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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I have nominated for deletion two navigation boxes for MPs:
-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Heads up if this is the kind of thing you want on your watchlist doktorb words deeds 14:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion may be of interest to this project Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics#Local_Election_Results_.28Particularly_in_Wales.29 Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I have just created the page Constitutionalist (UK) about the 4th party of the United Kingdom general election, 1924. Previously, all references to Constitutionalist directed readers via a re-direct to here Constitutionalism, which was unsatisfactory. I am in the process of altering the relevant links to the new Constitutionalist (UK) page. However, I have encountered one problem that I can not overcome. When I change 'Constitutionalist' to 'Constitutionalist (UK)' in the various tables, the name and party colour are not recognised. I assume that something needs to be set up somewhere so that the links in the tables work and a party colour is assigned. Can anyone help? Graemp ( talk) 10:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Rathfelder has, in good faith, created several articles about minor Labour Party politicians, mostly candidates at the next election in safe seats. Many of these may well get elected next year and be notable in due course, but Wikipedia lags behind notability and, as per WP:POLITICIAN, I think the general position on Wikipedia has been that candidates are not notable until they are elected. Of course, some may be notable under general notability guidelines, but in that case, the articles probably need improvement.
I have been debating this matter with Rathfelder at User_talk:Rathfelder#Notability_of_Labour_Party_candidates and Rathfelder has agreed to redirect some of the articles to the relevant constituency articles for now (thus preserving the work done should the individual become notable in due course). Other articles are outstanding. If other editors have time, could they please review these and help build on Rathfelder's work where possible, or move to deletion/re-direction where that is appropriate? Articles include:
Thanks. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I deny responsibility for Sally Gimpson. But the others I am still working on. If the consensus is that any of these people are not notable can I please do a redirect on them, as I am confident that most will become more notable shortly. And I strongly oppose merging Peacock into the Watson article. Her relationship may have got her into the Daily Mail but she is much more significant in her own right. I've assumed in other articles that references from 4 independent sources was a reasonable number to establish notability, especially if they made different points. I hope politicians are not to be treated worse than other people. Rathfelder ( talk) 12:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Earlier this year I encountered problems with two editors who did not like edits I had made on articles of interest to this project. These edits related to the constituency electoral tables I had included. They did not think that these tables should be included and deleted them. Fullish discussion ensued and one of the other editors said they would raise the point on here to get other editors feedback, something that I supported. They chose not to do that, but I still think that it is a subject that the project should have a view on. The tables in question are tables that are widely used by this project in Constituency articles. They are also used in articles on by-elections and articles on individual politicians. They are similar/identical to tables used in other countries political projects, who use them in a similar fashion. As with all wikipedia tables they have been designed in such a way that text does not flow around them. The other editors felt that this factor meant that they should not be used in the body of an article as that broke the flow of text. I disagreed and said that I felt that was a good thing. They argued that the relevant information was better conveyed in text form. I disagreed stressing that tables help convey information more easily. Here are some developed/developing project articles which use tables alongside text.
Discussion followed in an effort to reach a compromise. Proposed options included 1. Tables only to be used at the end of a paragraph. 2. Tables only to be used as a separate paragraph. 3. Tables only to be used at the end of the article. Wikipedia policies and guidance do not resolve this difference. I think we should continue to include the projects tables in the projects articles and feel that the articles are best served with their inclusion at the relevant point of the narrative. Graemp ( talk) 10:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Does a rough list exist of missing parliamentarians? I've encountered so many in my creation of Lord Mayor of London articles. P.S. I have been roaming the country photographing (or trying to) the graves or memorial plaques to PMs, any help would be greatly appreciated. Gareth E Kegg ( talk) 12:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Further input at Talk:List_of_United_Kingdom_by-elections_(1979–present)#Seeking_re-election_on_change_of_party_allegiance would be welcome on how to summarise the recent UKIP defection by-elections in a table. Bondegezou ( talk) 07:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, just a heads-up with regard to election tables and a new party description. For references to National Liberals, rather than use the label National Liberal Party (UK, 1931), we can now use the label National Liberal Party (UK, 1947) which I have just created. The difference is that the 1931 version displays the shortname Liberal National and the 1947 version displays the shortname National Liberal. This enables us to be more historically accurate with our descriptions. There is no change in colour. Graemp ( talk) 17:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a notice about Category:Politics of the United Kingdom articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock ( talk) 03:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed these three articles discusses terms that are purely creation of law and are highly identical in nature. Hence I propose to merge them into single new article tentatively titled Political designations in Northern Ireland, but I am open to the ides of merging it to any other existing article. Discussion is located at Talk:Designated Nationalist#Merger Proposal.-- Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 22:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I had this article for a PPC in a safe Labour seat submitted to WP:AfC. My understanding of WP:POLITICIAN is that candidates don't usually qualify for an article unless they receive national press coverage. I also understand that candidates are often allowed articles close to elections, but now is WP:TOOSOON. Rankersbo ( talk) 07:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:Community Charge. I thought the RM might spark some debate, but very few people seem to have spotted it. Cheers, Number 5 7 22:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Did Molly Samuels or Molly Samuel-Leport ever run for MP for Walthamstow and if so where did she finish? Dwanyewest ( talk) 22:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm in a dispute at the
Scottish National Party leadership election, 2014, concerning Nicola Sturgeon's previous position in the party. Was she the deputy leader or depute leader of the party?
GoodDay (
talk) 20:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Nevermind, I've checked the SNP official website. I thought Depute was a spelling error. GoodDay ( talk) 20:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The Rochester and Strood by-election, 2014 article is currently assigned "low importance" for this WP. May I respectfully suggest that is should be at least mid importance. In the fullness of time, it may even be of high importance. Mjroots ( talk) 21:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes Minister article has issues that should be fixed. Comment there by clicking above. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
There are about 14 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on:
Your Next MP is also crowd-sourcing who is standing at the 2015 General Election, and has a good set of data. License of the data is cc-by-sa, so we could re-use it on Wikipedia. I wrote a page comparing candidates listed on Wikipedia and those listed on YNMP. So far it's mostly been useful for fixing spelling errors in candidate names and at some point, I might try getting it to generate {{election box candidate}} to copy-paste onto pages. -- h2g2bob ( talk) 01:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
About the time of the last General election I produced a complete series (except Northern Ireland) of all conceivable ward and constituency maps on Commons. However, I suspect a number of these will not be useful for the 2015 election due to boundary changes.
