Talk:2019 Conservative Party leadership election

Another one!

Sam Gymah is standing: https://mobile.twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1135094883444830208?p=v Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC

Better link: BBC News - Sam Gyimah announces Tory leadership bid

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48489392 GreyGreenWhy (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Plus Ken Clarke has endorsed Rory Stewart, as has David Gauke now VelvetCommuter (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I've added him to the timeline, but he needs to be added to the candidates list. Needs a source adding too, of which there are plenty available, including the above news story. This is Paul (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't see in either of the sources it saying about Sam Gyimah's bid being announced on 29th May, is this an error? Please change 29 May 2019 to 2 June 2019. 1234567jack (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Done, sorry. That was my fault. Ralbegen (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Source 118

The source 118 on the page is unreliable, it’s a compilation of who Guido Fawks THINKS is backing who. It should be removed and MPs supposedly backing those candidates should be better sources. - My account is KingSepron I’ve just forgot the password and cba to reset it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:EEA1:F000:E8CE:24F5:E0B3:303E (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Guido not remotely reliable. Bondegezou (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I've removed all uses of that citation. Bondegezou (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

If we're going to avoid using Guido, I'd prefer to source endorsements currently listed on ConHome directly from MPs who've publicly declared. ConHome itself admits there's still some room for doubt - while I am in favour of leaving its endorsements up in the absence of other evidence, I'd prefer to use stronger evidence where it's available. PutItOnAMap 1:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

New Boris Johnson endorsements on the BackBoris Twitter page

The following 12 MPs have today endorsed Boris Johnson according to the BackBoris Twitter page which is an official Boris Johnson twitter feed. Please could someone add these names to the list, I don't have editing rights on this page.

Michael Ellis, Simon Hart, Graham Stuart, Andrew Stephenson, Paul Beresford, Jack Lopresti, Daniel Kawczynski, James Heappey, David Warburton, Mark Pritchard, James Duddridge, Greg Knight.

https://twitter.com/BackBoris?lang=en

Ajs41 (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Ajs41:, @PutItOnAMap: took care of that this morning. Thank you for your suggestion!—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 08:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

David Davies MP endorses Dominic Raab

This Wikipedia page currently states that David Davies has endorsed Sajid Javid. He has posted a tweet today saying he is now supporting Dominic Raab:

https://twitter.com/DavidTCDavies/status/1135620699224190977

Ajs41 (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

See above section.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 08:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Surprising development - fox supports hunt(ing)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/04/tory-leadership-liam-fox-backs-jeremy-hunt-in-surprise-move Jontel (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Whatever next. What a shame we have to do without any panto jokes this time. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't see how to increase the number of endorsees accordingly - I presume the number includes the candidate - so, if someone could do that. Thanks. Jontel (talk) 09:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Jontel - Should be done now, thanks. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Malthouse out

https://mobile.twitter.com/kitmalthouse/status/1135950114449743872 There could be a few of these given the new rules. Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

There could be. We'll keep an eye on it.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 06:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn candidates in the timeline graphic

Earlier today the candidates who have withdrawn (Cleverly and Malthouse) appeared in the timeline graphic, showing when their campaigns started and finished. Now they seem to have been removed. I'd suggest that they should remain in there - it's an interesting and useful part of the timeline!195.147.20.71 (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

David Davies' endorsement

I'm sorry but I don't understand why David Davies keeps being put down as a Javid supporter when he's clearly endorsed Raab on his own official twitter page. I've looked through the comments on here but can't find an explanation.

