Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 16

Are local authority by-election results DUE, UNDUE, TRIVIA, INDISCRIMINATE
Before the discussion above re Andrew Teale's blog gets sidetracked, I think it best to open a separate discussion on the general principle of LA by-elections and leave the details of how it is cited to that discussion.

It seems to me that council by-elections fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE (aka WP:NOTDATABASE). Unless a by-election has the effect of changing control of the council, why does it matter? And generally the data doesn't get maintained. (Yes, once in a while a dedicated individual like does the Labours of Hercules but it doesn't last: there are too many to do and if it weren't for other dedicated individuals like Andrew Teale, the work involved would be unconscionable.) If we take the long view, these events really are insignificant: party leaders fall on their swords when the party gets trounced in the major round of council elections but nobody really notices a LA by-election decided by a risible turnout. The fact that it so difficult to cite a news organisation speaks volumes. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the fact that data is not maintained is a point against its inclusion. As an example, take the pages on select committees; party affiliation, membership, and leadership quite often lags weeks if not months behind the facts (up 18 December, Julian Knight was still listed as a Select Committee chair at Template:UKParliamentCommitteeChairs).
 * For your point about their importance, I agree that they are usually unimportant affairs, which is why they're listed in the relevant "[authority] elections" section rather than having their own page, like the elections themselves or parliamentary by-elections. Most individual local elections themselves lead to little or no change; for the past 13 years, Barking and Dagenham has returned the same result (51 Labour councillors), but each of those elections has their own page.
 * Alextheconservative (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, when I think about the sheer amount of effort I put in, for years, compiling all these results for Wikipedia, I'll happily AfD everything if the mood now is that they're all non-notable. Wikipedia should be a record of facts, even if the council didn't change hands. If we're now saying that election results fail GNG, then I'm just going to delete everything I've ever done. What's the point. What's the point of doing so much for so little thanks? doktorb wordsdeeds 22:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If the regular elections for local authorities get pages (as they routinely do, with a well-established set of templates), then we're missing a trick if we arbitrarily say that those are notable but by-elections aren't. I agree the by-elections are seldom of huge interest, but where a council composition changes as a result of by-elections we ought to try and keep the resultant standing of the parties up to date, accepting there will always be a bit of a lag. When it comes to writing up the election results for the next regular elections, it's helpful to know the standing immediately beforehand as well as at the previous election, and having decent records of by-elections can help pinpoint when changes to/from no overall control actually happened between elections.
 * Local media has been in decline and so in some areas reporting other than by the councils themselves is patchy, and councils have an infuriating habit of deleting old results pages fairly shortly afterwards. That said, as well as Andrew Teale / Local Elections Archive Project, I regularly use Local Councils by consultants Thorncliffe: their weekly updates by David Boothroyd are a pretty good record for by-elections / changes of allegiance. Stortford (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not really seeing an issue here. As far as I'm aware, local by-elections don't get their own pages, and are instead listed in the aftermath section of the regular election article. Also a bit confused about the data not being maintained point. Once the by-election has happened and the results published, what is there to maintain? The figures aren't subsequently updated. Number   5  7  19:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's suggesting that local by-elections get their own pages (and I wouldn't support that if it were the suggestion), but the suggestion seems to be to ignore the by-elections which at the moment generally get listed at the end of the page for the preceding regular election, which I think is perfectly sensible and should continue. Apologies if I've misunderstood what @JMF was saying. Stortford (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You've made a good point about the collapse of local newspapers being an issue. We need citations but if Reach has its way, we won't have any. Something to consider. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My concern was that it takes a lot of work (that is only going to get harder) to do these, so it would be a real pity if they were to be deleted as WP:NOTDATABASE violations at some future date. So if we establish a consensus now that they are worth having, then that at least is a first line of defence. It seems clear from the foregoing that this is indeed the consensus. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Something has pinged into my head and I'll get it down now as a suggestion. When I wanted to create articles for Lancashire County Council elections, even I knew that listing every single result for every single division with every single name might open opposition. My solution was just to do summary results instead. Another editor took offence and there was some edit warring. I wonder if this could be a workable compromise for the larger authorities, showing that we accept annual results as valid but not perhaps with every single candidate listed in full. My Wiki instincts are also looking at OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but I do wonder if we can look at how far down USA election results are compiled here? doktorb wordsdeeds 07:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to jump in here, but state legislative special elections in the US are generally listed on the overall page for state legislative elections that year, like here, or in some cases have their own page, like in New Hampshire this session, if there's a particularly large focus. The latter is definitely more rare from what I can see, though. AnOpenBook (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Seeking RFC input
Looking for input at this RFC which concerns England, Great Britain & the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Geographic data on constituencies
This is a bit tangential, but do we have data on the current constituency boundaries? We've got some nice graphics, but do we have coordinates describing constituencies? What I was actually thinking of was centroids for each constituency, either population-weighted or just geographic. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you're interested in the past constituency boundaries or the newly proposed ones (or even if this is the necessary format), but GIS files for the former can be found here: https://www.bcomm-scotland.independent.gov.uk/?q=boundary-maps/data-files and geospatial data files for the latter can be found here: https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/2023-review/ Hope this helps! AnOpenBook (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fantastic - thanks! Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Should UK MP infoboxes include "majority"?
There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder which is relevant to this project. Pam D  08:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Upgrading from Stub
Hi, not entirely sure how to go about this as brand new in this Wikiproject.

