Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election

605: 584: 967:. I've included them here because (1.), considering the importance of the media in democracy and the elections, I thought this would be useful and important to include directly in this article; and (2.), in my opinion, it makes the main part of the other article more readily available (whilst providing extra detail if people want to click through to the full article on endorsements), which makes this article read more easily without having to go to a different article (this is following the precedent of other sections of this article, which link to another, main article of the topic but also provide an overview/the most pertinent information: e.g., the sections on 1703:

article, not simply setting an entirely arbitrary cutoff in order to shoehorn in a party some would like to include. Given there are six parties with a significantly higher vote share than those below - the lowest has more than six times the vote share than the one below it, a multiplier unmatched anywhere in the dataset - an argument can be made for inclusion of those six. Or it could be set based on seats. Inventing a criterion based on the data, and designed to encompass a party that some want to include, fails to adhere to the non-negotiable NPOV policy.

1500:: thus in actual reality it is irrelevant. In fact it's entirely plausible that a party could have 30 to 35 percent vote share (10 million votes) and win zero seats. So getting millions of votes can get you nowhere. Conversely, a party could have 0.6% vote share and win eight seats, or 0.3% (less than 100k votes) and win three seats, which is exactly what happened in this particular election. So the national vote share can vary by a factor of more than 100 and bring about entirely opposite results: it is not a determinant of the outcome. 1622:(which would affect all elections if applied like that); rather than national vote share complements the current seat count system, i.e. that a party getting above X threshold of popular vote share should be considered as "major" and, thus, entitled to appear in the infobox alongside the other major parties (this would only affect 2015 and 2024 on current election trends I think, as I can't think of any other election where a party gaining so many votes is so penalized by the electoral system in seat count). Basically what happens with 1769:. Not a fan of UKIP by any means, but when I think of the 2015 election, I think of it as the UKIP election just due to how much they affected the outcome, and due to their high level of support directly leading to David Cameron's decision to call the Brexit referendum. They finished in second place in a vast number of seats. If we want people researching the election to have the clearest picture of the outcome upfront, I don't feel that seat count should be the only factor dictating who appears on the infobox. 290: 2593:

percentage of vote (if we go by the latter, the UKIP would be in third place, if the former, then it's behind most of the Northern Ireland parties) which is what the discussion is trying to determine. I'm not trying to push an agenda, I'm just trying to keep the page consistent with what was previously decided upon. If the mood since the last consensus and shifted and it is now the consensus to use a format that includes the UKIP, then so be it.

772: 751: 417: 358: 691: 673: 1954:: I believe that whatever the decision is on inclusion, it should be applied consistently among other election pages. I will add that including the UKIP on the basis of the percentage of vote (which would suggest that percentage, not number of seats won) would seem to run counter to listing the SNP before the Lib Dems (the former won more seats, but the latter had a higher percentage of the vote). 512: 255: 860: 553: 2541:. So it is incorrect to say that it has been there for years. The talk page note saying to seek gain a new consensus to add parties other than the Conservative, Labour, SNP, and Lib Dems has been there since 2016. It may very well be the case that a new consensus to include UKIP, but the party should not be added unless and until the decision is official. 782: 893: 314: 2406:

Option 4 and Option 5 aren't very good though - they both unduly favour parties which only won a single seat at the expense of parties which managed multiples, and the latter includes a party which only contests elections in England & Wales. Why should that be included at the expense of one which

1836:

I'm reading the RfC discussion and it feels very clear that nothing approaching a firm consensus on auto-inclusion after 5% has been established, but rather a lot of agreement to judge case-by-case. And in this case, as this is a FPTP election in which the number of seats won takes priority, it would

1533:

my point. Polling so high gets you somewhere: it at the very least entitles a party to debates, news coverage... and well, it would still be 10 million votes lol. I mean, you are basically reassuring me in my position that the "seats-only" criterion, strictly speaking, is useless by itself to address

1362:

Such a strict application of specific criteria lead us to re-interpret what an election is about and forget that seats are still a particular translation of the popular vote result according to the electoral system. I am not denying that the seat count is relevant in an election. You are denying that

1315:

Is getting 10-20% in opinion polling "eager supporters"? Is getting almost 4 million votes and becoming the third political party of the country in vote share terms not a key fact of the election? You have depicted very well what I did mean when I spoke about applying criteria in a very rigid manner.

2592:

with the edit reason "Revert:infobox is by seats won". From a quick glance, (I could be wrong), it doesn't seem to have been present on the infobox again until last month and it appears that its inclusion in the infobox has been rather intermittent. I think the crux of this argument is seat count vs

1792:

other parties who won more seats than UKIP. Why exclude them but include UKIP? The four parties which have been consistently featured are perfectly fine for the key purpose of an infobox: at a glance which conveys key information of the election results (a tight Tory Majority, the Lib Dem implosion,

1702:

You are aware that the election articles you reference took place in 1935 and 1987? It's been eighty-nine and thirty-seven years since then. Cherry-picking instances that you believe support inclusion isn't how we ought to proceed. We should be applying some statistically significant criteria to the

1432:

I understand that you disagree. But your claim is factually incorrect. Parties get their seats from vote share in individual constituencies. National vote share is irrelevant. The seats are determined by first-past-the-post, a system in which the national vote share has zero influence on the outcome

1204:

Almost 4 million votes and being the third political force of the country in vote share in the election is not "value judgement", it is a real metric. The article has 77 mentions of UKIP (16 as reference titles alone), it appears in maps and charts through the article (as well as in related articles

1123:

for UKIP inclusion. This was discussed back on its day and resulted in a divided outcome on whether UKIP should be in or not. Much has come to pass since then, and retrospectively it's fairly obvious that UKIP was very significant heading into this election and scored a very significant popular vote

2440:

I am not sure why you are so adamant to remove UKIP from the table, when many here have come up with good points (which were agreed upon) to keep them in. You do not have to agree with the party itself (obviously) - but removing them is blatantly misleading, and I find it odd that it's only come up

2312:

Option 2 would, I feel, be deceptive because it specifically excludes parties which won multiple more seats while unduly favouring a party which only accomplished a win in a single seat. Even if those parties are regional, it is a simple fact they won more seats and this is an infobox which we rank

1598:

This may well affect other UK (and other FPTP) election articles. I think a central RfC is appropriate. Were we to decide that national vote share ought to determine infobox placement in FPTP jurisdictions, for this specific article the greens, with a comparable vote share to LD and SNP, ought also

