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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom was nominated for deletion recently, the result being no consensus. I will declare that in that debate I supported deletion, or at best a merge, probably as a fairly brief mention in the Brexit article.
With the lack of consensus and thus continued existence of the article, I decided to tackle some of the more spurious inclusions of material therein. One regards a table of petitions, half of which are listed as having no signatures, which to my mind makes them neither a petition nor notable. Another regards a section on individuals purported to be neutral on the matter but who in fact have not demonstrably voiced an opinion either way.
I queried the puzzling petition material on the talk page and after around two weeks without response removed it today. The WP:SPA overwhelmingly responsible for the article's material, @ Mdmadden:, has re-inserted it, still without a talk page response.
Per WP:BRD, I reverted the bold inclusion of the supposed neutral individuals, pending discussion. The SPA immediately restored the contended material without seeking consensus, responding essentially that they were not willing to engage in BRD on the basis of being right on the matter. I then queried: "If this category is intended merely to list those that have expressed no view on the matter, what is the qualification for inclusion or notability as the list is potentially all but infinite? This would be a pointless category, just padding out the article, to no illuminating end." Several days later and with no response to this, I removed the material again. It has again been restored.
I have concerns about the synthesis of disparate flimsy elements to construct this article generally but the two elements mentioned above seem entirely spurious and unjustified in their inclusion. Some additional scrutiny of the article and of its author's behaviour would be welcome. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 22:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
With regards Paul Scully's and Richard Ayoade's suggested neutrality on the topic. This is to accommodate two high profile figures, who have explicitly weighed into the topic, one on mainstream television, the other in his duties as a public servant. To quote Mutt Lunker, from above: "Another regards a section on individuals purported to be neutral on the matter but who in fact have not demonstrably voiced an opinion either way." This is literally a synonymous meaning of the word "neutral", I basically rest my case in this regard. Nobody has to say the word "neutral" to be reasonably considered or perceived credibly neutral, once explicitly addressing a topic. I can find no source material for this unique qualifying definition, nor has any been provided, and on top of this, said user has been invited twice on the talk page (again, both invitations before the above posting) to contribute a better description title than "neutral".
The other general concerns listed above have been exhaustively debated on the AfD talk page, and is of course available for all users to read. Around 10 users declared the notability and validity of the article, with over a month of discussion. I say this so as to not unnecessarily rehash an old and settled discussion. I also, of course, encourage the expansion and development of prose in the article and welcome any users wishing to do so. The list of people I'm sure will expanded into large paragraphs of prose over time. Mdmadden ( talk) 22:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Also Mdmadden's behaviour shows some quite disrespectful, mostly recently aimed at Mutt Lunker, for example:
Indeed, Mdmadden's comments have this tone throught. A favourite thing is to accuse people they disagree with of talking "stawman nonsense". I don't think this is a constructive way to hold a debate. Full disclosure: I voted to delete the article in the AfD. That's still my personal preference. Shritwod ( talk) 14:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Discussion now moved to the more appropriate Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies/Style#MP_lists_in_constituency_articles_-_format_change Pam D 09:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@
Adam37: In
Barking (UK Parliament constituency) the list of MPs has been reformatted with the edit summary "Table much improved in presentation". It lists the MPs parliament by parliament, numbering the parliaments (American style?), rather than just listing MPs by name. Is this an improvement? As MP lists are standardised across all UK constituencies, it seems there should be wide discussion before any such change is introduced, and this is perhaps the best venue. Not sure whether we need a formal RfC at this stage.
Pam
D 09:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
::@
Graemp: mis-pinged you last time.
Pam
D 09:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
An editor is arguing that the SWP-backed, RESPECT splinter, Left Alternative should not be described as socialist or far left. This seems odd to me. Additional viewpoints and input would be valuable. Thanks. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I added the assessment template for this Wikiproject to Book_talk:Brexit,_Article_50,_and_other_articles because I think it's in the project's scope, I hope you're okay with that. Let me know if I should have done it differently. -- Kakurady ( talk) 15:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The article List of Labour Party (UK) MPs needs a lot of work adding new Labour MPs since 2010 and updating MPs who have left Parliament since 2010. It is very out of date. Any help would be most appreciated. AusLondonder ( talk) 03:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The Bootle by-elections, 1990 page has been split up. I can't see any discussion about it (here or on the by-election talk pages), and personally I think they were better off on one page given the similarities between the candidates. I'd be in favour of merging the articles again. Any other thoughts on this? Frinton100 ( talk) 19:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Please see the RfC at Talk:Tony Blair#RfC on inclusion of Iraq in the first paragraph. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 22:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Greetings, I'm Exemplo347. I have just initiated This Article for Deletion Discussion regarding the article " Republic Party (UK)" and I thought I'd inform this Wikiproject. Regards Exemplo347 ( talk) 10:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello all. I have requested comment over whether a hatnote to Community Charge should or should not be necessary at the Poll tax article. Thanks.-- Nevé – selbert 22:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm pinging various users I am aware of who have contributed to this discussion in the past - apologies if I miss/annoy anyone: @ Macs15, AusLondonder, Graemp, Timrollpickering, Number 57, Nizolan, Warofdreams, Cordless Larry, 15zulu, Doktorbuk, IanB2, and 80.5.88.70:
This issue has come up again recently, specifically at Liverpool Exchange (UK Parliament constituency) and Leigh (UK Parliament constituency). There was a long discussion last year, here - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 6#Names and titles of candidates in election boxes in which the majority of users expressed a view that we should use commonly used names for candidates in election boxes. There was also a view that middle names help research of new biographical articles. I suggested the following (slightly tweaked from original version following discussion over "Sir"):
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, Rt Hon and others
My impression was this achieved broad approval, but other users think not. We need to get this cleared up as we can't keep edit warring. I don't see there's much point re-opening the debate again, but did other users consider the above to be the consensus that was achieved from last year's discussion, and is it acceptable to those who did not contribute last year? Frinton100 ( talk) 22:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
My proposition 2 appears accepted, and if Graemp will henceforth cite his sources there is no remaining issue. Rather than get tied up in knots can everyone support, comment or oppose my proposition 1 please. If we can get this agreed we can make some progress. IanB2 ( talk) 12:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
darrenjolley I think there is a case for middle names, even for unlinked and otherwise unnoteworthy candidates. I take the case of Christopher (John) Howard, who stood in Cambridge in 1987. He obviously has quite a common name and who is to say that there will not be a politician or other notable person with the name of Christopher Howard in years to come.
