![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
David Cameron, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.
This seems to be a somewhat earth-shattering element to have been omitted from the Acts of Union 1707 article until now, if correct. Is it?
Should election articles link to candidates' campaign websites or not? A point of generic issue to this WikiProject has come up at Talk:Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election,_2018#Candidates'_campaign_websites. Additional input welcomed. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2018 is getting a lot of IP editing by people who appear to be supporters of different candidates, but who may be less familiar with Wikipedia principles like WP:RS, WP:NPOV etc. More eyes and input would be welcome. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
So a couple of months ago I stumbled upon an incomplete List of United Kingdom MPs who died in the 2010s. I expanded it, and created an article for it on the previous decade. I'd be interested in having this stretch back to the first UK Parliament in 1801, however, I'm aware that obituaries to cite are going to be hard to find, as well as the fact we don't have articles on all MPs, the earlier I get. Looking at our by-election lists, there aren't sources for earlier ones, so when creating should I source where possible, but if I can't find one just grin and bear it? Yoshi876 ( talk) 17:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Notification of this AfD for your consideration Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends Party
doktorb words deeds 11:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The IP-hopper is removing cited information. I've requested page protecton, but could someone help out until that happens? I don't want to breach 3RR. Softlavender ( talk) 01:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Here is a list of all Welsh Government's to date: /info/en/?search=List_of_Welsh_Governments
It lists four for Rhodri Morgan, yet there were five:
1. Feb-Oct 2000 (Labour minority)
2. Oct 2000-May 2003 (Lab/LD Coalition)
3. May 2003-May 2007 (Labour minority)
4. May 2007-July 2007 (Labour minority)
5. July 2007-Dec 2009 (Lab/Plaid Coalition)
The first ministry is missing. I need help moving the current first ministry to the second minister, 2nd to 3rd, 3rd to 4th and 4th to 5th.
If someone can do that I can write the page for the first ministry.
I can also expand the existing pages (in their new homes) by adding more detail and references regarding resignations and reshuffles etc.
Paulharding150 ( talk) 13:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
This Wiki article correctly states that the coalition started in October: /info/en/?search=Lib%E2%80%93Lab_pact Here are two Guardian articles on it: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2000/oct/06/wales.devolution and https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2000/oct/16/wales.politicalnews Here's a BBC news article where Labour approved it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/957465.stm
Here's an oral Assembly statement from Oct 2000 (starts at the bottom of Page 19) http://www.assembly.wales/record%20of%20proceedings%20documents/the%20record-17102000-9183/bus-chamber-39edc6220005d363000064c700000000-english.pdf
In the reshuffle following the coaltion two Lib Dems entered the Cabinate (Mike German and Jenny Randerson) along with Labour's Jane Davidson, and two Labour AMs left (Peter Law and Rose Butler).
There was most definitely a minority led Labour administration headed up by Rhodri Morgan from February - October 2000.
Paulharding150 ( talk) 08:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 7#RfC: Inclusion of expert opinions, views of pundits, activist groups, tweets, etc. may be of interest to board followers. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello - there's currently a discussion at the talk page of the article 2018 Amesbury poisonings as to whether this should be merged with the Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal article. Although I have my view as expressed in that discussion, I'm not here to canvass for that, but I do think it needs a few more eyes as at the moment there's no real progress or discussion towards a consensus. You can contribute to this at Talk:2018 Amesbury poisonings#Merge. -- Super Nintendo Chalmers ( talk) 09:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
This is what Wikipedia put in "current events" for Theresa May's rebuff at the EU informal Salzburg summit 20 September 2018 and this is what they thought of my attempt to get May's statement in response in: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Closed) International relations. I've asked about the lack of coverage here: Wikipedia talk:In the news#Brexit negotiations, 20 September 2018. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 15:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding whether a letter from a number of Orthodox Rabbis should be included in the “Allegations of antisemitism and responses” section of the Jeremy Corbyn page. Arguments for and against are in the “Letter from Orthodox Rabbis is Valid” section of the talk page. Please view and vote if this interests you. See /info/en/?search=Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn#RfC_about_a_letter_from_Orthodox_Rabbis Burrobert ( talk) 11:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United Kingdom general election, 1832–33 which affects United Kingdom general election, 1832–33 and 11 related pages, all of which fall within the scope of this project.
Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Going through articles of Labour politicians, I've found that a lot of articles include a line saying that they are or were members of Labour Friends of Israel, including all or almost all of the politicians listed as members on the Labour Friends of Israel page. This is really odd, as no other Friends groups are treated like this and due weight is rarely established using secondary sources. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of these lines were added by now-indefinitely blocked user Claíomh Solais.
This material is unnecessary clutter unless there's decent secondary sourcing. There are only a few politicians for whom LFI membership is encycolpedic content, such as some former chairs for whom the association is a relevant part of their political careers. I'd like to remove the material where no primary source is provided, but as there are so many articles which have been edited in this way I thought it would be wise to get views from other editors before continuing. Ralbegen ( talk) 12:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I've started an RfC on changing the election/referendum naming format to move the year to the front (so e.g. French presidential election, 2017 becomes 2017 French presidential election). All comments welcome here. Cheers, Number 5 7 20:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 6#RfC on inclusion of police investigation that editors here might be interested in. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 10:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Most political party pages have a section in the info box giving an approximation of the membership size long with an green/red arrow showing if it's increased/decreased.
However there's no timeline on the changes and different parties release figures at different moments, with sporadic frequencies.
Would it be better to simply to list the membership figure as = XX,XXX (Oct 2018) with no arrow, and to update this as often as possible and to create a section in the main article of each party showing the historic membership levels which will show the change?
Date | Membership | Source | +/1 |
---|---|---|---|
2012 | 8,000 | 2012 Leadership electionCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
|
|
2014 | 8,500 | House of Commons EstimateCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
|
![]() |
2018 | 8,050 | 2018 Leadership electionCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
|
![]() |
I notice a discussion regarding whether Plaid Cymru's membership had increase/decreased recently, I can find several reliable sources over the last decade all of which put them between 8,000 and 8,500 yet we know Labour, Lib Dem, SNP and UKIP for example have all fluctuated massively over the last decade.
