Talk:2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Please comment on a RfC at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#RfC on infobox image

Please share your input in an RfC relating to what image should be used in the infobox at the Wikipedia page for the Leader of the British Labour Party (and in election infoboxes, such as the one at this page) AusLondonder (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Redirect where?

Should this redirect to Brexit rather than to the current European Parliament elections for 2019? It seems to me less surprising to link to the explanation of why there is no UK 2019 European Parliament election. Bondegezou (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

There is an explanation of Brexit and its consequences in the lede of European Parliament election, 2019, so I think the current redirect is good. On the other hand, the Brexit article doesn't even mention the 2019 parliament election, so I don't think it would be a good idea to redirect this page to Brexit. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite 27 May 2018

Rewritten following the widely reported news that the Electoral Commission had set aside £829,000 for its "activities relating to a European Parliamentary election in 2019".

• Wheeler, Caroline (27 May 2018). "John Bercow's committee sets aside nearly £1m for post-Brexit EU election". The Sunday Times. London. Retrieved 27 May 2018.
• Hope, Christopher (26 May 2018). "Fear over 'secret' Government plan for UK to stay in EU after deadline as cash set aside for European elections". The Telegraph. Retrieved 27 May 2018.
• Kanter, Jake (27 May 2018). "Brexit supporters are angry about a 'secret plot' to keep Britain in Europe after £829,000 is set aside for EU elections". Business Insider UK. Retrieved 27 May 2018.

There were further reports, which I didn't use, in the Express, the Daily Mail and The Sun newspapers. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Interesting point. I think the presence of such speculation in reliable sources makes it fair for this page to be reactivated. It might be worth adding something about the date of 2 May 2019 being speculative - after all it's still 90% likely they won't go ahead at all. I've also made Labour the largest party in the infobox - as our List of members of the European Parliament for the United Kingdom, 2014–19 article makes clear, the MEP balance right now is:

• Labour 20
• UKIP 18
• Conservative 18
• Independents 7
• Green Party 3
• SNP 2
• Lib Dems 1
• UUP 1
• Sinn Fein 1
• Plaid Cymru 1
• DUP 1

Thus the infobox order should be Lab, UKIP, Con. (Although UKIP and the Conservatives have the same number of seats, UKIP got more votes in 2014).

FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

AfD decision for this article Result was keep, see discussion. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The result was "no consensus", which is not quite the same. Bondegezou (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Needs more reliable source

... but: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6541271/eu-officials-hatch-plan-to-delay-brexit-in-the-wake-of-commons-shambles/ Bondegezou (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018

This Act has repealed the legislative basis for this election, namely European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002. Therefore no election can legally take place in the UK unless new legislation were to be passed for the purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middx1234 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

EU Withdrawal Agreement (Public Vote) Bill 2017-19

If the Private Members Bill — EU Withdrawal Agreement (Public Vote) Bill 2017-19 — there would be a new referendum over the following question:

“Do you support the Government’s proposed United Kingdom and Gibraltar Agreement for withdrawal from the European Union or Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?”

with the responses to the question to be (to be marked with a single (X)):

Support the proposed Withdrawal Agreement
Remain a member of the European Union

--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

2014-2019 Defections

Leaving aside the arguments for/against this page existing.

Should there be a section showing the MEPs who've defected/resigned etc between 2014 and 2019. UKIP won 24 in 2014 and currently have 16, plus some individuals have resigned. If this page were a 'normal' election page this is where they'd be wouldn't they? Littlemonday (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree it would be good to have that information somewhere. I can see an argument for keeping this page short given the election probably isn't going to happen, so what about putting that information on the 2014 article (in a section entitled "Developments after the election" or something)? Bondegezou (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox order

Leaving aside the question of whether this page should exist or not... There's been an edit dispute slowly rumbling away over whether the infobox should lead with UKIP, who won most seats last time, or Labour, who have most MEPs at present.

Standard psephological practice is to compare with the election results last time, which would imply UKIP first. If UKIP had lost a small number of MEPs, I'd be arguing to leave them in first place for that reason. It's the result last time that matters.

However, we are in a situation where the majority of UKIP's MEPs have left the party, including its best known MEP in Farage. These are not normal circumstances. UKIP now under Batten is not the same party as won all those seats last time around. There are times when the present should overrule the past. So I am undecided what the best approach is, but I've left a recent edit putting Labour first unreverted. Bondegezou (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I feel like these are unusual circumstances, but due to difference in scale rather than difference in kind. I think of those options, the correct one is probably retaining the order of parties as they won seats in the last election as established convention for elections both on this site and in reliable sources. I think there would be a more finely-balanced case for discussion if UKIP announced a boycott of the election or ceased to exist.

Looking at the Talk page for the 2014 European Parliament election, the customary infobox inclusion criteria theological arguments resolved in favour of only including parties which won more than ten seats. By that, I think there's probably a stronger case to strike UKIP from the infobox altogether than to reorder the parties. I don't think that would be especially wise, not least because it would be confusing to readers of this page and hence potentially lead to unnecessary disruptive editing; and because it would raise further questions about whether and how to include independent MEPs in the infobox which could be avoided by just listing parties in the order that they won seats last time round. Ralbegen (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

So I confess I'd have to question the consensus that election infoboxes reflect (pre-election) the last result. It's an infobox about the 2019 election, and should - in my view - reflect the status of the parties going into the election. But, putting that aside, I'll come at this from the perspective that even consensus allows for some exceptions, and this should seem good cause for one. To place UKIP first in the infobox seems manifestly ridiculous when, as has been pointed out, they've lost more than half two-thirds of their MEPs. To put it more starkly, they have less than half the MEPs that the Conservatives do, and reordering the infobox would leave UKIP first and the Tories at third! I might not be able to say anything more profound than that's just bonkers...but it does seem a bit bonkers! 88.215.17.228 (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Portrait of Gerard Batten MEP, leader of UKIP.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Brexit Party MEPs ?

Brexit Party

Tim Aker, Jonathan Bullock, David Coburn, Bill Etheridge, Nigel Farage, Nathan Gill and Julia Reid Paul Nuttall. Steven Woolfe

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Brexit_Party

Member of the European Parliament for The Brexit Party representing the South East of England @DianeJamesMEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whotovote19 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Woolfe has said positive things about the party, but last I looked he wasn't listing himself as a member yet. Leaving him aside, with James joining, that makes 9 MEPs and I've edited the article to reflect that. Bondegezou (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

New parties in opinion polling table

As per discussion at Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, I would like to suggest that we are cautious about adding new columns to the opinion polling table for the various new parties who may stand (Brexit Party, Change UK (if they're allowed that name)). What we've discussed there is only including new columns once a majority (or thereabouts) of pollsters are reporting the new parties. This is perhaps an overly cautious approach, but Wikipedia policy does favour following rather than leading in such matters. Bondegezou (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

If this is the reasoning, then I think there is a case for adding them in these tables right now, because the two polls that have come out since the beginning of the actual campaign have included them. Furthermore, both Change UK and the Brexit party have announced their campaigns, and they are polling rather high. I would expect all future pollsters will include these options in the European election polling for their polls to be relevant.Emass100 (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is rightfully cautious, time to this forthcoming election is relatively very short. In principle I would the support the addition of any officially registered party, who are campaigning in the May 2019 European Parliament election and who can demonstrate a sustainable vote share in the polls of more than two or three polling agencies. (I am not sure about the number of polling agencies, nor the exact percentage of the vote share that would be enough...more than 1%?) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

A new poll just came out including them, from the polling agency that formerly didn't. This makes that now, of the 4 pollsters that created a poll on the European elections, 3 have included the new parties. The polling agency that did not include them ran their poll before these parties were even created. This makes that 100% of the polling agencies which have recently polled on the European elections included these parties. Both these parties retained high polling figures throughout the three polls they are in. I feel this warrants their immediate inclusion. Emass100 (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Emass100; I see no issue with including the new parties. Greenleader(2) (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Is Change UK a registered political party, and does this matter regards the polls table

The question is in the sub-heading. The Brexit Party seems to be a registered party but I don't think Change UK actually is yet. Does that matter in relation to who gets a column in the opinion table poll and gets placed under 'others' ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter because (1) They are participating in the election regardless, and (2) the polls are accounting them in and we follow the pollsters. Emass100 (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Party leaders in infobox instead of European Parliament leaders?

The infobox shows the national Labour and Conservative leaders Corbyn and May in the "leader" field, rather than the leaders of those parties in the European Parliament (Richard Corbett and Ashley Fox). This is in line with our articles for previous European Parliament elections, but seems inconsistent with how we handle devolved and local elections. (2016 Scottish Parliament election, 2016 National Assembly for Wales election and the articles I've checked in Category:2019 English local elections all emphasise party leaders within the bodies being elected.) I don't have a strong opinion about this either way, but has there been any discussion of which approach to take? EmphasisMine (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Practice varies somewhat inconsistently, but mostly we go with national leaders. This is a national election: it's Corbyn and May who matter, not Corbett and Fox. I couldn't even tell you whether Corbett and Fox and Tory and Labour or vice versa and I'm someone who follows this stuff! Bondegezou (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems reasonable. EmphasisMine (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Party affiliation of MEPs before the 2019 election

The new box that was added in this diff by MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... show UKIP's number of MEPs having dropped from 7 to 4, but there are still 7 UKIP MEPs.

Constituency	MEP(s)
East Midlands	Margot Parker
East of England	Stuart Agnew
London	Gerard Batten
South East England	Ray Finch
West Midlands	Jill Seymour
Yorkshire and the Humber	Jane Collins, Mike Hookem

I'm not sure why they are now down as 4 but it is not correct. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, no. There are 7 UKIP MEPs, but there are 3 in one European grouping, 3 in another and 1 in no grouping ("non-inscrits"). So they are all there in the new box, but spread around. Bondegezou (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Beat me to it. Regarding my decision to change the table from the previous one which was only sorted by UK Party, the new one is an existing template which was already included in most of the UK European Parliament constituency pages, and already listed MEPs by UK Party and EP grouping. This may have caused greater confusion than the utility of the extra information (for most people EP groupings are meaningless), but the main reason I changed the table was that we have had a particularly active couple of months of MEPs changing political allegiances, and therefore it is more convenient to use the template which would automatically update on all the pages, but this could be changed if people think it is too confusing. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake, didn't spot the second lot of 3. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The Independent MEPs in the EPP have both officially joined TIG/CHUK today. Culloty82 (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

New poll

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1118642347984683009?s=21 Bondegezou (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

NI candidates

Naomi Long officially selected as Alliance candidate.