31.48.130.194 (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Endorsements

Also Antoinette Sandbach has endorsed Rory Stewart now VelvetCommuter (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Jesse Norman

Please can someone move the listing for Jesse Norman from 'potential' to 'declined'. Source here: https://twitter.com/Jesse_Norman/status/1136623244121952257. Thanks 1234567jack (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done MrClog (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn Candidates should be on Timeline

The withdrawn candidates should have bars on the timeline. There are withdrawn candidates in the key, why aren't they being used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:38C0:1000:F5E3:F597:894F:96AE (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this is because they withdrew before the contest formally began, so they don't really count. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

They were removed by User:TedEdwards, who gave the reason "these candidates never actually stood for leader as they resigned before the contest had started, I've removed them from the timeline" in their edit summary. Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, the key for "withdrawn" candidates was there before anyone had withdrawn their intention to enter the contest. --TedEdwards 20:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I feel like there is a decent case for including candidates who withdrew before the close of nominations on the timeline. The timeline's considering the period before nominations closed, so it feels like early withdrawals are within its scope. Ralbegen (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. User:PutItOnAMap 12:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Just adding another voice in agreement here. Those candidates announced that they were running and then withdrew because they didn't have enough support. They were definitely a part of the leadership race and the timeline is less meaningful and informative if they're excluded.195.147.20.71 (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@PutItOnAMap:, sorry but how is this some kind of agreement (see your edit summary here)? You have four users supporting their reinclusion and two not, and as consensus is based on the strength of arguments rather than majorities, it doesn't help your case when all you say is Agreed. I removed them, as GreyGreenWhy has said, because they were never technically candidates, because to be a candidate, you have to be nominated and these candiates withdrew before they could be nominated. btw. I don't think much is to be gained from starting the timelines from early May (i.e. weeks before the contest was announced, never mind starting), as they are only the official candidates from tonight (16:00 UTC). --TedEdwards 12:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

They were widely discussed by reliable sources as candidates, whatever the technicalities. I think they should be on the timeline because to do that is to respect RS. Bondegezou (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It's also worth putting them there because, in the context of the withdrawn candidates' careers, these moves will be remembered as failed leadership bids rather than ones that never happened. PutItOnAMap 11:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Nominations on timeline

I can see that the timeline section states that nominations open today at 1700. I can't see a source for this and this seems contrary to what I have heard.

The BBC news site says: "There will then be a call for candidates issued at 17:00 BST, with nominations opening on Monday from 10:00 and closing at 17:00 BST that day."

Please could the timeline be amended to reflect the nomination window being between 1000 and 1700 on 10th June? 1234567jack (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Ignore this 1234567jack (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Owen Paterson endorses Boris Johnson

Owen Paterson has endorsed Boris Johnson on Twitter: https://twitter.com/OwenPaterson/status/1137106419206033409

31.48.130.194 (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the heads up! —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 01:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Guto Bebb endorses Sam Gyimah

Guto Bebb has endorsed Sam Gyimah. Link to this information: https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/06/guto-bebb-why-i-am-voting-for-gyimah.html

31.48.130.194 (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I'll mark this as  Done. By @PutItOnAMap: [1]! —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 12:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

William Wragg MP endorses Mark Harper

William Wragg has endorsed Mark Harper on his official Twitter page: https://twitter.com/William_Wragg/status/1137340610577338368

Ajs41 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Ralbegen (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Colour of candidates in 'jeopardy'

Does the colour of the candidates under 8 endorsements really need to be such a visibly offensive colour. What was wrong with the subtle and innocent lavender colour? Qaei ☎ 19:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The lavender was much easier to read text on. Either approach draws more attention to candidates with less support, which seems odd to me. I'd happily return to the pre-shading table, but either way the subtler colour is more appropriate. Ralbegen (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The lavender is what was used on 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries to highlight candidates who had only declared exploratory committees and not yet official campaigns. I don't know why it was ever changed, it suits its purpose perfectly. That reddish/orange color was hideous and that edit should've been reverted immediately. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 10:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Kit Malthouse

In the Candidates section, it says that Malthouse was Deputy Mayor of London "from 2008 to 2006". That should be edited to say "from 2008 to 2016".Jacoby531 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, User:Jacoby531, I have changed this to "from 2008 to 2015" as that is what is in Malthouse's article. Hope that's okay. Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The infobox on Malthouse's article says he was Deputy Mayor until 2016, but later on in the article itself, it says he was Deputy Mayor only until 2015. I'm not sure which one of those is correct, but at any rate it should probably be fixed. Jacoby531 (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Judge Rinder