Graemp, I think you are being rather disingenuous - I do not think that "there is a case for including more than one forename" (unless that is how someone is usually known), and I have always made this view known, but I am willing to accept this practice for unlinked candidates as a way of reaching a compromise. doktorb, could you explain what your rationale is for "accept middle names for notable candidates, commonly used names where appropriate" - how do you propose determning which candidates have their middle names added and which use common names? You give the example of Paddy Ashdown, presumably you would also use Tony Blair, Boris Johnson and Bessie Braddock. But what about Margaret Hilda Thatcher, and what about some "less notable" notables e.g. Bill Rammell or William Ernest Rammell? I'm not dismissing this suggestion, it's just different from what was broadly agreed last year, and different from other suggestions so I'm just a bit confused by it! Frinton100 ( talk) 19:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on the requested move at Talk:UK miners' strike (1984–85)#Requested move 26 March 2017.-- Nevé – selbert 13:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The work of this WikiProject in the next two years and much of the news relating to the UK in the next two years will be focused on Brexit - aka, the UK's withdrawal from the EU. Can I propose that this WikiProject creates a Brexit task force to deal with this? It will allow us to focus efforts in the editing process and to ensure relevant articles are maintained to a high standard. This process will affect all members of the EU, as well as the UK, so is it appropriate as a task force of this WikiProject, as opposed the European Union one? Does anyone have any thoughts on this idea or just see it all as a bit irrelevant? -- Andrewdwilliams ( talk) 22:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on the requested move at Talk:First Cameron ministry#Requested move 5 April 2017. Thank-you.-- Nevé – selbert 13:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I've recently fallen into conflict over the topic of displaying House of Lords membership in the infoboxes of politicians, with some editors adamant that they should not be displayed there, and others such as myself feeling that it is absolutely vital that seats in both Houses of Parliament have equal place in infoboxes. After all, these are seats in the upper chamber of a legislative parliament and we wouldn't typically exert the same kind of editing predjudice upon Canadian or Australian senators etc. I wonder if I could guage general thoughts on the matter/a consensus here? -- Oliver Cooke ( talk) 16:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello all. Any opinion here on whether party colours should be used in sidebars for British prime ministers? Please have a look at the following examples:
Feedback is much appreciated.-- Nevé – selbert 17:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Please state your preference for Party colours or Neutral colours with a brief rationale.
WP:SNOW close early, maybe? Seems like the outcome is clear. 69.165.196.103 ( talk) 23:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I've updated the blank maps available on Commons to account for the boundary changes leading up to this year's local elections. I've also consolidated the available maps with valid boundaries into this page on Commons. I will keep that page current, so in future you can just go to a single resource. The main gap is Northern Ireland, and I intend to upload the Northern Irish maps over the next few weeks.
Please let me know any other maps that people would like. I imagine the mayoral elections for the new combined authorities are one?-- Nilf anion ( talk) 11:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Why do we have parties categorised in both Category:Far-right political parties in the United Kingdom and Category:Far-right politics in the United Kingdom? That appears to be an example of overcategoristion, as the former is categorised under the latter. Our guideline says "each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." Category:Far-right political parties in the United Kingdom isn't a non-diffusing category, so there's no need for both. Fences& Windows 13:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The 56th Parliament of the United Kingdom is set to dissolve on Wednesday 3rd May. This means that all 649 current MPs will lose their post-nominal letters and their succession boxes must be modified to remove any suggestion of incumbency. I managed one hundred and fifteen such corrections in 2015 (and many dozens more in the devolved elections since) but some assistance would be much appreciated. Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 19:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I think it might be a good idea if someone could get AWB onto this. I've done some former SNP MPs but I realised that they are usually identified as serving MPs in the lede as well, so I've edited the ledes too. Finding the best form of words is a bit tricky - mainly I've changed "is the MP for..." to "was elected MP for ... in 2015 and is standing for re-election in the United Kingdom general election, 2017," though on reflection, the last bit might not be necessary. I'm trying not to give the implication that people have stood down if they haven't. -- Walnuts go kapow ( talk) 11:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Question: There seems to be some mild edit warring on some political party pages over whether the infobox should say "0" MPs in the House of Commons, or reflect their pre-dissolution numbers. What's the consensus? Anyone remember what we did in 2015? — Richard BB 16:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