I put some work into Abbey (Lincoln ward) in order to get it more in line with a Start article. Wondering if some folks could take a look. K Stockwell (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Brian Rose
Brian Rose is standing again in the 2024 London mayoral election. Some more input on the article and at Talk:Brian_Rose_(podcaster) would be helpful, please! Bondegezou (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Customs Union
There is an article United Kingdom–Crown Dependencies Customs Union does this fall under the scope of politics of the United Kingdom?ChefBear01 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge discussion at 2024 Scottish government crisis
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2024 Scottish government crisis, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. There is a proposal to merge this article into Bute House Agreement. Clyde1998 (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

UK political parties template getting too big
Template:Political parties in the United Kingdom is used on a large number of articles. It currently lists 16 parties with Parliamentary/Assembly representation and another 25 without. However, following Thursday's elections, we should be adding another 8 minor parties under the current criteria. Are these rules too inclusive? Is the template getting too big? Please input at Template_talk:Political_parties_in_the_United_Kingdom. Bondegezou (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Input requested: Keir Starmer Edit Request - Kate Osamor suspension
Hello, just want to get some input at Talk:Keir Starmer. Thanks. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Portsmouth Independents Party
Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at Portsmouth Independents Party and assessing it per WP:NORG? It was just created directly in the mainspace the other day by a relatively new account and doesn't appear to ever been assessed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

How to get get some help with 2024 GENERAL ELECTION page
I was wondering how to get peoples attention to discussion on the talk page on the current election talk page. Its in relational to the Predictions 4/3/2/1 before the vote. I would like a wide range of opinions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#Predictions........_before_the_vote Crazyseiko (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

'Premiership of...' question
There is currently an article called Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer which details Starmer's time as the Leader of the party so far. However, all prime ministers have a 'Premiership of __' article. If Starmer does become the next prime minister in July, what should happen to the 'leadership' article? Should it be merged into the 'Premiership' article or kept separate as an article detailing his time in opposition? It is already quite long as it is. Thanks Michaeldble (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)
Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 00:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

2024 GENERAL ELECTION ANNOUNCEMENT
The Prime Minister has announced that the 58th Parliament of the United Kingdom will be dissolved on 30th May and a general election will be held on 4th July.

Veteran members of this WikiProject will be a familiar with an issue that I have raised at many prior elections - upon dissolution of the legislative body its members lose their status as such and thus can no longer use the relevant post-nominals (e.g. MP, MSP, MLA, AM). This requires us as Wikipedians to spend a great many hours frantically editing hundreds of pages to remove any reference to incumbency at the start of the campaign... then a load more hours adding them back in again after the results come in.

In 2021, in advance of the Senedd election, I came up with a solution that seemed to be reasonably well received - a flair that could be put at the top of all relevant biographies for the duration of the election period and then removed afterwards. This gives all necessary disclaimers and avoids us having to dig deep into the details of each individual article to make multiple edits. I have devised one for the upcoming election and would like to see it enacted when the time comes.

Obviously this only needs to be used for those incumbents who are seeking re-election. Those who are stepping down can go straight to proper rewrites. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Not many people will understand that though - ordinal numbers for Parliaments are not generally used in the UK. It is the 2019-2024 Parliament. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point: remove "58th", add 2024 to date. Otherwise a useful idea. 05:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC) Pam  D  05:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm probably picking hairs, but that sounds a bit patronising to say "not many people will understand that." Particularly given I support the clearer dates based wording. Rankersbo (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I've removed the ordinal and just left it at "the British House of Commons". Since originally posting this, I have come up with another idea: I can temporarily change the wording to something like "The subject of this article is currently a member of the British House of Commons, which is due to dissolve on 30th May in advance of the general election on 4th July." so that we can do all the work of putting the tags on MPs' articles before the day of dissolution and then simply revert the wording on the template the minute the royal proclamation is read out. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "be dissolved" rather than "dissolve", and remove the "th"s from the dates per MOS:NUM. Pam  D  06:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems like overkill to me. Why not just have a short template on the not-being-an-MP thing? Bondegezou (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bondegezou, @Robin S. Taylor: Agreed. Perhaps something like:
 * "Note: The subject of this article is standing for re-election to the British House of Commons. They will not be an MP once Parliament is dissolved. This article may be out of date."
 * … changed to:
 * "Note: The subject of this article is standing for re-election to the British House of Commons. They ceased to be an MP when Parliament was dissolved. This article may be out of date."
 * … once we reach dissolution on 30 May? Let's not add lots of calls-to-action and balance them out with lots of words of caution. James F. (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That shortened wording would probably be enough. It's not really meant as a "call to action" as it's for the benefit of the non-registered reader instead of the editors. The important thing is that we succinctly get across the point that the subject is not an incumbent MP even if the body text, infobox, succession boxes etc still say so. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, totally agreed that it's much better to put in a note than try to rush to edit ~500 articles to say they're not MPs, and then (assuming polls are right) undoing the effect of ~75% of those edits. James F. (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the 30 May 2024 date is worth including in both versions. Pam  D  22:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

