Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election

The snp and Sinn Fein hae appeared in previous election info boxes, and reform is much more mainstream and received over 4million votes, which was more than the Lib Dem’s. Please end Wikipedia’s anti nationalist bias, I Donnae even agree with farage or many of his Americanophile views. ToadGuy101 (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:You'll want to review the extensive (!) previous discussions on this topic first, on this page and this page. If you finish that without dying of boredom and still want to discuss it, the floor is open. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

::Reform hae more votes than the Lib Dem’s. ToadGuy101 (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:::There is no consensus to change the infobox. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Proof? ToadGuy101 (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Here. [[User:CanonNi]] (talk • contribs) 02:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I find no consensus. Just because 3 people agree doesnae mean it’s a universal consensus ToadGuy101 (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes exactly, there is no consensus, thus no change Pikachubob3 (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::That isnae how Wikipedia works. If there is nae consensus then users can make changes then other users add more info atop said change. ToadGuy101 (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::No, Pikachubob3 is correct. It is how Wikipedia works. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:I tend to agree. As it stands, it is difficult for readers to understand where all the missing votes went. The three parties listed only account for 69.6% of the popular vote - where did the other 30.4% evaporate too? If we say, well, it's only seat-count that matters, then why do we clutter the infobox with the popular vote, its percentage, and its swing (for only 69.6% of it) at all? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

::I also think it's very odd to exclude Reform from the infobox and seems out of step with all other UK election infoboxes. Looking at recent infoboxes there are parties with similar numbers of seats included, and ditto going back to the 1950s when the Liberal vote collapsed and they had single-digit seats. We even include Sinn Fein in the 2017 infobox despite the party not even actually occupying its seats. I would be in favour of reopening a discussion. I T B F 📢 06:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'd agree with adding Reform and SNP. John (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC) On reflection, we don't need this. The infobox is a clear and brief summary, and is not the place to discuss the alsorans. I'd support any party getting 10 or more MPs being represented here, but neither SNP nor Reform met that this time. There should be mention in the article about the vagaries of "first past the post" and the large numbers of votes for Reform getting them a mere 5 seats, if it can be reliably sourced, but not in the infobox. Keep it simple. John (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• :What about the anomaly of the popular vote rows in it? Don't you think that if we include those, we shouldn't exclude parties that have a bigger share of the popular vote than included parties? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::No, because that is not what determines the election. As above, there is space to comment on quirks like this in the article, but it is not in my opinion suitable for the infobox. John (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::There's currently a 30% hole in the popular vote in the infobox and with no explanation there for readers, so, as I said above in my pre-emption of this response, what then is the point in cluttering the box with it at all, especially as it is not what determines the election result? We would be better to remove it rather than confuse readers by only giving 70% of the story. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Yes, I take your point. I think I am neutral on that idea. John (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::Just as John says, it's not a determinant in the election. The purpose of the election is to determine the legislature. Seats are the only factor that affect that outcome. There's no anomaly: the only infobox design in which the national vote share would nearly add up to 100% would be Option E from the RfC. As per the closer, {{tq| The only real loser seems to have been option E}}, gaining as it did almost zero support. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::As I said first. So let's get rid of it as all it does is create confusion and disruption. What is the point of only including part of the significant information on the popular vote? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::The fact that you want to add Reform to the infobox and do not get a consensus for it does not mean that another unrelated element of the infobox (the popular vote in this case) "creates confusion and disruption". It does not: parties are ordered by seats in the infobox. That does not make popular vote irrelevant, it's just not the criteria used for ordering parties in the infobox. Reform got 5 seats, 14 times less seats than the LDs and less seats that even SF; the popular vote's presence in the infobox does not have the fault of it. Impru20^talk 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::@Impru20, where did you derive {{tq|q=y|The fact that you want to add Reform to the infobox}} from? All I want is for the infobox to be encyclopaedic. Read the thread. If it's not desirable (for some historic reason?) to add enough parties to make the popular vote details useful, then I cannot see why the incomplete information is included at all. As I have said, the popular vote stands for nothing in UK General Elections, and continually causes confusion and conflict (as seen in the history of these articles and their talk pages). -- DeFacto (talk). 21:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::{{tq|What about the anomaly of the popular vote rows in it? Don't you think that if we include those, we shouldn't exclude parties that have a bigger share of the popular vote than included parties?}} This is what you said in an earlier comment. It is not an anomaly. In fact, it makes little sense, because we could say the same for the seat rows. Some people will find confusing that a party with 5 seats is shown ahead of a party with 72 seats; others will resort to the popular vote instead. Others will argue than then the solution will be to show all parties, but then there will be the people who argue than showing 1 seat-parties in the infobox will clutter it beyond necessity as infoboxes are meant to summarize, not supplant, the article's contents. And so on. You will end up happily replicating the same discussion that ended up in the current consensus version being in place: it's impossible for all people to be happy and satisfied with one version, but we can have the version that gets the most approval or, at the very least, the least disapproval. Removing the popular vote because you cannot not get your prefered choice through helps no one: you see it as "causing confusion and conflict"; many others don't. Impru20^talk 21:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::If all we had were the seat rows, it would be clear. They are in the order of winner, runner-up, third, and the unseen rest with fewer seats are the 'also rans'. However, when the popular vote stats are included, but we don't include the percentages for all parties in the range between the highest and the third-place party, it gives the false-impression that they are also the top-three percentages - and this is misleading and contentious because it does not reflect the true story. And that it what I think needs correcting by either including the missing inbetweenies or not including the popular vote at all. I cannot see what is unreasonable or controversial about that. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::I understand your point, but I don't agree that it gives a false impression. Infoboxes are necessarily simple, and I think this is the least bad solution, the status quo. John (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::If anything there should be a standard threshold to determine representation in the election infobox. I.e. votes divided by total number of seats multiplied by seats won. Or just use common sense. ToadGuy101 (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::We have to be careful about creating rules like that as they night violate WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and even WP:OR. Bondegezou (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• This has been a long-running discussion! (I proposed 'option G', which I still like). However, I think we have to consider it settled (with reservations) - until we have the results of the next GE ... when we might see the rise of other parties the start of a historical trend: someone would then amend this infobox perhaps. Roy Bateman (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Why are the Full results auto sorted so that Reform UK appears by default in third place? Has a Reform UK supporter been at work trying to aggrandise their party? Romomusicfan (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

