If we include every article on anyone who was ever an MP, won't this category become far too large to be of any use? Timrollpickering 12:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There has been a similar discussion at List of British MPs without resolution, although there has been an attempt to subdivide them. It does strike me as being useful to have a alphabetical list showing every article on anyone who was ever an MP. The category is an easier way than the list mentioned. It throws up people who may not be widely-known to be an MP, families of MPs (Benns, Churchills, etc.) and makes them easier to locate generally. I think that simply ordering them by election year (which are the most comprehensive lists so far, post 1974) is not helpful on its own. But I sympathise with the category being too long - perhaps subdivide by first letter of surname, as in the list mentioned (not by Party or year). Mtiedemann 13:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps a sub category for Current British MPs to keep them separated?
I've put in an alphabetical key for the category. There is probably a neater way of doing it.-- Henrygb 18:30, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This category name "Britsih MPs" is inaccurate: strictly speaking, MPs at Westminster are "UK MPs", since they sit in the parliament of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
So as a first step, I propose that this category be renamed "UK MPs": this would have the useful side-effect of allowing it to include MPs from Northern Ireland, and MPs from all of Ireland before 1922. Since this a direct successor category, a mass change could be implemented using WP:AWB.
The next issue is how to divide sitting and former MPs. I see three options:
Of the first two options, option 2 seems better: I suggest that when people look at categories, "UK MPs" is most likely to suggest sitting MPs. However, option 3 seem to me to be he best of all.
The question that raises is what to do about "English MPs" and "Scottish MPs": logically they should be sub-divided in the same way, with a similar sub-division for new categories of "Welsh MPs" and "Northern Irish MPs"
The new structure would then be
(The "current" and "former" sub-categories for Scottish, Welsh, etc, could also be sub-categs for "Scottish MPs" etc. I'm not sure whether I like that idea, but have no strong views either way)
The only question I see is of how much multiple classification to do. I know that there is a general policy in Wikepedia that "Articles should be placed in the most specific categories possible" [1], but I can see a persuasive case for an exception here as per Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories, with all MPs categorised both by nation and under "UK", so that (for example):
The only downside I can see of my proposal is that it dosn't accommodate Mtiedemann's desire for a category which includes everyone who is or was an MP.
Any thoughts?
BrownHairedGirl 11:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems Mais oui! ( talk • contribs) has gone ahead and subdivided according to home nation without any further discussion here. There was far from consensus for making this change.
Anyway, if the categories are named "English, Welsh, Scottish", shouldn't it be "Northern Irish" not "Northern Ireland"? There should also be an "Irish Constituencies" for pre-partition MPs. JRawle ( Talk) 11:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I support a renaming to UK MPs but dividing between current and former is a needless complication. If we take football categories as an example, we do not differentiate between current and former mebers of a particular club. BlueValour 21:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
As noted above, the User:Mais oui! has been engaged in a massive exercise to subdivide this category, and has added several layers of sub-categories, removing articles from their parent categories.
My attempt to undo some of this excessive sub-categorisation triggered a minor edit war, and a strong reaction on my talk page (see Please desist). I have asked User:Mais oui! to desist from these changes until a consensus is reached here, but so far the user's response has unfortunately been to remove my comment from the user talk page. I have now reinstated it.
Personally, I believe that there is some merit in splitting the category British MPs, but I am impressed by the arguments here in favour of retaining some of the supercategories. In particular, I think that to removing MP articles from categories relating to the parliament as a whole and relocating them to categories as small as one constituency (e.g. Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Orkney and Shetland) serious impedes the use of the category system.
There may be a case for using the sub-categories, but I believe that if those suategories are to be usedk, the parent categories should be retained. As per WP:SUBCAT, "The basic principle is that the duplication makes it easier, and not harder, for users to find articles".
I hope that User:Mais oui! will join in the discussion here and seek a consensus for a categoristion system for members of the United Kingdom Parliament. -- BrownHairedGirl 09:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
FYI: I have nominated the sub-categories of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies for merging into their parent category: see the CFM discussion. -- BrownHairedGirl 15:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
To start off a new discussion, it occurs to me that there needs to be a new hierarchy starting one level above where we are now. I'll address a broad hierarchy and avoid too specific references to naming or detail lower down (please don't get fussed if I get nation and country mixed up, or British vs UK, or HoC vs Parliament, etc etc).
