 ::If UKIP's supposed surge in local by-elections is so recent that it's only in the last month or two, then clearly it would not be appropriate to change this article's infobox on something potentially so ephemeral. Come back when there's something sustained to talk about. See WP:RECENT for more guidance. ::Even if we leave aside the recency issue, I suggest you are blowing out of proportion three local by-elections. There are several by-elections most weeks. So, last week, yes, UKIP took a seat in Runnymede. But there were at least 7 local by-elections that week: UKIP one won (a gain from the Conservatives), but there were 3 Labour victories (2 holds, 1 gain from Con), 1 Conservative victory (a gain from an independent) and 2 LibDem victories (1 hold, 1 gain from Con). The week before, there was one local by-election, won by an independent (and UKIP didn't even stand). The week before, three: 2 Labour holds, 1 LibDem hold. UKIP occasionally winning a seat is certainly an improvement for them compared to most of 2012 (when they won nothing), but it doesn't put them in a comparable position to the three main parties, which win seats week in, week out. In Aug 2012-Jan 2013, the LibDems were averaging over 5 local by-election wins a month. Come back when UKIP are winning comparable numbers of local by-elections to the major parties. ::You mention the England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012 again. Well, there were 41 of these. 16 were won by the Conservatives, 13 by Labour and 12 by various independents. UKIP and the Liberal Democrats won none, and indeed both parties didn't even stand in every contest (only 24 each). Neither party even managed second place. Overall, LibDem candidates got 7.17% of the vote and UKIP got 7.07%, just behind. The infobox for that article includes the Conservatives, Labour and independents. That seems an appropriate infobox for that article: UKIP and the LibDems were both clearly well off the pace. Those elections were for different people than the forthcoming local elections, so there's a question of how relevant those elections are to these. If those results argue anything, it would seem to be for the removal of the LibDems from this article's infobox rather than for the addition of UKIP! (Plenty of other evidence, as above, suggests keeping the LibDems in this article's infobox.) I really don't see how those elections support your case for adding UKIP. ::Leaving aside all of the above, it's also very clear that no-one is supporting your suggested change. So perhaps we could move on?   