Talk:2019 United Kingdom general election/Archive 4

Seats for majority
It is very easy to find sources that state 326 as the number of seats to get a majority. Unfortunately, it is not true: this is simply lazy journalism, based on half of 650+1. Given that the speaker does not vote, 325 would beat 324, and given that Sinn Féin will win, but not occupy, a number of seats, about 322 will yield a majority. But we don't know exactly how many seats that will be, so we don't have an accurate, confident number that can be given as a requirement for a majority, so we shouldn't pretend that we can. Kevin McE (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be second guessing what Sinn Féin will do. We don't know how many seats they'll win. We don't know if they'll continue to not take up those seats. They'll probably get about the same number and probably abstain, but that's for the election and its aftermath to determine. It is not mathematical inevitability that 322 will probably yield a majority: that is a choice of one of the parties, in effect to abstain. At any point, SF could turn up and vote down a government.
 * 325 would not beat 324 in terms of getting anything done. The Speaker votes for the status quo, so wouldn't support a vote of no confidence, but equally would vote against legislation.
 * I think we should state 326. That's the number to guarantee a majority. Yes, a few less will probably do, but that's true in any country's legislature. In practice, there's always issues if there's a close result. Such complications can be discussed in the article, but if you want a number in the infobox, 326 is the most sensible choice.
 * That said, very happy not having an infobox at all, because they're always more trouble than they're worth! Bondegezou (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion that SF will abandon abstentionism is really not tenable, and I cannot understand why you think the speaker would vote if there is a majority, however small, without his/her vote. Stating 326 is simplistic and uninformed.  Stating any number is fairly pointless, as it is a number we have no other number to relate it to. Kevin McE (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Speaker bit is tricky. The assignment of deputy speakers (one from the same party as the speaker, two from the other side) sort of negates the impact of this. Explaining the details of this is a bit much for a note.-LukeSurlt c 17:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the thick question, but what does it matter about SF not sitting in the House of Commons vs. them actually winning seats? If the Tories or Labour win 326 seats (for argument sake for a majority), what does it matter if SF win, say eight seats? They've still won those eight seats, but just don't sit in parliament. How does that impact the number needed for a majority? And FWIW, the 2017 United Kingdom general election article has 326 seats in the infobox.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 20:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The pertinent term is working majority. If you have only 323 MPs, but 7 of the other 327 definitely won't vote on anything ever (because they're not there), you'd expect to win votes 323–320. This is not an entirely theoretical situation, for a while this year Johnson's government was in this "working majority but not an actual majority" territory.
 * In practice, party leaders on both sides can't be sure every single one of their MPs will vote how they want on every issue, so whether a government can win votes gets fuzzy in this territory. --LukeSurlt c 22:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 326 is a majority, and that's what's appropriate for the infobox. A working majority can be less, but it's indeterminate. It seems clearly more useful for readers to list 326 in the infobox as a majority. If a party wins enough seats for working majority but not an arithmetic one, then I'd expect that to be noted in the government formation section of this article. Ralbegen (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Erm, I agree with many of the arguments above, but they're all irrelevant. We only care what WP:RS say. And if they majorly conflict, we should report that too. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources support 326: the Guardian, ITV, LBC, the FT. Ralbegen (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Then that's the answer. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If, and only if, we want to be as naive and uninformed as they seem happy to be. I hope that we might strive to be the best we can be, not the laziest, or at least not to give misleading numbers. Kevin McE (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be WP:OR. We follow reliable sources. That's how Wikipedia works. If you want to get your thoughts on majorities and numbers published in a reliable source, go for it. But Wikipedia follows WP:RS. Wikipedia rules are clear: if editor Kevin McE thinks one thing, and reliable sources think another, we follow reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We have the option to show sensible discretion, admit that the widely circulated answer is simplistic and wrong, and therefore say nothing about it. As suggested in the opening post in this thread. Kevin McE (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You say it's a simplistic and wrong answer. Reliable sources think it's the right answer. Bondegezou (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have hoped that we would, as an encyclopaedia, want to be more analytical and less simplistic than journalism requires, but if that is the standard you really want to work to... Kevin McE (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We cannot undertake analysis ourselves: that's clearly WP:OR. We have to follow reliable sources. If you are concerned with the quality of reliable sources, OK, let's see if we can find some better ones than the journalism cited above. Bondegezou (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We make an analysis that something is not worth including every time we choose not to put something from a newspaper article onto Wikipedia. Kevin McE (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, so two things. First, take a look at, an academic paper in 2015 in Parliamentary Affairs. I quote, "One thing was apparently clear: no party would get the 326 seats needed for a majority in the House of Commons." Or here's , a 2011 paper in Political Science: "in order to achieve the 326 seats needed for a majority". We don't have to rely on journalism: we have analytical, academic papers saying 326 as well.
 * You are right that we choose not to include some information. There's an argument that the infobox doesn't need a field that is generally a simple calculation from the total number of seats. I would suggest that that argument would be more usefully taken to the Talk page for the infobox: suggest we remove the field. I have sympathy for the argument that we don't need this in the infobox, but I feel confident that 326 is the correct number, as per reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We could include a note like this which was previously in the article (in this version ) but was removed later after further infobox tweaks.   Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 16:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be fine ... ifffffff it was sourced from a reliable source. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't need a reliable source to omit something. The majority number tells the reader nothing until there are results to compare it with.  At this stage, it serves no purpose, other than to tell the reader what half of 650 + 1 is.  Kevin McE (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What (reliable) sources do you have that differ from the 326 figure?  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Read the opening post of the thread before you ask daft questions. Kevin McE (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So just your own WP:OR? And please see WP:NPA. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Before the election, trying to give more information than 326 is probably a bad idea for the reasons discussed above. After the election the relevance of distinguishing between a majority and a working majority will depend on the result. If one party totals 360 seats, the distinction becomes pretty much irrelevant. If a party or coalition gets around 324ish, there will be lots of reliable sources noting that this amounts to a working majority due to SF abstentionism and it'll be easy to write a note along the lines of Due to Sinn Féin not taking the six seats they won in this election, the 325 seats won by the Conservative party meant they were able to form a working majority. --LukeSurlt c 13:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