: Have copied this to the talk page for the template.Romomusicfan (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:No. The full results table is, per precedent, sorted by total votes. Reform comes third on this metric. CR (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::See also 1951 United Kingdom general election. The Conservatives won with a majority of 15 but Labour won the popular vote so are listed top on there.2.24.70.145 (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse top|Proposed infobox}}

{{Infobox election

| election_name = 2024 United Kingdom general election

| country = United Kingdom

| type = parliamentary

| ongoing = no

| previous_election = 2019 United Kingdom general election

| previous_year = 2019

| next_election =

| next_year = 2029

| election_date = 4 July 2024

| previous_mps = List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election

| elected_mps = elected members

| seats_for_election = All 650 seats in the House of Commons

| majority_seats = 326

| image1 = {{CSS image crop|Image = Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer Official Portrait (cropped).jpg|bSize = 140|cWidth = 120|cHeight = 160|oTop = 5|oLeft = 8}}

| leader1 = Keir Starmer

| party1 = Labour Party (UK)

| leader_since1 = 4 April 2020

| leaders_seat1 = Holborn and St Pancras

| image2 = 160x160px

| leader2 = Rishi Sunak

| party2 = Conservative Party (UK)

| leader_since2 = 24 October 2022

| leaders_seat2 = Richmond and Northallerton

|image3 = {{CSS image crop|Image = Official portrait of Ed Davey MP crop 2, 2024.jpg |bSize = 210|cWidth = 120|cHeight = 160|oTop = 2|oLeft = 50}}

| leader3 = Ed Davey

| party3 = Liberal Democrats (UK)

| leader_since3 = 27 August 2020

| leaders_seat3 = Kingston and Surbiton

| image4 = 160x160px

| leader4 = John Swinney

| party4 = Scottish National Party

| leader_since4 = 6 May 2024

| leaders_seat4 = Did not stand{{refn|name=swinneyseat|group=n|John Swinney sat in the Scottish Parliament for Glasgow Southside. Stephen Flynn, MP for Aberdeen South, was the SNP leader in Westminster.}}

| image5 = {{CSS image crop|Image =Official portrait of Nigel Farage MP crop 2.jpg|bSize = 150|cWidth = 120|cHeight = 160|oTop = 0|oLeft = 10}}