Culloty82 (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Colum Eastwood picked by SDLP:

Danny Kennedy by UUP: Culloty82 (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Where does the article specify the electoral system?

nmKeith-264 (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. Any remarks? Kahlores (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Which candidates are notable

Just as a heads up... in the Candidates section, I have been naming specific candidates if they appear notable. My approach there is twofold, based on standard Wikipedia criteria of coverage by reliable, secondary sources and/or if they have Wikipedia articles themselves. Bondegezou (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I think secondary source coverage is the most useful thing to determine who's worth drawing particular attention to. It's probably worth mentioning any non-incumbent with a Wikipedia article too. Ralbegen (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Now we know who's been nominated for South West England, we know that the notable candidates (so far as I can tell) are Rachel Johnson, Crispin Hunt, Ashley Fox (incumbent), Molly Scott Cato (incumbent), Clare Moody (incumbent), Andrew Adonis, Martin Horwood, Stephen Williams, Ann Widdecombe, Roger Lane-Nott and Carl Benjamin. Maybe that's too many to reasonably cover in this main article if we see similar numbers in other regional constituencies? Ralbegen (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Labour's Brexit position

Going on what their website says: https://labour.org.uk/issues/labours-plan-brexit/

There doesn't seem to be any mention of a 'confirmatory referendum'. I'm not sure (and I don't think anyone is, for deliberate reasons) that this is their official policy.

I've changed their listing to 'Pro-Brexit, anti-deal' in this table since they seem committed to delivering Brexit in their literature, but clearly oppose the deal on offer.

Perhaps a bit more detail on their policies is needed here (when they publish their manifestos, if the elections happen) Jw2036 (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Have now does this Jw2036 (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

UUP position

The article mentions that the Ulster Unionist Party is pro-brexit however at the time of the vote in 2016 the UUP supported remain, has their position officially changed since then as I am not sure it has. C. 22468 Talk to me 21:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

This piece talks about the UUP's Brexit plans, while this one has their sitting MEP saying, "I and my Party recognise that securing a good and workable deal is the best outcome of the on-going negotiations for both the EU and UK - extending Article 50 for a short period can provide the space needed to finalise such a deal." Bondegezou (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Looked this up when editing the table - they flipped a while back to anti-Brexit 77.241.130.160 (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Brexit Position table

I've removed two problematic columns that were added:

1) Post Brexit position: "2nd referendum" is not a post-Brexit position, many of the parties listed don't want Brexit to happen at all and it is not clear or necessarily relevant at this time what their positions actually are on post-Brexit Britain.

2) 2016 position: the Conservatives are listed as 'Neutral' even though they were in government and officially backed Remain. Presumably this is because a portion of their voters and MPs backed Leave - but this is then something that could be applied to all the parties on the list. We cannot have the whole column as 'Neutral', so I've removed it. Nor is it clear why this should necessarily be relevant; most of the parties have not changed their official position.

Similarly, we cannot have 'Split' in the pro/anti Brexit column for Labour - this could be applied to all parties. Labour's official position is to enact Brexit.

77.241.130.160 (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, this was me, not logged in Jw2036 (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Reply to this Topic

I agree the "Post Brexit Position" table is not particularly necessary seeing this is mostly outlined in the notes column, and as states it is not really expansive enough. However I believe the 2016 position/endorsements area is quite necessary to include because it shows the changes that particular parties have undergone. As for the statement of the Conservatives, the government and most its ministers backed Remain but a sizeable portion of the party endorsed leave, thus, just like on the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum page I have listed them as neutral, as the Conservative Party as a whole did not back remain but the government did. Labour by contrast officially endorsed remain and it was only a small number of figures within remain such as Kate Hoey that backed leave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnnyTayTay (talk • contribs) 21:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd remove the 2016 position column. It's not 2016: their 2016 positions don't matter now. Bondegezou (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree plus reasons above. Removed it Jw2036 (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with that assessment, I think their 2016 positions are very relevant, plus the categories of "pro brexit" and "anti brexit" are very rigid and inaccurate, it would be simply incorrect to call Labour a Pro-Brexit party even if their manifesto says they want to respect the result of the referendum (which if their 2016 positions are invalid surely their 2017 ones are too), with many Labourites endorsing a second referendum. Hence, their 2016 positions help clarify what each parties have believed over the course of time since Brexit occurred. I would personally also classify in the first column Labour as split, perhaps the Conservatives also.

In addition, if there are worries about over complicating the table, I think removing the withdrawal agreement positions would make more sense, as this can be easilly outlined in the Details table. I think a quick graphical guide to parties current and then 2016 positions are far more important. EnnyTayTay (talk) 15.37, 29 April 2019 (BST) —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

EnnyTayTay, I suggest you should have obtained consensus here on the Talk page before re-adding the 2016 column, and that you should revert your re-addition of it until we see if anyone else supports your position. I refer you to WP:BRD.

Lots of parties' positions have evolved since the 2016 referendum. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia about the referendum and the parties' views then. I don't see a need to repeat such information here. The information here should be based on recent statements: it's generally going to be based on the parties' manifestos for these elections. I think the table only works if it can be reasonably concise. It can do that better by sticking to each parties' official position. Where many members of the party have contrary views, we can discuss that in prose. Divisions within Labour and the Conservatives on Brexit policy are already discussed in the campaign section. We should follow the manual of style -- see MOS:PROSE -- and discuss such issues in prose text rather than trying to shoehorn it into a table.

If we can't get the table to work, then let's just drop it and do everything in prose (as per MOS:PROSE). Bondegezou (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Which parties?

There's been some editing back and forth as to which parties should be represented in the table. Currently, it's all parties with sitting MEPs at dissolution. That's simple, but it's arguably too restrictive. We could expand it in various ways.

We could consider anyone OFCOM considers a major party in a region with respect to election reporting guidelines (we've done this before on other articles): that would, I presume, only add SDLP and Alliance in Northern Ireland. Maybe TUV too.

We could consider anyone who got more than 5% last time in a region. That would add SDLP, TUV and Alliance in Northern Ireland. I'm not certain about elsewhere.

We could add anyone standing.

We could leave the main table fairly restrictive and then have some prose text briefly describing the smaller parties. Bondegezou (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Have checked. A 5% rule would only add the three NI parties (SDLP, Alliance, TUV). The OFCOM guidance would just add SDLP and Alliance in NI. Bondegezou (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no qualms with adding parties that poll at least 5% in specific regions, although correct me if I'm wrong, but that would also mean parties like the Scottish Socialist Party should be included (I'm not sure how high they tend to poll in Scotland) or if they're running in this election. I'd say it makes sense to include as many parties as necessary, perhaps it would make some sense to create a separate category for the major parties and then a second table for more minor parties running (perhaps include all of them, and under the 5% threshold including the English Democrats). EnnyTayTay (talk) 15.37, 29 April 2019 (BST)

My suggestion was at least 5% at the last election. I think it's a bit more problematic to rely on polls, that can easily be wrong and certainly vary. For now, whether you have 5% at the last election or 5% in the polls, the only parties we'd be adding are the three NI ones. (The Scottish Socialist Party aren't standing, they didn't stand last time, and the time before that, they got 0.9%.)

I think we should avoid having some massive table that tries to be completist. As per MOS:PROSE, let's just write all that in prose. I think a table only makes sense if it can be reasonably short and simple. If we can't do justice to the issues in a short and simple table, don't do a table. Bondegezou (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Tony Robinson

Is it really that significant, and even worth mentioning, that Tony Robinson left the Labour Party? Personally I think it should be removed Jonjonjohny (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I added that. As a former NEC member, it seemed significant. It was front page at the BBC News site that day. But I don't feel strongly either way about this. Bondegezou (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Green Party, SNP, Liberal Democrats, PC, SF, DUP and UUP

2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom

23 May 2019
All 73 United Kingdom seats to the European Parliament

In the current EP, the Green Party has three MEPs, the SNP have two; the LDs, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Féin, DUP and UUP each have one. Why are they not given equal presence in the infobox? If it means that the portraits of our Dear Leaders have to be cut for space reasons, then so be it. The current selection fails WP:NPOV. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

These 3 threads relate to the question you're (disclaimer: I've only skim read them).

• Talk:2016 London mayoral election#Infobox
• Talk:2016 London mayoral election#Sian Berry infobox inclusion
• Talk:2014 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom#Inclusion of Greens and Lib Dems in infobox

Afterthought: Feeling somewhat vindicated that I brought this article back into use diff, and fought for it at the AfD, which I had no notification of. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The 5% threshold mentioned in those articles is entirely irrelevant and a red herring. My argument is that these parties have current MEPs and so should be represented in the summary infobox, period. As the box stands, it looks more like a party political broadcast for Official and Provisional UKIP. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

There have been many long and painful infobox discussions and consensus is difficult to reach.

Note that the infobox format in use can only expand to 9 parties, so that would mean Lab, Con, Brexit, UKIP, Green, SNP and then a problem of which three of the remaining five parties with one MEP each to include. (The SDP aren't standing, so you could omit them and then, of the remaining 4, it was the UUP who got fewest votes... so Lab, Con, Brexit, UKIP, Green, SNP, LibDem, SF, DUP?) Or one could stop at the SNP. Or you could switch to the legislative election infobox format that can include more parties. Or we don't have to have an infobox at all.

Some infobox decisions have been taken on the basis of a clear 'gap' between the top parties and smaller parties. I think there's a reasonably clear gap between UKIP (7 MEPs now, topped the poll at the last elections) and the next biggest party (Greens, 3 MEPs). 7 is more than twice 3.

So, take your pick from...

1. Lab, Con, Brexit, UKIP
2. Lab, Con, Brexit, UKIP, Green, SNP
3. Lab, Con, Brexit, UKIP, Green, SNP, LibDem, SF, DUP
4. Lab, Con, Brexit, UKIP, Green, SNP, LibDem, SF, DUP, UUP, SDP in legislative election infobox format
5. no infobox
6. Lab, Con, Brexit, UKIP, Green, SNP, LibDem, SF, combined others (late addition suggested by John Maynard Friedman)
7. Lab, Con, Brexit (even later addition given more UKIP->Brexit defections)

I favour (1) or (5). Bondegezou (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I favour (1) and that's in spite of having made this edit to the 2016 London mayoral election. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

(1) makes sense to me. It seems in-line with the 2014 election infobox. Ralbegen (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

False choice designed to make UKIP and UKIP-lite look good. The perfectly good sixth choice is to show no parties at all in the infobox (see above right). It is blatant POV to select just these four. After the election happens, we can consider which parties should be shown - for example the top eight actually elected plus use the ninth box for "Others". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth I'm a remainer and I am certainly not out to make UKIP and UKIP-lite look good. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm really baffled as to why anybody's good faith is being questioned here. UKIP came first in the 2014 election and retain a significant number of seats. The Brexit Party have more seats than them now and are third party. The current body of the article includes two sections dealing with the pre-election composition of the UK delegation, so it only makes sense to me that the infobox reflects that. Ralbegen (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

My apparent failure to assume good faith was unintentional and poorly expressed. "What The President Intended to Say" was that, by splitting, UKIP gets two presences in the infobox, which strikes me as inequitable. The infobox should either show the state of the parties after the 2014 election (which is a bit pointless, IMO, as we have another article for that) or else show none at all until the results of the 2019 election are announced. Obviously I prefer the latter.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman, please strike your comments that are in contravention of WP:AGF.