While reading an article in today's Sunday Times, I came across: "The detail of the plan, circulated by Labour officials, shows only the standard rate of VAT will be frozen. It says nothing about zero-rated goods and services such as insurance, food, medicines and building supplies, meaning they could be hit. The plan also leaves room for increasing the 5% rate on gas and electricity bills." ( Shipman, Tim (7 May 2017). "Labour tax rise to hit earners on £80,000". The Sunday Times. pp. 1–2.). Could someone with competence in economics please expand Zero-rated supply? (While I'm at it, Tim Shipman, the political editor of The Times, could probably do with an article, if anyone is able to find enough RS.) Thank you. Zigzig20s ( talk) 13:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The Proposed return of traditional blue British passports article is apparently prodigiously sourced but a quick inspection might indicate that some of the sources are being somewhat stretched to support the text in the article and there is at least one plain error (a quote that does not appear to be in the source). The title also seems rather cumbersome, the word "traditional" questionable, possibly POV, and the title is contradicted in the first sentence by the statement that it "is an action to be taken", rather than the "proposal" indicated by the title. It could do with an inspection and possibly some revision. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 19:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Greetings, WikiProject members. If you have the time, please consider dropping by at Talk:First Cameron ministry. Many thanks.-- Nevé – selbert 16:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 7/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello projecteers and @ JRPG:, @ Frinton100:, @ BrownHairedGirl:, @ Galloglass: and any others who may wish to contribute
Following a brief discussion over at the Oxford East page, it has become apparent that we need, as a project, to put into formal Wiki-ese the widely agreed upon convention about the way in which we design election boxes. My understanding of the convention is that the Manual Of Style needs to explicitly say that:
If this is agreeable and accepted by the project as a whole, I would like to move this proposal over to Manual of Style. Any ideas, thoughts? doktorb words deeds 11:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
With election results for local authorities, the order used by sources is number of votes. Retaining the order in the sources makes it easier to get the data right, and to check it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The sitting Conservative MP James Heappey ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), who is standing for re-election, has been involved in a controversy relating to comments he made at a school during a discussion on Scotland. The affair has been reported in several broadsheets, and has drawn in two party leaders.
The article's coverage of the incident has been repeatedly removed by single-purpose accounts and IPs, and at my request the page is now semi-protected for 2 weeks.
However, it is not being watched by many editors. Please can some members of this project keep an eye on it? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone have a suggestion where the number of registered voters should be put in an "election box"? This information is provided in the results of past local authority elections available from www.electionscentre.co.uk.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Labour Co-op | Dale Michael Mordey | 1,376 | |||
Conservative | Syed Ajmol Ali | 429 | 33.7 | ||
Green | Helmut Izaks | 156 | |||
Liberal Democrats | Callum James Alexander Littlemore | 155 | 6.4 | ||
Rejected ballots | 26 | 1.2 | |||
Majority | 947 | 64.2 | |||
Turnout | 2142 | 27.9 | |||
Registered electors | 7,618 | ||||
Labour hold | Swing |
If anyone's reading this I'd be grateful for feedback on whether this is appropriate. Ballotboxworm ( talk) 16:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative | Stephen Male* | 1,283 | 65.9 | +10.1 | |
Conservative | Dennis Gale* | 1,191 | 61.2 | +0.2 | |
Conservative | David Bayntun | 1,067 | 54.8 | ||
Liberal Democrats | Isobel Mason | 715 | 36.7 | ||
Turnout | 1,947 | 33.6 | +5.0 | ||
Registered electors | 5,795 |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative | Rowland Goodman | 597 | 52.0 | ||
Labour | Paul Griffiths* | 553 | 48.1 | -2.4 | |
Labour | Maurice Layton* | 531 | 46.2 | -3.1 | |
Conservative | Victor Lee | 517 | 45.0 | ||
Total votes | 1,149 |
References
Hi. We could do with some input at Talk:United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017#Seat_changes_compared_to_last_general_election_or_to_seats_at_dissolution. The question is about whether the infobox and other tables should show changes in the number of seats won by a party with respect to the previous general election, or with respect to the situation at dissolution. That is, did the SNP lose 21 seats (compared to 2015 election) or 19 seats (because 2 SNP MPs had had the whip withdrawn since), and similar for other parties? Bondegezou ( talk) 20:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
A change has been made to the infoboxes on pages such that the total number of councillors for the ruling party are labelled as "Executive". For example, Camden London Borough Council - "Executive (Labour) 38".
This is legally incorrect. Under the 2000 Local Government Act, Executive members are the members of the Cabinet, only. It would be correct to say that Labour is the party that comprises/controls the executive, but totally incorrect to put the number "38" against the word executive, since there are only ten executive members on Camden Council, with the other 28 being, in law, non-executive members, entitled to participate in the scrutiny process but forbidden from involvement in any executive decision making. The infobox is therefore both incorrect and misleading, and its presentation/format needs to be changed.
By the way, it is also the case that no-one would refer to this council as "Camden London Borough Council". The usual formulations would be "Camden Borough Council" or the "London Borough of Camden" or, for the full title, the Council of the London Borough of Camden. Making "London" the second word of the title looks bizarre. MapReader ( talk) 07:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
No one here is able to defend/explain these changes? MapReader ( talk) 15:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree with the Executive point. A council Executive is a formal name for the cabinet, in authorities that have that type of constitution. The figure given on the Camden page is the total councillors in what's often called the ruling party or Administration or simply the majority. Given the limitations of what I can see of the Infobox Legislature template I would suggest the heading Administration which contrasts properly with Opposition below. Also an Administration can be made up of more than one party, or can be a minority, ruling out the other two terms I have mentioned.