| leader5 = Nigel Farage

| leader_since5 = 3 June 2024

| leaders_seat5 = Clacton

| party5 = Reform UK

|image6 = 120px

|leader6 = Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay

|party6 = Green Party of England and Wales

|leader_since6 = 1 October 2021

| leaders_seat6 = Bristol Central and Waveney Valley

|last_election1 = 202 seats, 32.1%

|last_election2 = 365 seats, 43.6%

|last_election3 = 11 seats, 11.6%

|last_election4 = 48 seats, 3.9%

|last_election5 = No seats, 2.0%

|last_election6 = 1 seat, 2.6%

| seats1 = 411

| seat_change1 = {{increase}} 211

| popular_vote1 = 9,708,716

| percentage1 = 33.7%

| swing1 = {{increase}} 1.6pp

| seats2 = 121

| seat_change2 = {{decrease}} 251

| popular_vote2 = 6,828,925

| percentage2 = 23.7%

| swing2 = {{decrease}} 19.9pp

| seats3 = 72

| seat_change3 = {{Increase}} 64

| popular_vote3 = 3,519,143

| percentage3 = 12.2%

| swing3 = {{Increase}} 0.6 pp

| seats4 = 9

| seat_change4 = {{decrease}} 39

| popular_vote4 = 724,758

| percentage4 = 2.5%

| swing4 = {{decrease}} 1.3pp

| seats5 = 5

| seat_change5 = {{increase}} 5

| popular_vote5 = 4,117,620

| percentage5 = 14.3%

| swing5 = {{increase}} 12.3pp

| seats6 = 4

| seat_change6 = {{increase}} 3

| popular_vote6 = 1,944,501

| percentage6 = 6.4%

| swing6 = {{increase}} 3.8pp

| map =

| map_upright =

| map_alt =

| map_image = 2024 United Kingdom general election - Result.svg

| map_size = 400px

| map_caption = A map presenting the results of the election, by party of the MP elected from each constituency

| map2_image = House of Commons (2024 election).svg

| map2_size = 400px

| map2_caption = Composition of the House of Commons after the election

| title = Prime Minister

| posttitle = Prime Minister after election

| before_election = Rishi Sunak

| before_party = Conservative

| after_election = Keir Starmer

| after_party = Labour

}}

{{collapse bottom}}

Increasingly, I'm of the opinion that we ought to modify the infobox to include the SNP, Reform and the Greens (as per the above). I don't think we can continue to pretend Reform and the Greens weren't major players in the election nationwide and the SNP a major player in Scotland - what would you guys think of starting up an RfC with more specific questions than last time? (something along the lines of 1. should the infobox be changed and 2-4. should each of the SNP, Reform and the Greens be included) CR (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:I think the question should be based on the principle for determining inclusion, not cherry-picked list of parties. As it happens, your proposal above is the same as the statistical outliers for national vote share (the lowest, SNP, has well over three times the national vote share of the party below it). I would probably support that as the least bad approach. Other proposals might be based on mainstream news sources’ results graphics. We should avoid “vote to include the parties you like”. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::Ah, true, that's an issue with the individual party approach. Proposing as a simple yes/no on the proposed infobox might not be the worst idea? CR (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree. We should maybe get a consensus for that question so we don't get endless additional options added after the start that torpedo the RfC. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Good idea. CR (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::I think the proposed infobox makes sense in that it's the six highest by national vote share, follows the use of WP:RS, and is also the six highest by seat total excluding Northern Ireland (and the elections in Northern Ireland are often treated as separate so I don't think it's unreasonable to exclude them) Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:I'm in support of this change to the infobox, the SNP's decline and reform's rise feel significant enough to include on the infobox, with the Greens on there to make things nice and even. TheFellaVB (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:Some important context is that every general election since from 1950 to 2010 uses the 1x3 format for a very simple reason: the gap between the third party and any other parties is just so large.

:The 2015 election uses a 2x2 because of the SNP's large number of seats (and the fact that the lib dems needed to be included? unsure why they are there), and 2017 uses a 3x2 because of the hung parliament increasing the importance of the DUP. 2019 also uses a 2x2 because there are 2 main parties and 2 fairly large parties (including the SNP).

