Talk:2019 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Terminology

By convention UK General Elections are referred to by the year they occur. Numbers for Elections and elected assemblies are more of an American phenomena, I've never heard of the term being used in the United Kingdom? Would "Next United Kingdom General Election" be more appropriate?2.29.51.48 (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

At the moment, the election in 2 weeks is the next election, so this has to be something else. Once we've had the current election, then, yes, I would support this becoming "Next...". Bondegezou (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair point, I'm always a little on edge with creeping Americanisation, Cheers :) 2.29.51.48 (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Voting eligibility

At present, the third bullet point of the 'Voting eligibility' section states 'a British citizen, a Commonwealth citizen (with leave to remain or not requiring it) or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland,'.

I intend to change this to 'a British, Irish or Commonwealth citizen', which reflects the wording on the Gov.uk webpage which is referenced).

There is a distinction between eligibility to register to vote (which is covered by Section 4 of the Representation of the People Act 1983) and eligibility to vote (covered by Section 1 of the same Act).

According to Section 4(1) of the Act, where a person wishes to be 'registered in the register of parliamentary electors', he/she must, at the time of the application, be a 'qualifying Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland'. A 'qualifying Commonwealth citizen' is defined in Section 4(6) of the Act as a person who has leave or does not require leave to enter or remain in the UK.

In contrast, according to Section 1 of the Act, 'A person is entitled to vote as an elector at a parliamentary election in any constituency if on the date of the poll he ... is either a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland'. There is no reference to being a 'qualifying Commonwealth citizen'.

Therefore, the eligibility to register to vote and the eligibility to vote in a general election differ slightly. When a Commonwealth citizen registers to vote, he/she must be a qualifying Commonwealth citizen with leave to enter/remain in the UK (or not require such leave). On polling day, a Commonwealth citizen whose name appears on the electoral roll is entitled to vote - it is irrelevant if he/she has leave to enter/remain in the UK (or does not require such leave). Bonus bon (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

surely 'Did not contest' is speculation?

Surely the 'Did not contest' under the leaders who sit in their own parliaments is speculation - between now and whenever the election is, they may decide to go for Westminster instead of their own parliaments. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:FD4A:2D60:CBD6:8F36 (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Not so much speculation, as the wrong tense: ridiculous to use a past tense here in reference to a future election. Have changed to "Not a sitting MP". Kevin McE (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The Hung (hanged?) parlaiment

Considering that the Tory/DUP "coalition" has a majority of two votes, and many in the two parties are furious at Prime Minister May, we must get ready for another early election. When that will be I dunno. However, it should look like what the 2015 article looked like in January of that year. Let's get cracking shall we?Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

At this stage in the 2010-15 parliament, the 2015 election article looked like this. You can see that people at that time had the same view about the chances of an early election, and the article was not exactly well-developed.

By January 2015, the (legally-defined) long campaign for the 2015 election had already begun, so of course there was a lot more coverage. This is not the case for the next election today. Indeed, by the time you posted your message, they hadn't yet finished counting the results from the 2017 election. Kahastok talk 13:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Total number of seats in the Commons

The infobox started off saying there are 650 seats in the Commons (and thus 326 needed for a majority), as that is the current situation. However, Kevin McE is concerned that is misleading as, if the election happens when it is scheduled to do so, and if the Sixth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies goes through as it is scheduled to do so, then the number will be reduced to 600. His proposal, the current edit as I write, is to leave the space in the infobox empty, leaving the article text to explain.

I feel this is unnecessary. There is a reasonable chance that there will be an early election and/or that the new constituencies will not come in, i.e. that the next election will be fought on 650 seats. More importantly, it seems to me that much of the data in the infobox could change -- leaders change (and the LibDem one will soon), and numbers of seats change if there are any defections or by-elections -- yet we've always just shown the current situation anyway. So, I think the best approach for the total number of seats should be the same as for the party leaders: we show the current situation, with additional notes as appropriate. Thus, I prefer this version showing 650 seats with an explanatory footnote, and with a note that Farron is stepping down (also removed by Kevin McE).

What say the rest of you? Bondegezou (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Until the boundary review is implemented, the next general election will take place with 650 seats. Don't see why we can't there put 650 and change to 600 when required. SocialDem (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, even if it didn't seem unlikely to happen then keeping it at 650 would be the best course of action. Perhaps add a sentence somewhere about the boundary changes though. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for inadvertent removal of note re Farron.

I have been accused of Crystalballing for removing the number (I have never proposed putting 600 as the number of seats). Please explain how admitting that it is a matter of uncertainty by saying nothing is less making an assumption than posting a number that might very well be incorrect. Kevin McE (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

We know that the number is 650 now, so that's not an assumption nor uncertainty. You don't know yet if that "might" be incorrect in the future. Your grounds for not saying anything are based on a future event which may or may not happen. There are many reasons under which the number of seats in the next election may still be 650. That boundaries may change is a possibility, but of course, we still don't know it, so the best course of action for now is to just stick to what we know as of now. If the boundary review comes into effect, there's no issue at all to change the number accordingly. But as of now, the number of constituencies is 650, and assuming that won't be such in the future based on future events which are not assured to take place is WP:CRYSTALBALL. And I can't find a good reasoning so as to why showing no information is best that showing the current information. Impru20 (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

We know that the number is 650 now: Now, yes; at time of last election, yes; at time of next election (which is the subject of this article), unknown, speculative and crystal balling.

You don't know yet if that "might" be incorrect in the future I absolutely do know that it "might" be incorrect in the future, so do you. You definitely do not know that it will be 650 seats at the time of the next election.

Your grounds for not saying anything are based on a future event which may or may not happen. Don't presume to tell me what my motive is. Your grounds for saying something specific appear to be based on a scheduled future event not happening: that is far more crystal balling than my proposal.

the best course of action for now is to just stick to what we know as of now I could not agree more. As of now, we do not know what the number of seats at the next election will be, but we do know that if the two relevant schedules are kept to, there is a very high possibility that there will not be 650 seats, so it is being reckless with the truth to assert that it will be.

But as of now, the number of constituencies is 650, and assuming that won't be such in the future based on future events which are not assured to take place is WP:CRYSTALBALL. And stating that that will still be such in the future based on an assumption that scheduled future events will not come to pass. I am assuming nothing, and am merely seeking to present the article in such a way that it assumes nothing.

I really cannot see how anyone can conclude that specifying either 650 or 600 seats is anything other than WP:Crystalball. When either the date of the election is set, or the boundaries review is enacted or shelved, a number can be added to the infobox; until then, the only honest step is to acknowledge that the matter is under active consideration for change, and not to pretend that it is not. Kevin McE (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"Now, yes; at time of last election, yes; at time of next election (which is the subject of this article), unknown, speculative and crystal balling". The part I bolded is the only thing that matters now. We know that NOW the number is 650. Making speculation on which that number would be at the time of next election is speculative, and until changes are not actually carried out, the number would still be 650 because that's the number we have now. So, 650 is not speculative. Anything else, yes.

Making speculation on which that number would be at the time of next election is speculative I am avoiding that. You are not. Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

You're speculating that 650 may not be the number. Yeah, that's speculation. Impru20 (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"Your grounds for saying something specific appear to be based on a scheduled future event not happening". Well, your grounds for saying something specific ARE based on a possible future event happening. That's WP:CRYSTALBALL. We don't know for sure if that event (boundary change) will take place before the next election, because you don't know 1) when will the boundary change enter into effect (it's scheduled for 2018, just as it was scheduled for 2013 before...), and 2) when will the next election take place. So, we stick to what we know now, which is that the number of constituencies is still 650.

Given that I am assiduously avoiding specifying a particular number, this whole paragraph makes no sense at all, and leaves me wondering whether you have actually read anything I have written. Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Not specifying a particular number on the grounds that the current number (one which is certain and set into stone right know) may change is speculation. Arguing that such a number may change because a boundary review is initially scheduled for 2018 is speculation (the assumption that the next general election will be held after 2018 is very speculative, so no, you're not avoiding that. In fact, your entire reasoning is based out of a speculation). Impru20 (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"(...) And stating that that will still be such in the future based on an assumption that scheduled future events will not come to pass". No, you're missing the point. We're not assuming that 650 is the definitive number that will be in force for the next election: we know that's the number in force right now. Your very own assumption of different scenarios for the next election is what constitutes WP:CRYSTALBALL: you're assuming that 650 may not be the number used for the next election, and that's already a future assumption. 650 is the number at present; that's not an assumption, but a certainty. If it changes, there's no difficulty in editing the article to show the change, but let us not assume future possibilities and stick to what we know right now.

But this article is not about what holds now: it is about the next election. You will not find any political commentator who will tell you that the next election will definitely be before the boundary commission report, nor that the said report will definitely reject parliament's request that the number of seats be reduced. So to say that 650 may not be the number of seats is unquestionably true. (That is not the same as saying it will not be 650, but I have not sought to assert that). Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Nor will you find a political commentator that tells you that the next election will definitely be 'after the boundary commission report, not that said report will not definitely reject parliament's request. This is pure speculation you make. Yeah, this article is about the next election, but under WP:CRYSTALBALL, and given that we obviously can't read the future. The 650-seat number is verifiable. The 600-seat one is not, because it still doesn't exist as of yet. As simple as that. Impru20 (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"As of now, we do not know what the number of seats at the next election will be, but we do know that if the two relevant schedules are kept to, there is a very high possibility that there will not be 650 seats, so it is being reckless with the truth to assert that it will be." You see? That's an assumption of a future event. "There is a very high possibility" is your own, personal assumption. Yeah, we could also say, based on reliable sources and on the lack of an overall majority and a strong ruling coalition, that "there is a very high possibility" that an election may be held within this year or early in 2018. That'd also be an assumption of a future event, which would destroy your very own presumption that there's a "very high possibility" that there will not be 650 seats. So, which possibility do we stick to? Of course none, because you can't know that. So, of course, the best course of action for now is to just stick to what we know as of now, which is that the number of seats right now is 650.

"There is a very high possibility" is your own, personal assumption No it isn't, because you have selectively removed it from the full sentence, which referred to election and boundary change schedules being kept to. To present a conditional clause as an absolute is to deliberately misrepresent the person you are quoting, and highly reprehensible if you intend to debate an issue sensibly.

"So, which possibility do we stick to? Of course none, because you can't know that." I agree entirely. The only way to assume neither possibility is to not specify a number. But you are insisting on stating something we cannot know. Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"Yeah, we could also say, based on reliable sources and on the lack of an overall majority and a strong ruling coalition, that "there is a very high possibility" that an election may be held within this year or early in 2018." That is a possibility which my proposal does not exclude. But you want to include something that might be directly contradicted in the future.Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

But your proposal takes for granted that the number of seats up for election may vary, but it may not. Your proposal is excluding the possibilities of a new election being held under the same boundaries (because it brings doubt that these will remain) . Again, 650 is verifiable, other number isn't right now. 650 doesn't contradicts WP:CBALL; saying nothing does (while concurrently depriving readers of some essential data).

"But you are insisting on stating something we cannot know". You yourself acknowledge it. You're trying to predict the future. We of course can't know the future, but the fact is that it shouldn't even be attempted unless realiable sources point so. You're trying to think what the future might be based on a possible boundary review that may or may not result in a boundary change, or even to think that the election may be held afterwards. It isn't only that you can't know the future, but that you shouldn't even try to figure it out unless you have reliable sources. Impru20 (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"I really cannot see how anyone can conclude that specifying either 650 or 600 seats is anything other than WP:Crystalball". 650 is the current size of the House of Commons, so specifying that is not WP:CRYSTALBALL. The article must reflect facts as we know them right know, not "possibilities" in the future, no matter how likely they may seem. The fact that you don't specify any number is already an assumption that the number of seats will, or at least may, change, which is already crystalball-ish. You don't know that. You can't know that. Because you lack the most essential information as to when would a constituency review take effect and when the next election will be held. 650 is the number now, and will still be until a review takes place. Making other assumptions is what constitutes a crystal ball. Impru20 (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I can, and do, know that it may change. So do you, and everyone aware of the Boundary Commission. We do not lack the knowledge of when the constituency review is due to be enacted (or maybe you do, in which case you are really not sufficiently informed to take part in this discussion). I am making no assumptions, although you repeatedly try to insist that I am. Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"I can, and do, know that it may change" Again, this is an effort at trying to read the future. Exactly what WP:CBALL forbids.

"We do not lack the knowledge of when the constituency review is due to be enacted" You're making an assumption that such a review will result in a boundary change, as well as one that the next election is going to take place after that review. You can't know that. You can't base your reasonings in a future event which you 1) don't know how will end up, and 2) don't even know if it'll be appliable to the next election, because it may be held earlier.

And please: "or maybe you do, in which case you are really not sufficiently informed to take part in this discussion" Don't try to bring me out from this discussion just because I don't agree with you. Others don't agree with you either. I may disagree with some people at times as well, but I usually tend to stick to the issue at hand and not to discuss the others' intelligence. Please, don't WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, thank you. Impru20 (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: I see now the footnote added by Bondegezou and I like it now, since it reflects such a possibility of boundary change without assuming it as a certainty nor without taking for granted that it will be in force for the next election. The objective data is that the Sixth Review is due to be implemented by 2018 (at some point during that year), and that, if implemented, the number of seats will be reduced to 600. No assumptions should be made at whether those changes will be implemented by the time of the next election (as you don't know when that'll take place) or whether the Review is definitely going to take place and not, let's say, get postponed again. I think this is a nice informative way to show this data without depriving readers from any info. Impru20 (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I think leaving the field blank is unnecessary. We are able to say some sensible things about this number. It is currently 650. It may change to 600, but this is dependent on the review being implemented and the next election not being until after then. (It is possible, of course, that it could be changed to any other number.) So I think we use text or footnotes or links to explain what we do know.

The only question then is whether we say "600 [footnote]" or "650 [footnote]" or "600 or 650 [footnote]". 650 is the current figure. On the balance of probabilities, I suspect it's more likely to be the figure at the next election than not. So I prefer "650 [footnote]". Bondegezou (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Impru20 (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

No, that is patently not the only question. Either of those is making an assumption. As soon as you use the phrase "On the balance of probabilities" or "I suspect it's more likely" you are admitting that you are speculating, and in breach of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Why on Earth would you specify something that you cannot be sure of, when the option of explaining uncertainty is more honest? It is not as though there is only a remote theoretical possibility of this change, it is a long term policy enactment.

Let us assume, for a while, that the envisaged changes happen. We have the choice of leaving the number of seats as 650, and then having to climb back from that, admit that a false assumption was made, and change the seat number; or we have it unspecified, with a footnote about possibilities, and provide more certain facts when they are known. So climbdown, or acknowledgement of temporary uncertainty.

Now let us assume that the changes don't happen. We either have an accurate number throughout, or we have it unspecified, with a footnote about possibilities, and provide more certain facts when they are known.

So the options amount to one that might be right but might lead to a climbdown, and one option that will be right in plenty of time, but avoids any risk of being incorrect in the meantime. I cannot imagine any reading of the relevant policy, or any reasonable expectation on the part of a reader, in which the former is preferable.

I challenge anyone who is willing to acknowledge that there is genuine doubt about the number of seats there will be available at the next election to explain how putting a number that suggests a non-existent certainty is a better adherence to the policy against crystal balling than informing the reader that there are reasons why the number of seats cannot be stated with confidence at this time. Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I've re-read WP:CBALL and I don't see anything we're in breach of. Can you be more specific? I think we face limited uncertainty: it's either 650 or 600. Wikipedia is allowed under WP:CBALL to talk about future events. We don't have to say nothing in the face of uncertainty. I am all for "explaining uncertainty", which is why I favour adding a footnote. Simply leaving that line completely blank -- which I thought was your proposal for the infobox -- seems over-the-top to me and does not explain the uncertainty.

The other important point is that, right now, there's no uncertainty. Right now, the number is definitely 650. So it's not wrong to describe that as the current situation, even if we know the future situation may change. We show Theresa May as the leader of the Conservatives, but she probably won't be when the election actually happens. If we can't show 650, we should purge all the leaders' photos and name. I don't see how you're happy with those, but not 650 (with footnote). Bondegezou (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It's very simple: because we are not even trying to read the future. We don't try to edit the page so as to have it depend on events that might or might not take place. We stick to the current figure because that's what the number will be if an election is held right now. We don't try to depict how an election will work out if held within one year, two or three, nor do we try to make an infobox element, accessible to readers now, depend on how a future event, which may or may not take place, unfolds. When you remove all figures, you're yourself trying to imagine how the future will be: you argue that you remove them because we don't know which number will be used in a future election basing it out of a series of circumstances which can only happen in the future. That is, in itself, what constitutes your CBALL breach: to make edits trying to guess out how will the future will be, and predicting that the sole possibility that the future may unfold in one way is reason enough to prevent using any number. That is a prediction, or an attempt at making one.

This entire comment of yours, for example, is full of assumptions. "Let us assume, for a while, that the envisaged changes happen", "Now let us assume that the changes don't happen". Your entire reasoning is built on a series of possible what ifs. We stick to 650 because that's the current number, perfectly verifiable. It's not an assumption or a prediction of which may happen. Does it strictly means that the next election will be fought on 650 constituencies? No, but that were the next election be held right know, that'd be the scenario. Do it step-by-step. When changes come, if they do, we shall add them. But don't try to figure out possible changes before we even know how these will unfold, õr if they will at all, because that's not the point of the article. Impru20 (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

(reply to Bondegezou) That policy states that "original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and future history [is] inappropriate." Either number is speculative, posting 650 is extrapolation and future history (if that means what I think it does), in a manner that would be unobjectionable in most inter-electoral periods, but not one that is scheduled to incorporate a review of constituencies. I believe that it is original research, because I do not believe you will find any reputable political commentator who would assert confidently that the next election will definitely precede enactment of the re-organisation. Of course we can talk about future events, otherwise the article could not exist, but we cannot act as though we know the relative timing of two likely (one certain, one likely) future events when the schedule of at least one of them is uncertain. I agree that we should explain uncertainty, but I think that we should be upfront about that uncertainty rather than hide it in a footnote. My proposal (you have deleted it twice, so I thought you knew what it was) is to have the sentence rendered as "All sets in the House of Commons", retaining the current links, and I would indeed support a footnote stating that it was 650 at the June 2017 election but it is proposed to reduce this to 600 for elections from 2018 onwards. Right now, there is uncertainty, because it is the next election that we are trying to describe: the current parliament is scheduled to last beyond the date of enactment of the review, but might not. If it were announced that the election will definitely precede the re-organisation, what is true now is relevant to the next election (the subject of this article): until it is, we do not know whether the status quo is relevant, and there is a real and strong possibility that it will not be. I proposed removal of leaders' details years ago, and was voted down for reasons that I never found logically consistent: I would strongly propose at least relabelling as "Current leader", but one battle at a time. There would also have to be either removal of, or footnote explanation of, the seats needed fields. My proposal is definitely true up until whichever occurs first of the announcement of election or enactment of re-organisation, after which something specific (and true) can be put in its place; your preferred option will be proven at that time to have been either true or false all along. I would re-iterate that I am only suggesting this tentative phrasing because it is known to be an unknown at this time (despite Impru's strange insistence that I can' know that it might change: I am not suggesting inclusion of all manner of other potential but less likely contingencies, the unknown unknowns (like the delayed election in 2010 in Thirsk because of the death of a candidate). In short we have a choice between what is true, but in need of future refinement, or what will be probably true if we have another shortened parliament, but probably not true if we don't. I don't think an encyclopaedia should tell people it will be 650 and then changes its information: I prefer one that says it will be all seats, and explains why we do not know right now what that number will be. Kevin McE (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

(reply to Impru20) The interpolated discussion is becoming impossible to follow. Until you acknowledge that I am not predicting anything, but am simply acknowledging the uncertainty (that arises when a statutory review of constituencies, which has been charged with reducing the number of members, is due to be in place by the currently mandated date of the next election), there really is no point in continuing the discussion with you. Suffice to say that you have repeatedly, for what reason I do not know, accused me of taking a position that I have neither proposed nor defended. I will however suggest that you try to clarify your understanding of "may" as opposed to "will", that you have repeatedly confused, and wonder why someone who objects to the inclusion of potential error in this edit is so enthusiastic to include potential error in the infobox. Kevin McE (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I see that you don't put a single effort at trying to refute me. I've explained very carefully why you're making predictions and why you're breaching CBALL. And you're not even make a try to refute it, so that would mean something. What worries me the most is that now you engage in personal accusations about my motives, a behavior which, such as your previous OWNBEHAVIOR above, I fail to understand except in that maybe you've proven yourself unable to reply and instead with the "easy way": to try to dismiss or discredit my position.

