![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
There's been some good work on the forthcoming local elections in different regions. However, if you go to, for example, 2021_Hartlepool_Borough_Council_election#Council_composition, you will see one of these bars to show the current composition of the council:
4 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 |
C | Lab | IU | SL | VP | FB | Ind | Vacant |
We have previously agreed to never use these. They are fundamentally broken: they do not display properly on some screens in some situations. The arrow indicating halfway gets misplaced. The size of the subsections can go wrong because Wikipedia will never make the section smaller than the text within it. They mostly work on big screens, but most people read Wikipedia on smartphones.
So, can we go through and replace these? Bondegezou ( talk) 09:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Warrenlm has been doing commendable work on 2021 Hyndburn Borough Council election, 2019 Hyndburn Borough Council election, 2018 Hyndburn Borough Council election etc. However, they have included the dreaded bar graphics on all these articles and are reluctant to remove them. Can we have some more input on what to do, here or at Talk:2021 Hyndburn Borough Council election? Thanks. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The infobox is in the wrong format. Further information is needed to raise it from stub level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorious68 ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I have raised concern, see talk:politics of the United Kingdom as the infobox uses the American style of Government referring to the United Kingdom's legislative, executive and judicial branches. The UK does not have branches of Government, just the Government which are made up of Ministers of the Crown. Particularly with regards to the judiciary, it should not even be mentioned in the infobox as they are not like in the US a 'co-equal branch' they have little power due to Parliamentary Sovereignty. Parliament should still be mentioned but, in my opinion, not under the heading of 'legislative branch' as Parliament is not a branch of anything. It could come under the term, legislature. Government, Parliament and the judiciary are in the UK not branches of anything but different entities. Unlike in the US, where they all come under the term Government, being called, executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch. Thanks DukeLondon ( talk) 20:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey all
Right, let's get the headers out and see how this goes.
Context
Over many years here, I've held one view quite closely and that is: not all political parties are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Since the creation of the Register of Political Parties, it's become common for articles to be created on the basis of "if they're registered, they're notable", and that has not sat well with me. In the run-up to elections, and we've seen this in 2021, editors create articles for political parties before they've contested any elections or achieved something notable. We've seen Freedom Alliance (UK) deleted through AfD, which was right, and Alba Party retained, because the latter was created in the run up to the elections and has enough surrounding it to be clearly notable. Freedom have appeared from nowhere and the article only appeared for promotional/campaigning purposes. The same is true of the Northern Independence Party article, which should have been deleted having been re-created from a successful AfD and was subject to off-Wiki campaigning/canvassing.
We have, over the years, a run of successful AfDs for political parties. I don't accept the argument that people are missing out because they can't see a Wikipedia article about the Miss Great Britain Party, or the Friends Party, or whoever. If parties are hardly gaining any votes in elections, they're unlikely to get people rushing to Wikipedia for information. My view has always been summarised as: if you're a political party that needs to use Wikipedia as a blog/campaign site, that you've failed as a political party.
In the run-up to elections, editors want their political party to gain attention and support. Wikipedia is still used as a tool for minor parties wanting to promote themselves. This is why Northern Independence Party canvassed off-Wiki. This is why IP editors are attracted to the Brexit/Reform article.
I think we have seen the consequence of so many successful AfDs in the lack of an article for George Galloway's Workers Party, and how long it took for the Heritage Party to gain an article. I think the successful AfD for Freedom Alliance shows that the community can see that political parties have to do more than just existing and campaigning to gain an article.
Previous proposal
Many years ago - 2008 in fact - I drew up a proposal for political party article notability rules. These were not in place to override GNG. They were proposed to work alongside GNG. The proposal had seven "clauses":
Possible proposal
The above is over 10 years old. Wikipedia has changed since. And Wikipedian attitudes towards bureaucracy has changed. I accept that we might not be able to agree on a policy with seven complex, over-lapping clauses.
I would still like to focus on the Electoral, Lineage, Campaign, and Registration clauses. These tie-in with general notability guidelines, and should not be too contentious.
Discussion
I know that some editors and I will never agree on this matter. I want to find some kind of agreement because, if nothing else, I've been on this ride since proposing the above clauses back when I was very, very younger. To keep going on about this, and without solution, might seem like I've wasted my life. But that's Wikipedia for you! doktorb words deeds 08:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
A party that has an indisputable, clear, and certain importance in a state's political, cultural or social history, is regarded as notable.I can't tell whether this is just a long way of asking "does it pass WP:GNG?", or a different metric altogether. If it's the latter, then it seems like a very high bar to jump - you're saying that a party has to be nationally significant in some way to be notable? There are plenty of local residents' associations (for example), that wouldn't be considered to have an
indisputable, clear, and certain importance in a state's political, cultural or social history, but are nevertheless seen as notable due to other factors. I suppose point 6 acts as somewhat of a disclaimer to this (
Not being successful in any election does not necessarily mean the party is not notable), but it still doesn't give a clear idea of what exactly a party needs to have in terms of local representation, longevity, source coverage, etc, in order to be notable.
Evening all
I'd like to amend Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) so it also encompasses article titles which are suffixed by "(Scottish Parliament constituency)" and "(Senedd Cymru constituency)". I'm fairly certain that we'll have little opposition to this but I am aware changes must be discussed and considered beforehand so here we are. doktorb words deeds 21:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I would appreciate some assistance on Cash for curtains disputed allegations. It is appearing difficult to reach consensus around a neutral point of view. Any intervention from more experienced Wikipedians would be much appreciated. RoanokeVirginia ( talk) 20:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I've recently been researching the oldest living former MPs, and User:Andrew Gray has helpfully replied to me at Talk:Records of members of parliament of the United Kingdom#Longest-lived MP with something along the lines of what I was going to propose here: a Wiki list article of every living former MP. Andrew makes it 1074 former MPs who are currently living - might this be too much for one page? A Wikidata list he links to here has them listed.
I originally began researching this when Ronald Atkins died, and Records of members of parliament of the United Kingdom hadn't been updated with the new record holder for the oldest living former MP. Someone had added the fact to the article for Patrick Duffy - unsourced, but after I had manually checked the last House of Commons list of living former MPs (and then the Lords, who they left off the list), Duffy clearly was the new record holder. I've alerted the local press to the story, and the Doncaster Free Press has now covered it (so that link is now added as a reference to verify the claim). I believe the reporter is going to interview Sir Patrick. I expanded his article substantially after learning of his feat, as it seemed to be quite sparse before. I also researched a list of every living former MP over 89. As time goes on, the Wikidata list should help us keep track of who the oldest living former MPs are, but I think it deserves a Wikipedia list article of its own. Any thoughts? -- TrottieTrue ( talk) 22:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
{{sort|Wainwright, Alfred|[[Alfred Wainwright]]}}
. To fix the date there's something like data-sort-type=date
but when I tried adding that about half the table sorted properly by date and then the lower part of the table didn't work: I don't really understand this complex table. But it must be doable. Good luck.
Pam
D
00:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
That's an interesting one: I think it should be possible to do something like that. Here's a couple of options - first option groups party & seat, second decouples them, third uses the elections approach from the deaths list rather than giving dates.
Name | Born | First day in Parliament | Last day in Parliament | Representing | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rosemary McKenna | 8 May 1941 | 1 May 1997 | 12 Apr 2010 | Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Labour, 1997-2005)
Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Labour, 2005-2010) | |
Kelvin Hopkins | 22 Aug 1941 | 1 May 1997 | 6 Nov 2019 | Luton North (Labour, 1997-2017)
Luton North (independent, 2017-2019) | |
Angela Watkinson | 18 Nov 1941 | 7 Jun 2001 | 3 May 2017 | Upminster (Conservative, 2001-2010)
Hornchurch and Upminster (Conservative, 2010-2017) |
Name | Born | First day in Parliament | Last day in Parliament | Party | Constituency | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rosemary McKenna | 8 May 1941 | 1 May 1997 | 12 Apr 2010 | Labour | Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (1997-2005)
Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (2005-2010) | |
Kelvin Hopkins | 22 Aug 1941 | 1 May 1997 | 6 Nov 2019 | Labour (1997-2017)
independent (2017-2019) |
Luton North | |
Angela Watkinson | 18 Nov 1941 | 7 Jun 2001 | 3 May 2017 | Conservative | Upminster (2001-2010)
Hornchurch and Upminster (2010-2017) |
Name | Born | First day in Parliament | Last day in Parliament | Party | Constituency | Elections won | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rosemary McKenna | 8 May 1941 | 1 May 1997 | 12 Apr 2010 | Labour | Cumbernauld and Kilsyth
Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East |
1997, 2001, 2005 | |
Kelvin Hopkins | 22 Aug 1941 | 1 May 1997 | 6 Nov 2019 | Labour
independent |
Luton North | 1997, 2001, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2017 | |
Angela Watkinson | 18 Nov 1941 | 7 Jun 2001 | 3 May 2017 | Conservative | Upminster
Hornchurch and Upminster |
2001, 2005, 2010, 2015 |
The columns for party & seat are notionally sortable, but in practice will only ever sort by whatever the first entry in the field is. I've done colour here by "most significant" party, but we could also do it by "party at time of leaving". I suspect whatever approach we use here will be a bit imperfect. The other approach to add colour would be to ditch the party colour tags and add thumbnail headshots instead. Andrew Gray ( talk) 17:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
