Template talk:2010 United Kingdom parliamentary election

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Politics of the United Kingdom

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom

This template was considered for deletion on 24 August 2021. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

Text and/or other creative content from this version of United Kingdom general election, 2010 was copied or moved into Template:United Kingdom parliamentary election, 2010 with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Why does this table look different on its template page to the way it looks in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 article? In that article, it doesn't show several of the results shown here, so is misleading. 81.157.226.29 (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PR

I've removed the column that states the amount of seats the parties would supposedly have won under PR. This is complete conjecture. It would have depended on the PR system used. Also, if PR had been used people would have voted differently (lots of people vote tactically), parties would have campaigned differently (targeting different seats or areas) and numerous other factors would have come into play. The figures given were completely meaningless and make no contribution to a table intended to show the actual results of the election. ^Tom _Phil 19:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. of seats contested

There should be an additional column showing no. of seats contested so as to show proportionally how many votes each party got. 82.43.144.110 (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! That makes it much better! 82.43.144.110 (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes per seat

What's the point of the "votes per seat" column? It looks POV-pushing. Wereon (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party

Green party vote previously gave total Green vote for the UK, though the table labels suggest that this should just be the total for England and Wales (as Scotland and NI have their own entries). This led to some double counting, which I've corrected. For consistency with other parties, should these figures be combined? Drpknight (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on this. The parties should be kept separate, as they are independent of each other - just as the Conservatives and UCUNF are listed separately. Warofdreams talk 17:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Small discrepancies

I've updated some of the numbers using Electoral Commission figures. Some small discrepancies may remain in the very minor parties. Drpknight (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]