Talk:2019 United Kingdom general election/Archive 3

Photo in TILE

Aréat Actually, you should say why you think there should be a image (kind of like WP:ONUS), as the WP:STATUSQUO is the version without the image (you're actually agreeing with the change, as I removed the image in a partial revert only a few hours after Goweegie2 added it, despite what your edit summary says). So could you explain why there should be an image, beyond saying it is a good thing without any explanation to why it's a good thing, and stating that they have a similar image on a totally unrelated Israeli election, please? I personally believe there shouldn't be an image because it's a waste of space, and offers no understanding about the election to anyone. It's useful to know who the prime minister before the election is, but having a photo of them tells a reader nothing. --TedEdwards 12:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It is useful in the infobox of a national election to have a photo of the current head of government at the time. It's why we have photos in many election infobox. Adding the photo there take very little place and it doesn't distort the infobox either, so it's an useful addition. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Aréat, why is it useful? Otherwise all you're giving is a WP:ILIKEIT argument, unlike my argument which, which I'm taking from MOS:IMAGE (Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative.), believing that while a photo of Johnson is relevant, it's not significant as it adds no understanding. Also, in WP:Image use policy, it states The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter,.... --TedEdwards 14:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

A photo of the head of government in a general election whose main indirect result consist of extending or ending his term and the term of his government is indeed significant and relevant to . It is removing it that is based on "I don't like it"! arguments, as these policies arzn't against it.--Aréat (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I am only against the image, not using the infobox to make clear the PM is Boris Johnson. But that is all the detail that is needed to understand that before the election Johnson was PM. An image with it is superfluous. Therefore per the policy I mentioned, it shouldn't be there as it adds no understanding. If you disagree, what understanding do you get from an image of Johnson? --TedEdwards 16:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It has the same value as any photo of someone in the infobox of any such article : showing the face of the Prime Minister in charge. If you think the photo of a face doesn't provide an "understanding" per se, and that it should be removed because of it, there is a lot of infobox you're going to have to purge.--Aréat (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we both have cordially exposed our arguments. We obviously disagree, and don't seem to be able to convince the other. So I propose leaving it to a third party. If someone else want to remove it, I won't go against it. Fine with me.--Aréat (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, probably best if we go for WP:3O (assuming that's what you mean). --TedEdwards 20:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the image adds anything useful. Along the same lines as WP:ICONDECORATION, I'd drop it. Bondegezou (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Mention of possible November date

This is being thrown around a lot by Labour and opposition sources, and it may be worthy. Of course, Wikipedia is not typically supposed to reference rumours nor speculation, but given this article is speculative in nature anyway, it should be mentioned. Only a simple line or two. -Internet is Freedom (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. We have plenty of RS reporting about this: let's include something. Bondegezou (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Age in MPs standing down section

Would there be value to adding a DOB/age column to the MPs standing down table. Might offer context on whether the cohort that are standing down are majority retirement age or there's some relatively youthful departures (indicative of a time of change). Once an election date is set one could fix the template to day of the vote. Thoughts? HornetMike (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Is that something that reliable sources are highlighting? We should take our lead from reliable source coverage. Ralbegen (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I concur with HornetMike that it is preferable to have reliable sources demonstrating that this is a significant factor. I don't see much relevance to such a column, as the reasons for standing down vary from MP to MP, and we wouldn't want to give off an erroneous impression that the lot of them decided to retire due primarily to their advanced age when that may or may not be accurate for each individual.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 05:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I have not seen RS coverage particularly talk about age. By putting in an age column, we would be highlighting one factor over others and that feels WP:SYNTHy. I'd leave the table as is. People can click through to individual articles if they want to know more about the person. Bondegezou (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. This information is easily available on biographical articles, where such information belongs.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 22:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Page move

Shouldn't we wait until the House of Lords approves the general election date? GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The Lords is usually a formality as I understand it. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC about the infobox