It occurs to me that we could also do to have similar flairs on the articles about Parliament itself and the major parties contesting the election (as the "state of the parties" information will obviously be in limbo). Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Robin S. Taylor: Good plan. Probably just a bespoke inline edit, rather than a full template, given we'll only want to place it on ~10 articles. James F. (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Let’s not get carried away with a fairly pedantic point. Yes, technically, they all stop being MPs, but it’s not a distinction reliable sources generally bother with. Reliable sources happily talk of a sitting or defending MP, etc. Bondegezou (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I've started adding the flairs to pages now. I should have them done by Thursday. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Robin S. Taylor: Brilliant, thank you. James F. (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

'''Okay, we're at dissolution eve now. I don't know exactly what time of day it will be happening so I can't guarantee I'll be at my computer for the event. I'm hoping that somebody here will be. All you need to do is keep watching the news until the royal proclamation is read out, then revert the template to my edit as of 19:47 on 29 May.''' Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Parliamentary sources seem to be indicating that Parliament dissolved just past midnight. This is probably not correct under the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 so I would recommend holding any changes to the template until the proclamation is made. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The proclamation has now been agreed by the Privy Council so I am updating the flair.


 * , I have reverted your additions of a hatnote-like text such as at Labour Party (UK) and changed it to a modified version of the banner you made above. Hope that's fine.  Dank Jae  21:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, that works fine. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

End dates
I was going to come and ask when dissolution is. For those MPs who have announced stepping down can we put end dates of 30 May 2024, or do we need to wait until candidate lists are announced with them absent to do that? Do any re-writes need to wait unti 1st June? Rankersbo (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This was discussed a few years ago - yes, terms end on the day of dissolution. (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not the question I asked though. I mean it's good and relevent info, don't get me wrong and thanks for reminding us.
 * What I was actually asking was can we start to edit MPs end dates now, or do we need to wait until after the 30th or when nominations close?


 * Rankersbo (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thinks it fine to add an end date for MPs who've said they've stepped down, even though there is that chance they will go back on what they said and they will still be nominated by their parties. I think this because officially they are no longer MPs after dissolution, so an end date will still technically be accurate. So it's not the end of the world if for a short time an end date is included when in fact they are about to be re-nominated. -- Ted Edwards  15:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Numbering of Parliaments
Recently there seems to have been a purging of references to ordinal numbers in relation to Parliaments of the United Kingdom, both in articles about said parliaments themselves and about general elections. The justification seems to be that these are never actually used. While they may not turn up often in common parlance, there are instances of ordinals appearing in official documents - such as this Hansard reference from 16 March 1992:

''Parliament was prorogued to Monday, 23rd March at twenty three minutes past four o'clock. The Parliament was dissolved by Royal Proclamation on Monday, 16th March 1992. End of the Fifth Session of the Fiftieth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the forty-first year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II''.

or this one from 21 March 1997:

End of the Fifth Session (opened on 23 October 1996) of the Fifty-First Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the Forty-Sixth Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.

It seems to be fairly common for Hansard to reference this at the end of a session - see 1918, 1930, 1953, 1977, 1985, 1996, 1999, 2003, 2012 and 2021 to name just a few examples.

I would particularly like to restore the use of ordinals when referring to the act of dissolution, since it can be a little confusing to name parliaments after they years of their beginning when talking about their endings. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Limited usage in that context seems fine, but generally secondary sources don’t number Parliaments, so nor should we (generally - I’ve no objection to occasional exceptions). Wikipedia follows secondary sources over primary sources. Bondegezou (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree – using the ordinals for British parliament isn't helpful/useful as almost no-one does, and it will be meaningless to the vast majority of readers. Number   5  7  19:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The ordinals aren't in common usage, and rarely, if ever, appear in the British news media secondary sources that we mostly use, so I cannot see any good reason to use them anywhere in Wikipedia. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that these ordinals are verifiable, I would be fine with using them occasionally, but probably at a minimum, and in cases where it would be more informative than giving a year range, e.g. in the infobox of Parliament of the United Kingdom, where it states "Most recent: 58th Parliament". —  RAVEN PVFF   · talk  · 15:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Help with an Article
I'm currently drafting an article here, and I want some help with trying to interpret the document I used to make the article (which is here.

