(Redirected from
Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election)
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 July 2024. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Proposed merge of 2024 United Kingdom general election with 59th United Kingdom general election
Article unnecessary as we already hve another — Iadmc ♫ talk 09:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- @
Iadmc What? These are entirely different elections. Why should the next general election be merged into this one
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
09:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ah I misread. I'll withdraw the proposal — Iadmc ♫ talk 09:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The title of this article doesn't feel natural to me. The only place I ever see references to the nth UK parliament or election is here on Wikipedia. It's not in use in any of the books on UK politics that I use for reference, and it feels forced at best. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 09:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agree. It should be "2029 United Kingdom general election" but then the date isn't fixed any more... — Iadmc ♫ talk 09:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- @
GenevieveDEon I agree, this is only a provisional title. I can't yet call it "Next United Kingdom general election" as polling day in 2024 has yet to occur. This has been done previously in 2024, 2019, and 2017. Once polling day has occured, it can be moved
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
09:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I notice that the bit in the lead about 'the 60th parliament' isn't cited, either. No-one talks or writes about it like that. I don't think it's appropriate even for temporary purposes, because it's promoting a fringe methodology.
GenevieveDEon (
talk)
09:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- @ GenevieveDEon I’m just trying to follow the precedent for previous articles of this type- I based this current article off the previous “next election” article https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_United_Kingdom_general_election&oldid=928835847
- But you are of course welcome to change it
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
09:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really know what to change it to, and I'm hoping other people will have views and suggestions. But I don't think our own internal precedent is of much value here - it looks like someone's own pet approach, without documentary support.
GenevieveDEon (
talk)
09:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Nor do I- 59th United Kingdom general election is technically correct but very obscure. “Next United Kingdom general election” is inaccurate until the 2024 one occurs, and “Next Next” or “The one after next” are comically unencyclopedic
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
09:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why do we need it yet?
WP:crystal surely? —
Iadmc
♫
talk
10:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's WP:CRYSTAL, no. After this general election it's almost certain that there will be another one - other UK general election articles were created during the campaign for the previous one. For example, the 2024 GE page was created when the 2019 GE was called
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
11:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh OK. Just seems a bit soon, that's all —
Iadmc
♫
talk
11:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can understand that. Funnily enough, this page is an outlier in how late it was created - 2017, 2019, and 2024 were all created the day the election was called DimensionalFusion (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh OK. Just seems a bit soon, that's all —
Iadmc
♫
talk
11:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's WP:CRYSTAL, no. After this general election it's almost certain that there will be another one - other UK general election articles were created during the campaign for the previous one. For example, the 2024 GE page was created when the 2019 GE was called
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
11:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why do we need it yet?
WP:crystal surely? —
Iadmc
♫
talk
10:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Nor do I- 59th United Kingdom general election is technically correct but very obscure. “Next United Kingdom general election” is inaccurate until the 2024 one occurs, and “Next Next” or “The one after next” are comically unencyclopedic
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
09:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really know what to change it to, and I'm hoping other people will have views and suggestions. But I don't think our own internal precedent is of much value here - it looks like someone's own pet approach, without documentary support.
GenevieveDEon (
talk)
09:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I notice that the bit in the lead about 'the 60th parliament' isn't cited, either. No-one talks or writes about it like that. I don't think it's appropriate even for temporary purposes, because it's promoting a fringe methodology.
GenevieveDEon (
talk)
09:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- @
GenevieveDEon I guess the title has been decided for us! "Next United Kingdom general election" it is
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
21:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- But it isn't. The next one is in 2 weeks.
Kevin McE (
talk)
21:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- @ Kevin McE Well yes, that's what I said earlier in the topic. But regardless an administrator moved it, so you'd probably want to discuss it with them DimensionalFusion (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- One can argue that the 2024 election is ongoing because some postal ballots have been cast, but that's certainly not the most intuitive argument. Chessrat ( talk, contributions) 23:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- But it isn't. The next one is in 2 weeks.
Kevin McE (
talk)
21:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Do you all realize you are discussing about an election when the previous one has not happened yet? We don't need an article for the "next election after the next election", specially when there are no specific sources about it as of yet. Customary practice in Wikipedia is to wait until the immediately next election has happened, and even then weeks or months can go on without an article on the "next" election.
Wikipedia is a work in progress. Don't rush to edit: it is not a competition. Wait until 5 July at the very least.
