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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
What do others think of creating an article about the current sexual misconduct allegations at Westminster? The story has been running for several days now, and seems to be gathering momentum. I'm not certain how we begin something like this, but I would suggest a title such as Westminster sexual misconduct allegations, or even 2017 Westminster sexual misconduct allegations. In terms of content, I'd suggest a brief overview covering the allegations in a general sense, together with some commentary from May, Corbyn, etc, and the action being taken by Westminster authorities. I notice some MP articles mention the allegations, but I think we would need to think very carefully about naming specific individuals. Any thoughts? This is Paul ( talk) 18:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi all,
I have created a potential template for MP defections/party changes and wanted to gather your thoughts before rolling it out. It only deals with 1 party change at the moment, but could easily be expanded to deal with more than one where necessary.
See an example here:
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
{{{winner}}} win (new seat) | |||||
Conservative | Edward Robert Pacy Moon | 2,583 | 49.1 | −4.3 | |
Independent | John Leighton | 35 | 0.7 | N/A | |
Majority | 60 | 1.1 | N/A | ||
Turnout | 5,261 | 77.6 | +6.3 | ||
Registered electors | 6,784 | ||||
Liberal gain from Conservative | Swing | +4.0 |
The code can be found at User:JMPhillips92/sandbox.
-- JMPhillips92 ( talk) 21:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Inspired by this, this, and the resulting discussion, I'm wondering about what we should consider relevant and irrelevant in political biographies. A lot of articles contain the kind of information that was removed, but how relevant is it to know what football team someone supports, that they enjoy a particular hobby, and so on? Any thoughts? This is Paul ( talk) 16:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 November 30#File:1885-1918 Eccles.png. Nthep ( talk) 12:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The issue I raised months back (now archived) about the template box for London Borough Councils - which labels all members of the largest/majority party as "Executive", remains unresolved. This is incorrect, in law and in reality, and a clear error in the encyclopaedia, as was accepted during the previous discussion. The problem does not, as far as I can see, affect other councils in the UK, most of which have executives also - whichever editor made this change to the template box for London Boroughs has made a mistake, which carries through to every article for the London Boroughs. It would be great if someone with experience/rights to amend templates could have a go at the London Borough Council one to correct its presentation/terminology? MapReader ( talk) 11:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Several pages of local election results show the total numbers of votes cast as turnout. In London boroughs where each voter has three votes, this can even mean we show a turnout that's larger than the electorate. I've fixed Brent London Borough Council election, 2014 by changing {{Election box turnout}} to {{Election box total}} after checking the error was uniform. [2] I see Brent 2010 and Barnet 2014 have the same error throughout, Lambeth 2014 has it in one case and Southwark 2014 shows turnout correctly. Does anyone have the patience and maybe AWB skills to check and correct many such pages? 92.19.24.9 ( talk) 19:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
This may be worth a look Antisemitism in the Labour Party. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 18:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The government of Anguilla wrote a white paper on the effect of Brexit on Anguilla: http://westindiacommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/The-White-Paper-on-Anguilla-and-Brexit-1.pdf WhisperToMe ( talk) 04:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to comment at Talk:Josephine Butler#Request for comment on names where there's an issue about naming; the article (which is currently a FA) refers to its female subject by her first name throughout "for simplicity". Any input is welcome. -- John ( talk) 18:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Shareholder Executive used to be the best place online to find a comprehensive list of companies that the UK Government owns or holds shares in (and companies it used to) but since the management of these assets has been moved to several departments the list on this page is no longer updated. I understand that this is logical because the article is about the government body, but I think it would be a good idea to have separate page that contains an up to date list regardless of which government body currently has responsibility for them as this would be a really useful resource. RobsterUK ( talk) 17:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I added the WikiProject's template to the talk page of Positions on Jerusalem but it was removed. I think that it's on the scope of the project because it has a section on the position of the United Kingdom. Do you think that it should be re-added? Rupert Loup ( talk) 23:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Happy Xmas all. We could use some additional input at Talk:CANZUK International as to what the article should cover and what it shouldn't. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
There's a discussion of how to format the names of (Irish and courtesy) peers elected to the British House of Commons at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Peers in election result boxes. Your commentary is invited. Choess ( talk) 01:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I want to open a discussion into what it says in the infobox on election pages I understand that |posttitle=Elected prime minister
isn't accurate as in the uk pms arent actually elected but I think changing the post title on those pages to |posttitle=Prime Minister after election
is better than what it is now |posttitle=Appointed Prime Minister
Your commentary is invited. עם ישראל חי 20:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Harold Macmillan says:
Macmillan was succeeded by Foreign Secretary Alec Douglas-Home in a controversial move; it was alleged that Macmillan had pulled strings and utilised the party's grandees, nicknamed The Magic Circle, who had slanted their "soundings" of opinion among MPs and Cabinet Ministers to ensure that Butler was (once again) not chosen.[188]
Magic_circle_(disambiguation) doesn't seem to mention this group.
Is this "Magic Circle" interesting or important enough to warrant a standalone article?
(Or if such an article already exists, then we should add it to Magic_circle_(disambiguation).)
Thanks -- 189.60.63.116 ( talk) 12:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding they layout of Scottish parliamentary constituency articles here. It relates to how seats are presented after boundary changes and if every election of a member should be included and if their picture should be included. Sport and politics ( talk) 16:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I've substantially updated this article and I notice it is included in this project; this seems inconsistent since it is pre-1707 and relates only to Scotland.
Any thoughts? If it is to be included, I'd like it re-assessed but don't want people to invest their time without reason. Thanks!