1456:

basically acknowledges that. Parties getting 0 votes get no seats. Parties getting millions of votes can get seats (or not, depending on the electoral system, but obtaining millions of votes is surely a first step towards that goal). I do understand how the electoral system works. I understand what

1256:

summarize the article. It's weird for a party to have so much in-wiki election coverage, win millions of votes and score third and then be entirely absent from the infobox. It's one way or the other; its relevance cannot be perfectly measurable for article coverage, then very difficult to ascertain

2308:

Therefore, we can only have Option 1 or Option 2, and that runs back into an issue I've talked about previously, which is that those regional parties won more seats that UKIP, and because we rank based on seats, we would be unduly favouring a party which won a single seat by ignoring parties which

1394:

Yes, I am denying that. I deny it because it's a fact that the popular vote share is irrelevant. The purpose of a UK general election is to determine the constituent members of the house of commons. The only relevant factor that determines the constituent members is who wins the seats. The popular

2522:

Anybody familiar with UK politics of then and now would know that the results of this election is a major talking point when it comes to voting systems (FPTP and PR), so trying to make this information harder to access at a glance seems disingenuous - and a deliberate attempt to obscure the data.

2377:

Changing which style of infobox has been a very controversial topic on this particular election and I would recommend reading previous RfCs and Talk discussions that can be found within the archives regarding a change of infobox as this begins moving firmly beyond the scope of present discussion.

2230:

An RfC would be better framed based on the principle applied to make the decision, i.e. based on which parties appeared in mainstream news organisations election polling trackers; which are the outliers in the data; number of seats; etc. Given there are six parties which are the clear outliers in

1922:

concern, as in, I don't personally as an individual editor give much thought to the arrangement of Canada 2021 (which is a whatabout that I frankly will not engage with), and have already made it clear I view the outcome as a question of going case-by-case, and have laid out my view on this case,

1463:

This claim makes no sense, as you both acknowledge the importance of popular vote (UKIP's share would equal to 81 seats under a different system, which is quite a lot) while attempting to minimize it. But as I said, I am not denying this. My take is that both views are compatible. And so it looks

1415:

Popular vote share is not irrelevant, how do you think parties get their seats from? It obviously has a significance. As said, I am not denying that an election determines the constituent members of parliament. You are denying that the popular vote share has any relevance (to which I disagree). I

1677:

It's perfectly comparable to your argument: if seats are the only thing that should matter, why are we showing parties with zero seats in the infobox there? I'll tell you why: because the specific circumstances of those elections were taken into account, so exceptions to your strict view of the

1581:

Considering that this is a contentious issue and that it could potentially affect other UK articles (I'm thinking of 2024), I would say that going for a proper RfC would be the most cautious and sensible solution (specially to avoid a potential edit war, as I have seen from various edits to the

1837:

be wrong as it would be quite misleading to give a party which won a single seat priority placement over parties which won more on less. You may support inclusion, you can point to that RtC, but it's a simple fact that we order seats in an infobox based upon FPTP seat totals, not vote share.

1522:

but Farage was in the debates when his party had... how many, 2 seats from by-elections? While parties like DUP or SF weren't. And we are not talking about what-ifs here: this happened, and this was part of the election (which includes, but is far from being limited to, a vote-to-seat

2304:

An issue is that Option 3 is, under the style of inforbox being used, impossible. There are no parameters which allow for a tenth party - and UKIP came tenth in seat total (while the Greens also won a single seat, in cases of ties we would favour the party with the higher vote

1788:- UKIP won just a single seat in 2015, which is as clear cut an example of non-inclusion as I can find. If there were no other parties, then maybe based on their vote share, such as with NZ in '84, but infoboxes are arranged by their seat share, not vote share, and there are 1163:

are included. Pretty fatuous arguments above: which party had more media coverage is obviously a value judgement that depends on which media are included and what metric is used for degree of coverage. What was "significant" is again a value judgment: there's nothing

2651:

I'd be down. At this point I think we're veering into guideline territory that extends to the whole site - especially with the noted inconsistencies between countries. How does an RfC on "Guidelines for party inclusion and the choice of infobox style" sound?

1457:

FPTP is. I understand that translating popular vote into seats is one of the most important aspects of the election. I am not denying none of that, what I say is that it is not the only factor for relevance in an election, which is what you say.

1124:

total (even if it did not secure any seat by virtue of the electoral system). Nine years later, the 2024 UK election may bring further stress to the view that parties securing zero seats but 10-15% of the share should not be added to infoboxes.

1681:

You are aware that the discussions you are citing date back to 2014 and 2016, right? It's been ten and eight years since then. 2021 came later. Consensus and reality back then does not necessarily mean that we are at the same place nowadays:

1213:, greatly exceeding almost any other parties but the Conservatives and Labour. What is clear is that it has a measurable significance that is represented everywhere but in the infobox due to criteria that are applied in a very rigid manner. 177: 1416:

have a broad vision that sees a benefit in considering both. You are applying a (very) strict vision which (in my view) thwarts a relevant part of the election. That's my point all along. But as said, we have different visions.

1055:

Not a fan of the party at all. But given that they won a significant amount of votes and played a visible role in the media coverage of this election surely they should be included in the infobox? Or at least in the infobox for

2079:: This discussion seems to have run its course. That is, unless someone else wants to bring forward any new arguments, but I'll assume that this is not the case for now. As such, I think we have to proceed in one of two ways: 1433:

that is the purpose of the election. Were the popular vote tally a relevant factor, in this particular election UKIP would have obtained eighty-one seats. But it's not a relevant factor and thus they obtained one seat.

1003: 476: 2264:

Right, this is both the six outliers in the vote share, and also , not coincidentally, the six parties that appeared in most mainstream news sources' poll trackers i.e. Financial Times, Telegraph, Grauniad..

2017: 655: 2519:

Looking back in the edits, there's a small group of individuals that seems determined to remove UKIP from the info box. I do not know whether these are always the same people, but I find it very suspicious.

