Talk:Results of the 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom

Table order

Hey Chad The Goatman. The way we lay out those tables is in order of the national results, so that it's much more clear to the reader. We could have another table to show the winners of each constituency, similar to Canadian elections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Even so, it doesn't matter as along the seat results from non-Brexit Party wins aren't clearly matching up with the other (Brexit Party won) region's seat results, and please don't insult the other reader's higher intelligence too, and favoring the Brexit euroskeptics/eurosceptics wikipedians. Along you just wait for Norther Ireland's seat results that to countering your view, regardless. Chad The Goatman (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Those tables aren't there to show who comes first in each constituency though. They are there to show the breakdown of seats among the constituencies. See the table at 2014 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom, and similar displays at other elections. Northern Ireland won't have any Brexit MEPs and will follow the same pattern as the rest, but entirely with their own parties. The infobox image is there to show which party finishes first in each constituency. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Terminology

I would suggest that, instead of the term "District" in the headings of column 1 of each of these tables, you use the term "Council Area", since these individual component areas of each European Parliamentary Constituency comprise not just District Council areas but also Metropolitan, London and Non-Metropolitan Borough Councils and Unitary Authority Councils. Also, I would suggest that, instead of just refering to "Constituency" or "Constituencies", you could prefix those words by "EP " just for clarity, in case some readers forget that we are not referring to Westminster Constituencies. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Map accuracy

Once the Scotland/NI results are confirmed, it might be worth double checking the accuracy of the filled in counting areas. I have noticed one inaccuracy (Stockport) and there might be others.

References

RLP-170 (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@RLP-170:The party colours for each council area in the regional maps were copied from the national map. I will amend the North West regional map and the national map to reflect the fact that the Liberal Democrats received the most votes in Stockport. I have compared our maps with the BBC map and there doesn't appear to be any other discrepancies, but do let me know if you notice any other errors. Mirrorme22 (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Why is Northern Ireland seemingly shaded Brexit light blue rather than Remain Yellow?

Our map currently shows Northern Ireland seemingly shaded the same Brexit light blue as almost all of England and Wales, but not Pro-Remain Scotland and London, with the caption 'Results of the election by seats, with constituencies shaded by the highest polling party'. In Northern Ireland that party was Sinn Fein, which opposes Brexit (details + citations here, tho it prefers the withdrawal agreement to a No-Deal Brexit, which may perhaps have confused the map-maker). Like Scotland, Northern Ireland voted against Brexit in 2016, and a clear majority of votes this time went to anti-Brexit parties. The Brexit Party did not run candidates in Northern Ireland. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Tlhslobus The colours don't represent leave/remain, they are the colours of the highest polling party in the region; Brexit Party turquoise in England and Wales, Lib Dem orange in London, SNP yellow in Scotland. The map was map on Sunday before Northern Ireland began counting their votes so was shaded a neutral colour, it should be changed to Sinn Féin green. Experiment 47 (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The trouble is there's nothing 'neutral' about its shading right now. I don't know whether this is because some shade of blue has been deemed neutral (which would seem a rather strange choice), or because it's already technically Sinn Fein light green and just looks light blue because the shades of light green and light blue being used are sufficiently similar that it creates some kind of illusion where my brain interprets them as the same; and if so, quite likely the same goes for many other people's brains too. And if the latter is in fact the case, then it might be advisable to try out some different colour scheme. (Incidentally, it's also difficult to see the difference between Lib Dem light orange in London and SNP light yellow in Scotland, which is presumably why I thought it was Blue Brexit and Yellow Remain, a colour scheme also used in some of our other articles, and quite likely that's how many other readers will instinctively see it too). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Seat allocation order

Since this election was run under the D'Hondt method [V/(s+1), and all that], the order in which the seats were allocated within each constituency is relevant information. But, as it stands, the article isn't showing that. One alternative would be include a table: either a general one at the top of the article, or separate ones within each constituency results section:

Seat allocation order	Seat 1	Seat 2	Seat 3	Seat 4	Seat 5	Seat 6	Seat 7	Seat 8
London	LibDem	Labour	Brexit	LibDem	Green	Labour	LibDem	Brexit
North West England	Brexit	Labour	LibDem	Brexit	Green	Labour	Brexit	LibDem
Etc.

