![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Wasn't there a northern woman MP who killed herself? 82.13.186.89 ( talk) 16:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I am reviewing the good article nomination of the article Scottish independence referendum, 2014. The nominator is busy with other things at the moment and so I am looking for other editors to help improve the article to good article quality in the next few days. If you would like to help, please address some of the issues I raised in the review. Thanks! Wugapodes ( talk) 21:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I would appreciate input from experienced editors with an interest in British politics at Talk:Zac Goldsmith#Electoral spending section concerning WP:NPOV and style/wording issues. AusLondonder ( talk) 00:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
On 24th January somebody installed into Wikipedia a program that automatically fills empty boxes in the project's election tables with the notation 'N/A'. This was presumably done to indicate that information is 'Not available'. This indication is unnecessary and discourages this information from being obtained by another editor. It is also confusing because many of the project's editors have been using the notation 'N/A' to represent 'Not applicable'. The two meanings are different. The use of 'N/A' for 'Not applicable' represents a state of completion. Can someone investigate who installed this program and get it out of our project's election tables please. Graemp ( talk) 09:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
You all do impugn your own statements. We edit Wikipedia, someone comes to Wikipedia to read something and we state information. If there’s N/A written there it actually does have full meaning of "not available" (not "not applicable" – "not applicable" doesn’t make sense at all).
If an editor had had data he/she would have entered it so it would be available for Wikipedia reader to see it, but if it’s not the case – we can state "not available" ("not available for you who are reading this here").
However, I will take my edit back, and just omit "N/A" till confusion that doesn’t exist gets cleared out.
I suppose you all guys haven’t seen
this so you reverted my edit, and got back {{{change}}}
for "±%" and maybe other field back in the game.
PS It is not that "somebody installed into Wikipedia a program that automatically fills empty boxes" but only a morsel of code has been added to fix a little let’s say bug or much better omission of the template code that had caused template not to work properly. -- Obsuser ( talk) 19:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Why do you use italics for names and why do you use - instead of – or — when info is not available or not entered? I can alter the code so whenever - is entered — will get displayed (same for italics, it can be turned off).
We can combine something so shaded grey field with — is always displayed when (proper) number’s not been entered (only applicable to Election box templates, not raw tables which should be corrected by bot). -- Obsuser ( talk) 19:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
{{{change}}}
. It's just that we can't display N/A instead.{{{change}}}
, you've detected and reported the problem with the fix, others figured out what had happened, Obsuser has listened and produced an improved version, and that's all happened very quickly. I find it all quite heartening!
NebY (
talk)
23:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)To conclude, I will remove shading so only omission will be fixed i.e. {{{change}}}
won’t ge displayed when nothing is entered.
@ Graemp: How can you say you wouldn’t improve anything if there was an omission? Please don’t "protect" anything in a way you are doing it right now.
@ NebY: You actually haven’t said anything in your comment of 20:24. I know all of that and what do you point out. However, confusion cannot exist because N/A is not referring to the outside data whether it exists or not but on internal availability of such (maybe) existing data.
If someone wants to point out data cannot be entered because it actually doesn’t exist (not because it’s simply not entered) then it would be convenient to use special message or abbreviation or small-number-note with legend below.
On .sr it is not practice to discuss two-three days about changing one letter in a template. Why? Because if a problem occurs, it will get noticed and template will get fixed (like in this case happened). Only major changes should be discussed before applying Be bold. If we discuss every single change we couldn’t work neither in namespace article nor template as we do.-- Obsuser ( talk) 23:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps on the Serbian Wikipedia the risks are - at present - smaller. At the moment, it has 330,862 articles and 979 active editors. This Wikipedia has 5,065,822 content articles and 125,701 active editors (see sr:Посебно:Статистике and SPECIAL:STATISTICS). NebY ( talk) 10:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I have recently become involved with the article David Lloyd George trying to cleanup some style issues. The article is a hodgepodge of different citation styles and per WP:CITEVAR a consensus needs to be reached for what style is best to use in this article. Would members of this WikiProject please visit the Talk page for the article and make suggestions on this matter under Section 14: Citation Style issues? Thank you. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 03:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:43rd Canadian federal election#Requested move 9 February 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, AusLondonder ( talk) 04:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Could someone help out سعد علی خان with the Gilgit-Baltistan Legislative Assembly constituency articles that they've been creating, specifically the election box formatting? For a relatively new editor, they are doing a decent job on them, but it seems the wrong election box segments are being used as the number of columns in the results tables on the articles is often inconsistent. I'm aware this isn't a UK politics issue, but I know a few editors on this project are familiar with them (I'm not!). Cheers, Number 5 7 21:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! I'm quite familiar with UK politics but wonder if anyone could advise whether I've listed Joanna Shields on the right page? It seems to me that Shields was a relatively minor US businesswoman but is now much better known as a UK peer. However the article emphasises her US connections and is written largely written by WP:SPAs. Any help or comments appreciated. JRPG ( talk) 19:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The Liberal Unionist Party split from the Liberal party in 1886 and informally supported the Conservative Party in parliament until they officially merged in 1912. The infoboxes and results tables for United Kingdom general election, 1886 to United Kingdom general election, January 1910 show them as a formal coalition. Besides being generally incorrect, this was particularly confusing for 1892, where the Liberals won the plurality of seats and formed a minority government supported by the Irish Parliamentary Party. I've fixed the Infoboxes for 1886 and 1892, but I didn't fix the result tables nor the elections of 1895, 1900, 1906, Jan 1910 and Dec 1910. Vagary ( talk) 18:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
We have various lists of MPs for the 2015-2020 period in Category:Lists of UK MPs 2015–20 but we don't seem to have one that simply supports the numbers in the infobox in Parliament of the United Kingdom. List of United Kingdom MPs by seniority, 2015–20 comes close but includes deceased MPs and still shows the original party of those who have resigned the whip so you have to apply the changes from List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2015#Changes. Would it be sensible to create one at List of current United Kingdom MPs by party (now a redirect to List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2010)? -- Cavrdg ( talk) 19:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Done -- Cavrdg ( talk) 16:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Reminder that Results of the United Kingdom general election, 2015 by parliamentary constituency article is unfinished yet important to many.