But truth is that you refuse to acknowledge that you're in error, and yet you pretend that others acknowledge that you're not "predicting anything" when you've been proven otherwise. The very fact of trying to "acknowledge the uncertainty" of a future event is an attempt at future prediction which you shouldn't do. That's the very breach of CBALL. The "currently mandated date of the next election" is not a fixed event, so is not a future certainty. Nor is it a future certainty that the number of members will be reduced before the next election. You've based all of your reasonings on assumptions and possible what ifs, yet you argue that it's not you the one breaching CBALL. So far, we stick to WP:VERIFIABILITY, which currently points to the number of seats being 650 as of now. They may be reduced for the next election, but we don't know it. Yet we know that 650 is the number in use right know. I can't really understand such a haste for you to take for granted events that may or may not happen; the reasoning behind it belongs only to you. Impru20 (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

To your recent edit (which was added while I was commenting): "I will however suggest that you try to clarify your understanding of "may" as opposed to "will", that you have repeatedly confused, and wonder why someone who objects to the inclusion of potential error in this edit is so enthusiastic to include potential error in the infobox."

If you cared to read me more carefully, I think you would understand it very quickly. The 650 number is not a potential error. Perceiving it as an error, as you do, is only trying to figure out how the future will unfold. And removing it is acting as if that future was going to unfold like that, and deprives users of some essential data.

Anyway, I've a question for you. So concerned as you are with what the future awaits for the next election, tell us: what's wrong with the current infobox setting, with Bondegezou's footnote? Because all of your worries are already solved by it (as it explains exactly what may happen, but not by removing information but by adding them, which makes things much more clear and useful for readers to understand). It's a very nice compromise solution for everyone... yet you stick with your will to remove the seat number from the infobox. Why? Impru20 (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

UnindentI think the matter is quite simple. The number of seats might be 650, but might not be: it is therefore a potential error. To assert that it will be 650, without knowing for certain that either the election will be before the implementation of the review or that the review will not result in the status quo, and in the face of a high possibility that that will not be the case, is speculative OR. Acknowledging in the infobox that, because of these particular circumstances, there cannot be a confident announcement at present of the number of seats that will be announced, seems to me to be the only responsible course of action, as one that will not be potentially subject to retraction. I reiterate that this is only proposed because of the scheduling of the review of constituencies: it would not be necessary in every inter-electoral period, but this time around, it is certainly not verifiable that the next general election will see competition for 650 seats. I am not predicting anything, because in any eventuality what I am proposing will be correct. The current state of the infobox is not acceptable, because putative information is not information that the reader can rely upon, and the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to give reliable information, not claims liable to retraction.

But we seem unlikely to agree: I have raised the matter at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not (the talk page relevant to WP:CBALL). I hope you will think I have summarised the issue impartially. Let's see what they say. Kevin McE (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, trying to predict the future. 650 might not be the seats for the next election IF held after 2018 AND the boundary review is implemented. That's a future possibility, still future and still a possibility, thus a scenario based in an assumption. Not verifiable. 650 is verifiable. Simple. You still don't explain the basis for removal of information based on an assumption.

"Acknowledging in the infobox that, because of these particular circumstances, there cannot be a confident announcement at present of the number of seats that will be announced". Hey, hello! But that's already done in an edit by Bondegezou a while ago! And I tried for you to answer to me on this issue and you ignored me completely. What gives, then? It's not even clear what you want.

"because in any eventuality what I am proposing will be correct". Yeah, and we could also delete this article and that would also be correct, but that's not the point of Wikipedia I think. Impru20 (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I would describe the above as something of a stalemate. Hopefully others will join the discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 06:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

650 + footnote is fine. Saying that the election will have 600 or 650 is not wild speculation, no more than the very existence of a next election. CBALL states that "individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place"; we can reasonably extend this rule to the information within the article. As the 600 or 650 figures are notable and are almost certain to take place, we can and must include the numbers. But most importantly, per WP:IAR we are to present our readers the information that serves them best, including the expected number of seats up for election, regardless of technicalities. Rami R 16:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Noteworthiness of Speculation

There has been some amount of speculation about this election, notably the possibility that it would be held earlier than forseen, maybe even later this year. Is it worthwhile adding anything on this to the article? Munci (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes: within reason and with reliable source citations. I think that would be a good thing. Bondegezou (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

If a notable candidate for a minor party has declared they will be standing, is this worth adding to individual constituency article? Phil Hammond has declared he will be standing for the North East Somerset (UK Parliament constituency) for the National Health Action Party against Jacob Rees-Mogg and has been sacked by the BBC as a result but I have a vague memory of a guideline that we don't add candidates until it is "official".— Rod ^talk 06:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

There's no guideline as such, but I know many editors (and I am one of them!) are rather wary of adding candidates in 2018 for a 2020 general election, particularly as they are often self-declared or chosen by parties in unwinnable seats. All it takes is for a few anonymous IPs to add each and every For Britain "candidate" across the country for us to get into an edit war over who is and who isn't an actual, declared, official "candidate". With potential boundary changes coming up too, editing candidates into seat articles might get messy/messier if the original seat doesn't exist! It's perhaps best to leave editing candidates until much closer the time. doktorb _words^deeds 07:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

OK Thanks for guidance.— Rod ^talk 07:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

the Inclusion of an election earlier than the tentative date

I thought that it had been discussed on this page before, but the precariousness of this current administration has created the near constant speculation of an early general election. There has been particular situations, however, such as this from 'i News' that shows the possibility of an early election is legitimate. Is there a place for this kind of discussion on the page? Jonjonjohny (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I think reliable source coverage of a possible early election could be used to construct some prose for the article, yes. Bondegezou (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Theresa May

@Pato Lukassss: I would request you not to start an edit war over this issue, but I believe you are correct in removing may from the infobox as many reliable sources have also confirmed she will not lead the tories into the election. (To name one: [1]). Please, however, discuss this on the talk page to prevent edit wars. Thank you. маsтегрнатаLк 19:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Cc: @Bondegezou: маsтегрнатаLк 19:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Masterpha: Sorry I've just starting editing Pato Lukas

Note that she has referred to the 2022 election, which doesn't rule out her leading the Tories into an earlier election. I think we should keep her there for the time being, possibly with a note to say that she has ruled out leading them into the 2022 election. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I slightly disagree with removing May as of now (unless she is actually removed from office today). Basically, because 1) a 2022 election may not equal to the "next election" if a snap election is held before that date; 2) May has also been reported to say that "in her heart she would like" to fight election ([2]), but that "her intention is not to" in an attempt to gather support for winning the confidence vote. If she wins, she will remain Tory leader, and there's nothing actually preventing her from fighting the next election if she wishes to (this is not like if there was a leadership contest ongoing from where she has voluntarily chosen to withdraw, but a vague promise which she has not even fully clarified. For instance, if she wins the confidence vote and a snap election is called before 12 December 2019, she could run unopposed as Tory MPs would be unable to call a new confidence vote before that date). Out of respect to WP:CRYSTALBALL, I'll say to keep her until a definitive action is taken that ensures she won't be the Conservative leader ahead of the next election. There's no rush either to remove her right away now; we can remove her from the infobox once her withdrawal is effective if she ends up fulfilling her promise (and if she wins the confidence vote, of course). Impru20^talk 19:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

A tricky situation. When will the next general election be held & will May be leading the Conservatives into that general election. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Impru20: Yes but all major sources point to her not running --Pato Lukassss (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