2918: 645: 838: 2638: 2542: 2476: 1206: 68: 1650:

The first example to which you link is a "two-horse race" (according to the infobox) so isn't really comparable to this nor to the other two. The 2021 example is similar to the six-party layout

621: 171: 1010:, Nov. 2015)). It would be good to see information included in this article about the parties' use of social media in their campaigning, and about the public's use of social media, too. -- 2913: 2094:: If there truly are more arguments that people wish to present in relation to this topic, it should be covered in an RfC that relates to Knowledge (XXG) as a whole, not only this page. 964: 1229:

3.9m votes but only one seat, so its political force was 1/650 or just over 0.15%. Exactly the same political force as the green party at the same election. Thus the claim that it is "

2928: 214: 2898: 2781: 2039:

Personally, I think it seems odd to include a party that got 1 seat over parties that got multiple (the various Northern Ireland parties and Plaid Cymru all received multiple). So I

1079: 612: 589: 428: 2088:: The strong opinion from these discussions is in favor of including UKIP in the infobox. If we want to swiftly end this debate, inclusion seems like the most logical way to go. 2459: 330: 2923: 1655: 1651: 1210: 242: 238: 234: 230: 226: 222: 218: 1529:

So, you are telling me that you would leave a party with 10 million votes (30-35% of the share) but zero seats out from the infobox just because it got zero seats? That's

716: 698: 678: 246: 2313:

based on seat totals. And because Option 3 is not an option (unless we change the infobox to a style which favours more than 9 results, I would have to say it has to be

2555:

Check the older edits. After being added it is removed thereafter. Again, odd. I shall not be engaging anymore as there is a clear agenda here and I find it disgusting.

2948: 2170:'s suggestion, I'll list a few options out here, and see if we can get a clearer consensus that way before resorting to a new RfC. The options I believe we have are: 2284:

I've added it as a fourth option. I still lean towards Option 3 for the same reasons as above, but if any of you here prefer Option 4, feel free to say so and why!

1872:

of these criteria for inclusion, not even necessarily all three. How else would you justify the inclusion of the PPC in the 2021 Canadian federal election infobox?

1057: 2424:

I would personally be okay with changing the previous elections to match the Danish/Dutch style, if necessary. I understand why that may not be appealing, though.

2472:, and should display Labour, the Conservatives, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats. This should not be altered without altogether clear consensus on the talkpage." 495: 343:, and should display Labour, the Conservatives, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats. This should not be altered without altogether clear consensus on the talkpage. 1252:

So, if it's just 0.15% of the seats, why does it have so much coverage throughout the article? Surely there must be something else, right? Remember: an infobox

1007: 294: 103: 2475:

This discussion is determining whether that should be changed and so adding the party before a firm consensus is established will just lead to more dispute.

2007: 530: 2849:

The talk page for the 2024 UK election article is currently awash in similar discussion. Are there objections to redirecting people back to the RfC page?

873: 1886:

I don't think about the 2021 Canadian election because that's beyond the scope of my concern when discussing the inclusion of parties in the UK in 2015.

1623: 2908: 2634: 2043:

unless ones that received more seats are also included or if seat count is officially deemed to be less important than percentage of vote received.

192: 109: 2938: 2458:

To quote the header text on this page under the FAQ "An extensive process of discussion and narrowing-down of the available options culminated in

828: 2702:

Financial Times, Telegraph, BBC, and Guardian include Conservative, Labour, UKIP, Liberal Democrats, Greens; all include SNP in headline results.

159: 2819:

The formatting has been fixed, but I am still unsure as to how you think the other criteria should be met. Would be happy to hear your opinion.

1086:

article's infobox, I think that UKIP certainly has crossed the threshold of noteworthiness to be included in the lead infobox for this article.

2410:

Changing the infobox style is not a solution to the question of UKIPs inclusion as it creates inconsistency with other British election pages.

1363:

the popular vote share is relevant. That's a clear difference in how we both see an election (which is neither good nor bad, just different).

443: 2903: 2231:

terms of vote share, and six parties fit without having to redesign the infobox, it's appropriate to include the vote share outliers option.

1336:). Does a million votes translate to legislative influence, or any political power at all? No. Only seats do. FPTP is fucking stupid. But it 604: 583: 438: 2732: 2559: 2524: 2506: 2445: 980: 976: 972: 968: 960: 945: 941: 54: 48: 1855:

of parties within an infobox (which consensus seems to still remain to be determined by seat count, not the popular vote), it's about the

2943: 2765: 2594: 2044: 1955: 1627: 804: 2836: 2642: 2546: 2505:

No party is being "added" and if it was, it would be the green party. UKIP has been on the infobox for years - so your point is null.

2480: 2116: 153: 2100:

I don't believe there's much more logic in continuing the debate here. So I want to ask, which option is preferable to you all here?

434: 123: 2584:

with the edit reason "This has been endlessly discussed. You'll need a consensus for change on talk". It was later added back again

2489:

As noted in that RfC's conclusion, consensus can change, and I think this discussion is proof that there is a desire to see change.

2444:

The discussion would possibly make sense if it were around removing Green from the table, but I think they should be displayed too.

2143:

I suggest proposing a question and options here first, so we don't end up with a string of alternatives added during the RfC's run.

128: 44: 1036:, I merged the text from the Carlisle principle article, which is now a redirect to the 'Constitutional affairs' section. Thanks, 1923:

which was, I would note, also hashed out in an RfC back in the day that is linked at the top of this page in the first question.

437:

at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be

149: 1537:

This said, I think we are going around in circles and that we both are unlikely to convince each other of the other's position.

98: 2933: 1065: 952: 564: 1631: 1083: 617: 2213: 795: 756: 199: 89: 2052: 2034: 1527:

In fact it's entirely plausible that a party could have 30 to 35 percent vote share (10 million votes) and win zero seats.

1452:

The claim is not incorrect, because what I am saying is that popular vote is important for getting seats, and you saying

2332: 1752:– receiving 12.6% of the vote makes UKIP notable in this election, regardless of how many seats the party actually won. 1004:

Getting Engaged? The Relationship between Traditional, New Media, and the Electorate during the 2015 UK General Election

399: 2808: 2719: 2273: 2239: 2151: 2028: 1711: 1666: 1607: 1508: 1441: 1403: 1348: 1304: 1241: 1177: 416: 395: 1461:

Were the popular vote tally a relevant factor, in this particular election UKIP would have obtained eighty-one seats.

1061: 254: 209: 866: 165: 133: 2750:

9 parties won seats to the Danish style to match. Yes, I am willing to put in effort myself to make this happen.