As long as there's 650 seats in the House, then a majority is 326. We only need to add a note to 326, explaining anything further. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Notes

Pacts and peerages
, it was Farage who linked the two in his comments, and the citation given does the same, so I think we're safe in following the RS. Bondegezou (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn't part of his speech and was a question from a journalist later on which he answered, so he was prompted to link the two. He then said "if they think......", which is a way of saying something when you don't have any substance to back it up. If we put it in there I think the RS would have to explicitly say, "Farage implies peerage was offered with the implicit expectation that this would mean standing in fewer seats", and set out that there is no evidence for this, that Farage himself does not say this was every explicitly stated or hinted at and it is not something the Tories concur on (for balance). I don't think the RS are explicit enough to warrant its inclusion, and I think adding balance (which we'd need to do), would make the passage too long. Jopal22 (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are RS like this from The Independent: "Nigel Farage claims he was offered a peerage just three days before standing down Brexit Party candidates in 317 Tory-held seats." I suggest at least seeing how the story develops (or doesn't). Bondegezou (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah it just seems like a periphery issue in most RS's, and it is a recurring thing about Farage talking about being offered a peerage to be sidelined (he's done it many times). Happy to see how it develops and reassess Jopal22 (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Newsnight are reporting that there was communication between The Brexit Party and the ERG. Bondegezou (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Unite to Remain map
Thanks to whoever put together the "Constituencies where the Unite to Remain pact is active. Colored by which party will stand a candidate" map. Can I suggest it would be much more useful if this was done using "File:2019 UK general election constituency map.svg" as the base map? It is very hard to see some of the smaller constituencies (e.g. Bristol). I would do it myself, but have not been involved in developing these maps before. Just a suggestion. Jopal22 (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is especially important for the Brexit Party map, as the current map makes it look like they aren't contesting most seats (and Con seats are disproportionately large) Jopal22 (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