:Going back to using a 1x3 makes the most sense to me. The SNP have 9 seats, the lib dems have 8 times that number DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 12:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:I am in support of implementing this infobox as it is shown here. The SNP, Reform, and the Green Party were major movers in terms of seat count in this election considering their statuses as minor parties. Independents may also be eligible for inclusion given their greater successes than past elections but I don't think that could achieve consensus seeing as the infobox would be too large with a portion of the infobox possibly going unused in that case. I would like any solution to stop this topic from becoming a perennial discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:This proposal is entirely unacceptable. Election infoboxes show parties in order of how well they did. This infobox omits several parties that won more seats for parties that won fewer seats. That is misleading. A naïve reader coming to the page will look at that and get the wrong ideas of what happened in the election. The omitted parties are from Northern Ireland, but there is nothing about the UK constitution that treats MPs elected from Northern Ireland as different from any other MPs. We can't just impose a GB-centric perspective on the infobox. Editors picking parties for inclusion because they {{tq|feel significant}} is WP:OR. We follow the election results, not what editors think is interesting. Bondegezou (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

What's with such overloading of the infobox with far more data than anyone is really going to pay attention to unless they are willing to read the whole article (and even then it contains data that is not even in the article)

It's not a presidential election, so the parties, rather than the leaders, are what is relevant. Given that, the date of election as leader and their constituency are also irrelevant.

This article is about the 2024 election, so let's cut the bloat about the previous one. If people really want to know what the previous results were, they can do the calculation.

Thus:

{{Infobox election

| election_name = 2024 United Kingdom general election

| country = United Kingdom

| type = parliamentary

| ongoing = no

| previous_election = 2019 United Kingdom general election

| previous_year = 2019

| next_election =

| next_year = 2029

| election_date = 4 July 2024

| previous_mps = List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election

| elected_mps = elected members

| seats_for_election = All 650 seats in the House of Commons

| majority_seats = 326

| image1 =

| leader1 = Keir Starmer

| party1 = Labour Party (UK)

| image2 = File:Conservatives logo.svg

| leader2 = Rishi Sunak

| party2 = Conservative Party (UK)

|image3 =

| leader3 = Ed Davey

| party3 = Liberal Democrats (UK)

| image4 = File:Scottish National Party logo 2016.svg

| leader4 = John Swinney

| party4 = Scottish National Party

| image5 = File:Logo of the Reform UK.svg

| leader5 = Nigel Farage

| party5 = Reform UK

|image6 =

|leader6 = Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay

|party6 = Green Party of England and Wales

| seats1 = 411

| seat_change1 = {{increase}} 211

| popular_vote1 = 9,708,716

| percentage1 = 33.7%

| swing1 = {{increase}} 1.6pp

| seats2 = 121

| seat_change2 = {{decrease}} 251

| popular_vote2 = 6,828,925

| percentage2 = 23.7%

| swing2 = {{decrease}} 19.9pp

| seats3 = 72

| seat_change3 = {{Increase}} 64

| popular_vote3 = 3,519,143

| percentage3 = 12.2%

| swing3 = {{Increase}} 0.6 pp

| seats4 = 9

| seat_change4 = {{decrease}} 39

| popular_vote4 = 724,758

| percentage4 = 2.5%

| swing4 = {{decrease}} 1.3pp

| seats5 = 5

| seat_change5 = {{increase}} 5

| popular_vote5 = 4,117,620

| percentage5 = 14.3%

| swing5 = {{increase}} 12.3pp

| seats6 = 4

| seat_change6 = {{increase}} 3

| popular_vote6 = 1,944,501

| percentage6 = 6.4%

| swing6 = {{increase}} 3.8pp

|}}

{{Infobox election

| election_name = 2024 United Kingdom general election

| country = United Kingdom

| type = parliamentary

| ongoing = no

| previous_election = 2019 United Kingdom general election

| previous_year = 2019

| next_election =

| next_year = 2029

| election_date = 4 July 2024

| previous_mps = List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election

| elected_mps = elected members

| seats_for_election = All 650 seats in the House of Commons

| majority_seats = 326

| leader1 = Keir Starmer

| party1 = Labour Party (UK)

| leader2 = Rishi Sunak

| party2 = Conservative Party (UK)

| leader3 = Ed Davey

| party3 = Liberal Democrats (UK)

| leader4 = John Swinney

| party4 = Scottish National Party

| leader5 = Mary Lou McDonald

| party5 = Sinn Féin

| leader6 = Nigel Farage

| party6 = Reform UK

| leader7 = Gavin Robinson

| party7 = Democratic Unionist Party

| leader8 = Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay

| party8 = Green Party of England and Wales

| leader9 = Rhun ap Iorwerth

| party9 = Plaid Cymru

| seats1 = 411

| seat_change1 = {{increase}} 211

| popular_vote1 = 9,708,716

| percentage1 = 33.7%

| swing1 = {{increase}} 1.6pp

| seats2 = 121

| seat_change2 = {{decrease}} 251

| popular_vote2 = 6,828,925

| percentage2 = 23.7%

| swing2 = {{decrease}} 19.9pp

| seats3 = 72

| seat_change3 = {{Increase}} 64

| popular_vote3 = 3,519,143

| percentage3 = 12.2%

| swing3 = {{Increase}} 0.6 pp

| seats4 = 9

| seat_change4 = {{decrease}} 39

| popular_vote4 = 724,758

| percentage4 = 2.5%

| swing4 = {{decrease}} 1.3pp

| seats5 = 7

| seat_change5 = {{steady}}

| popular_vote5 = 210,891

| percentage5 = 0.7%

| swing5 = {{steady}}

| seats6 = 5

| seat_change6 = {{increase}} 5

| popular_vote6 = 4,117,620

| percentage6 = 14.3%

| swing6 = {{increase}} 12.3pp

| seats7 = 5

| seat_change7 = {{decrease}} 3

| popular_vote7 = 172,058

| percentage7 = 0.6%

| swing7 = {{decrease}} 0.2pp

| seats8 = 4

| seat_change8 = {{increase}} 3

| popular_vote8 = 1,944,501

| percentage8 = 6.4%

| swing8 = {{increase}} 3.8pp

| seats9 = 4

| seat_change9 = {{steady}}

| popular_vote9 = 194,811

| percentage9 = 0.7%

| swing9 = {{increase}} 0.2pp

|}}

Someone more expert than I could resize logos and remove the coloured bar beneath them. My preference would be that the party name precedes the leader's.

I'm sort of indifferent as to whether the maps are part of the infobox or not, but if it is in, I would prefer the hexagonal, equal area approach, as it gives a more accurate impression of seats won [Unsigned message by User:Kevin McE] (Apologies for unsigned message: was 22:49 (UTC+0) on 13 Feb.)

: The use of party logos looks horrendous and they are irrelevant. There's more of an argument for removing the rest of the content to save space. But then again if you slim it down as much as that you might as well just include nine parties. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 04:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::I'd be happy with that: as to nine parties, I think in an election for the United Kingdom it is inappropriate to exclude any constituent nation.

::I do not agree that the logos look horrendous: they represent the parties as a whole, not the individual at the head of the faction that had the upper hand at that time, which exacerbates perception of politics as the cult of the individual. I don't have the knowledge (or right now time to acquire the knowledge) to size the logos more appropriately, and my hasty example has been undermined by removal by a bot of some of them: please judge the proposal by what it could be in more expert configuration than I have achieved. If resizing them is not practical, then I would indeed agree with simply the colour bar. I am confident that recognition figures for the pale yellow or bright green colours are higher than for the faces of Swinney, Denyer or Ramsay.

::But if any face is relevant after an election, it is only one face (the resulting PM), therefore the party data boxes are not the appropriate place for such a photo. It makes no difference to anyone outside Richmond and Nothallerton who the representative for that area is; the number of people whose decision to vote Green was influenced by the date on which that party's co-leaders were elected is unlikely to amount to more than a dozen; a format that obliges us to put up pictures of individuals who were not even candidates is deeply flawed. 98.6% of the population had no opportunity to vote for any of those people even had they wanted to. Kevin McE (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:I agree, the pictures are very inconsistently sized, so they force other sections of the infobox for other parties to be smaller. This proposal just appears too strange to me. Most other worldwide elections have images of the party leaders in the infobox, and that is a sensible way to go because by convention in the Westminster system the party with the most seats usually forms government; the party leader may also shape the perception of the party as a whole, thereby increasing or decreasing that party's popularity in the national electorate. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::Please have the courtesy of reading the proposal before rejecting it: "Someone more expert than I could resize logos and remove the coloured bar beneath them." I'm really at a loss to your logic: the party with most seats usually forms the government, therefore it is relevant to be able to see the faces of several people who were never going to get anywhere near to forming a government? Are you arguing for the retention of party leaders' seats and dates of becoming leader? If so, what is the reasoning behind that? Kevin McE (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Even considering that all of these party logos could be the same size, they each have different dimensions and important elements so as you make them smaller the contents may become less legible in an infobox format.