2576:, which ultimately ended with it not being included. After the dust settled on that dispute, someone added it on 2466: 1560:

Cambial accepts that they are in a minority within this particular debate and allows the change to take place, or

337: 1292:

The key facts are already summarised. A single seat, where other parties held several times that number, is not

944:. There are lots of reliable sources on it and, as the media is considered to be 'importan to democratic life' ( 265: 2854: 2824: 2790: 2755: 2736: 2657: 2563: 2528: 2510: 2494: 2449: 2429: 2397: 2368: 2340: 2289: 2255: 2221: 2134: 2105: 2062: 2003: 1980: 1909: 1877: 1827: 1678:

seat-count criterion do exist and are applied when required. Criteria should serve the article, not vice versa.

1091: 948: 309:

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the Next United Kingdom general election.

1975:

parties that won a seat (or got a "substantial" share of the popular vote) should be included in the infobox.

1811:

seat is grounds for inclusion, but that parties that win a substantial proportion of the popular vote but who

570: 2769: 2598: 2048: 1959: 963:

section. The tables -- on which parties the main daily and Sunday newspapers endorsed -- are taken from the

959:'), I thought it would make a useful, interesting and important addition. I've also added two tables in the 2840: 2802: 2713: 2267: 2233: 2174:

Keep UKIP, the Greens, and other smaller regional parties (Sinn Fein, Plaid, DUP, etc.) out of the infobox

2167: 2145: 2120: 2022: 1705: 1660: 1601: 1502: 1435: 1397: 1342: 1298: 1235: 1171: 1168:

about whether UKIP was significant and no argument is made above to support this notion. The idea of : -->

1105:(and have added data) - deciding which parties to include can be problematic: how about parties with : --> 1041: 918: 17: 1815:

won a seat should be included. UKIP won a larger share of the popular vote than the SNP in this election.

1169:

1 million votes is not bad, especially given that those are very clear outliers (the next has <200k).

403: 79: 2415: 2383: 2354: 2322: 1928: 1891: 1842: 1798: 1273:

Excitable, eager supporters? It's probably excessive coverage, but that's not relevant. Your claim that

1111: 803:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

620:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1995: 94: 1968:

This discussion isn't about the ordering of parties, it's just about which parties should be included.

1618:

Actually, I think the proposal is less ambitious than that (or at least the one I defend): not to let

524: 2858: 2844: 2828: 2814: 2794: 2773: 2759: 2740: 2725: 2661: 2646: 2602: 2567: 2550: 2532: 2514: 2498: 2484: 2453: 2433: 2419: 2401: 2387: 2372: 2358: 2344: 2326: 2293: 2279: 2259: 2245: 2225: 2157: 2138: 2124: 2109: 2066: 1984: 1963: 1932: 1913: 1895: 1881: 1846: 1831: 1802: 1778: 1761: 1717: 1697: 1672: 1645: 1613: 1593: 1576: 1548: 1514: 1475: 1447: 1427: 1409: 1374: 1354: 1327: 1310: 1268: 1247: 1224: 1183: 1151: 1135: 1115: 1095: 1069: 1045: 1019: 992: 552: 2850: 2820: 2786: 2751: 2653: 2630: 2490: 2425: 2393: 2364: 2336: 2285: 2251: 2217: 2130: 2101: 2058: 1999: 1976: 1905: 1873: 1823: 1333: 1087: 926: 185: 1774: 1757: 1572: 1282: 1026: 270: 2197:

other regional parties in the infobox, but only up to nine to maintain the current infobox style

1316:

Seat count, while an important metric, is not the only metric of significance come an election.

269: 702:, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to 511: 329:: An extensive process of discussion and narrowing-down of the available options culminated in 1359:

1) Opinion polling is part of an election. 2) The popular vote is part of the election result.

1037: 1015: 988: 951:, p. 30) and 'essential to democracy, and a democratic election is impossible without media' ( 925:

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |

75: 2411: 2379: 2350: 2318: 1924: 1887: 1838: 1794: 1107: 905: 710: 357: 267: 2674:

Basing a question on the principle to apply, rather than a cherry-picked list of parties -

2392:

I've added an option to the poll to reflect this, and I'll definitely look around closely.

2349:"under the style of infobox being used, impossible". That is a different style of infobox. 1683: 2764:

Should we make this an official RFC? That way the result will hopefully be beyond dispute?

1862:

No matter how you slice it, UKIP in this election matches all the relevant criteria: : -->

366: 1106:

1 million votes? ... in which case add Greens, but N. Ireland parties gained more seats.

1002:

The 2015 election was expected to be the 'social media election' (see, e.g., C. Byrne, '

771: 750: 690: 672: 2892: 2749:. I would also support changing the infoboxes of previous UK elections in which : --> 1900:

It's not beyond the scope though. The RfCs on these topics have been about infoboxes

1770: 1753: 1568: 1687: 1635: 1583: 1554: 1538: 1465: 1417: 1364: 1317: 1258: 1214: 1125: 1011: 984: 787: 318:

To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.

1807:

In previous RfCs on this topic, not only has it been established that having even

2202:

Include UKIP and the Greens, but not the smaller regional parties, in the infobox

2441:

as an "issue" so close to another UK general election. You are not being subtle.

1145: 1620:

national vote share ought to determine infobox placement in FPTP jurisdictions

1484:. You're referring to national vote share. It's not important. Nowhere did I " 777: 2179:

Include UKIP, but not the Greens or the other regional parties in the infobox

714:

and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit

2188:

other regional parties in the infobox, and change the infobox style to match

865:

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the

518: 2835:

What should be done if the UKIP is added back before consensus is reached?

2700:

d. Include what appears in the trackers & results of news organisations

2057:

I personally think those parties should also be included, for that reason.

1868:. Keep in mind that according to previous RfCs, a party needs to meet only 394:) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other 2633:, with all the back and forth going on (to the point where I submitted a 1599:

to appear. Based on seat numbers we ought also to be including DUP here.

956: 704: 313: 913:

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

2784:

on the WikiProject Election and Referendums talkpage has been created.

517:

A news item involving this article was featured on Knowledge (XXG)'s

1454:

Parties get their seats from vote share in individual constituencies

781: 2696:

i.e. Conservative, Labour, UKIP, Liberal Democrats, SNP, and Greens

1332:

Opinion polling is irrelevant once the election result is in (see

800: 323:

Q1: Why have you listed the parties in this order in the infobox?

289: 2250:

So that would mean adding UKIP and the Greens, but no one else?

1534:

situations where a party gets a sizeable mass of the electorate.

1209:) and its full results are represented at constituency level at 2800:

That's not an RFC. I've made some comments over at that page.

