Lets settle this
What should be the infobox:
A - Classic election infobox as seen in 2019
B - Current infobox
RealTaxiDriver (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

B, until the result is declared. For the reasons outlined further up this page, several times.

I genuinely can’t believe we’re still having this conversation. OGBC1992 (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There are other options: (C) No infobox, (D) Party-free infobox (showing a map or other details, but not parties).

The classic election (TIE) infobox is used now for the 2019 general election, but (mostly) wasn't used for that article before the vote. There has been considerable discussion of what infobox to use before an election over the years, and the most stable consensus has been to use the current (TILE) infobox. However, I note (D) was also used at times during the 2019 campaign.

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Infoboxes should be smaller, not bigger. That's why I favour the TILE format over the bloated TIE format. We also have to avoid WP:CRYSTALBALL predictions and take a WP:NPOV. A TIE format has to exclude multiple parties, which introduces bias, and ends up making a guess about the results. So, I favour (B), but would be fine with (C) or (D). Bondegezou (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. I believe the numeruous small parties mandated within TILE is unnecessary content. That's why I favour the TIE format over the bloated TIE format. DimensionalFusion (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@RealTaxiDriver B (TILE) seems most appropriate for now - using A (TIE) would necessitate speculating as to whether certain parties (e.g. the greens, reform, plaid) would gain sufficient foothold to be considered major, contravening WP:CRYSTALBALL. I'd concede the TIE box looks nicer, but (especially this early in the campaign) that shouldn't be the primary goal. CipherRephic (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

First of all I need to mention that a discussion on this ended up starting in a discussion on a different topic at #2024 election series template (below infobox) because someone only got as far as reading the word "infobox" before replying. I have attempted now to redirect all discussion on the infobox in that section to here.

To reiterate my view, it is to support B, and I quote myself here to explain why:
Since the topic of this dicussion has diverted to the infobox, I believe I need to explain the reason why I believe TILE is better than TIE until the results of the election are in, since I wrote the note Mapperman03 quoted. There was a discussion now at Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1#Infobox (2) where I explained my rationale in more detail than that note, and I note DimensionalFusion and Bondegezou took part in that discussion. I criticised DimensionalFusion's arguments as unsubstantiated then and I do again now. They have said nothing in this dicussion that they didn't say in that discussion, and so I reiterate my criticisms: "less sightly" is a subjective opinion that falls foul of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and comparing to precedence goes against WP:OTHERCONTENT and is an example of the false equivalence fallacy, as past and future elections are not comparable. I take it when they say "redundant" they are referring to TILE including more parties, but that is a necessity to avoid failing WP:CRYSTAL.
On the subject of WP:CRYSTAL, the reason why I believe all the parties with MPs in the House of Commons now/at dissolution (and therefore my reason for using TILE) need to be included is that we don't know the results of the election, and therefore which parties will have a significant number of MPs after the next election. This means to avoid creating an infobox that implies we are presuming only some parties (probably Con, Lab, SNP and LD) will get a significant number of seats in an election we don't know the results of, we have to use TILE, as that is able to list all the parties in a reasonably small amount of space. It's important the infobox is relatively small, as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE's statement "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." TIE cannot list all the parties necessary to include (either for technical reasons or because otherwise the infobox would be huge), so we should use TILE. This will stay the case until at least the outcome of the election is obvious (when most seats have declared their results). So I disagree with Czello that now or at dissolution is the time to change the infobox, that time will be at the earliest around 03:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (that's 4am in the UK) when we know which parties have a significant number of seats for sure. Then TIE will likely be the best infobox.

To reply to something written by DimensionalFusion in response to the above comment, the choice is TIE with all parties or TILE with all parties, as excluding parties will fall foul of WP:Crystal (also pointed out by Bondegezou above). We can't even exclude the Northern Irish parties/Plaid Cymru because the DUP is included in the infobox at 2017 United Kingdom general election because they had a major impact on politics after that election (gave Tories enough seats for a confidence and supply agreement) (Sinn Fein is also included, but that's to avoid white space I think) so it's entirely possible these parties that don't stand in England will still have a significant impact after the election. So while including 15 parties might seem bloated, it's necessary as we can't exclude any of them as that would imply e.g. the Greens, Reform, WPGB or the NI parties definitely won't win a significant number of seats and aren't worth anyone's attention. All we can do is state what the composition of the house at the last election or now (or just prior to dissolution when that happens), as that's the only way to make an infobox with parties that doesn't imply that we're making predictions. TIE with all parties is impossible, so TILE with all parties is the only option if we want an infobox with any parties at all. --TedEdwards 22:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I strongly favour option B, for essentially the reasons laid out above. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I strongly favour option A above. DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• B, preferably, or D. TILE lets us include all the parties and not entirely seconcary details like leader's seats, dates of leadership elections, and so on, for a handful of parties, which almost never deserve to be in the infobox. Ralbegen (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This seems to have stalled, so:

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says that an infobox's purpose is:

to summarize—and not supplant—key facts that appear in the article.

Both TIE and TILE accomplish this.

The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.

Arguably, both TIE and TILE achieve this, but in different ways. TIE gives important context about leaders and important parties, which excludes unecessary parties that won't win any more than a few seats. In my opinion, unless there are more than 6 major parties, such as in Belgium, then TIE should be used. This article is about the 2024 GE, and it's very clear from polling and other such indicators who should be included: Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, SNP. These are who is going into the election, so this provides important context to the viewer about the election. When the results come in, the infobox can be re-formulated.

I can already hear the "what about WP:CRYSTALBALL"s coming in, so yes. This is, techically, speculation. However, WP:CRYSTALBALL says Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. TIE is not this! TIE is using the current standings of the parties to give context about the state of the election before it happens. In the run up to an election, should an election article not be focused on what the states of the parties are before the election happens?