However I have an idea that Camden London Borough Council is a (not 'the') legally valid name for the council of a London Borough, even though not much used. Given the difficulty in agreeing names for local council pages I suggest leaving this alone!
Incidentally, does anyone think Infobox Legislature does not suit these pages very well and maybe Infobox settlement (as seen on London Borough of Camden) would do just as well? It for example has the form of government field which can state 'Mayor/Cabinet' or whatever, which Legislature doesn't seem to. Sussexonian ( talk) 14:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
The creator of the deleted Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom article, @ Mdmadden:, has been warring today at the Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 in an apparent attempt to coatrack some of the deleted article's material and to revive the "Independence Day" topic with new material of dubious significance or pertinence to the topic of the latter article. They have so far failed to engage at the article talk page, despite requests for them to do so, so though they have been inactive since their third revert, their lack of engagement may indicating the biding of time to avoid the the technical breaching of 3RR. Some watchful eyes would be appreciated. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 19:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I apologise if this has been covered previously (I am relatively new to the project), but in reviewing some of the 2017 election results and adding in details missed out, I've noted most pages use the standard Election Box template, some use the Compact Election Box, and others use a strange hybrid. I had previously changed some of the compact boxes to standard templates to standardise pages, but these were sometimes reverted, so when making edits have usually followed the style the article already uses.
However, now I believe it would be good for us as a community to decide on one template, and then work for converting all pages so they are standardised. What are people's preferences: Standard template or compact template?
-- JMPhillips92 ( talk) 13:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I have proposed a merge of a former Scottish pro-EU party, please discuss at Talk:European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom)#Merge of United in Europe. Fences& Windows 12:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place about whether a series of templates used to generate references to the work of Leigh Rayment fall within Wikipedia's content guideline to use reliable sources, or alternatively whether they should be deprecated and tagged with {{ Self-published source}} and/or {{ Better source}}.
These templates are used for referencing over 10,000 articles relating to the House of Commons of England, the House of Commons of Ireland, the House of Commons of England, the House of Commons of Great Britain, the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, and the peerages and baronetcies of the islands of Ireland and Great Britain.
Since whatever decision is made will effect so many articles, I am notifying the following WikiProjects of this discussion: WP:WikiProject England, WP:WikiProject Ireland, WikiProject Northern Ireland, WikiProject Scotland, WikiProject United Kingdom, and WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom.
Your comments would be welcome, but please post them at WT:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Leigh_Rayment.27s_Peerage_Pages_.282017.29, so that your contribution can be weighed as part of the discussion. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I suppose this question has been asked before, but I don't know the answer. When adding the template of this WikiProject to a talkpage, which previous was tagged with the template from the general UK WikiProject, should the general WikiProject template be removed, or kept? Debresser ( talk) 14:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I have nominated List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Nevé – selbert 20:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Please see the requested move discussion at Talk:Community Charge#Requested move 20 July 2017. AusLondonder ( talk) 18:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
There are discussions ongoing at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#Corbyn's views on immigration and Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#Corbyn on the single market which I would like a third opinion with. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 14:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Category:BBC journalists associated with the Labour Party (UK) Thoughts on the appropriateness of this?
There is currently a push to attempt to improve the articled South Ayrshire, and input from other editors in-particular those from this project is welcomed. The article is one of a number of similar articles, and it is hoped that this article can act as a standard for others in a similar vein, for being able to improve them all. Is it currently stands the article has a number of big issues, the largest being sourcing were as it stands over 85% of all sources are a primary source. There is also a lot of lists on the page, and a significant amount of over-detail of non-notable information. Thank you for your time Sport and politics ( talk) 08:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The Balfour Declaration article is currently a receiving a Featured Article Candidate review. The declaration is considered to be the birth certificate of the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and its 100th anniversary is in less than two months' time. It is a level 4 vital article in History, and a Top-Importance article at both Wikiproject Israel and WikiProject Palestine. Any input would be appreciated.
Much of the article is focused on the activities of British politicians and civil servants, so input from this WikiProject would be particularly helpful.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 10:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
The related Category:Jacob Rees-Mogg has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
AusLondonder ( talk) 03:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I do a lot of work with organizing stubs, and the largest stub categories is Category:Parliament of England (pre-1707) MP stubs, which has 2,893 associated pages. My goal is to subdivide this into categories with more manageable amounts of stubs (maybe 200 articles each). Unfortunately, I don't know much about UK/English politics, so I don't have any great ideas about how to subdivide. Does anyone at this wikiproject have any ideas of how to subdivide this, or know a better wikiproject to ask about this?
I would also note that Category:UK MP for England stubs is also an extremely large category, with 1,593 uncategorized pages, so subdivision ideas for that category would welcome as well. This is crossposted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England - Furicorn ( talk) 07:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Gillian Keegan#Photo under wrong licence at commons. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world:
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 07:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I have nominated the article
Kevin McKeever for deletion. I'd appreciate any feedback or comments you might have. The deletion discussion is available at
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kevin_McKeever_(2nd_nomination). Many thanks.
Eloquai (
talk) 19:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
Is there a consensus to refer to Sylvia Hermon as an " Independent Unionist"? And if so, why? The title is used on her page, on the North Down constituency page, the 2017 election results listing and the House of Commons of the United Kingdom page; but as far as I can see she has only ever been referred to as an "Independent", on the 2015 and 2017 statements of persons nominated; on the BBC results; on the Parliament website; and in Hansard. I don't want to go around changing everything if there is a consensus, but at the moment calling her an "Independent Unionist" as if that is a party she is a member of smacks of original research. OZOO (t) (c) 13:49, 29 September 2017 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom was nominated for deletion recently, the result being no consensus. I will declare that in that debate I supported deletion, or at best a merge, probably as a fairly brief mention in the Brexit article.