2572:

I looked at earlier edits and I found that there was a lot of

887: 854: 546: 352: 279: 271: 39: 26: 2212:

because it fits best with the current standard set out under

2363:

Indeed, but changing the infobox style isn't off the table.

1207:

Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election

2694:

c. Include the statistical outliers for national vote share

2462:, which concluded that the infobox should use the template 333:, which concluded that the infobox should use the template 965:

main article on endorsements during this election campaign

630:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

2574:

back and fourth over whether the party should be included

1563:

a proper RfC is opened to encourage wider participation.

917:] The anchor (#Definition and classification) has been 2919:

High-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles

2877: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2538: 2115:

Creating a new RFC seems like the best way to proceed.

1033: 488: 300: 2878:"RfC: Clarify the 5% rule for parliamentary elections" 184: 2331:

Option 3 is not impossible; it is the style used for

726:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Elections and Referendums

799:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 616:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 447:

of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

1464:from the election coverage as it currently stands. 1211:

Results of the 2015 United Kingdom general election

633:

Template:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

198: 1553:I don't think this discussion is going anywhere (@ 2899:Knowledge (XXG) articles that use British English 2688:b. Include the statistical outliers for seats won 1851:As I said below, this discussion isn't about the 57:for general discussion of the article's subject. 2914:B-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles 1498:But that system is not used, and never has been 1078:Continuing from some of the discussion held on 1058:2015 United Kingdom general election in England 2929:WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles 983:). I hope these decisions and edits are OK. -- 729:Template:WikiProject Elections and Referendums 2092:Open a new RfC and formally hash it out there 1008:Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism 8: 2708:Labour, Conservative, SNP, Liberal Democrats 2635:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for page protection 1904:, not specific to any one country or event. 1395:vote tally has no influence on the outcome. 2558:No wonder this site is losing credibility. 2407:only contests in wales or Northern Ireland? 1482:popular vote is important for getting seats 973:Contesting political parties and candidates 2949:Pages in the Knowledge (XXG) Top 25 Report 2924:B-Class Elections and Referendums articles 1686:, specially in light of new developments. 1624:1935 Prince Edward Island general election 1189: 745: 667: 613:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom 578: 452: 411: 370:, which has its own spelling conventions ( 18:Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015 429:Social sciences and society good articles 2869: 2682:a. Use the legislative election infobox 2129:If no one objects, I'll make one soon! 2086:Accept the semi-consensus for inclusion 1194:Extended discussion on the !Oppose vote 747: 669: 636:Politics of the United Kingdom articles 580: 550: 2639:2601:249:9301:D570:857E:D8EA:29D4:FED9 2543:2601:249:9301:D570:857E:D8EA:29D4:FED9 2477:2601:249:9301:D570:857E:D8EA:29D4:FED9 1619: 1526: 1519: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1460: 1453: 1274: 1230: 1165: 1161:parties that won equal number of seats 998:Party use of social media in campaigns 1859:of parties based on various criteria. 1557:). I can see two ways to resolve it: 699:WikiProject Elections and Referendums 402:, this should not be changed without 7: 2909:Knowledge (XXG) In the news articles 2537:It was only added to the infobox on 793:This article is within the scope of 696:This article is within the scope of 610:This article is within the scope of 423:2015 United Kingdom general election 49:2015 United Kingdom general election 2637:), should we commence with an RFC? 1628:1987 New Brunswick general election 1488:" something which does not exist: " 869:. The week in which this happened: 569:It is of interest to the following 47:for discussing improvements to the 2690:i.e. Conservative, Labour, and SNP 2684:to list all parties that won seats 732:Elections and Referendums articles 25: 813:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject 2010s 74:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 1084:2021 Canadian federal election's 969:MPs not standing for re-election 891: 858: 780: 770: 749: 689: 671: 603: 582: 551: 510: 415: 356: 312: 288: 253: 69:Click here to start a new topic. 1864:=1 seat, and most importantly, 833:This article has been rated as 650:This article has been rated as 2939:High-importance 2010s articles 1658:and in various other threads. 1632:2021 Canadian federal election 1490:the importance of popular vote 1070:03:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC) 942:media coverage of the election 627:Politics of the United Kingdom 618:Politics of the United Kingdom 590:Politics of the United Kingdom 433:nominee, but did not meet the 1: 1233:" remains a value judgement. 1020:23:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC) 993:23:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC) 807:and see a list of open tasks. 624:and see a list of open tasks. 66:Put new text under old text. 2904:Former good article nominees 2580:, but minutes later, it was 2020:to parliamentary elections. 1971:However, I would agree that 1863:5% popular vote share, : --> 1340:the system, like it or not. 1290:that appear in the article. 540:Former good article nominee 2965: 2944:WikiProject 2010s articles 2745:As noted before, I prefer 2208:I personally lean towards 2193:Include UKIP, the Greens, 2184:Include UKIP, the Greens, 1496:it would have importance. 