Talk:2016 Northern Ireland Assembly election

Smaller parties in infobox

In the page for Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2011, we have represented the smaller parties (TUV, Greens) in the infobox. I suggest keeping the consistency and adding the TUV, Greens and UKIP to the infobox here.

--RaviC (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes often rely heavily on the results of the previous election, at which the TUV and Greens won seats, so OK let's include them in the infobox, but UKIP didn't. UKIP and NI21 both currently have seats in the Assembly, the result of defections, so I'd ask what's the argument for including one and not the other. I note Ofcom &c. define the major parties as just DUP/UUP/SF/SDLP/APNI, so if we are to follow WP:RS, there's an argument not to include any of the smaller parties. Several issues here: let's resolve them in Talk before making further changes. Bondegezou (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Labour Alternative

Worth mentioning in candidate lists that some Labour Alternative candidates are running under the "Independent" designation. Also among the smaller parties are People Before Profit, The Workers Party and CISTA 86.162.51.68 (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Leaders in infobox

Wouldn't it make more sense to list McGuinness as the leader of Sinn Fein? I know Adams is the president but he isn't involved in NI politics. Moonboy54 (talk) 05:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

On the UK general election articles, we list party leaders who aren't in Westminster, including Adams for Sinn Fein on Next United Kingdom general election. By analogy, it may make sense to retain Adams as the stated leader here. That said, I guess we should be guided by how reliable sources choose to present McGuiness vs. Adams. Bondegezou (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Adams is clearly defined by the electoral commission as leader [1] 82.18.177.13 (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Opinion Polling - party colours

Is there any reason why the party colours in the header row on the opinion polling table appear to be non-standard? Returningofficer (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Feel free to fix! Bondegezou (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Number of parties in the Infobox

For the number of parties in the infobox, where does it specify a maximum number in WIkipedia rules/guidelines? Why do not limit ourselves to arbitrary numbers because some editors thinks so? Snappy (talk)

Your title to this section and your phrasing of the question demonstrates why you have entirely missed the point. This is not about arbitrary numbers, it is about being consistent accross wikipedia, it is also about the summary box being just that; a summary. These articles always have full results tables lower down, to include every single party as a rule would violate the wikipedia policy against duplication. I have made reference to other articles whereby this argument has been done to death, for example please see the archived pages of Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015 and Talk:European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom) amongst others. Basically, its not about setting numerical limits, it is about including parties whose result is of signifgicance to the outcome. 1 seat is not significant, arguably 5 seats is not significant but depending on the circumstances and the previous result, potentially it could have been. Thanks 2.98.38.127 (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Snappy: You do in fact ask a perfectly reasonable question, and the answer is that nowhere is there a "rule" about infobox size. These decisions have to be taken case by case. There was a consensus that the ip user refers to, to include four parties in the UK General Election 2015 article (Con, Lab, SNP, LD). A case could of course be made for more or less, but that was the decision. For the 2010 election, only three parties were included. For the 2020 GE, the current consensus is to use a different type of infobox, which lists all parties represented in the HoC, but without the details of their leaders. So this "consistency" that the ip user keeps talking about is actually non-existent - three successive UK GEs and three different infoboxes. And besides, the consensuses were only valid for the UK GE not for devolved elections. There were of course seven parties elected in 2011 in NI, so it seems reasonable to include them all. Frinton100 (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please can you actually go to the talk page and bother to read what consensus was actually reached. You have just misrepresented it quite blatantly. The consensus does not make reference to arbitrary numbers as you are suggesting, it makes reference to grounds for inclusion, therefore the consensus does not change for each UK general election article as you seem to suggest as it is not based on how many parties there should be in the infobox, it is based upon who's result is nationally significant. You have either blatantly misreptresented this or I suspect it is more likely that you haven't bothered to read it and do your full research. Therefore do not understand what you are arguing against. May I also point out that you seem to have no idea why the layout of the Next United Kingdom general election is completely different, the rerason being is that the election is so far away in to the future and the article is in it's infancy, it has been very normal not to include a full election info box so early on in a parliament, this was done with the previous 2 articles. However, now that all parties have established leaders in place, maybe it is time for the standard infobox to revert to normal format for Next United Kingdom general election. So your argument about lack of consistency is indeed nonsense as it is based upon a misunderstanding of the consensus and indeed the consistency between articles.

You make the point that there are 3 seperate elections and 3 different layouts of election box, the fact that you present the argument in this way shows that you misunderstand and have not got your head round what the consensus is. The reason 2010 and 2015 are different is not because the criteria for the grounds of inclusion has changed, it is because the political reality has changed. Again, I have explained why 2020 is currently different and why that is not a permanent thing (as was the case with the previous articles). Please can you stop misrepresenting the arguments and if you do not understand please go and do some more reading. May I also point out again, that devolved election articles were discussed but you continue to ignore this.

I do not understand your last point; yes there were 7 parties elected in 2011 (5 of whom included in the info box as they gained a nationally significant number of seats), in the UK election in 2010, 10 parties won seats but only 3 were includedin the info box. I don't see how it seems reasonable to include them all, it is neither reasonable or consistent and wikipedia policy does state articles do need to demonstrate consistency. Furthermore, the election box is only supposed to be a summary box, it is explicitly not there to give a full breakdown of the result as that would be a violation on wiki policy on duplication as lower down in the article, indeed in all election articles, we include a full table of the results. 2.98.38.127 (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we all remember to assume good faith?

Which parties to include in infoboxes causes endless debate. To say there is any consensus on the matter is perhaps optimistic: there are people rooting for changes on all these different articles. I don't think there are any simple answers here. However, a simple cutoff of who to include and who to exclude is to include every party that won a seat. That's my favoured approach personally. That said, I recognise the argument that an infobox is a summary and shouldn't have to be complete. Bondegezou (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Candidates

Article gives the date nominations open but not when they close ? 86.162.51.68 (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

TUV

Why is the TUV listed as the eighth biggest party? It polled better than PBP and the Greens. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Because it's an election and an election is about winning seats, so we go by seat order in the infobox, and the Greens and PBP got more seats than the TUV, although, as you say, they got fewer first preference votes. Bondegezou (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Right you are, ta. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Party Designations

We have listed Parties as having designations, however the reference given [2] gives membership designations, does anyone know where the concept of party designations came from? It is not in the good Friday agreement. 82.18.177.13 (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Northern_Ireland_Assembly#Composition explains more, but lacks a clear cite. Bondegezou (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

UKIP or UKIPNI?

There are references and links throughout to UKIP and leader, Nigel Farage. Is this correct given that the party in NI is known as UKIPNI with its own leader, David McNarry and website etc - https://ukipni.com/ 23:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Gavin Lisburn (talk)

I would struggle not to use the electoral commission's definitions [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.177.13 (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)