NEW TOP LEVEL:
* Suggested new categories
Mtiedemann 00:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
"it was techically the Parliament of Great Britain, becoming the Parliament of the United Kingdom only after the union with Ireland ... is there consensus for treating the two parliaments as the same body?" No. For a start, the whole potential "by session" numbering system (which I think is a good way of subcategorising, in addition to by geography and by party) is based upon the fundamental differentiation between the Parliament of Great Britain and the Parliament of the United Kingdom, see:
I have several other thoughts on this whole discussion, but let's start off slowly here, cos I strongly suspect that my contributions to this debate will not be treated with the respect they deserve by certain parties, Mtiedemann and BrownHairedGirl excluded. (Quickly though, I support 3 methods: by location, by party - which can never be comprehensive by the way - and by session.) -- Mais oui! 08:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, thanks MaisOui. This one is messy, isn't it? You're right to suggest that we proceed slowly. In that spirit, I offer the following three suggestions for discussion, below.
However, I think that I may have been over-hasty in trying to encourage mtiedemann away from looking at all these parliaments. I still think that it is most pertinent to focus on the UK parliament post-1800, but I think that we do need to make some outline decisions on how to handle some of the other long lists of parliaments, otherwise the articles on MPs from those parliaments will end up being miscategorised under UK.
-- BrownHairedGirl 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
This is logically the simplest of all the options: to have completely separate hierarchies for the pre-1707 parliaments, the GB parliament 1707-1800, and the UK parliament 1800-onwards. I think it is broadly what mtiedmann initially proposed, above.
When I started writing, this was my by far my least favourite option, but the more I look at the subject, the more it seems to me to be the best. It has two strong advantages: a) it maintains rigorous historical accuracy, and b) the terminology for Westminster parliaments can be unambiguous:
On the downside, it will require some careful explanation and monitoring when in use, because most people are not aware of the distinctions. But it should be reasonably future-proof, because the logic doesn't require any tortuous explanation.
-- BrownHairedGirl 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The GB parliament (1707-1800) and the UK Parliament (1801-present) are separate institutions. However, from reading the 1707 Act and the 1800 Act, it seems to me that there is slighty more commonality between them than between the GB parliament and the pre-1707 English parliament (although both UK & GB parls started with members co-opted from predecessor bodies, rather than with an election).
So I suggest treating the UK & GB parliaments as one parliament for the purposes of creating a container for all the other categories relating to those parliaments, and allowing a common nomenclature for the 18th century onwards. The text on the category page should make it clear that this kludge is being used for convenience, and to prevent a multiplicity of hierarchies.
If this agreeable, then the classification by parliament (yes, I know that's not strictly speaking the correct terminology) would look something like the list below. Some of the categories would merely be containers, but others would be populated, and I have placed the mark @#@ by the ones which I suggest should be populated:
-- BrownHairedGirl 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that we should also consider this idea. It makes a slightly larger step way from most historically precise form of labelling, but it avoids the kludge in option 1 of placing the GB partliament under UK.
This suggestion is to refer to every Parliament which has met in Westminster (or Oxford, where it moved for a while) as a "Westminster parliament". This would include the English parliaments pre-1707, the 1707-1800 GB parliaments, and the 1801-onwards UK parliaments.
-- BrownHairedGirl 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
There are two other schemes in place already, subdivision by constitient country, and Category:British MPs by political party. There are also several specialist categories for women and current MPs. etc. There are quite enough systems for allocating MPs already, and no need to agree on the creation of any more, as they would be harmful category clutter. I am also alarmed to see a near total neglect of party affiliations in the above, which are by far the most relevant criteria for allocating MPs in my opinion. All the proposals above give overwhelming priority to nationalist considerations, so none of them comply with WP:NPOV. Hawkestone 16:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
OK; when you are speaking about an MP in a general context, then referring to 'Freda Bloggs, Member of Parliament for Little Puddleton' is appropriate and normal since the full title is needed to clarify her position. However, under the heading 'Parliament of the United Kingdom' then the full title is clumsy and unnecessary and 'Freda Bloggs, Member for Little Puddleton' is all that is required. To provide an example of authoritative useage, in the Commons MPs are always referred to, when their title is used (putting aside the modern regrettable practice of using names :-)), in the short form 'Member for Little Puddleton' because, as here, the context does not require the longer version. BlueValour 03:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 2#Category:British_female_MPs_2. -- BrownHairedGirl 15:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. .