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE continues:

Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, present information in short form wherever possible, and exclude any unnecessary content.

I'd argue that unnecessary content is including multiple parties that are not particularly relevant to the national political scene. These can be, and are, incorporated in the more detailled later parts of the article. I'd argue that the Alliance Party doesn't really need to be incorporated into the infobox, which is for short form information.

There will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information may be placed in the infobox, but is difficult to integrate into the body text.

TIE does meet this! I've heard several arguments about how TIE is "cluttered" and the example everybody uses is leader's seat. However Leader's seat is

- difficult to integrate into the body text, and

- gives important context about the party (e.g. a hypothetical party with a leader's seat in London provides context about the kind of party and policies they may offer very quickly)

DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

You can flog the dead horse as much as you like, but it's not getting up.

To again rebut your arguments, not including parties that didn't get a significant number of seats is breaching WP:CRYSTALBALL, because since the infobox is about this election, what you're saying by not including smaller parties that were in the HoC is "ignore them, they'll be irrelevant in the aftermath", when you have no evidence that is the case. You say the APNI doesn't need to be in the infobox, but they could get some more seats, so much that they will form a Confidence and Supply argreement with the next governing party, a bit like the DUP in 2017, and so it may be worth putting them in the infobox after the election. Of course what I just said is speculation, but saying they won't be relevant to the national political scene after the election is equally speculative. You and I don't know the outcome of the election, and therefore which parties should be or shouldn't be in the infobox, and therefore we have to include a non-objective selection of parties e.g. ones with seats at the end of the last parliament, so the infobox doesn't suggest which parties should or shouldn't be ignored. And polling is predicting, so when talking about it, we say that is predicting, and we do not base anything else in any article on this election (e.g. order of parties in a list) on predictions made in opinion polls. Including only parties projected to get a significant number of seats in opinion polls in the infobox, which you seem to suggest when you say it's very clear from polling and other such indicators who should be included, is definitely in breach of WP:CRYSTALBALL.

As for quoting There will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information may be placed in the infobox, but is difficult to integrate into the body text, that is, by no stretch of the imagination, a requirement to put such information in the infobox. It is always ideal to include information in the infobox elsewhere in the article, it's not always possible. And you say the leaders' seats give important context. So would you like to tell everyone how knowing Keir Starmer and Ed Davey having seats in London allows people to work out the kind of party and policies they offer, and what those policies you can work out are?

You said When the results come in, the infobox can be re-formulated and, yes, that will of course happen. On 5 July the infobox will probably change because they we'll know who the major players the new parliament are, and TIE will almost certainly be the best infobox to display that information. But it is very clear that your support for TIE is emotional, not logical. --TedEdwards 22:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@TedEdwards

Hi! “But it is very clear that your support for TIE is emotional, not logical.”

Do you have a source for this? Or are you breaching WP:CRYSTALBALL by speculating?

“So would you like to tell everyone how knowing Keir Starmer and Ed Davey having seats in London allows people to work out the kind of party and policies they offer, and what those policies you can work out are?”

Absolutely. Parties that have their leaders in rural seats suggest conservative platforms, whereas in urban seats this suggests Centerist to Left wing platforms. That’s common sense.

“saying by not including smaller parties that were in the HoC is "ignore them, they'll be irrelevant in the aftermath"”

You’re putting words in my mouth there. I’m not saying that they won’t be relevant in the aftermath of the election. I’m saying that, in the run up to an election, knowing who the major players are going in gives better context to the reader than a HTML table. DimensionalFusion (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Just dropping in my strong support for Option A (2019 format) as this has extremely useful information and reader-friendly, I see no reason personally to remove it. -Internet is Freedom (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I second supporting option A (2019 format, unless someone sneakily tries to change it), or the TIE format. There frankly, was no real issue (except maybe aesthetics, for a minority) for using TIE in previous elections - it’s not like Indonesia, or Israel, or Netherlands where there are nearly a dozen parties and the bugs ones can barely get above 25%.

There are only a handful number of pivotal parties, and it’s fine to have TIE just include them, which there were no issues before then. Even with TILE, sometimes someone will have to judge where the cutoff is, or else you end up with 60+ rows for a page when previously 6 parties was considered adequate (2022 Philippines legislative elections).

I would also like to suggest that TILE is, essentially just a mini copy of the results table anyway, and so generally less valuable (and closer to supplanting results table) than using TIE, where information like leaders seat (quite notable for UK, where there are no list MPs of any sort) and images (can’t “roll over” links on mobile) are in an easy place rather than buried around the article or just not included

With this, I think whatever benefits TILE may have over TIE, used almost since day dot, are not particularly applicable to here, and the supposed consensus around using TILE here relatively recent and flimsy, having come through with few eyes watching iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 05:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The claim that this is a relatively recent decision is wrong. We’ve had the same discussion before multiple general elections and are following the same practice agreed then. We’ve discussed the infobox for this particular article now three or four times already,

MOS:INFOBOX is clear that an infobox should, with very limited exceptions, only include information that is also in the article, so an infobox is always a copy of article content.

If people want the article to cover leaders’ seats and to have their photos, they can be added to the article. Bondegezou (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Bondegezou, arguably under MOS:INFOBOXEXCEPTIONS, this is information that is hard to integrate into the body text of the article in a coherent way. Putting a one liner about - eg Boris Johnson representing Uxbridge in 2019, would get buried under the other text, and their face too, doesn’t clearly fit under the other sections (eg Background) - when it can just go in the infobox - rather than simply culling it.