Impru20
talk
06:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. We didn't need this article, and so much of it is essentially just template-filling. Part of the wider point of my critique of the '59th election' terminology above is that it gives the appearance of being meaningful content, while not actually conveying anything substantial. If you posted "There will be a parliament after the next one", it would be obvious that that doesn't need an article. "The 60th parliament will be elected to succeed the 59th parliament" is just saying the same thing, but in pseudo-technical language. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 06:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- @
Impru20 If you look at the 2024 General election article you’re referencing, you’ll see it was created in October 2019 - before the 2019 general election took place…
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
07:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- If you look at the vast majority of "next election" articles in Wikipedia, those are created after the previous election has taken place. I don't know what the motives for the 2024 creation before the 2019 election were, but that does not mean that it was a correct decision (that would depend on what was said in the sources at the time). As of now, do you have any motives to create this election article right now? Do you know that Wikipedia is based on sources? What are the sources on the "next of the next" election right now? Cannot you just wait until there is some meaningful content to add there, or are you intending to create a mere placeholder article?
Impru20
talk
07:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- @ Impru20
If you look at the vast majority of "next election" articles in Wikipedia, those are created after the previous election has taken place.- For UK general elections, this is not true. 2015 was created in April 2010 (1 month before GE), 2017 was created in April 2015 (1 month before GE), 2019 was created in May 2017 (1 month before GE), 2024 was created in October 2019 (1 month before GE). I'm creating this article only 13 days before GE
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
12:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- 1) Not for most elections elsewhere, so this is an anomaly.
- 2) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, but that does not mean this is a correct argument by itself. It's funny because, when you see the discussions for each of these, all of them limit themselves to say that "this was done before" but no one knows why nor attempts to expand on why this is even necessary at this point. This is just a circular nonsense without the slightlest attempt to, at the very least, make it encyclopedic. Impru20 talk 12:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- If you look at the vast majority of "next election" articles in Wikipedia, those are created after the previous election has taken place. I don't know what the motives for the 2024 creation before the 2019 election were, but that does not mean that it was a correct decision (that would depend on what was said in the sources at the time). As of now, do you have any motives to create this election article right now? Do you know that Wikipedia is based on sources? What are the sources on the "next of the next" election right now? Cannot you just wait until there is some meaningful content to add there, or are you intending to create a mere placeholder article?
Impru20
talk
07:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
The article was blanked and redirected to 2024 United Kingdom general election — Iadmc ♫ talk 06:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I did it (
for the reason exposed above). Basically, wait until the actual "next" election (the 4 July one) happens before considering an article on the "next after the next" election.
WP:NOHURRY,
WP:CRYSTALBALL and basic common sense apply.
Impru20
talk
06:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- @
Impru20 Why did you do this without a request for deletion?
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
06:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- @
DimensionalFusion: Why would I want to delete a useful redirect? The article to be "deleted" was basically 3K worth of template-filling and copy-pasted procedural contents, which can be re-used (and expanded) from 5 July onwards for the actual "next election". Plus, an AfD may be problematic since it can extend beyond 4 July, thus wasting a lot of effort and time for us all into a discussion that will be pointless by the time the election occurs.
Impru20
talk
07:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- PROD? Only 7 days... —
Iadmc
♫
talk
07:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- To discuss whether a placeholder article has any merit? See the "waste of time and effort" bit. What is the justification for creating this article right now? There were no sources displayed on the topic. This goes vastly beyond of what Wikipedia is intended for. Impru20 talk 07:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- @ Iadmc PROD?
PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. It must never be used simultaneously with a deletion discussion (AfD or FfD), and it may only be placed on a page a single time. Any editor (including the article's creator or the file's uploader) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD.- Since I would object to PROD does that mean it would not apply here?
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
11:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I guess so — Iadmc ♫ talk 12:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I will be contesting this deletion
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
07:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Eager to see on which grounds, then. Unless you can find any meaningful source to justify having an article on this particular election right now, you will have Wiki policies and guidelines against you (and indeed, you will be wasting our time just because you want to have a placeholder in place).