Robinvp11 ( talk) 09:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I have proposed these two pages be merged, Baron_Tweedsmuir is a stub article and there already exists a more substantial page on the same person John_Buchan. I'm quite new to all this still so am not sure if I have followed the correct procedures. Claireliontamer ( talk) 17:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking of doing some work on All-Party Parliamentary Groups - creating pages for ones that currently don't have them, updating those that do. Given the number of different groups this would take sometime. Before I started I figured I'd ask about the notability for such groups; would they have presumed notability as a result of what they are, or would they need to have had some form of media coverage in order to accrue notability?
Many thanks, Mark49s ( talk) 13:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is currently taking place about the election box for Momentum. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 11:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Political make-up of local councils in the United Kingdom, summarising the number of members of each political party making up each council in the UK, is rated High on this WikiProject's importance scale. As a very high-maintenance page, thanks to there being on average 8 changes to UK council party/member compositions per week, it could really use a crack team of editors to divide the labour of monitoring and updating both this summary page and the relevant council pages which provide supporting detail.
Most of the heavy lifting in this mammoth task is done by a php trawler by Jon Lawson ( User:Jlwsn) on Open Council Data UK (who has in the past contributed to the page). From that it's a matter of getting the tables copied (requiring Excel work to insert formatting code).
In parallel, the latest election page for each council in principle needs a section detailing changes since the election to back up calculations for the summary tables, and both the election and council pages need several elements updated when a council member retires or changes affiliation. See for example Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council election, 2014#Changes during the term and Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council.
Value is then added to the tables on Political make-up in the form of a "last change" and "next change" column. In the "last change" column, I have been inserting a link to the Changes during the term section of the last election page in the "last change" column, concisely labelled with, and citing, the most recent change. This tells editors and readers exactly how up to date each row is.
There are already several people performing elements of this task recently, so a shout out to them: User:Leftwinguy92, User:Sceptre, User:Becksperson. My proposal is that each editor adopts 20-30 councils to maintain, perhaps those nearest them (shotgun NI ☺), and we keep a project table of who has agreed to do what so we can collaborate effectively. " Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Councillors"??
I'm keen to share, extend and build on the methods I've been developing on the Northern Ireland council pages, to learn from others, and to review the importance of updating the page and how else it might best be maintained. Please shout if you'd like to collaborate. Or do it your way. Anything so long as the job gets done! -- sam 💬 15:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
List of political parties in London is a bit neglected, but with forthcoming elections, it could do with some eyes on it. I've tried to tidy it up a bit. Bondegezou ( talk) 15:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Should we create One Nation (UK political party) or wait a bit? This is Henry Bolton's new party. They've got a website and were covered today by BBC News. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
For a while we've had "Category:Tower Hamlets Independent Group councillors" that's only ever had one article in it ( Rabina Khan). Khan left the Tower Hamlets Independent Group (THIG) and, a fair while later, the Tower Hamlets Independent Group turned itself into a formal party, Aspire. "Category:Aspire (political party) councillors" was then created with the THIG category turned into a re-direct. This then resulted in a situation where the Aspire category had only one article in it, Rabina Khan, someone who has never been in Aspire. Indeed, Khan leads a rival group to Aspire called PATH.
This is silly. As per WP:SMALLCAT, I think both categories should be deleted. This is a local council grouping with no broader activity. It's never had more than one article in it and is unlikely to get any more. If the categories are not deleted, then the THIG category cannot be a re-direct to Aspire as it existed for a significant period before coming Aspire and it is a nonsense to put Khan in the Aspire category.
Someone also created "Category:People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets councillors" for Khan's group. Again, this only one has one article in it. Again, it should be deleted.
THIG, Aspire and PATH are all fragments of the former "Tower Hamlets First" group. Again, we have "Category:Tower Hamlets First councillors", again with only Khan in it. Again, delete, delete, delete!
I'd try to tackle this, but I'm afraid I've never gotten into categories. I don't understand how to do categories for deletion or re-directs for them. Can someone have a go, or point me to a better description of what to do? Thanks. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm currently working on creating an article on Alexander Allardyce, and would like this WikiProject to help with this article's creation. Kirbanzo ( talk) 21:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
We've got someone edit-warring at Endorsements in the United Kingdom general election, 2017. Some more eyes on the situation would be welcome. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I have begun some initial work on improving this article, it has a few wording and NPOV issues at this stage. Any assistance/eyeballs would be good. AusLondonder ( talk) 14:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I note from today's BBC news and Somerset County Gazette that the councils voted for the proposed merger of Taunton Deane and West Somerset, although this still has to receive central government ( Sajid Javid) approval (likely to be given in my opinion). What should be on the two articles now to reflect this and when should the new article about Somerset West and Taunton Council be created? I have put this on Talk:Taunton Deane#Merger with West Somerset - probably best to comment there to keep this discussion in one place.— Rod talk 20:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Two requested moves at Talk:Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and at Talk:Offences Against the Person Act 1875 have just been relisted. Please come and add your choice and rationale to the debates. Paine Ellsworth put'r there 19:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the lead section of a British Member of Parliament contain the post-nominal 'MP' after their name? -- Neve: selbert 20:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Example with post-nominal 'MP' at
Theresa May's article
|
---|
Theresa Mary May MP ( /təˈriːzə/; [1] née Brasier /ˈbreɪʒər/; born 1 October 1956) is a British politician serving as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party since 2016. She was first elected Member of Parliament (MP) for Maidenhead in the general election of 1997. Ideologically, she identifies herself as a one-nation conservative. References
|
In the interests of balance, below is a quote from one of the advocates against the inclusion of said post-nominals:
I'm afraid it has always been regarded as inappropriate for the lede paragraph of current British Parliamentarians to include a postnominal 'MP'. The issue is that it is not, as required by MOS:POSTNOM, an official postnominal designation "issued by a country" but simply an unofficial custom used in addressing current Parliamentarians. As such they belong in infoboxes but not the lede. The custom is also transitory - anyone may cease to be a Member of Parliament at any time. As an example see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2012 archive#Need help on titles and honorifcs.