816:Template:WikiProject 2010s 656:project's importance scale 441:. Editors may also seek a 305:Frequently asked questions 2829:23:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC) 2815:23:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC) 2795:23:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC) 2774:22:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC) 2760:22:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC) 2741:21:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC) 2726:21:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC) 2662:22:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC) 2647:20:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC) 2603:22:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC) 2568:21:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC) 2551:20:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC) 2533:19:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC) 2515:19:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC) 2499:22:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC) 2485:17:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC) 2454:14:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC) 2434:12:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC) 2420:12:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC) 2402:12:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC) 2388:12:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC) 2373:12:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC) 2359:12:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC) 2345:12:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC) 2327:12:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC) 2294:12:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC) 2280:12:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC) 2260:12:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC) 2246:12:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC) 2226:22:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC) 2158:21:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC) 2139:21:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC) 2125:15:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC) 2110:06:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC) 2067:01:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC) 2053:00:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC) 2035:09:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC) 2018:not applied as a standard 2008:14:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC) 1985:02:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 1964:00:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 1933:11:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC) 1918:It's beyond the scope of 1914:22:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC) 1896:18:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC) 1882:21:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 1847:14:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 1832:22:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 1803:10:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 1779:01:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 1762:19:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1718:09:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC) 1698:08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 1673:22:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1646:19:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1614:19:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1594:19:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1577:19:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1549:18:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1515:18:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1476:17:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1448:17:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1428:17:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1410:17:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1375:17:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1355:16:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1328:15:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1311:15:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1269:15:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1248:15:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1225:15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1184:15:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1152:15:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1136:15:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1096:22:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC) 1046:15:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC) 936:Section on media coverage 832: 765: 723:Elections and Referendums 684: 679:Elections and Referendums 649: 598: 577: 537: 455: 451: 104:Be welcoming to newcomers 33:Skip to table of contents 2859:20:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC) 2845:20:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC) 940:I've added a section on 32: 2706:e. Remain as status quo 1822:the inclusion of UKIP. 1257:for infobox inclusion. 1116:07:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC) 2934:B-Class 2010s articles 2590:reverted minutes later 1283:purpose of the infobox 919:deleted by other users 559:This article is rated 99:avoid personal attacks 1494:in a different system 1279:summarize the article 1062:Theimmortalgodemperor 563:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 477:Articles for deletion 435:good article criteria 247:Auto-archiving period 124:Neutral point of view 2677:Should the infobox: 1684:consensus can change 955:encyclopedia entry ' 496:Good article nominee 400:relevant style guide 396:varieties of English 129:No original research 2309:won multiples more. 1492:". I observed that 1334:revealed preference 957:Media and elections 398:. According to the 1520:It's not important 1281:is incorrect. The 1027:Carlisle principle 977:Television debates 565:content assessment 456:Article milestones 110:dispute resolution 71: 2670:Proposal question 2168:Cambial Yellowing 2016:The '5% rule' is 1994:- Got a seat and 1745: 1744: 933: 932: 908:in most browsers. 883: 882: 853: 852: 849: 848: 845: 844: 796:WikiProject 2010s 744: 743: 740: 739: 666: 665: 662: 661: 545: 544: 505: 504: 410: 409: 351: 350: 303: 278: 277: 90:Assume good faith 67: 38: 37: 16:(Redirected from 2956: 2882: 2881: 2874: 2813: 2724: 2471: 2467:Infobox election 2465: 2333:Danish elections 2278: 2244: 2156: 2033: 1716: 1694: 1691: 1671: 1642: 1639: 1612: 1590: 1587: 1582:article today). 1545: 1542: 1513: 1472: 1469: 1446: 1424: 1421: 1408: 1371: 1368: 1353: 1324: 1321: 1309: 1291: 1285:is to summarise 1265: 1262: 1246: 1221: 1218: 1190: 1182: 1132: 1129: 1082:inspired by the 927:Reporting errors 895: 894: 888: 874:May 3 to 9, 2015 862: 861: 855: 839:importance scale 821: 820: 817: 814: 811: 790: 785: 784: 774: 767: 766: 761: 753: 746: 734: 733: 730: 727: 724: 717:our project page 711:electoral reform 693: 686: 685: 675: 668: 638: 637: 634: 631: 628: 607: 600: 599: 594: 586: 579: 562: 556: 555: 547: 538:Current status: 514: 491: 489:October 31, 2015 453: 419: 412: 363:This article is 360: 353: 342: 338:Infobox election 336: 316: 293: 292: 280: 272: 258: 257: 248: 203: 202: 188: 119:Article policies 40: 27: 21: 2964: 2963: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2876: 2875: 2871: 2801: 2712: 2672: 2586:13 August 2019‎ 2469: 2463: 2266: 2232: 2216:on this topic. 