:::It is indeed relevant to show the leaders of the non-governing parties because as I said those parties' leaders can have great influence on their election results. I think it is important to see that the UK House of Commons is not a completely two-party dominated system. It is important to know firstly who the major movers were, which is where the infobox comes in handy! You say readers may not know the faces of the leaders of the Green Party but readers are coming to this article to learn who those leaders are or were previously. You also said readers may not know who John Swinney is; but many people in Scotland would know who their First Minister is. There are articles for leadership elections of political parties such as for the Labour Party, the Conservatives, the Scottish National Party, and the Green Party so there must be at least some notability in individual candidates' campaigns to warrant an article! It is also interesting to know since when the party has been taken in a certain direction.

:::Looking at the second infobox, I do like that but it feels much more condensed than the current one and other ones proposed so it looks uncomfortable with that lack of width. While it is true that it does feel unfair to exclude election results from Northern Ireland and Wales, those parties are not what I (as an international observer) perceive to have received the most media attention, and Wales dose;'t completely miss out as the English parties do run candidates in Wales unlike Northern Ireland. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::::And I am not suggesting that their names be removed, so most of what you say is utterly redundant. It is the photos that I propose removing. I had already suggested that I would be perfectly happy with the other counterproposals. This is an encyclopaedia, so it should be expected that people can read: if they want to know when a party leader became such (not that that necessarily indicates a major change in direction), it is easily found. Photographs and other images are useful if they provide immediately recognition: otherwise they are pointless decoration. Kevin McE (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}Readers come to the page to see what the election results were. The easy way of showing all parties that won seats is to use a Template:Infobox legislative election. I don't see the need to re-invent the wheel. Bondegezou (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with your first sentence entirely: they don't come looking to know who the member for Waveney Valley is, nor the history of Plaid Cymru leadership contests, not what happened 5 years earlier, not for a photo parade of those who lost. And that is why I cannot agree with your second sentence. Kevin McE (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::I don't follow your logic. You can see a TILE infobox in use at Next United Kingdom general election. That doesn't show {{tq|who the member for Waveney Valley is, nor the history of Plaid Cymru leadership contests}}, nor {{tq|a photo parade of those who lost}}. Bondegezou (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Apologies: I don't know templates by their names. I far prefer the conciseness of that to the bloat in the currently used template, but I fear that anything that light on detail would get consensus, which is why I was proposing an abridged version of the current one as a compromise. If party logos can't be made to fit, then I would happily drop them, and go for the version provided here by @Chessrat (but with party name above leader and preferably in bold or otherwise emphasised). Kevin McE (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I’m OK with {{u|Chessrat}}’s proposal. (Minor point: that’s a US(?) use of “swing” and should be changed to “change”.) Bondegezou (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Bondegezou}} If we do change the infobox we have to bear in mind the result of the RfC- it closed in "no consensus" so there's easily room for consensus to develop, but also there was a lot of opposition to option E (the nine party infobox) so we would have to make sure it's sufficiently slimmed down. I've provided an example of how it could be slimmed down a bit more (also including independents per precedent from local election articles like 2021 Devon County Council election). This being said- I'm actually slowly coming round to the idea of using an expanded version of TILE; TILE more compact so it would be possible to include more information in the same amount of space using that. I'd always opposed TILE before thanks to being too slimmed-down but it occurs to me that it would be possible to include more information whilst retaining the format. I'll also provide an example of that here, albeit before being added to the article it would need a few changes which I can't work out how to do- namely "vote %" should be changed to "votes", and the "Adrian Ramsay" text needs to be below Denyer (to the right of the image). Also might be desirable to change the "leader" column to a "leader and constituency" one in this event, as whilst the constituencies can be removed if absolutely necessary, it's preferable not to do so because in the UK's political system the constituency nature of all MPs including party leaders is important, so it's not really ideal for that information to be missing from the summary box. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 20:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Infobox election