— User:Sam Blacketer 21:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
However, I would argue that their argument is rather flawed. According to
Debrett's, an authority on etiquette and behaviour, the post-nominal 'MP' is "
In formal address ... always shown for a member of parliament ... shown seventh in the order of precedence of letters after the name". That their use is an unofficial custom used in addressing current Parliamentarians
is dubious, especially when one considers their inclusion at
List of post-nominal letters (United Kingdom) § Appointments. Moreover, I'm not certain whether the custom is also transitory
in other countries, e.g. Canada; I would note that in the ledes for incumbent Canadian MPs, the post-nominal is used (see
Justin Trudeau and
Andrew Sheer). The 2012 discussion linked by the editor is inconclusive, and their argument that the post-nominal isn't an official postnominal designation
is certainly questionable; the UK Parliament's official site uses the designation in their biographies (e.g.
this one for Corbyn).
If it is acceptable to use the post-nominal 'MP' in infoboxes, it should (IMHO) be acceptable to use it in lead paragraphs.-- Neve: selbert 20:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#Separate subsection for "Corbyn's response to anti-semitism" about the extent to which Corbyn's response to anti-semitism should be covered in the article. The section in question currently has several tags on it. Feel free to join the discussion. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 12:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
We need some more eyes on this newly created article. We have a 'new' editor using primary sources that appear to be propaganda. I'm note its even noteworthy as an article so fresh eyes appreciated ----- Snowded TALK 16:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Please try to ensure the article fully complies with the neutral point of view policy. PlatinumHeron ( talk) 16:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Heidi Allen#POV content that other editors might be interested in. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 11:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi all
I just started Home Office hostile environment policy, the policy includes many parts, which have been changed, challenged in court, widely criticised etc. Does anyone have any suggestions of articles that may be a bit similar that I could copy the structure of?
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 16:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
For those of you that haven't seen it, there is a discussion on notability of local elections in the UK. This AfD is also pertinent. Cheers, Number 5 7 06:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I've added
XXXXXXXX is one of the boroughs subject to a trial of voter ID restrictions.<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/28/polling-station-voter-id-plans-are-deeply-flawed-say-critics |title=Polling station voter ID plans are deeply flawed, say critics |last=Press Association |date=2018-04-28 |work=The Guardian |access-date=2018-04-29 |language=en}}</ref>
to Watford & Bromley's 2018 elections but can't see the corresponding articles for the other boroughs affected, Gosport, Swindon, and Woking. If anybody were to find or start those articles I'd be obliged if they'd add this fact to the articles. Thanks, Cabayi ( talk) 11:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Greetings, Comrades. On 8 April [3] I BOLDly altered the infobox headers of several very recently ennobled life peers, and @ Nford24: reverted with the comment that this wasn't standard. That was the idea, obviously. The effect remains at Shami Chakrabarti's bio.
My proposal is that: for all recent life peers (perhaps since the 1999 House of Lords Act? Perhaps since 2010 or 2015?) who have not become overwhelmingly known solely as Lord/Baroness Something, their name ought to be visible in the infobox header; as it is a prominent portion of the page in a non-mobile browser. However, because there will inevitably be some insistence that, for some reason unclear to me, the reader simply must know the new peer's full formal address, I created a compromise whereby a single-line summation of their formal style is placed underneath the name (using the honorific-suffix field). Where the peer's title doesn't involve their name, like Robert Rogers, Baron Lisvane I can see that both should be visible; but, honestly, David Blunkett is David Blunkett — The Lord Blunkett is surely, at this stage, merely a strange sort of medieval quirk of the political system. That he's a member of the Upper House is important; that he has a title (especially since it's simply Lord Surname) surely isn't vital information for the reader; and even when it is (such as Rogers/Lisvane), it's in the article title, and therefore in massive bold letters above.
(I'll invite the Infobox wikiproject too, and post on the talk pages of the bios I edited; if anyone can think of other interested parties, please do ask them here; thanks.) DBD 18:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
(Also, nb I omitted "Rt Hon" for non-Privy Counsellors and used "Rt Hon" and not PC for PCs, following current Govt and HoL usage; and partially for brevity.) DBD 18:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
|native_name=
, which would then have the full common name/none-noble name appearing near the top of the infobox while maintaining the status quo. Also, regardless of government etc usage, barons/baronesses have The Rt Hon as an honorific prefix, PC is then additionally used by those who are members of the Privy Council: doing something different is simply wrong.
Gaia Octavia Agrippa
Talk 20:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Can anyone suggest more groups or individual editors who might like to contribute to this discussion? DBD 14:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Ignoring the ad hominem, I think claiming Lord/Baroness X as common name for these recent peers might fall foul of recentism a little? Since they haven't had the peerage all that long, it's quite soon to judge how they'll become best-known? DBD 09:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#NI about how to handle that Survation's opinion polls are of the whole UK rather than just GB, as the other pollsters. This is a much used page, so we could do with input to come to a conclusion soon. If you don't want to read the whole discussion, I've tried to summarise at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Summary. Bondegezou ( talk) 17:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Recent editing disputes at Democrats and Veterans, a small kind-of-UKIP-spin-off, raise some generic points and more input would be welcome.
Firstly, how much should articles about parties rely on how parties describe themselves in their own materials (i.e. primary sources)? How much should this depend on what secondary source coverage we have? How do we handle disputes when secondary sources paint a rather different picture than primary sources?