And unless if we live in a radio only world, or a world where news sites steadfastly avoid photographing politicians, images are linked to, and useful representations of parties and their leaders. The infobox MOS specifically has a whole section on styling images too, rather than a proscriptive ban on them, along with pushing for consistency as per MOS:INFOBOXSTYLE

I am hunting through Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1#Infobox (2), but I am not finding the agreement. I have found that you have discussed TILE before, and have said that it had been agreed on earlier, but I’m not sure where the consensus is for this major change.

It hasn’t been agreed for 2019. Nor 2017. Nor 2015 United Kingdom general elections. Or to clarify, there was no discussion on those talk pages of even moving to TILE, so I don’t get how this TILE discussion has been had multiple general elections?

At this point, this use of TILE is trying to foist a different aesthetic preference (unless if people using TILE somehow believe TILE looks worse?) onto the UK General Election pages, and causing inconsistency with the infoboxes used for past elections. iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 07:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Very well stated DimensionalFusion (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

and come to think about it, if someone did create a section for party leaders with photographs, people against TIE leader photos could then say photos are a needless duplication of article content...

As for "consensus", so far what I have found is

- Discussion that TILE can be kept for "next UK general election", and TIE once election is called Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1#Switch to standard election template

- Vigorous discussion, once again between similar users in this thread, but no consensus, and trying to frame existing TIE as WP:I don't like it

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1#Infobox (2)

I've found discussion, but no consensus. iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 03:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Awesome stuff DimensionalFusion (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ralbegen Why'd you revert the election infobox DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It's been discussed to death with more editors supporting and giving reasons for TILE. As an indication of the level of consensus, there is a widely-participated-in discussion on this page about how the infobox will change to TIE after the election. I can see no indication that that view among editors has changed. Ralbegen (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I can see no indication that there was a single "view" amongst editors in the first place, therefore how could it have "changed"? DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

B, current infobox as it is more inclusive unlike the classic classist system. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Maurnxiao How is the current infobox "classist"?? DimensionalFusion (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You mean the one with the pictures of the party leaders? It's basically the Rupert Murdoch & ITV News selected candidates at that point. We can see this with the hostility shown towards including Galloway in an infobox with party leaders' pictures, whereas the current system includes the Workers Party, Plaid Cymru, the Northern Irish parties etc Maurnxiao (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Seriously, @Maurnxiao are you some sort of appologist for Galloway'sparty? The 6 shown are the main contenders and that's why they were selected for the ITN debate. — Iadmc♫^talk  01:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologist? What do I need to apologize for, or deflect from, or protect? Obviously I feel a desire to defend my integrity in light of your suggestion that I am an "apologist", but this is a Wikipedia talk page where we discuss how aspects of an article should look like. We don't discuss apologetics or the political views of someone who happens to believe a political party is much more noteworthy than it is given credit for. Maurnxiao (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Then find the sources to show that they are significantly covered. As a side, the NI parties are not covered as they are exclusively in NI and and won't affect the outcome nationally much at all (like Galloway, indeed). — Iadmc♫^talk  01:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

We already had that discussion in the Workers Party topic, which unsurprisingly degenerated into personal and political attacks against Galloway. The DUP had a deal with the Conservatives in 2017, by the way, and the SNP is also only active in Scotland. At what point do only local parties become notable enough to merit an inclusion, such as the SNP? Maurnxiao (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Maurnxiao

> The DUP had a deal with the Conservatives in 2017

Yes, that is why they're included in the 2017 infobox.

> and the SNP is also only active in Scotland

They're also the third largest party.

> At what point do only local parties become notable enough to merit an inclusion, such as the SNP?

When they are notable enough to do so. It's a mix of polling, MP numbers, and coverage. DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

When there is any indication that the Workers' Party is likely to be the third biggest in parliament, you can be assured that they will be included. Similarly if they are expected to win, or have an appreciable effect on the outcome of a considerable number of seats, if they are polling significantly at a national or regional level, or otherwise become a truly significant player in an election.

Right now, I see three possibilities:

1) you wish to militate to have Wikipedia included regardless of any objective inclusion criteria, in which case you are trying to break its NPOV rule;

2) you do not trust the processes by which consensus is built at Wikipedia, in which case I politely suggest that it is not the place for you;

3) you are simply a troll who is enjoying being disruptive here.

You have made your points, I am sure that all of us active in building this article are now alert to the arguments for the inclusion of the Workers' Party here and are capable of discerning, collectively, a justification for greater reference to the group than they already have. Thank you for that, and goodbye. I shall, however, initiate steps towards a topic ban if you persist when it is clear that you do not have consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity - an apologist is not someone who is or should be apologising. Rather, it means a person who explains or defends a belief - particularly where the belief is unpopular or controversial. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Make Keir Starmer’s name bolded because according to the exit polls, his party won. Ali1079 (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

This should not occur yet per WP:CRYSTALBALL. The exit poll is not the final result. No party has won before the votes are counted and declared. Gust Justice (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

No, for two reasons:

Firstly, the exit poll is just an indication. We wait for the full results.

