Talk:2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom

What about the rest?

We've got 69 seats listed in the infobox. What about the other 4 seats? GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

There's 1 each for Plaid, Sinn Fein, DUP and Alliance. We can either have a cut-off and just include parties with multiple seats, or include all the parties, or change back to the Template:Infobox legislative election infobox format we were using shortly before the election. I would favour the latter. Bondegezou (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

We should follow existing presedent for these elections. 3 and 4 seats has not been considered a nationally significant figure at previous UK EU elections and parties such as UKIP and the Greens were not be included when they scored these figures. In this election the Greens clearly have gained a nationally significant number of seats as they have seats in more than half of the regions. Regardless of the fact that the Conservatives are the governing party, they should be removed as their score is clearly not nationally significant (only in the sense of it's insignificance). The SNP are not a national party and they have only got 3 seats, so this is not nationally significant. Updating table to maintain consistency between articles. 46.208.31.8 (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that providing information is far more important than minor consistency with previous articles (which we can update). The amount of lost seats for a governing party is definitely notable and one of the most important stories of the election. --RaviC (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I do see your point. However, it is a mute one as there is a full results table lower down the page. The infobox does not exist to duplicate information (indeed that goes against Wiki policy), the infobox exists to provide a national summary. Agreed that the fact that the Governing party has been almost wiped out in these elections is indeed one of the most important stories in this election. I also think them not appearing the national summary/infobox is a clear and efficient way of telling that story. It also means we remain consistent and encyclopedic in our reporting. 46.208.31.8 (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, 4 options...

1. Brexit, LD, Lab, Grn: parties with 7 MEPs or more, excludes parties with 4 or fewer seats, consistent with some previous articles
2. Brexit, LD, Lab, Grn, Con, SNP: parties with multiple MEPs
3. Brexit, LD, Lab, Grn, Con, SNP, Plaid, SF, DUP, Alliance: parties with any MEPs, consistent with many election articles, would be very big infobox
4. Brexit, LD, Lab, Grn, Con, SNP, Plaid, SF, DUP, Alliance using legislative infobox format: parties with any MEPs, consistent with many election articles, more compact

I prefer option 4. It shows all parties who won seats, which is the most consistent rule for election infoboxes, and it's compact (as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). Bondegezou (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Option 4 and many of these undermine the point of the info box. We should delete all infoboxes completely if this is to be the approach as it is unecessary duplication of the detailed results table.

I do not accept your premis of voting on this. I losesly go for option 1 though as it is nearest to what the precedent is. I say stick with the precedent of the last 8 articles, lets not start changining criteria. I do not see why this is so controversial 46.208.31.8 (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the first option is the most in line with previous articles (it also matches the 10% with one seat threshold I advocated above). (My preferences would then go 2, 4, 3). I think that Infobox election is in general a clearer and more effective way to summarise the article. Ralbegen (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Ralbegen to some extent but we can change those articles (only a few years would need editing) - 2, 4 and 3 is my preference. --RaviC (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we should not entertain the idea of changing other articles to suit a prefered version of this one. It seems a little like re-writting history. Also the infoboxes best summarise those elections as they are. Indeed changing the other election infoboxes will involve giving undue weight to partieslike the BNP. Let's stick with what works, not least because it still works. In many ways it works better in this election as the very fact that the Conservatives are not in the infobox makes the point that they were decemated (a key point of summary in this election). 46.208.31.8 (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's akin to rewriting history, just presenting it in a slightly different format. From a quick glance, the 1994 election already doesn't follow this rule, and shows the LDs (with 2 seats). --RaviC (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I think option 2 is preferable to option 1 here, and that the Conservatives should be included, since the fall in their number of seats is notable, and seems an important piece of information to include. I would also rather favour changing the 2014 election infobox to a six-party one, too, so that it can be seen from what the Greens and Lib Dems rose from. Personally, I am strongly against options 3 and 4 - especially 4, since I think that the legislative infobox format is unattractive and conveys information less clearly, which the four/six-party infobox does very well, especially when scrolling between options. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The infobox should maintain it's purpose of being a national summary of the results. No information is lost by summarising as there is a full results table in a prominent position within the page. We should not be giving undue weight to parties just because they are in Government and that is bascally what you are arguing for: This is not a UK General Election, a Scottish Parliament Election or anythingh else. The fall in the Conservatives votes and seats is highly notable and it is highly noted in the results table. The Conservatives not appearing in the infobox/qualifying for the national summary makes this point very well.

By appearance the current 4 party summarises the election well: There are 2 big winners: Brexit and Lib Dem who aptly appear on the top row. It is also the first time the Greens have gained a nationally significant number of seats and entered the infobox. The Greens number of votes and number of seats is close to Labour's, it fits that they appear on the same row. Then there is a clear cliff edge that matches the pre-established presedent. 46.208.31.8 (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

46.208.31.8, no intention to imply a vote. I just find it helps to be clear what the options are.