We should keep May in the infobox here for now (unless she is removed or resigns). The last iteration of this page wasn't moved to 2020 United Kingdom general election when May said she wouldn't hold a general election. She's not bound by her words, and the phrasing of "the next general election in 2022" gives leeway anyway. Ralbegen (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, May hasn't ruled out leading the Conservatives into a snap election. Something that would occur, if the House of Commons vote no-confidence in the Conservative minority government or the House of Commons votes a 2/3 majority in having a snap election, following May's call for such an election. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

As ever, we need to stop obsessing about the infobox and focus on the text. We need to talk about all this on the page. Bondegezou (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I do think it would be a good idea to add her intended resignation as a footnote, though, much like we have as a footnote that Sturgeon doesn't have a Westminster seat. Sceptre (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Footnote sounds great. Bondegezou (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Bondegezou; the footnote is the best option. JDuggan101 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: I seriously think this should be reconsidered. The argument that she didn’t specify the date is slightly weak in my honest opinion, seeing as she has now also confirmed she won’t lead them into the next election (not necessarily 2022, BBC Source: [3]) маsтегрнатаLк 13:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The infobox is a summary of the article. I suggest you add some text to the article, other people can edit that, and once we've worked that out, it will be easier to decide what to do with the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

May's actual stance taken from the linked BBC source: I've said that in my heart I would love to be able to lead the Conservative Party into the next general election but I think it is right that the party feels that they would prefer to go into that election with another leader. (...) "What I'm clear about is the next general election is in 2022 and I think it's right that another party leader take us into that general election."

Firstly, she is indeed very clear on referring to the 2022 election as the next election. She has deliberately omitted answering whether she would contest an earlier election if held, or even whether she would quit earlier. Secondly, when voicing her own stance she says she would "love" to run, but it's "her party" that feels she should not (it is not a "no, no, no", but rather, a "I'd like but they won't let me but who knows"). We could have her removed from the infobox now only for her to say "I suddenly feel the party now supports me so I'll run" within a few months/years. As she is still the Conservative leader for the time being and her position is not unambiguous or conclusive enough, I think a footnote in the infobox would do the job for now. Impru20^talk 14:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I think a footnote "May has stated she will stand down before the next election" in the infobox(es) is the right way to go. She is the current leader of the party, she may still be leader if it's an early and enforced one, and we have no idea of who the next leader will be or when they will take office. Dtellett (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Heads up.

Seeing as a non-confidence vote will occur on 16 January 2019, with the potential for a UK general election in 2019. An RM will soon be in order. Not sure what PM Theresa May's status will be concerning leading the Conservatives in the campaign. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hoo hoo hoo. That being said, we are now within unprecedented territory. Neville Chamberlin WON a no confidence motion in 1940, and he went. We are now in a state of chaos that may need an article of it's own. Right now, nobody has a clue what's going on. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I would certainly ensure that all relevant article titles are watched and redirected while necessary. doktorb _words^deeds 20:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources are currently reporting that the 16 Jan no confidence vote is likely to be won by the government, thus not precipitating a general election. That said, the possibility of an early general election and of specifically in 2019 remain significant. Bondegezou (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Flynn

Paul Flynn is also standing down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.10.165.90 (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Paul Flynn sadly died a few days ago, which is why he is no longer listed as an MP due to stand down. Ralbegen (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

TIG in infobox

The Independent Group were added to the infobox, but Kevin McE removed them, arguing they are not a party. It is somewhat unclear what their intentions are for the next general election (which also depends on when the election is), so I'm sympathetic to not including them in the infobox. At the same time, their formation is clearly very significant and they are already appearing in polling, so I think we need to say something about them on this article, be it in the infobox and/or in text. What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about TIG to the prose (but have left them out of the infobox). Bondegezou (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: Well, I suppose they aren't technically a party, so we don't know their intentions for fielding candidates at the next election yet, so we can't really have them in the infobox. However, for the same reason, I don't believe we should make any mention of them fielding candidates at the next election, and therefore I disagree with your sentence, especially since it seems a bit WP:CRYSTAL (saying they could form a party). --TedEdwards 17:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, the whole infobox is WP:CRYSTALine, with pictures of party leaders who might or might not be in post at the time of the election, numbers that might not hold by then, the assumption (which seems to have been proved correct, but was nevertheless an assumption) that the number of seats will be unchanged, etc. I won't argue (now) for the wholesale removal of that (if I did, I would start wondering how much of the article is encyclopaedic fact rather than journalistic analysis), but certainly addition of what is not yet a party, and has not yet indicated any intentions in regard to the next election, is at the moment inappropriate outside of explaining its appearance in polling. Kevin McE (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kevin McE: I'm very sympathetic to your analysis of the sense of an infobox in an election some distance away. However, my previous experience has been that most editors are keen on having an infobox. What can you do? Bondegezou (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I feel a passing reference to them in the prose is reasonable, something along the lines of "In February 2019 a group of eleven MPs from both the Labour and Conservative parties resigned their party whip to sit as independents, but did not immediately form a political party." I agree that they should not be present in the infobox. Reference to future plans I agree is WP:CRYSTAL as at present it is no more than speculation and is not even a position stated officially by the group itself, let alone reported as having happened by secondary sources. If however they officially register as a party then they should immediately be placed in the infobox in a position equivalent to their numbers at that time. Aurourafx (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I think some mention in the article is warranted. I'm happy to switch to the wording suggested above. Bondegezou (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Could the sentence be changed to "In February 2019 a group of eleven MPs from both the Labour and Conservative parties resigned their party whip to sit as independents, but did not form a political party.", removing the word "immediately"? I just feel the sentence at the moment could imply that they will form a political party, which is completely uncertain. --TedEdwards 19:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

On March 29th 2019, TIG announced its intentions to become a party as Change UK - The Independent Group. The application has not yet been cleared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.39.251 (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

MPs standing down if there isn't a snap election

Some MPs, lately Vince Cable, have said they won't stand in the election if at the scheduled time, but will if there's a snap election before then. Given there is considerable speculation that there may be a snap election, I don't think we can simply list such as "not standing at the next election", but perhaps we can list them in a more complicated way, noting this caveat...? Ideas, people? Bondegezou (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Change UK vs. Brexit Party

Good morning from Chicago. I couldn't help but notice that in the party leader & general overview table on the top of the page, you have Change UK in, while the Brexit Party is notably absent. This is quite laughable if you scroll down and take a peak at the opinion polling. As of this writing, the Brexit Party is tied with the Lib Dems at 13% - while Change UK can't even muster more than a measly 2%. Would it not be more prudent to stagger the parties from most popular to least (via the opinion polls)? If no one objects, I'm going to shuffle them accordingly in a short while. No parties will be excluded in my edit, so the table will be expanded a bit. Chase1493 (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Consensus to date has been to base the infobox for the next election on the results of the last election or the current standing, and not to make decisions on polling. (Not least because raw polling figures are a poor predictor of how many MPs will be elected.) Change UK, although not around at the last election, do have a significant number of MPs from defections that earn them their place in the infobox. The Brexit Party have no MPs. So, no, don't make any changes, not until you can show that consensus has evolved. Bondegezou (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, totally fair. I actually meant to retract the request after realizing what you've already mentioned. Thanks for the response! Chase1493 (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

May is acting leader for now

As per this and many other reports, note that May remains PM and acting Conservative Party leader. Bondegezou (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

pictures on that pesky info box

AS there is a message saying "do not remove May or Cable without discussion," I thought it would be a good idea to start one. The photos of the leaders are, in fact, those party's nominees for Prime Minister. I know that Nicola Sturgeon is there, and she shouldn't, but that's a discussion for another time. May is leaving office as Tory leader tomorrow, so we should replace her with a "nobody" silhouette ASAP, and change the rest to TBD until a successor can be chosen. Same with Cable. This is about the NEXT election and it is not WP:Crystal to say that both of these people will not be a candidate for PM in the NEXT election.