Just a thought. Paulharding150 ( talk) 14:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
There isn't a lot of point including the membership figures at all. The Conservatives don't officially release theirs anyway, and Labour include people who are part of some affiliated Unions but not others. Certainly there's no point to the arrows without a consistent reporting basis, and the data simply isn't there to support such a thing Espatie ( talk) 18:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
It seems highly possible that due to the current MPs ongoing Court Case there may be a by-election in Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency). As such, the Constituency Article is likely to become highly visible. Is there anything that should be done to improve it before it becomes a more important resource? Please comment in the Article Talk Page Espatie ( talk) 18:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I have been redesigning this sidebar, which is featured on many brexit pages as well as other EU-UK pages. The new draft is here. Comments or changes are more than welcome, please post them here. Heb the best ( talk) 23:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I know we have a general article about Contempt of Parliament but I'm wondering if it's worth creating one about the vote this evening in which the UK Government was found to be in contempt of Parliament, the first time such a thing has happened in the UK. I'm pretty certain the topic would be notable enough to do this, but I have a few questions? What would we call such an article? How would it be structured? Would it overlap significantly with anything that currently exists? Is it too early to consider an article of this nature? Should we wait for any possible consequences? Would any possible consequences (the fall of the government, for example) negate the need for an article on the government's contempt of Parliament? Any thoughts? This is Paul ( talk) 22:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the description of the no confidence vote as a leadership spill (such as here) as surely that is something different, and is not a term we use in the UK anyway. This is Paul ( talk) 19:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion at Talk:Nicola Sturgeon#Too much focus on foreign affairs in article about the remit and content of the article. All contributions and thoughts are welcome This is Paul ( talk) 18:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at Template talk:Theresa May#Expansion as the template has been expanded quite significantly in recent weeks. Please feel free to add any thoughts to the discussion. This is Paul ( talk) 13:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
2019 motion of no confidence in the May ministry has been moved to 2019 vote of confidence in the May ministry in this diff on the basis that the 1993 vote of confidence in the Major ministry (originally "1993 vote of confidence in the government of John Major") sets a precedence. I would have said that because the motion is of no confidence then the post-vote article should also be of no confidence.
Category:Votes of no confidence in the United Kingdom currently shows:
Thoughts? -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 10:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I've recently been looking at categorisation for late medieval MPs (ie 14th/15th century). From the 1500s up to the modern era, these are categorised by Parliament, and the general rule seems to be one category per parliamentary term, eg "1547-1552", or in a more modern context "2010-15". (I recall seeing discussions about this years ago, but I can't seem to find explicit documentation of the consensus for it - the closest thing seems to be this 2012 CFD) In the 14th and 15th century, they are mostly just in century-level categories.
In the late medieval period, when Parliaments were much shorter affairs, there were several years with two distinct parliaments (see List of Parliaments of England). As far as I can tell they were completely distinct events - new sets of members returned, and so on, the same way as in the normal change from year to year. I recently started systematically creating categories for these terms, which mostly didn't exist, and found we had a couple of existing categories which lumped the two from a single year together (eg Category:English MPs 1388). My initial reaction was to split these out into separate categories for the two terms that year, but there have been some concerns raised about that.
So, some questions:
@ Liz:, who raised concerns over some of the split categories; also @ Marcocapelle, Furicorn, Rathfelder, BrownHairedGirl, and Spiderjerky: who I think have worked on various of these early categories in the past.
PS: I know this project is intended as post-1707, but I'm not sure if anywhere actually covers pre-Union politicians, and the issue touches on a UK politics category scheme, so it seemed appropriate to raise it here... Andrew Gray ( talk) 20:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
Parliaments of England 1558–1601}}
(Elizabeth I) vs {{
Parliaments of England 1601}}
(Stuarts until Union). Perhaps this is a common historiographical delineation? Not knowing a ton about UK history this may be the arbitrary preference of that particular template creator (@
Plucas58: in case you care to weigh in)). -
Furicorn (
talk)
21:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I've noted that the vast majority of Lords that have been Government Ministers are stated to be members of the Privy Council (with the prefix 'The Right Honourable'), however in most instances this is not the case. I've removed the prefix from most serving Ministers, but if someone has more time to remove previous Ministers that would be great. We also need to be aware not to state this going forward. A comprehensive and up to date list of Members can be found here: https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/privy-council/privy-council-members/privy-counsellors/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MassiveNewOrderFan ( talk • contribs) 13:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
In what seems extraordinary to me, I've had an edit to Richard Benyon MP reverted by Absolutelypuremilk. The revert was of an addition of extracts from his entry in the Register of Members' Interests, and specified payments he has received from various sources. Absolutelypuremilk commented "Undid revision - not clear why this is particularly notable".
It seems to me that the whole purpose of the Register of members's interests to to require politicians to be transparent about their interests, so that the electorate can decide if there is a conflict of interest. Such information seems absolutely notable to me, and should ideally IMO be included in the articles of all MPs.
I'd be interested in comment from this forum: are neutrally written, well sourced and referenced exerpts from the RoMI notable or not? -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 13:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
If there's something notable about an MP's financial interests, there will be secondary coverage of it. If something hasn't even been covered by a local newspaper but only in a primary source, I don't see the value of including it in the encyclopedia. Ralbegen ( talk) 14:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:2011 Welsh devolution referendum#Requested move 10 February 2019, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 17:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
The new Brexit Party is getting a lot of attention now Nigel Farage is on board. The article could do with some additional eyes on it. There's an IP SPA with strong views about it. Bondegezou ( talk) 00:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
More party splits! More fiddly Wikipedia tables to update! I've done Template:Political parties in the United Kingdom and see that The Independent Group has already been created. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I've created this page over a redirect that doktorb created earlier today. A by-election is pretty much certain to happen short of it being countermanded or prevented by a snap general election, and I've used the lead sentence "a by-election is expected in" rather than "a by-election will be held in" to indicate the fact that the writ has not yet been moved. This is the rationale I used for Lewisham East and West Tyrone prior to writs being moved there. I've found there was at least a small amount to discuss in the article that warranted it being separate from Newport West (UK Parliament Constituency). The content is all new wording I put in today so I'd like other editors to check through it and tweak things that don't sound quite right.