With the lack of consensus and thus continued existence of the article, I decided to tackle some of the more spurious inclusions of material therein. One regards a table of petitions, half of which are listed as having no signatures, which to my mind makes them neither a petition nor notable. Another regards a section on individuals purported to be neutral on the matter but who in fact have not demonstrably voiced an opinion either way.
I queried the puzzling petition material on the talk page and after around two weeks without response removed it today. The WP:SPA overwhelmingly responsible for the article's material, @ Mdmadden:, has re-inserted it, still without a talk page response.
Per WP:BRD, I reverted the bold inclusion of the supposed neutral individuals, pending discussion. The SPA immediately restored the contended material without seeking consensus, responding essentially that they were not willing to engage in BRD on the basis of being right on the matter. I then queried: "If this category is intended merely to list those that have expressed no view on the matter, what is the qualification for inclusion or notability as the list is potentially all but infinite? This would be a pointless category, just padding out the article, to no illuminating end." Several days later and with no response to this, I removed the material again. It has again been restored.
I have concerns about the synthesis of disparate flimsy elements to construct this article generally but the two elements mentioned above seem entirely spurious and unjustified in their inclusion. Some additional scrutiny of the article and of its author's behaviour would be welcome. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 22:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
With regards Paul Scully's and Richard Ayoade's suggested neutrality on the topic. This is to accommodate two high profile figures, who have explicitly weighed into the topic, one on mainstream television, the other in his duties as a public servant. To quote Mutt Lunker, from above: "Another regards a section on individuals purported to be neutral on the matter but who in fact have not demonstrably voiced an opinion either way." This is literally a synonymous meaning of the word "neutral", I basically rest my case in this regard. Nobody has to say the word "neutral" to be reasonably considered or perceived credibly neutral, once explicitly addressing a topic. I can find no source material for this unique qualifying definition, nor has any been provided, and on top of this, said user has been invited twice on the talk page (again, both invitations before the above posting) to contribute a better description title than "neutral".
The other general concerns listed above have been exhaustively debated on the AfD talk page, and is of course available for all users to read. Around 10 users declared the notability and validity of the article, with over a month of discussion. I say this so as to not unnecessarily rehash an old and settled discussion. I also, of course, encourage the expansion and development of prose in the article and welcome any users wishing to do so. The list of people I'm sure will expanded into large paragraphs of prose over time. Mdmadden ( talk) 22:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Also Mdmadden's behaviour shows some quite disrespectful, mostly recently aimed at Mutt Lunker, for example:
Indeed, Mdmadden's comments have this tone throught. A favourite thing is to accuse people they disagree with of talking "stawman nonsense". I don't think this is a constructive way to hold a debate. Full disclosure: I voted to delete the article in the AfD. That's still my personal preference. Shritwod ( talk) 14:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Discussion now moved to the more appropriate Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies/Style#MP_lists_in_constituency_articles_-_format_change Pam D 09:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@
Adam37: In
Barking (UK Parliament constituency) the list of MPs has been reformatted with the edit summary "Table much improved in presentation". It lists the MPs parliament by parliament, numbering the parliaments (American style?), rather than just listing MPs by name. Is this an improvement? As MP lists are standardised across all UK constituencies, it seems there should be wide discussion before any such change is introduced, and this is perhaps the best venue. Not sure whether we need a formal RfC at this stage.
Pam
D 09:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
::@
Graemp: mis-pinged you last time.
Pam
D 09:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
An editor is arguing that the SWP-backed, RESPECT splinter, Left Alternative should not be described as socialist or far left. This seems odd to me. Additional viewpoints and input would be valuable. Thanks. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I added the assessment template for this Wikiproject to Book_talk:Brexit,_Article_50,_and_other_articles because I think it's in the project's scope, I hope you're okay with that. Let me know if I should have done it differently. -- Kakurady ( talk) 15:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The article List of Labour Party (UK) MPs needs a lot of work adding new Labour MPs since 2010 and updating MPs who have left Parliament since 2010. It is very out of date. Any help would be most appreciated. AusLondonder ( talk) 03:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The Bootle by-elections, 1990 page has been split up. I can't see any discussion about it (here or on the by-election talk pages), and personally I think they were better off on one page given the similarities between the candidates. I'd be in favour of merging the articles again. Any other thoughts on this? Frinton100 ( talk) 19:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Please see the RfC at Talk:Tony Blair#RfC on inclusion of Iraq in the first paragraph. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 22:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Greetings, I'm Exemplo347. I have just initiated This Article for Deletion Discussion regarding the article " Republic Party (UK)" and I thought I'd inform this Wikiproject. Regards Exemplo347 ( talk) 10:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello all. I have requested comment over whether a hatnote to Community Charge should or should not be necessary at the Poll tax article. Thanks.-- Nevé – selbert 22:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm pinging various users I am aware of who have contributed to this discussion in the past - apologies if I miss/annoy anyone: @ Macs15, AusLondonder, Graemp, Timrollpickering, Number 57, Nizolan, Warofdreams, Cordless Larry, 15zulu, Doktorbuk, IanB2, and 80.5.88.70:
This issue has come up again recently, specifically at Liverpool Exchange (UK Parliament constituency) and Leigh (UK Parliament constituency). There was a long discussion last year, here - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 6#Names and titles of candidates in election boxes in which the majority of users expressed a view that we should use commonly used names for candidates in election boxes. There was also a view that middle names help research of new biographical articles. I suggested the following (slightly tweaked from original version following discussion over "Sir"):
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, Rt Hon and others
My impression was this achieved broad approval, but other users think not. We need to get this cleared up as we can't keep edit warring. I don't see there's much point re-opening the debate again, but did other users consider the above to be the consensus that was achieved from last year's discussion, and is it acceptable to those who did not contribute last year? Frinton100 ( talk) 22:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
My proposition 2 appears accepted, and if Graemp will henceforth cite his sources there is no remaining issue. Rather than get tied up in knots can everyone support, comment or oppose my proposition 1 please. If we can get this agreed we can make some progress. IanB2 ( talk) 12:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
darrenjolley I think there is a case for middle names, even for unlinked and otherwise unnoteworthy candidates. I take the case of Christopher (John) Howard, who stood in Cambridge in 1987. He obviously has quite a common name and who is to say that there will not be a politician or other notable person with the name of Christopher Howard in years to come.