Secondly, many party infoboxes have those little bar graphs showing how many seats the party has in various contexts. Should all parties have those, including small parties with no seats? Which ones should they have? Bondegezou ( talk) 19:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I don't think we should use empty seat graphics for minor parties. I think it clutters the infobox and inflates their significance. I'd prefer to delete long primary sourced sections as a matter of course, but I don't think this is a good approach to take if the editor who wrote the material is passionate about the subject. I've already enraged an editor for Pirate Party UK for removing badly structured, primary sourced and non-notable material from "his" page. In that case, I pointed him to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and he hasn't been in touch since. I've been building up a list on political parties in the UK, and I've added a lot of the recent eurosceptic and pro-European "pop-up" parties to my watchlist. I tend to manually review edits for NPOV and reliable sourcing. I think in most cases where an editor has come in to add statements like "The party beat a LibDem candidate somewhere" we should intervene to cut it down only to meaningful facts (the party won no seats, or the party's best result was 10% of the vote somewhere). Another post-UKIP party I've had to strip down was Thurrock Independents, where I tagged the page for the editor to address and didn't get any further activity and eventually just deleted the whole "ideology section" as it was an indiscriminate copy of their website. One of the biggest problems we run into with pages like these is that some of the editors who work on them are simply WP:NOTHERE and aren't interested in engaging with other editors to meet Wikipedia's standards of quality and accuracy. Maswimelleu ( talk) 12:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Lewisham East by-election, 2018#Other parties about which parties (if any), other than Labour warrant their own section sub-heading. Comments invited. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 23:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Slightly related to the above, we're discussing at Talk:Lewisham_East_by-election,_2018#Secondary_sources whether we should list a candidacy based solely on self-sourcing. So, both For Britain and the Women's Equality Party have announced they are standing, but this hasn't (yet) been covered by secondary sources. Should we list those in the article? The SOPN will be out soon enough, but when it comes to the next election, we're going to hit the same issue again. More input wanted please! Bondegezou ( talk) 15:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
My instinct tells me yes, but I'd like to know the discussion or policy that has ruled on this. I'm thinking of working on List of mayors of Leeds, for instance. I note it has some blue links but no red links - it would be ugly to inflict that much red on a page, but aren't all of the individuals notable, by virtue of having been in that office? Carbon Caryatid ( talk) 17:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
DUP MPs do not sit on Conservative government benches now, but there seems to be some evidence they did in the past.
In 1981, Enoch Powell said: "The Conservative Party in the House of Commons has played ball with Paisley for 18 months, during which he has sat among them on the government benches". Paisley said in his 1970 maiden speech: "I sit on the Government back benches".
Furthermore, Gerry Fitt of the Republican Labour Party apparently sat on the Wilson government benches. [1]
As a result, if adequate sources can be found to define the exact period these NI MPs were on the government benches, would it be appropriate to alter the composition diagrams such as the one on List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general_election, 1970 to put them on the other side instead of always putting them in opposition?
Does anyone know if there are any further sources on this? -- Jay942942 ( talk) 18:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
From a June 1990 debate: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199091/cmhansrd/1991-06-20/Debate-9.html UUP MP William Ross says he sits on the opposition benches, but the DUP MPs sit on the government benches.
There is also a post dated 2008 on Talk:Social Democratic and Labour Party stating SDLP MPs were sitting on government benches then. Can anyone find a reliable source for this? -- Jay942942 ( talk) 18:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
References
The government has today announced that Somerset West and Taunton will be formed by the merger of West Somerset and Taunton Deane. Any help with the new article (particularly the transition of status) would be appreciated.— Rod talk 11:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 11:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I think this follows on from conversations above about reliable sources, Talk:Football Lads Alliance#Comments on edits 2.
In politicians' infoboxes, we include their elected positions. However, we don't normally include local government stints, focusing instead on terms as an MP, MEP, MSP etc. But what if being a councillor is the highest office a person has achieved? This isn't normally an issue as local councillors aren't inherently notable, but we do have a few politicians who are, for other reasons, notable and where being a councillor is about all they've done in terms of popular election. Until recently, three of these did have their councillor positions listed in their infoboxes: Duwayne Brooks (councillor highest elected position), Sian Berry (who is also a London AM) and Jonathan Bartley (councillor highest elected position). There may be others, those are just the ones I've noticed. MassiveNewOrderFan insists on removing the information at Bartley's article and there have been past disagreement over Brooks'.
Should we have a settled position on this? I tend to think that, if a politician doesn't have higher offices, it is appropriate, but I am not wedded to that position. Bondegezou ( talk) 08:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
With the exception of MassiveNewOrderFan, consensus appears to be to include Councillor positions when that is the highest elected position, so yes for all the examples above except Berry. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I have this article up for review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Trident (UK nuclear programme). While I know plenty about the history of nuclear weapons, I little about UK politics. In particular, it is hard to tell whether a particular politician or minor party is important or merely quotable. Reviewers welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I've written an article on Brexit's meaningful vote it anyone is interested. It's already drawing flack in terms of demonstrating whether or not that is the common name the amendment goes by. Every news item I've seen on it describes it as the "meaningful vote". -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 01:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The Windrush scandal article (which was originally 'forked off' from the Amber Rudd article), is barely coherent in its present form, but is getting page views in the many thousands. The section remaining in Rudd's article, is equally muddled (though less important).
The article bears all the hallmarks of being hurriedly written and added to, but left in a state which would be barely comprehensible to anyone who didn't already know most of what there was to know.
Help - involvement appreciated. (please ping if replying here or use my/article talk page). Pincrete ( talk) 22:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Please see
this discussion and follow-up RfC concerning the relative merits of {{
infobox constituency}}
and {{
infobox settlement}}
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 07:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
There are a number of unresolved reference problems on Winston Churchill. Please see the thread at Talk:Winston Churchill#Sources. Your attention would be appreciated. DuncanHill ( talk) 15:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing!
