Talk:List of marginal seats before the 2024 United Kingdom general election

Problems

edit

We've had long discussions over target seat lists at previous elections. There is a concern that they are WP:SYNTHy. I was tempted to WP:PROD this. This is not a list of seats that parties are targetting. It's mainly a list of seats by marginality based on notional results calculated for the last election, with a few extra additions. It is unclear why certain lists are longer than others. Many of the lists are clearly preposterous: e.g. the Greens are definitely not targetting all those seats.

While I see some value in lists by marginality, it would be better if we could cite sources as to what the actual seats being targetted are. Bondegezou (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 23 June 2024

edit
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus to move, although only a weak consensus for the proposed title. Editors who prefer a title other than "target seats" and "marginal seats" should feel free to open a new RM at any time. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply


– These are lists of seats with small majorities, calculated from previous results. They are not lists of any party's target seats, which are the seats a party chooses to focus its funds and energies into contesting, as shown by headlines such as "Labour increases Scottish target seats to 36", and by the lead of the 2024 list. Simply changing "target seats in the nnnn ... election" to "marginal seats in the nnnn ... election" would result in ambiguity as it would not be clear whether these were marginal seats before or after the said election, hency my suggested new title of "marginal seats before the nnnn .... election". There may be better alternatives. PamD 22:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 17:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 09:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@SafariScribe, what happened here - why did you close the discussion, move the page, then change your mind and revert both? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per nom
Kowal2701 (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose: a marginal seat is not necessary the same as a target seat. Look at some of the target seats in this list - there is no way they can be described as marginal. If the title is changed, so is the premise of the list and the contents need serious revision. 81.132.105.141 (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Comment how about battleground seats? Kowal2701 (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Most of this article is just a list of marginal seats (that is, seats defined in terms of what swing on the 2019 result is required), but a few actual target seats have been tacked on. It's a mess. If you want lists of lots of seats, call them "marginal" and stick with that. If you want actual target seats, you need citations for everything. Bondegezou (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Move to something as the current title is just incorrect (Finchley and Golders Green was not a Lib Dem target seats). Given the current scope of the article the best title would probably be List of second-place finishes in the 2019 United Kingdom general election by notional results under 2023 boundaries but the fact that topic is so niche hints that serious thought should be made to changing the scope of the article in general. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 08:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment (From proposer of move) I think our problem is the ambiguity of "target seat". My background is in the Lib Dems, who famously focus their limited resources on a small number of seats, described, and specified to the supporters, as "target seats". Other parties may or may not (though the snippet I can read (paywalled Times) of "Labour increases Scottish target seats to 36" suggests that Labour, at least, has its own list of target seats, and one which can change mid-campaign). The media produces lists of "target seats" as "the ones a party would need to win to get a majority". These Wikipedia lists seem to be based on an algorithmic version of "target seats". Their current titles are misleading, as pointed out by Chessrat above. PamD 10:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @PamD my issue is that we don't have a definition for 'marginal'. As pointed out somewhere above, using 'target' is doable, but means that every seat listed would need a reference, and those would probably be from some sort of third party publication assuming a given seat is somewhere a party would put its resources. I don't think parties list their target seats anywhere public!? YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "Marginal" could at least be defined and calculated in an algorithmic way: "target" is likely to be confidential within each party, with exceptions like the Times/Labour thing above. These lists don't seem particularly useful, really. Perhaps someone needs to take them to AfD. PamD 20:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @PamD yes, probably. To define it ourselves would violate WP:OR. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It's an ambiguous term. We should not use it without stating exactly which definition of it we are using. That isn't OR, it's clarifying what we are saying. PamD 18:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Well if you want to propose one that has wide acceptance that's fine. The sources I've seen seem to talk about 'most marginal' or something like that, which I wouldn't deem acceptable. I'd support deletion I think. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @YorkshireExpat An interesting quote here: "Labour’s target seat list is not public, but this seat ranks 14th on LabourList‘s unofficial list of targets –". So Wikipedia just cannot produce a list of target seats. At best we can offer a list of marginal seats, where"marginal" is clearly defined (e.g."for the purpose of this list a seat is considered marginal if it would change party on a swing of less than x% from the notional 2019 general election result " or whatever.) Or we just take it to AfD. PamD 11:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @PamD yeah, I wouldn't expect it to be. That would be giving away their tactics, but you've found that in black and white. So how to define it? Is it reasonable to use the Aussie definition for the purposes of argument? YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Relisting comment: While there is a consensus against "target seats", there also isn't a clear consensus for "marginal seats" based on weight of argument, with editors raising issues with those. Relisting for additional discussion of "marginal seats" or alternatives like "battleground seats" BilledMammal (talk) 09:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
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.

Update Labour targets

edit

Can whoever created this list update it to extend to 200 or even 250 for Labour and maybe 75 for Lib Dems just to catch the outliers on election night? Labour could win 450 seats, so this page might not cover the seats with the most dramatic swings. 81.106.46.246 (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • Hi. I did consider this but guessed that 150 for Labour and 50 for LDs were a safe end point as outliers will be highly difficult to predict. Adding more seats is a possibility either before or after the election though. Moondragon21 (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not if the name gets changed (unless you define 'marginal' as requiring a 25% swing)! YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Copied from my talk

edit

List of marginal seats before the 2024 United Kingdom general election;So, before I go to AfD, what to do about this? It's not a good article at the moment. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP (especially lists) is chock-full of not good articles. It could do with a little post-election analysis, & removing the many hundreds of overlinks to parties would reduce the length a bit. Don't try Afd on notability - that won't fly. Johnbod (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd far prefer something on the lines of 'Seats that changed hands in the 2024 UK GE'. That is factual and easy to reference. The words 'marginal' and 'target' both have problems. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but not all of them did. I'm copying this to the article talk. Please continue there. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's pretty straightforward. In its current state the article is unencyclopaedic, but not sure I have the energy to sort it out. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've tried to revise the lead paragraph to match reality, as a first attempt. PamD 17:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply