Talk:2017 United Kingdom general election/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Requested move 18 April 2017

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.

---

Next United Kingdom general election --> United Kingdom general election, 2017 ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 13:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A few editors suggested this above. Personally, I feel that the move should wait until the Commons vote that is scheduled tomorrow. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• oppose The parliament has not yet voted on the proposed date for the election. Gfcvoice (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Have some patience and wait until it's confirmed by parliament. Also, the proposal is incorrectly capitalised. Number 57 13:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• I don't care, but I guess I kinda support By now, I think we have a reasonable expectation, following reliable sources, that the election will be on 8 June. And it is reliable sources not a vote in Parliament that determines what we say. Bondegezou (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for now The date has not yet been confirmed. Parliament could still bring down the proposal, so we should wait until sure this will not be brought back to "Next United Kingdom general election" again, which has been the common practice for other countries as well as the UK itself in the past. Also, both the source and the target pages were incorrectly capitalized, so I've edited them to comply with WP:NCPP (hope this doesn't cause trouble). Impru20 (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for now: Not until tommorow at least, when Parliament will vote on whether to have an early election. I would Support if the election will be held as planned. Thunderstorm008 (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, premature pending vote on the proposal. Mélencron (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose, because as a matter of law the election is scheduled for May 2020 and will remain so until such time as this is changed. I believe in calling a spade a spade, but presuming to know the outcome of a parliamentary vote is a precedent we would not set under other circumstances. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Opposed until date confirmed in the Commons. SocialDem (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for now: we can't be certain what the timetable will be until Parliament actually dissolves. The Fixed Term Parliament Act could present unexpected legal obstacles. Maswimelleu (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Until this is (probably) passed in the commons, it is still unofficial. To speculate about 2017 would be an unacceptable violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL - we do not know that this is definitely going to pass. However, if it is passed and scheduled, I Strongly Support the change. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support IF approved tomorrow. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose until it is approved by parliament on 19 April=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:45, 18 April 2017 (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.

Infobox for forthcoming election vs past election

We usually base an infobox on the previous election results. We don't have to. We should follow reliable sources, so there is an argument that, irrespective of the above debate, it is reasonable to base the infobox for this article, before the results are in, on what reliable sources say are the notable parties.

I feel that is a better approach, more in keeping with Wikipedia policy, than back-engineering rules based on the previous election results to include the parties people want included. Bondegezou (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

How would this work exactly? Are you suggesting a threshold of coverage by reliable media sources as the infobox criteria? Neegzistuoja (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I think operationalising this is difficult, but it is based on Wikipedia policy. If the infobox is to summarise what's important in an election, then the answer to what is important is determined by reliable secondary sources, as is always the case. We don't need thresholds: Wikipedia isn't meant to work around thresholds; it works on consensus based on policy and practice.

There's logic to the standard approach of looking at the previous election results as an unbiased view, but if the situation has changed markedly from the last election, it is more important to reflect reliable sources. If people want UKIP in the infobox, I think there is an argument to include them based on following what reliable sources do. Bondegezou (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I support the current approach, a legislative infobox based on the seats at dissolution. I'm just trying to offer a new angle on this in case it helps us break out of the usual debate. Bondegezou (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• There are reliable sources which would argue that the SNP or Lib Dems are the only parties providing effective and meaningful opposition at the present time. Do you therefore propose that we exclude Labour from the infobox?

  It's a rhetorical question, intended neither a political point nor an attempt at sarcasm. My intent is to demonstrate why in practise we cannot adopt this suggestion, which is made in good faith and at a glance seems eminently sensible. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Your objection does not work because we can identify many many more sources which clearly show Labour to be a key part of the election. A use of media coverage/sources to source the Infobox doesn't draw naively form sources, but can look at the weight, quality and style of the sources (eg a news report v opinion piece). Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Despite having suggested the 5/5 juggernaut, I agree in principle with Bondegezou - the ideal infobox would be one which provides a clear overview of the election as reliable sources have it. However, I think that this works best after elections, when we can soberly explore the spread of sources of a past event.

Equally, for a distant election (or undated as this one was until today) something like the Israeli infobox reflects our limited capacity to know what will happen in the future.

For an election that is immanent as this now is, there are several good reasons for trying to create some sort of limited rule. There are two which stand out. First, it helps save editor time - we don't spend hours justifying and discussing different sources and their weight. Second, for an unfolding current event, reliable sources are not particularly reliable. Political punditry, news reporting and analysis is volatile and open to fashion. We only need to look at the reporting of the 2016 US election to see that - pundits blindly ignored the evidence of Trump's potential victory (the 'polling fail' is somewhat of a myth).