Get your facts straight before accusing people of vandalism. You ought to be ashamed of the way you are conducting yourself. -- Mais oui! 16:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The wider discussions on categorising MPs seem to be stalled, so I thought that it might be a good idea to start with one aspect of categorisation on which there seems to be agreement: MPs by parliament.
Thanks to some great work by Morwen and others, we already have a list of session numbers for the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which makes a good starting point, so it seems to me that we have the foundation to start making the categories.
I suggest the following:
The subcategory names look a little ugly to my eyes, but they are the best I can come up with so far. The reasoning:
Any thoughts? -- BrownHairedGirl 21:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I reiterate my support for the MPs by parliament categorisation scheme, as outlined by User:BrownHairedGirl. I also still support the by party and by geography schemes: we can have a pluralistic scheme, as elsewhere on Wikipedia. I fail to understand why this needs to be pained over so much: just get on with it. (I am still awaiting an apology from User:BrownHairedGirl for her behaviour last week.) -- Mais oui! 23:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Categories now being built under Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament. -- BrownHairedGirl 13:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
FYI this list is up for AFD: List of members of the British Labour Party ( AfD discussion). Thanks/ wangi 10:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
{{ Template:UK-current-MP-stub}}: purpose should be self-explanatory. Should assist anyone wanting to prioritise unstubbing current MPs. -- BrownHairedGirl 19:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
see CFD for category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament and subcategories. -- BrownHairedGirl 17:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
For people interested in the format of succession boxes for MPs, I've put up a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines. This is still preliminary, so feel free to add on or make changes. Choess 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I have created Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain, for (as the name suggests) Members of the Parliament of Great Britain 1707–1800. I am slowly running through Category:British MPs to recategorise the the GB MPs.
(I created this a week ago, and should have announced it at the time. Sorry!) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hugh Fraser, 1st Baron Fraser of Allander was categorised under Category:British MPs, but Rayment shows no sign that this guy was a MP, so I have removed him from the category and commented him out in List of British MPs: F. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
See Talk:List of British MPs#Rename_to_United_Kingdom.3F.
I suggest that the discussion (if any) should take place on that talk page, rather than here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Drawing on the discusions earlier this year (see above, #Proposed_restructuring and #New_hierarchy), I have largely completed the restructuring.
The first step was to create a new Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain. I then set about recategorising all the articles which were in Category:British MPs: over 950 of them when I started. Some belonged Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain, some in Category:Members of the pre-1707 English Parliament, and most in one of the national UK categories, such as Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies
I finished that job yesterday, and have now created a new container category, Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, as a container for all the UK-Parliament-related subcategories.
Meanwhile, with other editors, I finished reinstating the subcats of Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament. Some of these had been deleted after a CFD in August, but with the clear intention that they shoud be recreated with shorter names (see above, #CFD_for_MPs_by_Parliament). That's now done; the new naming format is Category:UK MPs 1979-1983 rather than the previous over-verbose Category:MPs of the 48th UK Parliament (1979-1983).
So we now have most of the structure discussed above: a clear separation of categories for MPs of the different parliaments, with subcats by nation (England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland 1801-1922, N. Ireland), by party and by parliament (the later categories need more work before they are fully populated, but I will put WP:AWB on the case).
As a result of this, I think that some renaming is now both possible and desirable, and before launching into a CFD, I thought it would be helpful to float my ideas here: see #Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring, below. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Now that the sub-categories of Category:British MPs have been restructured (see above, #Restructuring_again,_now_largely_done, it seems to me that the names of some of the sub-categories should be renamed to reflect the fact that they refer only to the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Here's what I suggest:
It also seems to me that it would be a good idea to shorten the names of the by-nation subategories, which are currently of the format "Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from xxxxish constituencies".
I suggest two changes:
So:
Any thoughts? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 10#UK_MPs: a proposal to lengthen the names of the sub-categories of Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament.