Adding a date stamp to allow this to be archived in future. Timrollpickering 10:52, 19 August 2018 (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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
What do others think of creating an article about the current sexual misconduct allegations at Westminster? The story has been running for several days now, and seems to be gathering momentum. I'm not certain how we begin something like this, but I would suggest a title such as Westminster sexual misconduct allegations, or even 2017 Westminster sexual misconduct allegations. In terms of content, I'd suggest a brief overview covering the allegations in a general sense, together with some commentary from May, Corbyn, etc, and the action being taken by Westminster authorities. I notice some MP articles mention the allegations, but I think we would need to think very carefully about naming specific individuals. Any thoughts? This is Paul ( talk) 18:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi all,
I have created a potential template for MP defections/party changes and wanted to gather your thoughts before rolling it out. It only deals with 1 party change at the moment, but could easily be expanded to deal with more than one where necessary.
See an example here:
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
{{{winner}}} win (new seat) | |||||
Conservative | Edward Robert Pacy Moon | 2,583 | 49.1 | −4.3 | |
Independent | John Leighton | 35 | 0.7 | N/A | |
Majority | 60 | 1.1 | N/A | ||
Turnout | 5,261 | 77.6 | +6.3 | ||
Registered electors | 6,784 | ||||
Liberal gain from Conservative | Swing | +4.0 |
The code can be found at User:JMPhillips92/sandbox.
-- JMPhillips92 ( talk) 21:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Inspired by this, this, and the resulting discussion, I'm wondering about what we should consider relevant and irrelevant in political biographies. A lot of articles contain the kind of information that was removed, but how relevant is it to know what football team someone supports, that they enjoy a particular hobby, and so on? Any thoughts? This is Paul ( talk) 16:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 November 30#File:1885-1918 Eccles.png. Nthep ( talk) 12:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The issue I raised months back (now archived) about the template box for London Borough Councils - which labels all members of the largest/majority party as "Executive", remains unresolved. This is incorrect, in law and in reality, and a clear error in the encyclopaedia, as was accepted during the previous discussion. The problem does not, as far as I can see, affect other councils in the UK, most of which have executives also - whichever editor made this change to the template box for London Boroughs has made a mistake, which carries through to every article for the London Boroughs. It would be great if someone with experience/rights to amend templates could have a go at the London Borough Council one to correct its presentation/terminology? MapReader ( talk) 11:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Several pages of local election results show the total numbers of votes cast as turnout. In London boroughs where each voter has three votes, this can even mean we show a turnout that's larger than the electorate. I've fixed Brent London Borough Council election, 2014 by changing {{Election box turnout}} to {{Election box total}} after checking the error was uniform. [2] I see Brent 2010 and Barnet 2014 have the same error throughout, Lambeth 2014 has it in one case and Southwark 2014 shows turnout correctly. Does anyone have the patience and maybe AWB skills to check and correct many such pages? 92.19.24.9 ( talk) 19:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
This may be worth a look Antisemitism in the Labour Party. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 18:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The government of Anguilla wrote a white paper on the effect of Brexit on Anguilla: http://westindiacommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/The-White-Paper-on-Anguilla-and-Brexit-1.pdf WhisperToMe ( talk) 04:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to comment at Talk:Josephine Butler#Request for comment on names where there's an issue about naming; the article (which is currently a FA) refers to its female subject by her first name throughout "for simplicity". Any input is welcome. -- John ( talk) 18:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Shareholder Executive used to be the best place online to find a comprehensive list of companies that the UK Government owns or holds shares in (and companies it used to) but since the management of these assets has been moved to several departments the list on this page is no longer updated. I understand that this is logical because the article is about the government body, but I think it would be a good idea to have separate page that contains an up to date list regardless of which government body currently has responsibility for them as this would be a really useful resource. RobsterUK ( talk) 17:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I added the WikiProject's template to the talk page of Positions on Jerusalem but it was removed. I think that it's on the scope of the project because it has a section on the position of the United Kingdom. Do you think that it should be re-added? Rupert Loup ( talk) 23:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Happy Xmas all. We could use some additional input at Talk:CANZUK International as to what the article should cover and what it shouldn't. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
There's a discussion of how to format the names of (Irish and courtesy) peers elected to the British House of Commons at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Peers in election result boxes. Your commentary is invited. Choess ( talk) 01:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I want to open a discussion into what it says in the infobox on election pages I understand that |posttitle=Elected prime minister
isn't accurate as in the uk pms arent actually elected but I think changing the post title on those pages to |posttitle=Prime Minister after election
is better than what it is now |posttitle=Appointed Prime Minister
Your commentary is invited. עם ישראל חי 20:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Harold Macmillan says:
Macmillan was succeeded by Foreign Secretary Alec Douglas-Home in a controversial move; it was alleged that Macmillan had pulled strings and utilised the party's grandees, nicknamed The Magic Circle, who had slanted their "soundings" of opinion among MPs and Cabinet Ministers to ensure that Butler was (once again) not chosen.[188]
Magic_circle_(disambiguation) doesn't seem to mention this group.
Is this "Magic Circle" interesting or important enough to warrant a standalone article?
(Or if such an article already exists, then we should add it to Magic_circle_(disambiguation).)
Thanks -- 189.60.63.116 ( talk) 12:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding they layout of Scottish parliamentary constituency articles here. It relates to how seats are presented after boundary changes and if every election of a member should be included and if their picture should be included. Sport and politics ( talk) 16:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I've substantially updated this article and I notice it is included in this project; this seems inconsistent since it is pre-1707 and relates only to Scotland.
Any thoughts? If it is to be included, I'd like it re-assessed but don't want people to invest their time without reason. Thanks!