James Tamim ( talk) 21:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
a new info box has for uk elections has been proposed on the 2015 uk election take page with the sogestion that it be implemented on all uk elections for consistency between all uk election articles 2.28.220.166 ( talk) 10:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
When a member of the House of Lords retires, does his term end on the date of retirement or the day before? I looked through the Wikipedia articles of all the former House of Lord members who retired in the last year (going by the list on parliament.uk) – the only Wikipedia article that even bothered to list term dates is Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon, where this question came up.
Editor FIN argues that since "he retired under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. You can see the text of the Act here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/24/enacted/data.htm House of Lords Reform Act 2014 states (1 Resignation, subsection 3): 'At the beginning of that date [retirement date] the peer ceases to be a member of the House of Lords.' Because a retirement under the Act takes effect immediately at the beginning of the retirement date on midnight, the last day when a retired peer was a member of the House was the day preceding his or her retirement day. In this case, the Earl of Snowdon retired on 31 March and his last day as a member was therefore 30 March."
While I can see Editor FIN's argument, it doesn't change the retirement date is the only given date and the official date. It's standard practice on Wikipedia to list the end date as the same as retirement date. The few news articles I could find online only listed the retirement date. Also, it's just makes logical sense that retirement date = end date.
I'd like to get other's opinions on this. Also, for consistency, have this decision be project wide instead of just on that one article. Thank you, 15zulu ( talk) 20:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for not showing up until yet but I had little time the last couple of days (and enwiki is not my homewiki). So just shortly: maybe I am too formalistic here but if the official parliamentary documents state the resignation as such (in respect of the Earl of Snowdon 31 March) I don't think we should overwrite it. Cassandro ( talk) 10:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm opening this discussion up again as I seem to recall we didn't reach a consensus last time. There is some disagreement over the styling of candidates in election boxes, specifically two main issues - full names and titles:
1. Full names for candidates with articles My view is that we should only use common names (as specified in the article title per WP:COMMONNAME) in the election box, so in Woodford (UK Parliament constituency) we would use Winston Churchill rather than Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, and in Tatton (UK Parliament constituency), Neil Hamilton instead of Mostyn Neil Hamilton. And we should try to link to the actual article itself using a piped link rather than linking to a redirect page - so for example in Bury St Edmunds (UK Parliament constituency) the 1929 Liberal candidate should be [[Dar Lyon]] rather than [[Malcolm Douglas Lyon]] which is a redirect to the Dar Lyon article. I think that for well-known politicians it is unnecessarily confusing to use non-commonly used names, and a proliferation of middle names can make the election boxes look unwieldy.
2. Full names of candidate without their own articles Again, my preference is for a commonly used name (where known) and for Forename (+ possibly middle initial) Surname, or Initials + Surname. The problem we have here is that different sources use different formats (especially for historical elections - for current/recent elections determining a common name is fairly easy).
3. Titles of candidates I don't think we should use titles at all. Firstly, titles such as Rt Hon and Sir can change - someone could be a Rt Hon at one election having not been one previously, and again this makes it confusing as it can look like two different people. Secondly, adding Mrs/Miss for women is completely wrong. It may well have been commonplace in the past, but that does not make it right, and I don't think we should be spreading the prejudices of the 1950s around wikipedia.
Frinton100 ( talk) 23:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
If an editor does not know the maiden name, they will not then be helped by having a title and full name, given they don't know the surname of the person they are searching for. And I would think that maiden name and (rough) date of marriage - if applicable - are fairly basic pieces of information that are needed for any half-decent biog. Rather than adding lots of scraps of information that may or may not be useful to someone creating an article, I still think we need a step back to consider the usefulness of the information to the average reader. I still no use for full names when a candidate has their own article, or for the use of title, especially gender-specific ones like Miss, Mrs or Ms. I'm thinking an RfC may be the way to go on this to generate more interest. Frinton100 ( talk) 01:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
How should candidate names be displayed in election boxes: 1. Should we use common names or full names? (E.g. Margaret Thatcher or Margaret Hilda Thatcher; Harold Wilson or James Harold Wilson). And, 2. Should we use titles e.g. Mrs/Miss/Ms/Dr/Rt Hon etc. Frinton100 ( talk) 23:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
RfC follows on from discussion above which hasn't reached a consensus. Frinton100 ( talk) 23:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I remain in favour of using full names with a wikilink to the relevant article, if one exists. This seems a sensible way forward and reflects the practice of using full names for electoral purposes. Macs15 ( talk) 23:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Macs15 that we should always use the fullest name available, such as Winston Spencer Churchill rather than Winston Churchill to distinguish from Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill which is crucial when we are dealing with non-linked candidates. Also for the reasons detailed above, specifically to assist with subsequent IDing. Marital status titles should be used for non-linked candidates to assist with subsequent IDing, as detailed above. Graemp ( talk) 06:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Common names are better. Full names are a pain when they produce something unfamiliar ("John Jeremy Durham Ashdown"). Also in the modern age returning officers are terrible about what is and isn't a common name - some will allow the tidying away of middle names, others won't - and also over what goes in the declaration. Stick to making the candidates identifiable. Timrollpickering ( talk) 22:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
This page sets out guidelines for achieving visual and textual consistency in biographical articles and in biographical information in other articles...— Nizolan (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Across the debate above and the one last year on the same topic, we seem to have a majority in favour of using common names - at least for linked candidates - and against using titles. However, this is not 100%, so how about the following compromise based on a couple of the ideas contributed above:
For linked candidates - we use their commonly used name at the time of the election (i.e. the title we would give to their article if we were producing it at the time of the election (per WP:COMMONNAME - minus any disambiguations)
For un-linked candidates - we use any form of the name that is given in a RS. For current/recent elections this will normally be the ballot paper name or the name used by the candidate in their publicity. For historic elections there are various sources for this information. Formats could include Full Name, Forename Surname, Initials Surname, Forename Middle-initial Surname.