Archived Infobox Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Should this article, before the election has happened, have either no infobox, an infobox using Template:Infobox legislative election ("TILE"), or an infobox using Template:Infobox election ("TIE")? Bondegezou (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC) Comment This article long had a TIE infobox. In discussion above, there was a consensus to change that, but a split whether to go to either no infobox or a TILE infobox. There has been some edit-warring since that led to the article being protected for several days. Bondegezou (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC) No Infobox at this stage; when the election is imminent, there will be specific, reliable information that is suited to the brief, unqualified treatment that an infobox affords. But at this stage, the vast majority of fields in either if those infobox formats is either assumption that the current status quo will remain true, or is information about the current state of play, not the subject matter of the article. It treats only parties currently in parliament as relevant, not all of those that will contest the election, and therefore is of dubious neutrality. It may well be deemed suitable to include details of the current make up of parliament within the article, but it is not so key to the future election as to deserve the prominence of an infobox. Kevin McE (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC) No box or use TILE. The TIE infobox is way too large, contrary to MOS:INFOBOX, and contains irrelevant detail. I accept much of what Kevin McE's says above. There is no need for articles to have an infobox: it is Wikipedia policy that articles can either have or not have infoboxes and that decision is made on an article-by-article basis. That said, most election articles, including for forthcoming elections, do have infoboxes (albeit often small ones). The current state of play of parties or the previous election result are generally of relevance to the next election. The TILE infobox is compact and conveys the basics usefully. So I'm happy with that, or with nothing. Bondegezou (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC) TILE. The purpose of the infobox as laid out in MOS:INFOBOX is to summarise key information cogent to the page for the readers of the page to be able to see 'at a glance'. I disagree strongly with a earlier expressed notion that the inclusion of an infobox acts "as though every subject can be dumbed down to simple gobbets of data", as I feel this does a great intellectual disservice to both the contributors and readers across the site to approach a feature as common as the infobox as such, and indeed is an insulting way of dismissing this exceedingly common feature. The previously used TIE infobox was too large and unwieldily for the purpose of summarising the key information of the next election, hence the switch to the TILE infobox, which, as Bondegezou notes above, offers this information in a compact and basic manner. The current state of the parties and who the party leaders are is information which is generally of relevance to the next election, as if information that a reader will generally be visiting the current page for (alongside polling), and while I do find the TILE infobox somewhat inadequate in expressing the bracketed, I feel that it is the best compromise to the overstuffed TIE infobox, and a bare-bones which only demands the need for an infobox. Indeed, I would say that keeping the TILE infobox would be the best compromise because frankly the lack of an infobox will only create a demand for the 'at a glance' summery, and as much as other contributes look down on the infobox as some intellectual rot, this discussion, regardless of any consensus that is reached and my own personal abstaining from further edits cogent to the status of the infobox in respect to any reached consensus, will almost certainly perpetuate ad nauseam. I ultimately support TILE because it fulfils the requirements of what is laid out in MOS:INFOBOX in a concise and compact manner, and allows the reader to gauge the key information of the article 'at a glance'. BitterGiant (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC) No Infobox for now, as many aspects (number of seats, date, party leaders, etc.) of this election are not concrete compared to other, and previous, elections. However, a clear and simple link to the previous election's article must be accessible in the lede of this article. Additionally, I am also alright with the inclusion of the TILE infobox if a general consenus of users start to agree with the inclusion. however, my clear prefrence is no infobox. JDuggan101 talk. | Cont. 16:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC) TILE I am supportive of the idea of no infobox, but if one is missing, then it will be repeatedly added even if there is a big note in the article saying not to (I've seen such notes ignored so many times, even by 'experienced' editors). As a result, I think it's better to have an infobox that's both more inclusive and more concise. Number 57 11:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC) No infobox I had this view anyway but have been further persuaded by Bonde's post on 18 July detailing the numerous election articles which have no infobox to speak of. Maybe because the UK is seen as more "Important" it's considered necessary to have an infobox. I disagree. We could be three or so years away from an election and the infobox would serve only to confuse matters. It's more of a distraction, as we have seen with the edit-warring, than a significant part of the article. Remember, folks, we have to deal with election box candidates, potential boundary reviews causing the creation and curation of lots of new articles, and general upkeep of this page; we shouldn't have to be RfCing about an infobox. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC) TILE - On balance I prefer the use of the current TILE style infobox to none at all, and like the previous TIE box the least. I have made minor updates which make it correct as I agree with Kevin that there were inaccuracies. The current box is small enough not to be intrusive but does provide some useful information and access to linked articles. It should also discourage too much addition of regular polling or superfluous information, or re-addition of a different infobox. However, I do not feel strongly about this except that the current edit warring over it is distracting and a waste of everyones time, hopefully this will resolve that. |→ Spaully ~talk~  12:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC) No infobox for the time being. The infobox was summarising the current composition of the Commons, but there are more appropriate ways to show this in the body of the article, such as Template:UK House of Commons composition. The current composition of the Commons is not the main point of the article. This is something that seems sensible to re-evaluate as we approach the next election, but for now losing the infobox altogether seems sensible. It would be good if there could be a link to 2017 United Kingdom general election in the lead though, to make it easy to navigate the series. Ralbegen (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC) TIE As it provides the most information about the different political parties in a satisfying manner. The UK doesn't have so many political parties to warrant the use of the TILE. Having no infobox would harm the article, so this is my least favourite option. Emass100 (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC) TIE has a maximum of nine parties; we have 10. Number 57 11:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC) The purpose of an infobox is not to show the 'most information'. It only shows information about parties that already have seats, and therefore ignores a party which, according to current polling, will at the very least be highly significant if the election is soon. To choose a principle of inclusion that is detrimental to an important party is clear breach of policies on neutrality. It shows information about the current parliament, not the future election. Kevin McE (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC) An infobox that shows all contesting parties would be ideal; we did this for the recent Danish election. Number 57 13:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC) "An infobox that shows all contesting parties would be" impracticably long, and impossible until nominations for seats close. Kevin McE (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC) Agreed. The nature of the Danish election meant that all contesting parties could be covered in a way that wasn't too long. The list would be way too much for any UK general election. Bondegezou (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC) TIE - As has been used in previous UK elections.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC) Comment Before the most recent general election, we used TILE in the run up to the election, but switched to TIE after the election had happened. I think we did the same for the 2015 election too, although I recall a lot of dispute about the best approach. This RfC is only about the article before the election. Bondegezou (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC) Yes, TIE is regularly used in Canadian federal and provincial elections before they occur. It seems appropriate before the UK election also. If not TIE, my second preference would be TILE. Leaving the article without an infobox seems to be the worst choice.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC) Your Canadian examples treat of 6 and 2 parties respectively. The number of parties in a UK election is many times more than this. Kevin McE (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Actually, my examples are 6 and 4 respectively, but of course there are more parties in Canada also (they just don't tend to get enough votes to elect members). We tend to draw the line at parties that have representation in the House of Commons. As the UK Commons is much larger over 600 members vs. 338, it may be sensible to draw the line higher (perhaps 6 members or more). Then you are down to six parties in the infobox, however smaller parties Change UK, The Independents, Plaid Cymru and the Greens are excluded from the table. As would be parties without members, ie the Brexit Party. If that is unacceptable to editors, a TILE format could be used. If it is acceptable, TIE will do. Of course, it is worth noting that the existing table also excludes the Brexit Party.