Robinvp11 ( talk) 09:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I have proposed these two pages be merged, Baron_Tweedsmuir is a stub article and there already exists a more substantial page on the same person John_Buchan. I'm quite new to all this still so am not sure if I have followed the correct procedures. Claireliontamer ( talk) 17:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking of doing some work on All-Party Parliamentary Groups - creating pages for ones that currently don't have them, updating those that do. Given the number of different groups this would take sometime. Before I started I figured I'd ask about the notability for such groups; would they have presumed notability as a result of what they are, or would they need to have had some form of media coverage in order to accrue notability?
Many thanks, Mark49s ( talk) 13:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is currently taking place about the election box for Momentum. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 11:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Political make-up of local councils in the United Kingdom, summarising the number of members of each political party making up each council in the UK, is rated High on this WikiProject's importance scale. As a very high-maintenance page, thanks to there being on average 8 changes to UK council party/member compositions per week, it could really use a crack team of editors to divide the labour of monitoring and updating both this summary page and the relevant council pages which provide supporting detail.
Most of the heavy lifting in this mammoth task is done by a php trawler by Jon Lawson ( User:Jlwsn) on Open Council Data UK (who has in the past contributed to the page). From that it's a matter of getting the tables copied (requiring Excel work to insert formatting code).
In parallel, the latest election page for each council in principle needs a section detailing changes since the election to back up calculations for the summary tables, and both the election and council pages need several elements updated when a council member retires or changes affiliation. See for example Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council election, 2014#Changes during the term and Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council.
Value is then added to the tables on Political make-up in the form of a "last change" and "next change" column. In the "last change" column, I have been inserting a link to the Changes during the term section of the last election page in the "last change" column, concisely labelled with, and citing, the most recent change. This tells editors and readers exactly how up to date each row is.
There are already several people performing elements of this task recently, so a shout out to them: User:Leftwinguy92, User:Sceptre, User:Becksperson. My proposal is that each editor adopts 20-30 councils to maintain, perhaps those nearest them (shotgun NI ☺), and we keep a project table of who has agreed to do what so we can collaborate effectively. " Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Councillors"??
I'm keen to share, extend and build on the methods I've been developing on the Northern Ireland council pages, to learn from others, and to review the importance of updating the page and how else it might best be maintained. Please shout if you'd like to collaborate. Or do it your way. Anything so long as the job gets done! -- sam 💬 15:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
List of political parties in London is a bit neglected, but with forthcoming elections, it could do with some eyes on it. I've tried to tidy it up a bit. Bondegezou ( talk) 15:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Should we create One Nation (UK political party) or wait a bit? This is Henry Bolton's new party. They've got a website and were covered today by BBC News. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
For a while we've had "Category:Tower Hamlets Independent Group councillors" that's only ever had one article in it ( Rabina Khan). Khan left the Tower Hamlets Independent Group (THIG) and, a fair while later, the Tower Hamlets Independent Group turned itself into a formal party, Aspire. "Category:Aspire (political party) councillors" was then created with the THIG category turned into a re-direct. This then resulted in a situation where the Aspire category had only one article in it, Rabina Khan, someone who has never been in Aspire. Indeed, Khan leads a rival group to Aspire called PATH.
This is silly. As per WP:SMALLCAT, I think both categories should be deleted. This is a local council grouping with no broader activity. It's never had more than one article in it and is unlikely to get any more. If the categories are not deleted, then the THIG category cannot be a re-direct to Aspire as it existed for a significant period before coming Aspire and it is a nonsense to put Khan in the Aspire category.
Someone also created "Category:People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets councillors" for Khan's group. Again, this only one has one article in it. Again, it should be deleted.
THIG, Aspire and PATH are all fragments of the former "Tower Hamlets First" group. Again, we have "Category:Tower Hamlets First councillors", again with only Khan in it. Again, delete, delete, delete!
I'd try to tackle this, but I'm afraid I've never gotten into categories. I don't understand how to do categories for deletion or re-directs for them. Can someone have a go, or point me to a better description of what to do? Thanks. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm currently working on creating an article on Alexander Allardyce, and would like this WikiProject to help with this article's creation. Kirbanzo ( talk) 21:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
We've got someone edit-warring at Endorsements in the United Kingdom general election, 2017. Some more eyes on the situation would be welcome. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I have begun some initial work on improving this article, it has a few wording and NPOV issues at this stage. Any assistance/eyeballs would be good. AusLondonder ( talk) 14:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I note from today's BBC news and Somerset County Gazette that the councils voted for the proposed merger of Taunton Deane and West Somerset, although this still has to receive central government ( Sajid Javid) approval (likely to be given in my opinion). What should be on the two articles now to reflect this and when should the new article about Somerset West and Taunton Council be created? I have put this on Talk:Taunton Deane#Merger with West Somerset - probably best to comment there to keep this discussion in one place.— Rod talk 20:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Two requested moves at Talk:Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and at Talk:Offences Against the Person Act 1875 have just been relisted. Please come and add your choice and rationale to the debates. Paine Ellsworth put'r there 19:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the lead section of a British Member of Parliament contain the post-nominal 'MP' after their name? -- Neve: selbert 20:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Example with post-nominal 'MP' at
Theresa May's article
|
---|
Theresa Mary May MP ( /təˈriːzə/; [1] née Brasier /ˈbreɪʒər/; born 1 October 1956) is a British politician serving as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party since 2016. She was first elected Member of Parliament (MP) for Maidenhead in the general election of 1997. Ideologically, she identifies herself as a one-nation conservative. References
|
In the interests of balance, below is a quote from one of the advocates against the inclusion of said post-nominals:
I'm afraid it has always been regarded as inappropriate for the lede paragraph of current British Parliamentarians to include a postnominal 'MP'. The issue is that it is not, as required by MOS:POSTNOM, an official postnominal designation "issued by a country" but simply an unofficial custom used in addressing current Parliamentarians. As such they belong in infoboxes but not the lede. The custom is also transitory - anyone may cease to be a Member of Parliament at any time. As an example see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2012 archive#Need help on titles and honorifcs.