A quick update: I've almost finished checking the party data and should be ready to generate the draft table in the next couple of days. List of LGBT politicians in the United Kingdom is a pretty good model, so we could do something like this -
Image | Name | Born | Gender | Party | Constituency | Country | First day in Parliament | Last day in Parliament | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[img] | Rosemary McKenna | 8 May 1941 | Female | Labour | Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (1997-2005); Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (2005-2010) | Scotland | 1 May 1997 | 12 Apr 2010 | |
[img] | Kelvin Hopkins | 22 Aug 1941 | Male | Labour (1997-2017) | Luton North | England | 1 May 1997 | 6 Nov 2019 | |
Independent (2017-2019) | |||||||||
[img] | Angela Watkinson | 18 Nov 1941 | Female | Conservative | Upminster (2001-2010); Hornchurch and Upminster (2010-2017) | England | 7 Jun 2001 | 3 May 2017 |
So we have country, gender and image added. Constituency is in a single cell; party is split to allow for colours which means that people will get split across multiple lines if resorted. We could avoid this by making party (and seat?) unsortable columns - I guess it depends on how you see people using it. I've added notes to party and seat with dates unless they were the same for the full career. Do we want a "notes" field as well (eg to add things like Lords membership, note breaks in service, etc?) Andrew Gray ( talk) 23:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
"The following is a list of living former Members of Parliament (MPs) of the United Kingdom." The rest is self-evident, surely? Although nothing to stop others editing it to add more in future. If you have any examples of similar pages with longer introductions, which I could emulate, then let me know.-- TrottieTrue ( talk) 00:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Just commenting here to stop it slipping off the main page. Hope to hear more soon. TrottieTrue ( talk) 18:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
RE the PM's recent announcement: I have just moved Proposed COVID-19 inquiry in the United Kingdom from draft to mainspace. If anyone on this project could give this a read through, make some copyedits if needed, and make sure everything is accurate then that would be very much appreciated ☺️ – Bangalamania ( talk) 13:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
This weekend is one of this project's biggest ever challenges.
We're going to have to edit a lot of results, across hundreds of pages, and deal with everybody from enthusiastic newbies to biased IP editors, and everyone in-between. Don't rush, or panic, or lose focus. And don't turn editing results pages into a second job. If the media rely on us to give them results boxes for screengrabbing, that's on them, not on us. Be good and safe and calm, and we should get through this. Virtual pints (or your drink of choice) next week in thanks.
doktorb words deeds 06:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
User @
Sparkle1: has removed party leaders from, specifically, all Leeds Council election articles. Their edit summary is "standard practice is not to include this unneeded, unnecessary, unwanted, unhelpful information
". I can't find at first hand any discussion about removing this information, and I'm concerned by the thesaurus of negativity used to justify the edits. Can we just have a discussion to confirm if these edits are right and their reasons are correct?
doktorb
words
deeds
10:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
With multi-member constituencies it can be hard to determine precisely who succeeds whom, except for when a member resigns mid-parliament. This leaves us with a problem when writing infoboxes as we either have to leave the |predecessor and |successor fields blank or to invent a convention -if the legislature itself doesn't have laid out- to decide which names to put in. The system I would recommend is to list the candidates in the order in which they were elected, cross out those continuing and then pair up the remainders.
To take the Mid & West Wales region for the Welsh Parliament as an example, the additional members for the last two elections were:
2016 | 2021 |
---|---|
Neil Hamilton (UKIP) | |
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru) | Cefin Campbell (Plaid Cymru) |
Jane Dodds (Liberal Democrat) |
It happens that Joyce Watson got reeled off in second place both times, but Eluned Morgan has moved from fourth to first. By application of my system we would say that Watson and Morgan both continued in office while Campbell succeeded Hamilton and Dodds succeeded Thomas.
This applies to D'Hont (or block vote) style elections, when the party determines the order of their candidates within the list but then the votes - and the application of the formula - determines the order in which different parties' candidates are elected. With single transferable vote we should arrange them by who is declared elected first - and, if more than one member wins in the same round, then by who got the most votes in that round. With multi-member plurality voting (or "first, second and third past the post") we should order winning candidates by how many votes they individually received.
From what I have seen it looks as if this could be what most editors are doing already but I can't be entirely sure. Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 12:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
We need to indicate their membership somehow, otherwise we imply that multi-member offices are inherently less noteworthy than single-member ones. It would be a bit strange if the constituency MSs had it listed in their infoboxes but the regional MSs didn't. I remember there was a discussion of a similar nature some years back about MPs and peers: Members of the House of Commons had their term, constituency, predecessor and successor clearly listed but members of the House of Lords did not. There was a move to add succession boxes for the latter as well, perhaps in recognition that the invention of retirement and expulsion meant that life peerage was no longer synonymous with membership (hereditary peerage never was). In these instances there are no predecessors or successors listed (except for Lords Spiritual and hereditaries who win by-elections) since each life peerage is separate from the others and there is no fixed membership quota so we don't have any sense of one peer directly replacing another as MPs do. I still think we should think of something for the others (MEPs, MSPs, MLAs, AMs, MSs), though, as they do have defined (if broader than one) numbers and constituencies, so if X new members are elected for any seat then logically X old members are leaving. As I said, it looks as if the system I propose is already what most editors are doing for these pages but I just wanted to make sure. Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 13:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm noticing that flag icons are being added to the top of infoboxes of political offices (such as Leader of the Opposition (United Kingdom), Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom), etc.) for what appears to be purely decorative purposes. (Pinging @ Daran755: who seems to be making the edits.) Unless there is a consensus I missed somewhere, MOS:DECOR and MOS:INFOBOXFLAG would apply - unless the icons serve an encyclopedic purpose there is no point in adding them. WildComet ( talk) 14:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Zack Polanski is one of the new London Assembly members. There's been some heated discussion/editing on the article, including by me, so some more input from others would be helpful at Talk:Zack Polanski. He's someone who has been politically active for several years, but at a low level, so there's not a lot of RS. There are three particular points of contention:
1. Polanski was David Paulden. I don't know why he changed his name, but we have early statements of candidates that show that. We said this in the article. One editor has removed this, describing it as "deadnaming". We have MOS:DEADNAME, but that applies to people who have changed their gender identity, which is not the case here. How do we handle someone's prior name when it doesn't have much coverage in RS, but which wasn't changed because of a change in gender identity?
2. There is a "scandal" in Polanski's past. He cooperated with The Sun for a story in 2013 about whether hypnotherapy can make your breasts bigger. (He's a hypnotherapist.) This came to light more recently and he apologised for it. We have RS coverage of the apology. Obviously The Sun is not RS, but I had included a link to the original Sun article as we are allowed to link to non-RS articles when they have become the topic themselves. I've since removed that link following Talk discussion. Should we be covering this story at all? If so, how should we cover it?
3. There's also been some back and forth on how to cover Polanski's non-political career (as an actor and hypnotherapist). How much space and what prominence should we give to these matters when Polanski is notable as a politician rather than as an actor or hypnotherapist?
Any input welcome. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
The Police and Crime Commissioner for Wiltshire by-election will be held in August ( https://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/news/pcc-election-update). I don't know if we will have an article for it. I'm not sure we need one, give the potential for a record breaking low turnout. (The West Midlands PCC by-election turnout barely touched 10%). doktorb words deeds 11:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I've found a high chance of WP:COI.
Look at these contributions.
Westminster Digital is a digital marketing agency which has done work for Boris Johnson and other high profile figures.
The founder of Westminster Digital, Craig Dillon was added to Sky News presenters and editorial team, Daniel Radcliffe, List of alumni of the University of Westminster, Lord Voldemort.
It created the page for Westminster Digital and has edited it 4 other times.
This account created a page for Daniel Janner and has included him in several articles. 1 2. Some claim Daniel Janner has hired Dillon and Westminster Digital. Claim 1 Claim 2.
Good chance this account is either Dillon himself or a staffer from Westminster Digital. I suggest a high chance of WP:COI.
Nexus000 ( talk) 08:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
With the release of the report on the Conservative Islamophobia inquiry, Islamophobia in the UK Conservative Party (1997–present) could do with a major review and/or rehaul of content. I've tried to update the page but I haven't read the report; if anyone has any edits to make to the article I'd greatly appreciate it. -- Bangalamania ( talk) 12:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
See /info/en/?search=Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Conservative_Party#Deleted_passages for several sourced passages deleted from the Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party article that would benefit from more eyes (only the deleter and me have expressed an opinion so hard to reach a consensus. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 09:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I was carrying out some edits on Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and First Secretary of State and I couldn't find a single template for lists of office holders. Is there one and, if not, could we establish one? FollowTheTortoise ( talk) 16:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Brian Rose recently stood in the 2020 London Mayoral election. Now that is over, there is discussion over his article and more input would be useful. The main discussion is at Talk:Brian_Rose_(podcaster)#Promoting_COVID-19_information. All thoughts welcome. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Article on govt minister who got a life peerage in retirement. Should his coat of arms be included?
Discussion at Talk:John Moore, Baron Moore of_Lower Marsh#Arms. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
From an article in today's Guardian reporting on a legal judgement that is highly critical of this entity:
[Judge] Hughes said the Cabinet Office had offered an out-of-date Wikipedia entry as evidence that information about the Clearing House was available to the public.
Rather than attempt a rapid update, I felt it might be (more) helpful to post here. 86.186.168.129 ( talk) 15:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
There's been some good work on the forthcoming local elections in different regions. However, if you go to, for example, 2021_Hartlepool_Borough_Council_election#Council_composition, you will see one of these bars to show the current composition of the council:
4 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 |
C | Lab | IU | SL | VP | FB | Ind | Vacant |
We have previously agreed to never use these. They are fundamentally broken: they do not display properly on some screens in some situations. The arrow indicating halfway gets misplaced. The size of the subsections can go wrong because Wikipedia will never make the section smaller than the text within it. They mostly work on big screens, but most people read Wikipedia on smartphones.
So, can we go through and replace these? Bondegezou ( talk) 09:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Warrenlm has been doing commendable work on 2021 Hyndburn Borough Council election, 2019 Hyndburn Borough Council election, 2018 Hyndburn Borough Council election etc. However, they have included the dreaded bar graphics on all these articles and are reluctant to remove them. Can we have some more input on what to do, here or at Talk:2021 Hyndburn Borough Council election? Thanks. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The infobox is in the wrong format. Further information is needed to raise it from stub level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorious68 ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I have raised concern, see talk:politics of the United Kingdom as the infobox uses the American style of Government referring to the United Kingdom's legislative, executive and judicial branches. The UK does not have branches of Government, just the Government which are made up of Ministers of the Crown. Particularly with regards to the judiciary, it should not even be mentioned in the infobox as they are not like in the US a 'co-equal branch' they have little power due to Parliamentary Sovereignty. Parliament should still be mentioned but, in my opinion, not under the heading of 'legislative branch' as Parliament is not a branch of anything. It could come under the term, legislature. Government, Parliament and the judiciary are in the UK not branches of anything but different entities. Unlike in the US, where they all come under the term Government, being called, executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch. Thanks DukeLondon ( talk) 20:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey all
Right, let's get the headers out and see how this goes.
Context
Over many years here, I've held one view quite closely and that is: not all political parties are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Since the creation of the Register of Political Parties, it's become common for articles to be created on the basis of "if they're registered, they're notable", and that has not sat well with me. In the run-up to elections, and we've seen this in 2021, editors create articles for political parties before they've contested any elections or achieved something notable. We've seen Freedom Alliance (UK) deleted through AfD, which was right, and Alba Party retained, because the latter was created in the run up to the elections and has enough surrounding it to be clearly notable. Freedom have appeared from nowhere and the article only appeared for promotional/campaigning purposes. The same is true of the Northern Independence Party article, which should have been deleted having been re-created from a successful AfD and was subject to off-Wiki campaigning/canvassing.
We have, over the years, a run of successful AfDs for political parties. I don't accept the argument that people are missing out because they can't see a Wikipedia article about the Miss Great Britain Party, or the Friends Party, or whoever. If parties are hardly gaining any votes in elections, they're unlikely to get people rushing to Wikipedia for information. My view has always been summarised as: if you're a political party that needs to use Wikipedia as a blog/campaign site, that you've failed as a political party.
In the run-up to elections, editors want their political party to gain attention and support. Wikipedia is still used as a tool for minor parties wanting to promote themselves. This is why Northern Independence Party canvassed off-Wiki. This is why IP editors are attracted to the Brexit/Reform article.
I think we have seen the consequence of so many successful AfDs in the lack of an article for George Galloway's Workers Party, and how long it took for the Heritage Party to gain an article. I think the successful AfD for Freedom Alliance shows that the community can see that political parties have to do more than just existing and campaigning to gain an article.
Previous proposal
Many years ago - 2008 in fact - I drew up a proposal for political party article notability rules. These were not in place to override GNG. They were proposed to work alongside GNG. The proposal had seven "clauses":
Possible proposal
The above is over 10 years old. Wikipedia has changed since. And Wikipedian attitudes towards bureaucracy has changed. I accept that we might not be able to agree on a policy with seven complex, over-lapping clauses.
I would still like to focus on the Electoral, Lineage, Campaign, and Registration clauses. These tie-in with general notability guidelines, and should not be too contentious.
Discussion
I know that some editors and I will never agree on this matter. I want to find some kind of agreement because, if nothing else, I've been on this ride since proposing the above clauses back when I was very, very younger. To keep going on about this, and without solution, might seem like I've wasted my life. But that's Wikipedia for you! doktorb words deeds 08:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
A party that has an indisputable, clear, and certain importance in a state's political, cultural or social history, is regarded as notable.I can't tell whether this is just a long way of asking "does it pass WP:GNG?", or a different metric altogether. If it's the latter, then it seems like a very high bar to jump - you're saying that a party has to be nationally significant in some way to be notable? There are plenty of local residents' associations (for example), that wouldn't be considered to have an
indisputable, clear, and certain importance in a state's political, cultural or social history, but are nevertheless seen as notable due to other factors. I suppose point 6 acts as somewhat of a disclaimer to this (
Not being successful in any election does not necessarily mean the party is not notable), but it still doesn't give a clear idea of what exactly a party needs to have in terms of local representation, longevity, source coverage, etc, in order to be notable.
Evening all
I'd like to amend Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) so it also encompasses article titles which are suffixed by "(Scottish Parliament constituency)" and "(Senedd Cymru constituency)". I'm fairly certain that we'll have little opposition to this but I am aware changes must be discussed and considered beforehand so here we are. doktorb words deeds 21:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I would appreciate some assistance on Cash for curtains disputed allegations. It is appearing difficult to reach consensus around a neutral point of view. Any intervention from more experienced Wikipedians would be much appreciated. RoanokeVirginia ( talk) 20:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I've recently been researching the oldest living former MPs, and User:Andrew Gray has helpfully replied to me at Talk:Records of members of parliament of the United Kingdom#Longest-lived MP with something along the lines of what I was going to propose here: a Wiki list article of every living former MP. Andrew makes it 1074 former MPs who are currently living - might this be too much for one page? A Wikidata list he links to here has them listed.
I originally began researching this when Ronald Atkins died, and Records of members of parliament of the United Kingdom hadn't been updated with the new record holder for the oldest living former MP. Someone had added the fact to the article for Patrick Duffy - unsourced, but after I had manually checked the last House of Commons list of living former MPs (and then the Lords, who they left off the list), Duffy clearly was the new record holder. I've alerted the local press to the story, and the Doncaster Free Press has now covered it (so that link is now added as a reference to verify the claim). I believe the reporter is going to interview Sir Patrick. I expanded his article substantially after learning of his feat, as it seemed to be quite sparse before. I also researched a list of every living former MP over 89. As time goes on, the Wikidata list should help us keep track of who the oldest living former MPs are, but I think it deserves a Wikipedia list article of its own. Any thoughts? -- TrottieTrue ( talk) 22:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
{{sort|Wainwright, Alfred|[[Alfred Wainwright]]}}
. To fix the date there's something like data-sort-type=date
but when I tried adding that about half the table sorted properly by date and then the lower part of the table didn't work: I don't really understand this complex table. But it must be doable. Good luck.
Pam
D
00:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
That's an interesting one: I think it should be possible to do something like that. Here's a couple of options - first option groups party & seat, second decouples them, third uses the elections approach from the deaths list rather than giving dates.
Name | Born | First day in Parliament | Last day in Parliament | Representing | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rosemary McKenna | 8 May 1941 | 1 May 1997 | 12 Apr 2010 | Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Labour, 1997-2005)
Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Labour, 2005-2010) | |
Kelvin Hopkins | 22 Aug 1941 | 1 May 1997 | 6 Nov 2019 | Luton North (Labour, 1997-2017)
Luton North (independent, 2017-2019) | |
Angela Watkinson | 18 Nov 1941 | 7 Jun 2001 | 3 May 2017 | Upminster (Conservative, 2001-2010)
Hornchurch and Upminster (Conservative, 2010-2017) |
Name | Born | First day in Parliament | Last day in Parliament | Party | Constituency | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rosemary McKenna | 8 May 1941 | 1 May 1997 | 12 Apr 2010 | Labour | Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (1997-2005)
Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (2005-2010) | |
Kelvin Hopkins | 22 Aug 1941 | 1 May 1997 | 6 Nov 2019 | Labour (1997-2017)
independent (2017-2019) |
Luton North | |
Angela Watkinson | 18 Nov 1941 | 7 Jun 2001 | 3 May 2017 | Conservative | Upminster (2001-2010)
Hornchurch and Upminster (2010-2017) |
Name | Born | First day in Parliament | Last day in Parliament | Party | Constituency | Elections won | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rosemary McKenna | 8 May 1941 | 1 May 1997 | 12 Apr 2010 | Labour | Cumbernauld and Kilsyth
Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East |
1997, 2001, 2005 | |
Kelvin Hopkins | 22 Aug 1941 | 1 May 1997 | 6 Nov 2019 | Labour
independent |
Luton North | 1997, 2001, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2017 | |
Angela Watkinson | 18 Nov 1941 | 7 Jun 2001 | 3 May 2017 | Conservative | Upminster
Hornchurch and Upminster |
2001, 2005, 2010, 2015 |
The columns for party & seat are notionally sortable, but in practice will only ever sort by whatever the first entry in the field is. I've done colour here by "most significant" party, but we could also do it by "party at time of leaving". I suspect whatever approach we use here will be a bit imperfect. The other approach to add colour would be to ditch the party colour tags and add thumbnail headshots instead. Andrew Gray ( talk) 17:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