As with most by-elections I somewhat expect this to be a magnet for people who want to skew the NPOV and assign undue weight to fringe topics or parties, so I'd be grateful if other people could be vigilant against attempts to bombard the article with minor party candidacy announcements and improperly sourced additions. The news of Paul Flynn's unfortunate death has been overshadowed by the Independent Group being announced, but I suspect there will be relatively significant primary coverage of the by-election in the next few weeks given that the seat is not 100% safe and given that Labour selections often do attract direct media attention. Maswimelleu ( talk) 12:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 9#RfC: Stamford Hill may be of interest to this project. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
There's a very active new editor on the Democrats and Veterans article. Could we have some eyes on the page, and some friendly support of a new editor? Bondegezou ( talk) 16:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude ( talk) 06:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
This article—of interest to this project—is currently undergoing a peer review. All project members are welcome to comment there. Thank you! —— SerialNumber 54129 19:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion here. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 14:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of Antony Lerman of openDemocracy on the reliable sources noticeboard with respect to the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party article. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Antony Lerman at openDemocracy. — Newslinger talk 03:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Proposed merger of 2019 People's Vote March into People's Vote; Proposer's reational: "Seems may not pass the criteria of WP:N(E) to have an individual article." - B dash. The discussion is >>>Here<<< Please join the debate. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 14:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed that our elections and lists of MPs are a bit inconsistent in how they handle the Speaker. For example, in Feb 1974, the total is given as 297 Conservative seats, and the Speaker not mentioned. ( List of MPs elected in the February 1974 United Kingdom general election & February 1974 United Kingdom general election). In 2017, the total is given as 317 Conservative + 1 Speaker. ( List of MPs elected in the 2017 United Kingdom general election & 2017 United Kingdom general election). In some cases, they differ; in 2001 the Speaker is counted separately on List of MPs elected in the 2001 United Kingdom general election, but as Labour in the totals at 2001 United Kingdom general election.
Should we have a consistent approach, and if so, what? In some years, eg 1992, there is no Speaker standing for re-election so obviously the person who will shortly become the Speaker should be counted with their party, but in others, I can see arguments either way. My preference would be "count separately", but happy to be convinced otherwise. Andrew Gray ( talk) 20:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
It appears that convention is to list MPs as having 'assumed office' on the day of results being announced. However, I'm not sure whether this is potentially misleading – would it not be more accurate to state that prior to being sworn in, that person is an MP-elect? As regards specifically Sinn Fein 'MPs', I'm not sure it is accurate to call them 'members' of a Parliament that they reject the legitimacy of to govern for Northern Ireland. It could lead to a potentially bizarre situation in the future where Wikipedia considers the longest-serving MP to be one that has never taken their seat. Domeditrix ( talk) 18:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Another vote of no confidence in Theresa May is on the cards after a petition from local Conservative associations passed the required number of signatures to force an Extraordinary General Meeting. 800 senior officials will vote, and although the vote will be non-binding I'd like to float the idea of an article on the topic, particularly as it's believed to be the first time such an instance has occurred. Obviously we'd need to wait for the meeting to be scheduled, and more media coverage of it (I imagine that'll be quite significant) but I'm interested in what others think. Is this a topic that can stand on its own as an article or can it be covered in existing pages? This is Paul ( talk) 14:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
In case it's of any interest to anyone, I've put together these automatically updated maintenance lists:
Lists are based mostly on the History of Parliament volumes. They give all MPs know to have served in that time period together with links to History of Parliament and ODNB entries, plus (for modern ones) Historic Hansard and Who's Who. And a Commons image, if identified. Last date in Parliament + constituency is identified for some but not all periods.
At the moment, there are only about 45 MPs missing of the 5,100+ who have been in Parliament at any point after the 1918 general election, which is pretty good coverage! Wikipedia has an article for everyone since the 1929 general election with only two exceptions, George Powell and Richard Spencer, both one-term Conservative backbenchers in 1931-35. Andrew Gray ( talk) 16:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Some additional input would be helpful at Talk:Brexit_Party#Third-party_sources_on_political_position?. We have some editors less experienced in Wikipedia's practices with strong views. Bondegezou ( talk) 20:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey all
I have had my attention drawn to the article Constituency election results in the 1929 United Kingdom general election, particularly about its length. However I have broader concerns. I'm not sure the article should exist at all. Each constituency already has its own page, and summary results are found on the page for each general election. This article seems to collate the results just for the sake of it, and may be part of an intended series of articles which didn't materialise. My instinct is to AfD. What do others thing? doktorb words deeds 18:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
An editor is proposing significant revisions to the template for political parties in the UK: see Template_talk:Political_parties_in_the_United_Kingdom#Inclusion_criteria_2019_discussion. More input into the discussion would be valued. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi. You might be interested in this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Member1494: has gone through a large number of junior minister pages and removed the relevant Secretary of State from the infobox. This is standard practice across UK politics and I don't see why this has been done without any discussion. The given reasoning was "PM appoints ministers not SoS" which is true, but the PM is also listed so I don't understand why the SoS shouldn't be listed as well. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 14:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more - it becomes ridiculous and all encompassing, not to mention misleading as to the relative interdependence of certain roles e.g. whips and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I'd prefer to curtail the boxes further, however think PM, predecessor and successor is acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Member1494 ( talk • contribs) 13:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
I've noticed that all parties that require disambiguation from parties in other countries use (UK) rather than (United Kingdom) in the article title, whereas American parties use (United States). I think it would be better if British parties also had their article names changed to (United Kingdom) instead of (UK). Articles for other countries also seem to use the complete name of the country, not an abbreviation.
The main ones to be changed would be Labour Party (UK), Conservative Party (UK) and Liberal Democrats (UK) etc.
Morris Schaffer ( talk) 09:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I'm wondering about the historical editorial background that led to the current convention of "List of MPs elected in the YYYY United Kingdom general election" (as opposed to, e.g. "Nth Parliament of the United Kingdom", which is the bold title used in the lead and infobox of the most recent articles). The United States has "Nth United States Congress", so I'm wondering whether there's a reason for the difference. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 05:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a requested move at Talk:Winston Churchill (1940–2010) that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 23:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion here which would benefit from input from members of this project. Hugsyrup ( talk) 15:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Please see the request and respond at Talk:Mohamed_Sheikh,_Baron_Sheikh#Request_for_edits. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Reactions to the 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election has been created. Why, for heavens' sake, why? What possible encyclopaedic value does a collation of empty and predictable soundbites have?
Sorry, got carried away there... what I meant to say was, do we have any Project wide view on articles of this nature? Bondegezou ( talk) 15:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Very trivial question. At the moment, we use slightly different colours for Labour and Labour/Co-operative (neither one is the "official" Labour colour, which is a tad pinker, but we probably shouldn't care about precise party branding). They're just different enough that seeing them next to each other bugs me, but not different enough that you could tell them apart at a glance. Since there isn't any real difference in political terms, would anyone object if I just make these two colours the same?
