Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Stub-sorting MPs

{{archive top|In this discussion, and in others that have taken place recently, the community attempts to decide whether to include notional results after boundary changes. LawNerd123 adopts a stalwart and persistent, and rather well-argued, stance that they should be omitted. Everyone else who expressed a preference feels they should be included; but "everyone else" is a small number of editors.{{pb}}Rightly, LawNerd123 attempts to attract more attention to the discussion using the RfC mechanism, but the RfC has expired and nobody uninvolved has expressed a view. Now the matter has come to the Administrator's Noticeboard for resolution.{{pb}}Editors have been stuck on this for too long, and it is creating too much strife. It now requires a prompt resolution. Owing to low participation from the community, I can speak to the community's view only with low confidence; but I would have to say that the community's decision is to include notional results where these appear in normally-reliable sources such as the BBC.{{pb}}Scope: This decision applies to articles about UK Parliamentary constituencies since the 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. I say this because the community hasn't given me much input on the intended scope of this decision, so I have construed the scope as narrowly as possible, in order not to restrict the community's freedom to make different decisions where the circumstances require it.{{pb}}Review: This decision can be overturned by the community in a subsequent discussion in any appropriate place. Because of the limited number of editors who participated here and low confidence in its outcome, overturning this decision will not need a full RfC.{{pb}}Finally, I would just like to note that improvements and clarifications to our article on Notional election results would be very, very welcome here.—S Marshall T/C 11:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)|INCLUDE NOTIONAL 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)

:{{ping|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 [https://electionresults.parliament.uk/general-elections/5/political-parties published by Parliament] which says of it: "{{tq|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)

:::It is incorrect to say that notional results have not been used historically on Wikipedia. For example Edinburgh South West was new in 2005 and the difference from the notional 2001 share of vote was shown from 8 May 2005. The notional change in 2005 was still there in July and August 2024. Notional changes are useful to help understand changes in voting patterns and how much of the change is likely due to boundary changes. Highlight that the ‘before’ base for the change is a notional estimate, but don’t delete information which can be valuable. David196 (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

::The simple answer to this “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”

::List the outcome correctly as a New boundaries win and include the boundary changes in the main bulk of the text like in the boundaries section. LawNerd123 (talk) 00:42, 9 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)

:::One thing that puzzles me is why most of our 2024 results boxes have either {{tlx|Election box hold with party link}} or {{tlx|Election box gain with party link}}. This is fine for existing constituencies where the boundaries were unchanged - or nearly so - but we should not be dropping every constituency into one or the other of these slots. Other templates exist, such as {{tlx|Election box new seat win}} and {{tlx|Election box new boundary win}}. I used the latter at Belfast South and Mid Down (UK Parliament constituency). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

::::Because people just copy from elsewhere. I've changed a few to {{tlx|Election box new seat win}}. Rcsprinter123 (drawl) 12:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

To everyone arguing the toss to keep in notional results these comments sum up perfectly the problem. National results are a barrier to understanding as no one apart from political hacks and a few academics have any idea what the actual earthly idea a Notional Result is: {{diff|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard|prev|1248620915|here}} ----LawNerd123 (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC) 12:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

:If people find notional results and notional changes confusing, wouldn’t it be better to refer them to the notional results page, rather than deleting some of the notional changes? David196 (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

File:Information.svgA requested move discussion has been initiated for :2023 periodic review of Westminster constituencies to be moved to 2023 review of Westminster constituencies. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{tlp|bots|2=deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

File:Information.svgA requested move discussion has been initiated for :Parliamentary constituencies in Humberside to be moved to Parliamentary constituencies in the East Riding of Yorkshire. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{tlp|bots|2=deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.