Yes, one can say that in Westminster system governments, resigned leaders have indeed canceled their resignations (Pierre Trudeau did it in 1979) and went on to run in the snap election, but this is something that cannot happen HERE, given the poll numbers. While we're at it, the Queen can technically sack the prime minister (1975 Australia), but that's not going to happen either. HM, and Prince Charles are NOT suicidal. To conclude: May and Cable must be removed from the infobox immediately as they are NOT candidates for prime minister in the next election. A silhouette picture must replace them until a successor is chosen. It would be deceptive to do otherwise. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with the above - I'm a member of the LibDems. Jo Swinson & Ed Davey have already held quite a few hustings even though the date for nominations hasn't technically passed yet (officially tonight, I think). I think we can safely say Vince Cable, at least, won't be leader at the next election, removing him tomorrow would be fine. At the very least the note should be updated to mention them. The Tories are a mess at the moment, and whilst in theory it wouldn't surprise me if all the candidates pulled out or something equally bonkers, I have no objection to removing May too. VJ (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree.

Given we do not have a Presidential system and there are no candidates for PM, one solution would be to switch to a different infobox format, one without leaders' headshots, like Template:Infobox legislative election.

If not that approach, I think you have to go with the person who is officially party leader. May is officially the Conservative Party leader until the new person has been elected (the party clarified that today). Bondegezou (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you've hit on my actual problem - switching to an infobox style is a very good idea; the current one is very presidential as you say. Notes explaining there are current leadership elections good enough if we didn't have the ex-leaders staring at us. Template:Infobox legislative election is a good one, but I think it needs the party leaders constituencies added for UK general elections. VJ (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The party leaders' constituencies are a trivia that has no place in any UK infobox. It's a field inherited from countries where this matters. It's rarely something UK RS comment on. Bondegezou (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, no the leaders ARE candidates for the prime minister as it is understood by one and all that if that person's party wins the election, they get to be prime minister. So yes, they are de facto candidates, which is why their picture is up there. Yes, it seems "presidential" but in the Westminister system, the PM is the de facto president. The last time that a PM was NOT the leader of a party was the time between Churchill's getting the job and Chamberlain's death in 1940. So in terms of the election, the Toris and the LibDems have NO leaders visavis the election. Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

As May being replaced as PM without a general election demonstrates, we have a legislature/PM system in the UK, not a Presidential one. Bondegezou (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of DUP and Sinn Fein in infobox

I think the infobox should only contain the four biggest parties- Conservatives, Labour, SNP, and Lib Dems- as the DUP and Sinn Fein are both local parties which received far fewer votes and fewer seats too. And besides, most British election infoboxes don't have as many as six candidates. I tried changing it to a 4-party infobox a few days ago but was reverted. Thoughts? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Most infoboxes for national parliaments include every party that won seats. UK general election infoboxes are unusual in excluding smaller parties. Bondegezou (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, I think it is easier to tell what the important results were of a past election, who the major parties were, with hindsight. But we're talking about an election in the future. Local parties like the DUP and indeed the SNP may be very important in the result. (The DUP are currently formally support a minority Conservative government.) It's quite possible that the Brexit Party, who aren't in the infobox at all, may be one of the big winners at the next election. With future events, I think we should err on the side of inclusion. Bondegezou (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 July 2019

Add Guto Bebb, MP for Aberconwy announced he is standing down at the next election on 15/07/2019 Zorokai (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Zorokai: This edit will not be performed by any user, never mind an admin (the only people who can edit the page atm.), unless you provide a reliable source. --TedEdwards 16:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, once alerted, users can go search for a reliable source. Here's one. I will add to the article once full protection has finished. Or if an administrator can do sooner, that would be great. Bondegezou (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done  — Amakuru (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 July 2019

Labour MP Roberta Blackman-Woods has announced she is standing down. Hollahopping (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done  — Amakuru (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Proposal: Ditch, or at least drastically reformat, the infobox

Next United Kingdom general election

All 650 seats in the House of Commons 326 seats needed for a majority

Party Leader Current seats Conservative Theresa May (acting) Labour Jeremy Corbyn SNP Nicola Sturgeon Liberal Democrats Vince Cable (departing) DUP Arlene Foster Sinn Féin Mary Lou McDonald Change UK Anna Soubry Plaid Cymru Adam Price Green Jonathan Bartley & Siân Berry

The infobox as currently constituted, quite simply, is not about the next election: it is a combination of a summary of the last election, and a snapshot of the current situation. A presentation of "This is what would happen if the election if it were to take place tomorrow, which it won't" is not the basis for encyclopaedic content.

It shows party leaders who won't be by the time of the next election, omits parties that may be crucial (they might not be, but there again some of the ones currently shown might be marginal), a belief that things that might change should be treated as if they won't right up to the moment that they do, etc.

The entire thing is, as I posted in February (discussion above re inclusion of Independent Group), WP:CRYSTALline. Scrap it. Kevin McE (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I would be happy to see it scrapped. I concur many of those are real problems. There is absolutely no requirement for articles to have infoboxes. Bondegezou (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with the above for all the reasons given - the infobox is unsatisfactory & only causes problems VJ (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Forcefully disagree; having an infobox is fine, if you want to change the format and include parties who both have seats but are currently not in the box, then use the one that was used in the lead-up to the recent European Election. Ditching the infobox altogether is ludicrous. BitterGiant (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

BitterGiant is referring to Template:Infobox legislative election, which was used like this. I prefer this infobox format: you can show more parties easier and it better meets MOS:INFOBOX. That said, I'm happiest with no infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

What is ludicrous about not having an infobox? Kevin McE (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree, I believe that the use of the current Infobox became more and focused on adding little notes for everything. Consequently, the whole box became filled with caveats and seemed more confusing for readers as time went on. I support a reintroduced infobox, preferably Template:Infobox legislative election, after the election has occurred or during the campaign, whenever that begins. JDuggan101 ^{talk. | Cont.} 11:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Whilst removing the infobox is probably the right this at this point it does leave the article with an ongoing battle with people thinking it's been forgotten who then add it back in. Is there another way? for example, creating a new template 'infobox future legislative election' which contains a lot less options (and could remove some, but not all, of the edit warring) => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 13:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@F1season and Timrollpickering: there has been discussion here for 5 days and it's now 5:1 in favour of no infobox at present. Don't just re-insert the infobox if you're not going to contribute to the debate. Bondegezou (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've inserted what the Template:Infobox legislative election could look like above, although we still run the risk of a proliferation of little notes around the party leaders and seat numbers. Bondegezou (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That looks ok. in order to prevent the proliferation of notes etc we could just enforce a 'no notes in the infobox' rule and remove them as they are added. if there are not any then it will be easier to enforce and people will be less likely to think to add them. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 14:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That still looks like having an infobox for the sake of it. What does it tell us about the next election? That there will be 650 seats up for grabs (is it yet definite that the Boundary Commission recommendations will not be introduced before the next election if this parliament stretches to the full 5 years?) Other than that it is about current status of parties: a snapshot of now, not of some future Thursday. Kevin McE (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

