% of vote[edit]

I'd argue that this figure is meaningful only for the major parties who fielded candidates in all, or most, constituencies. A more meaningful metric would be "% of votes in those seats contested". This would provide a far more valid basis for comparison. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources we took this from (BBC News, The Guardian) do not list such a metric, therefore it would take some time to actually tabulate the figures. I haven't figured out if there's a template for that available, and even so it would require some changes to the table structure already created. AlexTeddy888 (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realise it might not be easy. And the advantage of the current figures is that they are supported by WP:RS. That measure is equally useless at the BBC and The Guardian, of course. Why should anyone care what the national percentage share is for SNP and Plaid? Or for any of the smaller parties, of course. I don't think it would be WP:OR to provide the better metric - they are just numbers, after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind such a metric being fit into the table since it is quite practical, however I don't know how to incorporate it as of current. Perhaps you could help out in this area. AlexTeddy888 (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colour for Independents[edit]

The colour currently listed for Independents / parties without colours is white, but the template should actually list it as grey. One of the parties (the Something New party to be exact) actually has white as its official party colour. I suggest we look into the matter and change it somehow. AlexTeddy888 (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For colours, as for names and leaders, should we show source(s)? Or should one global source (I assume The Electoral Commission) be given at the head of the table? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The colours are determined from the template itself, Template:Party name with color. The colours are taken off the respective Wikipedia pages as a result. Thus we couldn't include a source on the colours. I don't think the Electoral Commission lists the colours down as well. AlexTeddy888 (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are we double-counting the Speaker?[edit]

For the Speaker - is his figure double-counted somewhere (in the Conservative, independent, or no-description rows)? Neither the BBC News tally nor the Guardian tally separate him out. I want to make sure we're not duplicating those numbers somewhere. Neutralitytalk 19:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's a Tory. So he might be expected to be repeated only in the Conservative tally. Since that stands at 330, he can't be. Don't the numbers add up? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I found it. From the BBC:
"However, for the purposes of calculating the number of seats belonging to each party - and calculating those held, gained or lost by each party - Mr Bercow's seat is regarded as being a Conservative constituency as he won it for the party in 1997, 2001 and 2005 before being elected speaker. If Mr Bercow wins again, the result in Buckingham will be described as "Speaker hold" - and his seat will be added to the Conservative total."
We've adjusted the seat tally, but I think we are double-counting the speaker's vote tally. Neutralitytalk 19:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, never mind! We actually have adjusted both the seat tally and the vote tally accordingly. So we're OK! Neutralitytalk 19:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yay!! Get the flags out!! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Seat changes for the Tories and Labour[edit]

Using this as my guide, I realized that the BBC's figures for the Tories' seat gains and losses are wrong (330-302=28) but also that both the BBC's and the Guardian's figures for Labour's seat gains and losses are wrong (256-232=24). I'm going to change back the figures for the Tories in our table, but I don't know what we should do about Labour. I've checked several other newspaper and magazine sites, and the only one that had similar figures was the Spectator, which says (rather disconcertingly) that the Tories actually won 329 seats but also has incorrect figures for Labour's seat gains and losses. I really hope someone doesn't have to go through the individual constituencies and count the gains and losses one by one. Esszet (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that the BBC's figures are based on those from the 2010 election, so that explains at least some of the discrepancies. I'm assuming that their figures for Labour are right except for the 2 seats Labour lost in by-elections during the last Parliament, so I've adjusted the figures for Labour accordingly. Esszet (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After repeatedly counting Labour gains and losses on List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2015 and getting 49 losses and 23 gains for a net change of 26 seats every time, I found out that there were two MPs who had had their official affiliation with Labour terminated by the end of the Parliament and that the correct figures for Labour's gains and losses at the last election are thus 48 losses and 24 gains for a net change of 24 seats (the correct amount). I've edited the table accordingly. Esszet (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Table not sorting correctly?[edit]

Whenever I click any of the sort buttons, the data just becomes a mess and fails to sort.

It's fine in the default view. Here is an example of a "sorted view" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetguyuk (talk • contribs) 02:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the parties[edit]

In the results table for every previous UK general election, the parties are ordered by votes, not seats. See here, here, here, and here for examples. Esszet (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; the edit has thankfully been changed. AlexTeddy888 (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Internal border styles?[edit]

There has been a massive edit on the internal body styles that could appear confusing to some. I don't see what's the point of this since there is no visible change. Could someone help? AlexTeddy888 (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categories