Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies

Notional election results

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

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 {{Election box hold with party link}} or {{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 {{Election box new seat win}} and {{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 {{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: 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Percentage Changes in election boxes

Can the percentage bar for changes in percentages still be kept in please for the general elections where boundary have taken place. Removing them does not look neat or tidy please, thank you. Torres2000X (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This is style over substance and not a helpful retention. "Removing them does not look neat or tidy" is not a substantive reason for retention it is a call for aesthetics over purpose. The removal indicates that no change is possible when a new seat is drawn and new boundaries are drawn. LawNerd123 (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with what LawNerd123 is saying. It has been standard Wikipedia practice in the past to include changes in notional results in UK Parliament constituency articles, like notional results for the 2005 general election for 2010 results and notational results for the 1992 UK general election for the 1997 UK general election. It would be terrible to take away notational change information when that information is very useful. We need a ruling on this. 2607:FEA8:53D7:DF00:64B3:1207:CE4D:670C (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I can see both sides here. Notional results are used by BBC, Sky etc having been calculated by professors in an official capacity, and they can be cited easily enough. To reach a comprise, can't we show the notional results without including percentage changes? doktorb _words^deeds 04:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to Notional results being in the main text of the article. It is though misleading in the election results as notional results are not people voting but a psephological calculation. I am not opposed to a notion results text section containing all of the notional results for a seat. This in my opinion only applies to boundary changes and not new seats as a new seat is a new seat and that has never had the electorate it currently has in any way shape or form prior to being created. LawNerd123 (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You're removing all of them though. Is there anyway we can get LawNerd123 to stop removing percentage changes until a decision has been made on this. And I don't agree with LawNerd123 on new seats. I think percentage changes and notional results should be included for new seats also. We still need a ruling on this. 2607:FEA8:53D7:DF00:9801:5E1F:CCBD:7FA8 (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

No compelling or policy reason for retention has been given for keeping the confusing, and mathematically misleading information. If you want a separate section on notional results and to put it in the pros be my guest. Notional results are not elections no one voted in a national result, they are academic calculations. So listing them in elections is misleading, confusing and downright incorrect. LawNerd123 (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

But you don't have consensus to make such a sweeping decision. When every media source uses notional results as a starting off point, Wikipedia has to at least consider referencing them, surely? doktorb _words^deeds 03:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Considering that consensus was attempted and there was silence I went with the bold. There is no point hanging around forever waiting for people yo reply when you have done all you can to initiate a discussion. the argument of "wait forever on a wall of silence goes against the very essence of Wikipedia which is to make the changes and discuss them afterwards. Making the changes and then having a discussion no one took part in is not an excuse for others to go well you don't have consensus. That is ridiculous. Finally, the "every media source" argument is the biggest red herring and failure of decision-making and not analysing the merits of something that could be argued. LawNerd123 (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

We should keep the notional figures, as in this version, but we should make it clearer that the percentages relate to the notional 2019 result - perhaps adding a footnote to the column header which links to a note saying "Percentage change is shown relative to the 2019 notional election results for the revised boundaries / the new seat" with a link to the notional result on the parliamentary website. PamD 07:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I personally would be in favour of a completely separate section, and if there is to be an inclusion of these notional results there has to be inclusion of notional results going all the way back to when they started. Otherwise it is selective inclusion of the information which is the worst possible outcome. This is though only for seats with boundary changes. For new seats notional results are the ultimate confusion. A new seat has never been contested before and should not give any impression that it has in any way shape or form. LawNerd123 (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no logical difference between a new seat and a seat which has kept its name with 50% change in voters. PamD 03:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Then by that logic there can be no change in percentage shown as the boundaries for a boundary change and a new seat have no people voting companion (an election) just some confusing academic research. I wholly agree with your position of no change in percentage being shown for election results for new seats or new boundaries. LawNerd123 (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

No, by my logic the official notional figures can be used to provide percentage changes both for new and for changed seats. PamD 23:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The easiest way to create confusion is to add in changes in votes from a fictional election. A good academic theory notional elections are but a notional election is a fictional election. LawNerd123 (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not a ‘fictional election’, it is a baseline to give context for how a new seat voted in real life. All media organisations use notional results and it would be ridiculous for Wikipedia to be the exception. Icc27 (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It is when no one goes to the polls and it is done in a university on a spreadsheet. This In an encyclopaedia not a media outlet or a news site. LawNerd123 (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Notional results are used by all authoritative news organisations (e.g. the BBC - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c06k8ge1ng7o.amp) and they are also used by Parliament itself (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10009/). Notionals are a tool to reduce confusion and are uniformly treated as such elsewhere. One user’s personal problems with them clearly should not trump every source on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icc27 (talk • contribs) 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. PamD 09:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the sheep approach above of well so and so does it do

let’s be zombies and just lose all critical analysis and reason and follow blindly.