The infobox is meant to summarise what's in the article. It's not meant to contain any information not in the article. Ergo, it is always doing some duplication. The results of a legislative election are best summarised by how many seats each party got, not by pictures of party leaders. Bondegezou (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

PS: I'm also up for deleting all infoboxes. They are a blight on Wikipedia. The amount of energy that goes into them instead of actually writing prose is terrible. Bondegezou (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Infoboxes generally always contain faces of party leaders. This sounds more like a personal preference/gripe with wikipedia formatting (apologies if I have misinterpreted that). Of course the info box is going to have some level of duplication but it should not be a direct duplicate and it never has been....that defies it's purpose. It is a national summary/snapshot. The current version is a very effective snapshot. Summaries do not include all and sundary. I am against deleting infoboxes as a simple summary is useful, perhaps not to an editor but definately to a reader. We just need to be firm about maintaining a format and not lean towards including all and sundary or excluding parties for reasons of preference. Grounds for inclusion need to be clear and consistent. At present, they are 46.208.31.8 (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

If we're going to be consistent, we've long held that three seats is not enough for infobox inclusion. On the other hand, how many is is a different story, although it's somewhere between five and ten; 2019 European Parliament election in Italy (73 MEPs) cuts off at the 5SM and doesn't have Forza (7 MEPs) in the infobox; but on the other hand, 2019 European Parliament election in France (74 MEPs) includes France Insoumise (5+1 virtual MEPs). On the other hand, Italy and France are pure PR, and so those parties got considerably less than the Greens. Hence: I would definitely include Brexit, LD, Labour; am leaning to include Greens; and leaning to exclude the Tories. Sceptre (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure where the "long held consistency" you are referring to comes from, but I think it should be taken into the context that what the parties are if we are to decide whether it should be included in the infobox. Conservatives is a main national party and was a major party until the election and the SNP won the whole Scotland area as it is shown in the map. I believe it makes sense to include both parties therefore I prefer option 2. Lmmnhn (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I've said quite a lot on infoboxes already on this talk page so I won't repeat myself too much, but that said I support option 2 and @Lmmnhn above sums up my thinking on the matter well. What is done in other articles is certainly a useful guide but we need to think about what is the right amount of information to present in the infobox for this specific article to reflect the circumstances and outcome of this particular election. And I would argue that including all parties that won more than one MEP is a reasonable threshold to use for inclusion, and this enables the reader to see at a glance how the governing party and the SNP (which happened to get the highest vote share in any of the four nations, which I think strengthens the case for their inclusion) performed in comparison to other parties. —Paul1337 (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I prefer Option 2– definitely seems like the most clear option at a glance for this article (readers might be left wondering why the Conservatives aren't shown in option 1, for example). Six parties isn't too much. I don't think the formats used in previous elections are especially relevant. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 08:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The main Results table hasn't been completed and we're arguing about the infobox! This is the pernicious effect of infoboxes.

46.208.31.8, having an infobox is not "wikipedia formatting". The manual of style is very clear that infoboxes are not required. The current infobox arguably violates the manual of style on infoboxes by being pretty large. Thinking about the reader, we need to be aware that they may not realise that other parties also won seats. There's no way of telling that from the infobox, and most infoboxes do list all parties that won seats. Bondegezou (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Can I just point out how some other Wikipedias do the infobox? They make for some interesting comparisons. Take a look at:

• Spanish (needs some more logos)
• French (possibly my favourite)
• Hungarian

Note how all are much more compact than our current infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: My thoughts on those three infobox examples (and yes, I did spend rather a long time thinking about infoboxes):

Hungarian – Focused solely on how the election impacts on the European Parliament, showing only seats won sorted by European Parliament political groups. An interesting choice to make, but it means it has lots of useful information missing.

Spanish – Compact, attractive, however this example only shows seats won (and pretty much nothing else), so it is basically an even less detailed version of the legislative election infobox. However, more of what I consider to be essential information can be provided (total votes, vote share, change in vote share, etc), see e.g. es:Plantilla:Ficha de elección#Elección parlamentaria (unicameral con diagrama compositivo). A very good effort when all the important information is provided.

French – Beautifully-designed, compact, elegant and informative. Similar to the Spanish one in quite a few ways, it communicates all the essential information in a minimum of space and in an attractive way (and I noticed that the French editors have used the same criteria as us and also chosen to show the top six parties...) As in the Spanish example, I especially like the bar chart showing percentage of vote share. If it were available here on English Wikipedia I would definitely be in favour of using it for this article and other articles on European Parliament elections (I don't know if the bar chart can show seats won instead of vote share, which would be more important for non-proportional, FPTP elections). —Paul1337 (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we need to take this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums or one of the current template's Talk pages to see whether we can get an adaptation of the French design here. Bondegezou (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, I'm not part of the WikiProject so I don't really know what the best way is to proceed. —Paul1337 (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I have been off here for a week as I have had a lot to do at work as some of us have to keep some form of a Government afloat and the country ticking over. I come back to have a little look and I see no proper consensus has been established and yet the article has deviated back to the version whereby there is no clear precedent for and no proper consensus.