2144: 2021: 1746: 1704: 1692: 1689: 1659: 1640: 1637: 1600: 1588: 1585: 1543: 1540: 1501: 1470: 1467: 1434: 1422: 1419: 1396: 1369: 1366: 1341: 1322: 1319: 1297: 1286: 1263: 1260: 1234: 1219: 1216: 1195: 1170: 1143:per Impru20. — 1130: 1127: 1053: 1030: 1000: 981:Opinion polling 938: 929: 911: 910: 909: 892: 879: 859: 835:High-importance 818: 815: 812: 809: 808: 786: 779: 760:High‑importance 759: 731: 728: 725: 722: 721: 652:High-importance 635: 632: 629: 626: 625: 593:High‑importance 592: 560: 487: 404:broad consensus 367:British English 347: 346: 345: 344: 340: 334: 324: 306: 304: 274: 273: 268: 245: 145: 140: 139: 138: 115: 85: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 2962: 2960: 2952: 2951: 2946: 2941: 2936: 2931: 2926: 2921: 2916: 2911: 2906: 2901: 2891: 2890: 2884: 2883: 2868: 2867: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2851:AwesomeSaucer9 2847: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2821:AwesomeSaucer9 2787:AwesomeSaucer9 2777: 2776: 2762: 2752:AwesomeSaucer9 2743: 2733:86.137.148.183 2731:C. Thank you. 2710: 2709: 2703: 2697: 2691: 2685: 2671: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2654:AwesomeSaucer9 2631:AwesomeSaucer9 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2578:19 April 2017‎ 2560:86.137.148.183 2556: 2535: 2525:86.137.148.183 2520: 2507:86.137.148.183 2503: 2502: 2501: 2491:AwesomeSaucer9 2473: 2446:86.137.148.183 2442: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2426:AwesomeSaucer9 2408: 2394:AwesomeSaucer9 2365:AwesomeSaucer9 2337:AwesomeSaucer9 2335:for instance. 2310: 2306: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2286:AwesomeSaucer9 2252:AwesomeSaucer9 2218:AwesomeSaucer9 2206: 2205: 2204: 2199: 2190: 2181: 2176: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2131:AwesomeSaucer9 2102:AwesomeSaucer9 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2089: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2059:AwesomeSaucer9 2037: 2011: 2010: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1977:AwesomeSaucer9 1969: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1906:AwesomeSaucer9 1874:AwesomeSaucer9 1860: 1824:AwesomeSaucer9 1816: 1782: 1781: 1764: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1679: 1654:and discussed 1566: 1565: 1564: 1561: 1551: 1535: 1524: 1458: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1360: 1197: 1196: 1193: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1154: 1138: 1118: 1099: 1098: 1088:AwesomeSaucer9 1052: 1049: 1029: 1023: 999: 996: 937: 934: 931: 930: 924: 923: 922: 906:case-sensitive 900: 899: 898: 896: 885: 881: 880: 878: 877: 870: 863: 851: 850: 847: 846: 843: 842: 831: 825: 824: 822: 819:2010s articles 805:the discussion 792: 791: 775: 763: 762: 754: 742: 741: 738: 737: 735: 694: 682: 681: 676: 664: 663: 660: 659: 648: 642: 641: 639: 622:the discussion 608: 596: 595: 587: 575: 574: 568: 557: 543: 542: 535: 534: 515: 507: 506: 503: 502: 499: 492: 484: 483: 480: 473: 472:April 20, 2010 469: 468: 465: 462: 458: 457: 449: 448: 420: 408: 407: 361: 349: 348: 325: 322: 321: 307: 287: 286: 285: 283: 276: 275: 266: 264: 263: 260: 259: 205: 204: 142: 141: 137: 136: 131: 126: 117: 116: 114: 113: 106: 101: 92: 86: 84: 83: 72: 63: 62: 59: 58: 52: 36: 35: 30: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2961: 2950: 2947: 2945: 2942: 2940: 2937: 2935: 2932: 2930: 2927: 2925: 2922: 2920: 2917: 2915: 2912: 2910: 2907: 2905: 2902: 2900: 2897: 2896: 2894: 2879: 2873: 2870: 2866: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2812: 2811: 2806: 2805: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2785: 2783: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2766:98.228.137.44 2763: 2761: 2757: 2753: 2748: 2744: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2723: 2722: 2717: 2716: 2707: 2704: 2701: 2698: 2695: 2692: 2689: 2686: 2683: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2675: 2669: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2595:98.228.137.44 2591: 2588:, but it was 2587: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2521: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2468: 2461: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2277: 2276: 2271: 2270: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2243: 2242: 2237: 2236: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2214:previous RfCs 2211: 2207: 2203: 2200: 2198: 2196: 2191: 2189: 2187: 2182: 2180: 2177: 2175: 2172: 2171: 2169: 2165: 2159: 2155: 2154: 2149: 2148: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2093: 2090: 2087: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2078: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2045:98.228.137.44 2042: 2038: 2036: 2032: 2031: 2026: 2025: 2019: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2009: 2005: 2001: 2000:Tim O'Doherty 1998:of the vote. 1997: 1993: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1956:98.228.137.44 1953: 1950: 1949: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1921: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1861: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1791: 1787: 1784: 1783: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1765: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1748: 1747: 1719: 1715: 1714: 1709: 1708: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1696: 1695: 1685: 1680: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1670: 1669: 1664: 1663: 1657: 1653: 1652:proposed here 1649: 1648: 1647: 1644: 1643: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1611: 1610: 1605: 1604: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1592: 1591: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1567: 1562: 1559: 1558: 1556: 1552: 1550: 1547: 1546: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1525: 1521: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1512: 1511: 1506: 1505: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1474: 1473: 1462: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1445: 1444: 1439: 1438: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1426: 1425: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1407: 1406: 1401: 1400: 1376: 1373: 1372: 1361: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1352: 1351: 1346: 1345: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1326: 1325: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1308: 1307: 1302: 1301: 1295: 1289: 1284: 1280: 1278: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1267: 1266: 1255: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1245: 1244: 1239: 1238: 1232: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1223: 1222: 1212: 1208: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1192: 