The big thing I have is I don't really know what the number next to the ward name is (so for example, in the document, the first section for this specific election is "Blundson (1977)". I don't know whether this is the turnout, the registered electors in that ward, or something else entirely. If someone could help me try and figure out what this number means, that'd be helpful.

SuperGuy212 (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's the electorate, although the numbers don't quite add up: first one I checked for Bludston was 2007 in 1976 = the total of valid votes was 1028 which is 51.2% rather than the stated 52.5, although i reckoned the discrepancy could be explained by unlisted spoiled ballots. However, for the 1973 1973, the total is 1027 = 51.9% of 1977 rather than the stated 51.1. Although the difference is small, not sure how it could be more than the stated total. Crowsus (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, thanks. SuperGuy212 (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Swing comparison dates in local election
Another question about 2024 Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council election:

The article notes that in that election, "The seats up for election this year were last elected in 2021." So, should the tables' "±%" and "Swing" figures measure the change since 2023 (the last election in those council wards), or since 2021 (the last election for these specific seats)?

Checking a few of the figures, it looks like the "±%" numbers have been calculated using the first method: they're based on comparison to 2023. However, in the 2023 results article, it looks like they've been calculated with the second method: based on comparison to 2019.

(I only checked the "±%" numbers; I didn't check Swing because I'm less comfortable calculating that).

So, which are the correct comparisons to use for "±%" and "Swing"? Nick RTalk 16:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Commons seats in infoboxes
Editors have changed the infoboxes for various political parties, e.g. Labour, Reform UK, to say they have 0/650 seats on the grounds that Parliament has been dissolved and therefore technically there are no current MPs.

However, that’s wrong. A bar saying 0/650 is misleading. If you arguing there are no current MPs, then the denominator also needs to be zero.

Can we agree what to do here? 0/650 bars is wrong. I suggest we show the MPs at dissolution and use a footnote to explain that the figure is the figure at dissolution. Alternately, remove the bar and just have a note saying there are no MPs at present. Bondegezou (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, if Parliament is dissolved, don’t we have to do this for the Lords too? Bondegezou (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears to be an IP editor who changed all of these bars to 0/650. What were they thinking?! I've changed a random selection so they have brief wording saying they're no MPs at present, but there's more to do. More input welcome! Bondegezou (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Surely there are still 650 seats in Parliament, one for each constituency. It just happens that at the moment they are all vacant, and so there are no MPs.
 * The Lords are still Lords though, aren't they? They aren't elected, and they aren't reappointed at each election, so surely their numbers remain unchanged. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are no MPs. Saying Labour or Reform UK have 0/650 MPs is misleading, wrong. There are 650 constituencies, but, no, I wouldn’t say there are 650 seats. Parliament is not sitting.
 * The Lords… I don’t know. They’re still Lords, but they’re not members of the House of Lords, I think…? Bondegezou (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * According to the Parliament website, There are currently no MPs – all seats in the House of Commons are vacant until after the general election on 4th July 2024. That sounds like 0/650 to me.
 * OTOH, the Parliament website also lists all 783 "Members of the House of Lords", including their party allegiances, so it looks like they don't get dissolved. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * On the Lords: great,nthanks for that,
 * On the Commons: the key words there are There are currently no MPs. How many Labour MPs are there? 0/0. Bondegezou (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * On the Commons, I'd say the keys words are all seats in the House of Commons are vacant, meaning there are currently 650 empty MP seats. So there are 0/650 seats taken by Labour MPs currently.
 * If during the Parliament an MP drops out (died, recalled, resigned, or whatever), and their seat thus becomes vacant, we won't change the total seat count everywhere to 649 pending the outcome of the resulting by-election, because there will temporarily be only 649 MPs, will we? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you think it makes clear to the reader what’s going on for all party infoboxes to switch to 0/650? Or to say there are no MPs because Parliament is dissolved? Which increases understanding more? Bondegezou (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * A concise statement that Parliament was dissolved on 30 May 2024 and there are no MPs until the election on 4 July would be clearest. Pam D  09:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with . Neither 0/0 or 0/650 say it as clearly. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I say just keep the number at dissolution. Having at-dissolution numbers aids readers' understanding of the relative parliamentary strengths of the parties heading in to the election. The GE article has at-dissolution seat numbers in the infobox, albeit with copy saying those are the at-dissolution numbers but I don't think we even need a disclaimer note in party infoboxes, although I wouldn't oppose adding them. M2Ys4U ( talk ) 17:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be indecisive but ... yes, on further consideration, it would be better to leave it at the 30 May figure but add a note "Prior to dissolution on 30 May 2024". Whether a party had 2 or 200 MPs is significant information about the party, helpful to the reader, and ought to be shown in the infobox. Pam  D  07:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with this approach. However, it looks like there is a bit of confusion over what the 30th May figure actually was, because of Mark Logan.
 * Both 2024 United Kingdom general election and List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election (table at top plus progression at bottom) counts Logan as leaving his party on the 30th, Con 344 Lab 205 Ind 17. However List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election has him listed as defecting to Labour on the 30th (which would make it 344/206/.../16).
 * Mark Logan (politician) describes him as "he has since left the Conservatives and joined the Labour Party", rather than defecting, and Bolton North East (UK Parliament constituency) does not indicate anything other than simply sitting as a Conservative. If we assume he was a Conservative until dissolution and then left the party, the final figure would be 345/205/.../16
 * I think the second interpretation is broadly correct - he was a Conservative MP until dissolution, then immediately announced his plans to leave the party and join Labour. The Parliament profile, which is usually fairly good at tracking these things, has him down as being Conservative right until he left. Thoughts?
 * (A similar case happened in 2005, though not quite so closely timed - Brian Sedgemore. He had retired as a Labour MP and then defected to the Lib Dems two weeks after dissolution.) Andrew Gray (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Constituency maps
Is anyone planning on creating a complete and consistent set of maps for the new constituencies? Some work has been done and is available at commons:Category:2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies, but most of England is still missing, and the available files vary in terms of the naming convention used (some have "2023", others "2024"), and more subtle things like stroke width and level of boundary detail. There's also some inconsistency in the extent of these maps: should they highlight a constituency in a particular region (e.g. East of England) or a ceremonial county? I'm also interested in hearing whether we should move away from the conventional pink-and-red colour scheme. The risk of confusion with Labour is admittedly small, but I think it would look more professional to use a neutral colour, e.g. grey.