For these reasons in particular, I support the adoption of tentative, changeable guidelines based on naming a number and sticking with it unless cases persuade us otherwise, during the period when an election is 'live'. However, I fully support AFTER the election of developing an infobox which reflects the emerging historical record from reliable sources. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Voters?

The article does not detail some points; I assume it miss: Who are the voters to this election? Is the election open to every European citizens? Can we vote by Internet from abroad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.187 (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No to both questions. The franchise for Parliamentary elections is pre-determined in UK law. You can vote in person, by post, or by proxy. Only UK, Irish, or Commonwealth citizens who meet certain residency criteria can vote. Maswimelleu (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have added this to the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

But EU citizens resident in the UK can vote in the preceding local elections. Bondegezou (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

As can members of the House of Lords. That section of the franchise (local but not national) is marked as code G on the electoral roll and is still taken into account for the purposes of apportionment I think. Maswimelleu (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

UKIP

Why isn't UKIP listed in the Info box?  — Calvin999 10:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a list of parties that currently hold seats, Douglas Carswell has left the party. CarlDurose (talk · contribs · count) 11:11, 19 April 2017

United Kingdom local elections, 2017

Will these still be taking place? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Bondegezou (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey! Only the Manchester Gorton by-election looks likely not to go ahead, dependent on talks between Manchester's Acting Returning Officer and central government. Matt 190417 14:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB190417 (talk • contribs)

Thanks! Infact, my postal vote was waiting for me when I got home. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Anti SNP Bias

As the Scottish National Party have became the third largest party in the House of Commons after the 2015 election why are they snubbed in the opening text. In particular "All major parties will contest this election with different leaders from 2015." well this is not true as the SNP will likely still have the same leader in the next general election. The Liberal Democrats are mentioned in this paragraph too despite only having 9 seats so if the Liberal Democrats are regarded as a major party then surely the SNP should be considered major as well. Despite personal opinions I feel that Wikipedia should remain impartial in regards to the next election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool1056 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Nicola Sturgeon is NOT the candidate for Prime Minister. Her picture should not be up there on the upper right. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how that has anything to do with my point. Although if you want to play it that way the SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson has been the Westminster leader since 2007 and so is the same as the 2015 General Election. I think you need to read the text before commenting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool1056 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, this is why I disagree with the use of pictures in the infobox on several grounds; importantly, the UK's electoral system is not presidential, but simply has the Monarch appoint the leader of the party who can gain the support of the most MPs. The transitive association makes for enough muddying of the water. It also clutters up the article by taking up way too much space on small screens.

More importantly, I also agree with Cool1056's main point: that the SNP are a major party, so should be included at all appropriate points. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Lynton Crosby in "Campaign" section

My addition of Lynton Crosby has been removed due to a perceived lack of notability. I think this is notable and of encyclopaedic value, not least considering the fact that he was seen as the man behind Cameron's 2015 campaign (the "dead cat" and "wedging" techniques have been mentioned in a number of the below sources), as well as the controversy surrounding him.

Some sources:

UK

• The Guardian
• The Independent
• The Daily Telegraph
• Financial Times
• Bloomberg News
• International Business Times
• The Daily Mail

International

• News.com.au
• Middle East Eye

References

Any thoughts? GringisMan (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I would certainly agree with Crosby's notability; as a political strategist and electoral agent, he is certainly infamous, and he has long been widely perceived as influencing the tone of election campaigns in which he is involved. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@SocialDem: Would you have anything to add to this? GringisMan (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed; very noteworthy and notable. But perhaps other strategists/lobbyists from other parties may need to be considered for balance? Otherwise a minor piece of text mentioning him and let the bluelink work for the enquiring mind. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll accept its inclusion, though am concerned current wording risks editorialising. I'll attempt to reword. SocialDem (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Box in Contesting political parties and candidates

Do we really need such large boxes showing the leaders of parties in GB and Northern Ireland? Appears to duplicate text already there. Think #Contesting_political_parties_and_candidates| can also now include content in #Changes_in_party_leadership_since_the_last_election which was moved from the lead. Happy to change but because it's a big one, what do others think? SocialDem (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Unless we have the photos in the infobox we do. BTW, the Leaders of the regional parties are NOT CANDIDATES in this election. The parliamentary leaders, who would be theoretically asked to form a government if they somehow win, should be shown instead. AS she won't be a member of the House of Commons after the election, Nicola Sturgeon is ineligible to be Prime Minister. Same with the rest. Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I also discuss these tables above. Bondegezou (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The edit war

There is now an election. Who are the candidates for prime minister? How did they get there? Why? I have been trying to answer those questions and I keep on getting reverted. Not cool.