UKIP not standing?
According to UKIP twitter they are not putting forward any candidates at the next election, is it worth mentioning this in the article. Also some constituency pages such as the Southampton Itchen page still list a UKIP candidate, I propose removing these as they are not going to be standing. C. 22468 Talk to me  00:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * As per they're not standing a full list of candidates. That does not mean they're standing 0.--LukeSurlt c 00:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. ukip.org says the party will "fight in carefully selected seats". So they are standing in some places. Bondegezou (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * One identified so far (fewer than the Continuity SDP!). We'll know a total figure by Friday. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * UKIP standing in 42 seats in Great Britain and 2 seats in Northern Ireland. Bondegezou (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Should we include ideologies?
Its quite a common feature of election articles for other countries (if not most developed articles) to include the ideologies of each party. What do people think? Jonjonjohny (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Might be a nice feature, but arguably not necessary as it is available on each of the parties' pages. It might be relevant, given the dominance of Brexit debate, to have a table on each party's brexit stance. For example, columns for support/opposition to a peoples vote, no deal brexit, intention to leave/remain etc. -Internet is Freedom (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If such a section is added, it would be better to have a reliably sourced subsection which uses prose to elaborate on the positions of the parties. I would oppose using a highly simplified table format with one or two adjectives to describe their positions (as some other countries' articles do). That (using long prose) would be the best way to provide relevant information while avoiding needless bickering over whether Labour is a remain party or a soft brexit party or simply a second-referendum party, whether or not the Conservatives under Johnson's leadership really want a deal, whether or not Farage is a nationalist, whether or not it's appropriate to label any of the parties or their leaders as being "far left" or "far right," etc. In short: a reliably sourced section is good, but I worry that a table would be a poor format.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 05:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Vanilla Wizard. Bondegezou (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * From looking at other articles (e.g. Poland's, Spain's and Portugal's) I think it would be best if we included both an 'Ideology' and a 'Position of the European Union'. Two questions come to mind: Should we include a 'position' column (Left-Right)? Should we have a picture for each party leader? Additionally, so it isn't favourable to parties who aren't represented the wording of the Contesting political parties and candidates section could be changed. Jonjonjohny (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I have created an preliminary table for the Great Britain Section:

Conservatives position will change rapidly over the next month, however I felt this was the most neutral. I struggled to find ideology defined for everything, the separatist parties were a rough outline that still need sources for their social democracy. The GPE&W source is a bit old but two others do not use the exact word Eco-socialist, however do describe their policies as left-wing and socialist (whilst obviously mentioning ecology). Should we include a "political position" section? Should we include a picture of each leader? Should we remove the notes section? Jonjonjohny (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That table is unwieldy and the Wikipedia Manual of Style favours prose. I suggest you take the work you've done and convert it into paragraphs of text. Bondegezou (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I have to disagree with Bondegezou as I think the table is clean, informative and gives the reader a great view of where each leader sits. I would also like to add that the top table to the right of the page is missing the constituencies that these leaders are wishing to reclaim in this imminent election - do we not need to add them like this table has? I realise for majority of these people they do not hold a seat such as Nicola Sturgeon, Arlene Foster, the Greens etc but I do think it is of paramount importance that readers need to see where the three main leaders: Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn and Jo Swinson represent. RyanPLB (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The table doesn't fit on my tablet screen and will be a nightmare on a phone screen. Bondegezou (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This was a crude mark up and could be adjusted quite easily. A lot of other pages use these sorts of tables to put information out clearly for readers and they are quite helpful and are usually rendered well (look at the election pages I linked above, and the European Parliament election in the UK). What I would say Bondegezou is that when I go on wiki on my phone there are plenty of times I have to swipe along to read a table. Jonjonjohny (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The 2019_European_Parliament_election_in_the_United_Kingdom table was very specifically about the one issue of Brexit, not a full description of a party's ideology or manifesto, and it wasn't without contention. So I don't think it works as an argument for what you propose here. Other examples I've seen offer very brief descriptions of ideology and don't mix in other data points, like the leader's seat, so they're much smaller and simpler than the draft above.
 * More importantly, the manual of style says we should write prose. Wikipedia is a collection of encyclopaedia articles, with words about stuff, not a collection of tables. Let's write good, well referenced text, as the MoS wants, as can reflect nuance, not giant tables that aren't even usable for most people reading the site. Bondegezou (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The three examples you give -- Poland, Spain and Portugal -- all have considerably fewer columns than your proposal. (All three still look unwieldy to me and are bigger than anything on many other election articles.) Bondegezou (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * These are good points. I would argue the leader's seat, leader since and notes section could be removed. Details about the leadership would easily be articulated in the parties section. Something which I am more than happy to write. But the table will most likely always be on this article to indicate the seat changes. If it was adjusted to reflect the Spanish one it would fit much better. When the election gets called there will be so much prose that it's proportion of the article will decrease and so will not be overbearing. Jonjonjohny (talk) 10:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The table above look very good. I support its addition to the article. --Aréat (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I've created a second version which should be aesthetically more pleasing and less of a nightmare for mobile devices based on other table:

What do people think about this one? It could easily be replicated for the NI parties Jonjonjohny (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Seem even better to me. Good work! --Aréat (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I still think that's too big and ornate. Many election articles have separate small tables for leader + current standing, and another small table for ideologies.
 * We have another issue to address. Why those parties? There are parties in the Commons with more seats (DUP, Sinn Fein, Change UK), but then the Brexit Party, with no MPs, is probably going to be more significant, and is certainly polling much higher than, the likes of the Greens (1 MP), Plaid (4) or ChUK (5). There'll be edit-warring over this, as we always get over infoboxes. It's a bit easier in the text to have more text for significant parties and less for lesser parties. Bondegezou (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The parties of Northern Ireland are already in a separate table as there is (currently) no cross over. Change UK has polled between 0-1% since June whilst the Brexit party is currently over 10%, and has peaked at 26% at one point. Whether or not they get seats due to the electoral system is a different matter, the Brexit Party, and its leader, are a significant part of political discourse. If people believe different parties fit within the table then they can be added, but I felt this was a good start. As for edit waring. The article can be put on protection if you pre-empt that there will be loads of unnecessary edits. Jonjonjohny (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Plaid have polled between 0-1% since forever, but you've included them. Change UK peaked at 18%, if you're looking at polling peaks. I'm not arguing about who should be in or out, just saying that this may be a problem area, and it's difficult to find some clear rule. My solution for ducking this problem is to use words, rather than tables where a party is clearly in or out.
 * More generally, Wikipedia is meant to be a collection of prose articles, as per the Manual of Style. Prose ensures good accessibility: it fits to the screen, it can be easily interpreted by a screen reader. Let's take the research you've done on ideologies and Brexit position and get that into the article in words, arranged in paragraphs. Bondegezou (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why there's such opposition to this. These tables are widely used in numerous legislative election pages of others countries, like Austria, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Poland, Israel, Romania, Italy, Moldova, Netherlands, etc. Tables are used a lot on wikipedia as they provide a succint and quick view of some specific differences per categories. It doesn't mean the data can't be added in a prose way in the article. These tables are exactly the same as the infobox : they provide a quick read of the data, in addition to the rest of the article, which go on greater lenght on it. Yet they're very useful, as are the colored map results, or the seat diagrams. They help getting a grasp of the situation the walls of text then explain. We shouldn't be removing everything that isn't text from the encyclopedia.--Aréat (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

So, it seem to me we could add it.--Aréat (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We should be presenting information in the best way possible. Complex positions don't fit well in tables. Large tables are useless for the majority of people reading Wikipedia, who do so on a smartphone. Most tables we do have on election articles are simpler. Why not take the EU position material out of the table? That's the most complex, and it's unclear what some of the parties' positions are even going to be at the election! Bondegezou (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So would you agree on implementing the table if it was made as simple as on others elections pages, by removing the part on the position on Brexit? If so, I'm fine with it.--Aréat (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If all it takes for my table to get into the article is to move the EU positions into prose then I am all for it. Could someone please add it? I'm on my phone and will do the NI one tomorrow. Jonjonjohny (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with Bondegezou here. Tables are very flawed when trying to present complex information. Prose is harder to write but allows for nuance, caveats and more appropriate weighting based on the significance of the parties.--LukeSurlt c 09:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why presenting this textual information in a table is superior to using prose. Looking pretty isn't enough to justify its inclusion. Domeditrix (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not think you should be using ideologies that are different from the individual articles of the parties. Framing an ideology is often contentious and changing it for this article risks rehashing discussions already made on each individual talk page. Jopal22 (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also I don't think it should be overly heavy on the position related to the European Union / Brexit. The election is not only about Brexit. Jopal22 (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I would support adding this table with the ideologies' column removed since it is generally WP:BLOAT however the rest of the table seems great to me.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 15:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)