In all cases titles should not be used per WP:HONORIFIC. This includes Mrs/Miss/Ms, Dr/Prof/Rev, Sir/Rt Hon and others
Pinging everyone who has contributed to the discussion this time round for views on this - @ Macs15, AusLondonder, Graemp, Timrollpickering, Number 57, Nizolan, Warofdreams, and Cordless Larry: Frinton100 ( talk) 19:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Hundreds of pages on UK elections are referenced simply to a title, with or without "Craig", e.g.:
Though these should all ideally be replaced with complete bibliographic references, such a massive task is unlikely ever to be accomplished manually. Since I have no experience in constructing bots, I have written Template: Craig, which can be quickly pasted after such references. It simply says
I am not offering to do this, but this seems the right place to mention the issue and offer a possible solution. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. -- Thnidu ( talk) 15:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello all, There's been an almost constant discussion on the appropriate infobox for the United Kingdom general election, 2015 since the results came in, with the Lib Dems reduced to 8 MPs, the SNP becoming the 3rd party, the large votes of UKIP and Greens, etc. There's a broad agreement that we're not particularly content with the current infobox options available to us to adequately display this, but that there's value in consistency with other UK election infoboxes. We like the use of leader pictures which UK election infoboxes currently encourage, but several people are broadly unhappy with the apparently arbitrary distinctions which are made between whether a party 'counts' as important enough for an infobox. While other 'multi-party' elections from the eg 1920s have gone for extending that infobox, there are concerns with the use of this: for example, in an election for seats, how can we justify including UKIP (3.8 million votes, 1 seat) at the expense of the SDLP (under 100,000 votes, 3 seats)? Yet if we have the SDLP and not UKIP, we're probably misrepresenting the election. The point here is that we've found the existing infobox to have significant limitations.
Recent discussion has lead to the production of a table, which I and a group of others feel has the possibility of offering a new infobox for, at the very least, all UK General Elections. It's an effort to compromise between 'table' based infoboxes that list all parties which won seats, and the 'leader' based infoboxes that prioritise the leading parties. The advantage I think is that it nicely focuses on both the parliamentary element and the prime ministerial element of a general election:
2010← | ![]() |
→
2020 or before | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Election of the 56th Parliament of the United Kingdom 7 May 2015 | |||||||||
Turnout: ![]() | |||||||||
Party Leader |
Votes Seats |
Swing Seat change | |||||||
![]() |
Conservative David Cameron for Witney |
11,334,576 | 36.9% | ![]() | |||||
331 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
![]() |
Labour Ed Miliband for Doncaster North |
9,347,304 | 30.4% | ![]() | |||||
232 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
![]() |
SNP Nicola Sturgeon Did not stand |
1,454,436 | 4.7% | ![]() | |||||
56 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
![]() |
Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg for Sheffield Hallam |
2,415,862 | 7.9% | ![]() | |||||
8 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
![]() |
DUP Peter Robinson Did not stand |
184,260 | 1.2% | ![]() | |||||
8 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
![]() |
Sinn Féin Gerry Adams Did not stand |
176,232 | 0.6% | ![]() | |||||
4 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
![]() |
Plaid Cymru Leanne Wood Did not stand |
181,694 | 0.6% | ![]() | |||||
3 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
SDLP Alasdair McDonnell for Belfast South |
99,809 | 0.3% | ![]() | ||||||
3 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
UUP Mike Nesbitt Did not stand |
114,935 | 0.4% | |||||||
2 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
![]() |
UKIP Nigel Farage Standing in South Thanet |
3,881,009 | 12.6% | ![]() | |||||
1 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
Green Natalie Bennett Standing in Holborn and St Pancras |
1,157,613 | 3.8% | ![]() | ||||||
1 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
Independents and other parties |
251,805 | 0.8% | |||||||
1 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
![]() | |||||||||
Before |
![]() Prime Minister of the United Kingdom |
After | |||||||
David Cameron |
David Cameron | ||||||||
Con-LibDem coalition |
Conservative majority |
I'd be interested in some comments on this from the wider Wikiproject, with a view to initially rolling it out for General Elections (I'm not a historian, but my understanding is that the current infobox may remain more appropriate for pre-sufferage elections), and then looking at other forms of local and regional election in the UK after that. Super Nintendo Chalmers ( talk) 08:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015_by_parliamentary_constituency
James Tamim ( talk) 09:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello members of the project, I was wondering if a naming convention has ever been established for districts and boroughs in order to create articles on their individual councils. I've seen that most districts tend to be named just by the district name, but the districts and boroughs of Essex seem to be a confusing mish-mash. There are three districts which are unambiguously named without reference to any major settlements within their borders – Castle Point, Tendring and Uttlesford. But most of the other districts keep the word "district" in their titles in order to disambiguate them from the major town that gives the district its name – Braintree District, Maldon District, etc. In the case of Epping Forest the article title used to follow this naming convention, but was then renamed Epping Forest (district) which differentiates it from the forest and the constituency. Most of the boroughs are "Borough of xxxx"... and then we have Harlow and Southend-on-Sea which use the same article for both the town and the local authority. Any advice on sorting out this jumble? Richard3120 ( talk) 15:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
So Rhialto, if I understand you correctly, in this case Epping Forest (district) is the preferred title, and it is actually Braintree District that should be retitled Braintree (district), and the same for similar cases? Richard3120 ( talk) 17:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I do recall making those moves. There were several discussions regarding that and they would be in the archives of various talkpages. The moves were made along the lines that Number 57 mentions, that we prefer to use a natural disambiguation than brackets, also that something like Maldon District is in more common usage (such as here) than Maldon (district). Per WP:NCCS, we prefer such administrative names to be standard, so once we establish that Foo District is the preferred form then we use that over Foo (district), so any district articles using brackets should be moved, either to Foo District or Foo district, whichever is more appropriate (if I recall, my searches at the time threw up Foo District as the standard form, though the results tended to come from local authority websites which tend to use Camel Case more often than Wikipedia does). In the few cases where the district name is unique and notable and common usage is not to use Foo District or Foo district, just Foo, then we would follow that and name the article Foo. In the case of Epping Forest District, that was moved in March this year by User:Crookesmoor, and it might be useful to bring him into this discussion to find out why he made that move, and if he has done others in the same way. Usage of Epping Forest District is found on the local authority website [2], while usage of Epping Forest district is found in the local newspaper [3]. Rather than have some articles named Foo District while others are called Foo district, it would be worth getting some consensus on which way to go, and sticking with it. As we are talking about a formal name for an area which typically appears in camel case (Foo District), then I would vote for that as the simplest option, but Foo district is also acceptable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Please share your input in an RfC relating to what image should be used in the infobox at the Wikipedia page for the Leader of the British Labour Party AusLondonder ( talk) 09:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I am starting a RfC to gather consensus on how the newly-renamed Executive Office (Northern Ireland) should be referred to. The department was recently renamed from the Office of First Minister and deputy First Minister to the Executive Office, but this name is rather generic for use on Wikipedia. Should the department be referred to in the lead of articles as simply the Executive Office or the Executive Office of Northern Ireland. I'm asking because editors may take issue with a name other than the official name being used to introduce the department. st170e talk 17:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I am currently in the process of previously trying to write an article on the 1973 enlargement of the European Communities, I am struggling and would like to get some outside editors input. Please edit away if you are happy to collaborate. Sport and politics ( talk) 09:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
What should the order of the list of candidates in the infobox be? See Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Order of the list of candidates in the infobox Sparkie82 ( t• c) 11:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.