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC) TIE - It provides the most information presented in the most aesthetically pleasing manner. It is also the norm for all other Westminster-system "next election" pages eg Australia, Canada and New Zealand. I see no reason why the same principle shouldn't be abided by here, or why there should be preference for a lesser option with less information such as TILE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CuriousCabbage (talk • contribs) 11:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC) What any individual considers aesthetically pleasing is their own opinion, and not a valid argument for adding or removing a feature. Do you believe that either infobox presents the influence that the Brexit party will have according to current polling in a proportionate and unbiased manner? Number of seats is largely about the last election, not the one which is the subject of this article. Kevin McE (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC) TIE - It has been used in every article about a general election in the UK up till this point. The voting system hasn't changed to a more proportional system thus I see no reason to change it. I would not agree with removing the info box entirely, its designed to clearly outline the data. Jonjonjohny (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC) Comment As above, we have used TILE at times before an election is held, although this has not been consistent and there has been some back and forth. Bondegezou (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC) Comment To bring down a comment from prior discussion, I looked at a variety of future election articles. Most have TIE, some have TILE, some have no infobox. Examples of no infobox for a future election include 2019 Namibian general election, 2019 Guinean legislative election, 2019 Norwegian local elections, 2019 Swiss federal election, 2019 Belarusian parliamentary election, 2019 Haitian parliamentary election, 2019 Emirati parliamentary election, 2019 Omani general election, 2019 Nauruan parliamentary election, 2019 New Zealand local elections, 2019 Marshallese general election, 2020 Tanzanian general election, 2020 Taiwan general election, 2020 Kuwaiti general election. That said, most future election articles without infoboxes (but not all) are stubs. Bondegezou (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC) As your last line suggests, I think the lack of an infobox in most if not all of those cases, is less of a conscious decision and more that the articles are underdeveloped. I'm not saying that as aid to either argument - but more that I don't think we can read anything into those articles that is of relevance to this debate. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC) While there are a lot of stubs in that list, there are articles like 2019 Swiss federal election. Developed, detailed, no infobox, but instead a Politics of Switzerland box. Bondegezou (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC) Quite. But I make the point most articles you've listed don't aid the debate one way or another - a number have around 3 or 4 lines of text at the moment. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC) Just providing a bit of context, and I do so noting the text of MOS:INFOBOXUSE: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." So, ultimately, it's up to the discussion here to make a decision. Bondegezou (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC) Agreed. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC) No infobox per WP:CRYSTAL - as it is contains too much unsourced, hence unfounded, speculation about an undated future event. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC) TILE - there is no valid reason to omit an infobox, when we can have one with relevant information on the state of parties. Although this may change slightly with defections and/or by-elections, it is basically the state of play as it stands. Given a lack of consensus between people wanting a huge, bloated infobox versus people wanting to remove it altogether, the small unobtrusive one is best.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC) The "state of the parties" is about the current situation, not about the next election. WP:INFOBOX:"An infobox is a panel...that summarizes key features of the page's subject" WP:INFOBOX also says, "wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." It is abcolutely ridiculous to claim that a listing of current parties is absolutely necessary when such a list omits parties that will be very important in the next election. Nobody has tried to argue as to why we should give information about Green Party, Plaid Cymru or Change UK as being important and relevant to the next election (nothing against those parties) and not considering Brexit Party, SDLP or OUP (or any other party who might carry the balance in any seat) as such. WP:INFOBOX and WP:CRYSTAL have been presented as reasons for not having an infobox here. Nobody has argued on the basis of policy for its inclusion. Kevin McE (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC) Comment While this is not a vote, of course, I note we are at: No infobox: 5½; TILE: 4½; TIE: 4. TILE is the obvious compromise and, I suggest, seems most likely to minimise editing disputes. Those aren't the only factors to be considered in making a decision however. Bondegezou (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Absolutely it is not a vote. The purpose of discussion is to make articles comply with policy as far as possible, and no policy reason has been given to justify the existence of an infobox at this stage of the electoral cycle. Kevin McE (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC) Two weeks since the last post, 5 1/2 weeks since the RfC was started. Still no argument based on policy for the inclusion of an infobox. No infobox still the most popular option of those offered. How does this process get closed? Kevin McE (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC) I don't know. I fear I may not have set up the RfC properly in the first place...? We could go to an RfC page and ask for someone to look at it...? Bondegezou (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC) TIE or TILE - Wow, just spotted that there was a RfC here and thought I'd have a say. (Note: commenting on Bondegezou's statement above, I don't think this was set up correctly because it doesn't appear at WP:RFC/A and no RfC template is used. This may have caused many people (like myself) to have missed it). On the issue at hand, I'm not particularly convinced by the argument to remove the infobox, as the infobox provides an easy pathway for many related articles by providing useful links (and this is useful everytime, not just when the election looms near), as well as condensing key article information without constituting CRYSTALBALL content. I'd normally argue in favour of TIE as it's more complete, but I've seen TILE being used for some "next [wherever] election" articles, then changed to TIE once the election is called/held. In any case, I think there is a strong consensus for an infobox to be used, with the main issue at hand being which one. The consistency argument is very strong here, given than casual readers coming here would typically wonder why an infobox isn't used here but yes for all previous elections, thus constituting a potential source for friction and edit warring (which is not worth it, specially considering that most, if not all of those advocating for no infobox specify that one will be added in the future anyway), and potentially wasting much time in endless discussions about when to add the infobox, rather than actually discussing how best to improve it. Impru20talk 16:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC) As already argued, comparison to previous elections is irrelevant: there is no such thing as a previous next election. So why do you think the subject matter of the next election is well served by providing a box full of information that is about previous elections, and which omits at least one party that will be extremely relevant to the next election. We should not be trying to serve the expectations of Wikipedians, but the visitors to the page (who might have never seen another "Next election in Fooland" article) who expect to see balanced focussed information about what might be relevant at a future date. For the most part, the article does this well, but the infobox, with its prominence, does not. Is such a reader well served by being linked to Jonathan Bartlett, but not to Nigel Farage: to the concept of the speaker, but not the Brexit party? Your argument for "useful links" does not hold water. But as soon as Farage/BP are introduced, there will undoubtedly be attempts to introduce many other parties, and the answer to "If him, why not these" cannot be precisely answered: that is why the Infobox, and specifically the listing of parties with numbers of soon to be vacated seats, is untenable. Kevin McE (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC) Policy is clear that the decision to have an infobox is taken at an article by article level and there is no general expectation that articles must have infoboxes. I take that to mean we shouldn't necessarily give too much weight to a consistency argument. I also think the fundamentally different nature of an election that hasn't happened and one that has means there is a clear distinction between this article and all preceding ones. I also think that any infobox for a forthcoming election ends up wasting much time in endless discussion rather than actually discussing how best to improve the bulk of the article text. That all said, I remain of the view that TILE is the best compromise for now. Bondegezou (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC) So it is better to compromise than to seek the best possible outcome? Kevin McE (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia is a collaborative project: one should seek the best possible outcome, but also respect consensus. Sometimes compromise is the best approach... sometimes you realise compromise actually produces the best possible outcome. Sometimes the best approach is to let an uninvolved editor adjudicate. Bondegezou (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC) My reference to "consistency" was not so much about consistency with other articles alone, but most specially at the effect that an apparent lack of consistency with other articles will have on editors. From what we've seen so far in this very same article (and from our experience in Wikipedia, at least what I've seen in all my years here), this will surely lead to edit warring once again eventually and on the issue being brought up here once and once again. Possibly this could be defended if there was a big, overwhelming majority for removal, but thing is there isn't: Kevin McE has been pressing for it because it was the "top voted" choice out of 14: 5½ no infobox, TILE 4½; TIE 4 (and this was before I posted my own opinion, which I think levels this even more). This, however, doesn't consider that there is a clear majority in favour of having an infobox of any kind, and that consensus is not achieved based on