First, lets discuss why these changes are needed, shall we?

First, the leader of the party is the candidate for Prime Minister. This has been the case for literally centuries. That's why we need photos of them in the infobox and elsewhere. As it stands now, nobody has a clue who everyone is besides perhaps May and Corbin. Maybe political junkies like myself, perhaps, but he casual reader outside the UK? NO!

Second. The leader of party (candidate for prime minister) had to get elected. The Tory party isn't just the "Teresa May fan club" like UKIP was Nigel Farange's. An easily findable link to the last leadership election article is necessary. It currently is not. Who is the head of he Liberal Democrats? Not a clue.

So we need subcategories to organize everything properly. Northern Ireland has a different system than the rest of the Union and while this is mentioned, the fact that NI is in administrative chaos is not. The local party leaders aren't standing for a seat in the Union parliament. So why mention them at all? Yes, I know that Nicola Sturgeon took part in one of the debates last time out, but she's not actually standing for anything. She's not part of the election.

In short we need catagorization. That means subsections on each of the leaders, more on the background on the election, and more analysis. Don't ASSUME that everyone is familiar with British politics. Don't assume that everyone knows who the characters are. This is a TEMPORARY article which will be in flux until after the vote in June.

That the leadership has changed since 2015 is not important. What matters is how the contenders got there. We don't have that now. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Not a clue? Your first and second points are provided here, with links and the such. You don't need sub-sections for one sentence-long statements. Impru20 (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

All the information you are asking for is already there, as Impru20 says. Your proposed changes needlessly duplicated information and added unnecessary subheadings. As is, the section looks in a good place to me. SocialDem (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I like how you called this section "The edit war". As if there's only one! ;-) As Impru20 and SocialDem have said, I think much of the information you're seeking is already in the article. The article, when I just looked, lists party leaders and when they were elected as such, with links to articles. I support having more photos in the article (but not in the infobox), so I had put headshots in the table of party leaders: how do people feel about returning those?

We have a section that describes Northern Ireland's different party system and recent developments there. I will look to expand that.

I think you're right that we need more analysis generally, but I don't see that how the party leaders were chosen is the particular content lacking there. I will look to expand. Bondegezou (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Disagree about pictures in #Parties_and_candidates. I'm conscious that once candidate lists are published, which will necessitate (as it did in 2015) talking about number of seats contested, demographics of candidates, notable people standing, as well as mention of minor parties, that the section risks becoming quite large. SocialDem (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I feel the same way as SocialDem about images. Any of the leaders of significant parties are notable figures in their own rights (even if simply by having an interesting CV being the leader of the party), and will therefore have images on their respective pages. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Corbyn image

Come on, that Corbyn image hasn't been used in ages. It's not even the picture on his page. I know we have always struggled to get good pictures of him, but we at least established some over in the archives of the Jeremy Corbyn talk page that are better than the one currently used here. Can we have some kind of vote on it so we can at least come to a general consensus about what should be used without the in-good-faith changes made to this page being constantly reverted. Thanks Nbdelboy (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The photo should either be the official one provided by the government, or the most recent and flattering we can find. Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between the one used on the Jeremy Corbyn article and the one used here. The one used on the election infobox is significantly smaller (160px as opposed to 220px) than the one on his article, so we can afford a degree of blur insofar as it is not noticeable. Secondly, I would put forward very strongly my view that whatever photo we use of him, it must be him facing the camera and not a slanted image shot at an angle. This goes against all the other images on the infobox and is very distracting. Nub Cake (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Douglas Carswell

Hi, I noticed a section saying that carswell would be running under a different affiliation than in 2015. Mr Carswell will not run for election in clacton so I have removed it. Thanks Editorguy123098 (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Editorguy123098 (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Timetable

Do we know when the 57th parliament will assemble? If 2015 is a precedent then it would logically take place on Monday 19th June (with the first state opening on Wednesday 28th June), but there is no mention of it in the article. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

We can't be certain until the timetable is confirmed. At the moment we only have a provisional one. Maswimelleu (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Nature of this has come into doubt (May is now disputing the possibility of holding a "snap" election)