If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob Talk 01:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
There is sufficient independent notability for the first fatal attack on a British MP for a quarter of a century for a separate article. Coverage relating to the suspect and the motivation are not best covered in the biography of the victim. Please assist at Draft:Murder of Jo Cox AusLondonder ( talk) 02:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The following move request has been made
Please add your comments to the move discussion at talk:Batley and Spen (UK Parliament constituency) Keith D ( talk) 01:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 needs looking at. It isn't a bad article, but for such a high-profile topic it really should be clearer and easier to read. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 10:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Timjones86 has made a number of recent edits to UK election articles, mostly relating to the BNP. Some of these seem pointless to me. Some are changing election results with no citation given: I have reverted these, but if someone has time, it would be worth checking what the right figures are. If there are mistakes, they should of course be fixed. It would be helpful if other editors could review, or if Timjones86 could explain his/her rationale for these changes. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
all of my changes are all right and are all the facts. Timjones86 ( talk) 07:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
its not to be vandalism all I am trying to do is give the truth in the election results all the input comes from the wiki page British National Party election results and I am righting the wrong on the local elections so can you put it right then Bondegezou. Timjones86 ( talk) 08:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Any editors who happen to have spare time and an interest in British politics are asked to help develop the new premiership of Theresa May and May ministry articles. Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated. RGloucester — ☎ 18:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Wikimedia UK is hosting an edit-a-thon with the National Liberal Club on 24 August, on the history of Liberalism in the United Kingdom. The Club has a large archive of materials on Liberal history, which they have agreed to open up to Wikipedia editors for the day, to help improve relevant articles. Anyone interested in political history is welcome to attend. To find out more and register, please visit the event page. We hope you'll join us! -- Rock drum ( talk · contribs) 17:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The article 1841 vote of no confidence against the government of Sir Robert Peel makes little sense to me (see my note on its talk page). Could an expert from this project take a look please? Derek Andrews ( talk) 14:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Can some editors please take a look over Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2016 and try to tidy it up? This article is getting in a bit of a mess with reverts and the talkpage filling up with giant paragraphs. Timrollpickering ( talk) 12:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Would appreciate an assessment on this article. If there is an assessment request page for this project, could someone point me in its direction? Thanks! Christine Evangelou and others v Iain McNicol (Labour Party) - Shayday~enwiki ( talk) 18:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Please join a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traingate about the recent incident involving Jeremy Corbyn. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 18:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion open at Talk:British independence that may be of interest to members. Please feel free to add your thoughts. Thanks, This is Paul ( talk) 20:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Zigzig20s has added the Brexit position of a considerable number (all of them?) of Tory MPs to their BLP, using the reference: [1] This simply lists MPs on each side and doesn't single any of them out - with over a hundred on each side, I don't think this should be inserted into all the MPs BLPs unless their views are specifically discussed in a reliable secondary source. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 22:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
References
Please could I draw project members' attention to my Help Desk post seeking views on possible editing of articles on behalf of the House of Lords. Any contributions welcome. Ejgm ( talk) 12:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Jim McAllister (Irish republican)#Requested move 12 October 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Paine u/ c 18:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 6 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I popped here for a discussion on virtue signalling, but there doesn't appear to be one yet. I was surprised to discover though, right at the top of the talk page I arrived at, an example of the very subject; virtue signalling by Wikipedia editors on LGBT pride, a subject fraught with controversy and dissent, and one of the main virtue-signalling offences as far as I'm concerned. Homosexual;ity is normal and universal across mammalian species, gay lesbian if people prefer to split genders. There is bound still to be ignorance as with racism, but it's a minority and realy not an issue in UK society or politics. But ngay has no connection to a biological impossibility and clear mental disorder, the imaginary idea that anyone can be in a 'wrongly gendered' body. It's a version of body dysmorphia and known to psychiatrists and psychologists, and to call it anything else, and to encourage those who claim it, is abuse of vulnerable mental patients. Throughout history transvestites have existed so we could consider that normal also, and it really is down to freedom of choice. In some cultures transvestites have specific roles. The idea of transgender appeared, it would seem, correct me if I'm wrong, in California University gender studies departments, already awash with activism and with an agenda. It spread across the US and then, as they all do, leaked out to the rest of the Western world, via the UK, and has seen been spread with a combination of revivalist fervour and fascistic bullying that virtue signalling is a part of ever sincve. The Twitter mob mentality seems to have infected a whole generation, or perhaps two. Older, wiser, saner people don't accept trans for one minute, except for the political toadies all desperate to be politically correct and not to stray from the liberal-left dogma and their chatterati sidekicks in the media terrified of social media storms attacking them [specifically the BBC]. I observe as an anthropologist with no binary bias; left or right. Intolerance over this and other issues is climbing steadily. Politics is in chaos, and the Labour Party is degenerating into a virtue signalling gang of irrelevants, their attraction to the electorate waning the more they posture and refuse to listen. Discuss! PetePassword ( talk) 14:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I have added the new Conservative MSP to the table of additional members on North East Scotland (Scottish Parliament electoral region)#Regional List MSPs, but it still needs work. The column with Johnstone and Bowman isn't right, and I can't work out what to do with it. Other members are welcome to play around with it in my sandbox User:Frinton100/sandbox if that would help. Frinton100 ( talk) 19:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Public image of Margaret Thatcher. Comments are much welcome.-- Nevé – selbert 15:21, 29 December 2016 (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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Wasn't there a northern woman MP who killed herself? 82.13.186.89 ( talk) 16:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I am reviewing the good article nomination of the article Scottish independence referendum, 2014. The nominator is busy with other things at the moment and so I am looking for other editors to help improve the article to good article quality in the next few days. If you would like to help, please address some of the issues I raised in the review. Thanks! Wugapodes ( talk) 21:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I would appreciate input from experienced editors with an interest in British politics at Talk:Zac Goldsmith#Electoral spending section concerning WP:NPOV and style/wording issues. AusLondonder ( talk) 00:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
On 24th January somebody installed into Wikipedia a program that automatically fills empty boxes in the project's election tables with the notation 'N/A'. This was presumably done to indicate that information is 'Not available'. This indication is unnecessary and discourages this information from being obtained by another editor. It is also confusing because many of the project's editors have been using the notation 'N/A' to represent 'Not applicable'. The two meanings are different. The use of 'N/A' for 'Not applicable' represents a state of completion. Can someone investigate who installed this program and get it out of our project's election tables please. Graemp ( talk) 09:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
You all do impugn your own statements. We edit Wikipedia, someone comes to Wikipedia to read something and we state information. If there’s N/A written there it actually does have full meaning of "not available" (not "not applicable" – "not applicable" doesn’t make sense at all).