number of votes. Considering that there is not that much support for removal, you cannot say an outright removal will be guaranteed to be uncontested for a while. This, coupled with the fact that it's acknowledged an infobox will be added anyway in the future, leads me wonder about the usefulness of having no infobox at all, as so far all arguments for not having one seem based on the fact that neither TILE and TIE is liked by those advocating no infobox, with most also remarking they think so "at the present stage". Expanding on Bondegezou's last remark, we would probably be better off discussing how to best improve the infobox now, rather than kicking the ball ahead so that we end up returning to discuss how to best improve the infobox within some time anyway. why do you think the subject matter of the next election is well served [...] which omits at least one party that will be extremely relevant to the next election Well, there could be a consensus about adding some very relevant parties to "next election" infoboxes (of course, subject to objective data on the party's relevancy). I've seen this already happen for some countries, and considering the ever-growing trend worldwide of new parties rising out of nothing to success, I think this will be the eventual trend in Wikipedia as well. However, rather than discussing "whether" and "how" the infobox can be made more representative, some users advocate for its removal because they have already given up on any attempt to improve it. I'm well aware that there were (and, at some degree, still are) very strict criteria for party inclusion in infoboxes, just as those also existed for opinion polling tables. UK election articles are a perfect example of it: they have been the inspiration for many other countries' election articles, but have also been the hotbed for some of the stricter criteria on party inclusion. This, however, has been evolving in recent times. We should not be trying to serve the expectations of Wikipedians, but the visitors to the page [...] I don't know how you may know what the visitors' to this page do actually want. First, many visitors are Wikipedians, actually. Second, we've seen the infobox being re-added by several users each time you deleted it, so I think many visitors' will has been made pretty clear. Is such a reader well served [...] the listing of parties with numbers of soon to be vacated seats, is untenable. We've seen this happen already with already-held elections. This would be an argument for having no infobox anywhere and forever, not for temporarily having no infobox, then adding one once the election is held, because you may probably be subject to the same issue depending on the vote share/seat gain-relation resulting from the polls. Precisely, consensus was achieved on previous articles on the parties to be added to infoboxes, so this is not something we can't accomplish here as well. Impru20talk 19:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Kevin McE has been pressing for it because it was the "top voted" choice Gross misrepresentation: totally untrue. I started this discussion, so before there were any votes, and I said above "Absolutely it is not a vote. The purpose of discussion is to make articles comply with policy as far as possible". the effect that an apparent lack of consistency with other articles will have on editors So the suggestion that other editors won't accept consensus is more important than building a consensus based on policy? Well, there could be a consensus about adding some very relevant parties to "next election" infoboxes So the idea that something might improve in the future is reason for having the inferior (in terms of compliance with WP:NPOV). That is thoroughly illogical. so far all arguments for not having one seem based on the fact that neither TILE and TIE is liked by those advocating no infobox What that is written in any of the !votes that gives you this impression? The consistent point has been that the type of factual info that is suitably summarised in an infobox is not yet established. If no proposed infobox is suitable, that means that infoboxes are unsuitable, not that we "don't like" the specific design of them. Of course an infobox will be added in the future: in the future there will be factual information that is specifically about this election, that will quite properly be summarised in one. That is no argument for having one now. This would be an argument for having no infobox anywhere and forever By no means a valid conclusion from anything that has been said. Kevin McE (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC) You: I started this discussion, so before there were any votes. Also you: Still no argument based on policy for the inclusion of an infobox. No infobox still the most popular option of those offered. I'm obviously not referring to the situation before the discussion (we could probably have a more extensive discussion about that), but after it. So far, I do not see a consensus for removing the infobox, but you pressed for it because it no infobox was "the most popular choice" (the issue of "no argument based on policy" is a very subjective one). Unless you did mean a different thing with "popular", of course, but I don't know what could it be. So the suggestion that other editors won't accept consensus is more important than building a consensus based on policy?. I did not say this. I did say that this will raise serious issues because this would be subject to potential edit warring, as we have already seen. And I specifically said that if there was a strong consensus on removing the infobox, it won't be an issue, but the fact is that there isn't: with 5 out of 14 people choosing "no infobox" over 9 choosing an infobox of some sort, I see this as pretty unstable. You know, there is something called WP:SNOW. It has been widely accepted that an infobox will be added anyway to the article, the only issue of friction being the "when". Removing the infobox now just because a minority of people don't like it as of now (i.e. just because it is "the most popular option"), then having the issue being discussed in the future anyway, seems like a wasting of time, effort and a long bureaucratic process. That's just kicking the ball further ahead so as to avoiding addressing the issue right now. I don't see how a removal would be "policy based". So the idea that something might improve in the future is reason for having the inferior (in terms of compliance with WP:NPOV). That is thoroughly illogical. No, I did say that it can be improved now. It only needs to be discussed. What I see as illogical is to promote the removal of an infobox just because some do not see it worth to address the issue of how best to improve it right now, yet for us to address it in the future anyway because an infobox will inevitably be added. Also, speaking of policy based arguments, consider WP:WIP on this: just because you think something is "inferior" (a subjective opinion, anyway) doesn't make it unworthy of Wikipedia. What that is written in any of the !votes that gives you this impression? The consistent point has been that the type of factual info that is suitably summarised in an infobox is not yet established. If no proposed infobox is suitable, that means that infoboxes are unsuitable, not that we "don't like" the specific design of them. Basically, what you say right here gives me this impression: rather than trying to discuss the factual info that is suitably summarised in an infobox (one that is acknowledged that will be added anyway), you decree it as "unsuitable" and as something that can't be improved right now. As I said earlier, we'd be done earlier if we actually focused on discussing how best to improve the infobox and which info should it suitably summarise, rather than postponing such discussion for an undetermined point in the future. Of course an infobox will be added in the future: in the future there will be factual information that is specifically about this election, that will quite properly be summarised in one. That is no argument for having one now. There is already factual information available about this election. The fact that this article exists, about a still undetermined future election, is proof of that. You can't reasonably argue that there is no factual information available yet, then defend having no infobox but having this article. On this issue, CRYSTAL was mentioned by some users in the preceding discussion as a reason for not having the infobox, yet such a reasoning is, by definition, jeopardized: infoboxes are mere summaries of articles. If the infobox is CRYSTAL, then the whole article is CRYSTAL, because you won't be adding anything in the infobox that is not reflected already elsewhere in the article. By no means a valid conclusion from anything that has been said. I did not say this was a conclusion from anything you said (also, why wouldn't it be valid? I'm not regarding your arguments as invalid just because I oppose them...). Impru20talk 05:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC) There is already factual information available about this election. What? The date? The number of seats? What? Convince me that there is info relevant to the next election that is incontrovertible fact, and I will happily concede to an infobox containing that, but only that. Not what is biased by inclusion or exclusion, not what is about previous situations rather than the next election. Kevin McE (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Convince me that there is info relevant to the next election that is incontrovertible fact 1) The current infobox already shows info relevant to the next election that is incontrovertible fact (I don't think you can't argue what the number of current seats by party is, or that the article title is "Next United Kingdom general election", or what the deadline for an election to be held is, etc. Unless you are referring to something else with "incontrovertible"); 2) Why must be you convinced of this? As per MOS:INFOBOX: "An infobox is a panel, usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section (in the desktop version of Wikipedia), or at the end of the lead section of an article (in the mobile version), that summarizes key features of the page's subject. Infoboxes may also include an image, a map, or both." The rest of the MOS more or less expands on these ideas. No allusion that the information pertaining an infobox must be "incontrovertible fact" or that this is a requisite of an infobox. Indeed, an extreme interpretation of this would lead to preventing having an infobox for weeks or months after an election has been held, since electoral night results are still subject to change and, thus, not constituting truly "incontrovertible facts". So far, infoboxes are meant to summarize key facts already present in the article. As such information changes or evolves, so may do the infobox, because Wikipedia is a work in progress. Here, we