Impru20
talk
07:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- On the grounds that you unilaterally blanked the article with no consensus or discussion beforehand. If you want to delete it, make an RfD
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
07:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Correction: AfD as it was an article (if you mean he should have asked the community before blanking and redirecting) —
Iadmc
♫
talk
07:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, you're right. AfD is what I meant DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I was
bold and blanked it (not deleted it, i.e. the contents are recoverable) on the grounds that your proposal violates
WP:RS (no specific sources on the topic),
WP:CRYSTALBALL (
if preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented
, which wasn't. Not even a single opinion poll nor the 2024 results to show in) and WP:NORUSH (you acknowledging that the article has no purpose other than it somehow having been done before (without addressing the particular cases, i.e. if there was any meaningful content/sources on it) or having a discussion on its naming (which will be naturally resolved once 2024 stops being "the next" election)). Impru20 talk 07:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)- I've unblanked the article now
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
08:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Are you refusing to give any reason (or even attempt it) to address the aforementioned concerns? Really? You are also forcing to turn this into an AfD issue when I have explicitly said that I am not suggesting the article should be deleted, but rather postponed until there is any meaningful content to add and its existence does not clash with
2024 United Kingdom general election.
Impru20
talk
08:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- @ Impru20 Again, this has been done before. When the 2017 general election was announced (not took place), the 2019 article was created. When the 2019 GE was announced (not took place) the 2024 article was created. I see no reason why this article should be the one to break that.
- A lot of the points I could make about why to keep it have already been made at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/58th United Kingdom general election
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
09:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's absurd because: 1) as I said, I'm not calling for its deletion, just its replacement with a redirect until the actual next election takes place and then restore it when it can be filled with some actual content and sources. This takes two clicks and loses no info along the way, unlike deleting the whole article through AfD; 2) The discussion you provide only argues that once the page has been created it's worthless to go through an AfD to entirely delete the article when it would be recreated shortly thereafter (I said just that previously), but again it's you the one calling for an AfD to be created while blocking any other outcome; 3) No sensible argument is being brought other than
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. You basically confirm your intention of having this is as an unsourced and hollowed out placeholder just because of it, even if there is no actual content to justify its existence, despite this being contrary to several wiki policies.
Impru20
talk
09:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ok
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
10:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Lol
Impru20
talk
10:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- @ Impru20 Well, you've convinced me; feel free to blank article as is.
- Another point though - when should it be revived? 3 July, 4 July, or 5 July?
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
10:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- 6th? LOL — Iadmc ♫ talk 10:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- When there is any actual content backed by sources on this specific election so that we can have an article on an actual topic and not a placeholder, as I pointed out to you several times.
Impru20
talk
10:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- 👎
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
11:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Worth commenting that this (refusing to answer any of the aforementioned policy and factual-based concerns—brought forward in good will—while now keeping replying only to seemingly mock them) feels truly disgusting and disrespectful. This is an encyclopedia, not a kindergarten, thank you.
Impru20
talk
11:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- @
DimensionalFusion@
Impru20 Enough now! This is getting personal and as such difficult to read. —
Iadmc
♫
talk
11:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- DF does not seem to be reading you as seen below.
Impru20
talk
12:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- @
Impru20 Man, you immediate
assumed I was being sarcastic as an attack on you - I wasn't. I had my mind changed by your argument and decided to agree with you. I then asked a legitimate question as to what your opinion was about when it should be unblanked. When you gave a hostile response to my query I stated my disapproval. You now seem to be making snarky observations for no good reason. Why?
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
13:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Had you cared to read what I carefully told you for the entire discussion, you would have found the answer to your "question": it is not a fixed date, but whenever we had specific sources on this topic, since that is how Wikipedia works. I knowingly avoided to assume you were being sarcastic the first time, so I carefully repeated the above to you again in my reply and that's when you went emoji-mode, so do not attempt to pretend that you were not intending to be disrespectful because that is how you behaved. On your supposed change of mind: did you also change your mind again when replying to me in the section above again defending the current state of things becase "this was done before"? I honestly came here in good will and you chose to be patronizing, rejected addressing the proposed concerns and went personal, so this is it.
I will think on whether I seek a proper RfC (not an AfD) on this issue within the following days or deem this as unworthy of such effort (which would entitle someone in 2029 to say "hey but this was done in 2024!"), but I have nothing else to discuss with you here.Striking this part as I had not seen the discussion below and that, in the end, the blanking and redirection indeed seemed like a sensible solution. It was not so difficult. Cheers. Impru20 talk 13:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Had you cared to read what I carefully told you for the entire discussion, you would have found the answer to your "question": it is not a fixed date, but whenever we had specific sources on this topic, since that is how Wikipedia works. I knowingly avoided to assume you were being sarcastic the first time, so I carefully repeated the above to you again in my reply and that's when you went emoji-mode, so do not attempt to pretend that you were not intending to be disrespectful because that is how you behaved. On your supposed change of mind: did you also change your mind again when replying to me in the section above again defending the current state of things becase "this was done before"? I honestly came here in good will and you chose to be patronizing, rejected addressing the proposed concerns and went personal, so this is it.