If an editor had had data he/she would have entered it so it would be available for Wikipedia reader to see it, but if it’s not the case – we can state "not available" ("not available for you who are reading this here").
However, I will take my edit back, and just omit "N/A" till confusion that doesn’t exist gets cleared out.
I suppose you all guys haven’t seen
this so you reverted my edit, and got back {{{change}}}
for "±%" and maybe other field back in the game.
PS It is not that "somebody installed into Wikipedia a program that automatically fills empty boxes" but only a morsel of code has been added to fix a little let’s say bug or much better omission of the template code that had caused template not to work properly. -- Obsuser ( talk) 19:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Why do you use italics for names and why do you use - instead of – or — when info is not available or not entered? I can alter the code so whenever - is entered — will get displayed (same for italics, it can be turned off).
We can combine something so shaded grey field with — is always displayed when (proper) number’s not been entered (only applicable to Election box templates, not raw tables which should be corrected by bot). -- Obsuser ( talk) 19:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
{{{change}}}
. It's just that we can't display N/A instead.{{{change}}}
, you've detected and reported the problem with the fix, others figured out what had happened, Obsuser has listened and produced an improved version, and that's all happened very quickly. I find it all quite heartening!
NebY (
talk)
23:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)To conclude, I will remove shading so only omission will be fixed i.e. {{{change}}}
won’t ge displayed when nothing is entered.
@ Graemp: How can you say you wouldn’t improve anything if there was an omission? Please don’t "protect" anything in a way you are doing it right now.
@ NebY: You actually haven’t said anything in your comment of 20:24. I know all of that and what do you point out. However, confusion cannot exist because N/A is not referring to the outside data whether it exists or not but on internal availability of such (maybe) existing data.
If someone wants to point out data cannot be entered because it actually doesn’t exist (not because it’s simply not entered) then it would be convenient to use special message or abbreviation or small-number-note with legend below.
On .sr it is not practice to discuss two-three days about changing one letter in a template. Why? Because if a problem occurs, it will get noticed and template will get fixed (like in this case happened). Only major changes should be discussed before applying Be bold. If we discuss every single change we couldn’t work neither in namespace article nor template as we do.-- Obsuser ( talk) 23:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps on the Serbian Wikipedia the risks are - at present - smaller. At the moment, it has 330,862 articles and 979 active editors. This Wikipedia has 5,065,822 content articles and 125,701 active editors (see sr:Посебно:Статистике and SPECIAL:STATISTICS). NebY ( talk) 10:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I have recently become involved with the article David Lloyd George trying to cleanup some style issues. The article is a hodgepodge of different citation styles and per WP:CITEVAR a consensus needs to be reached for what style is best to use in this article. Would members of this WikiProject please visit the Talk page for the article and make suggestions on this matter under Section 14: Citation Style issues? Thank you. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 03:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:43rd Canadian federal election#Requested move 9 February 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, AusLondonder ( talk) 04:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Could someone help out سعد علی خان with the Gilgit-Baltistan Legislative Assembly constituency articles that they've been creating, specifically the election box formatting? For a relatively new editor, they are doing a decent job on them, but it seems the wrong election box segments are being used as the number of columns in the results tables on the articles is often inconsistent. I'm aware this isn't a UK politics issue, but I know a few editors on this project are familiar with them (I'm not!). Cheers, Number 5 7 21:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! I'm quite familiar with UK politics but wonder if anyone could advise whether I've listed Joanna Shields on the right page? It seems to me that Shields was a relatively minor US businesswoman but is now much better known as a UK peer. However the article emphasises her US connections and is written largely written by WP:SPAs. Any help or comments appreciated. JRPG ( talk) 19:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The Liberal Unionist Party split from the Liberal party in 1886 and informally supported the Conservative Party in parliament until they officially merged in 1912. The infoboxes and results tables for United Kingdom general election, 1886 to United Kingdom general election, January 1910 show them as a formal coalition. Besides being generally incorrect, this was particularly confusing for 1892, where the Liberals won the plurality of seats and formed a minority government supported by the Irish Parliamentary Party. I've fixed the Infoboxes for 1886 and 1892, but I didn't fix the result tables nor the elections of 1895, 1900, 1906, Jan 1910 and Dec 1910. Vagary ( talk) 18:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
We have various lists of MPs for the 2015-2020 period in Category:Lists of UK MPs 2015–20 but we don't seem to have one that simply supports the numbers in the infobox in Parliament of the United Kingdom. List of United Kingdom MPs by seniority, 2015–20 comes close but includes deceased MPs and still shows the original party of those who have resigned the whip so you have to apply the changes from List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2015#Changes. Would it be sensible to create one at List of current United Kingdom MPs by party (now a redirect to List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2010)? -- Cavrdg ( talk) 19:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Done -- Cavrdg ( talk) 16:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Reminder that Results of the United Kingdom general election, 2015 by parliamentary constituency article is unfinished yet important to many.