May has made a complete u-turn on the issue of holding a "snap" election. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39628533 What degree of an impact should this change of circumstances have on the prospective nature of the general election?? SecretName101 (talk)

This may be something worth adding to the Campaign section. Do you have some sources to suggest? Bondegezou (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That article only quotes May ruling out a snap election before she called it this week, as far as I can see. OZOO 15:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This is talking about how she went back on her promise not to call a snap election. She's already confirmed there will be one. Maswimelleu (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Maswimelleu: when was that promise made, in what terms, and is it significant enough to add to the article? -- de Facto (talk). 19:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

6 times over her tenure as far as I'm aware, but I'm not keen to add it. I don't think it's hugely relevant and it's not worthy of more than a footnote. Maswimelleu (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Maswimelleu: were they actually promises not to have an election, or expressions of a personal preference not hold one? Can you supply references? -- de Facto (talk). 20:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

BBC News has an interview with her where she says she doesn't want a snap election. Make your own judgement - as I said before I don't think it's something we should be adding to the article. Maswimelleu (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't hear any promises in that. -- de Facto (talk). 21:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

May previously indicated through a spokesperson she had no plan for a general election, the spokesperson stated, “There isn’t going to be one. It isn’t going to happen. There is not going to be a general election.” She denied there would be an election many times.

May clearly stated before deciding on the election that there wouldn't be one. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Didn't she also clearly state more recently why she had reluctantly changed her mind? All sounded quite plausible, don't you think? -- de Facto (talk). 08:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It may be relevant as some background to indicate how much of a surprise the announcement was, but if Wikipedia added everything that a politician changed their mind on, all the politics articles would be at least three feet longer. It can provide context, but as the Commons have now voted for dissolution and re-election, it is little more relevant than that. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Constituency boundary changes on election day?

Comment on this aspect is conspicuously absent, but will the constituency boundary changes come into force for this year's election, as they were mooted for a general election previously assumed (as based on the parliamentary Fixed Term Act) to be taking place in 2020? I recall reading Jeremy Corbyn's own seat was one of the candidates for abolition.Cloptonson (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

No. The review was not set to be completed until 2018. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not "conspicuously absent," it's in the article under the "Electoral system" subheading.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

MPs not standing for re-election

The section "Members of Parliament not standing for re-election" was converted to a table from series of lists. It has a number of relevant columns, but then also has a separate column for the ref. Would anyone object to my appending the refs to the dates (which would become the last column of the table)? -Rrius (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Go for it. SocialDem (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I feel there is no objection to this change. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 12:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I only did it that way in the first place as it was easier to ensure that I'd not missed anything. it works either way as far as I'm concerned (and better than the lists)=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 12:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

New (unreliable) source

Guido Fawkes (www.order-order.com) has compiled a list of MPs not standing [2] it includes Graham Allan (Lab) and Steve Rotheram (Lab) which are not included at the moment in our list. can anyone find a reliable source for either? Steve Rotheram I think may still be standing (having read an article from the liverpool echo) but I can't find anything for Graham Allan=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 09:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Rotheram is standing for Liverpool Mayor (and favourite to win) at the same time so it would be madness not to stand down, but there is that Liverpool Echo article. Allen's decision is quite recent but is reliably referenced here [3] Dtellett (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

according to the liverpool echo [4] rotherham IS standing! => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 09:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Crazy, but we should definitely wait until he becomes mayor before adding him to that list! Dtellett (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Allen has since been added, and as said Rotheram hasn't yet indicated he'll stand down. He may do so in the period between the mayoral results on 5 May and deadline for general election nominations on 11 May. SocialDem (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Flag

We were talking about this above at Talk:United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017#Which_parties_in_infobox and I promised Impru20 I'd start a separate section on this. The infobox (oh, yes, we're back to the infobox) currently has a little union jack at the top. This is an option within the template (and the legislative election template we were previously using). Use of a flag icon in this position is commonplace across election articles.

However, the manual of style is pretty clear that we should not be using a flag icon. WP:INFOBOXUSE says, "Avoid flag icons." (bold in original). It then refers to MOS:FLAG, which states:

Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many.

Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games. The documentation of a number of common infoboxes (e.g., Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox football biography, Template:Infobox weapon) has long explicitly deprecated the use of flag icons.

There's more, I recommend going to read it. There's nothing specifically on election articles, but it does also say, "Beware of political pitfalls, and listen to concerns raised by other editors. Some flags are (sometimes or always) political statements and can associate a person with their political significance, sometimes misleadingly." We must consider WP:NPOV and a flag is a political statement when there are significant parties in the election that do not identify with that flag and want a different political settlement, and there are political movements that use the flag as a symbol in particular ways.