Done. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I support a minimal infobox, as you suggest. However, I would omit the last bit, "Leader of the Largest Party at the Last Election" because it doesn't have any meaning, there is no post associated with being the leader of the largest party from the UK component, and because it's debatable who it should be. Farage was the leader of the party that did best last time. Corbyn is the leader of the party that has most MEPs now (but he's not an MEP himself, unlike Farage). Farage is now leading a different party, that does have the plurality of MEPs from the winning party last time, although fewer than two of the other parties now. Bondegezou (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree about losing last line, it is a left-over from the clean-out process. Done. (Incidentally, IMO it should never have been there in the first place as there is no such post as "leader of the largest (UK) party" in the EU context. No doubt there is a leader of the largest EP grouping but it does not belong here). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that UKIP gets two presences in the infobox, it's UKIP and the Brexit Party. There's an argument to say that it is an anti-Brexit infobox because it perpetuates the idea that Brexiteers are divided, especially if you add in (pro-Brexit) Conservatives. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Equally you could say that it is solid pro-Brexit because all four parties shown had or have manifesto commitments to "deliver Brexit".

No, what I meant was that in the 2014 election, there was one UKIP. So the question really is whether the infobox in April 2019 (pre-election) should show the state of the parties as at the last election, or as at the date of dissolution, or at all? And if the consensus is for either of the first two, then surely we show the eight highest polling parties and use the ninth box for "others" (preferably without the mug shots). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Previous discussion here has favoured the state of the parties at dissolution over the the state at the last election. The main argument for that being the huge changes there have been.

I have never seen a place in an election infobox used for "others", so I would be cautious about doing that. But I've added your suggestion to the list above. Bondegezou (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I favour (2) or (3). We need to have parties in the infobox, or else it's really dull. The more the better, as it provides more information to the casual reader. Although we should keep the pictures of the leaders because they look good. I'd be fine with keeping the infobox as is if so is the consensus, but I strongly oppose those that want to remove the parties altogether.Emass100 (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I said I favoured (1) or (5) above. I'd be fine with (3) or (2) too actually. Bondegezou (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd favor scrapping the "Leader since" row. It isn't necessary. It would save space, regardless of the number of parties chosen here. Providing this information is a custom that appeared for articles on nationwide, decisive elections. But party leaders do not risk much in European elections, except, of course, those who run on the issue of Europe only. Kahlores (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Kahlores. An infobox is meant to, as per Wikipedia guidelines, be a summary of what's in the article. Yet this "leader since" stuff is only in the infobox and not discussed in the article. Ergo, dump it. Bondegezou (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Definitely dump it. I see that someone has reinstated it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

To complicate matters, two more UKIP MEPs have switched to the Brexit Party. That now leaves UKIP on 5 MEPs, still fourth, but there's no long quite the same clear gap between UKIP on 7 and the Greens on 3... It's now 5 vs. 3. So, I can see an argument for just including Lab, Con and Brexit! I'll add that to the options above. Bondegezou (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2014 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom#Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2014 has the remark that the convention for these articles has been to include parties with ten or more MEPs or those who get 10% or more of the vote in the prior election. That would support the status quo of the four parties. I think that you're certainly right that there's a significant gap between the Brexit Party and UKIP now, so I can see that there's a strong case to include only Labour, the Conservatives and the Brexit Party. I'd be happy with (1) or (7). Ralbegen (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

But such a threshold would rule out the SNP, DUP, SF, UUP and PC who all get a lot more than 10% in their respective countries, just don't stand in England. If the logic produces a nonsense result, there must be something wrong with the starting assumptions. All it tells you (shock horror) is that England has a much larger population than the other three. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the elections across the UK as a whole, so I think it makes sense to apply a 10% (or whatever) threshold across the UK as a whole. If there's an article just about the elections in one country or one region, then you'd apply the threshold with respect to that one region. However important Plaid, say, are in Wales, they're simply not that important at a UK level. Bondegezou (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I favour 7, as the is not much difference between number of the Green Party members (three) and the five members representing UKIP, plus happy to use conventions to keep things simple. (Previously I was thinking 4 looked fair) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• My indicative vote is in favour of 5, 4 and 6. Abstain on the others except vote against 1 and 7. If the infobox is too big, lose the mug shots.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• New update! UKIP are now down to 4 MEPs, so (7) looks the more sensible option to me now. That said, UKIP were the largest party at the last election, so that's a reason to keep them even if their current MEP numbers have shrunk so precipitously... Am undecided. Bondegezou (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Bondegezou John Maynard Friedman Can someone tell me why they favour a minimalistic infobox? I think the best option is to have the top 6 to 9 parties in the infobox, like they do in for most other countries in these European Elections. This is an election using proportional representation, so more parties are expected to be competitive that in regular national elections. Emass100 (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

As per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." These massive infoboxes in often relatively short articles, that seek to replace the article with a big table, are against the manual of style. We need good content, and less obsession with infoboxes. Bondegezou (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

It is almost impossible to keep up with changes! 2 independent/EPP/ex-Con MEPs have now joined Change UK, so the current ranking is... Bondegezou (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC

1. Lab, Con, Brexit, UKIP, Green, SNP, Change UK (same number of MEPs, but through defection, so put SNP earlier, or, in other words, SNP had higher vote share because ChUK had no vote share), LibDem (same number as MEPs as the following, but more vote share), SF, DUP, UUP, SDP

I'd support having Lab, Con, Brexit, UKIP, Green, SNP, Change UK, LibDem. Those eight parties are the ones that would come first by number of seats, and also encompass all parties that got >2% of votes at the last European election, and are the ones with significant opinion polling results. So there seem to be a confluence of factors making this the most reasonable infobox order for now. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A strong reasoning. I can get behind that. The article has expanded to 6 slots and no-one's reverted. If we're having 6 slots, we might as well have 8. Bondegezou (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox wars, part 2

We've kind of stabilised on Chessrat's suggestion above of an 8-party infobox with Lab, Con, Brexit, UKIP, Green, SNP, Ch UK, LDem. However, we then sprouted a second infobox in the Northern Irish candidates section with SF, DUP and UUP.

Recently, Plaid got added to the main infobox. Plaid have as many MEPs as the LibDems, SF, DUP, UUP and SDP, i.e. 1, but got a lower vote share than the LibDems, SF or DUP, but more than the UUP or the SDP (who didn't stand). This seems wrong to me, so I replaced them with SF (higher vote share) and I also got rid of the separate second NI infobox. MOS:INFOBOX does not support having two infoboxes. Northern Ireland does have a different political culture and, for these elections, a different voting system, as RaviC noted when re-adding this second infobox.

Greenleader(2) removed SF from the main infobox, saying "Sinn Fein are not a UK wide party, and If we include them we ought to include the DUP and UUP, which would however make the infobox very cluttered and impractical." I find this odd. The infobox currently lists Labour (not UK wide, don't stand in NI), Green (specifically the Green Party of England & Wales, who don't stand in Scotland or NI), SNP (only stand in Scotland) and LibDem (not UK wide, don't stand in NI), none of whom are UK-wide. Nor have we ever applied a rule that a party has to be UK-wide to be included in an infobox (compare Next United Kingdom general election, including SNP and DUP). The infobox format used can only go up to 9 parties, but we could include the DUP and UUP if we wanted by switching to the legislative election infobox format.

So, the article is back to 8 in the main infobox and a second infobox for NI. I can live with 8 in the main infobox. If we add a 9th, I feel it should be Sinn Fein. These are legally one election and the infobox and article are about the UK as a whole. Sinn Fein got more votes than Plaid.

I don't think we should have a second infobox. That is now what infoboxes are for. If we want to point readers to the previous result in NI, we can do that. We can have a table, we can point them to Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency). I'm not bothered. But a second infobox is not how to do this. We are meant to follow the manual of style and can do so easily. Bondegezou (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

To settle this maybe just switch to a legislative election infobox format. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

That's probably not a bad idea. Just the name, party, EU alliance and number of seats currently held are needed. --RaviC (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I think that the anon editor who is trying to get Plaid in the ninth slot has good reason to do so. Infoboxes should be informative and accurate: at present it is neither.. It the infobox is for Great Britain (as it seems), it should say so. If that means a second infobox, then ignore the rule that says we can't. There have to be exceptions to general purpose rules and this is one. Basic rule of philosophy: if your logic is impeccable but the conclusion is nonsense then the error is in the premises. In this case, find or make a different infobox that gives us 12 slots. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

If we want more parties, like all parties with MEPs, then the legislative election infobox format delivers that. I am entirely supportive of switching to that.

The current infobox shows the top 8 parties, based on current seats and the result last time. So, while I would prefer the other format, I would defend the current infobox as informative and accurate. There is room for a 9th party. The article is for the UK, not GB, so the infobox is for the UK, not GB, so Sinn Fein is the ninth party. Welsh voters aren't any more (or less) important than Northern Irish ones. Bondegezou (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Endorsements

I've started seeing endorsements recently, but I notice that previous EU elections don't seem to have endorsements sections (probably because of the lack of interest in the previous elections), whereas general elections tend to - it's likely we already know which way the newspapers are going, but it's still nice to have a list somewhere. Eilidhmax (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Added. Bondegezou (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Euro Election results map idea

Why can’t we have a double map of the UK with one map on the front of the main article like the one I am showing to you right that’s used for the Scottish and Welsh Elections which would show the seats allocated under the D'Hondt and the Single transferable vote on the left hand side and on the right hand side show UK results (ie highest polling party) by the local counting areas. I will admit the only thing that worries me about the idea is the reduced size so I just wanted to put it out there before as a idea. (2A02:C7F:5622:2000:B5AF:EA:4682:A517 (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC))

There's no reason not to include a map of results by local authority in the article, as at 2014 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom#Results once we have the results. I'm not sure it'd be useful in the infobox, because it doesn't tell you who's won seats, which seems like more key information to me. But certainly there's a place for a map like that in the body of the article! Ralbegen (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I completely support what you’re saying and where you are coming from, the local Authority results do not translate into seats so in Siri would not be practical to put it in within the main map however and this is my main point, The regional results map which shows who won seats within the various regions do not show how each of the main parties faired within those regions it only shows who is awarded the seats so I think to have the local authority result alongside the national regional map is more helpful within this regard. (2A02:C7F:5622:2000:B5AF:EA:4682:A517 (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC))