James Tamim ( talk) 21:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
a new info box has for uk elections has been proposed on the 2015 uk election take page with the sogestion that it be implemented on all uk elections for consistency between all uk election articles 2.28.220.166 ( talk) 10:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
When a member of the House of Lords retires, does his term end on the date of retirement or the day before? I looked through the Wikipedia articles of all the former House of Lord members who retired in the last year (going by the list on parliament.uk) – the only Wikipedia article that even bothered to list term dates is Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon, where this question came up.
Editor FIN argues that since "he retired under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. You can see the text of the Act here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/24/enacted/data.htm House of Lords Reform Act 2014 states (1 Resignation, subsection 3): 'At the beginning of that date [retirement date] the peer ceases to be a member of the House of Lords.' Because a retirement under the Act takes effect immediately at the beginning of the retirement date on midnight, the last day when a retired peer was a member of the House was the day preceding his or her retirement day. In this case, the Earl of Snowdon retired on 31 March and his last day as a member was therefore 30 March."
While I can see Editor FIN's argument, it doesn't change the retirement date is the only given date and the official date. It's standard practice on Wikipedia to list the end date as the same as retirement date. The few news articles I could find online only listed the retirement date. Also, it's just makes logical sense that retirement date = end date.
I'd like to get other's opinions on this. Also, for consistency, have this decision be project wide instead of just on that one article. Thank you, 15zulu ( talk) 20:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for not showing up until yet but I had little time the last couple of days (and enwiki is not my homewiki). So just shortly: maybe I am too formalistic here but if the official parliamentary documents state the resignation as such (in respect of the Earl of Snowdon 31 March) I don't think we should overwrite it. Cassandro ( talk) 10:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm opening this discussion up again as I seem to recall we didn't reach a consensus last time. There is some disagreement over the styling of candidates in election boxes, specifically two main issues - full names and titles:
1. Full names for candidates with articles My view is that we should only use common names (as specified in the article title per WP:COMMONNAME) in the election box, so in Woodford (UK Parliament constituency) we would use Winston Churchill rather than Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, and in Tatton (UK Parliament constituency), Neil Hamilton instead of Mostyn Neil Hamilton. And we should try to link to the actual article itself using a piped link rather than linking to a redirect page - so for example in Bury St Edmunds (UK Parliament constituency) the 1929 Liberal candidate should be [[Dar Lyon]] rather than [[Malcolm Douglas Lyon]] which is a redirect to the Dar Lyon article. I think that for well-known politicians it is unnecessarily confusing to use non-commonly used names, and a proliferation of middle names can make the election boxes look unwieldy.
2. Full names of candidate without their own articles Again, my preference is for a commonly used name (where known) and for Forename (+ possibly middle initial) Surname, or Initials + Surname. The problem we have here is that different sources use different formats (especially for historical elections - for current/recent elections determining a common name is fairly easy).
3. Titles of candidates I don't think we should use titles at all. Firstly, titles such as Rt Hon and Sir can change - someone could be a Rt Hon at one election having not been one previously, and again this makes it confusing as it can look like two different people. Secondly, adding Mrs/Miss for women is completely wrong. It may well have been commonplace in the past, but that does not make it right, and I don't think we should be spreading the prejudices of the 1950s around wikipedia.
Frinton100 ( talk) 23:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
If an editor does not know the maiden name, they will not then be helped by having a title and full name, given they don't know the surname of the person they are searching for. And I would think that maiden name and (rough) date of marriage - if applicable - are fairly basic pieces of information that are needed for any half-decent biog. Rather than adding lots of scraps of information that may or may not be useful to someone creating an article, I still think we need a step back to consider the usefulness of the information to the average reader. I still no use for full names when a candidate has their own article, or for the use of title, especially gender-specific ones like Miss, Mrs or Ms. I'm thinking an RfC may be the way to go on this to generate more interest. Frinton100 ( talk) 01:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
How should candidate names be displayed in election boxes: 1. Should we use common names or full names? (E.g. Margaret Thatcher or Margaret Hilda Thatcher; Harold Wilson or James Harold Wilson). And, 2. Should we use titles e.g. Mrs/Miss/Ms/Dr/Rt Hon etc. Frinton100 ( talk) 23:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
RfC follows on from discussion above which hasn't reached a consensus. Frinton100 ( talk) 23:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I remain in favour of using full names with a wikilink to the relevant article, if one exists. This seems a sensible way forward and reflects the practice of using full names for electoral purposes. Macs15 ( talk) 23:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Macs15 that we should always use the fullest name available, such as Winston Spencer Churchill rather than Winston Churchill to distinguish from Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill which is crucial when we are dealing with non-linked candidates. Also for the reasons detailed above, specifically to assist with subsequent IDing. Marital status titles should be used for non-linked candidates to assist with subsequent IDing, as detailed above. Graemp ( talk) 06:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Common names are better. Full names are a pain when they produce something unfamiliar ("John Jeremy Durham Ashdown"). Also in the modern age returning officers are terrible about what is and isn't a common name - some will allow the tidying away of middle names, others won't - and also over what goes in the declaration. Stick to making the candidates identifiable. Timrollpickering ( talk) 22:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
This page sets out guidelines for achieving visual and textual consistency in biographical articles and in biographical information in other articles...— Nizolan (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Across the debate above and the one last year on the same topic, we seem to have a majority in favour of using common names - at least for linked candidates - and against using titles. However, this is not 100%, so how about the following compromise based on a couple of the ideas contributed above:
For linked candidates - we use their commonly used name at the time of the election (i.e. the title we would give to their article if we were producing it at the time of the election (per WP:COMMONNAME - minus any disambiguations)
For un-linked candidates - we use any form of the name that is given in a RS. For current/recent elections this will normally be the ballot paper name or the name used by the candidate in their publicity. For historic elections there are various sources for this information. Formats could include Full Name, Forename Surname, Initials Surname, Forename Middle-initial Surname.