 * I think we should just have a NEW page for this, the election pages are getting SO BIG these days. Does everything NEED to be on the one page only? --Crazyseiko (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree that the "ideologies" column is a bit problematic, mainly as it fails to distinguish which sets of ideologies are shared among different factions within larger parties and which are universal (e.g. Labour is an alliance of SocDems and DemSocs while the SNP are SocDems and separatists). Also with a whole wing of Tories having recently been purged and replaced by newcomers in this election their current ideological makeup beyond the obvious Conservatism and Unionism is not exactly clear at the moment. By contrast the one at Next Czech legislative election lists one ideology per party (bar one which is very tricky to define in the NPOV), which are common to each whole party, and while it might be a bit of a simplification it doesn't look so bloated.
 * I would at least remove the "Pro-EU" and "Eurosceptic" bits as the "position on Brexit" column makes that perfectly clear. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ITV Debate Poll
I don’t think we should use a poll accused of being biased. Also despite this poll being from a trusted source, YouGov, many other trusted polls with much larger sample sizes and more appropriate sample (the undecided for example) suggest the public opinion is that Corbyn won.JamesVilla44 (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

We could just not have a poll to avoid debate and bad feeling JamesVilla44 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do those polls conform to accepted standards for polls? It's not all about sample size.UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources calling the YouGov poll biased? Bondegezou (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2019 (

I understand but I would prefer we don’t have a poll unless it has a certain sample size and variety of sample. (E.g. Includes Tory voters, Labour voters, undecided etc.) JamesVilla44 (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We have an existing consensus on what polls to include. Do you have anything concrete, based on RS, to demonstrate a problem with the YouGov poll, or that these other polls you mention are reliable? Bondegezou (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer we don’t have a poll after a debate as I don’t think it tells us anything really either. An encyclopaedia shouldn’t be viewed as potentially biased. It would be better to exclude a poll. I don’t think it’s needed or appropriate. Could you provide me some evidence that a poll is necessary enough to be required and used? For one debate? JamesVilla44 (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC) We didn’t have debate polls for 2017. Why this time? JamesVilla44 (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Other articles do include post-debate polls. Several editors have supported including the poll. If other editors weigh in in favour of removing the poll, we can remove it, but I don't see support for that right now. Ergo, I suggest WP:CONSENSUS means we should leave it for now, but of course this discussion can remain open. I do not have an opinion myself at this point on the value of the poll.
 * You keep talking about the poll as being biased. While you are entitled to your view, you have presented no reliable sources supporting this claim. Bondegezou (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok I will wait for a consensus. I disagree but I will follow what the consensus is JamesVilla44 (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes
Just a note:

a) It's perfectly reasonable to alter citations so that the name of a source does not appear in italics unless it would be routinely italicized in WP. To do otherwise would be to introduce, or allow, unnecessary confusion. Hence 'work=BBC News' altered to 'publisher=', because BBC News is not italicized.

b) Political parties are corporate bodies, and therefore ought to be referred to in the singular unless this would make phrasing impossibly awkward. Harfarhs (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Predictions three/two/one weeks before the vote
I take it we can bring this back again for this page? --Crazyseiko (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The following are some of the site that have them in mid nov:
 * http://electionforecast.co.uk/
 * https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
 * https://lordashcroftpolls.com/
 * https://electionsetc.com
 * https://yougov.co.uk this is the one that got it right last time.
 * http://britainelects.com/nowcast/

Is there any new ones? Can we take Twitter accounts that have big following and website?--Crazyseiko (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

These two are new.
 * https://electionmaps.uk/
 * https://www.ncpolitics.uk/
 * https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
 * https://www.survation.com/