They were not used for 2010 and 2005 or earlier boundary changes so why add them now this is recentism gone wild. It’s also a POV violation to only add for 2024. Add all or none.

There is no value having a confusing notional result

There is no value listing seats as held or gained when they are new seats or new boundaries. That is just completely and 100% wrong and misleading.

All I’m seeing as an argument is other use them so we should be sheep

Which is no argument at all.

I’ve offered alternatives like add a separate section or add in the pros but that seems to be conveniently ignored by the bulls here trying to impose without trying to find any common ground. LawNerd123 (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

What a bizarre comment. UK election results are presented with changes from notionals. This is non-controversial, hence the sources I posted above all using them, except seemingly with you.

Notionals provide helpful context for the reader, and it is unfortunate that they are not included for every set of new boundaries on Wikipedia (though they are on many pages). Icc27 (talk) 08:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The biggest problem is when there are brand new seats with some magical perception and some magic gain or hold input

a new seat is a new seat and that has never been fought before and to claim anything other than a new seat win is preposterous. Additionally couponing vote changes is just flat out confusing and wrong.

like wise new boundaries are new boundaries just the same name no I e has ever actually done any voting on those boundaries. Listing them as anything but new boundary wins is misleading and inaccurate. Likewise claiming some percentage changes is fanciful and confusing.

The claims of well we’ve done notional before dies not make it accurate, correct or the right carry on. Fixing things which are wrong would never be done with that approach.

If you are hell bent on having some of this notional stuff add it in the text but leave it out if the election results as a notional result is not an election but an academic calculation.

Stick to actual voting in the election results not academic exercises no matter how many news outlets use them to claim as so called actual election result. LawNerd123 (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the sheep approach above of well so and so does it do: but that's just it: Wikipedia does follow what other reliable independent published sources do, such as the BBC news announcements of election results. PamD 20:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

You have changed your tune since you commented on my talk page after I updated Westmorland and Lonsdale. It cannot be right to simply go well the news uses it so we must. That would mean nothing gets verified and violate WP:V. LawNerd123 (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, the two sources for the note I have just added to Waveney Valley (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections in the 2020s make it quite clear that reliable sources call this seat a "Green win from Conservative". I can't remember what I first said about W&L and haven't the stamina to check, being involved in real life matters like hospital visits. I know I didn't know anything about notional results before seeing them reported in Wikipedia, and now understand them to be a source used by all main media and the Parliament website itself in calculating swings.

The distinction between "new seat" (eg Waveney Valley), "old seat dramatically changed by boundary changes but retaining same name" (eg Leeds NW), old seat given new name but pretty much unchanged, and other variations is pretty meaningless. In each case, we should follow the reliable sources of BBC and other media and Parliamentary website, and use the notional 2019 results as the baseline for changes, just as they do. To do otherwise verges on WP:OR. Too stressed and tired to fight this one, keeping my energy for commutes to hospital. I hope some other editors will weigh in on this. PamD 20:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason to call a seat a gain when it is a new seat or new boundaries when that is the accurate and correct verbiage.

It is not OR to call something what it is that is a stretch when clearly the bright line.

Any change in boundaries with the same name is a new boundaries win.

Any new boundaries with a new name is a new seat.

This is not OR and it is dishonest to claim it is OR.

"it quite clear that reliable sources call this seat a "Green win from Conservative"". this is easily covered in the boundaries section as this is where it should be listed. That is a claim made by the academics. You can have news media outlets use the notional but that does not make it the actual accurate election results. it is just an academic calculation of the boundaries likely to have returned based on the new boundaries at a previous election. It is not an actual election in any way shape or form.

Finally, the change in the number of seats has nothing to do with the actual election results when the boundaries are all changed, please. News media are desperate to give numbers to make their lives easier, but that does not mean that they are basing the numbers they are giving as accurate reflections of an actual election that took place previously.