The sub-categories are currently of the form Category:UK MPs 2001-2005; the current proposal is to change them all to the format Category:United Kingdom Members of Parliament 2001–2005 (with an ndash as the hyphen). The short category names were created after problems caused by the earlier categories of the form Category:MPs of the 49th UK Parliament (1983-1987): see discussion above.-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 22#Category:Current British MPs. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 16#Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
If we include every article on anyone who was ever an MP, won't this category become far too large to be of any use? Timrollpickering 12:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There has been a similar discussion at List of British MPs without resolution, although there has been an attempt to subdivide them. It does strike me as being useful to have a alphabetical list showing every article on anyone who was ever an MP. The category is an easier way than the list mentioned. It throws up people who may not be widely-known to be an MP, families of MPs (Benns, Churchills, etc.) and makes them easier to locate generally. I think that simply ordering them by election year (which are the most comprehensive lists so far, post 1974) is not helpful on its own. But I sympathise with the category being too long - perhaps subdivide by first letter of surname, as in the list mentioned (not by Party or year). Mtiedemann 13:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps a sub category for Current British MPs to keep them separated?
I've put in an alphabetical key for the category. There is probably a neater way of doing it.-- Henrygb 18:30, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This category name "Britsih MPs" is inaccurate: strictly speaking, MPs at Westminster are "UK MPs", since they sit in the parliament of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
So as a first step, I propose that this category be renamed "UK MPs": this would have the useful side-effect of allowing it to include MPs from Northern Ireland, and MPs from all of Ireland before 1922. Since this a direct successor category, a mass change could be implemented using WP:AWB.
The next issue is how to divide sitting and former MPs. I see three options:
Of the first two options, option 2 seems better: I suggest that when people look at categories, "UK MPs" is most likely to suggest sitting MPs. However, option 3 seem to me to be he best of all.
The question that raises is what to do about "English MPs" and "Scottish MPs": logically they should be sub-divided in the same way, with a similar sub-division for new categories of "Welsh MPs" and "Northern Irish MPs"
The new structure would then be
(The "current" and "former" sub-categories for Scottish, Welsh, etc, could also be sub-categs for "Scottish MPs" etc. I'm not sure whether I like that idea, but have no strong views either way)
The only question I see is of how much multiple classification to do. I know that there is a general policy in Wikepedia that "Articles should be placed in the most specific categories possible" [1], but I can see a persuasive case for an exception here as per Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories, with all MPs categorised both by nation and under "UK", so that (for example):
The only downside I can see of my proposal is that it dosn't accommodate Mtiedemann's desire for a category which includes everyone who is or was an MP.
Any thoughts?
BrownHairedGirl 11:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems Mais oui! ( talk • contribs) has gone ahead and subdivided according to home nation without any further discussion here. There was far from consensus for making this change.
Anyway, if the categories are named "English, Welsh, Scottish", shouldn't it be "Northern Irish" not "Northern Ireland"? There should also be an "Irish Constituencies" for pre-partition MPs. JRawle ( Talk) 11:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I support a renaming to UK MPs but dividing between current and former is a needless complication. If we take football categories as an example, we do not differentiate between current and former mebers of a particular club. BlueValour 21:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
As noted above, the User:Mais oui! has been engaged in a massive exercise to subdivide this category, and has added several layers of sub-categories, removing articles from their parent categories.
My attempt to undo some of this excessive sub-categorisation triggered a minor edit war, and a strong reaction on my talk page (see Please desist). I have asked User:Mais oui! to desist from these changes until a consensus is reached here, but so far the user's response has unfortunately been to remove my comment from the user talk page. I have now reinstated it.
Personally, I believe that there is some merit in splitting the category British MPs, but I am impressed by the arguments here in favour of retaining some of the supercategories. In particular, I think that to removing MP articles from categories relating to the parliament as a whole and relocating them to categories as small as one constituency (e.g. Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Orkney and Shetland) serious impedes the use of the category system.
There may be a case for using the sub-categories, but I believe that if those suategories are to be usedk, the parent categories should be retained. As per WP:SUBCAT, "The basic principle is that the duplication makes it easier, and not harder, for users to find articles".
I hope that User:Mais oui! will join in the discussion here and seek a consensus for a categoristion system for members of the United Kingdom Parliament. -- BrownHairedGirl 09:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
FYI: I have nominated the sub-categories of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies for merging into their parent category: see the CFM discussion. -- BrownHairedGirl 15:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
To start off a new discussion, it occurs to me that there needs to be a new hierarchy starting one level above where we are now. I'll address a broad hierarchy and avoid too specific references to naming or detail lower down (please don't get fussed if I get nation and country mixed up, or British vs UK, or HoC vs Parliament, etc etc).