More importantly, we don't put the winning leader's name in bold anyway - see 2019 United Kingdom general election for example. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Final results are not declared yet. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

the lib dem number of seats is too low it is now 47 it is still saying 40 Ozderplays (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Already done Ligaturama (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

So obviously, seats results are being declared at different times. I've added the "reporting" field inbuilt to the infobox and done some very simple maths (1/650)*100 to get the percentage of constituencies declared as Houghton and Sunderland South is the first constituency. Is this OR? Can this be included? DimensionalFusion (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

In principle we could do this, but I think most other editors would prefer the results not be shown live in the infobox, at the vrey least until most constituencies have declared. Gust Justice (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It's just some very simple maths showing how many seats have been declared - I think this wouldn't be OR(?) but that's what I'm getting opinions for. I personally think the seat counts themselves being added to parties in the infobox should be held off until all constituencies have been declared, but that's just me DimensionalFusion (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I would not have a problem with that, even though technically this isn't how it is normally used. But I think it makes the article better to use, just for the purposes of giving people an idea of how many of the votes have been published. Gust Justice (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The intention of Wikipedia was not that it would be used as a liveblog to report breaking news like this. I don’t see this as helpful. Bondegezou (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If this was the case then why would the "results reported" field be part of the template DimensionalFusion (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Because (a) some elections in the world count much slower than the UK, and (b) because infobox templates often contain inappropriate fields! The existence of a field doesn’t mean it should be used. Bondegezou (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Generally, frequent updates to a live count cause editing conflicts that de-facto lock the article. Live updates for sports articles are usually the main areas of concern for this. Player stats are usually not even updated during the season. DimensionalFusion if you are going to plow ahead and do it anyway, could you at least add a source for the live updates. Your source is showing the conservatives with about twce as many seats as the BBC is reporting, despite Labour seats being similar. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm getting them from https://election.news.sky.com/elections/general-election-2024 as it seems to be faster than other sources in giving count results DimensionalFusion (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@DimensionalFusion: could you please add it to the infobox during your next update. Thanks. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I've looked at different areas to put it but I haven't yet figured out a good place for it DimensionalFusion (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Put it, until you figure it out, next to the first seat count. Not having that is a clear violation of policy, it's not a facultative or optional feature. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@DimensionalFusion do you have a valid reason as to why you are still violating WP:REF, and why we shouldn't just tag every number in that infobox with a citation needed tag, or just revert your updates outright? Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Because every time I do that it messes up the div formatting DimensionalFusion (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

SNP should be above Reform UK in the infobox: they’re higher on seats won and on projections. Bondegezou (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Exit poll predicted Reform to surpasses SNP in seats. And currently they're equal with more votes. Maurnxiao (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Should the seat change (in the infobox for instance) use the notional results from the last election (in which case the Lib Dem increase would be 8 -> 71), or should it use the previous election results on different boundaries (in which case it would be 11 -> 71)? Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Previous election results I think. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The precedent from 2010 United Kingdom general election is to use notional numbers for the seat change parameter, but actual 2019 results for the last election parameter. This is also what most media outlets do. Gust Justice (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. We've used notional results previously, which is the practice most reliable sources follow. Bondegezou (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

^ 59.102.22.11 (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Rishi Sunak hasn't resigned as PM officially from HM The King yet SferaEbbasta87 (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree on this. WP:CRYSTALBALL is important, but not including this in the infobox is pure formalism at this point. All reliable sources say Starmer will be appointed PM (see this as an example) No reason to pretend otherwise on this article. Gust Justice (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Where does the stat "Last election 202 seats, 32.1%" come from? It was 30% Turkeyphan^t 08:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Ignore this I was confused with 2017 result. Imo this is a little unclear (should say date or something). Turkeyphan^t 08:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Why? The last election result was 2019 and it says this at the top of the infobox DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you are projecting your confusion onto everyone else, they didn't get 30% either in 2017, they got 40% !! Tweedle (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Grateful if we could please decide which map should be used this evening.

A:

B:

沁水湾 grateful if you could please acknowledge result majority of contributors choose.

My vote is for map A. AlloDoon (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

B. I think it's a fine map, but too many details to be used in the infobox (e.g. texts are a bit too small for infobox). The map style should be simple & harmonious with previous ones to form a set.

The map also have too many clipped water bodies for the main map. 沁水湾 (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Change is allowed on Wikipedia, keeping in style with other election maps shouldn't be a sole reason for or against a certain design. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

My vote is for B or a map more similar to 2019. But I do not think we should have a live map before the results are in (or almost all in). Gust Justice (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. CipherRephic (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

No strong preference but I'd go with map B on subjective aesthetic merit. CipherRephic (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think map A on purely subjective grounds DimensionalFusion (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

A is easier to read on smaller devices, the lines on B are too fine. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The legend on A is completely unreadable, so prefer B. Bondegezou (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

imo A, though I don't think we need a live updating map TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

B. I think that A is difficult to read, since there's too many small boxes of smaller cities and no lines connecting them to their place on the map, requiring prior knowledge of the names. The boxes are big enough in B that theres no difficulty telling where they show on the map, and the smaller ones have lines connecting them. I think all the lakes in A makes it worse to look at, and the map is showing how electorates voted, rather than showing lakes. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think A should go in the results tab, it could be a margins map while the one in the infobox should stay because it is more simplified and easier to read. GatewayPolitics (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

B - but if it's decided on A then the map creator should flip the labelings in order of either seat count or vote share (not bothered for any particular order). Tweedle, 09:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

Just a quick concern about the colour of Reform on the map of constituencies that will be created as usual when the results come through. Reform's light blue / turquoise colour is far too similar to the Conservatives. Look here, for instance, at Survation's latest prediction. When viewing it small (as it will be seen in the infobox), it's impossible to tell which of the blue seats are Reform seats. On closer inspection, it becomes easier, but still the colours are just too similar.