Flag icons are contentious across Wikipedia. Practice all over Wikipedia departs from the manual of style, but the community has ultimately agreed the manual of style and I think we should follow it, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS notwithstanding. So, I say we dump the flag.

I will also raise this at the template talk pages. Bondegezou (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You say it clearly: "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes". "Generally". Yet the exception exists: "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text". In infoboxes, they do indeed show additional info by helping users to clearly and quickly distinguish countries when searching for several election articles from different countries at once. They also help to quickly distinguish elections across the geography of the same country (I'm sure there are regional elections of some sort in the UK, yes?). Again, as you did with WP:INFOBOX, your interpretation of MOS:FLAG is very restrictive. I also fail to see how a flag contributes to WP:NPOV in election infoboxes; please, bring some light on this.

As you say, it is "what you think" opposed to the common practice all over Wikipedia. So I think that's pretty clear. Impru20 (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG makes clear that readers are not necessarily familiar with what flag relates to what country (to quote, "no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details") and text should be used in preference. There is no additional information added in this article, that is titled "United Kingdom general election, 2017" and where the infobox is similarly titled "United Kingdom...", by a flag icon. If you look at the examples given at MOS:FLAG for where flag icons are appropriate, it's for when "such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." That is, when the table has different countries listed in it. It goes on, "Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions", i.e. when you have multiple different actors involved. There is no support for this solitary usage of a single flag icon.

With respect to WP:NPOV, the SNP, Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru and the SDLP all want to alter the United Kingdom. They do not relate to the flag shown. Other parties are more associated with the flag: the flag is strongly associated with unionists in Northern Ireland, and also with unionists parties in Scotland. In England, the flag has some association with parties on the right. It is used by UKIP extensively. We can easily avoid such connotations by sticking to the manual of style. Bondegezou (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Readers may not be necessarily familiar with what flag relates to what country, but I did not explicitly said that the flag helps identify the specific country. Flags help to differentiate elections with a very quick glance (if only because flags for different countries/regions/towns are different). Very helpful for people who frequently visit a large number of election articles at once (since flags are more visual, they're more quickly identified and differentiated than text. You surely could also eventually identify actors in military conflicts or international competitions by reading the text, couldn't you?). "There is no support for this solitary usage of a single flag icon": Common practice in the en.wikipedia Wikipedia + Common practice in other Wikipedias. Doesn't that seem like enough support? Surely that is not "solitary usage".

With respect to WP:NPOV, I'm sorry but I can't see how parties' opinions or ideologies make a country's flag invalid to use. The country's flag is the country's flag, no matter what its inhabitants think of it. And the flag in the infobox does not mean that parties within do relate to that flag (that's an assumption you're making yourself. The one NPOVing here would be you, not the flag's presence), just that the election relates to a given country, which is a perfectly neutral and verifiable fact. I don't think you've actually shown how this specific use of flags is against MOS:FLAG, specially seeing how yourself acknowledge that it doesn't say anything on elections. And your own assumptions don't constitute part of MOS:FLAG. Impru20 (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note there is now a broader discussion at Template talk:Infobox election#Flag icon. Impru20 is right that MOS:FLAG does not say anything specifically about elections, but it does talk about "political pitfalls" and elections are obviously political. Impru20 argues that the flag is "perfectly neutral". I cannot agree. There is a body of research demonstrating that exposure to flag imagery effects people's decision making, generally shifting people to more right-wing views, making this an WP:NPOV issue. I cite several papers at Template talk:Infobox election#Flag icon; I'll just mention one here: Carter et al. (2011), “A Single Exposure to the American Flag Shifts Support Toward Republicanism up to 8 Months Later.” Psychological Science, 22(8):1011-8. I quote: "We report that a brief exposure to the American flag led to a shift toward Republican beliefs, attitudes, and voting behavior among both Republican and Democratic participants, despite their overwhelming belief that exposure to the flag would not influence their behavior." Most of that research has been in a US context. In the UK context, we certainly know flags are very important symbols in Northern Irish politics. For example, see:

• Brown & Macginty (2010), “Public Attitudes toward Partisan and Neutral Symbols in Post-Agreement Northern Ireland.” Identities, 10(1):83-108.

• Halliday & Ferguson (2016), “When Peace is Not Enough: The Flag Protests, the Politics of Identity & Belonging in East Belfast.” Irish Political Studies, 31(4):525-40.