NEW TOP LEVEL:
* Suggested new categories
Mtiedemann 00:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
"it was techically the Parliament of Great Britain, becoming the Parliament of the United Kingdom only after the union with Ireland ... is there consensus for treating the two parliaments as the same body?" No. For a start, the whole potential "by session" numbering system (which I think is a good way of subcategorising, in addition to by geography and by party) is based upon the fundamental differentiation between the Parliament of Great Britain and the Parliament of the United Kingdom, see:
I have several other thoughts on this whole discussion, but let's start off slowly here, cos I strongly suspect that my contributions to this debate will not be treated with the respect they deserve by certain parties, Mtiedemann and BrownHairedGirl excluded. (Quickly though, I support 3 methods: by location, by party - which can never be comprehensive by the way - and by session.) -- Mais oui! 08:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, thanks MaisOui. This one is messy, isn't it? You're right to suggest that we proceed slowly. In that spirit, I offer the following three suggestions for discussion, below.
However, I think that I may have been over-hasty in trying to encourage mtiedemann away from looking at all these parliaments. I still think that it is most pertinent to focus on the UK parliament post-1800, but I think that we do need to make some outline decisions on how to handle some of the other long lists of parliaments, otherwise the articles on MPs from those parliaments will end up being miscategorised under UK.
-- BrownHairedGirl 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
This is logically the simplest of all the options: to have completely separate hierarchies for the pre-1707 parliaments, the GB parliament 1707-1800, and the UK parliament 1800-onwards. I think it is broadly what mtiedmann initially proposed, above.
When I started writing, this was my by far my least favourite option, but the more I look at the subject, the more it seems to me to be the best. It has two strong advantages: a) it maintains rigorous historical accuracy, and b) the terminology for Westminster parliaments can be unambiguous:
On the downside, it will require some careful explanation and monitoring when in use, because most people are not aware of the distinctions. But it should be reasonably future-proof, because the logic doesn't require any tortuous explanation.
-- BrownHairedGirl 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The GB parliament (1707-1800) and the UK Parliament (1801-present) are separate institutions. However, from reading the 1707 Act and the 1800 Act, it seems to me that there is slighty more commonality between them than between the GB parliament and the pre-1707 English parliament (although both UK & GB parls started with members co-opted from predecessor bodies, rather than with an election).
So I suggest treating the UK & GB parliaments as one parliament for the purposes of creating a container for all the other categories relating to those parliaments, and allowing a common nomenclature for the 18th century onwards. The text on the category page should make it clear that this kludge is being used for convenience, and to prevent a multiplicity of hierarchies.
If this agreeable, then the classification by parliament (yes, I know that's not strictly speaking the correct terminology) would look something like the list below. Some of the categories would merely be containers, but others would be populated, and I have placed the mark @#@ by the ones which I suggest should be populated:
-- BrownHairedGirl 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that we should also consider this idea. It makes a slightly larger step way from most historically precise form of labelling, but it avoids the kludge in option 1 of placing the GB partliament under UK.
This suggestion is to refer to every Parliament which has met in Westminster (or Oxford, where it moved for a while) as a "Westminster parliament". This would include the English parliaments pre-1707, the 1707-1800 GB parliaments, and the 1801-onwards UK parliaments.
-- BrownHairedGirl 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
There are two other schemes in place already, subdivision by constitient country, and Category:British MPs by political party. There are also several specialist categories for women and current MPs. etc. There are quite enough systems for allocating MPs already, and no need to agree on the creation of any more, as they would be harmful category clutter. I am also alarmed to see a near total neglect of party affiliations in the above, which are by far the most relevant criteria for allocating MPs in my opinion. All the proposals above give overwhelming priority to nationalist considerations, so none of them comply with WP:NPOV. Hawkestone 16:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
OK; when you are speaking about an MP in a general context, then referring to 'Freda Bloggs, Member of Parliament for Little Puddleton' is appropriate and normal since the full title is needed to clarify her position. However, under the heading 'Parliament of the United Kingdom' then the full title is clumsy and unnecessary and 'Freda Bloggs, Member for Little Puddleton' is all that is required. To provide an example of authoritative useage, in the Commons MPs are always referred to, when their title is used (putting aside the modern regrettable practice of using names :-)), in the short form 'Member for Little Puddleton' because, as here, the context does not require the longer version. BlueValour 03:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 2#Category:British_female_MPs_2. -- BrownHairedGirl 15:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. .