I had a request last week on Commons to produce current maps of the electoral wards for 3 London Boroughs, which I have done (eg changing Hackney from 2010 to 2014).
I don't really have time to trawl through and work out which others need a refresh. However, if any are needed please let me know.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 20:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, can anyone tell me why we have an article on Torridge and West Devon (UK Parliament constituency) when the every wp:rs calls it Devon West & Torridge? I can't see any reason for this on the talk page or article ..but I know from experience there has to be one. Regards JRPG ( talk) 10:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to an external website, I have been able to create this extensive list of the candidates for the 2015 election. Details on the talk page. Suggestions for further development are welcomed. (@ Jheald:, @ Leutha:, @ WereSpielChequers:.) — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 00:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I've edited Template:United Kingdom general election, 2015 to bring the party leaders up to date, and to remove the BNP, since they no longer have any members in any of the parliaments or assemblies. However, the sorting of political parties leaves much to be desired, as it does not seem to match up with the information regarding seats held in the last parliament given in http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/ , which I take to be definitive. Also, now I need to go to do some off-wiki work... Can anyone help, please? -- The Anome ( talk) 10:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
How should one calculate a swing where the second-place party changes from election to election?
Take the contrived example below.
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Labour | Alice | 15,000 | 51.7 | −3.4 | |
Conservative | Carol | 6,400 | 22.0 | +4.8 | |
Liberal Democrats | Bob | 4,800 | 16.6 | −0.6 | |
Plaid Cymru | Erin | 1,700 | 5.9 | +1.1 | |
UKIP | Dan | 1,300 | 4.5 | −3.1 | |
Labour hold | Swing |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Labour | Alice | 16,000 | 55.1 | ||
Liberal Democrats | Bob | 5,000 | 17.2 | ||
Conservative | Carol | 4,400 | 15.1 | ||
UKIP | Dan | 2,200 | 7.6 | ||
Plaid Cymru | Erin | 1,400 | 4.8 | ||
Labour hold |
The Conservatives have made a sufficient gain to pass the Liberal Democrats, but not to take the seat from Labour. Should Labour's swing be quoted against the Tories or the up-and-coming Lib Dems?
As a further question, given that Labour and the Liberals both lost voter share (-3.4% and -0.6% respectively), should the swing between them be calculated as (3.4+0.6)/2=2% or (3.4-0.6)/2=1.4% swing? Ansbaradigeidfran ( talk) 19:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Following a discussion at Talk:Oxford_East_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Candidate_order and realization that there was nothing in the wp:mos BrownHairedGirl suggested I asked if there had been an RFC on this. If not can we have one? Regards JRPG ( talk) 21:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I also support the alphabetical order list. I have added a reference to ukpollingreport on some pages which lists all the PPCs for the constituencies Oxr033 ( talk) 18:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC).
Anyone have any idea what is going on with any page related to UKIP showing a big picture of Miliband and the script "VOTE LABOUR"? I can't seem to find who is doing this or how to reverse it, it doesn't look like just a standard edit. WilliamF1two ( talk) 15:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a proposal to move Burning of Parliament to Burning of British Parliament and Burning of the Parliament Buildings in Montreal to Burning of Canadian Parliament. Please take part in the discussion at Talk:Burning of Parliament#Requested move 8 May 2015. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, Osborne is NOT Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom as well as First Secretary of State and Chancellor. He is effectively/de facto Cameron's deputy, per [5] [6] [7], but I've seen nothing claiming he has been appointed to the office of Deputy. Cameron is not using the role in his majority government, as Gordon Brown didn't in his. I've been WP:BOLD and rectified this, if there are any objections please explain here. U-Mos ( talk) 14:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Anyone with an opinion on the notability of parish council elections may wish to contribute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salisbury City Council election, 2009. Cheers, Number 5 7 13:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Anyone know which peer was sworn to the Privy Council today? [8] Basil Feldman, Baron Feldman of Frognal, or Andrew Feldman, Baron Feldman of Elstree. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 19:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I thought it would be helpful to highlight a technical issue relating to the "term_end" for Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom. Most MPs who sat in the 55th parliament would have seen their term of office officially end on 30 March 2015- that was the date that this Parliament was dissolved. At that point these people ceased to become MPs and from that point those that were standing for election to the 56th Parliament were actually considered candidates. There was a lot of editing that occurred at the time to remove "MP" postnominals, but leave the rest of the "MP" Infoboxes on the article pages.
For those who were re-elected it doesn't make a big difference- it is east enough to reinsert the MP postnominal and remove any date that had been entered into the "term_end" field. For those who did not stand for re-election or who were not successful it would mean that they had indeed ended their term of office on 30 March 2015 (not 7 May 2015, the day the election was held, nor on 8 May 2015, the day that most of the constituency results were declared).