A map like this could be used as a kind of compromise I suppose? (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC))

I like MOTORAL1987's map. Bondegezou (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Should we use this version of the map then and also update the 2014 map? (2A02:C7F:5622:2000:20CA:6471:964E:2614 (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC))

How do you actually edit a election map, do you need a programme of some kind or can it be done from a iPad? (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC))

If it's an .svg file then you do it on a program that can edit "vector" graphics - I recommend Inkscape. I'm not aware of such a program for iPad and I wouldn't recommend it if one exists. I can do it pretty rapidly if nobody else is able - I most recently updated the vector graphics for district/unitary authorities in England. Maswimelleu (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the design to be like the 2009 version now - we can shade in the regions by party once the results come in. The 2014 one actually originally had this design but was changed by the author, so we can revert to the original edition. --RaviC (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That’s fantastic, thanks for doing that, I am just wondering whether we could update the 1999 and the 2004 maps to this model. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC))

Constituency polling in main article

Given the number of polls involved, I don't think there's any need to have a separate article just for the constituency opinion polling. There are, for instance, far fewer opinion polls in this article than there would be in the article for the next general election if all the opinion polls were listed there rather than in the separate article (which it makes sense to have in that case). Also, the article for the previous European Parliament elections has all the opinion polls in the main article. In summary, it makes it easier for readers to have all the polling information brought together in the main article. —Paul1337 (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Other countries are having their own articles for polling in the European Elections so why can’t we? I am sorry you disagreed with my view and I won’t try to revert it back. (2A02:C7F:5622:2000:842D:BC75:EBA9:8A8A (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC))

I also favour keeping the constituency polling in this article. They don't take up a huge amount of room. If we do want to shorten things, I'd chop down the seat projections section, as discussed above, or move the list of Members of the European Parliament not standing for re-election to its own article. Endorsements might be another candidate for a spin-off article. Bondegezou (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

European Parliament seat projections

Under the polling section, there's a subsection for European Parliament seat projections, with two from Politico.eu and three from EuropeanElectionsStats.eu. These aren't polls: they are projections based on polling. I'm not seeing much reliable source interest in them (Politico is a reliable source in itself, of course). So, I was wondering if we needed so much detail here? What we've done for other articles, e.g. 2015_United_Kingdom_general_election#Opinion_polling, is just quote these sorts of projections at one or two points in time. So we could just give the latest projections from Politico.eu and EuropeanElectionsStats.eu, rather than their earlier ones as well...?

Thoughts, people? (Thoughts of very sophisticated bots also welcome.) Bondegezou (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the projections are helpful if appropriately caveat-ed in notes or in prose before/after the table. D'Hondt is a confusing electoral system, especially where differently sized constituencies come into play. It helps get a sense of how parties with a concentrated vote in one or more regions are going to do better than parties with a scattered vote across all or most regions. Maswimelleu (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree they have value in that way. But do you think they're something we should track in detail, or just have the latest prediction? The section has a table and now someone's added a figure: that feels to me like we're going overboard on things that are secondary analyses of polling data and which haven't had much secondary RS coverage. Bondegezou (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I question the methodology of these projections from politico and europeanelectionsstats. From the politico website linked to, they are predicting that Change UK will get 5 seats from 4.46% of the national vote, UKIP 2 seats from 3.36% of the national vote; these aren't credible - with the system the UK uses, they'd almost certainly get 0 seats from those % votes. Are they possibly supposing the UK uses some kind of whole country PR? For europeanelectionsstats I can't find %votes, but suspect a similar problem; overall both european sites are giving very steady predictions, whereas with the variability we've had with UK polls one would expect big fluctuations, especially for small parties that fluctuate in polls between below and above the roughly 7-12% range that makes all the difference between no seats and a reasonably proportional result under the GB d'Hondt system. To put it in Wikipedia terms, the methodology for these projections needs a reliable source, or as a minimum a source that properly explains the methodology; failing that, I'd delete this section, or just give a link to overall EU predictions. Dmollison (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I think they're making projections from individual polls, not the average. The other thing to bear in mind is that a lot of the contesting parties have regionally polarised support - Change UK is more popular in the south of England, and so might be able to win a seat with 5% of the vote nationally in the very large Southeast England electoral region. I don't personally have any concerns about the veracity of these projections and think they're broadly accurate based on the projected vote shares used. Maswimelleu (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Given the concerns raised above, I have replaced the table and graph with prose giving the latest projections from the two sites. My thinking is along the lines of the concerns that Dmollison outlined previously: I think the projections look decidely dodgy given that the only way that you can make seat projections that have any credibility is if you have basing the projections on poll results for each constituency, rather than national polls. However, both sites are basing their projections off of national polls. This is what EuropeanElectionStats.eu says on their methodology page:

Our calculation/analysis ... Our R code automatically scrapes data from opinion polls publicly available on Wikipedia. It then calculates the mean of the last two polls for each national political party in each member state. We use the mean of the two last polls rather than only the latest poll in order to increase accuracy and to balance out the varying quality of individual polls. With these means we are able to calculate the projected seat distribution for the European Parliament for each member state by using the d’Hondt method. We also take into account the national thresholds for the allocation of seats which range from 1.8% to 5% – these national thresholds can be found here.

I am no expert on the d'Hondt system but that doesn't seem at all appropriate for making accurate projections for each UK constituency. Also, taking only the last two polls listed on Wikipedia (and scraping the data rather than making sure it is correctly inputted manually) both seem like bad decisions that probably make the projections even less accurate. The Politico projections also only use national polls (I can't link directly to their methodology page). Now that I've looked more closely at how these seat projections are arrived at, they seem to be fairly unreliable and I suggest we simply remove them from the article altogether (N.B this is not what I have done currently, as I said above I just removed the table and graph and replaced it with prose). —Paul1337 (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

If the D'Hondt method is not appropriate, the American Jefferson method or the European "proportional representation" (in Euro-English)[1] & [2] could be used. If this is not enough accurate the British European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 and European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 provides, if not repealed by Brexit (European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018), two additional methods:

• For Great-Britain and Gibraltar, "the number of votes given to a party to which one or more seats have already been allocated are to be divided by the number of seats allocated plus one." in British English
• For Northern Ireland, another territory linked to the union, a "single transferable vote system"

If you believe they are unreliable, please provide a more reliable one, possibly in CANZUK English.

"Ce que l’on conçoit bien s’énonce clairement
Et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément." [3] Nicolas Boileau

And last but not least, you might also need the thresholds, provided for instance by this Europarl link [4].

Liberal Democrats & Plaid Cymru in infobox

Given that Plaid Cymru won a lower percentage of the vote in 2014 than Sinn Fein and the DUP, it seems a bit odd to list them in the infobox but not those two parties. And if you're including them then you might as well include the UUP as well and show all parties that won seats, but then the infobox becomes even more unwieldy. So I have just removed Plaid Cymru. —Paul1337 (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the Lib dems, as they have no more seats than DUP, SF and PC etc: just 1 (one). Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with both the above deletions - POV? - it is fairly clear that 2019 result will be very different from the current rankings. Roy Bateman (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think people who insist on their removal are POV pushing, honestly. I think it's worth keeping the NI parties in a separate infobox for clarity, but it seems really ludicrous to remove the Liberal Democrats when their vote share in 2014 was higher than many other parties listed. The infobox allows for 9 parties - so use it for 9 parties. Keep the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and Change UK on there to reflect the full spectrum of parties with representation in the European Parliament for a constituency in Great Britain. Maswimelleu (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

If the article were about Great Britain (rather than the UK) then I absolutely agree that Plaid Cymru should be listed in eighth position and Change UK in ninth position. Given that the article is about the whole of the United Kingdom, however, I can't see how it would be accurate to list Plaid Cymru and Change UK higher up than Sinn Fein and the DUP given that they both got more votes than Plaid last time round (and of course Change UK didn't even exist). As discussed previously, there is still the alternative option of switching to the legislative election infobox which would allow all parties to be listed. —Paul1337 (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I would welcome a switch to the legislative election infobox, if only temporarily. Maswimelleu (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I support a switch to the legislative election infobox, as shown top of next section. I don't know why we ever had anything else. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

While I support the current infobox because I think it strikes a good balance in terms of the parties represented (e.g. there is a significant gap in terms of the lowest-achieving single MEP party currently included, the Lib Dems at 6.6% vote share, and the next, Sinn Féin at 1.0% vote share), if it is the case that there is no longer any consensus for the current infobox then I would support a temporary change to the legislative election infobox until we get the results on 26 May. I certainly think we should be aiming to represent more parties in the infobox rather than fewer (e.g. I would oppose cutting it to six parties or even fewer). —Paul1337 (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Those who want a change are accused of PoV pushing. Keeping the Lib Dems, is also PoV. We are all entitled to think logically and reasonably. I would welcome a switch to the legislative election infobox, as it lists all parties with 1 member, equally. As it stands, it favours the Lib Dem, and that is very biased. P.S. The percentage of vote in the UK does not matter one bit. It's the number of MEPs which count. If you do want to go down the road of percentages, then work out the percentage of Plaid Cymru, SF, DUB and SNP in their corresponding countries where they have fielded candidates, not a % of the UK. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The only defensible line that can be drawn is to show all parties that have representation. Drawing it at the best nine because that is all that will fit in the infobox is just pathetic and invites the obvious reply - well fix the infobox or use another one. Given the current opinion polls (1: Brexit 2, Lib Dem, 3: Lab, 4:Green , 5: Con) the selection as it stands looks very POV indeed, designed to favour the two major WM parties. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I support the comments of User:John Maynard Friedman above: I am sure that we all actually have a POV on this issue, but this should not be reflected by this rather insidious exclusion of relevant parties. Roy Bateman (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

... and more infobox discussion

2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom

23 May 2019

All 73 United Kingdom seats to the European Parliament

Party Leader Current seats Labour Jeremy Corbyn Conservative Theresa May Brexit Party Nigel Farage UKIP Gerard Batten Green Jonathan Bartley & Siân Berry SNP Nicola Sturgeon Liberal Democrats Vince Cable Sinn Féin Mary Lou McDonald DUP Arlene Foster Plaid Cymru Adam Price UUP Robin Swann SDP William Clouston Change UK Heidi Allen

The latest news is that Julie Girling is not a Change UK MEP, so what now for the infobox ranking? TSP swapped Change UK with the LibDems in the infobox as they have the same number of MEPs, but Change UK are a new party. I've now chopped Change UK, because there are several other parties with 1 MEP. I suggest the ranking should be...