Labour Party |
Labour/Co-op |
Official Labour colour |
Co-operative |
Smurrayinchester 12:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
It currently defaults to expanded. Discussion here. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 07:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Could we have some further input at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#ICM_dual_polls? The question is how to handle a number of recent opinion polls asking for voting intentions under certain specific scenarios, e.g. if Brexit does or does not take place on 31 Oct. Bondegezou ( talk) 07:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey guys,
You may be interested in the discussion I've opened at Talk:Prorogation in the United Kingdom, where I propose splitting off the section regarding Johnson's prorogation into its own article, which may, down the road, become a "2019 British constitutional crisis" article if the Government causes another crisis with regard to the EU(W)(2)A. Sceptre ( talk) 16:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Can I get some eyes on Irina von Wiese? There's someone with some theory about her having an aristocratic background that the world must be told about. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Could I ask for some views, please, on the article title question (regarding a UK peerage) that I've asked at Talk:Michael Howard#Primary topic?. Thank you. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
When it comes to by-election articles, we tend to enforce a rule that candidacies need reliable, secondary sourcing. That is, a party or candidate tweeting that it/they will stand is not sufficient. This is in line with usual Wikipedia sourcing approaches and helps deal with the tendency for minor candidates to talk a big game before by-elections, but to fail to complete an adequate nomination.
So, what should we do on constituency articles where many have candidates listed for the next general election, but with sourcing just being to a primary source? I recently removed such for Ealing Central and Acton (UK Parliament constituency), but they were re-added. There are 2 candidates sourced to Twitter, and 1 to a party website. Do we have any WikiProject policy here? Bondegezou ( talk) 08:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
There is discussion, and to-and-fro editing, on several constituency articles as to whether or not well-referenced selected candidates for "next election" should appear in Wikipedia - see Wyre and Preston North (UK Parliament constituency), Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (UK Parliament constituency) etc. Pam D 08:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Hard to tell if this is just taking the ... Views of editors regarding the discussion here - Talk:2019 United Kingdom general election#Can an Irish citizen who does not live in the UK even apply to stand as an MP? - would be much appreciated indeed, thank you very much indeed. 194.207.146.167 ( talk) 13:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
If the Early Parliamentary General Election Bill passes as expected then the 57th Parliament of the United Kingdom will dissolve early next month. This means that 648 biographical articles will need to have the "MP" post-nominals removed from their infoboxes, and for various other small amendments to be made as these people cease to be incumbent officeholders. In prior elections this has been accomplished, if at all, by a small group of dedicated editors trawling manually through dozens of articles each to make the necessary changes. Would it be possible this time to create a bot for the purpose instead? Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 19:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
I run an election forcasting website, and I'm building an interactive map of past UK General Election results. I have results from 2005-2017, but I can't find any shapefiles older than that. Since you update the maps on the pages for the UK, I was wondering if one of you might have some older shapefiles to help the project out.
Check out the website at www.leantossup.ca and contact me from the "About the Author" page
Thanks
LeanTossup ( talk) 03:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)LeanTossup
Would it be of interest to have a List of Deputy Speakers of the British House of Commons? I'd love to know for example who were deputies in a certain year. (There's a Category:Deputy Speakers of the British House of Commons.)-- Roy17 ( talk) 17:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Asked this on a different talk page and got directed here. Technically during Purdah, there are no MPs. Should we be updating every MP's page so the service is shown to have ended on 6th Nov? Strictly speaking, any MP that has served in successive parliaments should have their page edited to show that they were not MP for the election periods between parliaments they served in. Is there an official wikipedia policy on this? Jedi Master Bra'tac ( talk) 15:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Candidates in the "Unite to Remain" electoral alliance have been highlighted in lists of candidates in their respective constituency pages. This seems inappropriate to me—it's not information that appears on the ballot, and it's inconsistent with how candidates have been listed before. It seems undue to me and I think it should be removed. What do other editors think? Ralbegen ( talk) 21:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Yesterday, I updated the list of candidates at Jarrow (UK Parliament constituency) from the Statement of Persons Nominated. I left the existing refs for a couple of the candidates which were links to their tweets announcing their candidacy. I see Nickoliver66 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) later added one for candidate Nick Oliver (!) using the title There are 8 candidates standing to be the next MP for the Jarrow Constituency and I'm the only one from a party that can break the paralysing deadlock and Get Brexit Done.. On the one hand, it feels good to help readers find info on the candidates including what they're saying on Twitter but having election slogans as refs for some candidates feels wrong. Should we try to delete all such refs? -- Cavrdg ( talk) 16:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
It's election season, which means a rash of articles appearing for general election candidates. Being a candidate is not sufficient under WP:NPOL for an article, although some of these may be notable for other reasons. May I suggest editors keep an eye on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians? There are 3 UK general election candidates currently there (2 nominated by me) and I wouldn't be surprised to see more. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
There's an ongoing AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Finucane (Sinn Féin politician). Finucane was Lord Mayor of Belfast. I'd like input on whether Lord Mayors, or perhaps specifically Lord Mayors of Belfast, should automatically be considered notable or not.
Being a Lord Mayor is a ceremonial role that moves between local councillors and local councillors. WP:NPOL says councillors are not inherently notable. That said, being Lord Mayor is a bit more than just being a councillor. I live in London and each borough council has a mayor, which isn't that prestigious a role. But the Lord Mayor of Belfast is a somewhat more significant role. So what do people think? Is it notable enough that we can presume all Lord Mayors (or perhaps all Lord Mayors of Belfast at least) are notable? Is it one factor that might tip the balance, but not in itself sufficient notability? Is it a minor detail that carries no weight and we should just stick to WP:NPOL/ WP:GNG? Advice wanted. SVUKnight points out at that AfD that nearly all past Lord Mayors of Belfast do have articles: does that tell us something? Bondegezou ( talk) 17:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. Four of us are kinda deadlocked at Talk:2019_United_Kingdom_general_election#UK_fact_check_-_alternative_texts. Some additional input would be welcomed. Bondegezou ( talk) 20:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a fairly large list of spouses. Another large list has been added, namely Oldest Living Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The errors can be fixed eventually but any thoughts about the extra list? Johnuniq ( talk) 09:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello my name is Alisa. I am from the company q-home UK, we recently bought a Clock Corner in Doncaster and we are searching for a writer, who can write an artical in wikepedia about this clock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisa1239 ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I get that with the Fixed-term Parliament Act MPs cease to be MPs when Parliament is dissolved, but I'm wondering if it's necessary to add "election in progress" to the succession parameter of the infobox to every MP article (as for example here), especially with just two days to go before they all need changing again. This is Paul ( talk) 23:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
David Cameron, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.