Graemp, I think you are being rather disingenuous - I do not think that "there is a case for including more than one forename" (unless that is how someone is usually known), and I have always made this view known, but I am willing to accept this practice for unlinked candidates as a way of reaching a compromise. doktorb, could you explain what your rationale is for "accept middle names for notable candidates, commonly used names where appropriate" - how do you propose determning which candidates have their middle names added and which use common names? You give the example of Paddy Ashdown, presumably you would also use Tony Blair, Boris Johnson and Bessie Braddock. But what about Margaret Hilda Thatcher, and what about some "less notable" notables e.g. Bill Rammell or William Ernest Rammell? I'm not dismissing this suggestion, it's just different from what was broadly agreed last year, and different from other suggestions so I'm just a bit confused by it! Frinton100 ( talk) 19:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on the requested move at Talk:UK miners' strike (1984–85)#Requested move 26 March 2017.-- Nevé – selbert 13:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The work of this WikiProject in the next two years and much of the news relating to the UK in the next two years will be focused on Brexit - aka, the UK's withdrawal from the EU. Can I propose that this WikiProject creates a Brexit task force to deal with this? It will allow us to focus efforts in the editing process and to ensure relevant articles are maintained to a high standard. This process will affect all members of the EU, as well as the UK, so is it appropriate as a task force of this WikiProject, as opposed the European Union one? Does anyone have any thoughts on this idea or just see it all as a bit irrelevant? -- Andrewdwilliams ( talk) 22:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on the requested move at Talk:First Cameron ministry#Requested move 5 April 2017. Thank-you.-- Nevé – selbert 13:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I've recently fallen into conflict over the topic of displaying House of Lords membership in the infoboxes of politicians, with some editors adamant that they should not be displayed there, and others such as myself feeling that it is absolutely vital that seats in both Houses of Parliament have equal place in infoboxes. After all, these are seats in the upper chamber of a legislative parliament and we wouldn't typically exert the same kind of editing predjudice upon Canadian or Australian senators etc. I wonder if I could guage general thoughts on the matter/a consensus here? -- Oliver Cooke ( talk) 16:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello all. Any opinion here on whether party colours should be used in sidebars for British prime ministers? Please have a look at the following examples:
Feedback is much appreciated.-- Nevé – selbert 17:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Please state your preference for Party colours or Neutral colours with a brief rationale.
WP:SNOW close early, maybe? Seems like the outcome is clear. 69.165.196.103 ( talk) 23:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I've updated the blank maps available on Commons to account for the boundary changes leading up to this year's local elections. I've also consolidated the available maps with valid boundaries into this page on Commons. I will keep that page current, so in future you can just go to a single resource. The main gap is Northern Ireland, and I intend to upload the Northern Irish maps over the next few weeks.
Please let me know any other maps that people would like. I imagine the mayoral elections for the new combined authorities are one?-- Nilf anion ( talk) 11:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Why do we have parties categorised in both Category:Far-right political parties in the United Kingdom and Category:Far-right politics in the United Kingdom? That appears to be an example of overcategoristion, as the former is categorised under the latter. Our guideline says "each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." Category:Far-right political parties in the United Kingdom isn't a non-diffusing category, so there's no need for both. Fences& Windows 13:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The 56th Parliament of the United Kingdom is set to dissolve on Wednesday 3rd May. This means that all 649 current MPs will lose their post-nominal letters and their succession boxes must be modified to remove any suggestion of incumbency. I managed one hundred and fifteen such corrections in 2015 (and many dozens more in the devolved elections since) but some assistance would be much appreciated. Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 19:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I think it might be a good idea if someone could get AWB onto this. I've done some former SNP MPs but I realised that they are usually identified as serving MPs in the lede as well, so I've edited the ledes too. Finding the best form of words is a bit tricky - mainly I've changed "is the MP for..." to "was elected MP for ... in 2015 and is standing for re-election in the United Kingdom general election, 2017," though on reflection, the last bit might not be necessary. I'm trying not to give the implication that people have stood down if they haven't. -- Walnuts go kapow ( talk) 11:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Question: There seems to be some mild edit warring on some political party pages over whether the infobox should say "0" MPs in the House of Commons, or reflect their pre-dissolution numbers. What's the consensus? Anyone remember what we did in 2015? — Richard BB 16:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