The official explanation is at: Dissolution of Parliament. There is a list of details for individual MPs that can be accessed at: MPs at dissolution - 30 March 2015
I note this issue was also raised in a discussion in 2010 at the last UK general election in 2010. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 18:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you had been going through the pages of articles relating to the end date for some people who were Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom. As far as I understand for most MPs that were not re-elected this should read 30 March 2015. That was the date that this Parliament was dissolved and when these people ceased to become MPs- not the date of the general election for the next Parliament, which was held on 7 May 2015. I was wondering if it would be helpful to point you towards the official explanation of this, which can be found here: Dissolution of Parliament. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 16:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, all MPs cease to be MPs when Parliament is dissolved. That's how it works. After dissolution there are no Members of Parliament until the election results are declared. If they held ministerial posts then they continue to do so until a successor is appointed, but one does not need to be an MP to hold such a position. -- Walnuts go kapow ( talk) 16:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I third that, and suggest you undo all of your own undos on this issue. – Smyth\ talk 17:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Therequiembellishere rarely answers any requests for explanations of why reverts are taking place against users that have clearly provided a solid foundation for their edit. As the law states that members stop being an MP on the dissolution of Parliament then May 7 is obviously incorrect as the end date for the previous term in office. They stop being an MP but may be a Minister of the Government until relieved or they resign, a completely separate body. Nasnema Chat 18:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
That an error is longstanding does not make it a consensus, nor is it in itself a reason to continue to perpetuate the error. Neither is the omission of intervening term ending dates a reason for deliberately making the ones we do include inaccurate. Yes, there are a lot of dates that need changing - but so what? We've got the crowdsourcing power to do it, that's the whole point of wiki. Considering it's only taken two or three person-hours' work to correct the dates for the most recent outgoing MPs, a small task force should be able to tackle the rest in short order. After all, the correct information is readily verifiable. Let's make Wikipedia better! -- Walnuts go kapow ( talk) 07:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Omitting the gaps within tenure is a reasonable simplification, but displaying a blatantly incorrect end date is not. We should not perpetuate a "convention" which is inconsistent with what all the authoritative sources say. – Smyth\ talk 12:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I have made a start on correcting dates for those MPs whose terms ended in 2010. Those MPs who lost their seats) have been done, those who stood down are yet to be done. For those wishing to help, the appropriate dates for the last few elections are 12 April 2010, 11 April 2005, 14 May 2001, 4 April 1997, 16 March 1992, 18 May 1987, 13 May 1983, 7 April 1979. Also, as User:Nasnema has pointed out, terms do not begin until the declaration of results; outside Sunderland, these are almost always on the date after the election. -- Walnuts go kapow ( talk) 10:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
With regard to those MPs who stood for re-election and lost their seats, they stopped being MPs on either the 7th or 8th of May not the March, so I will be going through all of those MPs and re adding the correct dates to their articles! SleepCovo ( talk) 11:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
It is though the job of an encyclopedia to be accessible and understandable.having an unexplained date which is not continuos will confuse and will start to reduce the accessibility of the encyclopedia to those who do not have prior knowledge of the subject matter. Please see WP:TECHNICAL. Sport and politics ( talk) 12:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
"It is important not to oversimplify material in the effort to make it more understandable. Encyclopedia articles should not "tell lies to children" in the sense of giving readers an easy path to the feeling that they understand something when what they then understand is wrong."NebY ( talk) 12:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
In reply to Which Lord Feldman?
A minor point: all barons are Rt Hon. whether Privy Counsellors or not. Opera hat ( talk) 09:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone could create a template for Leaders of Greater London such as Mayor Boris Johnson, Lord Mayor of City of London and leaders/elected mayors of Borough councils in a similar style to Template:Mayors of the largest 50 US cities or Template:Australian Capital City Mayors? I can't figure out how to do it. AusLondonder ( talk) 07:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it the appointment of a new Prime Minister, rather than a change of majority party, that marks the start of a new government? I was surprised to see several instances of Wikipedia lumping two Prime Ministers together as a single government, e.g. Liberal Government 1859–66 and Conservative Government 1957–1964. -- Walnuts go kapow ( talk) 09:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I'm quite new to this and am not sure how to make changes. However, I have noticed that the Ofwat page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofwat) needs updating to reflect the outputs from PR14 (price review 2014) and the start of AMP6. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.128.179.130 ( talk) 11:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I've just added this projects banner to the talk page of Independents for Frome, a new small local politics party written up in yesterdays Guardian. Any help with the article would be appreciated, but specifically can anyone say what the copyright status of a parties "mission statement" is - this article includes a copy and pasted from a facebook page and I'm unsure if that is allowed.— Rod talk 08:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
A user has changed United Kingdom general election, 2015 (Scotland) to show Jim Murphy, rather than Ed Miliband, as Labour leader. My instinct is that this is incorrect (for one thing, there's no separate Scottish Labour group in Westminster) but I invite any opinions on the matter. -- Walnuts go kapow ( talk) 16:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for John Pugh to be moved to John Pugh (Liberal Democrat politician). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Michael Seymour (Royal Navy officer) to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of elected female political office-holders in the United Kingdom to be moved to Lists of female political office-holders in the United Kingdom. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I've nominated the article Cheshire West and Chester Council election, 2015 for peer review here. I would very much appreciate if a couple of people from this group could have a look at the article. It's not the most exciting election, but the unusual result (only council which went from Conservative to Labour control at the last UK local elections) and active local press means that there's a lot of information available. Thanks in advance for any advice you can give. Smurrayinchester 12:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
If you've been working on election articles recently, you may have noticed a lot of fluctuations in the colour used for independents. There's a discussion going on at Template talk:Independent (politician)/meta/color about whether a pale or a dark shade is better. Since it's not a well-watched template, I thought I'd put a note here. Smurrayinchester 09:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. There's an RfC about List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom open here. It's not attracted any comments yet, so input from project members would be welcome. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
While the Section 28 is more notable, this Act (with Amendments) is lesser known. Currently, the Act page is a stub and needs expansion or proof of importance. -- George Ho ( talk) 18:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
There has been some disagreement over the use of full names of candidates in election boxes - most recently on Falmouth and Camborne (UK Parliament constituency). I think that we should in general stick to commonly used names instead of full names, e.g. Sebastian Coe instead of Sebastian Newbold Coe, and Candy Atherton instead of Candice Kathleen Atherton.
The full names not only make the boxes look cluttered, they also can be quite confusing, especially when a well known politician is known by a different name to their full name (e.g. Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson).
I'm not sure if this issue has come up before and a consensus reached, if so I'd be grateful to know where and what the decision was, otherwise, it seems like something we should have a consensus on now. I would suggest that we use names commonly used by the candidate (e.g. Boris Johnson in the above example) Frinton100 ( talk) 13:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I try to use middle names where known so as to distinguish people (e.g. Jones's in Wales).
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 15:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Currently a large number of constituency articles start in the following way:
Wycombe /ˈwɪkəm/ is a constituency [n 1] represented in the House of Commons of the UK Parliament since 2010 by Steve Baker, a Conservative. [n 2]
I could not find any discussion of where this style was decided but from the ubiquity of it, I suppose there must have been some. However, there are several problems with this.
I suggest that simply omitting the footnotes would improve these articles. If you feel that the information is of such relevance to individual constituency articles that it needs including in the lead, then the following would be an improvement:
Wycombe /ˈwɪkəm/ is a constituency represented in the House of Commons of the UK Parliament since 2010 by Steve Baker, a Conservative. As with all constituencies, the constituency elects one Member of Parliament (MP) by the first past the post system of election at least every five years. For the purposes of election expenses and type of returning officer, Wycombe is a county constituency.