1 Lab, 2 Con, 3 Brexit, 4 UKIP, 5 Green, 6 SNP (based on number of current MEPs; UKIP above Green because they got more votes)

then 7 LibDem, 8 SF, 9 DUP, 10 Plaid, 11 UUP (1 MEP each, ranking based on number of votes last time)

then 12 SDP, 13 Change UK (1 MEP each, neither stood last time (Ch UK didn't even exist), but SDP's MEP joined them longer ago). Bondegezou (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Or just include the top 6, which is handily all the ones with more than one MP? Top 6 is what we seem to do for pages like Next United Kingdom general election. TSP (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

There was support above for switching to the legislative election infobox. Here's what it would look like... Bondegezou (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Although why list the SDP if they're not even standing?

Anyway, my preference is for this (with or without SDP), but I'm not averse to TSP's 6-party box, nor to a 9-party box going up to the DUP. Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

My Pref is whatever if possible settle this issue ~ I would say 6 for simplicity but equally happy with the inclusive 9 if it brings stability for the short relevant period (I guess that does not help much) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I would support the inclusive top 9 parties by vote share (as that is the template limit) or alternatively the legislative election infobox listing all parties. As Bodney points out it only has to last until the 26th when we get the actual results. —Paul1337 (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

At this point it doesn't matter because the election will be in less than two weeks and the election results will determine the infobox going forward anyways. I say drop it to 6 so it looks clean and then change it once the election takes place. Gang14 (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Greenleader(2): Here is the latest discussion on parties in the infobox, feel free to contribute to it. TSP (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Basic region by region results breakdown on main article

Currently if you want to look up regional European Parliamentary election results you have to go into the various regional constituency articles to find the results however I believe many people do not know that the regional results are located within them as the articles titles inadvertently give the wrong impression that they are just about the constituency. Although this is not my main point I notice that on the main articles we don’t really do even do a basic overview of the results by the individual regions and was wondering whether there was any way that we could include this for the 2019 European Parliament elections in the UK article rather than just a basic national overview. Particularly with regards to the fact that the SNP and Paid Cymru only campaign within Wales and Scotland a basic national overview doesn’t quite reflect this. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 07:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC))

The article makes a big distinction between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and there's some discussion of other regional variations, particularly in the Candidates section. But happy to see more: what were you thinking of? Bondegezou (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Well I was thinking why can’t each region have a section along with a coloured map showing the results for each of the local authority areas within each of the regions along with the appropriate number of coloured blocks showing the seats for each region. This can easily be done as we already have the correct maps from the 2016 EU Referendum which just need to be blanked and the appropriate seat blocks added. The map below from the East Midlands is a vague example of what I mean from the referendum.

If we blank the map and slightly adjust it to include the seat blocks they would be perfect for the EU Parliament elections it would be a waste not to use them in some form for this election. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC))

Adding Attila Csordas, the only independent and cross-border candidate in East of England Region

Hi,

I'm Attila and am here because Jimmy Wales sent me here, please see twitter thread. I'm the only independent and cross-border candidate in East of England Region, please see Chelmsford Official City Council page where I registered and please see bbc link. I stand for healthy longevity as a biologist and philosopher advocate from Cambridge, UK, please see program link. Cross-border means I'm a citizen of another EU country, being from Budapest, Hungary. I'm not sure whether there's any other cross-border candidate running in the whole of UK, would be interesting to find out. Cheers, Attila.

As per Jimmy Wales' comments, do you have reliable sources talking about your candidacy? I presume you are listed at the East of England article, but to be covered here, we need evidence from reliable, secondary sources that your candidacy is of particular note. Bondegezou (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Finally I understand what do you mean by reliable source, you mean reliable source of particular note. The answer is no, not as far as I know, am a totally grassroots candidate, the first public talk is scheduled for this Sunday evening and maybe other events of more or less 'particular note' might follow. I think my misunderstanding was that I thought that with this article you are aiming to provide a comprehensive list, so 'being of particular note' is not a necessary condition, only having a 'reliable source'. No worries, I did not want to come here really, but Jimmy Wales' had one remark that made do so, he said, let me cite: ' We don't appear to have coverage of any independent candidates on that page, and that strikes me as something that can be argued for.'. But I'm done here now, thanks, Attila

Re your initial sentence in the paragraph above -- not quite. You've added the requirement for due topical weight to reliability of sourcing. See WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a comprehensive list of candidates at each Euro-constituency's page, so go to East of England (European Parliament constituency) and you're listed there. Bondegezou (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Attila: FYI, there are quite a few cross-border candidates running in this election, including from Change UK (Jacek Rostowski) and the Brexit Party (Henrik Overgaard-Nielsen). --RaviC (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, you were asking for 'reliable source of particular note' beforehand, how about this: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-european-parliament-elections-mep-europe-health-attila-csordas-a8919941.html

and this:

https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/meet-the-cambridge-scientist-standing-as-an-independent-candidate-in-the-european-elections-9070676/

does it meet the threshold requirement of your of being of 'particular note'?

Cheers, Attila

Thank you for bringing these to our attention. The Cambridge Independent is a local newspaper, so it doesn't really show notability at a national level. You wrote The Independent piece: that is on a national newspaper, but we wouldn't consider that a reliable, secondary source. I would, however, support more content being added to East of England (European Parliament constituency). Bondegezou (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Milkshakes being thrown at far-right MEP candidates

Milkshakes being thrown at far-right candidates has become a repeated phenomenon during this election campaign - does it warrant a mention in the campaign section?

MEP candidate Carl Benjamin has had 4 milkshakes thrown at him: https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/19/ukip-candidate-carl-benjamin-doused-milkshake-fourth-time-week-9600244/

MEP candidate Tommy Robinson has had 2 milkshakes thrown at him: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8991358/tommy-robinson-attacked-with-milkshakes-twice-in-one-day-as-his-thug-mates-fight-back-on-mep-campaign-trail/

And today current MEP & candidate Nigel Farage had a milkshake thrown at him: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-nigel-farage-milkshake-thrown-16172690

This came after the police asked a Scottish MacDonalds near where a Farage rally was taking place not to sell milkshakes on the night of the event: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/uk-fast-food-chain-burger-king-defies-police-ban-to-sell-milkshakes-near-brexit-rally

Lucy3456 (Lucy3456) 1:42, 20 May 2019

Yes, I would say. This warrants a sentence or two in the Campaign section, but we can't use The Sun or Mirror as they're not considered reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't use the term "far-right", because I think it would be very controversial to call Nigel Farage that. Saying that milkshakes were thrown at pro-Brexit candidates would probably be more accurate. We can note that the milkshakes were thrown in protest at their right-wing views, without taking a clear position on whether all of them can be seen as "far-right". Maswimelleu (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Definitely notable. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is certainly notable and should be in the article, but I also agree with @Maswimelleu that we should refer to "pro-Brexit candidates" being milkshaked rather than "far-right candidates". While some commentators make convincing arguments that Nigel Farage should be categorised as part of the far-right, I don't think there is enough coverage in RS describing him as such to enable us to use that label for him. As with Carl Benjamin (about whom I know much less), neither of their articles describe them as "far-right" and they both deny being part of the far-right. (Of course, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is widely regarded as being part of the far-right and is described as such in RS and his article.) —Paul1337 (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

What about something like, "The protests began against Carl Benjamin, an anti-feminist social media activist who had attracted controversy for jokes about rape, and far right activist Tommy Robinson. They later extended to Nigel Farage, leader of the Brexit Party." (Or one could say "leader of the right-wing populist Brexit Party.") Bondegezou (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. —Paul1337 (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that Benjamin has attracted controversy for "comments about raping Labour MP Jess Phillips" for which he's under police investigation. That's the phrasing being used e.g. in the Independent and the Guardian. I'd suggest the alternative phrasing The protests began against Carl Benjamin, an anti-feminist social media activist who had attracted controversy for comments about raping Labour MP Jess Phillips, and the far-right activist Tommy Robinson. Ralbegen (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

ComRes/Electoral Calculus MRP mode

Ths figures in this regional breakdown table look to me wrong. They show Labour ahead by 27% to 26%. In the 'National poll result' section the same poll on 1- May is correctly showing Brexit ahead 28-26. Also the regional breakdown in the much larger YouGov/Best for Britain poll of 6-17 May is not shown. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The ComRes MRP model is not a normal poll, but rather a regression model based on other variables. That's why it doesn't match the poll in the main table, because it's not the same as that poll. Nor are its regional breakdowns merely subsets of the main poll, as would be the case for the Best for Brtain poll. So, I understand why it is shown like that. Bondegezou (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Local Results Breakdown article

Is there any possibility of setting up an article to show all the local Authority results from within the regions, even though it’s a regional count we only ever get the regional voting figures but never voting figures from the 381 unitary authorities and district council areas excluding Northern Ireland of course, any chance something could be set up at all? (2A02:C7F:5622:2000:CC2B:432C:C27:9EC4 (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC))

I kind of agree with the idea but with so many parties wouldn’t it be very difficult to do a template of some sort. However the article could be named Results of the 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC))

This is a example of how it could be done for each local area by setting up a article similar to what was used in the 2011 and 2016 Referendums using Amber Valley as the local authority air .

Local Authority	Turnout %	Conservative	Labour	Brexit	UKIP	Lib Dem	Green	Other
Amber Valley	43.86	9,745	12,432	800	900	4,654	9,543	876

(MOTORAL1987 (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC))

I'm not entirely convinced that a separate article is justified, but given that we will actually have the results (for GB at least I assume) broken down by local authority, we should definitely include a map like the one used in the article for the 2014 elections. —Paul1337 (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@MOTORAL1987:FYI, I have created the results article here: Results of the 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom. I had considered including vote percentages for each of the parties, but I think that would make the table clumsy and difficult to read so I have followed your example and only included columns for turnout and raw vote figures. Once the results come in, we may also wish to colour each row with the colour of the party which received the most votes that council area.

Graphical Representation

Why has this been removed? it was very useful. --Andromedean (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I checked it was removed with no reason given, i tried updating it, but failed. The creator of it says on their wikimedia page that they are having a short wiki break. (they have edited this page since i wrote this) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The graph line for the Brexit Party doesn't seem to match the data — it looks like the latest poll is 26% from the graph. 156.67.254.9 (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The are two different graphs, produced by different helpful editors, I like the first one as it is neater & easy to understand but I must admit 156.67.254.9 has a reasonable point.