While reading an article in today's Sunday Times, I came across: "The detail of the plan, circulated by Labour officials, shows only the standard rate of VAT will be frozen. It says nothing about zero-rated goods and services such as insurance, food, medicines and building supplies, meaning they could be hit. The plan also leaves room for increasing the 5% rate on gas and electricity bills." ( Shipman, Tim (7 May 2017). "Labour tax rise to hit earners on £80,000". The Sunday Times. pp. 1–2.). Could someone with competence in economics please expand Zero-rated supply? (While I'm at it, Tim Shipman, the political editor of The Times, could probably do with an article, if anyone is able to find enough RS.) Thank you. Zigzig20s ( talk) 13:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The Proposed return of traditional blue British passports article is apparently prodigiously sourced but a quick inspection might indicate that some of the sources are being somewhat stretched to support the text in the article and there is at least one plain error (a quote that does not appear to be in the source). The title also seems rather cumbersome, the word "traditional" questionable, possibly POV, and the title is contradicted in the first sentence by the statement that it "is an action to be taken", rather than the "proposal" indicated by the title. It could do with an inspection and possibly some revision. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 19:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Greetings, WikiProject members. If you have the time, please consider dropping by at Talk:First Cameron ministry. Many thanks.-- Nevé – selbert 16:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 7/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello projecteers and @ JRPG:, @ Frinton100:, @ BrownHairedGirl:, @ Galloglass: and any others who may wish to contribute
Following a brief discussion over at the Oxford East page, it has become apparent that we need, as a project, to put into formal Wiki-ese the widely agreed upon convention about the way in which we design election boxes. My understanding of the convention is that the Manual Of Style needs to explicitly say that:
If this is agreeable and accepted by the project as a whole, I would like to move this proposal over to Manual of Style. Any ideas, thoughts? doktorb words deeds 11:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
With election results for local authorities, the order used by sources is number of votes. Retaining the order in the sources makes it easier to get the data right, and to check it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The sitting Conservative MP James Heappey ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), who is standing for re-election, has been involved in a controversy relating to comments he made at a school during a discussion on Scotland. The affair has been reported in several broadsheets, and has drawn in two party leaders.
The article's coverage of the incident has been repeatedly removed by single-purpose accounts and IPs, and at my request the page is now semi-protected for 2 weeks.
However, it is not being watched by many editors. Please can some members of this project keep an eye on it? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone have a suggestion where the number of registered voters should be put in an "election box"? This information is provided in the results of past local authority elections available from www.electionscentre.co.uk.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Labour Co-op | Dale Michael Mordey | 1,376 | |||
Conservative | Syed Ajmol Ali | 429 | 33.7 | ||
Green | Helmut Izaks | 156 | |||
Liberal Democrats | Callum James Alexander Littlemore | 155 | 6.4 | ||
Rejected ballots | 26 | 1.2 | |||
Majority | 947 | 64.2 | |||
Turnout | 2142 | 27.9 | |||
Registered electors | 7,618 | ||||
Labour hold | Swing |
If anyone's reading this I'd be grateful for feedback on whether this is appropriate. Ballotboxworm ( talk) 16:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative | Stephen Male* | 1,283 | 65.9 | +10.1 | |
Conservative | Dennis Gale* | 1,191 | 61.2 | +0.2 | |
Conservative | David Bayntun | 1,067 | 54.8 | ||
Liberal Democrats | Isobel Mason | 715 | 36.7 | ||
Turnout | 1,947 | 33.6 | +5.0 | ||
Registered electors | 5,795 |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative | Rowland Goodman | 597 | 52.0 | ||
Labour | Paul Griffiths* | 553 | 48.1 | -2.4 | |
Labour | Maurice Layton* | 531 | 46.2 | -3.1 | |
Conservative | Victor Lee | 517 | 45.0 | ||
Total votes | 1,149 |
References
Hi. We could do with some input at Talk:United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017#Seat_changes_compared_to_last_general_election_or_to_seats_at_dissolution. The question is about whether the infobox and other tables should show changes in the number of seats won by a party with respect to the previous general election, or with respect to the situation at dissolution. That is, did the SNP lose 21 seats (compared to 2015 election) or 19 seats (because 2 SNP MPs had had the whip withdrawn since), and similar for other parties? Bondegezou ( talk) 20:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
A change has been made to the infoboxes on pages such that the total number of councillors for the ruling party are labelled as "Executive". For example, Camden London Borough Council - "Executive (Labour) 38".
This is legally incorrect. Under the 2000 Local Government Act, Executive members are the members of the Cabinet, only. It would be correct to say that Labour is the party that comprises/controls the executive, but totally incorrect to put the number "38" against the word executive, since there are only ten executive members on Camden Council, with the other 28 being, in law, non-executive members, entitled to participate in the scrutiny process but forbidden from involvement in any executive decision making. The infobox is therefore both incorrect and misleading, and its presentation/format needs to be changed.
By the way, it is also the case that no-one would refer to this council as "Camden London Borough Council". The usual formulations would be "Camden Borough Council" or the "London Borough of Camden" or, for the full title, the Council of the London Borough of Camden. Making "London" the second word of the title looks bizarre. MapReader ( talk) 07:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
No one here is able to defend/explain these changes? MapReader ( talk) 15:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree with the Executive point. A council Executive is a formal name for the cabinet, in authorities that have that type of constitution. The figure given on the Camden page is the total councillors in what's often called the ruling party or Administration or simply the majority. Given the limitations of what I can see of the Infobox Legislature template I would suggest the heading Administration which contrasts properly with Opposition below. Also an Administration can be made up of more than one party, or can be a minority, ruling out the other two terms I have mentioned.