are certain that this article exists and that it contains information that may be summarized in an infobox, incontrovertible or not (it doesn't matter, because it is not required under WP policy), and that such a summarizing is both consistent and helpful for people as far as we've seen in this discussion and in the article's editing history. Nonetheless, I'm open at seeing you presenting a policy-based reason that infoboxes must show "incontrovertible facts" to justify their existence so that we may actually consider this as a serious reason for no infobox being in place. Impru20talk 13:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Well the number of seats held by each party might change a number of times before the next election, but more importantly, the fact that that info will be removed as soon as results are in shows that it is not important info about the next election. The date is unknown, so the limitation date is all we can give, and is therefore of verl limited use.. If there is to be an infobox it is OK, but it does not constitute enough to make an infobox useful. I would indeed draw your attention to WP:INFOBOX, particularly WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." How is linking, for Example, Jonathan Bartley or Adam Price compliant with the principle of that last sentence? But how can they be omitted if there is to be a list of parties? And if there is to be a list of parties, how can Brexit and other parties not be included? And so we end up with a circular argument that cannot be resolved with a focus on the next election, and that respects NPoV, and the only consistent solution is to drop the infobox until there is sufficient reliable and relevant info with which to populate it. Kevin McE (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC) I really do not think that I should have to justify the idea that an encyclopaedia should be based on fact. Firstly, let me draw your attention to the point that I haven't said this. No, I haven't said that infoboxes shouldn't include facts. What you are doing (and what I've criticized) is to misinterpret and mix up the concepts of "facts" and "incontrovertible facts". WP:INFOBOX, or WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, by that regard, do not require for facts to be "incontrovertible" in order for an infobox to be established, specially considering the varying nature of many facts, as what is a fact today may not be a fact tomorrow, or vice versa. For instance, this whole article is based on the assumption that a next UK general election will take place. This is a fact today, based on the information we know as of currently and based on what reliable sources provide. It can be a fact tomorrow as well, if nothing else changes that distortes such a prevision. But is it an "incontrovertible fact"? Well, Donald Trump could end up invading the UK, Boris Johnson becoming a dictator or a meteor crash-landing into the Big Ben, so that a "next" UK general election ends up not taking place. Or even more specifically, provisional election results released on election night—which would constitute a fact—are not incontrovertible either, as those can be challenged (and have been in the past) in some close-result constituencies so that the definitive results may not be available for some weeks. The different between what constitutes a "fact" and an "incontrovertible fact" is notorious, and shouldn't be mixed up, because what you are arguing here challenges the very existence of the article, not just the infobox. If you think that facts that are not "incontrovertible" shouldn't be included, then we may very well delete the whole article. That said, the current infobox provides exactly the key facts present in the article, which are the facts that sources provide as of currently. Are they incontrovertible? No. Are they facts? Yes. Does WP:INFOBOX require for infoboxes to provide "incontrovertible facts"? No. Infoboxes only serve as summaries of information that is already present elsewhere in the article, that's the requirement. So please, I'll ask you again, and I hope you don't come up misinterpreting me again: provide a policy-based reason that infoboxes must show "incontrovertible facts" (I'm now highlighting the "incontrovertible" bit, which is the one you did argue as a requirement of infoboxes) to justify their existence so that we may actually consider this as a serious reason for no infobox being in place. Impru20talk 17:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC) It is a shame that you have concentrated so much on one adjective, and totally ignored other more pressing ones: relevant, and neutral. You also seem to have interpreted incontrovertible as meaning unchanging, which it does not. But if the state of the parties is just a placeholder (and given that it will be removed as soon as the results are known, it is very difficult to see it as anything else), and a placeholder that does not do justice to the political balance at play at that, it should not have the prominence of an infobox. Kevin McE (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC) I have required you to provide a policy based reason to support your own claim about "incontrovertible facts", which is an element you (not me) introduced in the discussion. Obviously this can't be done because this isn't a requirement of infoboxes. You also seem to have interpreted incontrovertible as meaning unchanging, which it does not. No, I did not interpret that, though the unchanging nature of something unquestionable (which is what "incontrovertible" means) as it means you are unable to prove it is otherwise. We could very well end up discussing the semantics of each word but I think we should focus on the issue actually at matter, shouldn't we? Infoboxes are placeholders by definition. Check WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)". So arguing for its removal because they are "placeholders" or contain placeholder information is a contradiction with the very nature of infoboxes. Yes, they are placeholders intended to summarize key info within the article. Here and in every other article where they are used. relevant From your entire comment, this is actually the only bit that merits answer in regards to WP:INFOBOX, because everything else is a personal opinion about what infoboxes should be, not policy-based reasons on what they actually are. In this sense, could you elaborate how the information currently provided in the infobox (referring to the election date, parties, the previous election, party leaders, etc) is not relevant info of the article? Impru20talk 04:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC) You do not get to "require" me to do anything. You are the one who has got hung up on one word that you apparently don't understand anyway. I have already explained several times why the current state of the parties is not key information about the next election. You seem determined to avoid any discussion of the issues of neutrality over inclusion/omission of parties in the infobox: would you like to explain why? Kevin McE (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC) Excuse me? Elaborate on how it is up for all other of us to "convince you that there is info relevant to the next election that is incontrovertible fact" (again, this is what you required, not me) but we can't require you to explain what policy justifies such a requirement. I have already explained several times why the current state of the parties is not key information about the next election. This is meaningless, anyway. This is information about the next election, and it is present in the article even meriting its own section. The relevant fact is not whether you think it is relevant for the next election, but whether it is key information in the article, and it is. Again, an infobox is meant to summarize key information in any given article, not to establish "incontrovertible facts" (a word you used, not me) nor to right great wrongs. If you think that the current state of parties is not key information about the next election, then that is not an issue of the infobox, but of the actual presence of such information in the article. As long as it is in the article meriting its own section, it would reasonably be seen as "key". You seem determined to avoid any discussion of the issues of neutrality over inclusion/omission of parties in the infobox: would you like to explain why? Can you please elaborate what do you actually mean with this? Specially when I've clearly stated in previous comments that (and I'm literally copy-pasting) "there could be a consensus about adding some very relevant parties to "next election" infoboxes (of course, subject to objective data on the party's relevancy). I've seen this already happen for some countries, and considering the ever-growing trend worldwide of new parties rising out of nothing to success, I think this will be the eventual trend in Wikipedia as well. However, rather than discussing "whether" and "how" the infobox can be made more representative, some users advocate for its removal because they have already given up on any attempt to improve it". I've specifically advocated for discussing the issue of inclusion/omission of parties (as has been always made), and have criticized that some users are rather attempting to argue for the whole infobox's removal rather than trying to press their case for including some specific parties in the infobox and seek a consensus for it. I'm not determined to avoid any discussion about this, much to the contrary, but this RfC is about whether the infobox is preserved (either as TIE or TILE) or removed, not about the party inclusion/omission in it. Impru20talk 14:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC) @Kevin McE: I understand that with this we may consider this discussion officially ended. You're not willing to provide any policy-based reason for removing the infobox nor to answer to any of the specific issues I've brought. That's ok and a perfectly valid choice. However, I won't be allowed to be patronized in such a way so that I must somehow agree with you, or else it is "a failure" on my part to understand things. I don't like the tone of this at all. Let's someone else to judge the RfC result and close it with whatever outcome they may think as fitting. Cheers. Impru20talk 04:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC) Admin stuff I have requested help at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Malformed_RfC. Bondegezou (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC) Update: OK, so everything is in order. There is also a request for closure at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Talk:Next_United_Kingdom_general_election#RfC_about_the_infobox and we'll just have to wait on that. Of course, discussion can continue in the mean time. Bondegezou (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Early Parliamentary General Election Bill 2019-20