Opinion polling chart for the 2019 EP elections

or

~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to both the editors for their input. These things are fiddly. I think the former looks better, but the second may have more potential. If the second used a bit of smoothing, as with the graph at Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election, then I think it would be better. Bondegezou (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I also think the first graph is right to omit Plaid and 'other'. Bondegezou (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I can see merit in both graphs, but in principle it makes a lot more sense to use a polling average for the line (and points for individual polls along an x-axis with a consistent scale), as in the second graph. This is because there are naturally variations in the figures produced by different pollsters, and so the approach in the approach in the first graph gives a false impression of the data. So I think the general approach taken in the second graph is better, but I would suggest two improvements: (1) I don't think it's useful to include the Number Cruncher poll from January as there is such a break in the time series and it distorts the graph too much. (2) I agree with Bondegezou above that it would be clearer without including Plaid Cymru (Plaid results aren't always broken out separately in GB polls) and Others. —Paul1337 (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It makes more sense to me for the graph to include a moving average and for the x-axis to be date (rather than the poll-index in the first option). The Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election graphs that Absolutelypuremilk does are a good model, but I've never been able to replicate moving averages that include the first and last items. Ralbegen (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It was a bit of a faff to create them, I had to define the moving average for the first fifteen polls separately, i.e. the moving average for the date of the second poll was the average of the first and second poll, the average for the date of the third poll was the average of the first three polls (sounds obvious, but involves redefining the average for the first fifteen polls before you can set it to be the average of the previous fifteen polls from that point on). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I had my own go at creating a version of the chart as the current version doesn't really account for polls on the same day. It's a bit smoother than the current one. Thoughts? Richhaddon (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I am no graph expert, but it looks good (clear, except darn those pesky UKIP and Change parties choosing purple and black as their official colours lol). Would it be better to start from April? I very much appreciate the extra work it takes maintaining these charts. I not sure in the short period leading up to the election, how we decide which graph to use. (Obviously this one needs a key/ menu). ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the chart to shorten the CHUK and BRX trendlines, whilst also adding a legend. I agree it might be better to start later, maybe the first march poll. However this wouldn't use all the table data. Richhaddon (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Love it. Many thanks for this. Let's add it. Bondegezou (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks great. Can you upload it in an SVG or PDF format? --RaviC (talk) 10:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks like polls without SNP as a separate party are counted as 0 %. Wouldn't it make more sense to ignore those polls for the moving average of SNP? Currently, the SNP line is well below any numbers given by the polls. --Gbuvn (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, the graph has been corrected regarding this matter today. --Gbuvn (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mélencron: no rush, but could the graph of poll results be re-done excluding the January poll? The smoothing algorithm doesn't work well with that big gap, so you get this artefact in the UKIP curve. Bondegezou (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem, done. Mélencron (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Poll sample sizes

Polls typically list three sample sizes:

1. The number of respondents in the poll;
2. The number of respondents to each question;
3. The weighted number of respondents to each question.

I support a change of the listed sample sizes for this article's opinion polls to (3.), since using (1.) could suggest that more respondents were asked the question than actually were, since (2.) could suggest that a poll is reliable despite that it may oversample a subgroup of voters (e.g. Scottish voters in this poll), and since the percentages in the table are derived using (3.).—AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Ultimately, the data in the poll comes from (2), so I think we should use that figure. For topline figures, (2) is usually the same as (1). Bondegezou (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the weighted number of respondents doesn't actually reflect the number of respondents to the question; only the unweighted number does. The number of respondents to VI questions is a subset of the total sample size which reflects only likely voters; however, since that is derived from the sample size of the originally published poll, as is practice elsewhere on WP, I'm of the opinion that (1) should be used, and (3) should never be used, as it's merely the sum of weights assigned to individual respondents and not actually a "real" number of respondents – that is, it's a non-integer (reported as a rounded figure). (I'll also emphasize that some relatively prolific pollsters, including YouGov, don't release full tables including either (2) and (3), so (1) is best for consistency within the sample size column.) Mélencron (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that. Bondegezou (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

YouGov has, in every poll I've seen whilst filling the tables here, included a weighted sample size. Although it is not explicitly the same as (3.) (being for the whole poll rather than explicitly for each question), I have seen a poll clearly providing a different sample size for two questions where not all respondents were asked. This is fairly strong circumstantial evidence that the number given by YouGov polls is, unless stated otherwise, (3.). Please can you provide evidence to the contrary?
For me, the main problem with using (2.) is that a large poll that nonetheless undersamples a section of the population will appear to have a smaller margin of error (calculated directly from sample size) than a smaller poll that accurately represents the population. Using (3.) would reveal the former poll to have the greater margin of error if in fact it did (hence (3.)'s being much smaller than (2.) here). This property is not only useful for data manipulation (such as drawing graphs with error bars), but it is also invaluable to a layman comparing sample sizes as a heuristic for determining polls' reliability.—AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not correct, especially when it comes to VI polls. The number that YouGov provides here, for example, is the unweighted number of respondents but filtered only to those likely to vote, and they don't provide the exact number of such likely voters in their tables (i.e., only (1) is available). It is, in any case, true for all Westminster VI polls that the number of respondents considered to be likely to vote is less than that of the entire poll; however, again, this number is not consistently available and it is in any case (1) that pollsters and media highlight, not the sample for each specific question (and you're still conflating weighted/unweighted totals... the weighted numbers don't reflect the number of respondents, they're just the sum of the weights assigned to respondents). Mélencron (talk)

Thanks for that example. At this point, I could point out that page 2 of that poll does give percentages for the full sample for Westminster VI, counting various Neither options, and so it is possible to calculate an estimate for (3.), or (alternatively) that it would still provide the poll-size-as-a-heuristic benefit described above to use the given weighted sample size as if it were (3.) (although an unadjusted margin-of-error calculation would then only be correct for the percentages on page 2).
(I had not encountered this problem working with opinion polling on Brexit since the Neither responses are included in those tables.)
Since it's you making the graphs from this page's tables (incidentally, thanks for doing so) and since you've shown that providing an exact value for (3.) can be difficult, I'm rather willing to leave this up to you. However, I would suggest (if you're not doing so already) that you use (3.)s or estimates for (3.)s when weighting how much each poll affects the regression lines. (The best option, I believe, would be to produce a line in the centre of a CI, as I believe was done in this example; however, it might require knowing some R.)—AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox between the vote and the count

Voting is today, but the votes won't be counted until Sunday. It feels odd to me to keep the current infobox, with the 2014 results (+ subsequent defections), during this period. Readers may think that is the result of today's vote... so, does anyone agree with me and, if so, what should we do about it? We could keep the current infobox, but just blank the seat numbers? Bondegezou (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Changing the "Ongoing" flag to 'no' would achieve the same result. However, this seems unhelpful; that period is likely to be one of significant interest in the election; it doesn't seem a great time to remove information from view.

I'd suggest adding a note to the infobox - either by putting it at the end of the "seats_for_election" parameter or adding a 'note' parameter - along the lines of:

This election will be counted on Sunday 26 May. Figures below reflect MEP numbers before the election.

TSP (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I think a combination of the two suggestions would be best. After the polls close, blank the numbers as @Bondegezou suggested, but put a note along the lines of what @TSP suggested but saying: "This election will be counted on Sunday 26 May. MEP numbers before the election can be found in the section below." That way it makes it clear to anyone skimming the infobox who might miss the note that they're not looking at current results but they can easily find the previous breakdown of MEPs in the article if they want that information. Also, I would suggest some time after results start coming in on Sunday night we move back to the old infobox format. The legislative election infobox has been a good stop-gap compromise, but I believe the other infobox format is superior for when we actually have results. —Paul1337 (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox after the count

To continue from Paul1337's comments above... what to do with the infobox once results are in.

I prefer sticking with the current infobox format. The other style of infobox is a typical example of infobox bloat. Infoboxes are meant to be small, compact summaries, not these massive mini-articles in themselves. See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The current format also allows all parties to be shown easily. Bondegezou (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that the standard election infobox is a nicer way of displaying election results in general. That said, I can see the advantages of the legislative infobox. It might be worth waiting until we have the results. My instinct is to go for a conventional election infobox with an inclusion threshold of 10% of the national vote and at least one seat, which based on polling would give us the Brexit Party, Labour, Liberal Democrats, and potentially the Conservatives and/or Greens. That'd be in-line with the outcomes for articles for previous European Parliament elections in the UK (regardless of the reasoning in Talk page discussions for them—I have a lot of sympathy for the idea of using a "clear cut-off", but I'm not sure we can expect one here, and I think a potential consensus for a hard threshold might be safer from the endless infobox tinkering and squabbling that election pages can be prone to). Ralbegen (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly (given what I said above), I very much disagree with Bondegezou. I think, to give specific examples, that the infoboxes in articles such as for the 2017 general election and the next general election present a very useful, concise summary of key facts from the article without becoming "massive mini-articles" (even with six parties listed). The Infobox election template has been used in every single article on a general election in the UK (and constituent parts) since 1661 (I checked ;) and, more relevantly, in our articles for every single European Parliament election that's ever been held in the UK. Use of Infobox election thus seems to represent a widely-held consensus among editors and I don't see any good reason to depart from that consensus for this article. However, I will certainly re-evaluate my view based on the results we end up with on Monday. If, for instance, we can make a clear distinction as to what the top six parties are by number of MEPs (e.g. if only six parties win more than one MEP), then I would definitely still be in favour of returning to the normal Infobox. If the results are not as clear-cut as that, then I agree that it might be better to stick with Infobox legislative election, because I concede that once you get beyond six parties it can look a bit bloated (especially if we keep the party leader photos). —Paul1337 (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus across multiple articles for what cut-off should be used for inclusion in the infobox. When I surveyed a large number of articles across multiple countries, the most common approach was to include all parties who won seats. I expect these results will see 10-11 parties win seats. I think the usual infobox has been expanded so it can take more parties, but it becomes huuuuuuuuge.

Paul1337 is right that the usual infobox is nearly always used for UK elections, and indeed remains most popular for articles covering other countries. Personally, I think we're not giving enough weight to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, but I am aware this is a minority view much of the time! Bondegezou (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Paul1337 Bondegezou Additionally the infobox states This lists parties that won seats. See the complete results below. with "below" linking to the main page. Is this a technical error? Also I don't see why 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom#Results has some, but not all of the parties listed. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@The Vintage Feminist: I think it linked to the main page because the results_sec parameter was blank; now that we have a Results section in the article I have added the parameter so it links to the right place now. As to why all parties aren't listed in the Results table, I can't speak to the thinking of the editor who put the table in. I support listing all parties, as we do in articles for all Euro elections from 2004 onwards (for 1999 some smaller parties/candidates are omitted, e.g. The Hemp Coalition, Anti Corruption Pro-Family Christian Alliance, Independent Open Democracy for Stability, Accountant for Lower Scottish Taxes, etc). Not sure about whether all Independent candidates should be listed or not, they are all listed in the 2004 and 2009 results tables but none are listed in the 2014 results table. —Paul1337 (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Following on from my comments above, I realised that if we were to stick with Infobox legislative election we would be unable to include a crucial piece of information in the infobox: the change in vote share. If the opinion polls are anything close to the actual results, there will be significant changes in vote share since 2014 and I believe that this important and relevant information should be included in the infobox instead of only in the Results table, and thus it further confirms my opinion that we should switch back to the usual Infobox election. —Paul1337 (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Oops, I now realise that I didn't look through all the template parameters carefully enough; it turns out that there is in fact a field for percentage vote share at previous election (percentage1..20_before). Nevertheless, I still stand by my original comments about the benefits of the usual election infobox. —Paul1337 (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Paul1337 Thanks for fixing the redirect so that it now goes to the results section. I don't really have a strong opinion on which parties should be named in the infobox but it does bother me that there is an instruction to See the complete results below. with a WP:CRYSTAL selection of parties. I've added <!-- --> to temporarily hide the results box until we know the actual results within the next 24 hours. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Which is likely of more interest to readers: when the count is due to start or when the results are due to be declared?

