Talk:Private member's bill

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New Zealand: Politics Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Single bill, multiple members?

Can a single Private Member's Bill be introduced by multiple Members? I'm wondering whether the apostrophe is placed correctly in "Private Members' Bill"? Nurg (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting Statements?

In it's current form this article has a number of different conflicting statements regarding the successfulnes of Private Members Bills. The whole intro section I think needs to be re written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.116.9 (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with move

I disagree with the move from Private member's bill to Legislative motion. I appreciate that we want to have a global, generic term, but the two terms are not synonyms in parliamentary systems. This article is about bills introduced by backbenchers, and the phrase "legislative motion" includes bills introduced by both backbenchers and members of the government, as long as they are in the legislature. I would like to move it back unless someone knows of a generic term that specifically limits itself to backbenchers. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think the article should be moved to "Private member's bill" (no need for the initial caps). — Cheers, Truth's Out There _{(speak the truth)} 15:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're happy with the new move to member of parliament’s legislative motion. I don't think there was/is any danger of misunderstanding in using "legislative motion" as a short form of "member of parliament’s legislative motion", and i don't think "legislative motion" is ever used to refer to a bill proposed by the government (called "government proposal" or simply "bill"), and i wasn't able to find any such usage, but the new article name is useful for talking about other parliaments besides the one in the UK (and those using similar terminology). The term "member of parliament’s legislative motion" is used for example in English by the Finnish parliament (and "legislative motion" is used as a synonym), see www.valter.fi. --Espoo (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is a term with no currency in English-speaking countries. "Private member's bill" is the usual term in English-speaking parliamentary democracies for bills not introduced by a member of the government. It satisfies WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH. There are zero Google books hits for "Member of parliament's legislative motion". "Legislative motion" is not necessarily synoymous with Bill (proposed law); it may mean any Motion (parliamentary procedure) in a legislature (search for e.g. "Legislative motion of no confidence"). A govenrment bill is introduced by a minister who may be a member of parliament. You say "the new article name is useful for talking about other parliaments besides the one in the UK (and those using similar terminology)". Maybe that argument will carry more weight when the article actually discusses such parliaments. Google "legislative motion" site:.fi returns 13 hits, not all relevant. jnestorius^(talk) 11:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jnestorius. First, this title fails WP:COMMONNAME, and second, it is inaccurate because both halves of this title are overly broad: "member of parliament" is a broader term than "private member" and "legislative motion" is a broader term than "bill". Yes, the title private member's bill is anglocentric, but it is still our best choice unless we find another term that (1) applies to a greater number of legislative systems, (2) has the same meaning as private member's bill without broadening or narrowing the scope, and (3) has a non-negligible amount of use among academic or common sources. If no alternative title is found, I am going to move this article back in a few days. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the proposed move as I came to this topic through an article about an Australian politician (Kevin Andrews, to be precise). I am concerned that the link from Australian Parliaments to this topic may nor be preserved if this topic is subsumed into the British Parliament. Brian Duckworth, 25 May 2016Brian of Buderim (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least...

A legislative motion seems to be the same thing as the Norwegian (parliamentary system) no:Representantforslag, but this page currently has the category "Westminster system" tagged to it so I don't feel like adding the interwiki. Geschichte (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be talking about a private bill. When the Norwegian article uses the word "private", is it talking about backbencher members of the legislature or is it talking about passing a bill in support of a private citizen? --—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, see http://www.stortinget.no/en/In-English/Supportmenu1/Dictionary/?diid=PQR --Espoo (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the policy about interwiki-ing from a hyponym to a hypernym? I think it's justified if there's no prospect of a direct synonym ever arising; but maybe it would be too misleading. In any case, I don't think "Westminster System" on this article excludes any association. I've added a section citing that stortinget webpage. jnestorius^(talk) 21:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

I'm proposing a merge of the (sparse) info from Private Members' Bills in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.19.105.34 (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest adding info from page "Private Members' Bills in the Parliament of the United Kingdom" to page "Private member's bill" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.2.227 (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should, they can just go to that page anyways, and they are separate. The U.K isn't the only country with Private Members' Bills, so how would other countries be able to look at the page without assuming it is irrelevant to their country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.117.137 (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given that no consensus over 2.5 years and that there is probably enough independently notable content for the parliament in question. Klbrain (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]