1191: 1185: 1181: 1180: 1175: 1174: 1167: 1162: 1159:unless other 1158: 1155: 1153: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1142: 1139: 1137: 1134: 1133: 1122: 1119: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1104: 1101: 1100: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1050: 1048: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1028: 1024: 1022: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 997: 995: 994: 990: 986: 982: 978: 974: 970: 966: 962: 958: 954: 950: 947: 943: 935: 928: 920: 916: 915: 914: 907: 903: 897: 890: 889: 886: 875: 872: 871: 868: 867:Top 25 Report 864: 857: 856: 840: 836: 830: 827: 826: 823: 806: 802: 798: 797: 789: 783: 778: 776: 773: 769: 768: 764: 758: 755: 752: 748: 736: 719: 718: 713: 712: 707: 706: 701: 700: 695: 692: 688: 687: 683: 680: 677: 674: 670: 657: 653: 647: 644: 643: 640: 623: 619: 615: 614: 609: 606: 602: 601: 597: 591: 588: 585: 581: 576: 572: 566: 558: 554: 549: 548: 541: 536: 532: 528: 526: 520: 516: 513: 509: 508: 500: 498: 497: 493: 490: 486: 485: 481: 479: 478: 474: 471: 470: 466: 463: 460: 459: 454: 450: 446: 445: 440: 436: 432: 431: 430: 424: 421: 418: 414: 413: 405: 401: 397: 393: 389: 385: 381: 377: 373: 369: 368: 362: 359: 355: 354: 339: 332: 328: 320: 319: 315: 310: 302: 299: 296: 291: 284: 282: 281: 262: 261: 256: 252: 244: 240: 236: 232: 228: 224: 220: 216: 213: 211: 207: 206: 201: 197: 194: 191: 187: 183: 179: 176: 173: 170: 167: 164: 161: 158: 155: 151: 148: 147:Find sources: 144: 143: 135: 134:Verifiability 132: 130: 127: 125: 122: 121: 120: 111: 107: 105: 102: 100: 96: 93: 91: 88: 87: 81: 77: 76:Learn to edit 73: 70: 65: 64: 61: 60: 56: 50: 46: 42: 41: 34: 31: 29: 28: 19: 2872: 2864: 2837:66.99.15.163 2809: 2803: 2779: 2778: 2746: 2720: 2714: 2711: 2705: 2699: 2693: 2687: 2681: 2676: 2673: 2314: 2274: 2268: 2240: 2234: 2209: 2201: 2194: 2192: 2185: 2183: 2178: 2173: 2152: 2146: 2117:66.99.15.163 2099: 2091: 2085: 2076: 2075: 2040: 2029: 2023: 1991: 1972: 1951: 1919: 1901: 1869: 1865: 1856: 1852: 1819: 1812: 1808: 1793:SNP surge). 1789: 1785: 1766: 1749: 1712: 1706: 1688: 1667: 1661: 1636: 1608: 1602: 1584: 1539: 1530: 1523:conversion). 1509: 1503: 1497: 1493: 1466: 1442: 1436: 1418: 1404: 1398: 1393: 1365: 1349: 1343: 1337: 1318: 1305: 1299: 1293: 1287: 1276: 1259: 1253: 1242: 1236: 1215: 1178: 1172: 1160: 1156: 1146: 1144: 1140: 1126: 1120: 1102: 1080:a recent RfC 1075: 1054: 1038:Amkilpatrick 1031: 1001: 961:Endorsements 939: 912: 904:Anchors are 901: 884: 834: 794: 788:2010s portal 715: 709: 703: 697: 651: 611: 571:WikiProjects 539: 522: 494: 482:No consensus 475: 444:reassessment 442: 427: 426: 422: 391: 387: 383: 379: 375: 371: 364: 326: 317: 311: 308: 297: 250: 208: 195: 189: 181: 174: 168: 162: 156: 146: 118: 43:This is the 2412:BitterGiant 2380:BitterGiant 2351:BitterGiant 2319:BitterGiant 1925:BitterGiant 1888:BitterGiant 1839:BitterGiant 1818:I strongly 1795:BitterGiant 1486:acknowledge 1275:an infobox 1231:significant 1108:Roy Bateman 1025:Merge from 531:May 8, 2015 525:In the news 439:renominated 365:written in 172:free images 55:not a forum 2893:Categories 2865:References 2782:formal RfC 2539:4 May 2024 1902:in general 1866:notability 1480:You claim 529:column on 501:Not listed 1857:inclusion 1531:precisely 1288:key facts 1076:Support - 1034:this edit 705:elections 519:Main Page 376:travelled 112:if needed 95:Be polite 45:talk page 2804:Cambial 2747:Option a 2715:Cambial 2582:reverted 2460:this RfC 2315:Option 1 2269:Cambial 2235:Cambial 2210:Option 3 2147:Cambial 2024:Cambial 1853:ordering 1771:JHarlowR 1754:A.D.Hope 1707:Cambial 1662:Cambial 1603:Cambial 1569:A.D.Hope 1504:Cambial 1437:Cambial 1399:Cambial 1344:Cambial 1300:Cambial 1237:Cambial 1205:such as 1173:Cambial 388:artefact 331:this RfC 210:Archives 80:get help 53:This is 51:article. 2810:foliar❧ 2721:foliar❧ 2305:share). 2275:foliar❧ 2241:foliar❧ 2153:foliar❧ 2077:Comment 2030:foliar❧ 1992:Support 1952:Comment 1820:support 1813:haven't 1767:Support 1750:Support 1713:foliar❧ 1668:foliar❧ 1609:foliar❧ 1555:Impru20 1510:foliar❧ 1443:foliar❧ 1405:foliar❧ 1350:foliar❧ 1306:foliar❧ 1243:foliar❧ 1179:foliar❧ 1141:Support 1121:Support 1012:Woofboy 985:Woofboy 921:before. 837:on the 654:on the 561:B-class 521:in the 464:Process 392:analyse 384:defence 251:90 days 178:WP refs 166:scholar 2041:oppose 1786:Oppose 1157:Oppose 1147:Czello 979:, and 949:report 876:(13th) 567:scale. 467:Result 425:was a 380:centre 372:colour 150:Google 1690:Impru 1638:Impru 1586:Impru 1541:Impru 1468:Impru 1420:Impru 1367:Impru 1320:Impru 1261:Impru 1217:Impru 1166:clear 1128:Impru 1103:Agree 1051:UKIP? 1032:With 810:2010s 801:2010s 757:2010s 215:Index 193:JSTOR 154:books 108:Seek 2855:talk 2841:talk 2825:talk 2791:talk 2770:talk 2756:talk 2737:talk 2658:talk 2643:talk 2599:talk 2564:talk 2547:talk 2529:talk 2511:talk 2495:talk 2481:talk 2450:talk 2430:talk 2416:talk 2398:talk 2384:talk 2369:talk 2355:talk 2341:talk 2323:talk 2290:talk 2256:talk 2222:talk 2166:By @ 2135:talk 2121:talk 2106:talk 2063:talk 2049:talk 2004:talk 1981:talk 1960:talk 1929:talk 1910:talk 1892:talk 1878:talk 1843:talk 1828:talk 1799:talk 1790:five 1775:talk 1758:talk 1656:here 1634:... 1573:talk 1277:must 1254:must 1112:talk 1092:talk 1066:talk 1060:? -- 1042:talk 1016:talk 989:talk 946:IPPR 902:Tip: 829:High 646:High 461:Date 301:edit 295:view 186:FENS 160:news 97:and 2195:and 2186:and 1973:all 1870:one 1809:one 1294:key 1006:' ( 953:ACE 200:TWL 2895:: 2857:) 2843:) 2827:) 2807:— 2793:) 2780:A 2772:) 2758:) 2739:) 2718:— 2660:) 2645:) 2601:) 2566:) 2549:) 2531:) 2513:) 2497:) 2483:) 2470:}} 2464:{{ 2452:) 2432:) 2418:) 2400:) 2386:) 2371:) 2357:) 2343:) 2325:) 2317:. 2292:) 2272:— 2258:) 2238:— 2224:) 2150:— 2137:) 2123:) 2108:) 2065:) 2051:) 2027:— 2006:) 1996:5% 1983:) 1962:) 1931:) 1920:my 1912:) 1894:) 1880:) 1845:) 1830:) 1801:) 1777:) 1760:) 1710:— 1693:20 1665:— 1641:20 1630:, 1626:, 1606:— 1589:20 1575:) 1544:20 1507:— 1471:20 1440:— 1423:20 1402:— 1370:20 1347:— 1338:is 1323:20 1303:— 1296:. 1264:20 1240:— 1220:20 1176:— 1131:20 1114:) 1094:) 1068:) 1044:) 1018:) 991:) 975:, 971:, 708:, 390:, 386:, 382:, 378:, 374:, 341:}} 335:{{ 327:A1 249:: 241:, 237:, 233:, 229:, 225:, 221:, 217:, 180:) 78:; 2880:. 2853:( 2839:( 2823:( 2789:( 2768:( 2754:( 2735:( 2656:( 2641:( 2629:@ 2597:( 2562:( 2545:( 2527:( 2509:( 2493:( 2479:( 2448:( 2428:( 2414:( 2396:( 2382:( 2367:( 2353:( 2339:( 2321:( 2288:( 2254:( 2220:( 2133:( 2119:( 2104:( 2061:( 2047:( 2002:( 1979:( 1958:( 1927:( 1908:( 1890:( 1876:( 1841:( 1826:( 1797:( 1773:( 1756:( 1571:( 1110:( 1090:( 1064:( 1040:( 1014:( 987:( 841:. 720:. 658:. 573:: 533:. 527:" 523:" 406:. 298:· 243:7 239:6 235:5 231:4 227:3 223:2 219:1 212:: 196:· 190:· 182:· 175:· 169:· 163:· 157:· 152:( 82:. 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.