Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies

Electoral Calculus problem

Many of the election results on constituency pages just use a reference from the Electoral Calculus website, but this fails verification as it does not give the names of all of the candidates and the number of votes for some candidates is summerised on the site under Other, thus you cannot verify the votes for all of the candidates. I think we need to find another source that gives the names and votes for all candidates in an election and tag all uses of just this reference as {{failed verification}}. Keith D (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Keith D Commons Library will have a full dataset shortly, covering all candidates - expected around the end of the week once all the paperwork has come through & been checked, I think. This is probably the best possible source in the long run, especially as they're now moving to having a public site for it - https://electionresults.parliament.uk/ - this gives a single page per constituency per election (eg Yeovil 2019), but also a single CSV file per election (eg 2019 csv) with individual counts for each contestant. I believe the 2024 data will be put up in the same way.

For the time being, there's a complete dataset from Democracy Club - it's pretty reliable though not validated in the same way the Parliament one will be. It currently has votes cast for all candidates, but isn't comprehensive for things like total turnout & spoiled ballots, since those aren't always announced by returning officers in a consistent way. (scroll to "download CSV"). Again, individual per-candidate counts. Though it seems like it might be more straightforward to wait a week and then bring everything up to speed with the Parliament data. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking more of the older election results from the 20th century which the reference just gives the winning candidate and counts for the main parties, grouping the count for smaller parties under other. Keith D (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Useful source for describing 2023 changes

Perhaps a bit late, but I have just discovered that UK Parliament has nice clear summary pages describing the overlap between old and new constituencies, such as this. It gives a clearer idea, to complement the detailed lists of wards which don't really give an overall picture. PamD 12:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Order of election results

I have started a discussion about the order of election results at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Style § Order of election results, which might be of interest. Please consider participating in the discussion there. Mgp28 (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Notional election results

Please correct me if this has been addressed elsewhere, but is there a policy on whether notional results following boundary changes should be included in the election results section or not. As the previously included 2019 notional results are being removed and I strongly believe that they provide vital context to results following boundary changes. Sam11333 (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sam11333: "Being removed" from where? Individual constituency results, or one (or more) of the big lists? (I agree that they are important for context - how else do we explain that the not-renamed Westmorland and Lonsdale is described as a Lib Dem gain from Conservative when it has been held by the same Lib Dem since 2005?) PamD 17:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

From the individual constituency results for example Clacton Sam11333 (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I've added a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Should notional 2019 results be included? to get more eyes on this. PamD 18:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that, thank you. Sam11333 (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

These are not used historically on Wikipedia, add serious confusion, and create a misapplication of loss and gain in the results when it should win as a result of new boundaries or a new seat. The notional results are not included after previous periodic reviews and should not be arbitrarily and confusingly added or retained on articles now. The confusion is too great and somehow makes out two academics get carte blanche to decide how a seat would have voted. That is delving into nice crystal ball territory even if two academics do it. What next we go back to the Welsh assembly elections of 1999 and say those seats somehow had notional results? Absolute madness to even consider it. This is no different. If there is desperation to include this, then add it in the text of the article with a see also link to the notional results on the periodic review page. That way consistency is maintained throughout the years of election articles, no confusing change in vote share based for new seats or new boundaries is posited, and the correct result of a new boundary win or new seat win is listed as opposed to the phoney loss or gain based on notional results. For example, the notional results were the Lib Dems only defending 8 seats where in reality at the dissolution of the last parliament they had 15 seats and had had 11 at the start of the parliament or that the Conservatives somehow out of pieces of paper and lines being drawn and looked at by two academics say the conservatives somehow were defending 7 additional seats, pure confusion. LawNerd123 (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Work done by two academics, yes, but given a certain amount of weight by being published by Parliament which says of it: "BBC News, ITV News, Sky News and the Press Association have together produced estimates of the 2019 general election result as if the new constituencies recommended by the separate Parliamentary Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland had then been in existence." PamD 18:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

That's jolly nice but it is confusing and creates a barrier to understanding. There is nothing wrong with explaining it in the text, its current presentation gives false impressions, confusing vote changes, and incorrect outcomes i.e not listing as new boundary or new seat wins. Additionally this feels like trying to fix something on Wikipedia which isn't broken. The results pages AFAICS have not included this before without any problem, so why now?

The following"BBC News, ITV News, Sky News and the Press Association have together produced estimates of the 2019 general election result" is great if this was for media consumption, election night discussion, or being a news site. All of which Wikipedia are not. When the dust has settled as did in 2010 no one remembers or cares about the notional results, just who won, not who was said to have one thanks to academia and media crystal balling no matter how good it is claimed to be. LawNerd123 (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel they should probably be included. For constituencies where the boundaries remained *exactly* the same they're unnecessary but for those that did not they're useful for comparison purposes and match the comparisons to notional results made by reliable sources. CipherRephic (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree include if you really want but not in the election results table format. If you really want to include, then include in the text, not in table format in and amongst the results. Additionally, some pages having notional results and others not is inconsistent and confusing. It will easily lead to "well why does this page have notional results and this page does not?" It is just a confusion creator. It must be remembered that Wikipedia is to serve the widest possible audience not just those with prior knowledge or understanding of a topic or subject. LawNerd123 (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)