This seems to be a somewhat earth-shattering element to have been omitted from the Acts of Union 1707 article until now, if correct. Is it?
Should election articles link to candidates' campaign websites or not? A point of generic issue to this WikiProject has come up at Talk:Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election,_2018#Candidates'_campaign_websites. Additional input welcomed. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2018 is getting a lot of IP editing by people who appear to be supporters of different candidates, but who may be less familiar with Wikipedia principles like WP:RS, WP:NPOV etc. More eyes and input would be welcome. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
So a couple of months ago I stumbled upon an incomplete List of United Kingdom MPs who died in the 2010s. I expanded it, and created an article for it on the previous decade. I'd be interested in having this stretch back to the first UK Parliament in 1801, however, I'm aware that obituaries to cite are going to be hard to find, as well as the fact we don't have articles on all MPs, the earlier I get. Looking at our by-election lists, there aren't sources for earlier ones, so when creating should I source where possible, but if I can't find one just grin and bear it? Yoshi876 ( talk) 17:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Notification of this AfD for your consideration Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends Party
doktorb words deeds 11:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The IP-hopper is removing cited information. I've requested page protecton, but could someone help out until that happens? I don't want to breach 3RR. Softlavender ( talk) 01:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Here is a list of all Welsh Government's to date: /info/en/?search=List_of_Welsh_Governments
It lists four for Rhodri Morgan, yet there were five:
1. Feb-Oct 2000 (Labour minority)
2. Oct 2000-May 2003 (Lab/LD Coalition)
3. May 2003-May 2007 (Labour minority)
4. May 2007-July 2007 (Labour minority)
5. July 2007-Dec 2009 (Lab/Plaid Coalition)
The first ministry is missing. I need help moving the current first ministry to the second minister, 2nd to 3rd, 3rd to 4th and 4th to 5th.
If someone can do that I can write the page for the first ministry.
I can also expand the existing pages (in their new homes) by adding more detail and references regarding resignations and reshuffles etc.
Paulharding150 ( talk) 13:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
This Wiki article correctly states that the coalition started in October: /info/en/?search=Lib%E2%80%93Lab_pact Here are two Guardian articles on it: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2000/oct/06/wales.devolution and https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2000/oct/16/wales.politicalnews Here's a BBC news article where Labour approved it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/957465.stm
Here's an oral Assembly statement from Oct 2000 (starts at the bottom of Page 19) http://www.assembly.wales/record%20of%20proceedings%20documents/the%20record-17102000-9183/bus-chamber-39edc6220005d363000064c700000000-english.pdf
In the reshuffle following the coaltion two Lib Dems entered the Cabinate (Mike German and Jenny Randerson) along with Labour's Jane Davidson, and two Labour AMs left (Peter Law and Rose Butler).
There was most definitely a minority led Labour administration headed up by Rhodri Morgan from February - October 2000.
Paulharding150 ( talk) 08:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 7#RfC: Inclusion of expert opinions, views of pundits, activist groups, tweets, etc. may be of interest to board followers. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello - there's currently a discussion at the talk page of the article 2018 Amesbury poisonings as to whether this should be merged with the Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal article. Although I have my view as expressed in that discussion, I'm not here to canvass for that, but I do think it needs a few more eyes as at the moment there's no real progress or discussion towards a consensus. You can contribute to this at Talk:2018 Amesbury poisonings#Merge. -- Super Nintendo Chalmers ( talk) 09:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
This is what Wikipedia put in "current events" for Theresa May's rebuff at the EU informal Salzburg summit 20 September 2018 and this is what they thought of my attempt to get May's statement in response in: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Closed) International relations. I've asked about the lack of coverage here: Wikipedia talk:In the news#Brexit negotiations, 20 September 2018. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 15:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding whether a letter from a number of Orthodox Rabbis should be included in the “Allegations of antisemitism and responses” section of the Jeremy Corbyn page. Arguments for and against are in the “Letter from Orthodox Rabbis is Valid” section of the talk page. Please view and vote if this interests you. See /info/en/?search=Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn#RfC_about_a_letter_from_Orthodox_Rabbis Burrobert ( talk) 11:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United Kingdom general election, 1832–33 which affects United Kingdom general election, 1832–33 and 11 related pages, all of which fall within the scope of this project.
Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Going through articles of Labour politicians, I've found that a lot of articles include a line saying that they are or were members of Labour Friends of Israel, including all or almost all of the politicians listed as members on the Labour Friends of Israel page. This is really odd, as no other Friends groups are treated like this and due weight is rarely established using secondary sources. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of these lines were added by now-indefinitely blocked user Claíomh Solais.
This material is unnecessary clutter unless there's decent secondary sourcing. There are only a few politicians for whom LFI membership is encycolpedic content, such as some former chairs for whom the association is a relevant part of their political careers. I'd like to remove the material where no primary source is provided, but as there are so many articles which have been edited in this way I thought it would be wise to get views from other editors before continuing. Ralbegen ( talk) 12:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I've started an RfC on changing the election/referendum naming format to move the year to the front (so e.g. French presidential election, 2017 becomes 2017 French presidential election). All comments welcome here. Cheers, Number 5 7 20:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 6#RfC on inclusion of police investigation that editors here might be interested in. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 10:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Most political party pages have a section in the info box giving an approximation of the membership size long with an green/red arrow showing if it's increased/decreased.
However there's no timeline on the changes and different parties release figures at different moments, with sporadic frequencies.
Would it be better to simply to list the membership figure as = XX,XXX (Oct 2018) with no arrow, and to update this as often as possible and to create a section in the main article of each party showing the historic membership levels which will show the change?
Date | Membership | Source | +/1 |
---|---|---|---|
2012 | 8,000 | 2012 Leadership electionCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
|
|
2014 | 8,500 | House of Commons EstimateCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
|
![]() |
2018 | 8,050 | 2018 Leadership electionCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
|
![]() |
I notice a discussion regarding whether Plaid Cymru's membership had increase/decreased recently, I can find several reliable sources over the last decade all of which put them between 8,000 and 8,500 yet we know Labour, Lib Dem, SNP and UKIP for example have all fluctuated massively over the last decade.