Finally the personal aside about hospitals is not relevant as it is attempting to attack me through the use of 'woe is me I give in". Please refrain from that kind of tactic as it is manipulative. LawNerd123 (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You must realise that your approach is simply ‘I don’t trust these academics and the rest of the world be damned’.

That is not productive. Notional results are an integral part of the reporting of UK election results. It is unfortunate that you don’t agree with that, but that’s just how it is.

I am relatively ambivalent about whether a seat is reported as a gain/hold or new seat (though gain/hold is the accurate way to report it) but voteshare changes are integral. Icc27 (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

No it’s not, and your claims and conclusion-jumping are nonsense.

The claims you make are simply a personal attack trying to cast aspersions.

This boils down to claiming notional results and actual elections are the same they are not. LawNerd123 (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I made no personal attack against you (rather rich from someone who has just attacked another user for having the temerity to get ill) but I apologise if you took it that way.

What I did was make a simple statement of fact. Your argument against including the notional results boils down to the fact that you personally don’t like them. I personally do like them and find them useful, so let’s call that 1-1.

However this site is not a personal plaything for either of us, and I (and others) have produced several highly reputable sources who use notionals. Can you produce any reputable sources which do not use notional results? Icc27 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You are stuck record and going round in belligerent circles

it is clearly not worth trying to discuss things with you considering how toxic you are showing yourself to be

I’ve made clear why your position is absurd yet you keep falling back on it lie a silver bunker actually give some reasons beyond see others using it and u want it in the results

The word compromise seems vacant from your vocabulary and carry on

You will not engage with any of the suggestions I have made and have shown contempt for the administrators notice board directions LawNerd123 (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Jesus, and you just accused me of making personal attacks. Pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.

Sadly there is not a lot of compromise which can be achieved here, given the subject of ‘should changes be in the election box’ is either a yes or a no - though I did concede that I am ambivalent about whether boxes say ‘gain’ or ‘new seat’.

I have asked if you can produce a source to back up your point of view. Can you? I would have to assume not. Icc27 (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

OK time to disengage with you you are not a person who is wiling to discuss in good faith. LawNerd123 (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Persistent vandalism of UK constituency pages by user LawNerd123 and because this affects hundreds of pages I am placing increased restrictions in this area. No editor is to make more than three reverts in 24 hours across the subject as a whole. Editors must also stop blind reverts and labelling other good faith contributions "vandalism". Timrollpickering (talk) 18:54, 2 October 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: here --LawNerd123 (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@LawNerd123: you've misunderstood my statement. It does not support including or excluding notional results. This should be obvious, because I also had no idea what the opposite of notional results is or at least I didn't before I looked into it a bit. My point was solely that people need to have some idea of what is being asked if they are able to give meaningful feedback on what's proposed and this applies whether you want to include notional results or whatever's the name for whatever you want to include. To give a very simple example, if you were to ask should we include the median wage or the mean wage, plenty of people will not understand this. In such a case, it might be relevant to offer a brief explanation or at least link to something explaining the difference. Most people are more likely to have experience with mean at least as something simplistically called an average which generally means the mean although both median and mean can be considered averages. But this doesn't mean either mean or median is clearly superior. In fact it's probably a little easier for people to understand what a median is when you explain it even if medians come up less often in general. Clearly none of this means we should never include either means or medians. Going by your logic, we shouldn't include either one! Now median vs mean is such a basic part of statistics that some might argue it's not necessary since anyone who doesn't already understand might not be able to offer meaningful feedback and I don't intend this to be a real-world example. Instead I simply used it to explain why the fact that some explanation is needed doesn't mean either is superior since you need an explanation for both of them. My whole point was plenty of people have no idea what is being asked at all, not that notionals is something inherently hard to understand. This is because you're getting into a fairly technical area of different ways elections results may be presented and probably the majority of people don't know such specifics. Even if they have experience with them, they probably have no idea what they are called. I still don't know what the sort of results you want to present are called. But whatever you call what you preferred option is, I'm guessing the vast majority of people will have no idea what this is either; and no idea what makes it different from notional. Like with the median vs mean example, the logical conclusion of this based on your reasoning is actually we shouldn't include either notionals or whatever you want to include meaning we have no results which is fairly obviously not what we want to do. Nil Einne (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

2023 periodic review of Westminster constituencies listed at Requested moves

A 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 {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.