— User:Sam Blacketer 21:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
However, I would argue that their argument is rather flawed. According to
Debrett's, an authority on etiquette and behaviour, the post-nominal 'MP' is "
In formal address ... always shown for a member of parliament ... shown seventh in the order of precedence of letters after the name". That their use is an unofficial custom used in addressing current Parliamentarians
is dubious, especially when one considers their inclusion at
List of post-nominal letters (United Kingdom) § Appointments. Moreover, I'm not certain whether the custom is also transitory
in other countries, e.g. Canada; I would note that in the ledes for incumbent Canadian MPs, the post-nominal is used (see
Justin Trudeau and
Andrew Sheer). The 2012 discussion linked by the editor is inconclusive, and their argument that the post-nominal isn't an official postnominal designation
is certainly questionable; the UK Parliament's official site uses the designation in their biographies (e.g.
this one for Corbyn).
If it is acceptable to use the post-nominal 'MP' in infoboxes, it should (IMHO) be acceptable to use it in lead paragraphs.-- Neve: selbert 20:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#Separate subsection for "Corbyn's response to anti-semitism" about the extent to which Corbyn's response to anti-semitism should be covered in the article. The section in question currently has several tags on it. Feel free to join the discussion. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 12:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
We need some more eyes on this newly created article. We have a 'new' editor using primary sources that appear to be propaganda. I'm note its even noteworthy as an article so fresh eyes appreciated ----- Snowded TALK 16:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Please try to ensure the article fully complies with the neutral point of view policy. PlatinumHeron ( talk) 16:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Heidi Allen#POV content that other editors might be interested in. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 11:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi all
I just started Home Office hostile environment policy, the policy includes many parts, which have been changed, challenged in court, widely criticised etc. Does anyone have any suggestions of articles that may be a bit similar that I could copy the structure of?
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 16:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
For those of you that haven't seen it, there is a discussion on notability of local elections in the UK. This AfD is also pertinent. Cheers, Number 5 7 06:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I've added
XXXXXXXX is one of the boroughs subject to a trial of voter ID restrictions.<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/28/polling-station-voter-id-plans-are-deeply-flawed-say-critics |title=Polling station voter ID plans are deeply flawed, say critics |last=Press Association |date=2018-04-28 |work=The Guardian |access-date=2018-04-29 |language=en}}</ref>
to Watford & Bromley's 2018 elections but can't see the corresponding articles for the other boroughs affected, Gosport, Swindon, and Woking. If anybody were to find or start those articles I'd be obliged if they'd add this fact to the articles. Thanks, Cabayi ( talk) 11:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Greetings, Comrades. On 8 April [3] I BOLDly altered the infobox headers of several very recently ennobled life peers, and @ Nford24: reverted with the comment that this wasn't standard. That was the idea, obviously. The effect remains at Shami Chakrabarti's bio.
My proposal is that: for all recent life peers (perhaps since the 1999 House of Lords Act? Perhaps since 2010 or 2015?) who have not become overwhelmingly known solely as Lord/Baroness Something, their name ought to be visible in the infobox header; as it is a prominent portion of the page in a non-mobile browser. However, because there will inevitably be some insistence that, for some reason unclear to me, the reader simply must know the new peer's full formal address, I created a compromise whereby a single-line summation of their formal style is placed underneath the name (using the honorific-suffix field). Where the peer's title doesn't involve their name, like Robert Rogers, Baron Lisvane I can see that both should be visible; but, honestly, David Blunkett is David Blunkett — The Lord Blunkett is surely, at this stage, merely a strange sort of medieval quirk of the political system. That he's a member of the Upper House is important; that he has a title (especially since it's simply Lord Surname) surely isn't vital information for the reader; and even when it is (such as Rogers/Lisvane), it's in the article title, and therefore in massive bold letters above.
(I'll invite the Infobox wikiproject too, and post on the talk pages of the bios I edited; if anyone can think of other interested parties, please do ask them here; thanks.) DBD 18:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
(Also, nb I omitted "Rt Hon" for non-Privy Counsellors and used "Rt Hon" and not PC for PCs, following current Govt and HoL usage; and partially for brevity.) DBD 18:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
|native_name=
, which would then have the full common name/none-noble name appearing near the top of the infobox while maintaining the status quo. Also, regardless of government etc usage, barons/baronesses have The Rt Hon as an honorific prefix, PC is then additionally used by those who are members of the Privy Council: doing something different is simply wrong.
Gaia Octavia Agrippa
Talk 20:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Can anyone suggest more groups or individual editors who might like to contribute to this discussion? DBD 14:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Ignoring the ad hominem, I think claiming Lord/Baroness X as common name for these recent peers might fall foul of recentism a little? Since they haven't had the peerage all that long, it's quite soon to judge how they'll become best-known? DBD 09:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#NI about how to handle that Survation's opinion polls are of the whole UK rather than just GB, as the other pollsters. This is a much used page, so we could do with input to come to a conclusion soon. If you don't want to read the whole discussion, I've tried to summarise at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Summary. Bondegezou ( talk) 17:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Recent editing disputes at Democrats and Veterans, a small kind-of-UKIP-spin-off, raise some generic points and more input would be welcome.
Firstly, how much should articles about parties rely on how parties describe themselves in their own materials (i.e. primary sources)? How much should this depend on what secondary source coverage we have? How do we handle disputes when secondary sources paint a rather different picture than primary sources?