66.91.24.128 ( talk) 20:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Article has changed name a few times today, none of which appear to reflect the official or common name, currently at British European Communities membership referendum, 1975. Appears to be no discussion, the article doesnt appear to have an active talk page, if anybody with a better knowledge of the referendum have a look please, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
All the pages relating to general elections for the Scottish Parliament were moved to new names which used simply "election" instead of "general election" by RGloucester yesterday, on the basis that "general" was an unnecessary qualifier. I note that under the Scotland Act 1998 the process by which Members of the Scottish Parliament are chosen by the electorate is called a general election. [14] The UK Parliament general election pages have not yet been moved, but presumably if the WP:CONCISE argument were applied to one Parliament, it could be applied to both. I hadn't seen any discussion of this and was wondering whether the naming conventions for these pages have been considered elsewhere? Drchriswilliams ( talk) 23:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The Gateway Protection Programme article is currently a featured article candidate. The last time it was nominated, the review was archived due to a lack of comments, so I would be grateful if interested editors could take a read of the article and submit comments to the review. It's a topical issue at the moment, and you might even learn something about refugee resettlement! Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
A few more eyes taking an overview of that article would be appreciated. There are mixed views about its suggested deletion - and there are also points that need to be addressed about the use of a clearly incorrect infobox template in the article, and about the wording of the opening paragraph. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 10:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
If people are plugging AfDs, another one that may be of interest is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Kingdom general election, 2015 (West Yorkshire). Number 5 7 23:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I have tried myself but can't seem to do it. I was wondering if at List of London Assembly constituencies someone could add party colours next to the party name in the same format at used at London Assembly#List of London Assembly members? I would be very grateful. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion started at Talk:UK Independence Party#UKIP's comparative positioning within the left–right political spectrum. Contributions welcome. Greg Kaye 18:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I reverted this large unsourced edit to Gil Paterson by a new editor Clydebankandmilngaviesnp ( talk · contribs). Paterson is the MP for Clydebank and Milngavie (Scottish Parliament constituency), for the Scottish National Party (SNP) so username suggests possible COI.
Not sure if the info is 'good' if properly sourced. Just FYI. 220 of Borg 00:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Related to above, should Government of Scotland be added to Template:Government of Europe? 220 of Borg 00:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
An Rfc is currently being held, to determine the intro to the article. GoodDay ( talk) 21:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I have recently added references to website fields (within Template:Infobox officeholder data) with effect of the box for Caroline Lucas presenting:
Official website
parliament...caroline-lucas
on the basis of the address: http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/caroline-lucas/3930
and box for Nigel Farage presenting:
Official website
europarl...NIGEL FARAGE
on the basis of the address: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/4525/NIGEL_FARAGE_home.html
I think that a format on this kind of basis may be worth rolling out across the boards. I had wondered whether there might be a heading that might be suitable for a subsequent field to website but nothing came to mind. Perhaps website might become websites. Greg Kaye 10:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
parliament.uk webpage" or "
parliamentary webpage" might alternatively be used.
Official website" rather than "
www.foobar.domain". Perhaps we could also add a template such as Template:urlpage to present "
Official webpage". This is because, on occasion, the website titles may be formatted so as to incorporate ~ wp:soapbox type messages.
Caroline Lucas | |
---|---|
Website |
Official website Parliamentary homepage |
These seem to have proliferated across politicians' pages, listing them depending on changes to people's jobs and status (eg when they join the Privy Council, get a peerage etc), but seem both redundant and confusing. First, WP is not an etiquette guide, secondly there is no single "style" for people – it depends whether they are being addressed or referred to and in what context (plus, arguably, on their preference too).
For example, take
Michelle Mone, recently ennobled. Who says she's "Miss" or "Mrs" before and after her marriage, and not "Ms" for both? As a peer, she could variously be "Baroness Mone", "Lady Mone", "the noble Baroness, Lady Mone", "The Baroness Mone", "The Right Honourable the Baroness Mone" and so on. If all these sections are doing is telling us that she got married, divorced and ennobled etc, that will already be clear in the substantive text; if they're trying to be an authoritative and definitive guide to "styles", they fail badly. Should pages not be consistent as to whether they are used, and probably not have them at all?
N-HH
talk/
edits 10:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I've created a new article on the British statistician Roger Thatcher.
Additional input for further research collaboration and secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, at Talk:Roger Thatcher.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 05:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I've been looking through the ratings for various pages in this space, and too many of them seem at best arbitrary. I imagine they're never updated. It seems that unmembers of the project are not encouraged to change the project's scalings, but there are heaps of pages rated Start, for instance, of much better quality than others listed higher. Can something be done about this? They never appear to be updated. Le Sanglier des Ardennes ( talk) 04:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to invite interested editors to join in the discussion on the National Liberal Party (UK, 1999) article. I believe the article as it stand as is misleading, as it focuses heavily on the activities of its founder (and an alleged co-founder) before the party was even founded. Aside from a basic list of elections contested, there is no mention in the article at all of its activities or stated policies since it was founded. Rhialto ( talk) 15:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion surrounding wording and tone issues with the Green Party of England and Wales Please feel free to joining the discussions here. This will help to contribute to the general clean up of the article and improve the article. Sport and politics ( talk) 06:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is something being worked on by someone unbeknown to me but, with the present article nearing 90 pages long, I suggest that to keep the contents within topic - relating to members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom as has existed since 1801 - that new pages, which would chronologically be prequels, are created called Records of members of the Parliament of England (existing until Act of Union with Scotland 1707) and Records of members of the Parliament of Great Britain (which existed from 1707 until Act of Union with Ireland in 1800). Into the pages can be transplanted the details relating to MPs who were in office during the respective periods the parliaments were in being. These pages would showcase the wealth of information I and others have contributed, rather than merely deleting them from the present article and losing them to the view of the Wikipedia reading public.
I am aware some of those Westminster MPs who were born in the 17th and died in the 18th century had careers that spanned from the existence of the Parliament of England to the Parliament of GB while some of those who were born in the 18th and died in the 19th century had ones spanning from the Parliament of GB to the Parliament of the UK.