Please add Robert Rinder to Other Endorsements - Individuals, for Matt Hancock. https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1138007777618661376 1234567jack (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Crazy. This should be done. Thanks for suggesting, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

New endorsements

Ben Wallace MP endorses Boris Johnson

Link: https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1138012169092702208

Ajs41 (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Done—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 18:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Theresa Villiers MP endorses Boris Johnson

Link: https://twitter.com/BackBoris/status/1138050235870130176

Ajs41 (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done. The official campaign Twitter account is not a reliable source for statements made by third parties.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 18:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Ben Wallace MP endorses Boris Johnson

Link: https://twitter.com/BackBoris/status/1137995017795047424

Ajs41 (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done. The official campaign Twitter account is not a reliable source for statements made by third parties.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 18:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Iain Duncan Smith MP endorses Boris Johnson

Link: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/10/boris-johnson-leader-can-address-voters-anger-repairing-trust/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimnonb (talk • contribs) 04:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

To add my own link in here, Conservative Home have a few endorsements in that Wikipedia doesn’t have.

https://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2019/06/leadership-election-candidate-support-numbers-hunt-27-johnson-19-raab-13-gove-12-javid-10.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingSepron (talk • contribs) 07:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, but this article stopped listing the names of MPs and others who have given their endorsements - the raw number of endorsements for each candidate is all that is left here. For names of the MPs not yet listed on the appropriate page (namnely Endorsements in the 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election), I suggest being bold there and adding them on that article. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 08:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox update problem

Now that the 1922 committee has confirmed the candidates for the first ballot on Thursday, we do run into a bit of a problem. I tried to squeeze all the candidates into {{Infobox election}}. You can see my tinkering with the infobox so far here: User:Amberrock/sandbox.

An issue arose, being that the template only supports up to nine candidates, and as is widely publicized: we've got ten. So on my sandbox template I had to leave out Andrea Leadsom (currently the lowest number of supporters). This 'solution' doesn't feel very satisfactory, though, because it means omitting information.

This will likely continue to be a problem, because unless another candidate drops out between now and June 13, we've got ten candidates in the first round which we can't all fit on the infobox. So how do you we go about this?

• Ask the infobox wizards to bolt a tenth candidate onto the template?
• Wait for the second ballot when there are guaranteed no more than nine candidates, and then list all of those?
• Just go ahead anyway, and don't put poor Mrs. Leadsom on there because she's on the lowest number of confirmed supporters?

I would love to hear your opinions on this little infobox pickle.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 22:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the solution is to not have an infobox. We don't need one. When it comes down to two candidates and the party member vote, then we can have one. Bondegezou (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wait until the second ballot, there's no rush. If the amount of candidates by the second ballot looks good in the infobox then go for it, if not then wait until the final two. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 10:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Waiting seems the most sensible thing to do. I don't think we need to wait until there are only two, but I'd certainly be wary about including more than six. Ralbegen (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. On reflection, I agree with the 'no more than six' proposal. Not having an infobox at all would be a mistake, I think, because those things are gold in terms of conveniently and quickly learning the most important numbers behind an election.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 12:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The infobox is a Good Thing, but just showing 9 of the 10 is a Bad Thing, so split it into two. (As things progress, just move candidates from the first to the second.) Worried that having the two infoboxes may have side effects that I am not aware of. GhostInTheMachine (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That's actually a sensible solution. Thanks for your creative thinking. I'm not aware of any undesired side effects, by the way. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 13:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Whenever I've seen it raised, consensus has always gone against using multiple infoboxes in election articles. We can go another week without filling the infobox with candidates. We could mention the first round result in the lead instead, and let readers go to the results section to find the detailed results. I'd support staying with the candidateless infobox until the result of the next round, though perhaps something to revisit if a candidate drops out before then. Ralbegen (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidance is that one should not have two infoboxes. Bondegezou (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Can I also suggest that we need to spend less time worrying about the infobox and more time writing prose? Our coverage of the campaign is rather threadbare at present. Bondegezou (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