In all cases titles should not be used per WP:HONORIFIC. This includes Mrs/Miss/Ms, Dr/Prof/Rev, Sir/Rt Hon and others
Pinging everyone who has contributed to the discussion this time round for views on this - @ Macs15, AusLondonder, Graemp, Timrollpickering, Number 57, Nizolan, Warofdreams, and Cordless Larry: Frinton100 ( talk) 19:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Hundreds of pages on UK elections are referenced simply to a title, with or without "Craig", e.g.:
Though these should all ideally be replaced with complete bibliographic references, such a massive task is unlikely ever to be accomplished manually. Since I have no experience in constructing bots, I have written Template: Craig, which can be quickly pasted after such references. It simply says
I am not offering to do this, but this seems the right place to mention the issue and offer a possible solution. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. -- Thnidu ( talk) 15:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello all, There's been an almost constant discussion on the appropriate infobox for the United Kingdom general election, 2015 since the results came in, with the Lib Dems reduced to 8 MPs, the SNP becoming the 3rd party, the large votes of UKIP and Greens, etc. There's a broad agreement that we're not particularly content with the current infobox options available to us to adequately display this, but that there's value in consistency with other UK election infoboxes. We like the use of leader pictures which UK election infoboxes currently encourage, but several people are broadly unhappy with the apparently arbitrary distinctions which are made between whether a party 'counts' as important enough for an infobox. While other 'multi-party' elections from the eg 1920s have gone for extending that infobox, there are concerns with the use of this: for example, in an election for seats, how can we justify including UKIP (3.8 million votes, 1 seat) at the expense of the SDLP (under 100,000 votes, 3 seats)? Yet if we have the SDLP and not UKIP, we're probably misrepresenting the election. The point here is that we've found the existing infobox to have significant limitations.
Recent discussion has lead to the production of a table, which I and a group of others feel has the possibility of offering a new infobox for, at the very least, all UK General Elections. It's an effort to compromise between 'table' based infoboxes that list all parties which won seats, and the 'leader' based infoboxes that prioritise the leading parties. The advantage I think is that it nicely focuses on both the parliamentary element and the prime ministerial element of a general election:
2010← | ![]() |
→
2020 or before | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Election of the 56th Parliament of the United Kingdom 7 May 2015 | |||||||||
Turnout: ![]() | |||||||||
Party Leader |
Votes Seats |
Swing Seat change | |||||||
![]() |
Conservative David Cameron for Witney |
11,334,576 | 36.9% | ![]() | |||||
331 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
![]() |
Labour Ed Miliband for Doncaster North |
9,347,304 | 30.4% | ![]() | |||||
232 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
![]() |
SNP Nicola Sturgeon Did not stand |
1,454,436 | 4.7% | ![]() | |||||
56 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
![]() |
Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg for Sheffield Hallam |
2,415,862 | 7.9% | ![]() | |||||
8 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
![]() |
DUP Peter Robinson Did not stand |
184,260 | 1.2% | ![]() | |||||
8 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
![]() |
Sinn Féin Gerry Adams Did not stand |
176,232 | 0.6% | ![]() | |||||
4 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
![]() |
Plaid Cymru Leanne Wood Did not stand |
181,694 | 0.6% | ![]() | |||||
3 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
SDLP Alasdair McDonnell for Belfast South |
99,809 | 0.3% | ![]() | ||||||
3 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
UUP Mike Nesbitt Did not stand |
114,935 | 0.4% | |||||||
2 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
![]() |
UKIP Nigel Farage Standing in South Thanet |
3,881,009 | 12.6% | ![]() | |||||
1 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
Green Natalie Bennett Standing in Holborn and St Pancras |
1,157,613 | 3.8% | ![]() | ||||||
1 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
Independents and other parties |
251,805 | 0.8% | |||||||
1 / 650 |
![]() | ||||||||
![]() | |||||||||
Before |
![]() Prime Minister of the United Kingdom |
After | |||||||
David Cameron |
David Cameron | ||||||||
Con-LibDem coalition |
Conservative majority |
I'd be interested in some comments on this from the wider Wikiproject, with a view to initially rolling it out for General Elections (I'm not a historian, but my understanding is that the current infobox may remain more appropriate for pre-sufferage elections), and then looking at other forms of local and regional election in the UK after that. Super Nintendo Chalmers ( talk) 08:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015_by_parliamentary_constituency
James Tamim ( talk) 09:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello members of the project, I was wondering if a naming convention has ever been established for districts and boroughs in order to create articles on their individual councils. I've seen that most districts tend to be named just by the district name, but the districts and boroughs of Essex seem to be a confusing mish-mash. There are three districts which are unambiguously named without reference to any major settlements within their borders – Castle Point, Tendring and Uttlesford. But most of the other districts keep the word "district" in their titles in order to disambiguate them from the major town that gives the district its name – Braintree District, Maldon District, etc. In the case of Epping Forest the article title used to follow this naming convention, but was then renamed Epping Forest (district) which differentiates it from the forest and the constituency. Most of the boroughs are "Borough of xxxx"... and then we have Harlow and Southend-on-Sea which use the same article for both the town and the local authority. Any advice on sorting out this jumble? Richard3120 ( talk) 15:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
So Rhialto, if I understand you correctly, in this case Epping Forest (district) is the preferred title, and it is actually Braintree District that should be retitled Braintree (district), and the same for similar cases? Richard3120 ( talk) 17:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I do recall making those moves. There were several discussions regarding that and they would be in the archives of various talkpages. The moves were made along the lines that Number 57 mentions, that we prefer to use a natural disambiguation than brackets, also that something like Maldon District is in more common usage (such as here) than Maldon (district). Per WP:NCCS, we prefer such administrative names to be standard, so once we establish that Foo District is the preferred form then we use that over Foo (district), so any district articles using brackets should be moved, either to Foo District or Foo district, whichever is more appropriate (if I recall, my searches at the time threw up Foo District as the standard form, though the results tended to come from local authority websites which tend to use Camel Case more often than Wikipedia does). In the few cases where the district name is unique and notable and common usage is not to use Foo District or Foo district, just Foo, then we would follow that and name the article Foo. In the case of Epping Forest District, that was moved in March this year by User:Crookesmoor, and it might be useful to bring him into this discussion to find out why he made that move, and if he has done others in the same way. Usage of Epping Forest District is found on the local authority website [2], while usage of Epping Forest district is found in the local newspaper [3]. Rather than have some articles named Foo District while others are called Foo district, it would be worth getting some consensus on which way to go, and sticking with it. As we are talking about a formal name for an area which typically appears in camel case (Foo District), then I would vote for that as the simplest option, but Foo district is also acceptable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Please share your input in an RfC relating to what image should be used in the infobox at the Wikipedia page for the Leader of the British Labour Party AusLondonder ( talk) 09:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I am starting a RfC to gather consensus on how the newly-renamed Executive Office (Northern Ireland) should be referred to. The department was recently renamed from the Office of First Minister and deputy First Minister to the Executive Office, but this name is rather generic for use on Wikipedia. Should the department be referred to in the lead of articles as simply the Executive Office or the Executive Office of Northern Ireland. I'm asking because editors may take issue with a name other than the official name being used to introduce the department. st170e talk 17:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I am currently in the process of previously trying to write an article on the 1973 enlargement of the European Communities, I am struggling and would like to get some outside editors input. Please edit away if you are happy to collaborate. Sport and politics ( talk) 09:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
What should the order of the list of candidates in the infobox be? See Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Order of the list of candidates in the infobox Sparkie82 ( t• c) 11:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.