I propose, for the electoral map, making the colour of the Reform seats either a lighter or darker shade than the blue of the Conservatives. Something like this perhaps -

There is still a chance Reform could not win any seats, in which case none of this will be an issue. Dhantegge (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I should add that the lighter shade of turquoise I've chosen as an example resembles that of the National Liberal Party as in, for example, the 1935 United Kingdom general election, which is easily distinguished from the Conservative party blue. Dhantegge (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this light blue hough distinct is too different from Reform's turquoise colour. Something like this is better IMO:

  Con

  Official Ref

  Con

  Light Blue (#9CF2FF)

  Con

  My Proposal (#00E5E5)

沁水湾 (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. — Czello ^(music) 09:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Cool :) can we get some more people on board for this? @Czello @Closingbracket @DimensionalFusion Dhantegge (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Wicked Dhantegge (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I also feel strongly that a combo of two similar blues for Con / Reform and TILE would be a bad choice for visually impaired users... or even anyone short sighted lol Dhantegge (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus for abandoning TILE once the results are in in favour of TIE, so infobox shouldn't be too troublesome. — Czello ^(music) 10:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd only be concerned for the contrast against the grey/white backdrop (perhaps more so in the seats composition diagram beneath, where there isn't the benefit of the constituencies being outlined in black), but it doesn't seem to be an issue in the 1935 article. Closingbrackettalk 14:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

See [1]. David O. Johnson (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Is this really an accurate characterization? Labour only went up 1% while Conservatives lost 20%. Labour only has the most seats now because they had the second most seats on the way in. Almost all the gains went to independents, but even then, LibDems picked up more seats than Labour did. It would seem more accurate to characterize this as a "Collapse of Conservatives" than a "Landslide for Labour" 2600:1702:27F0:1D40:D548:D7E:566D:582D (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I do think you could question how accurate it is, but this is the term sources are using, whether we like it or not. Here are just some examples. You can find many more I am sure. Gust Justice (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It was irrefutably a landslide victory by number of seats, which is the relevant part in FPTP elections. The same was said in 2019 United Kingdom general election when the Conservatives gained ~1 point in terms of votes but won a majority of 80 seats. Irltoad (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It fits the definition of a landslide as referenced above, hence reliable sources reference as such. CNC (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Under the heading "Candidates" the second paragraph reads, "A record number of Conservative MPs did not stan for re-election". This should be "stand for re-election". 7b8e6497 (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Y This has been corrected. Irltoad (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The small number of independents winning against Labour, focused on Gaza, may be noteworthy -- but should not take precedence over pressure exerted by e.g. the Liberal Democrats, Reform. The start of the analysis section should focus on the main story of the election, rather than an editor's wish to highlight Gaza. 31.94.72.87 (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice to highlight their role in nearly (or actually) wiping out multiple shadow ministers. Tweedle (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Just to point out the final result for this election will be on Saturday 6th July. STV news has tweeted out https://x.com/STVNews/status/1809150997341560967 Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire will be sorted tomorrow Crazyseiko (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I have added a sentence on this at the results section. Gust Justice (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

According to this page: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2024/jul/04/uk-general-election-results-2024-live-in-full "The speaker’s seat of Chorley, if he is re-elected, will be counted towards the Labour party total." So the 412 seats we have as Labour here includes the Speaker. Someone should add a note saying this, as it has usually been the convention that the Speaker is not included in the totals for their party in recent elections. TWM03 (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not very helpful to have only three parties in the infobox. One thing that leads to is that for all the other parties I can only find the number of seats won. Do we have the actual voting totals anywhere? Moonraker (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Until tomorrow we will NOT know the full results for all the parties. --Crazyseiko (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I am just wondering if the result in Boston and Skegness should have its own article regarding their remarkable result there, Matt Warman the Conservative candidate was defeated by a swing of some 43% to Richard Tice of the Reform Party there and also given that Boston was also the place where the highest vote in favour of Brexit was recorded back in the 2016 EU Referendum the circumstances seem appropriate for it should to be included for an article of its own just like Clacton. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC))

It already has its own article: Boston and Skegness (UK Parliament constituency), I'm sure you could add extra info in the elections section. PitterPatter533 (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed but why can’t the result have its own article under the title Boston and Skegness in the 2024 United Kingdom general election like the Clacton in the 2024 United Kingdom general election result article? (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 09:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC))

If there's enough in reliable sources to meet notability guidelines for an article rather than a section of the constituency article, then I see no reason why not. Irltoad (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

There are enough reliable sources to write separate articles on every result from last night, which is why we don't, and instead put that information in the constituency article. Black Kite (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. Irltoad (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If you want Boston and Skegness in the 2024 United Kingdom general election, then you can create Boston and Skegness in the 2024 United Kingdom general election. We could also comment on it in an analysis section. Bondegezou (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I will start the article but I need help to complete it, please tell me then why Clacton can have its own article but why not Boston and Skegness, I am not saying that every constituency result should have its own article but I do think Boston and Skegness is a unique result that does justify its own article? (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC))

It all depends on the amount of coverage the local contests get in reliable sources. Clacton has received a huge amount of focus owing to Farage's candidacy there. I don't have a strong opinion on Boston and Skegness, but if the sources support it, fine. That won't apply to every constituency, and in the longer run some of the individual constituency-at-election articles may be merged back to the main article for the relevant constituency. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Well Richard Tice was the leader of Reform UK until Nigel decided to stand in Clacton so he was quite notable indeed, the seat was taken on a massive swing from a sitting MP who had a majority of over 25,000 so i do generally believe it’s notable enough to have its own article which now has been started but I do need some help to get the overall result into the article as well as some background info too. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC))

I'm aware of that, but this doesn't depend on your opinion, but on what reliable sources say. If you can find sources that places particular emphasis on the Boston and Skegness contest, that would help. But now you have created that page, this discussion rather belongs on its own talk page. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

"Overall result" column is in error all the day down. It looks doubled plus or minus one. Example: Final Projection Labor seats 453 - 326 = 127, not 256. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The majority is considered to be the difference between the winning group and the remainder. In your example: 650 seats total with 453 to Labour gives a combined opposition of 197; the difference between 453 and 197 is 256. Closingbrackettalk 20:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello.

So only one seat left to declare, and we're getting close to be able to include factual figures of seat change. I was wondering however, whether we should find a consensus on whether we compare the parties seat count to Thrasher and Rawlings notional seat count or the actual seat count from 2019. Personally, I'm leaning toward the actual seat count from 2019, as I worry that comparing it to notional figures will make the page confusing.