Opposition going quite should not be interpreted as consensus. May I also point out that Wikipedia is not a demopcracy and that consistency is important. Once again I must state that the infobox is there to summarise/synthesise the result into a snapshot...if it didn't there would be no point in both a results table and an infobox as that would be unecessary duplication.

I think a fair summary of the election is that the Brexit Party, Lib Dems and Greens performed strongly, Labour really quite poorly but just about survived, the Conservatives were pretty much wiped out but for a small handful of seats and no other party gained any nationally significant UK wide representation. I think that summary is hard to disagree with

Please forgive me but I am really struggling to fight the thought that Wikipedia is solely run and dominated by the unemployed, students and the retired. Try as I must! No offence or disrespect to any of these groups, I realise they all face a unique and unenvious set of challenges. I think some people should consider changing their editing habbits to prevent fuelling this perception. 146.90.197.209 (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You might be forgiven. But I wouldn't count on it. Your time might well be better spent keeping "some form of a Government afloat and the country ticking over". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC) p.s. you forgot convicted criminals who have internet access.

July discussion

I am appauled by the apparent absence of good faith. Regular editors have reverted the page back to their prefered version just because those who support the version which there is pre-existing condsensus for have gone quiet. This is quite apparent from the discussion above. There is no new consensus for the layout of the infobox. I am reverting this back to the format there is previous consensus for that holds consistent with previous articles. 51.6.165.18 (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Instead of edit-warring, why don't you lay out your case for the changes you are proposing here. We can discuss and then edit as agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The case has been outlined above. It is wrong to revert someones edits to then accuse that person of edit warring when the version they are restoring is in line with previous articles and precedents. Especiually when there is clearly no consensus for the version you are reverting to. On these grounds, may I kindly ask you to stop edit warring. 46.208.31.10 (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It would be better if you did not describe other editors' good faith contributions as vandalism as you did when making significant changes to the infobox today. The infobox has been stable for a month: I have just reverted your changes. Establish consensus here before making again. Bondegezou (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

This is getting beyond ridiculous. Again, you are assuming that just because people aren’t quick to spot sneaky reversions and don’t regularly revisit a page that some how consensus has arisen. There remains no consensus for the edit/reversion you have made. However, there remains precedence and prior consensus for the revision I made. Your actions and the actions of others are fuelling a perception (rightly or wrongly) that there is a certain clique that owns the Wikipedia narrative and that it is no longer an encyclopaedia. I myself am doing my best to reserve judgment on that.

With regard to the use of the word “vandalism” please note that it only refers to the bit at the bottom of the info box about leader of the largest party. This edit has been reverted several times, despite it being wholly consistent with other articles and not contested on this talk page. It is a mighty stretch to assume good faith is at play when there are repeated deletions of something for which there is established consensus, especially when the vandal refuses to discus the issue on here. 46.208.31.10 (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

If there is consensus for your suggested edit, editors can make that clear now, here on this Talk page. They haven't. It's only you. Demonstrate consensus and the changes can be made. Bondegezou (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Seats by constituency

There is a map showing the "winner" by local authority - is this useful for an election which was proportional rather than First Past The Post? It arguably overstates the results of the Brexit Party in England and the SNP in Scotland. Crookesmoor (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's one way of showing the results (particularly given other UK elections are FPTP). It's not the only way of showing the results we have in the article, so I think it's suitably contextualised. Bondegezou (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Theresa May Official.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks the present section on the Brexit Party's campaign is a bit lacking? They got the most votes of any party, and yet their campaign is summed up as "Nigel Farage criticised UKIP, some MEPs left UKIP for BP and a UKIP affiliated Youtuber aggravated many". Forgetting that Mr Benjamin had no connection to the BP, it's just weird to see a description of their campaign without actually talking about any of their campaign events, or their candidates or anything really at all.

Wouldn't it make sense to at least introduce that paragraph with something like "The single issue Brexit Party, led by former UKIP leader Nigel Farage, campaigned on leaving the EU without a deal. Campaign rallies were held across the UK, with a particular focus on the Midlands. Brexit Party candidates includes a wide range of leave-supporting public figures including Anne Widecombe and Claire Fox."

To report on their whole campaign without any of this mentioned at all is really quite disingenuous. The way that the article lays it out makes it seem like the BP didn't campaign and yet somehow still won. 92.207.233.226 (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)