If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob Talk 01:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
There is sufficient independent notability for the first fatal attack on a British MP for a quarter of a century for a separate article. Coverage relating to the suspect and the motivation are not best covered in the biography of the victim. Please assist at Draft:Murder of Jo Cox AusLondonder ( talk) 02:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The following move request has been made
Please add your comments to the move discussion at talk:Batley and Spen (UK Parliament constituency) Keith D ( talk) 01:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 needs looking at. It isn't a bad article, but for such a high-profile topic it really should be clearer and easier to read. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 10:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Timjones86 has made a number of recent edits to UK election articles, mostly relating to the BNP. Some of these seem pointless to me. Some are changing election results with no citation given: I have reverted these, but if someone has time, it would be worth checking what the right figures are. If there are mistakes, they should of course be fixed. It would be helpful if other editors could review, or if Timjones86 could explain his/her rationale for these changes. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
all of my changes are all right and are all the facts. Timjones86 ( talk) 07:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
its not to be vandalism all I am trying to do is give the truth in the election results all the input comes from the wiki page British National Party election results and I am righting the wrong on the local elections so can you put it right then Bondegezou. Timjones86 ( talk) 08:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Any editors who happen to have spare time and an interest in British politics are asked to help develop the new premiership of Theresa May and May ministry articles. Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated. RGloucester — ☎ 18:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Wikimedia UK is hosting an edit-a-thon with the National Liberal Club on 24 August, on the history of Liberalism in the United Kingdom. The Club has a large archive of materials on Liberal history, which they have agreed to open up to Wikipedia editors for the day, to help improve relevant articles. Anyone interested in political history is welcome to attend. To find out more and register, please visit the event page. We hope you'll join us! -- Rock drum ( talk · contribs) 17:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The article 1841 vote of no confidence against the government of Sir Robert Peel makes little sense to me (see my note on its talk page). Could an expert from this project take a look please? Derek Andrews ( talk) 14:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Can some editors please take a look over Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2016 and try to tidy it up? This article is getting in a bit of a mess with reverts and the talkpage filling up with giant paragraphs. Timrollpickering ( talk) 12:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Would appreciate an assessment on this article. If there is an assessment request page for this project, could someone point me in its direction? Thanks! Christine Evangelou and others v Iain McNicol (Labour Party) - Shayday~enwiki ( talk) 18:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Please join a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traingate about the recent incident involving Jeremy Corbyn. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 18:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion open at Talk:British independence that may be of interest to members. Please feel free to add your thoughts. Thanks, This is Paul ( talk) 20:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Zigzig20s has added the Brexit position of a considerable number (all of them?) of Tory MPs to their BLP, using the reference: [1] This simply lists MPs on each side and doesn't single any of them out - with over a hundred on each side, I don't think this should be inserted into all the MPs BLPs unless their views are specifically discussed in a reliable secondary source. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 22:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
References
Please could I draw project members' attention to my Help Desk post seeking views on possible editing of articles on behalf of the House of Lords. Any contributions welcome. Ejgm ( talk) 12:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Jim McAllister (Irish republican)#Requested move 12 October 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Paine u/ c 18:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 6 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I popped here for a discussion on virtue signalling, but there doesn't appear to be one yet. I was surprised to discover though, right at the top of the talk page I arrived at, an example of the very subject; virtue signalling by Wikipedia editors on LGBT pride, a subject fraught with controversy and dissent, and one of the main virtue-signalling offences as far as I'm concerned. Homosexual;ity is normal and universal across mammalian species, gay lesbian if people prefer to split genders. There is bound still to be ignorance as with racism, but it's a minority and realy not an issue in UK society or politics. But ngay has no connection to a biological impossibility and clear mental disorder, the imaginary idea that anyone can be in a 'wrongly gendered' body. It's a version of body dysmorphia and known to psychiatrists and psychologists, and to call it anything else, and to encourage those who claim it, is abuse of vulnerable mental patients. Throughout history transvestites have existed so we could consider that normal also, and it really is down to freedom of choice. In some cultures transvestites have specific roles. The idea of transgender appeared, it would seem, correct me if I'm wrong, in California University gender studies departments, already awash with activism and with an agenda. It spread across the US and then, as they all do, leaked out to the rest of the Western world, via the UK, and has seen been spread with a combination of revivalist fervour and fascistic bullying that virtue signalling is a part of ever sincve. The Twitter mob mentality seems to have infected a whole generation, or perhaps two. Older, wiser, saner people don't accept trans for one minute, except for the political toadies all desperate to be politically correct and not to stray from the liberal-left dogma and their chatterati sidekicks in the media terrified of social media storms attacking them [specifically the BBC]. I observe as an anthropologist with no binary bias; left or right. Intolerance over this and other issues is climbing steadily. Politics is in chaos, and the Labour Party is degenerating into a virtue signalling gang of irrelevants, their attraction to the electorate waning the more they posture and refuse to listen. Discuss! PetePassword ( talk) 14:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I have added the new Conservative MSP to the table of additional members on North East Scotland (Scottish Parliament electoral region)#Regional List MSPs, but it still needs work. The column with Johnstone and Bowman isn't right, and I can't work out what to do with it. Other members are welcome to play around with it in my sandbox User:Frinton100/sandbox if that would help. Frinton100 ( talk) 19:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Public image of Margaret Thatcher. Comments are much welcome.-- Nevé – selbert 15:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)