IMO, having two infoboxes isn't great, as infoboxes are meant to be concise brief intros to an article per MOS:INFOBOX, so having two of them completely goes against this idea. Also, I bet that having a max of nine candidates is deliberate to keep the infobox concise, having more would be to much detail. The solution I think could work is only have MPs who got through to the second/third/member's ballot, which has been suggested. --TedEdwards 21:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, and IMO, the current info box works well (Eliminated Candidates as a child info box). To not have all 10 original candidates in the box makes it nonsense to have. Hoffie01 (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Sort of carrying on the old discussion while starting a new one, hence the <hr>. After the two final candidates were confirmed, I made a bold edit to only have Hunt and Johnson in the infobox, with the edit summary As infobox was becoming large and unwieldly, and I feel going against the spirit of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, I've reduced it to the final two candidates. I've also swapped them round, so they are in alphabetical order. If you're going to revert either of these two things, please leave a descriptive edit summary and watch the talk page. In an edit conflict, I also removed the end date, as it's in the future. The bit of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE I think is important is The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance; with the infomation of 6 separate votes and so many candidates that there has to be a daughter infobox, there IMO is way too much infomation for an infobox. There is a full results table in the unsurprisingly-named results section, and this I believe is the only place the results of MPs' ballots should be.

As is the spirit of WP:BOLD, JLo-Watson reverted my edit, with the summary Whilst I understand that the info-box was indeed becoming large as a result of the unprecedented number of rounds in this leadership contest; ultimately, I believe that it should remain as all previous leadership elections have placed all the candidates and ballots in there. This is useful for the reader to visualise and should thus remain I believe. I disagree with this per WP:OSE, and the fact circumstances change on every Wikipedia article. Of all the other Conservative leadership articles, the one with most candidates was the 1975 one, with 6 (all in one infobox, but there were only two ballots). This election had 10 candidates and, as I said earlier, 6 votes. So I think the situation is totally different, and what works for other articles does not work for this one. --TedEdwards 22:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC) Will ping all participants in previous discussion; Amberrock, Bondegezou, Jjj1238, Ralbegen, GhostInTheMachine, Hoffie01. Think that's everyone. --TedEdwards 23:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Just wading into the discussion here as someone who has not edited this page before. At first sight, the infobox simply looks unruly. I read some of the justifications above and some arguments in favour of this style argue that it makes it easier to visualise detail. Simple fact is, it does not in the slightest. All I see are rows of numbers and percentages and if I'm honest, we're at a time now where it is of very little interest to anyone what, say, Mark Harper got in the first round, or Sajid Javid got in the third round, etc etc. Anyone looking for those fine details should be referred to the actual results table in the article which can set out this information in a much more appropriate manner. For the sake of tidiness and relevance, I would be in favour of reducing the box to two candidates, namely Hunt and Johnson, add a row for how much they got in the final round and then the 'popular vote' and 'percentage' rows as per usual for the membership ballot. I would also put the blue back - I completely agree that with this huge untidy infobox it makes no sense, but for just two candidates I think it would be better for the sake of relevance and continuity. Bye. Nub Cake (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Just thought I would add my two cents. I think it may be worthwhile to have some aspect of the MP ballots represented in the infobox, so I would personally suggest having Johnson, Hunt, and Gove (in that order) with the votes of the final ballot listed as well as the members vote when that eventually takes place. Filinovich (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I also think that the current infobox is way too big, in violation of MOS:INFOBOX. I'd just have Johnson and Hunt as the two going to the members' vote. Bondegezou (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the smaller infobox proposal of just Hunt and Johnson. The complete information is further down in the results section. Wikipedia should be adaptable, and a format that made sense with 6 candidates shouldn't blindly be taken as a precedent for a situation with 10 candidates. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I genuinely think that the info box as it currently stands is worse that having no info box. It suggests that this was a two-horse race from the start - and it is significant that it wasn't. I know the information is elsewhere in the article, and I understand both WP:OSE and MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE arguments, but in this case I feel they are both wrong. Hoffie01 (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Numerous election article infoboxes do not show all the candidates or parties participating. UK general election article tend not to show all the parties that won seats. US Presidential election articles don't show all the candidates. I think, thus, it's OK that this infobox doesn't list everyone. Bondegezou (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Just noting my support for the infobox including just the two candidates. The large number of candidates is something which can and should be noted in the lead, but a large and difficult-to-follow infobox isn't really helpful to anybody. Ralbegen (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Percy and Stephen McPartland endorse Boris Johnson