I have no experience of creating articles myself (as opposed to editing them), so this is a chance for others to kick off. I am about to have a wrist operation tomorrow so I may be 'off the air' for a few days at least. Cloptonson ( talk) 14:25, 30 December 2015 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I have nominated for deletion two navigation boxes for MPs:
-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Heads up if this is the kind of thing you want on your watchlist doktorb words deeds 14:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion may be of interest to this project Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics#Local_Election_Results_.28Particularly_in_Wales.29 Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I have just created the page Constitutionalist (UK) about the 4th party of the United Kingdom general election, 1924. Previously, all references to Constitutionalist directed readers via a re-direct to here Constitutionalism, which was unsatisfactory. I am in the process of altering the relevant links to the new Constitutionalist (UK) page. However, I have encountered one problem that I can not overcome. When I change 'Constitutionalist' to 'Constitutionalist (UK)' in the various tables, the name and party colour are not recognised. I assume that something needs to be set up somewhere so that the links in the tables work and a party colour is assigned. Can anyone help? Graemp ( talk) 10:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Rathfelder has, in good faith, created several articles about minor Labour Party politicians, mostly candidates at the next election in safe seats. Many of these may well get elected next year and be notable in due course, but Wikipedia lags behind notability and, as per WP:POLITICIAN, I think the general position on Wikipedia has been that candidates are not notable until they are elected. Of course, some may be notable under general notability guidelines, but in that case, the articles probably need improvement.
I have been debating this matter with Rathfelder at User_talk:Rathfelder#Notability_of_Labour_Party_candidates and Rathfelder has agreed to redirect some of the articles to the relevant constituency articles for now (thus preserving the work done should the individual become notable in due course). Other articles are outstanding. If other editors have time, could they please review these and help build on Rathfelder's work where possible, or move to deletion/re-direction where that is appropriate? Articles include:
Thanks. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I deny responsibility for Sally Gimpson. But the others I am still working on. If the consensus is that any of these people are not notable can I please do a redirect on them, as I am confident that most will become more notable shortly. And I strongly oppose merging Peacock into the Watson article. Her relationship may have got her into the Daily Mail but she is much more significant in her own right. I've assumed in other articles that references from 4 independent sources was a reasonable number to establish notability, especially if they made different points. I hope politicians are not to be treated worse than other people. Rathfelder ( talk) 12:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Earlier this year I encountered problems with two editors who did not like edits I had made on articles of interest to this project. These edits related to the constituency electoral tables I had included. They did not think that these tables should be included and deleted them. Fullish discussion ensued and one of the other editors said they would raise the point on here to get other editors feedback, something that I supported. They chose not to do that, but I still think that it is a subject that the project should have a view on. The tables in question are tables that are widely used by this project in Constituency articles. They are also used in articles on by-elections and articles on individual politicians. They are similar/identical to tables used in other countries political projects, who use them in a similar fashion. As with all wikipedia tables they have been designed in such a way that text does not flow around them. The other editors felt that this factor meant that they should not be used in the body of an article as that broke the flow of text. I disagreed and said that I felt that was a good thing. They argued that the relevant information was better conveyed in text form. I disagreed stressing that tables help convey information more easily. Here are some developed/developing project articles which use tables alongside text.
Discussion followed in an effort to reach a compromise. Proposed options included 1. Tables only to be used at the end of a paragraph. 2. Tables only to be used as a separate paragraph. 3. Tables only to be used at the end of the article. Wikipedia policies and guidance do not resolve this difference. I think we should continue to include the projects tables in the projects articles and feel that the articles are best served with their inclusion at the relevant point of the narrative. Graemp ( talk) 10:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Does a rough list exist of missing parliamentarians? I've encountered so many in my creation of Lord Mayor of London articles. P.S. I have been roaming the country photographing (or trying to) the graves or memorial plaques to PMs, any help would be greatly appreciated. Gareth E Kegg ( talk) 12:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Further input at Talk:List_of_United_Kingdom_by-elections_(1979–present)#Seeking_re-election_on_change_of_party_allegiance would be welcome on how to summarise the recent UKIP defection by-elections in a table. Bondegezou ( talk) 07:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, just a heads-up with regard to election tables and a new party description. For references to National Liberals, rather than use the label National Liberal Party (UK, 1931), we can now use the label National Liberal Party (UK, 1947) which I have just created. The difference is that the 1931 version displays the shortname Liberal National and the 1947 version displays the shortname National Liberal. This enables us to be more historically accurate with our descriptions. There is no change in colour. Graemp ( talk) 17:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a notice about Category:Politics of the United Kingdom articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock ( talk) 03:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed these three articles discusses terms that are purely creation of law and are highly identical in nature. Hence I propose to merge them into single new article tentatively titled Political designations in Northern Ireland, but I am open to the ides of merging it to any other existing article. Discussion is located at Talk:Designated Nationalist#Merger Proposal.-- Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 22:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I had this article for a PPC in a safe Labour seat submitted to WP:AfC. My understanding of WP:POLITICIAN is that candidates don't usually qualify for an article unless they receive national press coverage. I also understand that candidates are often allowed articles close to elections, but now is WP:TOOSOON. Rankersbo ( talk) 07:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:Community Charge. I thought the RM might spark some debate, but very few people seem to have spotted it. Cheers, Number 5 7 22:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Did Molly Samuels or Molly Samuel-Leport ever run for MP for Walthamstow and if so where did she finish? Dwanyewest ( talk) 22:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm in a dispute at the
Scottish National Party leadership election, 2014, concerning Nicola Sturgeon's previous position in the party. Was she the deputy leader or depute leader of the party?
GoodDay (
talk) 20:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Nevermind, I've checked the SNP official website. I thought Depute was a spelling error. GoodDay ( talk) 20:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The Rochester and Strood by-election, 2014 article is currently assigned "low importance" for this WP. May I respectfully suggest that is should be at least mid importance. In the fullness of time, it may even be of high importance. Mjroots ( talk) 21:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes Minister article has issues that should be fixed. Comment there by clicking above. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
There are about 14 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on:
Your Next MP is also crowd-sourcing who is standing at the 2015 General Election, and has a good set of data. License of the data is cc-by-sa, so we could re-use it on Wikipedia. I wrote a page comparing candidates listed on Wikipedia and those listed on YNMP. So far it's mostly been useful for fixing spelling errors in candidate names and at some point, I might try getting it to generate {{election box candidate}} to copy-paste onto pages. -- h2g2bob ( talk) 01:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
About the time of the last General election I produced a complete series (except Northern Ireland) of all conceivable ward and constituency maps on Commons. However, I suspect a number of these will not be useful for the 2015 election due to boundary changes.