Note: We should probably have both, but this discussion is more about what we should primarily use, such as in the infobox. Thomediter (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This change in seats have been documented from the start, there is no reason to remove this information per WP:BRD. [2][3]

Also no offence but you're a bit "late" to the discussion about how we are to compare seats, even if granted, RS differ on this for reasons explained. There was a template at the top of the page documenting that this is an ongoing election, which shouldn't have been removed as it hasn't finished yet. Nonetheless the reporting parameter in the infobox clearly documents the results are based on this. While we discuss which is the best approach to use for seat changes, the information should be returned based on RS coverage. CNC (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

With your revert the seat changes are now based on "quick maff" that aren't supported by RS. [4] CNC (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not been declared yet Swanstarr (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I'm guessing it's because the SNP candidate has conceded defeat to the Lib Dem already. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

We've decided to count as SNP have conceeded defeat. But I could see the arguments in not including until the official declaration. Thomediter (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The Yorkshire Party co-leaders are Bob Buxton & Simon Biltcliffe - the article wrongly lists their Chair Andy Walker as leader 188.240.183.141 (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed now. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I propose changing the following sentence in the lede:

"The Scottish National Party (SNP) lost around three quarters of its seats to Scottish Labour and the Conservative Party.^[1]"

To either

"The Scottish National Party (SNP) lost around three quarters of its seats to Scottish Labour^[1]"

Or

"The Scottish National Party (SNP) lost around three quarters of its seats to Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats^[1]"

This is due to the fact that the Scottish Conservatives did not gain any seats from the Scottish National Party (in fact, they lost the seat of Aberdeenshire North and Moray East). The Scottish Liberal Democrats have gained at least 3, possibly 4 seats from the SNP. I am not sure if that is notable enough to list them alongside Scottish Labour, which is why I have given both options.

Thanks. SurprisedPika (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Irltoad (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but it seems @Gust Justice reverted this in this edit. I don't know the protocol for this as I'm quite new to wikipedia, but Gust Justice is objectively incorrect, the Scottish Conservatives did not gain any seats from the Scottish National Party, so claiming "The Scottish National Party (SNP) lost around three quarters of its seats to Scottish Labour and the Conservative Party" is objectively wrong. I tried to look up what to do here but since I have to do everything through requests I'm not 100% sure, sorry. Would appreciate an answer by @Gust Justice as to why they are putting incorrect information into this article.

Thanks. SurprisedPika (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a mistake on my part. I only intended to change the results section. It seems like I edited an old version of the article, which inadvertently reverted the change that was made to the lead. Gust Justice (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Just wondering. NesserWiki (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

They're on the third count... Very close between SPN and Lib Dems. — Iadmc♫^talk  15:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. NesserWiki (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Not that we should include it, but it's looking likely the LibDem will win.

https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/drew-hendry-will-not-be-attending-tomorrow-s-recount-of-the-354939/

https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/liberal-democrat-is-privately-acknowledged-to-have-been-the-354931/ River10000 (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the SNP has conceded, so that bumps up the LD total to 72. Right? My math might be wrong River10000 (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm that the SNP candidate has conceded by email that the LibDems have won this (bringing them to 72 seats) by between 1500 and 2000 votes (about 3/4 boxes ahead, of 500 votes each). The SNP candidate will not be attending the technical second re-count, which will start at 10.30 this (Saturday) morning and is now a formality due to a small discrepancy in the original count. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of media articles, Reform themselves count themselves as 6 as does the Electoral Commission as Jim Allister of TUV stood under Reform-TUV in NI. 145.40.150.167 (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

We follow reliable secondary sources and reliable secondary sources are not reporting Allister in those terms. Bondegezou (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's best not to include TUV's one seat with the Reform (UK) total, or for that matter to include the Alliance Party's seat with the LibDems. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Here’s the latest on whether Allister will sit with the Reform UK group. Bondegezou (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I have created redirects for the regional lists at

• List of MPs for constituencies in England (2024–present)
• List of MPs for constituencies in London (2024–present)
• List of MPs for constituencies in Wales (2024–present)
• List of MPs for constituencies in Scotland (2024–present)
• List of MPs for constituencies in Northern Ireland (2024–present)

No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Please correct the Labour Majority to 180 in the second paragraph at the start of the article. The current wording states “ Labour achieved a 172-seat majority …” it should be replaced with “ Labour achieved a 180-seat majority … 86.11.252.177 (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Labour have returned 411 MPs. There are 650 seats in Parliament and, although a handful (including the Speaker) do not participate in House of Commons votes, that is the figure used for calculating overall majorities; therefore, all other parties combined have elected 239 MPs. 411 Labour MPs - 239 opposition MPs = 172-seat majority. 185.104.136.54 (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

To calculate the effective majority, it's easier to count the speaker as a Labour MP, because since Hoyle is a former labour MP, it will mean 2 of the 3 non voting deputy speakers will be from the opposition benches, and the other from the government. So by counting Hoyle as a non voting Labour MP, it means the speakers and deputy speakers cancel each other out when calculating the majority (as they're both 2 on each side). So 643 seats once you factor out Sinn Fein. Then 643 - 412 = 231 opposition seats (assuming Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire won't be won by Labour). 412 - 231 = 181 majority. --TedEdwards 14:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Parliamentary majorities are calculated as: Labour voting members 411 (not including the Labour speaker) less the total opposition voting members 231 (650 total members, less 411 Labour voting members, less 1 the Labour speaker, less 7 non-voting Sinn Féin members) equals 180 86.11.252.177 (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not read your post regarding deputy speakers before posting my response. Interestingly, the following is from the institute for government website … “Second, some MPs are ineligible to take part in votes. This is the case for the Speaker (unless the vote is tied, in which case the Speaker exercises the casting vote), the three deputy Speakers, and the four MPs who act as tellers on a vote. Any MPs who are elected to parliament, but choose not to take up their seat, are also forbidden from voting. That means that the seven Sinn Féin MPs do not vote, as historically that party does not take up its seats in the Commons.” So taking your post & the above …

Can we calculate the Labour Parliamentary Majority as 182 ?