Or the seat numbers could be incorporated into the main constituency results tables, including the relevant ref in the title bar:

2019 European election: London
List		Candidates	Votes	Of total (%)	± from prev.
	Liberal Democrats	Irina Von Wiese, Dinesh Dhamija, Luisa Manon Porritt Seats 1, 4, 7 Jonathan Fryer, Hussain Khan, Helen Cross, Graham Colley, Rabina Khan	608,725	27.2	+20.5

References

Worthwhile endeavour? Suggestions? Moscow Mule (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I've put D'Hondt cut-offs in the results tables as done previously. That doesn't make it explicit in what order seats were won, but provides the necessary information, and it's what we've done previously. Bondegezou (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The cut-off totals are useful, but I'm surprised at the lack of appetite for making it more explicit. OK. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

West Berkshire

Resolved

Until I can find exactly where on their website the result is given, here's a different source: https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/eu-elections-berkshire-farages-party-16335985

• The Brexit Party - 15830
• Liberal Democrats - 13981
• Green Party - 6029
• Conservatives - 5974
• Change UK - 1948
• Labour Party - 1632
• UKIP - 883
• UK European Union Party - 118
• The Socialist Party of Great Britain - 59
• Jason McMahon - 54
• David Round - 37
• Michael Turberville - 30

Will keep on hunting, and attend to this later. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Now sorted; they hadn't made the doc available before. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Winchester, Etc.

As above, but Winchester City Council; Eastleigh Borough Council. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, all of the South East is done - except for Winchester. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Results by Westminster constituency

I have made several changes to the format of the table in Results by Westminster constituency, which was added by RaviC. Several of the figures for Plaid Cymru look wrong, for example it is extremely unlikely that nobody in the Carmarthen East and Dinefwr constituency voted for Plaid Cymru as they won the seat at the last general election. Several other constituencies are shown with under 100 votes for Plaid Cymru, which is not credible. The figures appear to have been transferred accurately from the source.

Also, but much less importantly, the default order of the Welsh constituencies seems arbitrary – English and Scottish constituencies seem to be in alphabetical order.

Verbcatcher (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Is that a reliable source? Bondegezou (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone know whether it is possible to have a floating heading for this section as it is very difficult to tell which column is which party when you are well down the list? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be preferable to list the parties in the same order as in the other tables in the article? Tammbeck (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but unless anyone knows of an automated way of rearranging the table it would mean many hours work and a high risk of introducing errors. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Various tools are described in Wikipedia:Tools/Editing tools, but I have not tried these. I made bulk changes to the table as follows: paste wikitext into a text editor, convert to CSV format, import into Excel spreadsheet, manipulate the data with Excel, paste back into text editor, convert to wikitext format, use a text compare tool to compare with the original wikitext, paste back into the Wikipedia edit window, check and save. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a pretty reliable source that was reported on Peston and some newspapers; we've used the author's calculations for the 2016 referendum as well. The unusual estimates from some Welsh constituencies have been noted by other people commenting on the post. However, the other estimates don't seem to have any such issues. --RaviC (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Constituency summaries

Each consituency has a council nominated to collate and publish results, and some produce breakdowns of each district, which makes it much easier than having to check every single council website. The current position is

North East done

South West done

Yorkshire and Humber done

Northern Ireland done

Scotland done

London done apart from a few turnout percentages which I am still chasing

East of England done - they very helpfully publish an excel file of the district results which allowed me to calculate the percentages in excel

West Midlands done - they publish a summary in pdf

North West. I am working on this. They publish a summary in pdf

East Midlands. I have had an excel summary emailed which I will work on when I have finished North West. I assume I can give the reference as excel file of results available on application to Kettering Borough Electoral Services.

South East part done

Wales mostly done.

The references for the constituency summaries are unsatisfactory as they are for the lists of candidates (pre-election edits) not the results. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Redesign of Estimated results by Westminster constituency

This table is too unwieldy to be of much use. The main conclusion to draw is who would have won each constituency, and by what majority. I favour reducing the table to only the following columns:

Constituency Name	Winner in 2017		Projected winner		Projected majority
Aldershot		Conservative		Brexit Party	4,050
Aldridge-Brownhills		Conservative		Brexit Party	6,978
Altrincham and Sale West		Conservative		Lib Dem	2,710
Amber Valley		Conservative		Brexit Party	6,943
Arundel and South Downs		Conservative		Brexit Party	1,633

We could add "Projected majority %", but Westminster results are usually presented with the majority as a number of votes, and we should follow this. Also, it's unclear if a percentage is of the number of votes or of the electorate.

Giving the projected winner and majority in each constituency would not count as original research because it is a simple calculation from each row of the source data, and allowable as WP:CALC.