The reason I ask is because I think the time of the count is irrelevant and that readers will be more interested to know when the results will be declared. My attempts to relay that (the last one here) have been thwarted by Bondegezou (most recently here) who seems to have the opposite view. Any other opinions? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

My main concern was your disbelief through several edits that the count takes place on Sunday. I hope you now accept that that is the case. When the votes are counted is an important part of the democratic process, and also when the parties first really know what happened. (Counting is done in front of party agents, so parties have a good idea before any official announcement.)

I have retained in the article details for when declarations are to be expected: these are now highlighted with their own subheading. I hope you will see that that is the opposite of thwarting you! Bondegezou (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: fair enough, we've both compromised now, and the outcome is an improvement all round. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Local counts start before 22:00 BST

Just beware local counts begin several hours before 22:00 BST so don’t be fooled into thinking counting only begins after 22:00 BST because that is not the case. My local areas count starts at 18:00 BST so local results may be announced and known before 22:00 BST but the regions definitely will not declare until after 22:00 BST. (2A02:C7F:5622:2000:EDC8:A813:B0D8:42 (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC))

If Brexit occurs tomorrow

This article is not very clear on what happen if Brexit occurs tomorrow:

• if Brexit occurs tomorrow, UK is no more a member state, Will election occur?
• if Brexit occurs tomorrow, european citizens are no more european citizens, Will european citizens have the right to vote?
• if Brexit occurs tomorrow, UK is no more a member state, If so, will MEP be elected?
• if Brexit occurs tomorrow, UK is no more a member state, If so, will EU recognize MEP of a non member state?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.136 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The government has confirmed the vote is going ahead, for the fact that there's no longer sufficient time to leave the EU before the election. If we had left the EU beforehand, the election would have been cancelled, so your second point doesn't represent a situation that could have emerged. The answers to your third point is no, and to your fourth point is no - the EU would no longer recognise MEPs from the UK following withdrawal. Maswimelleu (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Does that mean the EU citizen who vote in UK have no more MEP after Brexit, for instance in northern ireland?

Yes, logically it does. But many EU citizens were actually unable to cast their vote because the government did not allow enough time to process their paperwork ( this is done by local government in the UK), so in theory they cannot lose an MEP they did not vote for. 193.238.253.24 (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Plaid Cymru Brexit Position

Is it completely accurate to characterize Plaid's position as "Remain"? I can't see a cited source where Plaid explicitly opposes Brexit. Grover cleveland (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Found a link and added it. Grover cleveland (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox map

The map in the infobox, the colour for London, indicating the LibDems came top, seems too faded, too peach-y to me. Can this be changed? Bondegezou (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, the map in the infobox has each region shaded in the colour of the party that won the most votes in each region. Before the results were placed onto the map, each party was assaigned their colour from the Index of United Kingdom political parties colours and a shading color, Each shading colour is Lightness 220 in the HSL colour palate. As such the changing of the shading colour to a darker tone could hurt the visability of the seat circles, as party colours are usually quite dark. JDuggan101 ^{talk. | Cont.} 11:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

While we’re at it the order of the seat dots in Scotland implies the Lib Dems came second when the Brexit Party came above them. ChiZeroOne (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

So we can change the shading colours a bit. (I don't see any problem arising with the seat circles.) Bondegezou (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Labour as pro-brexit

Personally I don’t think it’s fair to consider Labour as “for withdrawing with a deal”. Senior leadership figures, such as Tom Watson, Emily Thornberry and Keir Starmer (who is literally their brexit man) are advocating a second referendum where labour would support remain. In my opinion it would be best to put them in a “parties without a clear brexit stance” column. маsтегрнатаLк 16:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Whether you consider it fair is irrelevant, that was the official party policy during the campaign. Yes there is division within the party with senior figures expressing their own views just like every other, and the article does express that. We wouldn't call the Conservatives anti-Brexit simply because say the Chancellor has expressed support for a second referendum, that's not their official policy either. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I've deleted the whole table as possible OR. I've not see any RS make that comparison. Lots have compared the hard-Leave parties (Brexit, UKIP) to the hard-Remain (LD, Grn, ChUK, maybe plus Plaid, SNP), but most commentary has thrown its hands up at what to do with Labour or Conservative. While I see the logic in including them in Leave, I would be happier if we were following RS. Bondegezou (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is really tricky, as Labour were going for a policy of deliberate ambiguity (several commentators describe it as such [5] [6]). It's a poor service to the reader to try and reduce this to a single cell in a table. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Bondegezou's approach seems best. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

There was at the very least ambiguity (intentionally as LukeSurl indicated) to Labour's position. The manifesto states "Labour will continue to oppose the Government’s bad deal or a disastrous no deal. And if we can’t get agreement along the lines of our alternative plan, or a general election, Labour backs the option of a public vote." That seems clearly to be unclear. The Conservatives didn't produce a manifesto but their literature was for a Brexit with a withdrawal agreement. The UUP prioritized "Avoiding a no-deal Brexit" and "No new borders" while avoiding a second referendum while delivering a sensible Brexit deal. That's perhaps as nonsensical as Labour (opposing the backstop and a border seems impossible without opposing Brexit unless you want a unified Ireland which they obviously don't) but clearly pro-Brexit. PantsB (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Endorsements (2)

I notice there is an endorsements section, which although wasn't there in the last European election, did exist in the last General Election. In the General Election this was restricted to Newspapers etc though (with a separate page for individuals). I'm not sure I agree with a full list of individuals appearing on the main page, especially quite periphery figures such as Lee Hurst and James Hurst (footballer). Can I suggest that the minimum bar for notability for this section should be a source other than twitter (if it is only on their own twitter account then surely it was not newsworthy). Jopal22 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Most endorsement sections/articles, best I can tell, accept that if someone is notable (has a Wikipedia article), then their endorsement is notable, and it is acceptable to source someone's endorsement to a primary source if it's the individual saying what their endorsement is. I am sympathetic to the argument that endorsements should require secondary sourcing to prove notability, but I think that's a lost cause!

This article is pretty long now. Moving the individual endorsements to a separate article is one obvious solution. Lists of MEPs not standing again or being defeated are another obvious candidate. Bondegezou (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree, both splits are good ideas. --RaviC (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Seats by constituency

In that nice little summary table towards the bottom of the article, my ordering of the parties within each constituency according to the percentage vote received was reverted and the hidden note "Seats are shown in order of the national result, not constituency result. (Brexit, Lib Dem, Labor, Green, Conservative, Other)" added. Not in the mood for a revert war, but this flies in the face of how seats are apportioned under the D'Hondt system, surely, where the order matters (viz discussions in press of how "Scotland's sixth seat" is going to fall)? Thoughts? Moscow Mule (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Moscow Mule, those tables are for quickly displaying how many seats each party won in each constituency, starting with the first placed party of the national election, as we've done for previous elections. I don't think we've ever had anything to show in which order the seats were won, but that might be interesting. We have the map in the infobox to display quickly which party has come first in each constituency. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Onetwothreeip, thanks for answering. You're right about the map in the infobox, and that way (party order by constituency) is how I'm seeing local news sites report the results. I'm worried that listing them in national order on the regional table gives false impressions: not so much that the LibDems came first in London (which is obvious from the number of seats), but other, more subtle details, such as Plaid Cymru beating Labour, Labour beating LibDems in North West, the order in which the three one-seat parties fell in South East... In other words, there's useful info that the table could be giving but isn't. Any other thoughts from other editors? Moscow Mule (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I'd like to see a table showing the proportion of the vote the parties received in each constituency like the tables for provincial results of Canadian federal elections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. I see an anon has had a go at some of them already; there's still a couple to be fixed, though. Re: the graphic display of results -- could be nice. Perhaps on the more detailed "results" article? But beyond my editing capabilities, I'm afraid. Moscow Mule (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Constituency percent results table

I've added this new table into both election articles. We can abbreviate the constituency names if we want to radically decrease the size of the table, and I'm also not sure if we should present the total for all of UK or excluding Northern Ireland, since the latter can't be included in the table. Pinging Moscow Mule. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks good; well done. For completeness' sake, NI should get its own table. Doesn't make up for listing the constituency results on the "seats" table in the wrong order, though. Moscow Mule (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

And yet more infobox discussion

How did we get back to the rogues gallery version of the infobox? What we have now claims to be the result of the election in the UK but is actually the result in England and Scotland. We dumped this in favour of the neutral template:Infobox legislative election a few weeks ago but somehow the POV one has crawled back out of the crypt. Is there a good reason for this? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I see that this was discussed at #What about the rest? above. I see no consensus for this change. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It is in fact the result of the election UK-wide with vote totals from the whole UK for the parties represented, although in practice this is in fact Great Britain-only at the moment because I note that the figure for the Conservatives' total votes does not include the 662 first preference votes that the NI Conservatives' candidate got in Northern Ireland, perhaps it should? It is in no way POV (IMHO); it uses the clear criteria of showing all parties that won more than one MEP. In my view, you are correct that the discussion above does not yet represent a clear consensus in terms of how many parties are represented in the infobox, but in my opinion, from the editors who have commented so far, there is definitely a clear consensus to use the usual Infobox election template. —Paul1337 (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The vote total should definitely include the NI Conservatives. Bondegezou (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Y Done. —Paul1337 (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Can we get the main Results section finished?

Hi all. Can we make a push to get the main Results page completed (and correct! - e.g. NI Conservatives included in the Conservative total). It would also be useful to add a column for the change in seats since just before the election as well as since the previous election. Bondegezou (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Brexit position table

Clearly a politically charged topic with potential for partisan bias (either intentional or unintentional) in the way table is formatted.