Labour voting members 409 (including the Labour speaker, who has a casting vote, but not the Labour Deputy Speaker or the two Labour Tellers) less the total opposition voting members 227 (650 total members, less 409 Labour voting members, less 3 the Labour Deputy Speaker & two Labour Tellers, less 4 the two Opposition Deputy Speakers & Opposition Tellers, less 7 non-voting Sinn Féin members) equals 182. I think 182 is the important figure, incl. the casting vote ? 86.11.252.177 (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The Institute for Government also states: 'At the 2024 general election, the Labour Party won 411 seats. The combined total of seats held by opposition parties and the Speaker is 239. This gives Keir Starmer’s new government a simple majority of 172 seats.'

The same page goes on to elaborate that Labour has 'an effective working majority of 181 votes in the House of Commons' [emphasis mine] - however, when most other sources refer to the government's majority, they mean the simple majority, not the working majority, because the working majority is slightly theoretical: for example, one could further argue that the two Social Democratic and Labour Party members aren't strictly opposition MPs, given their party's affiliation to UK Labour.

If there are any major sources who refer to the Labour 'majority' (rather than working majority) as 180-182, please do share them. But, at the moment, places like the BBC (who include the Speaker under their Labour totals) all appear to be opting for figures of 172 or 174, depending on how they count the Speaker, eg: 'The party has taken 412 seats giving it a majority of 174.' Since Wikipedia counts the Speaker separately to Labour, the 411/172 totals should continue to be used. 31.111.26.25 (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Happy to accept the above, as agreed the text is majority rather than “working majority”. Thanks for everyone’s effort and explanations, much appreciated :-) 86.11.252.177 (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Glad to help! 👍 31.111.26.25 (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

why does the article for Angus MacDonald (Liberal Democrat politician) say he's been elected when the vote count is still underway/yet to be declared? per the BBC this and this?? 2A00:23C8:308D:9E00:39A3:6911:CEDF:4028 (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The recount is only due to a technicality, not because the vote is close. Based on the original count they are essentially certain Lib Dems have won (and SNP has conceded). spirit of the squirrel (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Why has the 1st map been fixed but not the 2nd? As it still says undeclared and is the wrong color? 109.240.34.248 (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess whoever made the map hasn't got around to updating it spirit of the squirrel (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! In the results table, Labour has 9,704,655 votes and the Speaker 25,238 votes. The BBC page doesn't show the Speaker's votes and I assume they are added into Labour's total. Should we correct the Labour total vote to 9,679,417? Tuesp1985 (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think so. Maurnxiao (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea for the article to note that Labour's vote total this time around was actually significantly less than it was under Corbyn in the 2017 election, and even the 2019 election. Labour was electorally quite successful, but this wasn't because of enthusiasm for Starmer or his party, but simply due to a massive collapse in support for the Tories. -2003:CA:873F:5669:7EAE:408C:D4B0:99B1 (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

We already compare the vote of this election to the 2019 one, and the Labour vote was actually higher this time round (as a percentage). I encourage editors to debate as to whether we should compare the Labour vote this time round to the 2017 election, however.--TedEdwards 16:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about as a percentage, but as the actual number of votes. Obviously Labour's percentage was higher, because, as I noted above, support for the Conservatives massively collapsed. But more people voted for Labour under Corbyn in 2017, and even in 2019 than voted for Labour in 2024 under Starmer. That's just a fact. This election was much more a failure for the Tories than it was a success for Labour. The latter simply succeeded by default, as a huge portion the Torries' traditional voting base either switched to Reform UK or didn't bother voting at all. The number of people voting for Labour also declined, just not as much. -2003:CA:873F:5669:7EAE:408C:D4B0:99B1 (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

So often when people say the vote is lower, without context, they referring to percentages, so if we said that about the number of votes, we would have to make that clear. Your part about This election was much more a failure for the Tories than it was a success for Labour. The latter simply succeeded by default, as a huge portion the Torries' traditional voting base either switched to Reform UK or didn't bother voting at all. could not include as is, as it is not a neutral point of view. But if reliable secondary sources (which in this case basically means news organisations that aren't tabloids, but not necesssarily impartial) talk about what you're saying, we can include discussion of the result and compare it to 2017 and 2019. So if you wanted this sort of discussion based on what reliable news organisations are publishing (probably best to steer clear of self-published media e.g. tweets) it would be helpful if you could post some links here. The only thing we on Wikipedia would have to do is ensure it's clear it's not our opinion, rather we are describing other people's opinions. --TedEdwards 19:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

How about this article?

"But while Starmer’s stonking 400-plus seats may look good on paper, dig a little deeper and those shiny new Labour MPs heading off to Westminster would be wise not to be complacent about their prospects of remaining there for long.