I had a request last week on Commons to produce current maps of the electoral wards for 3 London Boroughs, which I have done (eg changing Hackney from 2010 to 2014).
I don't really have time to trawl through and work out which others need a refresh. However, if any are needed please let me know.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 20:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, can anyone tell me why we have an article on Torridge and West Devon (UK Parliament constituency) when the every wp:rs calls it Devon West & Torridge? I can't see any reason for this on the talk page or article ..but I know from experience there has to be one. Regards JRPG ( talk) 10:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to an external website, I have been able to create this extensive list of the candidates for the 2015 election. Details on the talk page. Suggestions for further development are welcomed. (@ Jheald:, @ Leutha:, @ WereSpielChequers:.) — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 00:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I've edited Template:United Kingdom general election, 2015 to bring the party leaders up to date, and to remove the BNP, since they no longer have any members in any of the parliaments or assemblies. However, the sorting of political parties leaves much to be desired, as it does not seem to match up with the information regarding seats held in the last parliament given in http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/ , which I take to be definitive. Also, now I need to go to do some off-wiki work... Can anyone help, please? -- The Anome ( talk) 10:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
How should one calculate a swing where the second-place party changes from election to election?
Take the contrived example below.
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Labour | Alice | 15,000 | 51.7 | −3.4 | |
Conservative | Carol | 6,400 | 22.0 | +4.8 | |
Liberal Democrats | Bob | 4,800 | 16.6 | −0.6 | |
Plaid Cymru | Erin | 1,700 | 5.9 | +1.1 | |
UKIP | Dan | 1,300 | 4.5 | −3.1 | |
Labour hold | Swing |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Labour | Alice | 16,000 | 55.1 | ||
Liberal Democrats | Bob | 5,000 | 17.2 | ||
Conservative | Carol | 4,400 | 15.1 | ||
UKIP | Dan | 2,200 | 7.6 | ||
Plaid Cymru | Erin | 1,400 | 4.8 | ||
Labour hold |
The Conservatives have made a sufficient gain to pass the Liberal Democrats, but not to take the seat from Labour. Should Labour's swing be quoted against the Tories or the up-and-coming Lib Dems?
As a further question, given that Labour and the Liberals both lost voter share (-3.4% and -0.6% respectively), should the swing between them be calculated as (3.4+0.6)/2=2% or (3.4-0.6)/2=1.4% swing? Ansbaradigeidfran ( talk) 19:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Following a discussion at Talk:Oxford_East_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Candidate_order and realization that there was nothing in the wp:mos BrownHairedGirl suggested I asked if there had been an RFC on this. If not can we have one? Regards JRPG ( talk) 21:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I also support the alphabetical order list. I have added a reference to ukpollingreport on some pages which lists all the PPCs for the constituencies Oxr033 ( talk) 18:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC).
Anyone have any idea what is going on with any page related to UKIP showing a big picture of Miliband and the script "VOTE LABOUR"? I can't seem to find who is doing this or how to reverse it, it doesn't look like just a standard edit. WilliamF1two ( talk) 15:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a proposal to move Burning of Parliament to Burning of British Parliament and Burning of the Parliament Buildings in Montreal to Burning of Canadian Parliament. Please take part in the discussion at Talk:Burning of Parliament#Requested move 8 May 2015. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, Osborne is NOT Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom as well as First Secretary of State and Chancellor. He is effectively/de facto Cameron's deputy, per [5] [6] [7], but I've seen nothing claiming he has been appointed to the office of Deputy. Cameron is not using the role in his majority government, as Gordon Brown didn't in his. I've been WP:BOLD and rectified this, if there are any objections please explain here. U-Mos ( talk) 14:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Anyone with an opinion on the notability of parish council elections may wish to contribute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salisbury City Council election, 2009. Cheers, Number 5 7 13:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Anyone know which peer was sworn to the Privy Council today? [8] Basil Feldman, Baron Feldman of Frognal, or Andrew Feldman, Baron Feldman of Elstree. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 19:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I thought it would be helpful to highlight a technical issue relating to the "term_end" for Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom. Most MPs who sat in the 55th parliament would have seen their term of office officially end on 30 March 2015- that was the date that this Parliament was dissolved. At that point these people ceased to become MPs and from that point those that were standing for election to the 56th Parliament were actually considered candidates. There was a lot of editing that occurred at the time to remove "MP" postnominals, but leave the rest of the "MP" Infoboxes on the article pages.
For those who were re-elected it doesn't make a big difference- it is east enough to reinsert the MP postnominal and remove any date that had been entered into the "term_end" field. For those who did not stand for re-election or who were not successful it would mean that they had indeed ended their term of office on 30 March 2015 (not 7 May 2015, the day the election was held, nor on 8 May 2015, the day that most of the constituency results were declared).