Link: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tory-leadership-contest-boris-johnson-given-new-boost-by-european-delivery-group-as-tory-mps-began-a4166281.html

Ajs41 (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ajs41: as I said earlier this week to a different user: take the suggestion to the new page on endorsements in this contest, namely Endorsements in the 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election. That article is not protected either, so you can even add the endorsements yourself! —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 09:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2019

Set data-sort-value in candidates table for eliminated candidates to zero. Filinovich (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

As well, add data-sort-values for the other candidates. When sorting by support after first ballot, the order is incorrect. Filinovich (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 04:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

New endorsements

David Amess MP endorses Dominic Raab. Link: https://twitter.com/amessd_southend/status/1139103584317071361

Stephen McPartland MP endorses Boris Johnson. Link: https://twitter.com/SMcPartland/status/1139136353038458880 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajs41 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Colour bars under candidate photos

What is the purpose of these and is there a reason for not explaining them anywhere in the article? I tried to removed them, but Willwal restored them. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

They don't distinguish the candidates, so they're pretty redundant here. I'd be happy to see them gone. Ralbegen (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

If we remove the ones here, then for consistency we should remove them for a great number of other articles. Therefore, I would oppose doing this. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Unless there's a good reason to include them, this is just an WP:OSE argument. They're useful if there are more than one party in an election, but they're pointless in party leadership elections and should be removed. They're useful e.g. in 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries because they're a key for the rest of the article, including maps in the infobox. There's no such case here. Ralbegen (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the coloured bars are redundant. Willwal's reason to revert was because of "precedent", which I don't think is a good argument, because other stuff exists. I mean, it's not necessarily good what is on other articles e.g. even if every other article was written in Klingon, it does not mean this article should be written in Klingon (obviously a ridiculous example, but I hope it makes the point). --TedEdwards 19:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I be'd bold and removed the bars, along with the redundant lines of text. W559 (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose At a glance it shows that this is a leadership election with all candidates being members of the same party. Personally it breaks up the infobox and makes it easier to read rather than being all white. It has been done on previous Conservative Election pages so why is this one different? It makes the pages inconsistent. It is also done on other party leadership pages across the whole of wikipedia as outlined in the below list of examples and also in the french wiki page. There is also no harm in having them, (doesn't clutter the screen on computer/mobile and doesn't increase page size dramatically) so unless this is a move that is going to be implemented across all en.wiki pages we should keep them in place. Humongous125 (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

2010 Labour Party (UK) leadership election

2006 Australian Labor Party leadership spill

2011 Fianna Fáil leadership election

2018 New Zealand National Party leadership election

2015 Liberal Democrats leadership election

• Oppose per Humongous125. I don't think keeping it based on the format in other articles is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument; infobox presentation is intended to be standardized across election articles. It does serve the purpose of allowing readers to quickly see that this is an internal party process. In any case, a broad RfC would be needed to change this practice across all leadership election articles. I added them back since they appear to have been WP:BOLDLY removed without this discussion reaching a consensus. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 05:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Running tally of public support from MPs

Is the running tally of public support from MPs before each ballot useful enough information to include in the main table of nominated candidates? It might be worth noting on the endorsements page. Whereas information like ministerial office, if any, at the time of nomination was previously on this table, but removed once these bars started filling up the table. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2019

In the infobox append to election_date the following "
Infobox only shows top two candidates. Full results for all candidates below." This follows the format used in 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom, warning that not all candidates are shown as is the case in all previous Conservative leadership elections. Zoted (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Great idea!—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 09:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Map