I have started a article on this unusual piece of legislation but needs work adding to it. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC))

Boundaries section - removal of "bloating"

I have removed what I consider to be unnecessary bloating in the Boundaries section, which only duplicates content readily accessible from the Sixth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies page and is not really on point for this article. All that these three paragraphs are saying, and need to say, is that the boundaries haven't changed. Removed text as follows:

In April 2016, each of the four parliamentary Boundary Commissions of the United Kingdom recommenced their review process. A projection by psephologists Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher of how the 2017 votes would have translated to seats under the new boundaries suggested the changes would be beneficial to the Conservative Party and detrimental to Labour.

DMew92 (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Seats needed

Should seats needed be compared to last election or current seats?

My view : Current because this is the number of seat gains needed JamesVilla44 (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Table

Do someone know where has the discussion about the proposed party's table disappeared to? --Aréat (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It was archived by Super Nintendo Chalmers in this edit here:[1]. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added it back, Aréat. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!--Aréat (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

List of candidates?

When will the definitive list of candidates be set? --Kaihsu (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

14 November. [2]

Scottish and NI Greens contesting?

Are Scottish and NI Greens contesting? --Kaihsu (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Probably. But these are very small parties which don't even stand in all the seats in Scotland/NI. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox, part 2

Perhaps it's best to keep all parties out of the top infobox, until after the general election. We've done it that way before. Also, it will avoid the who belongs in the infobox argument. Let's be honest, they'll be a fight over including/exluding Anna Soubry/Change UK & Nigel Farage/Brexit Party. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I approve. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly, what I have been expounding for months. 13:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Also agree. Bondegezou (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

+1 on this from me too. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

First, the argument about who should go there can be settled very easily: Neither go there, becouse Change UK isn't a large party and we only put major parties there. Brexit Party doesnt go there, becouse it doesn't currently have seats. I also believe we have put those in the infobox before the election in the past, look at this picture I found in the archives of the last election page: KingWither (talk)

Indeed across Wikipedia, it's the norm to have candidates/parties in the infobox, bofore & during campaigns. But, the potential for edit-wars over inclusion/exclusion are too great. The previous Parliament's refusal to approve the UK's leaving the EU on October 31, is the reason a general election is being held. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

That is a good point, but we do have a list of parties below that with Brexit, Change UK and Plaid all on it, and that seems to work well. Edit wars are why the Talk pages exist, and we already had a discussion above about Plaid and Change UK. I am not saying you are wrong, I am just trying to balance precedent and having to put up with edit wars. KingWither (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

There are many precedents, not all of which are consistent with each other. Here's a current election article for a forthcoming election: November 2019 Spanish general election. It includes the largest 6 parties by the result last time. This includes a party that only got 3.9% of the vote last time and only stands in one region, so not unlike Plaid. Here's an article for a recent election: 2019 Uruguayan general election. All parties that won seats are listed. But then Next Italian general election only includes the top 3 parties. So lots of different approaches. Bondegezou (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Problem is, on the English Wikipedia there are probably more editors who care about the representation of a small UK party than a major Uruguayan one. So we get a lot of "but what about this party?" type edits. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Can an Irish citizen who does not live in the UK even apply to stand as an MP?

WP:DENY

I really don't think that this is entirely a good-faith dispute, because this is just so absurd... just in case it really is a genuine content dispute (and not some indirect accusation of vandalism), can an Irish citizen (and (and especially) an Irish TD, representing a part of Ireland that is a part of ROI) who does not live in the UK (nor is there any evidence that she ever has been or has had registered anywhere in the UK to vote), really apply to stand as a UK MP (or be in any way described or suggested as being eligible)? I mean, where would she be applying to put her name down? The British Embassy Dublin? The House of Commons authorities or the Electoral Commission, online and to be confirmed with her signature by fax/post? 194.207.146.167 (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Cannot stand would imply she couldn't stand even if she wanted to. If she wanted to stand she could have moved to NI, so she could decide to meet the requirements. You could put "cannot stand" next to Sturgeon as she has missed the deadline to fill in the forms to stand, so now it is impossible to. Cannot Stand should only be stated if there is no scenario where she had an option to meet the criteria to stand e.g. You cannot be President if you weren't born in the USA Jopal22 (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Not without instantly forfeiting her right even to remain registered to vote in the Republic of Ireland (never mind remaining as an Irish TD), she can't... that's the whole point! Completely hypothetical bordering on simple nonsense. Not remotely comparable with that Scottish lady. She is on the UK (GB) electoral roll and is still (as far as I know (for the time being anyway), solely) a British citizen (according to Part I, section 1(1)(a) of the British Nationality Act 1981, probably to her continued annoyance, outwardly at least!) -- 194.207.146.167 (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Well I don't think it is clear or necessary to make the distinction. As a note though, this should answer your eligibility question (https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/2019-07/UKPGE-Part-1-Can-you-stand-for-election.pdf). So the only reason making her ineligible is being a "member of a legislature of any country or territory outside the commonwealth". Note Farage fails the criteria because he is a MEP Jopal22 (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC) If you are, or are thinking of studying to become either a solicitor or a barrister, or studying medicine, or for any other profession which requires or would require professional registration or regulation, don't/stop... "(e)is a member of the legislature of any country or territory outside the Commonwealth [(other than Ireland)]; or " [3] ... and this is anyway Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) only (Northern Ireland evidently has its own electoral law and electoral rules). The fact is, Mary Lou McDonald presently lives in Dublin, not NI, not GB, hence ineligible on that basis alone. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Yep, I was linking to the GB rather than NI doc (https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/2019-09/UKPGE-Part%201-Can%20you%20stand%20for%20election-Northern-Ireland_1.pdf), good spot. So I cannot see anywhere that says she would be ineligible because she lives in Dublin? Jopal22 (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC) And WHERE would she send her forms to?! To the Electoral Commission in London directly? It doesn't work like that! (There is NO evidence that a candidate is NOT required to supply and declare (give) a UK home address on the 'Home Address Form' (Form 1B).) [4] ... Are you 'on something', seriously?! 194.207.146.167 (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC) You are obviously just a troll, but I will respond anyway. If you look at the form it says "If you do not want to have your home address printed on the ballot papers, complete part 2 of the form, giving the name of the constituency that your address is in (or country if outside the UK), and sign the form" Jopal22 (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC) A candidate is still required to give a UK 'home' address in addition to his/her true home address. NO (ACTING) RETURNING OFFICER WILL ACCEPT (and NEITHER WILL the Electoral Commission) a nomination form without a UK 'home' address. Geddit (Do you understand)?! Bloody Hell! Some people really are a bit... Look, why would the Electoral Commission allow people to give a full non-UK address instead of a full UK address?! WHY?! THINK ABOUT IT! It makes ABSOLUTELY NO sense at all! 194.207.146.167 (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Whether this makes sense to you is irrelevant. Multiple official documents detailing who is eligible to stand as an MP have been linked by various people in this thread. None of these include inclusion/exclusion criteria based on where someone lives. Indeed, Jopal22 has reffered you to specific guidance for persons resident outside of the UK. --LukeSurl t c 16:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Taken by you, deliberately twisted out of context. I am almost in my 50s, and have e.g. nominated Conservatives to stand in wards (as Cllrs) in Hull City Council, here in Hull in East Yorkshire (by acting as a 'nominator' by signing the actual forms, which were then duly returned to Hull City Council's Electoral Services, Guildhall, Alfred Gelder Street). You are clearly just taking the ... whatever, have a good night! I am too old for this, get a life, would you, perhaps? (You can come back to me if you are going to tell me (with proof) that you can now somehow open a normal UK bank account with HSBC UK (by walking into one of their branches in the UK) without even a UK address... whatever next!) 194.207.146.167 (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Re: Farage. You can stand to be an MP while being an MEP. Farage himself has done it six times since he became an MEP in 1999 (see Nigel_Farage#Electoral_performance). --LukeSurl t c 14:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC) What is incompatible is holding both offices. Were Farage elected to the UK Parliament (seventh time lucky?), he would need to resign as an MEP. --LukeSurl t c 14:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC) 'Incompatible' simply means "there is NO UK law in place/force (that the Electoral Commission are aware of) which would prevent a present UK MEP from being elected as an MP" (and what the Rules of the European Parliament are regarding 'sitting in both Places' is (as far as the EC are concerned) not something that they can, or are entitled to, or wish to, comment on (because they are ultimately answerable only to the Committee chaired by the Speaker of the HOC, and not the European Parliament)). 194.207.146.167 (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Here are the eligibility criteria for standing for the UK Parliament, from the UK Parliament website [5]. There is no residency requirement. Citizens of the Republic of Ireland are specifically included. There is more detailed guidance from the electoral commission here for GB and here for NI which includes the text There is no requirement in law for you to be a registered elector in the UK. The NI guideance specifically excludes the Irish legislature from the list of disqualifying offices: Certain post-holders are disqualified from becoming a Member of Parliament. These include: … members of the legislature of any country or territory outside the Commonwealth (other than Ireland). --LukeSurl t c 14:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Ms McDonald running is currently a hypothetical situation but should she want to, there is no particular bar preventing her from doing so, making it more "is not running" rather than "can not run", however I see someone has found a way to show that without making the judgement call about it. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 15:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Mary Lou McDonald is to all (practical) intents and purposes ineligible because ANY information she were to put in her submissions would be available for inspection by bona fide (e.g. previously registered) election agents of other political parties known to the local (Acting) Returning Officer; who would then be certain to mount an automatic immediate challenge as to her eligibility to be registered as a candidate, with the same said (Acting) Returning Officer. Anyone indulging on this 'running from Dublin' line might just as well claim that Imran Khan is somehow eligible to apply to register as a candidate as a qualifying Commonwealth citizen (as someone who possibly still retains ILR in the UK, somehow, (originally secured) through his (now-former) marriage to Jemima Goldsmith), from Islamabad! -- 194.207.146.167 (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The section of the infobox which triggered this discussion has been removed entirely. As per WP:TPG talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject, there is no purpose to continuing this discussion. You may want to discuss McDonald's or Khan's theoretical eligibility at the humanities reference desk.