The official explanation is at: Dissolution of Parliament. There is a list of details for individual MPs that can be accessed at: MPs at dissolution - 30 March 2015
I note this issue was also raised in a discussion in 2010 at the last UK general election in 2010. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 18:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you had been going through the pages of articles relating to the end date for some people who were Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom. As far as I understand for most MPs that were not re-elected this should read 30 March 2015. That was the date that this Parliament was dissolved and when these people ceased to become MPs- not the date of the general election for the next Parliament, which was held on 7 May 2015. I was wondering if it would be helpful to point you towards the official explanation of this, which can be found here: Dissolution of Parliament. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 16:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, all MPs cease to be MPs when Parliament is dissolved. That's how it works. After dissolution there are no Members of Parliament until the election results are declared. If they held ministerial posts then they continue to do so until a successor is appointed, but one does not need to be an MP to hold such a position. -- Walnuts go kapow ( talk) 16:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I third that, and suggest you undo all of your own undos on this issue. – Smyth\ talk 17:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Therequiembellishere rarely answers any requests for explanations of why reverts are taking place against users that have clearly provided a solid foundation for their edit. As the law states that members stop being an MP on the dissolution of Parliament then May 7 is obviously incorrect as the end date for the previous term in office. They stop being an MP but may be a Minister of the Government until relieved or they resign, a completely separate body. Nasnema Chat 18:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
That an error is longstanding does not make it a consensus, nor is it in itself a reason to continue to perpetuate the error. Neither is the omission of intervening term ending dates a reason for deliberately making the ones we do include inaccurate. Yes, there are a lot of dates that need changing - but so what? We've got the crowdsourcing power to do it, that's the whole point of wiki. Considering it's only taken two or three person-hours' work to correct the dates for the most recent outgoing MPs, a small task force should be able to tackle the rest in short order. After all, the correct information is readily verifiable. Let's make Wikipedia better! -- Walnuts go kapow ( talk) 07:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Omitting the gaps within tenure is a reasonable simplification, but displaying a blatantly incorrect end date is not. We should not perpetuate a "convention" which is inconsistent with what all the authoritative sources say. – Smyth\ talk 12:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I have made a start on correcting dates for those MPs whose terms ended in 2010. Those MPs who lost their seats) have been done, those who stood down are yet to be done. For those wishing to help, the appropriate dates for the last few elections are 12 April 2010, 11 April 2005, 14 May 2001, 4 April 1997, 16 March 1992, 18 May 1987, 13 May 1983, 7 April 1979. Also, as User:Nasnema has pointed out, terms do not begin until the declaration of results; outside Sunderland, these are almost always on the date after the election. -- Walnuts go kapow ( talk) 10:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
With regard to those MPs who stood for re-election and lost their seats, they stopped being MPs on either the 7th or 8th of May not the March, so I will be going through all of those MPs and re adding the correct dates to their articles! SleepCovo ( talk) 11:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
It is though the job of an encyclopedia to be accessible and understandable.having an unexplained date which is not continuos will confuse and will start to reduce the accessibility of the encyclopedia to those who do not have prior knowledge of the subject matter. Please see WP:TECHNICAL. Sport and politics ( talk) 12:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
"It is important not to oversimplify material in the effort to make it more understandable. Encyclopedia articles should not "tell lies to children" in the sense of giving readers an easy path to the feeling that they understand something when what they then understand is wrong."NebY ( talk) 12:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
In reply to Which Lord Feldman?
A minor point: all barons are Rt Hon. whether Privy Counsellors or not. Opera hat ( talk) 09:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone could create a template for Leaders of Greater London such as Mayor Boris Johnson, Lord Mayor of City of London and leaders/elected mayors of Borough councils in a similar style to Template:Mayors of the largest 50 US cities or Template:Australian Capital City Mayors? I can't figure out how to do it. AusLondonder ( talk) 07:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it the appointment of a new Prime Minister, rather than a change of majority party, that marks the start of a new government? I was surprised to see several instances of Wikipedia lumping two Prime Ministers together as a single government, e.g. Liberal Government 1859–66 and Conservative Government 1957–1964. -- Walnuts go kapow ( talk) 09:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I'm quite new to this and am not sure how to make changes. However, I have noticed that the Ofwat page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofwat) needs updating to reflect the outputs from PR14 (price review 2014) and the start of AMP6. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.128.179.130 ( talk) 11:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I've just added this projects banner to the talk page of Independents for Frome, a new small local politics party written up in yesterdays Guardian. Any help with the article would be appreciated, but specifically can anyone say what the copyright status of a parties "mission statement" is - this article includes a copy and pasted from a facebook page and I'm unsure if that is allowed.— Rod talk 08:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
A user has changed United Kingdom general election, 2015 (Scotland) to show Jim Murphy, rather than Ed Miliband, as Labour leader. My instinct is that this is incorrect (for one thing, there's no separate Scottish Labour group in Westminster) but I invite any opinions on the matter. -- Walnuts go kapow ( talk) 16:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for John Pugh to be moved to John Pugh (Liberal Democrat politician). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Michael Seymour (Royal Navy officer) to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of elected female political office-holders in the United Kingdom to be moved to Lists of female political office-holders in the United Kingdom. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 23:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I've nominated the article Cheshire West and Chester Council election, 2015 for peer review here. I would very much appreciate if a couple of people from this group could have a look at the article. It's not the most exciting election, but the unusual result (only council which went from Conservative to Labour control at the last UK local elections) and active local press means that there's a lot of information available. Thanks in advance for any advice you can give. Smurrayinchester 12:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
If you've been working on election articles recently, you may have noticed a lot of fluctuations in the colour used for independents. There's a discussion going on at Template talk:Independent (politician)/meta/color about whether a pale or a dark shade is better. Since it's not a well-watched template, I thought I'd put a note here. Smurrayinchester 09:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. There's an RfC about List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom open here. It's not attracted any comments yet, so input from project members would be welcome. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
While the Section 28 is more notable, this Act (with Amendments) is lesser known. Currently, the Act page is a stub and needs expansion or proof of importance. -- George Ho ( talk) 18:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
There has been some disagreement over the use of full names of candidates in election boxes - most recently on Falmouth and Camborne (UK Parliament constituency). I think that we should in general stick to commonly used names instead of full names, e.g. Sebastian Coe instead of Sebastian Newbold Coe, and Candy Atherton instead of Candice Kathleen Atherton.
The full names not only make the boxes look cluttered, they also can be quite confusing, especially when a well known politician is known by a different name to their full name (e.g. Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson).
I'm not sure if this issue has come up before and a consensus reached, if so I'd be grateful to know where and what the decision was, otherwise, it seems like something we should have a consensus on now. I would suggest that we use names commonly used by the candidate (e.g. Boris Johnson in the above example) Frinton100 ( talk) 13:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I try to use middle names where known so as to distinguish people (e.g. Jones's in Wales).
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 15:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Currently a large number of constituency articles start in the following way:
Wycombe /ˈwɪkəm/ is a constituency [n 1] represented in the House of Commons of the UK Parliament since 2010 by Steve Baker, a Conservative. [n 2]
I could not find any discussion of where this style was decided but from the ubiquity of it, I suppose there must have been some. However, there are several problems with this.
I suggest that simply omitting the footnotes would improve these articles. If you feel that the information is of such relevance to individual constituency articles that it needs including in the lead, then the following would be an improvement:
Wycombe /ˈwɪkəm/ is a constituency represented in the House of Commons of the UK Parliament since 2010 by Steve Baker, a Conservative. As with all constituencies, the constituency elects one Member of Parliament (MP) by the first past the post system of election at least every five years. For the purposes of election expenses and type of returning officer, Wycombe is a county constituency.