| election_name = 2024 United Kingdom general election

| country = United Kingdom

| type = parliamentary

| ongoing = no

| previous_election = 2019 United Kingdom general election

| previous_year = 2019

| next_election =

| next_year = 2029

| election_date = 4 July 2024

| previous_mps = List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election

| elected_mps = elected members

| seats_for_election = All 650 seats in the House of Commons

| majority_seats = 326

| leader1 = Keir Starmer

| party1 = Labour Party (UK)

| leader2 = Rishi Sunak

| party2 = Conservative Party (UK)

| leader3 = Ed Davey

| party3 = Liberal Democrats (UK)

| leader4 = John Swinney

| party4 = Scottish National Party

| leader5 = Mary Lou McDonald

| party5 = Sinn Féin

| leader6 =

| party6 = Independent (politician)

| leader7 = Nigel Farage

| party7 = Reform UK

| leader8 = Gavin Robinson

| party8 = Democratic Unionist Party

| leader9 = Carla Denyer
Adrian Ramsay

| party9 = Green Party of England and Wales

| seats1 = 411 ({{increase}}211)

| popular_vote1 = 9,708,716

| percentage1 = 33.7% ({{increase}}1.6)

| seats2 = 121 ({{decrease}}251)

| popular_vote2 = 6,828,925

| percentage2 = 23.7% ({{decrease}}19.9)

| seats3 = 72 ({{Increase}}64)

| popular_vote3 = 3,519,143

| percentage3 = 12.2% ({{Increase}}0.6)

| seats4 = 9 ({{decrease}}39)

| popular_vote4 = 724,758

| percentage4 = 2.5% ({{decrease}}1.3)

| seats5 = 7 ({{steady}})

| popular_vote5 = 210,891

| percentage5 = 0.7% ({{steady}})

| seats6 = 6 ({{increase}}6)

| popular_vote6 = 564,243

| percentage6 = 2.0% ({{increase}}1.4)

| seats7 = 5 ({{increase}}5)

| popular_vote7 = 4,117,620

| percentage7 = 14.3% ({{increase}}12.3)

| seats8 = 5 ({{decrease}}3)

| popular_vote8 = 172,058

| percentage8 = 0.6% ({{decrease}} 0.2)

| seats9 = 4 ({{increase}}3)

| popular_vote9 = 1,944,501

| percentage9 = 6.4% ({{increase}}3.8)

| map_image = 2024 United Kingdom general election - Result.svg

| map_size = 400px

| map_caption = A map presenting the results of the election, by party of the MP elected from each constituency

| map2_image = House of Commons (2024 election).svg

| map2_size = 400px

| map2_caption = Composition of the House of Commons after the election

| title = Prime Minister

| posttitle = Prime Minister after election

| before_election = Rishi Sunak

| before_party = Conservative

| after_election = Keir Starmer

| after_party = Labour

|}}

{{Infobox legislative election

| election_name = 2024 United Kingdom general election

| country = United Kingdom

| type = parliamentary

| ongoing = no

| previous_election = 2019

| election_date = 4 July 2024

| next_election = Next

| next_mps =

| first_election = yes

| outgoing_members = List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election

| elected_mps = List of MPs elected in the 2024 United Kingdom general election

| seats_for_election = All 650 seats in the House of Commons

| majority_seats = 326{{refn|group=n|Given that Sinn Féin members of Parliament (MPs) practise abstentionism and do not take their seats, while the Speaker and deputies do not vote, the number of MPs needed for a majority is in practice slightly lower.{{cite web |url=https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/government-majority |title=Government majority |website=Institute for Government |date=20 December 2019 |access-date=4 July 2024 |archive-date=28 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221128063642/https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/government-majority |url-status=live }} Sinn Féin won seven seats, and including the speaker and their three deputy speakers, meaning a practical majority requires 320 seats.}}

| opinion_polls = Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election

| registered = 48,214,128

| turnout = 59.9% ({{decrease}} 7.4 pp){{Cite web |url=https://election.news.sky.com/elections/general-election-2024 |title=General Election 2024 |website=Sky News |access-date=5 July 2024 |archive-date=5 July 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240705033653/https://election.news.sky.com/elections/general-election-2024 |url-status=live }}

| image1 =

| image_size =

| leader1 = 40px Keir Starmer

| party1 = Labour Party (UK)

