Talk:1994 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom

Contents of infobox

I've restored the infobox to the version which had consensus - including all parties with more than 5% of the vote, as used in the vast majority of articles on election in the UK. Would be interested in any links to discussions giving an alternative consensus. Warofdreams talk 22:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure where you have got this 5% consensus from but it certainly hasn't been established as a consensus on any of the UK election pages,

neither is it in practice. The only thing I can think of is that you are thinking of UK by-election infoboxes as 5% is the cut off point for retaining a deposit; this si the only instance the 5% cut off for infoboxes is observed. For many years this election article did not include the Lib Dems in the infobox, it has been mysteriously added, I happened to notice this so I removed them.

The Infobox is a snapshot summary of the result, it is not a results table, we only include parties with a nationally significant result, a judgement call is made on that as you will see from all the relevant talk pages.

There is a full table of results in each article, we should not be duplicating this in the infobox.

In this instance, the Lib Dems achieved 2 seats, same as the SNP. This is ferer seats then UKIP achieved in 1999 and the same number as the BNP in 2009. It is not right for us to be including the Lib Dems in this instance on that basis. We can not be seen to be favouring the Lib Dems.

However, I do take the point that there is a disparity between the share of the vote and the number of seats gained. 2 seats (2.3% of seats) for 17% of the vote, I am sympathetic to the argument that the Lib Dems are included in this infobox on this basis. However if you look at the 2015 UK General Election, you will see a similar story with UKIP but they have not been included in the infobox. In that instance UKIP gained 1 seat (0.2% of seats) with 13% of the vote; a far greater disparity in this instance. In terms of polling, campaigning, national party status etc, all these arguments have been sidelined and they have not been included in that infobox.

The inclusion of the Lib Dems in this infobox is a big inconsistency and a single anomaly, they should be removed. I will investigate how/why they were mysteriously added and report back. 118.92.141.142 (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

There may have been a brief period when they weren't in the infobox, but the stable version has included them since parties were first added to it. It's not true that "for many years" they weren't included. The 5% standard avoids endless debate about whether to use some equally arbitrary number of seats, and whether including certain parties shows bias. Unfortunately, it seems that discussion on the 2015 UK general election article has produced a rather unsatisfactory fudge (sympathetic as I am to including the SNP, the grounds for excluding UKIP become very shaky - and if they were included, the same would apply to the Greens, etc - but in any case, there was no discussion there regarding overturning the longstanding principle more broadly). All the other UK general election articles, European Parliament articles, and articles on the devolved parliaments and assemblies, by-elections, etc, conform to the standard. Changing some of these on a piecemeal basis won't help anything. Warofdreams talk 23:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

May I repeat this 5% rule that you talk about only has consensus for by-elections and it is not an arbitrary 5% pulled out of thin air, that 5% is on the basis that the candidates retained their deposit as set out by the electoral commission. No such criteria exists for a national result and it is wrong to try and artificially apply the criteria specifically for individual seats (ie by-elections) to the whole country; especially when there is no consensus for this.

With regard to your comments on the UK general election: there is no question that the SNP should be included as they gained a nationally significant number of seats by any criteria. With regard to the Greens; I am not really sure why you are bringing them into this because not only did they fail to meet your artificial 5% of the vote "cut off" but they got a similar percentage to UKIP in 2010 (no one is or has been arguing UKIP should be included in the 2010 info box. May I also point out that there are 3 Green Parties in the United Kingdom, Scotland and Northern Ireland have entirely separate parties but for some reason people try and conflate them to boost the result despite them having entirely separate leadership structures, policy platforms and positions. It is wrong to say that if UKIP are included in that infobox then the greens should be.

Going back to UKIP at the 2015 election and the comparison with the Lib Dems in this article, the Lib Dems grounds for inclusion here is exactly the same as UKIP's inclusion in the 2015 box; the only thing is the case for UKIP in 2015 is numerically stronger then that of the Lib Dems in 1994 (see above numbers in last comment). Inclusion of the Lib Dems in this article is inconsistent.

Another key point that you are mistaken on is that you claim that your 5% rule or grounds for inclusion are applied to all UK election articles (EU, UK, Devolved, Council); that just isn't true. I have already provided the example of the BNP in 2009, they got 6.3% of the vote and 2 MEPs (not included and rightly so). In 1999 UKIP gained 3 MEPs (more then the Lib Dems in this case) with 7% of the vote, not included in the infobox and rightly so. I have also looked at the devolved legislatures and they do not follow your criteria, yes more parties are included for some years but that is because their share of the vote is backed up by a nationally significant number of seat; eg in 2003 the SSP won 6 seats (a similar proportion of seats to the libdems in most Westminster elections - a lot higher now obviously)

If we were to try make a case for including these parties in these instances then you would end up including all other parties because of the number of seats etc and the infobox would no longer serve it's intended purpose and would just become a duplication of the results table. We should not have the approach of simply duplicating the results table, we are not suppose to be duplicating information within the same article.

Suffice to say, your argument for the 5% cut off point has not only shown not to be inforce anywhere other than byelection articles but it is just wholly unworkable. The only comparison of any real significance to this case is the one of UKIP in 2015 and I am afraid the precedent has been set. Far from us having to change every single article to remove the Lib Dems from this one, it would be quite the opposite, this infobox is the outlier, not any of the others. If the 2015 infobox was to be changed to include UKIP on the basis of them having a nationally significant percentage, I would support this infobox including the Lib Dems but on reflection, I am not so sure I would agree with that and in any case a consensus was properly sought in that case and the matter seems settled. 118.92.141.142 (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)