If we have an infobox, it should be {{Infobox legislative election}}, which conveys more information in a much more compact form. Whilst I'm not adverse to not having one at all, if it is removed, it will be endlessly be readded by editors who won't have read the talk page discussion and will probably become an endless distraction. (If the infobox is going to be changed, I'd also recommend going back and changing it for previous elections, as another thing that will happen is editors changing the infobox based on the previous elections's one). Number 57 15:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The previous next election article? What would that be? It is because the subject matter of the article is not a matter of historical record that the infobox is inappropriate. There is no problem, imho, with the box for past elections. Kevin McE (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The previous election was the 2017 one. Personally I think use of Infobox election for UK general elections is flawed because it excludes many of the parties. Number 57 16:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Getting rid of the infobox altogether, or having one that just includes a link to the 2017 election for ease of navigation, seem sensible to me. The infobox is currently displaying information that isn't anywhere on the page, which seems to go against WP:INFOBOX. I'd support getting rid of the infobox altogether or having it only link to the 2017 article, and including Template:UK House of Commons composition somewhere in this page. Ralbegen (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Several people who have made no attempt to join in this discussion have reinstated the infobox, none of them attempting to amke any justification in their edit notes. I am now getting 3RR warnings, so perhaps someone else who has respect for the principlpe of consensus in discussion will remove it. Kevin McE (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Please can everyone refrain from changing the current infobox as a number of users are currently engaged in an edit war. I suggest that drastic changes are saved until consensus is achieved on the talk page. Reading the above discussion I do not think there is consensus and there is no rush in changing this. The current infobox sets the scene for the next election, but I agree therefore is largely a summary of the previous election. It clearly has taken a lot of work to maintain it and it summarises a large amount of information so it would be a shame to lose it altogether. Is there perhaps a better place for this more general summary information, maybe lower down in this article? |→ Spaully ^~talk~  20:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That material could be covered in a background section, with more context. Template:UK House of Commons composition would be good to use somewhere because it doesn't need to be updated on each page that uses it every time something changes. That way would also allow us to use prose to give context. Ralbegen (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Spaully, the problem is that nearly everyone in this discussion is agreed on not having an infobox for now, while those who keep re-instating it are significant in number, as Impru20 notes, but aren't talking here. Consensus building requires discussion, not edit-warring. Bondegezou (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring takes parties on both sides, hence my appeal to stop reverting each other. I don't disagree with your assessment of the discussion. See rest of comment below. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  13:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I really don't see the issue with simply using {{Infobox legislative election}} as opposed to the normal infobox template; it's far more compact, conveys the most import details (party leaders and seat numbers) while omitting the useless fluff (images of party leaders). While I'm a fan of the French template, I haven't seen interest from others in actually implementing a version of it on here, though I'd obviously prefer it to either of the current templates. Mélencron (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Party leaders are about now, not about May 2022. Current seat numbers are largely about May 2017. Why have an infobox full of information that is not directly about the subject of the article? Kevin McE (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

As a crude summary, there are four of us favouring no infobox for now (me, VJ, Kevin McE, Ralbegen), and there are five favouring the legislative infobox (JDuggan101, BitterGiant, Spudgfsh, Number 57, Mélencron). There's one for the status quo in Spaully. That said, BitterGiant would appear to also be happy with the status quo, the legislative infobox would be my second choice, and Number 57 and Spudgfsh would be OK with nothing. In all, that looks to me like clear consensus for less infobox than at present, so I suggest we move to the legislative infobox as a compromise for now. How would that be? Bondegezou (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the current infobox is the best option, but am appealing to everyone to stop edit warring until discussion has established a consensus. As you have outlined there are competing views on the best change - no infobox vs. use of the slimmed down version, that means there is not consensus on how to proceed. There is no need to rush and inflame tensions by deleting the current one.

As to what the best option is - I agree the current infobox has a lot of extraneous information and so is not fit for purpose. I think that using either Template:Infobox legislative election, or Template:UK House of Commons composition, as background lower in the article makes sense but not in the lead. If needed at all, an infobox at the top of the page only needs the probable date (from fixed term parliament act) - see 2020 United States presidential election as an example. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  13:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Anything lower in the article can't be an infobox, but, yes, I agree that a template like Template:UK House of Commons composition lower in the article would be useful.

That means we're 5 for nothing and 5 for the legislative box, but with several individuals willing to compromise. I repeat that moving to the legislative infobox as a compromise for now seems the best approach. Bondegezou (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I still haven't seen anyone try to justify even the smaller legislative infobox as anything that gives focussed information on an election that has not yet been called. When key info about the election is known, it can be summarised in an infobox, but at this stage there is nothing ad rem that is suitable for such a summarised form of presentation. Kevin McE (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion has ground to a halt. Discussants are split between no infobox and the legislative infobox. No-one wants the infobox currently being used, yet that's the one the article still has. This seems silly. Anyone got a suggestion for a way forward? Bondegezou (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion has not moved on! Has everyone given up and accepted the status quo? I again suggest we try moving to the Infobox Legislative Election and see if that takes. Bondegezou (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest otherwise. In place of a new consensus, the status quo does indeed stand. Easiest thing at this point is the discussion wraps up, as it already has, and perhaps the issue can be re-rasied at a later point where consensus is more likely. 82.21.211.103 (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

There is definitely consensus against the status quo. I'm unconvinced by the legislative inbox but it would be an improvement for the time being. I'm happy to see that implemented, but I'd be very comfortable seeing it go altogether. Ralbegen (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Ralbegen. There is almost zero support in the discussion for the status quo. Bondegezou (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

As I asked 2 weeks ago, which no-one has yet answered, what does the legislative election infobox tell us about an election at an unspecified future date? I would contend that it gives no relevant info, nor will it until after the election. It might be justified within the Contesting political parties and candidates section, except that the information is already present there. As many people have suggested removal as have suggested replacement, and I again put that forward. Kevin McE (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems there's certainly consensus that the current infobox is inadequate at best, harmful at worst. Whilst I'd prefer no infobox, I'd much rather the legislative one than the one we have now. I say let's change it & see how it gos for now, if it's still not working, we can remove it entirely later; being stuck with the worst of all worlds because we can't agree is the worst of all worlds VJ (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The infobox is a practical and useful visual aid for an election and really shouldn't have been removed in my opinion. I really don't see how an infobox is harmful?? It's been around for years on virtually every election article and is suddenly controversial. I agree that it's not overly useful prior to an election but it's a placeholder until the the election actually occurs. The article looks naked without any kind of of infobox and needs a replacement at the very least. I had nothing against the old infobox at all by the way. Just throwing that out there. Clesam11 (talk) 05:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

You sort of contradict yourself there: "The infobox is a practical and useful visual aid" vs "I agree that it's not overly useful prior to an election"; we are in an inter-election period, not even immediately pre-election (officially, anyway).