Question: Should the results be grouped together into wider groups or does this add partisan bias in how they are perceived? For example: results could be grouped as Pro-Deal (including “Leave with a deal”, and “remain with current deal of EU membership”) versus No Deal. They could equally be grouped as Leave (with or without a deal) versus remain. Any such grouping risks biasing the way results are perceived in a way that supports a partisan narrative that one side or another “won the vote” by a significant margin. Suggest avoiding any such grouping of the results in this table and letting reader add up results in way they see fit. Jugurtha751 (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)— Jugurtha751 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm really not sure why this is so controversial, since we already had a consensus about the party Brexit positions prior to the election having taken place. I suggest placing Labour separately and just making it a straight comparison of parties with a manifesto or commitment to leave (Con, Brexit etc - separated by deal/no deal), and those to reverse Brexit (LD, Green, SNP etc), as this article illustrates. --RaviC (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@RaviC: I think it was controversial because no reliable sources (that I have seen) have broken down the vote share in the way that it was shown in the table. So I left a tag asking for citations for the breakdown as the table showed it, but given that none have been forthcoming so far, I support Jugurtha751's decision to remove it. If someone does find a RS for the table in the format it was in before it got removed, then that would be an argument in favour of re-adding it. However, given that RS seem to be breaking down the vote in several different ways, I think the best way forward is to simply describe the differing views on how the vote is being interpreted in prose (as Bondegezou has been doing an excellent job of doing). —Paul1337 (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The shares changed with different edits, but originally I believe I used the figures from the source cited above. If table this is proving to be too controversial, I agree to bin it. --RaviC (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The BBC lumps Anti- and Pro-Brexit parties into two groups, then shows Labour and Conservatives separately. Filinovich (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Which is almost the same as how the table was presented. --RaviC (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The PA/BBC table's decision to not count the Conservatives as Pro-Brexit was... an interesting one, see e.g. Philip Cowley on Twitter. Far better just to mention the different interpretations in prose. —Paul1337 (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I also see no good reason to present this as a separate table as opposed to prose when there's ambiguity as to differing decisions as to the exact classification; readers can be expected to be able to do do the math themselves if they wish to. Mélencron (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

RaviC I was largely ok with your original version, but the table became especially controversial due to edits that diverged from the article you reference by putting Labour unequivocally in the Pro-Brexit category. Which suggested result of election was a clear 60/40 vote for leave. I, and some others, suggested some alternate formats in past edits but the table ended up back in this misleading format which I have not seen referenced elsewhere and goes against the main point of the article you reference - that result was essentially a draw between leave and remain. Jugurtha751 (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems like there's no issues here with having the table as pro-Brexit, anti-Brexit and Labour. If not, just leave it in prose. --RaviC (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Incumbent?

I've noticed a lot of the bios say that those elected are incumbent as of 26 May 2019. They don't take their seats until 2nd July 2019. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Just. Delete. The. Page.

There is absolutely zero reason for this page to exist. On the current trajectory, this won't happen. The likelihood is so astronomically low (Britain would have to convince 27 EU leaders, the EU AND hold another General Election for a mandate) that the ONLY reason this page exists is for emotional comfort for those who want Britain to stay in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlobalPoliticalCulture (talk • contribs) 14:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

We had a discussion at AfD about this article recently, which resulted in no consensus. You can read it here. Ralbegen (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@GlobalPoliticalCulture: Are you sure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.176.64.128 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The ONLY reason for deleting this page would be to provide emotional comfort for those who want to push a POV pro-Brexit agenda via Wikipedia. Anyway, looks like GlobalPoliticalCulture's prediction has failed, so another good reason to keep it! Cnbrb (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This aged well маsтегрнатаLк 06:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Kndimov (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Misuse of colour

MOS:COLOUR gives recommendations for the use of colour in articles, including Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. The maps contravene this as does the chart full of coloured curves and many of the eye-popping tables. Can anyone help to reduce reliance on colour, and tone them down a bit where they are used. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed colours which had no key and no apparent purpose from the "Party Brexit positions" table, but Maswimelleu reverted me. I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of editors here to design maps, charts and tables which do not rely on colours. How about "Support" and "Oppose" columns for the "Brexit position" in that table and "Supported" and "Opposed" columns for the "Withdrawal agreement position", filled with ticks as appropriate for each row? That would remove any reason to use colour. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The text you quote from MOS:COLOUR does not forbid the use of colour, only that relevant information "is also indicated using another method". That table uses colour and text, so doesn't it satisfy the requirement? Bondegezou (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting MOS:COLOUR because the text conveys the information and has been coloured to allow it to be distinguished more easily at a glance. I don't really see the case for removal - I found the altered table significantly harder to read once the colour was gone as I had to read every single cell to get the information rather than scanning for colours. Maswimelleu (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou and Maswimelleu: sure text is used in some of the tables, but take a look at the table under "Seats by constituency" and the numerous tables in the "Opinion polls" section down as far as the "European Parliament seat projections" - there's no real clue what the colours in the body of those mean - even if you can distinguish them!

Also it isn't just tables. The map under the infobox relies on colour recognition alone, as does the chart under "Graphical summary", and the map in the results section.

@Maswimelleu: how about dividing each of the "Brexit position" and "Withdrawal agreement position" columns into two - one for each option - in the "Party Brexit positions" table, and then putting tick-marks in the appropriate cells - that would make it clearer and avoid any need for colour. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The Brexit positions table has words. I really don't see how moving to tick-marks is any sort of improvement on words. Nor do I see any problem with MOS:COLOUR.

The opinion poll tables have clearly labelled columns, so I'm less worried about those too.

Where you do have a point are the map and MEP chart that rely on colour alone. I would suggest focusing on how to improve those. Bondegezou (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Which maps are these? I can sort them on Inkscape as I have it open at the moment. I agree that maps/charts need labels, but my objection is that the Brexit position chart IS labelled. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Maswimelleu: sure they are labelled, but the labels on both maps in this article rely on the use of colour to interpret them - that is the problem. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

How do you address that? Virtually all election maps on Wikipedia suffer from the same issue. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou:

• the Brexit positions tables has words, yes, but when I removed the colours I was told it became "significantly harder to read". So we need to provide a method which makes it easier to read for everyone, including those who struggle with colours, wouldn't you agree? Ticks could solve that.
• in the opinion poll tables, what are the various colours in the cells doing, and why aren't they keyed, and could we give that benefit to those who have difficulty with colours too?

Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The colour simply overlap text which provide the required information - the fact that those colours could be difficult to distinguish for red-green colourblind people isn't really relevant because they can still read the text. You make a valid point regarding the maps with colours denoting each party, but I don't think there's any validity to your point about the Brexit position table because the relevant information is there in text too - colourblind people wont struggle with it at all, and I think it just comes down to your personal preference clashing with others. I find colour easier to interpret than text at a glance, and having it that way doesn't it make it less easy to interpret for anyone else. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The Brexit positions table is harder to read with tick-marks, so I think we should stick to words. DeFacto, you are over-reacting to someone's objection to your removal of colour from it. It can have colours as well, because MOS:COLOUR is satisfied that someone who struggles with colours still has a good table with words in it. No change is needed.

The opinion poll tables follow a pattern that is used across a lot of Wikipedia articles. But you are right that there is no key. So add a key. The numbers for the party that is leading are bolded and coloured in its party colours. Bondegezou (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Maswimelleu and Bondegezou: The point I'm trying to make is that if the colours are adding value for some readers, then we should try and add the same extra information without colour too. There are other ways of presenting the same data. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The colours are an alternate way of giving the information that is in words. This satisfies MOS. C.Fred has kindly inputted and didn't identify a problem here, as I understand it. I really don't see what your issue is here. Bondegezou (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: I was told that without colours it became "significantly harder to read". So rather than simply sticking with the colours couldn't we try to provide a method which makes it easier to read for everyone, including those who struggle with colours? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Why don't we just stop worrying about that one edit comment? The table is absolutely fine without colour and better than any alternative suggested. Bondegezou (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• I've asked at WT:WikiProject Accessibility if anyone there wants to contribute to this discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I am one of those WP Accessibility members chiming in. Most of the tables in the article are, IMHO, in compliance with the guidelines (or at least the spirit) of MOS:ACCESS. The only table I have concerns over is for seats by constituency. I cannot find anywhere in the prose where this information is presented in text. We either need alt text for the table (which I don't think MediaWiki supports), a letter in each box to represent the party in a contrasting colour, or a collapsed table underneath. The letter option would look something like this (but I'm not researching contrasting colours on the fly, just using black):

Constituency	Elected MEPs
East Midlands	B	B	B	D	L
East of England	B	B	B	D	D	G	C

The table option would look like this:

Constituency	Elected MEPs
East Midlands	5: 3 Brexit, 1 Liberal Democrat, 1 Labour
East of England	7: 3 Brexit, 2 Liberal Democrat, 1 Green, 1 Conservative

I do agree that the chart is not accessible. The fix there would be so extensive that we might need a subpage on opinion polling, though. —C.Fred (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph describing the main changes in polling to provide some alternative to the graphic. Bondegezou (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I've done as suggested for the Seats by Constituency table. I think it works well. It could probably be neatened up further. Bondegezou (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The maps and chart still need fixing too. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Which chart? Bondegezou (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The opinion poll one. As the lines currently rely on colour for interpretation, it would be better if they were pattered too. Also, did you research contrasting colours for the "Seats by constituency" table as suggested by C.Fred, because I'm not sure that you have enough contrast on most of the cells. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused, given that the only colours it makes sense to use in the maps and graph for this article are those associated with each political party, how can the maps and graph be made more accessible? The information presented in the opinion polling graph and the maps is available in text format in the article (or linked articles, although there's admittedly a lot more filling in to go of the main results article). Also, MOS:COLOR seems mainly concerned with colour used in templates and tables (which thanks to C.Fred's helpful suggestions seems mostly sorted out now); there is only a passing reference towards the end to maps and graphs (which would not be applicable in this case). —Paul1337 (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Paul1337: if the colours must be there, they could be lighter, or maybe the text could be lighter, to make it compliant with the accessibility norms. I don't understand the resistance to trying to comply with this basic requirement. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mélencron: could you re-do the opinion polling loess graph using a variety of dotted lines as well as colour to distinguish between the parties? Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I'm adding bolding to the constituency table to improve readability. Happy for colour changes if someone else can work out what's best. Bondegezou (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to numerous people I think the constituency table is now looking much better. Bondegezou (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

What's left to do here?

The tables are now all readable even with no colour discrimination. The graph of polling does rely on colour, but there is an accompanying piece of text that describes it, so I think we're OK there.

That leaves three maps. There's the map of the main results in the infobox. All the information in that map is available elsewhere in the article, but you'd have to find it. We could add links to the figure legend to make that clearer.

There's the map showing results by counting area. We have text describing those results to some degree, but it's a bit lower down (under Analysis). We could move the map to be next to the descriptive text, or add links to the figure legend.

Finally, there's the map showing estimated results by Westminster constituency. That isn't addressed in text. We could write some text about that analysis.

Any other thoughts, people? Bondegezou (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

European Parliament election, 2019 (Untied Kingdom) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect European Parliament election, 2019 (Untied Kingdom). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)