There is little doubt that this election was a loss for the Conservatives rather than Labour’s gain; there was no surge of enthusiasm for the party, as there was when Tony Blair captured the mood of the country in 1997." [5]

I think Politico is generally considered a rather reputable source, no? -2003:CA:873F:5669:7EAE:408C:D4B0:99B1 (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe Politico is reliable, but it doesn't mention anything about the vote share/number Labour got. Rather it claims Reform has a foothold and Labour voters may vote for Reform at the next election. --TedEdwards 18:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It talks about the lack of enthusiasm for Labour, contrasting it with '97, and this lack of enthusiasm is evidenced by the low voter turnout. There's also this article from the Guardian, which notes that "The Tories vote share plunged — but Labour's didn't rise." [6] Now, to be fair, it's talking about percentages there, rather than raw vote totals but it also illustrates the same general theme (along with the Politico article) that the results were more a matter of a collapse in support for the Tories, rather than a rise in support for Labour. So it seems that we have adequate citations for a statement along these lines, and the raw vote share numbers are already listed in Wikipedia articles, and could be noted, as an additional basis of comparison. -2003:CA:873F:56F2:DDAA:675:ED3F:84BE (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

JL Partners seat estimates should be added to the tables of final calls. They were in the original page and have now been removed. Clhunter (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Ligaturama (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Voter turnout was 60%, yet in the infobox its stated incorrectly. I suggest a source change for that with the correct turnout. Scotlandshire44 (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Scotlandshire44 the turnout is 59.9 percent according to the source cited. Please do not change that figure without a reliable source. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi​ I'm suggesting having a look at other reliable sources because many others are stating turnout was 60%. It's a bit confusing. Scotlandshire44 (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Could you provide an example of such source? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I would imagine that many reliable sources are just rounding the figure up to 60%, however the turnout was 59.9% and therefore that should be what's in the infobox. Alssa1 (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

At time of writing, the BBC's Election 2024 UK results page shows total votes on 28,753,772 and total registered electorate as 48,214,128 - which actually yields 59.64%. This, however, excludes Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (UK Parliament constituency), which has yet to declare. 212.187.244.66 (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This number is also confirmed by the Times Newspaper (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC))

Where the party vote is given as a percentage, the article doesn't make it clear whether this is of the votes cast or the vote of the electorate. If 40% of the electorate boycotted the election, this is a greater percentage than that gained by any party, which is surely significant? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove party background colours from _data_ fields in the table in the section By nation and region. 92.39.194.142 (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Ligaturama (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Double-counting "alliance" candidates

EDIT REQUEST - Change the number of candidates for United Kingdom Independence Party from 26 to 24

DETAIL

I'm resolving multiple discrepancies between party-based totals of candidates and votes per Wiki & other reliable sources. The only error found so far is this one.

Two of the parties, English Democrats and United Kingdom Independence Party entered into an electoral pact in 2023 as the Patriots Alliance.

In the 2024 general election, together they entered 39 candidates:

- 13 under the badge of English Democrats getting 4,956 votes,

- 2 as "Patriots Alliance" (which is not a new, separate party, and is without a Wikipage because of lack of importance) getting 226 votes, and

- 24 as United Kingdom Independence Party getting 6,530 votes,

a total of 11,712 votes.

The extant 2024 United Kingdom general election page shows English Democrats as 15 / 5,182 and United Kingdom Independence Party as 26 / 6,530, a total of 41 / 11,712. This is wrong.

(a) the vote total of 11,712 is correct and consistent with allotting (an arbitrary choice) the 2 "Patriots Alliance" candidates to English Democrats as 13 + 2 = 15 and 4,956 + 226 = 5,182, and

(b) the candidates total of 41 is wrong (should be 39) and has been caused by allotting the 2 "Patriots Alliance" candidates to both registered parties - 13 + 2 = 15 and 24 + 2 = 26

Please someone edit 2024 United Kingdom general election to reduce the number of United Kingdom Independence Party candidates from 26 to 24. 24 is the number shown by the party itself, on a page now password protected - https://archive.is/WjrmN https://www.ukip.org/ge-2024-candidates

The alternative, to reduce the number of English Democrats candidates from 15 to 13, would necessitate also changing its vote count from 5,182 to 4,956 as well as increasing that of United Kingdom Independence Party from 6,530 to 6,756.

Albin-Counter (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Ligaturama (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I have successfully amended the template

() and after a webpage reload in the browser, the correct data now appears in the article. Albin-Counter (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

We have exactly the same map in the infobox as in the results section, which is not necessarily an endorsement of its being a summary of the article. It is a map that tries to include a huge amount of information, with a complex key and many insets. Congratulations to the compiler for managing to get so much details in, but that complexity is precisely what makes in unsuitable for display at the size it has to be for the infobox. Kevin McE (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I was bold and reverted that edit myself before seeing this (I imagined there would not be much of a consensus for that map being there, as happened for previous elections). Impru20^talk 09:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The ideal for the infobox would be a plain geographical map without insets or text and an equal-area hexagon map size by side. Shading by majority does not make a multi-party election map clearer, and nor does a 120% zoomed in picture of the two Hull seats etc. Shaded maps are great but should ideally show the voteshare for a single party with no more than five shades of a single colour. Ralbegen (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it worthwhile to include in the article that Liberal Democrats received 85 percent of the votes that Reform UK received, but 12.8 times as many seats? A Reform UK MP is worth 822,857.4 votes, while a Liberal Democrat MP only has 54,703.75 votes behind him or her. GBC (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Media discussion of the proportionality of the seats: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c886pl6ldy9o. This is something that could be included in the article somewhere as it's quite relevant to the result. In the 2019 election page there is a chart relating to the proportionality of the vote using the Gallagher Index. Probably best to wait for the one remaining seat in Scotland before doing complicated calculations but something like that should probably be included here, particularly given the media discussion. I'd add that remarkably the Liberal Democrats still got a lower proportion of seats than votes. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitely worth discussing in the Aftermath section. Bondegezou (talk) 07:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that in terms of the discussion about proportionality, it's far more important that the 4th place party (vote share) got 72 seats and the 3rd place party got only 5, than some minor discrepancies between Labour and the Tories seat/vote share. Nealokelly (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)