- @
Impru20 Man, you immediate
assumed I was being sarcastic as an attack on you - I wasn't. I had my mind changed by your argument and decided to agree with you. I then asked a legitimate question as to what your opinion was about when it should be unblanked. When you gave a hostile response to my query I stated my disapproval. You now seem to be making snarky observations for no good reason. Why?
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
13:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- DF does not seem to be reading you as seen below.
Impru20
talk
12:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- What are you talking about bruh DimensionalFusion (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- @
DimensionalFusion@
Impru20 Enough now! This is getting personal and as such difficult to read. —
Iadmc
♫
talk
11:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Worth commenting that this (refusing to answer any of the aforementioned policy and factual-based concerns—brought forward in good will—while now keeping replying only to seemingly mock them) feels truly disgusting and disrespectful. This is an encyclopedia, not a kindergarten, thank you.
Impru20
talk
11:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- 👎
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
11:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Lol
Impru20
talk
10:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ok
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
10:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's absurd because: 1) as I said, I'm not calling for its deletion, just its replacement with a redirect until the actual next election takes place and then restore it when it can be filled with some actual content and sources. This takes two clicks and loses no info along the way, unlike deleting the whole article through AfD; 2) The discussion you provide only argues that once the page has been created it's worthless to go through an AfD to entirely delete the article when it would be recreated shortly thereafter (I said just that previously), but again it's you the one calling for an AfD to be created while blocking any other outcome; 3) No sensible argument is being brought other than
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. You basically confirm your intention of having this is as an unsourced and hollowed out placeholder just because of it, even if there is no actual content to justify its existence, despite this being contrary to several wiki policies.
Impru20
talk
09:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Are you refusing to give any reason (or even attempt it) to address the aforementioned concerns? Really? You are also forcing to turn this into an AfD issue when I have explicitly said that I am not suggesting the article should be deleted, but rather postponed until there is any meaningful content to add and its existence does not clash with
2024 United Kingdom general election.
Impru20
talk
08:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I've unblanked the article now
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
08:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Correction: AfD as it was an article (if you mean he should have asked the community before blanking and redirecting) —
Iadmc
♫
talk
07:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- On the grounds that you unilaterally blanked the article with no consensus or discussion beforehand. If you want to delete it, make an RfD
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
07:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Eager to see on which grounds, then. Unless you can find any meaningful source to justify having an article on this particular election right now, you will have Wiki policies and guidelines against you (and indeed, you will be wasting our time just because you want to have a placeholder in place).
Impru20
talk
07:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- PROD? Only 7 days... —
Iadmc
♫
talk
07:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- @
DimensionalFusion: Why would I want to delete a useful redirect? The article to be "deleted" was basically 3K worth of template-filling and copy-pasted procedural contents, which can be re-used (and expanded) from 5 July onwards for the actual "next election". Plus, an AfD may be problematic since it can extend beyond 4 July, thus wasting a lot of effort and time for us all into a discussion that will be pointless by the time the election occurs.
Impru20
talk
07:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- @
Impru20 Why did you do this without a request for deletion?
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
06:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Blanking and redirection to
2024 United Kingdom general election seems very sensible. The next United Kingdom general election is the one on 4 July 2024, as per Impru20. After 4 July, we can have an article if there's sufficient content.
Bondegezou (
talk)
13:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- The next United Kingdom general election is indeed on 4 July. Hence the title of the original article was 59th United Kingdom general election and not "Next", but it was moved anyway DimensionalFusion (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Article has been re-blanked by me. Will be un-re-blanked when either:
- a. There are enough sources about it, or
- b. The 4th of July has passed
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
13:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Independence came early! — Iadmc ♫ talk 13:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Impru20 talk 13:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
There is not a single source in this article which deals with this election - nor is it being discussed by the media in any detail. We follow the sources, not the other way around. Why does this article need to exist? Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 21:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Because this page documents the next general election... That's why. Surely you can't say the next national election of a major country isn't notable DimensionalFusion (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Where else are we supposed to put the opinion polling that occurs in the next five years?