I would be happy to provide a new consistent set of maps for this purpose, starting from the official ONS boundaries, but am starting this discussion in case someone else is already doing so or would like to provide some input. —  RAVEN PVFF   · talk  · 15:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Ravenpuff. I was thinking of moving onto this once finished making all updates to the mapframe interactive maps, but if you have the ability and capacity then please go ahead. Obviously it will be more useful for readers to get everything in place before election day. I also think it may be an idea to keep old versions of the svg boundary maps in a gallery in the body, and the 2024 version in the infobox. Therefore, I am in favour of keeping to the existing colour scheme for read-across. I think operating at the ceremonial county level is a good standard too. Rcsprinter123   (relate)  15:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Looks like User:Mirrorme22 has sorted maps out on a regional basis. Rcsprinter123   (face)  20:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

RFC at RSN: The Telegraph on trans issues
Hello! There is an RFC at the reliable sources noticeboard regarding a subject relevant to this Wikiproject. BilledMammal (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

IOA shortname issue - seeking input
Started a discussion on Talk:Oxford City Council regarding an issue with the political parties module which has over the course of a week gained no traction whatsoever - would appreciate it if any of you could read it and give input :) CipherRephic (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

UK Parliament constituency infobox maps
I am currently updating GeoJSON mapdata used for interactive UK constituency maps to reflect the new constituency boundaries. I am also adding the interactive maps to the relevant infobox (example here) along with an SVG regional locator map.

There is precedent for this, for example, US Congressional Districts include the interactive map in the infobox (see here) and my view is that they are much more useful to the reader than static SVG maps which are outdated and archaic, and I therefore believe they should be the most prominent map used in the article.

We previously included SVG locator maps of the constituency within the parent ceremonial county, however, following the recent boundary changes, constituencies are no longer wholly contained within or coterminous with ceremonial counties. It would be almost impossible to continue with this practice, so I have therefore moved towards regional locator maps instead.