A quick update: I've almost finished checking the party data and should be ready to generate the draft table in the next couple of days. List of LGBT politicians in the United Kingdom is a pretty good model, so we could do something like this -
Image | Name | Born | Gender | Party | Constituency | Country | First day in Parliament | Last day in Parliament | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[img] | Rosemary McKenna | 8 May 1941 | Female | Labour | Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (1997-2005); Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (2005-2010) | Scotland | 1 May 1997 | 12 Apr 2010 | |
[img] | Kelvin Hopkins | 22 Aug 1941 | Male | Labour (1997-2017) | Luton North | England | 1 May 1997 | 6 Nov 2019 | |
Independent (2017-2019) | |||||||||
[img] | Angela Watkinson | 18 Nov 1941 | Female | Conservative | Upminster (2001-2010); Hornchurch and Upminster (2010-2017) | England | 7 Jun 2001 | 3 May 2017 |
So we have country, gender and image added. Constituency is in a single cell; party is split to allow for colours which means that people will get split across multiple lines if resorted. We could avoid this by making party (and seat?) unsortable columns - I guess it depends on how you see people using it. I've added notes to party and seat with dates unless they were the same for the full career. Do we want a "notes" field as well (eg to add things like Lords membership, note breaks in service, etc?) Andrew Gray ( talk) 23:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
"The following is a list of living former Members of Parliament (MPs) of the United Kingdom." The rest is self-evident, surely? Although nothing to stop others editing it to add more in future. If you have any examples of similar pages with longer introductions, which I could emulate, then let me know.-- TrottieTrue ( talk) 00:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Just commenting here to stop it slipping off the main page. Hope to hear more soon. TrottieTrue ( talk) 18:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
RE the PM's recent announcement: I have just moved Proposed COVID-19 inquiry in the United Kingdom from draft to mainspace. If anyone on this project could give this a read through, make some copyedits if needed, and make sure everything is accurate then that would be very much appreciated ☺️ – Bangalamania ( talk) 13:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
This weekend is one of this project's biggest ever challenges.
We're going to have to edit a lot of results, across hundreds of pages, and deal with everybody from enthusiastic newbies to biased IP editors, and everyone in-between. Don't rush, or panic, or lose focus. And don't turn editing results pages into a second job. If the media rely on us to give them results boxes for screengrabbing, that's on them, not on us. Be good and safe and calm, and we should get through this. Virtual pints (or your drink of choice) next week in thanks.
doktorb words deeds 06:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
User @
Sparkle1: has removed party leaders from, specifically, all Leeds Council election articles. Their edit summary is "standard practice is not to include this unneeded, unnecessary, unwanted, unhelpful information
". I can't find at first hand any discussion about removing this information, and I'm concerned by the thesaurus of negativity used to justify the edits. Can we just have a discussion to confirm if these edits are right and their reasons are correct?
doktorb
words
deeds
10:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
With multi-member constituencies it can be hard to determine precisely who succeeds whom, except for when a member resigns mid-parliament. This leaves us with a problem when writing infoboxes as we either have to leave the |predecessor and |successor fields blank or to invent a convention -if the legislature itself doesn't have laid out- to decide which names to put in. The system I would recommend is to list the candidates in the order in which they were elected, cross out those continuing and then pair up the remainders.
To take the Mid & West Wales region for the Welsh Parliament as an example, the additional members for the last two elections were:
2016 | 2021 |
---|---|
Neil Hamilton (UKIP) | |
Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru) | Cefin Campbell (Plaid Cymru) |
Jane Dodds (Liberal Democrat) |
It happens that Joyce Watson got reeled off in second place both times, but Eluned Morgan has moved from fourth to first. By application of my system we would say that Watson and Morgan both continued in office while Campbell succeeded Hamilton and Dodds succeeded Thomas.
This applies to D'Hont (or block vote) style elections, when the party determines the order of their candidates within the list but then the votes - and the application of the formula - determines the order in which different parties' candidates are elected. With single transferable vote we should arrange them by who is declared elected first - and, if more than one member wins in the same round, then by who got the most votes in that round. With multi-member plurality voting (or "first, second and third past the post") we should order winning candidates by how many votes they individually received.
