption until he is toppled or quits, and once again, neither has happened yet. Rather, this sentence of yours -> "and therefore may well not be leaders of the party in 2020" is truly a crystal-ball-y assumption. We don't know who the leader will be in 2020. We know that Corbyn will be leader at least until the leadership contest is held. If he wins, then he will continue being the leader. If he loses, then he won't be anymore from that point onwards. But he will be until then, and you're rather arguing what may it be in 2020 when we don't even know if he will even be defeated.
 * I'm not saying that you're saying (sigh) that all leaders should be removed from the infobox. I'm saying that your own arguing paves the way for others to do that, and that even for coherency and consistency, if we were to abide to such an argument we should do that ourselves. Because of course there won't be 100% assurance of who the leaders will be until well into 2020. Impru20 (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On the latter point, it's either a strawman or a slippery slope: both are fallacious. On WP:CRYSTALBALL we disagree, but I've had enough of arguing about this. Dionysodorus (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Redcued Indent. I still think you're both missing the point. Nowhere on the infobox does it say "Leader in 2020" or "Leader at next election". It just says "Leader". I suggest we save ourselves time, effort, future debate whenever changes happen, and use this box to describe the 'current leader'. We shouldn't be in the business of either the predicting the future, or stating with misleading certainty what will happen in the future. All we can know is the current leader, so that's all we should claim to know. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be interested to get 's opinion on this - I usually agree with whatever they say on these elections pages, so even if it's in disagreement with me I'd happily defer!!! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. This all looks like infobox fetishism to me: the need to squeeze a complex situation into a simple box. What's happening can easily be described in prose in the text, but there isn't really a satisfactory solution for an infobox. This is illustrative of why I think we need to move away from complex infoboxes and focus more on article content.
 * Looking at other forthcoming election articles, they tend to list current party leaders on the presumption that they will be leader at the next election.
 * I can see good arguments for "Corbyn" or "TBD" in the box. Either way, some sort of footnote or text in the article is needed to explain what's going on. In the short term, I say leave it as "Corbyn" as the leadership contest hasn't officially begun yet. Once it does... You could just have something saying See article....? Bondegezou (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Election on 8 June 2017
Surely this isn't official until parliament has voted for it as per the Fixed Term Parliament Act? MFlet1 (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. As per the Fixed Term Parliament Act, Parliament must pass a bill with a two-thirds majority to call an election earlier than the fixed date (2020). The Conservative Party doesn't have a two-thirds majority in the Commons, so she cannot win the vote solely with a whip. I don't think this page should have been moved. Kidburla (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, first Parliament has a say and that's going to be tomorrow, if I understand correctly. Thus, this move was premature. --Maxl (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As things stand, the PM has announced it, so it's provisionally going ahead. If she loses the vote, we can move it back then. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, but the key word is "provisionally". Wikipedia should not be providing "provisional" information in its articles. The page should not have been moved. Gfcvoice (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed that there should have been a discussion about this first. AusLondonder (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I've moved it back. Anyone who wishes to may start a discussion on the matter. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As you see, the discussion has started already. You see, the Parliament needs to vote on it by a two thirds majority. It's by no means sure that this majority will be there. The Conservatives will likely vote in favour of the snap elections because the current opinion polls favour them. And because the very same polls do not favour Labour they are likely to vote against. The SNP may vote against this as well, for different reasons (Scotland does not wish the Brexit to take place), and the other parties, who knows? So we'll have to wait for the vote in Parliament. --Maxl (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Leaving the article as "Next..." is the safe option. It works fine as a title whether the election is confirmed for 8 June or not. I favour leaving the article under this name until the situation is more clearly resolved. In the mean time, let's focus on editing the article to clarify these issues. Bondegezou (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * With that in mind, should we note that both Farron and Corbyn have welcomed May's announcement? That implies (but only implies) they will support an election happening on this date, which will be sufficient votes in the Commons. Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * True. I think it is fairly settled at this point that it is going to happen. Mkwia (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec x a lot) I wondered if somebody had started the 2017 Election article already (as WP tends to be on the ball), was surprised nobody had, so started cobbling together a few sentences, expecting everyone else to take over. I edit conflicted with the first revert, didn't think anything of it as I assumed it was just great minds thinking alike. However, I think redirecting to this article is correct for the minute, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and especially since half of Labour could vote against it just to snub Corbyn (maybe). Since then, an IP has re-reverted, so if we're going to stick on the "Next" article until it passes the 66% vote tomorrow (which it may not), I would put a note in the redirect before somebody else does it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: I have full-protected United Kingdom general election, 2017 for 24 hours for this reason. I appreciate I might be considered WP:INVOLVED, but hopefully I can mitigate this since the revision I locked on contained none of the text I wrote. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like Labour has announced its support for the elections. However, better to wait until after the vote takes place?Fauzi (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As per User:Ritchie333, a note is very sensible whatever we do. I think if we have clarity that Labour are whipping to support the early election, then we could change to "... 2017" before the actual Commons vote. Bondegezou (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * SNP also appearing to accept this date. Bondegezou (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I think we now have confirmation that Labour are whipping to support an early election, BBC's political editor has just comfirmed. (I'm quite new to Wikipedia, so I apologise for any mistakes I have made.) CitrusPenguint@lk 11:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I think we now have confirmation that Labour are whipping to support an early election, BBC's political editor has just comfirmed. (I'm quite new to Wikipedia, so I apologise for any mistakes I have made.) CitrusPenguint@lk 11:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the page should stay as "Next..." until the vote has been passed. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No need to rush. We can wait for the formal approval tomorrow.

There is activity over at United Kingdom general election, 2020 too; perhaps that should also be redirected here and protected too? Assuming the vote is passed, most of the links to it will need to be corrected at some point.

Worth adding here that the Boundary Commission review to 600 seats won't be completed if the election goes ahead in June 2018, so it will be the old 650 member constituencies again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.171 (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)