Pinging interested users for views @Number 57 @Rcsprinter123 @Ravenpuff Mirrorme22 (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think the issue is whether to include the interactive map as well as the SVG in the infobox, or whether it should be left in the body as at present to avoid overloading it. Rcsprinter123   (discuss)  11:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Standard practice was to include two SVG maps, one showing the boundaries of the constituency within the ceremonial county, and a second showing the boundaries of its parent county within England. Therefore, including two maps (an interactive and a regional locator static SVG) seems sensible to me and is in keeping with the current approach. In my view, the infobox is not overloaded.
 * The average reader will find an interactive map to be much more useful than an SVG, which shows very little except the boundaries of a constituency within a wider region. This is only really useful to map nerds such as myself. Therefore I believe the interactive map should be the most prominent map in the article and should be included in the infobox. Mirrorme22 (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the first election and constituency set with interactive maps I think. Like if the svg map is made smaller, probably best not to include it anyway especially for smaller constituencies. It would save the effort of creating one (+ within county) map for everyone of them, especially if such maps aren't helpful to readers. Although can other boundaries be added to the interactive maps? So it can all be in one map?  Dank Jae  16:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Let’s not overload infoboxes, as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Nothing wrong with having some things in the article! Bondegezou (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bondegezou, this about the new interactive maps, so them in the body? or svg maps in the body?  Dank Jae  16:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would put the interactive map in the body. Bondegezou (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't think I get it. How replacing one map with another is "overloading"? Interactive map shows constituency itself (just like traditional "location in county") while "location in region" serves essentially same functionality as a "location of county in England" map.
 * It's just a slightly different presentation of virtually the same information from my point of view. Sfaxx (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I personally seen interactive maps used in infoboxes in various contexts like settlements (Sejong City, Drohobych), stadiums (Park Hall, Arena Kombëtare), as well as constituencies (New York's 14th congressional district, not just in en articles: Electoral district 115) and so on.
 * I'd argue that interactive maps serve same function as SVG map of constituency ("classic 'location in [outdated] county' map") as well as allowing for quick access to explore location of constituency in any desired context (like neigbouring settlements, what settlements are included, how far constituency from any other location and so on and so forth) while being arguably more precise. And "location in region" allows for context of next-door constituencies.
 * Also I'd like to note that current iteration of constituencies are more awkward in classic paradigm because more of them cross county boundaries. And while yes, there were constituencies before (like Rutland and Melton, Leominster, etc), but "sticking bits" where conspicuously missing maps in any other constituency (making it a false/misleading map IMO).
 * TLDR I think interactive map + location in region is a good combo from now on. Sfaxx (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The new maps as in Leeds Central and Headingley (UK Parliament constituency) are excellent and really help the reader who is interested in the constituency and wants to see its boundaries, zooming in as far as they need to. Top of the infobox is the best place: it shows the constituency. The pink maps below put it into context, and are also useful, but the constituency boundary deserves top place. I look forward to seeing them for other constituencies, and offer my thanks to for creating and adding them!  Pam  D  15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seeing how this discussion is going, boldly implemented it on the 18 new 2024 Wales constituencies + Bridgend and Ynys Môn with 2024 mapdata (other pre-existing constituencies have the 2010 mapdata, which @Rcsprinter123 is slowly updating so appreciated!), just to see how it may look like.
 * The examples shown make the infobox a bit too big in my opinion, so I tried to keep the standard infobox width. Also manually centred the frame so the entire constituency is shown within the frame (at least for me). Of course, should this discussion go the other way, happy to restore the previous format.
 * Also boldly added a switcher to some, a zoomed in and zoomed out (comparing to all-Wales), to test if we can use only interactive maps in the future, mimicking the svg map somewhat. Happy to remove the switcher. However I have come across "The time allocated for running scripts has expired." when applying very large ones even as just one interactive map for Caerfyrddin at least. I believe this is the case of "overloading" as Rcsprinter123 mentioned. For some, the borders don't appear unless you expand it (at least for me) see examples below.
 * Proposed: 1 2 + zoomed out map (unless mapdata very detailed): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 - no borders showing unless expanded: 1 2 3  Dank Jae  22:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I quite like DankJae's Welsh examples including switcher and 250 width. I can use this format going forward as I update the rest of the constituencies. The one suggestion I would make is including the year in the caption, e.g. "... since 2024" which I think will be useful both for readers and ourselves when we come to inevitable future boundary changes. I only wish I had either got all this done at the start of the year as intended, or that the PM hadn't called this election earlier than anticipated and caused a rush to get everything in place in time - for which I should say well done to the community, particularly with candidate lists. Rcsprinter123   (gas)  23:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rcsprinter123 I am fine with any clarification in captions, it is kinda important when I confused "current boundaries" for 2024 boundaries when searching which ones you updated. Nonetheless, thank you for your work, probably a lot to do!
 * We would need to be aware of the overloading (I cannot do Caerfyrddin?), and it not showing up by default on those three above.  Dank Jae  23:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you. I will look into those ones. Probably want redrawing, yay. And yes, "current" usually means pre-2024 at the moment, unless a boundary is completely unchanged, which is a small minority. Rcsprinter123   (sing)  00:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've also found couple constituencies with the same issue, namely Bexhill and Battle (works now but was misbehaving like an hour before), Mid Buckinghamshire, Penrith and Solway and South Shropshire (someone removed map to get rid of issue).
 * Need any help with fixing this problem? I'm ready to be useful :) Sfaxx (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have been slowly updating some of the constituency map data to reflect the new boundaries, but I don't want to cross over with what you are doing. Are you updating them in any particular order? Mirrorme22 (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Mirrorme22: I'm updating from Aberafan Maesteg to York Outer via 648 others in their alpha order. I'll have to watch out for ones you've done (mostly Midlands?). I'm also moving the previous data for posterity rather than overwriting. Rcsprinter123   (indicate)  10:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, what is the naming convention for previous boundaries? Mirrorme22 (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Stick the year the previous boundaries were set on the end, e.g. 2010. Rcsprinter123   (rap)  11:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I personally lovin' it! Including switchers :)
 * Should we do the same for constituencies in the rest of UK? Also in England should second switcher be "const. in England" or "const. in [region]"?
 * Also @Rcsprinter123 comment about adding "since 2024" caption seems reasonable. Sfaxx (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Only tried Wales as a test, if people are fine with it then it could be added elsewhere, would particularly work for NI.
 * Whether Scottish ones or English ones should be regional or nation-wide. Well I used Wales for nation-wide because all it needed was a different zoom and coords, and using the existing marked default border. Wales has no regions, and the smallest ones appeared fine zoomed out too. Having Scotland/England-wide may make their much smaller constituencies too small (although Scotland may barely be possible). I cannot figure out how to highlight multiple features (so their regions) using Template:Maplink and Wikipedia Mapdata. The doc is pointing to exporting data to commons to solve both the multiple features and overloading. (is this mapdata freely-licensed?) So even more work on top. Great if someone just imports it into OSM itself tbh.
 * So I only really can just zoom it out, showing relatively where it is on a normal map. Maybe we should leave the switcher for most of the smaller constituencies for now, and focus on at least all articles having an updated map by the election in three weeks time.  Dank Jae  01:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a Multiple features. Maybe it's applicable in this case.
 * Can't find map data for regions of England. I don't think it exists there.
 * Yeah, sounds like having updated maps is a higher priority, agree.
 * Edit: I've run some tests and good news: region id from Wikidata (e.g. Q48063 for YTH) can be used in template to show region. Bad news: "raw" parameter seem to override it. Sfaxx (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sfaxx, yes I've attempted multiple features, but yes raw overrides it (I guess it is not "external data", so cannot mix internal and external), which is why I mentioned the only alternative is moving this mapdata to commons.  Dank Jae  08:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can upload map data for regions, would that help? Mirrorme22 (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can combine two internal (Wikipedia) raw datasets onto one map, so it has to either link to a constituency data or region data, not both. It can only combine two external raw datasets (Wikidata/Commons) I think.  Dank Jae  12:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Renamed constituencies
There are list of renamed constituencies with articles under old names and pages with new name are redirects to old articles. Here's a list of such constituencies I've found just in East Midlands and East of England (link to redirect pages): And I'm sure there are more. I don't want to just copy and loose all the history but mismatched name, not being highlighted in templates etc. is no bueno as well. Can someone do it properly? Pinging @Number 57 @Rcsprinter123 @Ravenpuff @Mirrorme22 @DankJae @Bondegezou ‒ Sfaxx (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Corby and East Northamptonshire
 * Hinckley and Bosworth
 * Luton South and South Bedfordshire


