Talk:1950 United Kingdom general election

message: Would be nice to have a photo of Churchill taken around 1950 rather than the current photo, which is dated 1941 when he looked around 30 years younger.  Tempshill 17:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Churchill photo

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:1950 UK Election Map.png Nominated for Deletion

message: Labour lost a net 78 seats, as listed in a couple of places in the article.  They did not lose only the seat of Bexley.  For some reason, an anonymous user who is generally making sensible contributions keeps adding the plainly wrong claim that they lost only the Bexley seat to the table.  Please stop doing this! Warofdreams talk 09:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Labour lost a net 78 seats

message: The non-free use of :File:Clement Davies c1955.jpg was discussed at :Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 30#File:Clement Davies c1955.jpg and the result was "keep in :Clement Davies, remove all other instances." For clarification or to challenge this close please contact the closing administrator per :WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clement Davis image in infobox 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United Kingdom general election, 1950. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151208092654/http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/05/liberal-democrats-face-soaring-fines-for-failing-to-win-enough-votes/ to http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/05/liberal-democrats-face-soaring-fines-for-failing-to-win-enough-votes/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: the fifth sentence of the introduction is 
:Labour called another general election in 1951. 
Who was the driving force ? (Attlee ?) Who (person, board or body) took the decision in the end ? --Neun-x (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  when ? who ?  

message: We see 8 colours on the map/house of commons composition but only 3 parties are given seats in the results. Who are the missing colours?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6E00:1E17:B001:2239:56FF:FE8D:DDB2 (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colours? 

message: Per the comment by the IP poster in October 2021 above, there is a difference between the composition of the Commons shown in the article and the composition shown in the illustrations accompanying the article. I'm presuming that this has occurred because the article has consolidated various Conservative-linked parties in Scotland and Northern Ireland into the total number of Conservative seats, but without a matching consolidation occurring in the preparation of illustrations. Is there a consensus for how this is handled in other general election articles? XAM2175 (T) 21:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction between article and illustrations