Get your facts straight before accusing people of vandalism. You ought to be ashamed of the way you are conducting yourself. -- Mais oui! 16:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The wider discussions on categorising MPs seem to be stalled, so I thought that it might be a good idea to start with one aspect of categorisation on which there seems to be agreement: MPs by parliament.
Thanks to some great work by Morwen and others, we already have a list of session numbers for the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which makes a good starting point, so it seems to me that we have the foundation to start making the categories.
I suggest the following:
The subcategory names look a little ugly to my eyes, but they are the best I can come up with so far. The reasoning:
Any thoughts? -- BrownHairedGirl 21:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I reiterate my support for the MPs by parliament categorisation scheme, as outlined by User:BrownHairedGirl. I also still support the by party and by geography schemes: we can have a pluralistic scheme, as elsewhere on Wikipedia. I fail to understand why this needs to be pained over so much: just get on with it. (I am still awaiting an apology from User:BrownHairedGirl for her behaviour last week.) -- Mais oui! 23:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Categories now being built under Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament. -- BrownHairedGirl 13:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
FYI this list is up for AFD: List of members of the British Labour Party ( AfD discussion). Thanks/ wangi 10:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
{{ Template:UK-current-MP-stub}}: purpose should be self-explanatory. Should assist anyone wanting to prioritise unstubbing current MPs. -- BrownHairedGirl 19:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
see CFD for category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament and subcategories. -- BrownHairedGirl 17:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
For people interested in the format of succession boxes for MPs, I've put up a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines. This is still preliminary, so feel free to add on or make changes. Choess 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I have created Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain, for (as the name suggests) Members of the Parliament of Great Britain 1707–1800. I am slowly running through Category:British MPs to recategorise the the GB MPs.
(I created this a week ago, and should have announced it at the time. Sorry!) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hugh Fraser, 1st Baron Fraser of Allander was categorised under Category:British MPs, but Rayment shows no sign that this guy was a MP, so I have removed him from the category and commented him out in List of British MPs: F. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
See Talk:List of British MPs#Rename_to_United_Kingdom.3F.
I suggest that the discussion (if any) should take place on that talk page, rather than here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Drawing on the discusions earlier this year (see above, #Proposed_restructuring and #New_hierarchy), I have largely completed the restructuring.
The first step was to create a new Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain. I then set about recategorising all the articles which were in Category:British MPs: over 950 of them when I started. Some belonged Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain, some in Category:Members of the pre-1707 English Parliament, and most in one of the national UK categories, such as Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies
I finished that job yesterday, and have now created a new container category, Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, as a container for all the UK-Parliament-related subcategories.
Meanwhile, with other editors, I finished reinstating the subcats of Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament. Some of these had been deleted after a CFD in August, but with the clear intention that they shoud be recreated with shorter names (see above, #CFD_for_MPs_by_Parliament). That's now done; the new naming format is Category:UK MPs 1979-1983 rather than the previous over-verbose Category:MPs of the 48th UK Parliament (1979-1983).
So we now have most of the structure discussed above: a clear separation of categories for MPs of the different parliaments, with subcats by nation (England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland 1801-1922, N. Ireland), by party and by parliament (the later categories need more work before they are fully populated, but I will put WP:AWB on the case).
As a result of this, I think that some renaming is now both possible and desirable, and before launching into a CFD, I thought it would be helpful to float my ideas here: see #Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring, below. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Now that the sub-categories of Category:British MPs have been restructured (see above, #Restructuring_again,_now_largely_done, it seems to me that the names of some of the sub-categories should be renamed to reflect the fact that they refer only to the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Here's what I suggest:
It also seems to me that it would be a good idea to shorten the names of the by-nation subategories, which are currently of the format "Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from xxxxish constituencies".
I suggest two changes:
So:
Any thoughts? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 10#UK_MPs: a proposal to lengthen the names of the sub-categories of Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament.
The sub-categories are currently of the form Category:UK MPs 2001-2005; the current proposal is to change them all to the format Category:United Kingdom Members of Parliament 2001–2005 (with an ndash as the hyphen). The short category names were created after problems caused by the earlier categories of the form Category:MPs of the 49th UK Parliament (1983-1987): see discussion above.-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 22#Category:Current British MPs. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 16#Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)