On a procedural point, it is best not to hide a talk page discussion if you intend to continue it. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I would take this as your roundabout tacit way of you admitting to being daft and acting like a complete prat (certainly a fool) yesterday. -- 194.207.146.167 (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

If this issue becomes relevant in this or another article I will continue to edit articles (and talk pages) to reflect that reliable sources show there are no residency requirements for persons standing for the UK Parliament. However this is not relevant to this article at the current time. Please do not make personal attacks against me or other editors. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

What is your saying is that you propose/intend to 'play this out'... i.e. Wikipedia:Edit warring, basically... I would have thought about it twice if I were you. You were being a numpty yesterday, admit it, and move on! 194.207.146.167 (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

194.207.146.167, please pay attention to WP:AGF and stop making personal attacks. Bondegezou (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know! I myself just don't generally personally say things which I don't evidently personally know much about (and think I would somehow be inherently entitled to, just because I have Dr or PhD or QC behind or in front of my name), and then use a cursory search on the Internet to back things up (and then get other people, to back me up). This sort of idiocy really exclusively belongs to Twitter (or at least it is supposed to be). Anyway, life is too short and all that, wouldn't you both say? (PS: I take the silence as a tacit admission to what I have said now. ([6])) 194.207.146.167 (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

I see the infobox has been changed with the election now due. What I don't see is consensus to support that. The problems with this infobox are exactly the same as it was before: it's too big (contrary to the Manual of Style), it excludes parties, and it includes irrelevant detail (the leader's seats aren't of any particular note, so why do we highlight them in the infobox)?

We also have The Brexit Party unrepresented when they are 4th in the polls and attracting reliable source coverage as a significant part of this election, which is perhaps contrary to WP:BALANCE.

I propose we drop the infobox until we have the election results. Once we have results, we have the answer. Bondegezou (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the reason Farage & the Brexit party are being excluded because they didn't win any seats (indeed the party didn't exist) in 2017. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added Farage & the Brexit party. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• 7 entries is really bad layout wise. At least on my machine, this results in an extra row of an already bloated box. I agree with Bondegezou that the infobox is probably largely unnecessary. Including Brexit Party may be premature, as its not clear how many seats they will contest [7]. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It has not been confirmed how many seat the Brexit Party are going to contest. Sky News today said they are considering only contesting a small number of pro remain labour seats, and not compete with the tories Jopal22 (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

We now have a huge infobox that's way too big. It does cover all the parties with seats at dissolution, which has some logic to it. (Well, it doesn't have the BSJP.) It doesn't, however, have The Brexit Party, who are still 4th in polling and a big part of the story, although precisely how many candidates will stand is unclear. If nothing else, until some of this becomes clear, let's go back to the smaller infobox we had before. Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The info box should be re added in order to have some sort of connection with the pages on previous elections in the UK - if you are going to delete the infobox for this election then you will have to delete it for the previous 56 UK elections. Besides, the info box looks good and conveys information in a sensible and easy to read manner, and over all the different election pages on Wikipedia I have yet to see a better format. Zorokai (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2019 (GMT)

There's a discussion further down going on as well. I suggest moving all discussion there. Briefly, the critical difference between this article and the previous 56 UK elections is that this election hasn't happened yet. Bondegezou (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Change UK

Even though this party will obviously be wiped out, they still have seats currently so should be included in the infobox. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Plaid Cymru should also be in the infobox too, right? They have more seats than the Greens. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

You cant use "obviously" in an election scenario, it is just too much of a probability statement. Parties with 0.0077% of the seats don't normally go into the infoboxes. Plaid is a regional party, and therefore cant really contest the election in any real capacity. KingWither (talk)

I think as many parties should be in the infobox as necessary JamesVilla44 (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Background and campaign

I am reticent to add more prose without references, which I don't have time to do now but I think we should also add:

• Labour has also lost MPs due to disagreements around Brexit and Anti-Semitism
• This led to the formation of TIGfC, which quickly lost ground in the polls
• The Brexit party formed at the beginning of the year, and became the biggest party in the European Elections. Their impact on this election is a subject of debate
• BJ got a deal voted for in principle in parliament, but parliament also voted for a longer timetable than he desired, fuelling fears the bill would be amended in a way not acceptable to the government
• The Brexit date was pushed back by a act of parliament forcing BJ to request an extension against his will
• LibDems gained MPs during the parliament and came 2nd in the European election
• The Tory's had been pushing for an election for a while, which was resisted by Labour. Labour agreed after the LibDems and SNP decided to back a deal. The LibDems are rumoured to be keen to capitalise on poll numbers, and the SNP want to avoid having an election at the same time as Alex Salmonds trial.
• Labour backed having the election, but not all their MP's are in favour. There is uncertainty as to how very pro EU and Pro Brexit Labour voters will react to the Brexit policy of Labour