 * These, I suggest, constitute primary sources. We prefer secondary sources. Which predictions do reliable sources say are worth looking at? Being big on Twitter is definitely not enough. Bondegezou (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Big problem is all of these tables from 2015 and 2017 have used these sources, you will be very hard pushed to find We prefer secondary sources. I have not given any likes to twitter, just the main websites. --Crazyseiko (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If none one chips I will just pick them myself. Please note, you can say "prefer secondary sources" neither 2017 or 2015 were able to get secondary source... --Crazyseiko (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest the following
 * https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
 * https://electionsetc.com/
 * https://yougov.co.uk/
 * https://electionmaps.uk/
 * http://britainelects.com/

Bondegezou Isn't happy that for a 3rd time in row for the elections these have come back, he already removed the box once,

Once again Bondegezou Isn't happy, and were still none the wiser as to what the problem is. We have no consensus to doing this, yet it happened on the 2015 and 2017 page. Is that not consensus? if were already doing this? He then changes his mind and New statesman site has no consensus even thought there were included in 2015 and 2017 page. Now does anyone have any real objections to repeating this again? --Crazyseiko (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , apologies, there is discussion on this in more than one place and I think we're all losing the thread of debate. May I suggest you join in with the discussion below at Talk:2019_United_Kingdom_general_election where more editors have expressed views? Bondegezou (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

McDonald vs. O'Neill
Why is it we use Mary Lou McDonald in the infobox for Sinn Féin when she is from the Republic of Ireland, which is not a member of the United Kingdom? The Republic of Ireland does not have seats in British parliament, and the only seats that Sinn Féin are contesting are in Northern Ireland. Michelle O'Neill is the leader of Sinn Féin for Northern Ireland, and she is displayed as party leader in Northern Irish election articles like 2017 Northern Ireland Assembly election, so why should it be different here? { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * An IP user changed it in this edit here: . David O. Johnson (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Our practice has been inconsistent here. On some articles, we have shown leaders even when they are based elsewhere, on others we have shown the 'local' leader. McDonald is the leader of Sinn Fein and I think we should show that. Any elected SF MPs are going to consider her their leader. Bondegezou (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Bcause SF operates as an all-Ireland  'transnational' political party with one Leader and their sole HQ in Dublin. There is (in theory) no separate UK/NI branch of SF, therefore 'Leader of SF in NI' does not exist as a post... in the exact same way that the Roman Catholic Church in Northern Ireland (before the Vatican) are run from the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference in Maynooth, Co Kildare, Ireland (ROI), the Church of Ireland in Northern Ireland from the Church of Ireland House, Rathmines, Dublin 6, Co Dublin, Ireland (ROI), and so on...   194.207.146.167 (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not this again... I would recommend that you see and read first before getting yourself into even more bother... 194.207.146.167 (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Liberal Democrats - To stop Brexit
Lib Dems are styling themselves as "Liberal Democrats - To stop Brexit" on ballot papers this time. We have the template system so have to use "Liberal Democrats". Should we not show the name on the ballot paper? https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/Documents/Democracy/Representation/Elections/SoPNNOPPoplarLimehouse.pdf Jopal22 (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * That appears to be a local decision:it is not being done in my constituency Kevin McE (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Thought it would be the same nationally. On another note, not sure TIGfC should be counted as a major party given it is standing 3 candidates. Jopal22 (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * To expand on this a bit, parties can select a handful of different approved labels and candidates choose which ones they want to use in each individual constituency. For example, in Eltham, it's "Liberal Democrat" and "Labour Party" vs "The Conservative Party Candidate", while in Aberdeenshire West the national parties are all "Scottish Labour", etc. The approved list is here for the Lib Dems; Labour, and the Conservatives. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting, thanks. So did a candidate really stand with "Choose kids not cuts" next to his/her name, rather than "Labour Party"? Kevin McE (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Good question - I suspect probably not (although who knows, at a local election maybe someone's tried it...). However, in Scottish Parliament elections for list seats, it seems out you can use a name plus a description, and it seems that some of the stranger ones get used there. Here's an example of "Choose Kids Not Cuts", but it was with "Labour Party" as well - South Scotland 2016. Note the SNP, Conservatives, & SSP all trading on the leader's name, and the Greens using it to boost their lead candidate. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The rules on ballot paper descriptions is a touch confusing (and for Wikipedia, potentially dangerous from a vandalism/edit war point of view). Each registered party is allowed up to 6 alternative ballot paper descriptions, and these do not necessarily have to mention the party itself. One good example of this is the Liberal Democrats who have been allowed to register "Focus Team" as an alternative ballot paper description. Now a good Wikipedian would link the candidate to "Liberal Democrat" with, perhaps, a cited footnote explaining that the ballot paper description does not match our link, but you know how people can be...doktorb wordsdeeds 05:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