| leader_since1 = 4 April 2020

| leaders_seat1 =

| seats1 = 411
{{Increase}}211

| popular_vote1 =

| percentage1 = 9,731,363
33.70%
{{Increase}}1.62 pp

| leader2 = 40px Rishi Sunak

| party2 = Conservative Party (UK)

| seats2 = 121
{{Decrease}}251

| percentage2 = 6,827,112
23.70%
{{Decrease}}19.93 pp

|

| leader3 = 40px Ed Davey

| party3 = Liberal Democrats (UK)

| seats3 = 72
{{Increase}}64

| percentage3 = 3,519,163
12.22%
{{Increase}}0.67 pp

|party4=SNP

|leader4=40px John Swinney

|colour4={{party color|Scottish National Party}}

|percentage4=724,758
2.52%
{{Decrease}}1.36 pp

|seats4=9
{{decrease}} 39

|party5=Sinn Féin

|leader5=40px Mary Lou McDonald

|colour5={{party color|Sinn Féin}}

|percentage5=210,891
0.73%
{{Increase}}0.16 pp

|seats5=7
{{steady}}

|party6=Independents

|leader6=

|colour6=Independent (politician)

|percentage6=564,243
1.96%
{{increase}}1.32 pp

|seats6=6
{{increase}}6

|party7=Reform UK

|leader7=50px Nigel Farage

|colour7={{party color|Reform UK}}

|percentage7=4,117,620
14.29%
{{increase}}12.28 pp

|seats7=5
{{increase}}5

|party8=Democratic Unionist

|leader8=50px Gavin Robinson

|colour8={{party color|Democratic Unionist Party}}

|percentage8=172,058
0.60%
{{decrease}}0.16 pp

|seats8=5
{{decrease}}3

|party9=Green Party of England and Wales

|leader9=40px Carla Denyer
Adrian Ramsay

|percentage9=1,841,888
6.39%
{{increase}}2.51 pp

|seats9=4
{{increase}}3

|party10=Plaid Cymru

|leader10=40px Rhun ap Iorwerth

|colour10={{party color|Plaid Cymru}}

|percentage10=194,811
0.68%
{{increase}}0.20 pp

|seats10=4
{{increase}}2

|party11=Social Democratic and Labour Party

|leader11=40px Colum Eastwood

|percentage11=194,811
0.30%
{{decrease}}0.07 pp

|seats11=2
{{steady}}

|party12=Alliance

|leader12=40px Naomi Long

|colour12={{party color|Alliance Party of Northern Ireland}}

|percentage12=117,191
0.41%
{{decrease}}0.01 pp

|seats12=1
{{steady}}

|party13=Ulster Unionist

|leader13=40px Doug Beattie

|colour13={{party color|Ulster Unionist Party}}

|percentage13=93,123
0.29%
{{decrease}}0.04 pp

|seats13=1
{{steady}}

|party14=Traditional Unionist Voice

|leader14=40px Jim Allister

|colour14={{party color|Traditional Unionist Voice}}

|percentage14=48,685
0.17%
{{increase}}0.17 pp

|seats14=1
{{increase}}1

|party15=Speaker

|leader15=40px Lindsay Hoyle

|colour15={{party color|Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom)}}

|percentage15=25,238
0.09%
{{increase}}0.01 pp

|seats15=1

|last_election15=1

|results_sec=

|map=400px

|map_caption=A map presenting the results of the election, by party of the MP elected from each constituency

|title=Prime Minister

|posttitle=

|before_election=Rishi Sunak

|before_party=Conservative Party (UK)

|after_election=Keir Starmer

|after_party=Labour Party (UK)}}

::::::I think we should follow WP:MOS. MOS:INFOBOX is clear that infoboxes should be brief summaries. As such, I don't see the need for vote count (rather than percentage) or leaders' constituencies. (5 of the party leaders don't even sit in the Commons, showing how irrelevant this is!) Such things are details. I don't like the little pictures of party leaders: they violate MOS:ICON. The infobox is not meant to substitute for a complete results table: it's meant to give a quick overview of the most important facts. I think that can be best done with a TILE infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Largely agree, but if there is, for whatever reason, a preference for a TIE format, then it has been demonstrated that these can be done in a far more concise manner than seen in the article at present. Kevin McE (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:For what it's worth pages like 2024 Japanese general election have include party leader photos and have 9 parties listed. 76.157.220.195 (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)