Just a thought. Paulharding150 ( talk) 14:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
There isn't a lot of point including the membership figures at all. The Conservatives don't officially release theirs anyway, and Labour include people who are part of some affiliated Unions but not others. Certainly there's no point to the arrows without a consistent reporting basis, and the data simply isn't there to support such a thing Espatie ( talk) 18:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
It seems highly possible that due to the current MPs ongoing Court Case there may be a by-election in Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency). As such, the Constituency Article is likely to become highly visible. Is there anything that should be done to improve it before it becomes a more important resource? Please comment in the Article Talk Page Espatie ( talk) 18:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I have been redesigning this sidebar, which is featured on many brexit pages as well as other EU-UK pages. The new draft is here. Comments or changes are more than welcome, please post them here. Heb the best ( talk) 23:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I know we have a general article about Contempt of Parliament but I'm wondering if it's worth creating one about the vote this evening in which the UK Government was found to be in contempt of Parliament, the first time such a thing has happened in the UK. I'm pretty certain the topic would be notable enough to do this, but I have a few questions? What would we call such an article? How would it be structured? Would it overlap significantly with anything that currently exists? Is it too early to consider an article of this nature? Should we wait for any possible consequences? Would any possible consequences (the fall of the government, for example) negate the need for an article on the government's contempt of Parliament? Any thoughts? This is Paul ( talk) 22:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the description of the no confidence vote as a leadership spill (such as here) as surely that is something different, and is not a term we use in the UK anyway. This is Paul ( talk) 19:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion at Talk:Nicola Sturgeon#Too much focus on foreign affairs in article about the remit and content of the article. All contributions and thoughts are welcome This is Paul ( talk) 18:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at Template talk:Theresa May#Expansion as the template has been expanded quite significantly in recent weeks. Please feel free to add any thoughts to the discussion. This is Paul ( talk) 13:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
2019 motion of no confidence in the May ministry has been moved to 2019 vote of confidence in the May ministry in this diff on the basis that the 1993 vote of confidence in the Major ministry (originally "1993 vote of confidence in the government of John Major") sets a precedence. I would have said that because the motion is of no confidence then the post-vote article should also be of no confidence.
Category:Votes of no confidence in the United Kingdom currently shows:
Thoughts? -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 10:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I've recently been looking at categorisation for late medieval MPs (ie 14th/15th century). From the 1500s up to the modern era, these are categorised by Parliament, and the general rule seems to be one category per parliamentary term, eg "1547-1552", or in a more modern context "2010-15". (I recall seeing discussions about this years ago, but I can't seem to find explicit documentation of the consensus for it - the closest thing seems to be this 2012 CFD) In the 14th and 15th century, they are mostly just in century-level categories.
In the late medieval period, when Parliaments were much shorter affairs, there were several years with two distinct parliaments (see List of Parliaments of England). As far as I can tell they were completely distinct events - new sets of members returned, and so on, the same way as in the normal change from year to year. I recently started systematically creating categories for these terms, which mostly didn't exist, and found we had a couple of existing categories which lumped the two from a single year together (eg Category:English MPs 1388). My initial reaction was to split these out into separate categories for the two terms that year, but there have been some concerns raised about that.
So, some questions:
@ Liz:, who raised concerns over some of the split categories; also @ Marcocapelle, Furicorn, Rathfelder, BrownHairedGirl, and Spiderjerky: who I think have worked on various of these early categories in the past.
PS: I know this project is intended as post-1707, but I'm not sure if anywhere actually covers pre-Union politicians, and the issue touches on a UK politics category scheme, so it seemed appropriate to raise it here... Andrew Gray ( talk) 20:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
Parliaments of England 1558–1601}}
(Elizabeth I) vs {{
Parliaments of England 1601}}
(Stuarts until Union). Perhaps this is a common historiographical delineation? Not knowing a ton about UK history this may be the arbitrary preference of that particular template creator (@
Plucas58: in case you care to weigh in)). -
Furicorn (
talk)
21:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I've noted that the vast majority of Lords that have been Government Ministers are stated to be members of the Privy Council (with the prefix 'The Right Honourable'), however in most instances this is not the case. I've removed the prefix from most serving Ministers, but if someone has more time to remove previous Ministers that would be great. We also need to be aware not to state this going forward. A comprehensive and up to date list of Members can be found here: https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/privy-council/privy-council-members/privy-counsellors/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MassiveNewOrderFan ( talk • contribs) 13:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
In what seems extraordinary to me, I've had an edit to Richard Benyon MP reverted by Absolutelypuremilk. The revert was of an addition of extracts from his entry in the Register of Members' Interests, and specified payments he has received from various sources. Absolutelypuremilk commented "Undid revision - not clear why this is particularly notable".
It seems to me that the whole purpose of the Register of members's interests to to require politicians to be transparent about their interests, so that the electorate can decide if there is a conflict of interest. Such information seems absolutely notable to me, and should ideally IMO be included in the articles of all MPs.
I'd be interested in comment from this forum: are neutrally written, well sourced and referenced exerpts from the RoMI notable or not? -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 13:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
If there's something notable about an MP's financial interests, there will be secondary coverage of it. If something hasn't even been covered by a local newspaper but only in a primary source, I don't see the value of including it in the encyclopedia. Ralbegen ( talk) 14:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:2011 Welsh devolution referendum#Requested move 10 February 2019, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 17:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
The new Brexit Party is getting a lot of attention now Nigel Farage is on board. The article could do with some additional eyes on it. There's an IP SPA with strong views about it. Bondegezou ( talk) 00:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
More party splits! More fiddly Wikipedia tables to update! I've done Template:Political parties in the United Kingdom and see that The Independent Group has already been created. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I've created this page over a redirect that doktorb created earlier today. A by-election is pretty much certain to happen short of it being countermanded or prevented by a snap general election, and I've used the lead sentence "a by-election is expected in" rather than "a by-election will be held in" to indicate the fact that the writ has not yet been moved. This is the rationale I used for Lewisham East and West Tyrone prior to writs being moved there. I've found there was at least a small amount to discuss in the article that warranted it being separate from Newport West (UK Parliament Constituency). The content is all new wording I put in today so I'd like other editors to check through it and tweak things that don't sound quite right.