77.101.227.169 (
talk)
07:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- You could argue we should wait until there is opinion polling for this election though Eastwood Park and strabane ( talk) 12:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
@ TedEdwards Hi again; why'd you change the infobox for the page? DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- For the same reasons I maintained TILE on
2024 United Kingdom general election. Namely by not including all the parties with seats in the house / who won seats at the last election violate
WP:CRYSTALBALL as, for an article for a future election, by using an infobox with fewer parties (a necessity of using TIE), we are implying that parties not included in the infobox won't be significant in that election. We would be implying the claim that some parties will be insignificant, in this case, possibly 5 years before we know which parties will be signficant for certain, on no basis whatsoever. --
Ted
Edwards
16:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's what we'd be implying at all DimensionalFusion (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
So my assertion is that, to obey NPOV, parties that have equal numbers of seats should be arranged alphabetically. Thoughts? DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would definitely say vote share rather than alphabetical would give a fairer impression.
GenevieveDEon (
talk)
15:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I mean vote share isn't necessarily relevant - alphabetical seems fairer
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
16:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- If the main sorting criterion is number of seats, then it looks like we're ranking the parties by electoral success. Share of the vote is another indicator of that, whereas what letter they start with is not.
GenevieveDEon (
talk)
16:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
DimensionalFusion: It would have been good manners to have mentioned the reasoning why your
WP:BOLD edit was reverted, so we can come to a neutral concensus. My edit summary in reverting your change was
I can't find any evidence supporting your assertion that tied parties should be listed in alphabetical order. We can discuss this, but the order I used was, if there's a tie, order by number of votes (so Reform above Green above Plaid)
. - I can't see how ordering by number of votes in the case of a tie violates WP:NPOV, as it's not based on any opinion but an empirical fact e.g. the Greens got more votes than Plaid. As for why I prefer the number of votes order, it's because secondary sources for the 2024 election results rank parties with the same number of seats by the number of votes they have. See
1 and
2. --
Ted
Edwards
16:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand your first paragraph
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
16:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
DimensionalFusion: You started the discussion by saying you think that the parties should be arranged alphabetically if there's a tie. What I criticised you for was not saying why your view was contested, even though you knew why it was contested (because I said why in my edit summary). That meant an editor looking at this discussion wouldn't know what other order the parties could be in, which unjustifiably slants the discussion in your favour because they wouldn't know what the opposing view was, and therefore couldn't decide if whether they supported the opposing view or your view. --
Ted
Edwards
16:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't say I was critisising you, I just want opinions for the best way to arrange them?
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
16:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, I was criticising you for omitting the reason why I reverted you when you started this discussion (which then you could say you opposed). No biggie, but I'm mentioning it now so you won't do it again. And to avoid any doubt, I'm not criticising you for having an opinion different to mine, nor am I criticising you for asking for opinions. Sorry I'm not being that clear. -- Ted Edwards 19:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't say I was critisising you, I just want opinions for the best way to arrange them?
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
16:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
DimensionalFusion: You started the discussion by saying you think that the parties should be arranged alphabetically if there's a tie. What I criticised you for was not saying why your view was contested, even though you knew why it was contested (because I said why in my edit summary). That meant an editor looking at this discussion wouldn't know what other order the parties could be in, which unjustifiably slants the discussion in your favour because they wouldn't know what the opposing view was, and therefore couldn't decide if whether they supported the opposing view or your view. --
Ted
Edwards
16:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand your first paragraph
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
16:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
DimensionalFusion: It would have been good manners to have mentioned the reasoning why your
WP:BOLD edit was reverted, so we can come to a neutral concensus. My edit summary in reverting your change was
- If the main sorting criterion is number of seats, then it looks like we're ranking the parties by electoral success. Share of the vote is another indicator of that, whereas what letter they start with is not.
GenevieveDEon (
talk)
16:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I mean vote share isn't necessarily relevant - alphabetical seems fairer
DimensionalFusion
(talk)
16:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- So, you say that it's fairer for 5 seat-DUP (172,058 votes, 0.6%) to be arranged ahead of 5 seat-Reform (4,114,287 votes, 14.3%) only because it'd make sense alphabetically? Weird (and not what sources actually do...). Impru20 talk 16:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)