Bournemouth is not under water yet, that maps needs replacing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Well its been given a good fixing again.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hustings location

The Carlisle hustings is at Carlisle Racecourse (https://www.itv.com/news/border/2019-06-29/jeremy-hunt-and-boris-johnson-head-to-carlisle-for-hustings-event/). MaineCrab (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

debates

Do we really need a live news feed about this. Why not wait until the debate either occur or are canceled.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2019

The info box does not have all the candidates and rounds like the other ones on leadership pages therefore I think it should include all the people and votes received in all rounds and the rounds they did participate WinstonwsSmith (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done We had that before. And between all the rounds and all the candidates, that will become too messy.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 09:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Date on the timeline graph

The timeline graph currently has 2019.58 as the only date - could someone convert that to a day and month? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Absolutelypuremilk: That date would have been 29 July, which was the last day of the timeline. The timeline code was using the ScaleMajor command to put a vertical line on that day; the problem with doing this is that ScaleMajor labels all its dates in the format yyyy, and will convert any date that doesn't start on 1 January to a decimal fraction. I removed the unnecessary ScaleMajor line, extended the timeline to 31 July (so that the existing ScaleMinor command would add a line to the new end of the timeline on 1 August), and added dates to a few key events in the timeline. W559 (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Results percentages

Are these supposed to include rejected ballots? That doesn't seem to be typical. Farleysmaster (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Previous MP's votes

Why don't you put in the infobox the previous ballots, from the first to the fourth ? The readers would better understand the race, like in 2001. Thank you. —Edouard2 (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

We had that discussion here. --TedEdwards 17:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 July 2019

Boris Johnson has become Prime Minister of Britannia after meeting the Queen at Buckingham Palace on 24 July,2019 AbDaryaee (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Of that we're all aware, I think. What specific part of the article do you request to amend?—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 12:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 14:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2019

Replace Unite to Win png redlinked file to file of same name but svg. Located in final two section next to Boris' logo. Kingdom of Baustralia (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Should the infobox not include the rest of the candidates?

Take for example 2016 Conservative Party leadership election, 2005 Conservative Party leadership election, 2001 Conservative Party leadership election. All the candidates that ran for that election are included in the infobox and not just the last two remaining ones, like Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt are currently the only ones shown on the infobox. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that all candidates should be listed in the infobox. It is a clean way to provide a quick overview. However, it is an old debate.

• 2019-06-13 -- all were listed in two boxes [2]
• 2019-06-14 -- two boxes merged into one clean one [3]
• 2019-06-22 -- cut down to just the last two candidates [4]

Maybe the order of "demise" could be an extra column in the Nominated table? GhostInTheMachine (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

There are too many candidates to fit in this type of infobox. The infobox is also not meant to be exhaustive. The Conservative leadership election system makes it difficult to set a cut-off, like the 5% used for by-elections or mayoral elections. The two-candidate infobox with a link to the full list of candidates is a fine summary. There is already a full results table in the article. Ralbegen (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Theresa May election infobox.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Graham Brady

Should Graham Brady be mentioned as having been a potential candidate. As his article states "He resigned as 1922 Committee chairman on 24 May 2019 in order to explore launching a bid to become leader of the Conservative Party in the weeks that followed" and this is backed by a cited source. Dunarc (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

To update, I have added him in as expressed interest as the Evening Standard report I cited as a source makes clear he was actively considering running for the leadership in June 2019. Dunarc (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Next Election Page?

I am not sure where to ask this, so I'll put it here. There looks to be more and more pressure on Johnson as of 19/01/2022, and more articles are coming suggesting either a leadership challenge or his resignation is imminent. Furthermore, there have been multiple sources speculating about potential candidates (Sunak, Truss, etc.) in this hypothetical new leadership election. Should we create a "Next Conservative Party leadership election" page, linked of course in the top infobox, to talk about all of this and perhaps be ready for when what looks like the seemingly inevitable comes? Pickle Mon (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I've started a page at Next Conservative Party leadership election, there's so much coverage now that it's a notable future event. Ralbegen (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)