Jopal22 (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

A background section is a good idea. In practice, it would be a history of the last Parliament, and Brexit would be a big part of the story. We need to err on the side of caution regarding neutrality for such prose, and keeping things tightly referenced is important. A lot of the major parts of the story should be summarised in other articles (e.g. 2019 Conservative Party leadership election, Brexit negotiations) so we can make good use of wikilinks and keep the prose here concise and summative.--LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we should remember our scope. This project is meant to be encyclopaedic, not journalistic, in approach, and so needs only a brief treatment of background issues, and reference to other publications to direct readers to if they want greater depth. Kevin McE (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm drafting something at User:LukeSurl/2019elecBackground. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll probably be offline for a few days. Other editors are free to copy material from this draft if it can be useful. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Our scope is to write an encyclopaedic article, which means prose about the background issues and the campaign. We have too many tables and lists and not enough about the actual issues. Bondegezou (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Split Members of Parliament not standing for re-election

This is becoming a very long list and is likely to grow further. Suggest splitting this off to List of MPs who stood down at the United Kingdom general election, 2019, as per List of MPs who stood down at the United Kingdom general election, 2010. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

it may be required at some point but I'm not sure that we are there yet. We are less than two weeks away from the finalised list of candidates.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 15:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I favour creating that now. The content is unbalancing this article now: put it in its own article. Bondegezou (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Bondegezou. Errantius (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The list is becoming rather long, so I concur with splitting it off into its own article.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 00:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Done at List of MPs standing down at the 2019 United Kingdom general election. We can move that to past tense after the election. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted this bold edit and instead implemented the list as a collapsible table with the table defaulting to collapsed at the start (although this choice could be debated; I can see an argument for not having it collapsed at the start too).

It has been standard practice to include this list in the main article for each previous UK election. It is important information and shouldn't be shunted off to another article. I appreciate that the table is longer than in earlier UK election articles but this is not a sufficient reason to make it a wholly separate article. Instead, better to find a way to deal with the length, as I have done by making it a collapsible table. Oska (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

7 editors expressed support for the split and no one was opposed. This was not a bold edit: it was an edit to reflect consensus. Bondegezou (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion ran for less than a day before the change was made. Not at all enough time to reach a proper consensus and no proper chance given to suggest and implement alternative solutions, such as a collapsible table instead. And I don't see your count of 7 in support; I see one person hesitant and 4 in support. I see that you have split the table off again without letting the discussion run more fully. I think that is, once again, being pre-emptive. I won't revert again but I thing this discussion should have run longer before such a bold edit was made (and yes, it was a bold edit). Oska (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course we can continue the discussion. If other editors agree with you, we can re-visit. Bondegezou (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: simply make the table collapsible

An alternative to splitting the list off into a separate article is to simply make the table collapsible, as is standard practice when tables within articles become rather long. To see what that would look like, see this revision (with the table initially collapsed). Oska (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:UK MPs 2017–

Hi. Something that has bugged me for a number of years on WP, is the naming convention for the UK MPs who are elected at X general election. The current parliament of MPs is covered at Category:UK MPs 2017–. Now, this will have to change in mid-December, based on the current general election. For the next parliament it's likely to be either Category:UK MPs 2019– or Category:UK MPs 2019–2024 (the latest date of the next GE). Going from past experience, it will be the former that takes precedent. Whichever one is chosen, it's likely (certain in the former) that the category will have to be renamed at some point in the future. So instead of having the years, what about adopting it to the parliament number? For example, following the December GE, have it named as something along the lines of Category:MPs elected to the 58th Parliament of the United Kingdom? Having a quick look at other countries, France has Category:Deputies of the 15th National Assembly of the French Fifth Republic and Spain has Category:Members of the 13th Senate of Spain. Thoughts? And pings for @Number 57: and @BrownHairedGirl:. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The main issue is that nobody uses terms like "58th Parliament" and most people would not have a clue what it means or be able to relate to it. All the references to Xth Parliament appears to be related to wikipedia and mirrors. MilborneOne (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with MilborneOne: terminology like "58th Parliament" is alien and conveys nothing (except that it was after the 57th etc). Let's stick with current system. Renaming a category once per General Election is the least of our worries. PamD 10:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree this isn't a very user-friendly system. It also wouldn't work for pre-Union parliaments; before 1707 they don't have agreed numbers since there isn't a commonly accepted starting point to count from, and we'd have to use dates for them anyway. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with MilborneOne, PamD and Andrew Gray. This is not terminology that reliable sources use. Bondegezou (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Ahh, right. I didn't know it was an on-wiki term. Although it will be interesting to see what term we use if/when Scotland becomes its own country... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not solely an on-wiki term - you can find occasional parliamentary & scholarly sources using it - but it's certainly not a very commonly used one. (The fact that election & parliament numbers are out of synch probably doesn't help here!) Andrew Gray (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer using just the years – it makes for a much clearer title than the parliament number. Number 57 23:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Prefer years. I created this series of categories in 2006. My first attempt at creating these categories used Parliament numbers, and it got a very negative response for the reasons set out above, so I accepted the merits of the arguments and switched to years. Basically, there is no tradition of using numbers for the UK Parliament. Other countries do conventionally use numbers (e.g. 32nd Dáil, 9th Lok Sabha, 116th United States Congress), but the UK doesn't.

The use of "nth Parliament" numbers is not supported by the balance of usage in reliable sources, so there is no basis for adopting it.

And also ... these categories have been through more CFD discussions than there are water molecules on planet earth (I exaggerate slightly <wink>) and there is nothing to be gained from sucking lots of energy into going over it all yet again. A PamD rightly notes, Renaming a category once per General Election is the least of our worries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• PS @Lugnuts:, the current Category:UK MPs 2017– can be renamed as soon as the current Parliament is dissolved, i.e. on Wednesday 6 November. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• I have made the CFD nomination, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 4#Category:UK_MPs_2017–. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. And I thought this would fix the country! :( Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox, part 3

Or maybe it’s better to leave only the Conservative and Labour parties in the infobox? After all, the first party is the government, and the second is the official opposition. The remaining parties are not particularly distinguished in parliament (the same Liberal Democrats, who shine 14-20%, only 21 seats), at the same time, users who are trying to shove the Brexit Party and Change UK have no reason to put them in the infobox. --CatStepan2006 (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

No recent UK general election article has had only the Conservatives and Labour. Change UK, I'm less bothered about, but The Brexit Party are consistently polling third in the country and are getting oodles of reliable source coverage, so it seems to me odd to exclude them. Bondegezou (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The last UK general election article to have an infobox with two parties was 1868 United Kingdom general election. Bondegezou (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I propose to leave this arrangement in the info box until the elections, and not forever, in order to avoid conflicts with the addition of the Brexit Party and other parties. --CatStepan2006 (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Below I posted my version of the info box on elections in the UK. --CatStepan2006 (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I have another option. You can add parties to the info box according to the opinion polls, but only those parties that scored 10% or more. But this, in my opinion, is a very bad idea. --CatStepan2006 (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Election uk 2019 december infobox.png

I don't see how excluding all other parties settles conflicts. The largest bulk of editors are happy with the current, non-partisan box. Bondegezou (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I've got to agree. It's not a perfect solution but a party-less infobox prior to the election is probably the best option. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Television debates

Has Corbyn and Johnson confirmed they will take part in the 7 way debate? Should this be TBC for now? Jopal22 (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

HAS any broadcast stated there would do this? until that happens it might be better to wait. --Crazyseiko (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)