There is absolutely no need for a placeholder: Wikipedia is not on paper. If people don't think to put in an infobox once meaningful relevant data is available (i.e. after the election), it is not because there hasn't been a box of meaningless irrelevant info for several years prior to it, it would be because people don't consider it "a practical and useful visual aid". I, for one, hope that an appropriate infobox will appear very soon after the election results are known, and don't doubt that it will happen.

'Not harmful' is a pitifully low thresh-hold for inclusion: a photo of my nephew in the middle of the article would not be harmful (it would be positively charming), but it would not add any relevant meaningful data about an election that may be nearly three years away. Because that is the subject matter here: not the current make up of parliament, and not the 2017 election. And when you consider that many of the threads prior to this are about dissatisfaction with inclusions and exclusions to the party lists, and whose pictures should be included, and the proportion of edits that are adjustment of numbers in the current parliament, the case that the infobox is both controversial and destabilising in the article is strong. Kevin McE (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah so I've put up a Template:Infobox legislative election infobox because at the end of the day, we do need something on the page which conveys as basic information as what the current make-up in Parliament is, I know the box is not to everyones liking but we do need this information somewhere on the page, the infobox at the top of the page is frankly the best way of conveying it for readers, for people who are reading this article and want to know what the state of Britain is as it faces the next election. I am incredibly tired of this argument, so you know, before anyone rushes to delete the infobox, please try to think about the people reading this page.BitterGiant (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

So do you not think the entire section headed "Contesting political parties and candidates" provides "basic information as what the current make-up in Parliament is"? You have reintroduced a breach of INFOBOXFLAG, a date and number of seats that might not be accurate, a list of leaders more than half of whom won't be candidates in the next GE, a whole set of footnotes which defeat the object of a brief summary, ignored parties that will take part in the next GE. In essence, you have an infobox that has nothing to do withthe subject of the article. Removing it, per clear consensus here. Kevin McE (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

yeah, Kevin, considering that section doesn't actually tell you what the make-up of Parliament current it, and all your edits seem to do is remove information on the page which actually does reflect the current make-up of Parliament, I'm shocked you think you can insist on anything close to a consensus in regards to the infobox. Look, if you don't want some pretty basic information on the page, information which every single other future election page on this website has as the bare minimum, information which makes it immediately clear to the reader as to what the current situation within Parliament leading into an election which could be called at anytime (as precedent shows, the existence of the FTPA doesn't really matter a whole lot), whatever, but don't turn around and continue insisting on a consensus when the only person who seems to agree with the total removal of an infobox is you.BitterGiant (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin. The infobox already exists, in essence, in other parts of the article. As I put below, the infobox does not do what the rest of the article can't already provide. It's time to admit that infoboxes are not always useful. doktorb _words^deeds 09:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Great, but a lot of people also don't hold that view and there is no consensus for removal. The original bloated infobox, with pictures etc, has been slimmed down to the above version, which conveys the bare essentials, which may not suit ultra-infobox-lovers or ultra-infobox-haters, but is a compromise solution. It's time to draw a line under this and move on to other things.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

No. Keep the infobok the way it was. It works wonderful. Emass100 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

What did it do (sic)'wonderful' in regards to the next general election (as opposed to giving info about the current state of affairs, which is not the subject matter of this article)? Kevin McE (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Those who consider it a compromise have had a turn with the smaller infobox: it has again become the venue for instability, contradiction, qualification and reliance on footnotes. Removed. Kevin McE (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

... and not having an infobox has just produced endless edit-warring too. I don't think there's any solution whereby we achieve stability and no footnotes! Sorry.

I've not re-added the smaller infobox, but I'm not re-removing it either and I have just edited it. I think it would be interesting to see whether the smaller infobox produces less editing instability than having no infobox. I remain with no strong preference between smaller infobox and no infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I am a fresh set of eyes here, so hopefully I can try to help with the impasse. I think we have two main areas of disagreement: whether there should be an infobox at all, and whether the infobox should be a precis of 2017 or a summary of 202x. Infoboxes are very common on articles and there inclusion is not usually such a magnet for edit-warring. It concerns me that this project, usually so stable in the "Peace times" between elections, is getting so animated over one feature of one article. I think we need to consider what exactly the role of the infobox is within the context of the article. In short, does the box do what the opening text cannot do? My answer: no. An infobox is broadbrush and compact. An election of such size as a UK general election cannot be easily summarised by whichever choice we make. I would suggest that a well written section of text would be of greater and more robust use than a list of parties or a gallery of faces. This answers the second part for me, but just to say; infoboxes should be clear and focused. If they are to summarise the article, that's their only purpose and the design must reflect that. To conclude: given the nature of the article and the complexity of information required to summarise, I think there should be no infobox. doktorb _words^deeds 21:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Please keep the infobox. It makes the political situation much clearer to many of us. Hankyjade (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Literally one click from the top of the page Kevin McE (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

So let's consider what is in this infobox:

| election_name = Next United Kingdom general election

Well that is what the article is meant to be about, but not what this infobox is about

| country = United Kingdom

Flag constantly being introduced in breach of WP:INFOBOXFLAG, redundant anyway, in light of the heading

| previous_election = 2017

True

| election_date = On or before 5 May 2022

True so far as it goes, but not very informative due to uncertainty

| seats_for_election = All 650 seats in the House of Commons

May, or may not, be true, depending on when election takes place and whether there is any action on the Periodic Review of Boundaries

| majority_seats = 326

Even if there is no change in number of seats, number of seats needed for a majority depends on how many seats Sinn Fein win, so is not accurately knowable in advance.

| partyN =

If we only list parties that have current MPs, we are obviously missing a major factor in the next election.

| party_leaderN =

Some will obviously be changed before the next election, others might be. Some of them will not be candidates at the election.

| seatsN_before =

This is not information about the next election.

On the basis of this, what possible reason can there be for justifying the inclusion of this at present? Maybe it will be justifiable when the election is imminent, certainly it will be after the election, when it is a matter of historical record, but there is no way that this can be considered a useful summary of anything about an election of as yet unknown date. Kevin McE (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

It summarises the current state of play. That might change before the election, and yes, a new leader of the Tories is due but the changes are not going to be so radical that the current information is useless. I agree that having full photos and a huge bloated infobox was not valid, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The present infobox is useful and proportionate.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The "current state of play" is not the subject of this article. Kevin McE (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Your thoughts on infobox design, specifically the inclusion of the flag icon, would be appreciated at Template_talk:Infobox_election#Flag, where discussion has rather stalemated. Bondegezou (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorting Members of Parliament not standing for re-election

If we're going to have a sortable table, doesn't it need to use | data-sort-value = "Surname, Forename" for names and | data-sort-value = "yyyy-mm-dd" for dates to give sensible results? I'll have a look once the current extreme protection expires. --Cavrdg (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)  Done --Cavrdg (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)