PSA - I've added links to the next election in the template
I noticed while browsing the article that the template at the bottom of the page had a link to the 2017 election but the 2017 template did not have one back. So I've added links to 2019 from 2017 and from 2019 to the next election. On checking the 2015 page I noticed it also only had a link for 2010 (so I added one for 2017) which prompted me to post here. I'm almost certain that this is just forgotten about after an election has happened but if there is a convention only to link to the previous election, please feel free to revert my changes but if you could point me to where this is said - that would be great! I also checked 2010 but it had neither so I left it. Mindi Crayon (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Predictions three weeks before the vote
I am concerned this section is all using WP:PRIMARY sources. What justification do we have to include these particular models (and not others)? Where's the evidence that they are reliable sources? Bondegezou (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. If a model has been published or taken seriously by reliable sources at one point in this election, I don't think it's a problem to update it, but if a model hasn't been published or taken seriously by reliable sources then it shouldn't be included. Electoral Calculus appears extensively in this Guardian piece and elsewhere, so I think that's fine to include. I can't find anything to support including Election Maps (twice!) or Parallel Parliament. Elections Etc is a website run by an associate professor of political sociology, which might mean it's worth including. I'd prefer RS coverage to justify its inclusion.
 * So I'd support including the Electoral Calculus model. I've an open mind on including Elections Etc and other models from academics that don't have specific news coverage. Ralbegen (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My main bug bear is they all add up to a different number of seats, and non of them add up to the 650 the article says are being contested! Jopal22 (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This is what a seat projection looks like when it's established due weight. That's what we should include, rather than Twitter accounts. Ralbegen (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with adding back examples like that. Bondegezou (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , in a discussion at the top of this Talk page, proposes Electoral Calculus, Elections Etc., Election Maps and Britain Elects, but also reverted my recent removal of Parallel Parliament. supports Electoral Calculus and maybe Elections Etc. I think Electoral Calculus is the only one that could satisfy WP:SECONDARY. Would anyone else like to weigh in? Bondegezou (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Datapraxis's model got a lot of RS coverage, including in the Times, PoliticsHome, the New Statesman and so on. Their result should definitely be included. YouGov have said they're going to release one at some point, which should also be included along with any other models from BPC-member pollsters. Ralbegen (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * So this has been where everyone has been hiding,   It does seem a few of the offical pages have got there somes wrong, which is a shame. I will double check a few of them because that should not be the case, however Election maps is correct 649 plus the speaker.   The section that was reverted yesterday was because new statesman link was taken out, while today rollback was because the revised table had dupicalic information.  If we can all agree moving forward and not muck up the tables I will agree to what has been suggested here.


 * I will be fair and I will post " Predictions two weeks before the vote" Here late tonight so people can review it during tomorrow. IT should be pointed New statemens are linked britain elects.  the ref is from A 3 days after. --Crazyseiko (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is also a YOUGOV poll coming at 10pm so hopeful that will give us some more insight. i will make a minor switch in the order of last week table. --Crazyseiko (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is that new one from tomorrow, However New statesman britain elects has not turned up.