 * @Sfaxx, IMO I think the time is right to move these minor renames, rather than do everything on 4 July. Many constituencies are very similar enough that it is best as one article, but have been renamed in the recent review.
 * @Mattythewhite has already moved Corby (UK Parliament constituency) to Corby and East Northamptonshire (UK Parliament constituency), so somewhat approving the moves should occur now.
 * I have written Wales' former ones in past tense, the newer ones in present. Although many constituencies in Wales needed new articles due to the massive changes rather than renames. Yes, others like NI's Belfast South (UK Parliament constituency) to Belfast South and Mid Down (UK Parliament constituency) and Scotland's Glenrothes (UK Parliament constituency) to Glenrothes and Mid Fife (UK Parliament constituency); and elsewhere need doing.
 * If you cannot move it yourself, then use WP:RM/T and request it to be. Plus many readers would probably want to look what their new constituency is before the election.  Dank Jae  15:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sfaxx, oh, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies that kinda discusses this topic.  Dank Jae  15:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Constituency contests in United Kingdom general elections
Some time ago I created Category:Constituency contests in United Kingdom general elections and am coming back to it. While by-elections are well covered there are some very notable contests that although they seem to have been well covered by either the media at the time or in history books do not seem to have articles in Wikipedia.

If there are examples of constituency contests that already have articles that aren't covered then I'd be grateful so I can add them to this category. I'd also be grateful for suggestions for constituency contests that could do with articles (they will currently be redirects).