66.91.24.128 ( talk) 20:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Article has changed name a few times today, none of which appear to reflect the official or common name, currently at British European Communities membership referendum, 1975. Appears to be no discussion, the article doesnt appear to have an active talk page, if anybody with a better knowledge of the referendum have a look please, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
All the pages relating to general elections for the Scottish Parliament were moved to new names which used simply "election" instead of "general election" by RGloucester yesterday, on the basis that "general" was an unnecessary qualifier. I note that under the Scotland Act 1998 the process by which Members of the Scottish Parliament are chosen by the electorate is called a general election. [14] The UK Parliament general election pages have not yet been moved, but presumably if the WP:CONCISE argument were applied to one Parliament, it could be applied to both. I hadn't seen any discussion of this and was wondering whether the naming conventions for these pages have been considered elsewhere? Drchriswilliams ( talk) 23:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The Gateway Protection Programme article is currently a featured article candidate. The last time it was nominated, the review was archived due to a lack of comments, so I would be grateful if interested editors could take a read of the article and submit comments to the review. It's a topical issue at the moment, and you might even learn something about refugee resettlement! Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
A few more eyes taking an overview of that article would be appreciated. There are mixed views about its suggested deletion - and there are also points that need to be addressed about the use of a clearly incorrect infobox template in the article, and about the wording of the opening paragraph. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 10:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
If people are plugging AfDs, another one that may be of interest is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Kingdom general election, 2015 (West Yorkshire). Number 5 7 23:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I have tried myself but can't seem to do it. I was wondering if at List of London Assembly constituencies someone could add party colours next to the party name in the same format at used at London Assembly#List of London Assembly members? I would be very grateful. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion started at Talk:UK Independence Party#UKIP's comparative positioning within the left–right political spectrum. Contributions welcome. Greg Kaye 18:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I reverted this large unsourced edit to Gil Paterson by a new editor Clydebankandmilngaviesnp ( talk · contribs). Paterson is the MP for Clydebank and Milngavie (Scottish Parliament constituency), for the Scottish National Party (SNP) so username suggests possible COI.
Not sure if the info is 'good' if properly sourced. Just FYI. 220 of Borg 00:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Related to above, should Government of Scotland be added to Template:Government of Europe? 220 of Borg 00:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
An Rfc is currently being held, to determine the intro to the article. GoodDay ( talk) 21:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I have recently added references to website fields (within Template:Infobox officeholder data) with effect of the box for Caroline Lucas presenting:
Official website
parliament...caroline-lucas
on the basis of the address: http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/caroline-lucas/3930
and box for Nigel Farage presenting:
Official website
europarl...NIGEL FARAGE
on the basis of the address: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/4525/NIGEL_FARAGE_home.html
I think that a format on this kind of basis may be worth rolling out across the boards. I had wondered whether there might be a heading that might be suitable for a subsequent field to website but nothing came to mind. Perhaps website might become websites. Greg Kaye 10:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
parliament.uk webpage" or "
parliamentary webpage" might alternatively be used.
Official website" rather than "
www.foobar.domain". Perhaps we could also add a template such as Template:urlpage to present "
Official webpage". This is because, on occasion, the website titles may be formatted so as to incorporate ~ wp:soapbox type messages.
Caroline Lucas | |
---|---|
Website |
Official website Parliamentary homepage |
These seem to have proliferated across politicians' pages, listing them depending on changes to people's jobs and status (eg when they join the Privy Council, get a peerage etc), but seem both redundant and confusing. First, WP is not an etiquette guide, secondly there is no single "style" for people – it depends whether they are being addressed or referred to and in what context (plus, arguably, on their preference too).
For example, take
Michelle Mone, recently ennobled. Who says she's "Miss" or "Mrs" before and after her marriage, and not "Ms" for both? As a peer, she could variously be "Baroness Mone", "Lady Mone", "the noble Baroness, Lady Mone", "The Baroness Mone", "The Right Honourable the Baroness Mone" and so on. If all these sections are doing is telling us that she got married, divorced and ennobled etc, that will already be clear in the substantive text; if they're trying to be an authoritative and definitive guide to "styles", they fail badly. Should pages not be consistent as to whether they are used, and probably not have them at all?
N-HH
talk/
edits 10:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I've created a new article on the British statistician Roger Thatcher.
Additional input for further research collaboration and secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, at Talk:Roger Thatcher.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 05:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I've been looking through the ratings for various pages in this space, and too many of them seem at best arbitrary. I imagine they're never updated. It seems that unmembers of the project are not encouraged to change the project's scalings, but there are heaps of pages rated Start, for instance, of much better quality than others listed higher. Can something be done about this? They never appear to be updated. Le Sanglier des Ardennes ( talk) 04:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to invite interested editors to join in the discussion on the National Liberal Party (UK, 1999) article. I believe the article as it stand as is misleading, as it focuses heavily on the activities of its founder (and an alleged co-founder) before the party was even founded. Aside from a basic list of elections contested, there is no mention in the article at all of its activities or stated policies since it was founded. Rhialto ( talk) 15:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion surrounding wording and tone issues with the Green Party of England and Wales Please feel free to joining the discussions here. This will help to contribute to the general clean up of the article and improve the article. Sport and politics ( talk) 06:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is something being worked on by someone unbeknown to me but, with the present article nearing 90 pages long, I suggest that to keep the contents within topic - relating to members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom as has existed since 1801 - that new pages, which would chronologically be prequels, are created called Records of members of the Parliament of England (existing until Act of Union with Scotland 1707) and Records of members of the Parliament of Great Britain (which existed from 1707 until Act of Union with Ireland in 1800). Into the pages can be transplanted the details relating to MPs who were in office during the respective periods the parliaments were in being. These pages would showcase the wealth of information I and others have contributed, rather than merely deleting them from the present article and losing them to the view of the Wikipedia reading public.
I am aware some of those Westminster MPs who were born in the 17th and died in the 18th century had careers that spanned from the existence of the Parliament of England to the Parliament of GB while some of those who were born in the 18th and died in the 19th century had ones spanning from the Parliament of GB to the Parliament of the UK.
I have no experience of creating articles myself (as opposed to editing them), so this is a chance for others to kick off. I am about to have a wrist operation tomorrow so I may be 'off the air' for a few days at least. Cloptonson ( talk) 14:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)