Talk:2019 United Kingdom general election

Mentioning queen's death
There may be a place for this in the body of the article but I don't think it really belongs in the lead. Llewee (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Moved to final section, which is now more generally titled--Llewee (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Really don't see any relevance at all: Her death date was obviously unknown at the time of the election, and the possibility that it might have been the last one before the election was in absolutely no way a factor in the election. The identity of the occupant of the throne makes no difference at all to the calling, conduct or result of an election. Non political event nearly three years after the election has no effect on it, nor is the election in any provable way causative of her death. Kevin McE (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The government is technically in the monarch's name as I understand it("her/his majesty's government") so being the last election a particular monarch was on the throne for seems relevant. Maybe not every election, but first/last. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * That does not mean that the monarch has any relevance to the election. The fact that you note that it is a technicality is precisely why it is irrelevant. As a non-voter, they actually have less relevance to an election than you or I.  By the logic of your argument, we ought to mention the death of Jules Rimet on FIFA World Cup articles prior to 1970, or that of William Webb Ellis in any article about the Rugby World Cup. Kevin McE (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The monarch can theoretically refuse to approve a government from serving in their name, so it is not a mere technicality nor do they have little relevance. I don't see how the sports thing is similar to this at all. The particular individual who administers a sports league has no say in the specific results of a match/championship at all. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And that last happened when? Please explain the difference made to the conduct of the election that came about either because Elizabeth was queen at the time, or because it was the last election of her reign.  The particular individual who lends their job title to a government has no say in the specific results of a election/campaign at all.  (Rimet and Webb Ellis are the people whose names are attached to the reward, not administrators) Kevin McE (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Crown is an integral part of Parliament. Whether one agrees with that personally or not is irrelevant. It is still historically relevant, even if you fail to see why. Other constitutional and historically significant events (e.g. if it were the first held under a republican system of government) would be relevant and included in the future, even if one were personally opposed it.
 * Furthermore, the mention of whether a general election was the last or first to occur during a reign of a particular Monarch is consistent with other British general election articles when applicable. MarkeySparkey90 (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So why is it more relevant to the election that this was the last, rather than the penultimate? It was clearly unknown (if guessable) at the time, it had absolutely zero significance.  If you think to the contrary, please present one piece from a RS from the time of the election that asserts such a thing.  If you cannot, it is simply a post-hoc factoid that appeals to you. Kevin McE (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Map not legible
The map is not very clear since the colors aren't explained anywhere. You can click on the map, but the caption just reads 'colors as below' without explaining the colors below unless you hit 'more details'. Could somebody please add the color explanation to the picture on the main page? Sorry, I wouldn't know how to do that 12:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Eti erik (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason why 2019 results are given for NI but not GB?
? Bob Wikicont (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Composition visualisation error
The SNP are missing a dot in the composition graphic, and there appears to instead be an extra light grey dot included (implying the existence of an 11th party that won seats that year). The total number of dots appears to be correct. Qassiov (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The majority appears to be 81, rather than 80
I would go ahead and make the edit, but news outlets also say it was an 80-seat majority, rather than 81. The Conservatives won 365 seats, and the sum of other parties comes to 284, and 365-284 = 81. (The Speaker's seat is not being included here.)

Would appreciate being told whether I'm missing something here.

I've gone back through previous elections on Wikipedia, and there's a similar undercount in the 2015 election article (exacerbated by the composition graphic having an error in it). In previous articles, however, the number given being strange is usually just a result of the speaker being included in the count — which isn't the case here. Qassiov (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)