JASpencer (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I suggest that the category needs a scope note to define "Constituency contests", especially as many of the entries are redirects to sections of articles rather than stand-alone articles. What's the criterion for a seat to be a "constituency contest"? Pam  D  07:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Presumably Chingford and Woodford Green (UK Parliament constituency) might be one, with the deselected candidate standing as independent? Pam  D  07:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's precisely the sort of contest I was thinking about. Thank you. JASpencer (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Police and crime commissioner notability
A few years back, This is Paul contributed Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_14 to raise a question about the notability of police and crime commissioners. We have an article for every incumbent PCC except Ben Adams (police commissioner), so I recently set about creating one for completeness. Although I thought it contained more well-sourced information than several other PCC articles, it was swiftly moved to Draft:Ben Adams (police commissioner) on the grounds that further sources were needed to demonstrate WP:Notability. A subsequent WP:AfC review was also unsuccessful, so it is languishing as a draft. This implies PCCs are still not considered inherently notable, unlike MPs, MSPs, directly elected mayors, etc. What are anyone's thoughts on this, and is there a way to establish/formalise consensus under WP:POLOUTCOMES? Failing that, would someone be willing to review Draft:Ben Adams (police commissioner) and move it to mainspace? AJP (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I created a lot of the PCC bios after the 2012 and 2016 elections, and there were a couple of occasions where someone would think them not notable. An example that springs to mind is John-Paul Campion. I would argue that with a constituency that covers several hundred thousand constituents, PCCs meet the requirement for WP:OFFICEHOLDER and are on a par with the directly elected mayors, and in some cases the role of PCC has been subsumed into the office of mayor (in Greater Manchester for example). I’m not quite sure how to do the paperwork for reviewing an AFC, but the article looks fine to me and there are plenty of good references in it. This is Paul (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks This is Paul for the helpful response. I'm wary of resubmitting Draft:Ben Adams (police commissioner) for another AfC review because the submission declined banner states that unedited submissions will be declined again and potentially deleted. A sympathetic AfC reviewer familiar with the PCC role (e.g. Edwardx or No Swan So Fine ?) would probably agree that any elected PCC is inherently notable. I fear others might interpret the notability guidelines differently, leaving this lone PCC bio doomed to remain a red link. AJP (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I certainly think they are inherently notable - the large and broad electorate should be proof of this. Your references are solid but I can see how the article suffer from a lack of in-depth sources. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

"serving/served as" vs "is/was"
After a dispute at Neil Kinnock with an IP, whether it should state politican who was Leader of the Opposition vs the pre-existing politican who served as Leader of the Opposition. Although, I probably forgot to argue that as "Leader" is capitalised it refers to a title rather than a general term. But after the IP reverted citing lack of policy, and avoiding edit warring, I raise it here. Should we adopt their shorter wording "was" and "is" over "served as" and "serving as" on politicans? If there is a guideline/consensus on this, apologies if I haven't found it.  Dank Jae  10:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "served as" is needlessly wordy and implicitly approves of what they were/did. "was" is preferable, both for euphony and neutrality. DuncanHill (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. is/was is fine and reflects usage in reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bondegezou@DuncanHill
 * would we have to add "the" though, so per MOS:JOBTITLES, becomes ?
 * "is Prime Minister since 2022" sounds odd, it has to be "is the prime minister since 2022" or "serving as Prime Minister since 2022".  Dank Jae  16:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Add “the” if you want. I think it can work without, but probably more usual to have “the”. Bondegezou (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "has been PM since 2022" would be the norm, no? CipherRephic (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @CipherRephic, "who has been" is as wordy as "who served as", the argument here is to shorten "who served as" to "who is (the)".  Dank Jae  20:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @DankJae "Rishi Sunak, who is the Prime Minister since 2022," is just incorrect English, though. The present continuous would work on its own (i.e. "Rishi Sunak, who is the Prime Minister,") but when using "since" it has to go in the present perfect (so, "who has served as"), Therefore you'd either need to keep it as "served as" or delete the "since 2022", so if it's between the two then it'd be "served as". That being said, in cases like that of Kinnock, where they aren't the thing any more, it'd be perfectly fine to simply use "was" (i.e. "Neil Kinnock, who was Leader of the Opposition from 1983 to 1992") because that's in the past continuous - the issue is purely in the present tense.
 * (i hope this doesn't come across as too grammar-nazi, but this was the most succinct way of describing the issue that wasn't just "it feels wrong" or "that's not how you do that") CipherRephic (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @CipherRephic, commented that as "who is Prime Minister since 2022", "who is Member of Parliament of" also sounds off, but seems that is just me. So "who is Prime Minister since 2022" or "serving as Prime Minister since 2022"? Unless @Bondegezou, @DuncanHill should we only change it to "was" for past positions? and leave current positions alone?  Dank Jae  22:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you need to cram so much into one sentence? DuncanHill (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pardon?  Dank Jae  13:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Use shorter sentences. Don't try to put so much information into the first. DuncanHill (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we are agreed that "served as" is unnecessary and we should just use "was". I don't see why we need this further discussion: editors can be trusted to write in grammatical English without us first discussing every possible particular phrasing. Bondegezou (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Changed it on various from "served as" to "was". But all changes from "serving as" to "is" was reverted back to "serving as". So appears many others agree it was bad English.
 * So guessing "was" is only the accepted. Unless you wish to enforce "is".  Dank Jae  23:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)