However I have an idea that Camden London Borough Council is a (not 'the') legally valid name for the council of a London Borough, even though not much used. Given the difficulty in agreeing names for local council pages I suggest leaving this alone!
Incidentally, does anyone think Infobox Legislature does not suit these pages very well and maybe Infobox settlement (as seen on London Borough of Camden) would do just as well? It for example has the form of government field which can state 'Mayor/Cabinet' or whatever, which Legislature doesn't seem to. Sussexonian ( talk) 14:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
The creator of the deleted Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom article, @ Mdmadden:, has been warring today at the Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 in an apparent attempt to coatrack some of the deleted article's material and to revive the "Independence Day" topic with new material of dubious significance or pertinence to the topic of the latter article. They have so far failed to engage at the article talk page, despite requests for them to do so, so though they have been inactive since their third revert, their lack of engagement may indicating the biding of time to avoid the the technical breaching of 3RR. Some watchful eyes would be appreciated. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 19:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I apologise if this has been covered previously (I am relatively new to the project), but in reviewing some of the 2017 election results and adding in details missed out, I've noted most pages use the standard Election Box template, some use the Compact Election Box, and others use a strange hybrid. I had previously changed some of the compact boxes to standard templates to standardise pages, but these were sometimes reverted, so when making edits have usually followed the style the article already uses.
However, now I believe it would be good for us as a community to decide on one template, and then work for converting all pages so they are standardised. What are people's preferences: Standard template or compact template?
-- JMPhillips92 ( talk) 13:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I have proposed a merge of a former Scottish pro-EU party, please discuss at Talk:European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom)#Merge of United in Europe. Fences& Windows 12:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place about whether a series of templates used to generate references to the work of Leigh Rayment fall within Wikipedia's content guideline to use reliable sources, or alternatively whether they should be deprecated and tagged with {{ Self-published source}} and/or {{ Better source}}.
These templates are used for referencing over 10,000 articles relating to the House of Commons of England, the House of Commons of Ireland, the House of Commons of England, the House of Commons of Great Britain, the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, and the peerages and baronetcies of the islands of Ireland and Great Britain.
Since whatever decision is made will effect so many articles, I am notifying the following WikiProjects of this discussion: WP:WikiProject England, WP:WikiProject Ireland, WikiProject Northern Ireland, WikiProject Scotland, WikiProject United Kingdom, and WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom.
Your comments would be welcome, but please post them at WT:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Leigh_Rayment.27s_Peerage_Pages_.282017.29, so that your contribution can be weighed as part of the discussion. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I suppose this question has been asked before, but I don't know the answer. When adding the template of this WikiProject to a talkpage, which previous was tagged with the template from the general UK WikiProject, should the general WikiProject template be removed, or kept? Debresser ( talk) 14:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I have nominated List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Nevé – selbert 20:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Please see the requested move discussion at Talk:Community Charge#Requested move 20 July 2017. AusLondonder ( talk) 18:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
There are discussions ongoing at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#Corbyn's views on immigration and Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#Corbyn on the single market which I would like a third opinion with. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 14:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Category:BBC journalists associated with the Labour Party (UK) Thoughts on the appropriateness of this?
There is currently a push to attempt to improve the articled South Ayrshire, and input from other editors in-particular those from this project is welcomed. The article is one of a number of similar articles, and it is hoped that this article can act as a standard for others in a similar vein, for being able to improve them all. Is it currently stands the article has a number of big issues, the largest being sourcing were as it stands over 85% of all sources are a primary source. There is also a lot of lists on the page, and a significant amount of over-detail of non-notable information. Thank you for your time Sport and politics ( talk) 08:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The Balfour Declaration article is currently a receiving a Featured Article Candidate review. The declaration is considered to be the birth certificate of the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and its 100th anniversary is in less than two months' time. It is a level 4 vital article in History, and a Top-Importance article at both Wikiproject Israel and WikiProject Palestine. Any input would be appreciated.
Much of the article is focused on the activities of British politicians and civil servants, so input from this WikiProject would be particularly helpful.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 10:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
The related Category:Jacob Rees-Mogg has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
AusLondonder ( talk) 03:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I do a lot of work with organizing stubs, and the largest stub categories is Category:Parliament of England (pre-1707) MP stubs, which has 2,893 associated pages. My goal is to subdivide this into categories with more manageable amounts of stubs (maybe 200 articles each). Unfortunately, I don't know much about UK/English politics, so I don't have any great ideas about how to subdivide. Does anyone at this wikiproject have any ideas of how to subdivide this, or know a better wikiproject to ask about this?
I would also note that Category:UK MP for England stubs is also an extremely large category, with 1,593 uncategorized pages, so subdivision ideas for that category would welcome as well. This is crossposted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England - Furicorn ( talk) 07:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Gillian Keegan#Photo under wrong licence at commons. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world:
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 07:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I have nominated the article
Kevin McKeever for deletion. I'd appreciate any feedback or comments you might have. The deletion discussion is available at
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kevin_McKeever_(2nd_nomination). Many thanks.
Eloquai (
talk) 19:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
Is there a consensus to refer to Sylvia Hermon as an " Independent Unionist"? And if so, why? The title is used on her page, on the North Down constituency page, the 2017 election results listing and the House of Commons of the United Kingdom page; but as far as I can see she has only ever been referred to as an "Independent", on the 2015 and 2017 statements of persons nominated; on the BBC results; on the Parliament website; and in Hansard. I don't want to go around changing everything if there is a consensus, but at the moment calling her an "Independent Unionist" as if that is a party she is a member of smacks of original research. OZOO (t) (c) 13:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)