Unusual venues for polling stations
Given the timing of this election, some venues normally used as polling stations are not available, leading to some unusual venues being chosen. An example of this is Thelnetham Windmill, which is standing in for the Village Hall. There are likely to be many other examples. Would the article benefit from a section detailing these venues? Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not... but again, just don't go into too much of it, because not all polling stations were churches or church halls anyway even during normal months, not the ones in the bigger towns and in the cities anyway. Only really of a marginal interest to many. Folk are probably far more interested in what Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson (probably in that order) have got to say. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe not in this article, but perhaps in other articles relating to polling stations or elections in the UK/England? 213.253.7.254 (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If independent reliable sources discuss how the unusual date of the election has affected the location of polling places(not just governments saying they have) it would merit some sort of coverage. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There has been RS coverage around the unusual timing of the election and its implications. A short passage on that, including implications for polling stations, would seem warranted. That said, every election, we get some look at this whacky polling station stories, and WP:ROUTINE would apply to those. Bondegezou (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did consider that,, which is why I raised the issue here first. It's certainly relevant to the article on the windmill, so I've added the info there. I've no strong feelings either way re this article though. Will leave it to others to decide. Mjroots (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Climate debate on Channel 4 totally bombed
Only 850.000 people tuned in

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/threatening-broadcasters-and-fake-news-rows-how-the-tories-are-making-sure-they-get-talked-about-1328414

62.226.77.113 (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Predictions two weeks before the vote
I am not sure the election predictions are being updated carefully enough, and the references used are often out of date so there is no way to check. The number of seats should add to 650 unless rounding is used (elections etc only). I corrected YouGov, where the 1 independent wasn't being added to the 18 NI in other. The Parallel Parliament is three seats short. Looking at the current projection it has the speaker separately, and one independent winning , so i think these are 2 of the missing seats. Is there a way to ensure there are sustainable links to the numbers input? Jopal22 (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * We keep having discussions about these, and then editors not participating in those discussions do other things. We shouldn't be including these willy-nilly. I see no evidence that Parallel Parliament is notable and I have removed, for which there was some agreement earlier. Bondegezou (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

"No description" candidates
A brief return to a subject matter we occasionally find ourselves discussing during election times. I remember that some time ago we decided that using No description in election boxes would reflect the SOPN in those instances where a candidate has used neither a registered party name or the word independent. Recent discussions have changed that view, to using an actual blank box (you can see in my recent contributions examples of this). I am happy using either but thought that making a wider audience aware that there could soon be a wide editing decision made useful. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Notable enough?
Are the following notable enough to add additional text in the article:
 * Unrepresentative graphs used in campaign leaflets (mainly LibDem but also Labour)
 * Spat between C4 and Tories over the Climate Debate
 * Argument between Tories and Labour around "NHS for sale" (see below)

The Labour Party suggested that a dossier detailing meetings between members of the May Government and American counterparts provided 'evidence that under Boris Johnson the NHS is on the table and will be up for sale.' A background note in the documents said that ' "NHS access to generic drugs will be a key consideration" in talks with US officials pushing hard for longer patents.'

The Conservatives criticised Labour for insinuating that the documents suggest that the NHS would form part of future trade talks with the US. Boris Johnson described the claims as 'total nonsense', saying 'that will not happen under this Government or any Conservative Government.'

Jopal22 (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The third has certainly been a running theme attracting RS coverage, yes.
 * The second was gone after a one news cycle, but we could have a sentence in the Television Debates section.
 * The first hasn't been a huge issue, but there were a fair few stories about it. There's the related issue of tactical voting sites having different recommendations: it would seem to me sensible to talk about that all together. Bondegezou (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Stop deleting Labour 4 day week promise
Conservatives is losing in opinion polls, but this is not a reason to delete official Labour party promise for 4 day week(32 hours) instead of current "5 day" and full payment for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.30.51.187 (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you suggest some further reliable source coverage of the issue to show its importance and different points of view? Bondegezou (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The wider issue of British productivity (which it aims to address) has been much discussed. See the first two references for discussion of the issue, and the following  to observe media coverage of Labour's policy is of a decent size. PutItOnAMap (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2019
 * The shortening the labour week is classic proposition(more than a century) of labour unions. Labour Party track it roots to labour unions. While then existing Conservative Party traditionally was against.

It will be of course interesting to see a debate about it with all other competing parties, but sadly debates are about things like a climate - which despite media coverage is less directly affecting(at least now) live of average British citizen than how much hours he have to work. For further reading - read for example the article and books cited there and there. Read also History_of_labour_law_in_the_United_Kingdom(especially XIX century), and Factory Acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.30.55.17 (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Which poll has the Tories behind? The polls on the polling article all have Tory lead of 7-15 points. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Tories are losing, mean that they lead over Labour is shrinking.