From what I have seen it looks as if this could be what most editors are doing already but I can't be entirely sure. Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 12:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
We need to indicate their membership somehow, otherwise we imply that multi-member offices are inherently less noteworthy than single-member ones. It would be a bit strange if the constituency MSs had it listed in their infoboxes but the regional MSs didn't. I remember there was a discussion of a similar nature some years back about MPs and peers: Members of the House of Commons had their term, constituency, predecessor and successor clearly listed but members of the House of Lords did not. There was a move to add succession boxes for the latter as well, perhaps in recognition that the invention of retirement and expulsion meant that life peerage was no longer synonymous with membership (hereditary peerage never was). In these instances there are no predecessors or successors listed (except for Lords Spiritual and hereditaries who win by-elections) since each life peerage is separate from the others and there is no fixed membership quota so we don't have any sense of one peer directly replacing another as MPs do. I still think we should think of something for the others (MEPs, MSPs, MLAs, AMs, MSs), though, as they do have defined (if broader than one) numbers and constituencies, so if X new members are elected for any seat then logically X old members are leaving. As I said, it looks as if the system I propose is already what most editors are doing for these pages but I just wanted to make sure. Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 13:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm noticing that flag icons are being added to the top of infoboxes of political offices (such as Leader of the Opposition (United Kingdom), Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom), etc.) for what appears to be purely decorative purposes. (Pinging @ Daran755: who seems to be making the edits.) Unless there is a consensus I missed somewhere, MOS:DECOR and MOS:INFOBOXFLAG would apply - unless the icons serve an encyclopedic purpose there is no point in adding them. WildComet ( talk) 14:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Zack Polanski is one of the new London Assembly members. There's been some heated discussion/editing on the article, including by me, so some more input from others would be helpful at Talk:Zack Polanski. He's someone who has been politically active for several years, but at a low level, so there's not a lot of RS. There are three particular points of contention:
1. Polanski was David Paulden. I don't know why he changed his name, but we have early statements of candidates that show that. We said this in the article. One editor has removed this, describing it as "deadnaming". We have MOS:DEADNAME, but that applies to people who have changed their gender identity, which is not the case here. How do we handle someone's prior name when it doesn't have much coverage in RS, but which wasn't changed because of a change in gender identity?
2. There is a "scandal" in Polanski's past. He cooperated with The Sun for a story in 2013 about whether hypnotherapy can make your breasts bigger. (He's a hypnotherapist.) This came to light more recently and he apologised for it. We have RS coverage of the apology. Obviously The Sun is not RS, but I had included a link to the original Sun article as we are allowed to link to non-RS articles when they have become the topic themselves. I've since removed that link following Talk discussion. Should we be covering this story at all? If so, how should we cover it?
3. There's also been some back and forth on how to cover Polanski's non-political career (as an actor and hypnotherapist). How much space and what prominence should we give to these matters when Polanski is notable as a politician rather than as an actor or hypnotherapist?
Any input welcome. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
The Police and Crime Commissioner for Wiltshire by-election will be held in August ( https://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/news/pcc-election-update). I don't know if we will have an article for it. I'm not sure we need one, give the potential for a record breaking low turnout. (The West Midlands PCC by-election turnout barely touched 10%). doktorb words deeds 11:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I've found a high chance of WP:COI.
Look at these contributions.
Westminster Digital is a digital marketing agency which has done work for Boris Johnson and other high profile figures.
The founder of Westminster Digital, Craig Dillon was added to Sky News presenters and editorial team, Daniel Radcliffe, List of alumni of the University of Westminster, Lord Voldemort.
It created the page for Westminster Digital and has edited it 4 other times.
This account created a page for Daniel Janner and has included him in several articles. 1 2. Some claim Daniel Janner has hired Dillon and Westminster Digital. Claim 1 Claim 2.
Good chance this account is either Dillon himself or a staffer from Westminster Digital. I suggest a high chance of WP:COI.
Nexus000 ( talk) 08:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
With the release of the report on the Conservative Islamophobia inquiry, Islamophobia in the UK Conservative Party (1997–present) could do with a major review and/or rehaul of content. I've tried to update the page but I haven't read the report; if anyone has any edits to make to the article I'd greatly appreciate it. -- Bangalamania ( talk) 12:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
See /info/en/?search=Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Conservative_Party#Deleted_passages for several sourced passages deleted from the Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party article that would benefit from more eyes (only the deleter and me have expressed an opinion so hard to reach a consensus. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 09:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I was carrying out some edits on Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and First Secretary of State and I couldn't find a single template for lists of office holders. Is there one and, if not, could we establish one? FollowTheTortoise ( talk) 16:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Brian Rose recently stood in the 2020 London Mayoral election. Now that is over, there is discussion over his article and more input would be useful. The main discussion is at Talk:Brian_Rose_(podcaster)#Promoting_COVID-19_information. All thoughts welcome. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Article on govt minister who got a life peerage in retirement. Should his coat of arms be included?
Discussion at Talk:John Moore, Baron Moore of_Lower Marsh#Arms. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
From an article in today's Guardian reporting on a legal judgement that is highly critical of this entity:
[Judge] Hughes said the Cabinet Office had offered an out-of-date Wikipedia entry as evidence that information about the Clearing House was available to the public.
Rather than attempt a rapid update, I felt it might be (more) helpful to post here. 86.186.168.129 ( talk) 15:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)