Jump to content

Talk:Dan Jarvis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Born in Nottingham?

[edit]

I'm not sure that BBC article proves Jarvis was born in Nottingham. I looked for evidence a few weeks ago but could only find that he was brought up in Nottingham. Crooked cottage (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say 'comes from' normally implies it is a birthplace, at least that if someone was born somewhere else then that fact would be mentioned to avoid confusion. But if it is contended that the source does not say birthplace in terms then perhaps we can use 'comes from' in the text and leave the birthplace blank in the infobox and persondata. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure. I have a friend who 'comes from Nottingham' but was born in Northamptonshire just to look at one example. I spent quite a lot of time looking at where the candidates were born as I thought it particularly significant that none of the main parties had chosen a Yorkshire-born candidate. How much this contributed to UKIP coming second can only be speculation.

I'll have a look on Ancestry.com for the real birthplace at the weekend. Crooked cottage (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His birth is recorded in Nottingham registration district though does not have one of the names here (subscription required). Keith D (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The registration of birth only takes two names and surname, I think. EDIT: By the way, does that site give his full date of birth? Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Registration can take more than two names. Date of birth is only available via a certificate, and you can't buy a certificate without a date of birth for someone born in (I think) the last 100 years. This is a protection against identity theft. Crooked cottage (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The index usually only gives 1 middle name in full and initials for further names. You can purchase any certificate without being related or having a date of birth all you need is the reference given in the index. Even that is not now absolutely necessary, since changes last year, as they will do a search for you all for the sum of £9.25. Keith D (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion of UK Labour Party template

[edit]

I really think there is no need to transclude {{UK Labour Party}} on this page. The purpose of this template is to provide easy navigation to articles about the whole spread of the Labour Party history, political philosophy and major personalities. It is of marginal relevance, at best, to the biography of someone who has become a Labour MP a matter of hours ago. I note that in terms of biographies, it is currently transcluded only from major office holders: Leaders, Deputy Leaders, Treasurers, and Chairs of the Parliamentary Labour Party, and one solitary backbench MP who has never had high office in the party: Dan Jarvis.

I therefore propose to remove it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every Labour MP's vote is equal in Parliament, so in that sense every MP is equally important to the Labour party and vice versa. In theory, at least. I really have no idea why you want to set up some sort of class system in which only certain Labour MPs are 'allowed' to have their party's template. That said, I really don't care if inclusion/exclusion is that important to you. Meanwhile, I added the filled-out UK MP Template for him (minus the BBC link because they haven't created the page yet), so at least people can follow his future votes, etc. As always, I'm appalled by the lack of interest in MPs, other than what appears in the tabloids. But - your choice. Flatterworld (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It really isn't a case of a 'class system' and it's not some sort of personal campaign; the issue is a far simpler one: is it useful to readers? My view is that it isn't particularly useful, and that it can be distracting to have a prominent template if it only contains links of minimal relevance. One can surely look at other articles to determine where the template has been useful and where it hasn't been required. And I must have written more articles about obscure MPs than most contributors. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan Jarvis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_Jarvis&oldid=1257005895"