I will have a go at generating the table, but I first want to get a consensus on its format. We could retain some or all of the existing columns if the consensus prefers that. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree. The votes for each party are required to provide any useful information. An example is the 2019 Peterborough by-election. Commentators have pointed out that the result is in line with opinion polls in suggesting that Labour is currently 8% better and Brexit around 8% worse in parliamentary as opposed to the Euro election. The table allows comparison of the performance of each party, whereas the proposed new format would give no useful information. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Estimated results by Westminster constituency

I have put in the party colours but I am not sure how accurate the table is. The only seat shown as won by the Conservatives is Edinburgh East, where they have always come a poor third or fourth. Maybe the calculations have a problem with votes for Nationalist parties? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

If the local authority boundary and the Westminster constituency boundary coincide for the whole of the boundary, it should be fairly accurate. Examples include: Crawley/Crawley (UK Parliament constituency); Isle of Wight/Isle of Wight (UK Parliament constituency); Borough of Spelthorne/Spelthorne (UK Parliament constituency); West Oxfordshire/Witney (UK Parliament constituency). In a few cases, one constituency is composed of the whole of two (or more) districts (for example, Orkney Islands Council together with Shetland Islands Council are entirely covered by Orkney and Shetland (UK Parliament constituency)), so the projected constituency vote may be taken as the sum of the local authority votes.

But where they differ, even by a tiny amount (e.g. Gosport (UK Parliament constituency) which includes the whole of the Borough of Gosport plus a portion of the Borough of Fareham - or if you prefer, the Borough of Fareham is covered by the whole of Fareham (UK Parliament constituency) plus a portion of Gosport (UK Parliament constituency)), an estimated projection must be doubtful. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The table of results by Westminster constituency seem to be absolute tosh; just somebody’s imagination. Look at the example of Edinburgh. Edinburgh city council actually published results by constituency, and these can be downloaded from here. They bear no resemblance to those shown in the table here. Look, for example, at the Conservative vote (correctly totalled here as 17,222) . In reality, that was distributed as follows: East 1924; North and Leith 3586; South 3582; South West 4187; West 3933. This table has East 16,937; North and Leith 1 (yes, one!); South 273; South West 11 (eleven!); West 0 (yes, zero!). Other parties, and results, are also totally inaccurate. You can see them for yourselves ; the actual winners were the SNP in every constituency except West which was Lib Dem, while the table here claims the Lib Dems won South not West, and the Conservatives won East where they actually came sixth.

Other constituency results are tabled almost equally nonsensically. Take Glasgow North, given here (unbelievably) to the Brexit Party with 13482 . Then look at how that’s ‘achieved’; again by nonsensically small votes in the other Glasgow constituencies. Fife didn’t publish constituency results, but it is flatly inconceivable that the Brexit Party which took 16,738 in its four constituencies would have taken 14,006 in North East Fife alone so as to win the seat, and that assertion is again only achieved by attributing ludicrously low percentages to the other three constituencies.

And so on. And so on. Sorry, I've not enough Wikipedia expertise to seek to correct these tables, but what's the point of trying? I would suggest with great respect this table should be binned. 80.189.47.229 (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. While I appreciate the hard work done in inputting these estimated results, these are not actual results, they are controversial and they were not highly cited, so I have removed the detailed table. We have citations if people want to explore the figures. Actually including them gives undue weight to figures that even the person who made them suggests have limited utility. Bondegezou (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

If the detailed table is removed (as it now has been) as WP:UNDUE because allegedly (but plausibly) at least partly tosh, shouldn't the arguably far more tosh (and arguably entirely tosh in the impression it tends to convey) and thus undue map and overall results table also be removed? After all somebody just looking at them, and understandably too busy to read the small print, might get the impression that, for instance, Farage is a near certainty to be the next PM (an impression that would be due to the big picture stuff we have kept, and not to the details we have now removed). I'm not suggesting it should be removed entirely, but it could be reduced to just text, that would be much harder to read without also reading the small print. However I'm not sufficiently interested to pursue the matter any further myself (indeed I originally came here for the opposite reason - I was unhappy with the deletion of the details, but I'm now a lot happier after reading some of the contributions here). So (per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO) I'm just raising this as something for others to look at and act on or ignore as they see fit. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• I do not agree that the table should be removed, but either way there should be a consensus on the talk page before action is taken. All the examples cited of strange results relate to Scotland and Wales, which suggests as I commented above that the methodology is inaccurate when there are Nationalist parties. The constituency estimates in England are of interest as rough approximations of how much the traditional parties have been hit by Brexit in the Euro election and, as in Peterborough, allow a comparison with the results in later elections. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

We need to avoid original research. It should not be for us to judge the reliability of these estimates. Rather, it would be better to base our judgement on what reliable sources say about these numbers.

But that led me to the conclusion that reliable sources have not paid a lot of attention to these estimates, so why should we? This article is about the results of the election. These are not results: they are an analysis of the results, one of many. Should half the size of this article be devoted to something that is only an estimate, has prima facie flaws and hasn't received a lot of attention from reliable sources? We can provide a link to the analysis in a sentence or two, but more seems undue to me. Bondegezou (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It is misleading to say that half the article is devoted to the estimates when the table is collapsed by default. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

If the article abided by MOS:COLLAPSE, it would be getting on for half. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

References

South Bucks Wrong Colour in Maps

South Bucks was won by Brexit party, this is confirmed in table and source, but all maps have it shaded lib dem yellow