Secondly, many party infoboxes have those little bar graphs showing how many seats the party has in various contexts. Should all parties have those, including small parties with no seats? Which ones should they have? Bondegezou ( talk) 19:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I don't think we should use empty seat graphics for minor parties. I think it clutters the infobox and inflates their significance. I'd prefer to delete long primary sourced sections as a matter of course, but I don't think this is a good approach to take if the editor who wrote the material is passionate about the subject. I've already enraged an editor for Pirate Party UK for removing badly structured, primary sourced and non-notable material from "his" page. In that case, I pointed him to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and he hasn't been in touch since. I've been building up a list on political parties in the UK, and I've added a lot of the recent eurosceptic and pro-European "pop-up" parties to my watchlist. I tend to manually review edits for NPOV and reliable sourcing. I think in most cases where an editor has come in to add statements like "The party beat a LibDem candidate somewhere" we should intervene to cut it down only to meaningful facts (the party won no seats, or the party's best result was 10% of the vote somewhere). Another post-UKIP party I've had to strip down was Thurrock Independents, where I tagged the page for the editor to address and didn't get any further activity and eventually just deleted the whole "ideology section" as it was an indiscriminate copy of their website. One of the biggest problems we run into with pages like these is that some of the editors who work on them are simply WP:NOTHERE and aren't interested in engaging with other editors to meet Wikipedia's standards of quality and accuracy. Maswimelleu ( talk) 12:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Lewisham East by-election, 2018#Other parties about which parties (if any), other than Labour warrant their own section sub-heading. Comments invited. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 23:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Slightly related to the above, we're discussing at Talk:Lewisham_East_by-election,_2018#Secondary_sources whether we should list a candidacy based solely on self-sourcing. So, both For Britain and the Women's Equality Party have announced they are standing, but this hasn't (yet) been covered by secondary sources. Should we list those in the article? The SOPN will be out soon enough, but when it comes to the next election, we're going to hit the same issue again. More input wanted please! Bondegezou ( talk) 15:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
My instinct tells me yes, but I'd like to know the discussion or policy that has ruled on this. I'm thinking of working on List of mayors of Leeds, for instance. I note it has some blue links but no red links - it would be ugly to inflict that much red on a page, but aren't all of the individuals notable, by virtue of having been in that office? Carbon Caryatid ( talk) 17:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
DUP MPs do not sit on Conservative government benches now, but there seems to be some evidence they did in the past.
In 1981, Enoch Powell said: "The Conservative Party in the House of Commons has played ball with Paisley for 18 months, during which he has sat among them on the government benches". Paisley said in his 1970 maiden speech: "I sit on the Government back benches".
Furthermore, Gerry Fitt of the Republican Labour Party apparently sat on the Wilson government benches. [1]
As a result, if adequate sources can be found to define the exact period these NI MPs were on the government benches, would it be appropriate to alter the composition diagrams such as the one on List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general_election, 1970 to put them on the other side instead of always putting them in opposition?
Does anyone know if there are any further sources on this? -- Jay942942 ( talk) 18:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
From a June 1990 debate: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199091/cmhansrd/1991-06-20/Debate-9.html UUP MP William Ross says he sits on the opposition benches, but the DUP MPs sit on the government benches.
There is also a post dated 2008 on Talk:Social Democratic and Labour Party stating SDLP MPs were sitting on government benches then. Can anyone find a reliable source for this? -- Jay942942 ( talk) 18:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
References
The government has today announced that Somerset West and Taunton will be formed by the merger of West Somerset and Taunton Deane. Any help with the new article (particularly the transition of status) would be appreciated.— Rod talk 11:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 11:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I think this follows on from conversations above about reliable sources, Talk:Football Lads Alliance#Comments on edits 2.
In politicians' infoboxes, we include their elected positions. However, we don't normally include local government stints, focusing instead on terms as an MP, MEP, MSP etc. But what if being a councillor is the highest office a person has achieved? This isn't normally an issue as local councillors aren't inherently notable, but we do have a few politicians who are, for other reasons, notable and where being a councillor is about all they've done in terms of popular election. Until recently, three of these did have their councillor positions listed in their infoboxes: Duwayne Brooks (councillor highest elected position), Sian Berry (who is also a London AM) and Jonathan Bartley (councillor highest elected position). There may be others, those are just the ones I've noticed. MassiveNewOrderFan insists on removing the information at Bartley's article and there have been past disagreement over Brooks'.
Should we have a settled position on this? I tend to think that, if a politician doesn't have higher offices, it is appropriate, but I am not wedded to that position. Bondegezou ( talk) 08:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
With the exception of MassiveNewOrderFan, consensus appears to be to include Councillor positions when that is the highest elected position, so yes for all the examples above except Berry. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I have this article up for review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Trident (UK nuclear programme). While I know plenty about the history of nuclear weapons, I little about UK politics. In particular, it is hard to tell whether a particular politician or minor party is important or merely quotable. Reviewers welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I've written an article on Brexit's meaningful vote it anyone is interested. It's already drawing flack in terms of demonstrating whether or not that is the common name the amendment goes by. Every news item I've seen on it describes it as the "meaningful vote". -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 01:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The Windrush scandal article (which was originally 'forked off' from the Amber Rudd article), is barely coherent in its present form, but is getting page views in the many thousands. The section remaining in Rudd's article, is equally muddled (though less important).
The article bears all the hallmarks of being hurriedly written and added to, but left in a state which would be barely comprehensible to anyone who didn't already know most of what there was to know.
Help - involvement appreciated. (please ping if replying here or use my/article talk page). Pincrete ( talk) 22:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Please see
this discussion and follow-up RfC concerning the relative merits of {{
infobox constituency}}
and {{
infobox settlement}}
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 07:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
There are a number of unresolved reference problems on Winston Churchill. Please see the thread at Talk:Winston Churchill#Sources. Your attention would be appreciated. DuncanHill ( talk) 15:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing!
Adding a date stamp to allow this to be archived in future. Timrollpickering 10:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)