As with most by-elections I somewhat expect this to be a magnet for people who want to skew the NPOV and assign undue weight to fringe topics or parties, so I'd be grateful if other people could be vigilant against attempts to bombard the article with minor party candidacy announcements and improperly sourced additions. The news of Paul Flynn's unfortunate death has been overshadowed by the Independent Group being announced, but I suspect there will be relatively significant primary coverage of the by-election in the next few weeks given that the seat is not 100% safe and given that Labour selections often do attract direct media attention. Maswimelleu ( talk) 12:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 9#RfC: Stamford Hill may be of interest to this project. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
There's a very active new editor on the Democrats and Veterans article. Could we have some eyes on the page, and some friendly support of a new editor? Bondegezou ( talk) 16:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude ( talk) 06:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
This article—of interest to this project—is currently undergoing a peer review. All project members are welcome to comment there. Thank you! —— SerialNumber 54129 19:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion here. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 14:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the reliability of Antony Lerman of openDemocracy on the reliable sources noticeboard with respect to the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party article. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Antony Lerman at openDemocracy. — Newslinger talk 03:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Proposed merger of 2019 People's Vote March into People's Vote; Proposer's reational: "Seems may not pass the criteria of WP:N(E) to have an individual article." - B dash. The discussion is >>>Here<<< Please join the debate. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 14:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed that our elections and lists of MPs are a bit inconsistent in how they handle the Speaker. For example, in Feb 1974, the total is given as 297 Conservative seats, and the Speaker not mentioned. ( List of MPs elected in the February 1974 United Kingdom general election & February 1974 United Kingdom general election). In 2017, the total is given as 317 Conservative + 1 Speaker. ( List of MPs elected in the 2017 United Kingdom general election & 2017 United Kingdom general election). In some cases, they differ; in 2001 the Speaker is counted separately on List of MPs elected in the 2001 United Kingdom general election, but as Labour in the totals at 2001 United Kingdom general election.
Should we have a consistent approach, and if so, what? In some years, eg 1992, there is no Speaker standing for re-election so obviously the person who will shortly become the Speaker should be counted with their party, but in others, I can see arguments either way. My preference would be "count separately", but happy to be convinced otherwise. Andrew Gray ( talk) 20:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
It appears that convention is to list MPs as having 'assumed office' on the day of results being announced. However, I'm not sure whether this is potentially misleading – would it not be more accurate to state that prior to being sworn in, that person is an MP-elect? As regards specifically Sinn Fein 'MPs', I'm not sure it is accurate to call them 'members' of a Parliament that they reject the legitimacy of to govern for Northern Ireland. It could lead to a potentially bizarre situation in the future where Wikipedia considers the longest-serving MP to be one that has never taken their seat. Domeditrix ( talk) 18:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Another vote of no confidence in Theresa May is on the cards after a petition from local Conservative associations passed the required number of signatures to force an Extraordinary General Meeting. 800 senior officials will vote, and although the vote will be non-binding I'd like to float the idea of an article on the topic, particularly as it's believed to be the first time such an instance has occurred. Obviously we'd need to wait for the meeting to be scheduled, and more media coverage of it (I imagine that'll be quite significant) but I'm interested in what others think. Is this a topic that can stand on its own as an article or can it be covered in existing pages? This is Paul ( talk) 14:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
In case it's of any interest to anyone, I've put together these automatically updated maintenance lists:
Lists are based mostly on the History of Parliament volumes. They give all MPs know to have served in that time period together with links to History of Parliament and ODNB entries, plus (for modern ones) Historic Hansard and Who's Who. And a Commons image, if identified. Last date in Parliament + constituency is identified for some but not all periods.
At the moment, there are only about 45 MPs missing of the 5,100+ who have been in Parliament at any point after the 1918 general election, which is pretty good coverage! Wikipedia has an article for everyone since the 1929 general election with only two exceptions, George Powell and Richard Spencer, both one-term Conservative backbenchers in 1931-35. Andrew Gray ( talk) 16:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Some additional input would be helpful at Talk:Brexit_Party#Third-party_sources_on_political_position?. We have some editors less experienced in Wikipedia's practices with strong views. Bondegezou ( talk) 20:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey all
I have had my attention drawn to the article Constituency election results in the 1929 United Kingdom general election, particularly about its length. However I have broader concerns. I'm not sure the article should exist at all. Each constituency already has its own page, and summary results are found on the page for each general election. This article seems to collate the results just for the sake of it, and may be part of an intended series of articles which didn't materialise. My instinct is to AfD. What do others thing? doktorb words deeds 18:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
An editor is proposing significant revisions to the template for political parties in the UK: see Template_talk:Political_parties_in_the_United_Kingdom#Inclusion_criteria_2019_discussion. More input into the discussion would be valued. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi. You might be interested in this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Member1494: has gone through a large number of junior minister pages and removed the relevant Secretary of State from the infobox. This is standard practice across UK politics and I don't see why this has been done without any discussion. The given reasoning was "PM appoints ministers not SoS" which is true, but the PM is also listed so I don't understand why the SoS shouldn't be listed as well. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 14:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more - it becomes ridiculous and all encompassing, not to mention misleading as to the relative interdependence of certain roles e.g. whips and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I'd prefer to curtail the boxes further, however think PM, predecessor and successor is acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Member1494 ( talk • contribs) 13:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
I've noticed that all parties that require disambiguation from parties in other countries use (UK) rather than (United Kingdom) in the article title, whereas American parties use (United States). I think it would be better if British parties also had their article names changed to (United Kingdom) instead of (UK). Articles for other countries also seem to use the complete name of the country, not an abbreviation.
The main ones to be changed would be Labour Party (UK), Conservative Party (UK) and Liberal Democrats (UK) etc.
Morris Schaffer ( talk) 09:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I'm wondering about the historical editorial background that led to the current convention of "List of MPs elected in the YYYY United Kingdom general election" (as opposed to, e.g. "Nth Parliament of the United Kingdom", which is the bold title used in the lead and infobox of the most recent articles). The United States has "Nth United States Congress", so I'm wondering whether there's a reason for the difference. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 05:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a requested move at Talk:Winston Churchill (1940–2010) that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 23:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion here which would benefit from input from members of this project. Hugsyrup ( talk) 15:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Please see the request and respond at Talk:Mohamed_Sheikh,_Baron_Sheikh#Request_for_edits. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Reactions to the 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election has been created. Why, for heavens' sake, why? What possible encyclopaedic value does a collation of empty and predictable soundbites have?
Sorry, got carried away there... what I meant to say was, do we have any Project wide view on articles of this nature? Bondegezou ( talk) 15:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Very trivial question. At the moment, we use slightly different colours for Labour and Labour/Co-operative (neither one is the "official" Labour colour, which is a tad pinker, but we probably shouldn't care about precise party branding). They're just different enough that seeing them next to each other bugs me, but not different enough that you could tell them apart at a glance. Since there isn't any real difference in political terms, would anyone object if I just make these two colours the same?