Or just read Wikipedia's own article on the Belfast City Hall flag protests. In a GB context, flags are obviously used symbolically by parties. One reference here is:

• Hayton (2016), “The UK Independence Party and the Politics of Englishness.” Political Studies Review, 14(3):400-10.

Or consider what befell Emily Thornberry, a high-profile Labour politician in this election, a few years ago: Emily_Thornberry#White_Van_Gate.

With respect to Impru20's comments about "solitary usage", sorry, I think we're just talking at cross-purposes there. I meant that when MOS:FLAG supports flag icons, it is when a table or infobox will have several different ones, not when the table/infobox will have a solitary flag icon. Impru20 is entirely right that common practice is to use flag icons quite widely, but WP:OTHERSTUFF. The manual of style is what we're meant to follow. Impru20's use case study of "people who frequently visit a large number of election articles at once" sounds a bit odd to me. How many people do that? At once? Bondegezou (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Bondegezou Firstly, I'll be very short here, because this issue is better discussed at Template talk:Infobox election#Flag icon and not here.

Secondly, my arguments stand the same, as you still fail to acknowledge where MOS:FLAG forbides the use of flags in election infoboxes aside from your own thoughts on the issue (I'm surprised that you have had to quote authors and mix their quotes with this issue just to try to pretend that MOS:FLAG says something it doesn't).

And thirdly: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There're surely many issues and things that could affect people's beliefs, behaviours or emotions, but we don't keep removing facts or changing history just because people may be offended by it.

That flags may be used symbolically by parties do not change at all the fact that they're a national symbol for countries. What you bring us here is pure speculation, specially because, given the wide use of flags in election infoboxes, if its use was so traumatic I think that we'd have already seen a lot of users complaining on that (yet nothing like that has happened). The Union jack is the UK's current flag. Parties may use it? Yes. Just as parties may also use election results, economics, events of different natures or whatever politically, and we don't stop reporting them just because some people may get offended. That something might be used politically does not mean it is always used that way.

You've been already received responses at Template talk:Infobox election#Flag icon from other users acknowledging the usefulness of using flags in election infoboxes (so this is not something that I only think myself), to no complain so far (aside from yours) that flags are so harmful to people. I'll now limiting myself at discussing this issue there, which is the correct place to do it given that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS would theoretically discourage for an infobox element being removed from just a single article. Impru20 (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No, the manual of style does not absolutely forbid flag icons, but it strongly discourages their use and the exceptions it talks about do not apply here. WP:INFOBOXUSE says, "Avoid flag icons." (bold in original). This is not just my "own thoughts on the issue".

You say I "have had to quote authors and mix their quotes with this issue just to try to pretend that MOS:FLAG says something it doesn't". I don't know what you mean there, but my apologies for any confusion. I think it is clear above where I am quoting the manual of style and where I am quoting a research paper. If anyone is unclear, please do go read WP:INFOBOXUSE and MOS:FLAG. They're not long.

As you say, we don't not report things just because that might influence people, but MOS:FLAG clearly prefers using text instead of symbols and warns us about "political pitfalls". I am not in any way suggesting that we not report something: I'm not suggesting that we disguise that this article is about an election in the United Kingdom. I am saying that we can present that information in a more neutral manner, which is just using words, and not using a flag, which is very clearly the approach MOS:FLAG encourages. Bondegezou (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXUSE specifically says:

Like navigation templates, infoboxes should:

Avoid flag icons. For more information about flag icons, see MOS:FLAG.

1. "Should" does not mean "must". No matter how do you want to put it; either in bold, in a larger font or whatever. Seeing how some navigation templates do indeed use flags, I'm quite doubtful that there's an absolute banning of flags on templates/infoboxes.

2. MOS:FLAG is not a policy, but a manual of style. So, even if it actually entirely forbid the use of flags (which it doesn't), you could only use it as a recommendation, not as an obligation. So, again, it doesn't deserve the very restrictive interpretation you're making out of it.

3. WP:INFOBOXUSE only specifies that this issue would go under MOS:FLAG. We go to MOS:FLAG and we see nothing of what you say about election infoboxes.

Is the free use of flags discouraged in templates and infoboxes? Yes, I've never denied that. But in election infoboxes the use of flags is justified, something you fail to address (except by arguing that it may cause some sort of psychological/emotional conflicts; ones of which there's no evidence of users actually suffering or complaining about).

Again, let's keep the discussion in Template talk:Infobox election#Flag icon. Impru20 (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)