Labour Party |
Labour/Co-op |
Official Labour colour |
Co-operative |
Smurrayinchester 12:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
It currently defaults to expanded. Discussion here. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 07:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Could we have some further input at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#ICM_dual_polls? The question is how to handle a number of recent opinion polls asking for voting intentions under certain specific scenarios, e.g. if Brexit does or does not take place on 31 Oct. Bondegezou ( talk) 07:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey guys,
You may be interested in the discussion I've opened at Talk:Prorogation in the United Kingdom, where I propose splitting off the section regarding Johnson's prorogation into its own article, which may, down the road, become a "2019 British constitutional crisis" article if the Government causes another crisis with regard to the EU(W)(2)A. Sceptre ( talk) 16:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Can I get some eyes on Irina von Wiese? There's someone with some theory about her having an aristocratic background that the world must be told about. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Could I ask for some views, please, on the article title question (regarding a UK peerage) that I've asked at Talk:Michael Howard#Primary topic?. Thank you. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
When it comes to by-election articles, we tend to enforce a rule that candidacies need reliable, secondary sourcing. That is, a party or candidate tweeting that it/they will stand is not sufficient. This is in line with usual Wikipedia sourcing approaches and helps deal with the tendency for minor candidates to talk a big game before by-elections, but to fail to complete an adequate nomination.
So, what should we do on constituency articles where many have candidates listed for the next general election, but with sourcing just being to a primary source? I recently removed such for Ealing Central and Acton (UK Parliament constituency), but they were re-added. There are 2 candidates sourced to Twitter, and 1 to a party website. Do we have any WikiProject policy here? Bondegezou ( talk) 08:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
There is discussion, and to-and-fro editing, on several constituency articles as to whether or not well-referenced selected candidates for "next election" should appear in Wikipedia - see Wyre and Preston North (UK Parliament constituency), Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (UK Parliament constituency) etc. Pam D 08:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Hard to tell if this is just taking the ... Views of editors regarding the discussion here - Talk:2019 United Kingdom general election#Can an Irish citizen who does not live in the UK even apply to stand as an MP? - would be much appreciated indeed, thank you very much indeed. 194.207.146.167 ( talk) 13:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
If the Early Parliamentary General Election Bill passes as expected then the 57th Parliament of the United Kingdom will dissolve early next month. This means that 648 biographical articles will need to have the "MP" post-nominals removed from their infoboxes, and for various other small amendments to be made as these people cease to be incumbent officeholders. In prior elections this has been accomplished, if at all, by a small group of dedicated editors trawling manually through dozens of articles each to make the necessary changes. Would it be possible this time to create a bot for the purpose instead? Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 19:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
I run an election forcasting website, and I'm building an interactive map of past UK General Election results. I have results from 2005-2017, but I can't find any shapefiles older than that. Since you update the maps on the pages for the UK, I was wondering if one of you might have some older shapefiles to help the project out.
Check out the website at www.leantossup.ca and contact me from the "About the Author" page
Thanks
LeanTossup ( talk) 03:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)LeanTossup
Would it be of interest to have a List of Deputy Speakers of the British House of Commons? I'd love to know for example who were deputies in a certain year. (There's a Category:Deputy Speakers of the British House of Commons.)-- Roy17 ( talk) 17:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Asked this on a different talk page and got directed here. Technically during Purdah, there are no MPs. Should we be updating every MP's page so the service is shown to have ended on 6th Nov? Strictly speaking, any MP that has served in successive parliaments should have their page edited to show that they were not MP for the election periods between parliaments they served in. Is there an official wikipedia policy on this? Jedi Master Bra'tac ( talk) 15:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Candidates in the "Unite to Remain" electoral alliance have been highlighted in lists of candidates in their respective constituency pages. This seems inappropriate to me—it's not information that appears on the ballot, and it's inconsistent with how candidates have been listed before. It seems undue to me and I think it should be removed. What do other editors think? Ralbegen ( talk) 21:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Yesterday, I updated the list of candidates at Jarrow (UK Parliament constituency) from the Statement of Persons Nominated. I left the existing refs for a couple of the candidates which were links to their tweets announcing their candidacy. I see Nickoliver66 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) later added one for candidate Nick Oliver (!) using the title There are 8 candidates standing to be the next MP for the Jarrow Constituency and I'm the only one from a party that can break the paralysing deadlock and Get Brexit Done.. On the one hand, it feels good to help readers find info on the candidates including what they're saying on Twitter but having election slogans as refs for some candidates feels wrong. Should we try to delete all such refs? -- Cavrdg ( talk) 16:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
It's election season, which means a rash of articles appearing for general election candidates. Being a candidate is not sufficient under WP:NPOL for an article, although some of these may be notable for other reasons. May I suggest editors keep an eye on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians? There are 3 UK general election candidates currently there (2 nominated by me) and I wouldn't be surprised to see more. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
There's an ongoing AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Finucane (Sinn Féin politician). Finucane was Lord Mayor of Belfast. I'd like input on whether Lord Mayors, or perhaps specifically Lord Mayors of Belfast, should automatically be considered notable or not.
Being a Lord Mayor is a ceremonial role that moves between local councillors and local councillors. WP:NPOL says councillors are not inherently notable. That said, being Lord Mayor is a bit more than just being a councillor. I live in London and each borough council has a mayor, which isn't that prestigious a role. But the Lord Mayor of Belfast is a somewhat more significant role. So what do people think? Is it notable enough that we can presume all Lord Mayors (or perhaps all Lord Mayors of Belfast at least) are notable? Is it one factor that might tip the balance, but not in itself sufficient notability? Is it a minor detail that carries no weight and we should just stick to WP:NPOL/ WP:GNG? Advice wanted. SVUKnight points out at that AfD that nearly all past Lord Mayors of Belfast do have articles: does that tell us something? Bondegezou ( talk) 17:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. Four of us are kinda deadlocked at Talk:2019_United_Kingdom_general_election#UK_fact_check_-_alternative_texts. Some additional input would be welcomed. Bondegezou ( talk) 20:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a fairly large list of spouses. Another large list has been added, namely Oldest Living Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The errors can be fixed eventually but any thoughts about the extra list? Johnuniq ( talk) 09:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello my name is Alisa. I am from the company q-home UK, we recently bought a Clock Corner in Doncaster and we are searching for a writer, who can write an artical in wikepedia about this clock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisa1239 ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I get that with the Fixed-term Parliament Act MPs cease to be MPs when Parliament is dissolved, but I'm wondering if it's necessary to add "election in progress" to the succession parameter of the infobox to every MP article (as for example here), especially with just two days to go before they all need changing again. This is Paul ( talk) 23:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)