Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

David Cameron at GA reassesment

David Cameron, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Adding a date stamp to allow this to be archived in future. Timrollpickering 10:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Repeal of the Acts of Union?

This seems to be a somewhat earth-shattering element to have been omitted from the Acts of Union 1707 article until now, if correct. Is it?

Adding a date stamp to allow this to be archived in future. Timrollpickering 10:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Should election articles link to candidates' campaign websites or not? A point of generic issue to this WikiProject has come up at Talk:Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election,_2018#Candidates'_campaign_websites. Additional input welcomed. Bondegezou (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Bump! We need a third opinion here please. Bondegezou (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2018

Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2018 is getting a lot of IP editing by people who appear to be supporters of different candidates, but who may be less familiar with Wikipedia principles like WP:RS, WP:NPOV etc. More eyes and input would be welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

They seem to be running their leadership election using Wikipedia! I'm inclined to delete the candidate profiles and photos, especially if they're cited to primary sources, Twitter etc. Sionk (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the content on the page now seems appropriate, even if the photos are overkilled. I have given what was a flabby and convoluted lead a copyedit. Thanks for the pointer. MapReader (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
There is a new debate at this page around how to cover allegations of anti-Semitic comments by one of the leadership candidates. More input would be welcome at Talk:Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election,_2018#Allegations_against_Ali_of_Anti_Semitism. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

MP death articles

So a couple of months ago I stumbled upon an incomplete List of United Kingdom MPs who died in the 2010s. I expanded it, and created an article for it on the previous decade. I'd be interested in having this stretch back to the first UK Parliament in 1801, however, I'm aware that obituaries to cite are going to be hard to find, as well as the fact we don't have articles on all MPs, the earlier I get. Looking at our by-election lists, there aren't sources for earlier ones, so when creating should I source where possible, but if I can't find one just grin and bear it? Yoshi876 (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Just wondering what the encyclopedic purpose of this list is; I can't see how dying in a certain decade is worthy of being noted in a specific article. Number 57 17:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like a good fit for Wikipedia. Maybe a list of those who died in office could pass muster (maybe there's already a list of by-elections which would incorporate it), but this seems too trivial. Maybe better kept for your private records. IMHO it would be more useful to work on the MPs who don't have articles yet. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy to scrap them both. And like yourself, I don't think it'd be necessary to have a list of MPs who died in office, seeing as I believe the by-elections page already makes reference as to why the election was held. Though perhaps a category? Yoshi876 (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Afd - Friends Party

Notification of this AfD for your consideration Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends Party

doktorb wordsdeeds 11:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

IP-hopper edit-warring on John Reid, Baron Reid of Cardowan

The IP-hopper is removing cited information. I've requested page protecton, but could someone help out until that happens? I don't want to breach 3RR. Softlavender (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

List of Welsh Government Ministries

Here is a list of all Welsh Government's to date: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Welsh_Governments

It lists four for Rhodri Morgan, yet there were five:

1. Feb-Oct 2000 (Labour minority)
2. Oct 2000-May 2003 (Lab/LD Coalition)
3. May 2003-May 2007 (Labour minority)
4. May 2007-July 2007 (Labour minority)
5. July 2007-Dec 2009 (Lab/Plaid Coalition)

The first ministry is missing. I need help moving the current first ministry to the second minister, 2nd to 3rd, 3rd to 4th and 4th to 5th.

If someone can do that I can write the page for the first ministry.

I can also expand the existing pages (in their new homes) by adding more detail and references regarding resignations and reshuffles etc.

Paulharding150 (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The article on the First Morgan government says that it covers the entire February 2000–May 2003 period. Number 57 13:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Number 57 Well that is factually wrong, there were definitely two governments the first a minority labour one and the second a Lab-LD coalition, with a substantial reshuffle of individuals as well as portfolio titles.
Was it actually two governments though? A party joining a coalition government doesn't necessarily mean it's a new government. Number 57 17:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The book Devolution in the United Kingdom by Russell Deacon talks about "the coalition partners in the first Welsh Government" on page 158, which supports the status quo of February 2000 - May 2003 being one government. Are there any usages of the proposed reclassification in reliable sources? Ralbegen (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Number 57 talk That's wrong. The Coalition with the Lib Dems didn't start until October 2000

This Wiki article correctly states that the coalition started in October: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lib%E2%80%93Lab_pact Here are two Guardian articles on it: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2000/oct/06/wales.devolution and https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2000/oct/16/wales.politicalnews Here's a BBC news article where Labour approved it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/957465.stm

Here's an oral Assembly statement from Oct 2000 (starts at the bottom of Page 19) http://www.assembly.wales/record%20of%20proceedings%20documents/the%20record-17102000-9183/bus-chamber-39edc6220005d363000064c700000000-english.pdf

In the reshuffle following the coaltion two Lib Dems entered the Cabinate (Mike German and Jenny Randerson) along with Labour's Jane Davidson, and two Labour AMs left (Peter Law and Rose Butler).

There was most definitely a minority led Labour administration headed up by Rhodri Morgan from February - October 2000.

Paulharding150 (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to argue that the coalition started from the beginning of the sitting of the assembly. What I meant was, are they described as separate governments in reliable sources? None of the sources you've presented describe the coalition as the Second Welsh Government, whereas the source I referred to above describes the coalition as being during the first welsh government, and by extension both the minority and coalition periods as being the same government. Ralbegen (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Ralbegen (talk) With respect to Russell Deacon, whilst he's had his work published, I'm not sure he's the authoritative source you think he is. Perhaps you could explain to me using the same logic why 3rd Morgan and 4th Morgan are listed separately? I would argue that a new government was formed in Oct 2000. Ministers were brought in and removed, a new party was brought in, new policies were adopted by the government, just as they were in July 2007. Paulharding150 (talk) 11:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Without any sources to back it up, this would be WP:OR. As I noted above, parties joining/leaving a coalition does not necessarily mean it's a new government. I would have thought there was more justification for merging the third and fourth government articles than for splitting the first one. Number 57 11:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Ralbegen (talk)Bottom of page 35 (from the document I linked earlier) http://www.assembly.wales/record%20of%20proceedings%20documents/the%20record-17102000-9183/bus-chamber-39edc6220005d363000064c700000000-english.pdf
"The new Government is a partnership Government. It is a Government of two parties bringing together a common programme."
I think it's therefor clear that it was most definitely a new government. (This is also the moment when the head of government title was changed from First Secretary to First Minister.)

RfC: Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 7#RfC: Inclusion of expert opinions, views of pundits, activist groups, tweets, etc. may be of interest to board followers.Icewhiz (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge Debate re: Salisbury/Amesbury poisonings

Hello - there's currently a discussion at the talk page of the article 2018 Amesbury poisonings as to whether this should be merged with the Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal article. Although I have my view as expressed in that discussion, I'm not here to canvass for that, but I do think it needs a few more eyes as at the moment there's no real progress or discussion towards a consensus. You can contribute to this at Talk:2018 Amesbury poisonings#Merge. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

EU informal Salzburg summit

This is what Wikipedia put in "current events" for Theresa May's rebuff at the EU informal Salzburg summit 20 September 2018 and this is what they thought of my attempt to get May's statement in response in: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Closed) International relations. I've asked about the lack of coverage here: Wikipedia talk:In the news#Brexit negotiations, 20 September 2018. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC regarding Jeremy Corbyn and antisemitism

There is currently a discussion regarding whether a letter from a number of Orthodox Rabbis should be included in the “Allegations of antisemitism and responses” section of the Jeremy Corbyn page. Arguments for and against are in the “Letter from Orthodox Rabbis is Valid” section of the talk page. Please view and vote if this interests you. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn#RfC_about_a_letter_from_Orthodox_Rabbis Burrobert (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion: United Kingdom general election, 1832–33

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United Kingdom general election, 1832–33 which affects United Kingdom general election, 1832–33 and 11 related pages, all of which fall within the scope of this project.

Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Labour Friends of Israel

Going through articles of Labour politicians, I've found that a lot of articles include a line saying that they are or were members of Labour Friends of Israel, including all or almost all of the politicians listed as members on the Labour Friends of Israel page. This is really odd, as no other Friends groups are treated like this and due weight is rarely established using secondary sources. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of these lines were added by now-indefinitely blocked user Claíomh Solais.

This material is unnecessary clutter unless there's decent secondary sourcing. There are only a few politicians for whom LFI membership is encycolpedic content, such as some former chairs for whom the association is a relevant part of their political careers. I'd like to remove the material where no primary source is provided, but as there are so many articles which have been edited in this way I thought it would be wise to get views from other editors before continuing. Ralbegen (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree, this is not particularly relevant to the articles. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to election/referendum naming format

I've started an RfC on changing the election/referendum naming format to move the year to the front (so e.g. French presidential election, 2017 becomes 2017 French presidential election). All comments welcome here. Cheers, Number 57 20:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

This RfC has been reopened for further comment, including on using a bot to move the articles if it closed in favour of the change: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Proposed change to election/referendum naming format. Cheers, Number 57 15:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on police investigation of antisemitism in Labour

There is a discussion at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 6#RfC on inclusion of police investigation that editors here might be interested in. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Party membership figures

Most political party pages have a section in the info box giving an approximation of the membership size long with an green/red arrow showing if it's increased/decreased.

However there's no timeline on the changes and different parties release figures at different moments, with sporadic frequencies.

Would it be better to simply to list the membership figure as = XX,XXX (Oct 2018) with no arrow, and to update this as often as possible and to create a section in the main article of each party showing the historic membership levels which will show the change?

Membership

Date Membership Source +/1
2012 8,000 2012 Leadership electionCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
2014 8,500 House of Commons EstimateCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Increase 500
2018 8,050 2018 Leadership electionCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Decrease450

I notice a discussion regarding whether Plaid Cymru's membership had increase/decreased recently, I can find several reliable sources over the last decade all of which put them between 8,000 and 8,500 yet we know Labour, Lib Dem, SNP and UKIP for example have all fluctuated massively over the last decade.

Just a thought. Paulharding150 (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I would get rid of the up/down arrows; never really understood the point of them. Number 57 14:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

There isn't a lot of point including the membership figures at all. The Conservatives don't officially release theirs anyway, and Labour include people who are part of some affiliated Unions but not others. Certainly there's no point to the arrows without a consistent reporting basis, and the data simply isn't there to support such a thing Espatie (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Article soon to be highly visible: Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)

It seems highly possible that due to the current MPs ongoing Court Case there may be a by-election in Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency). As such, the Constituency Article is likely to become highly visible. Is there anything that should be done to improve it before it becomes a more important resource? Please comment in the Article Talk Page Espatie (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed new sidebox for UK-EU relations

I have been redesigning this sidebar, which is featured on many brexit pages as well as other EU-UK pages. The new draft is here. Comments or changes are more than welcome, please post them here. Heb the best (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

This template is now the subject of an RfC, editors may vote at Template talk:United Kingdom in the European Union#RfC: Removal of the second vote section. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Contempt of Parliament

I know we have a general article about Contempt of Parliament but I'm wondering if it's worth creating one about the vote this evening in which the UK Government was found to be in contempt of Parliament, the first time such a thing has happened in the UK. I'm pretty certain the topic would be notable enough to do this, but I have a few questions? What would we call such an article? How would it be structured? Would it overlap significantly with anything that currently exists? Is it too early to consider an article of this nature? Should we wait for any possible consequences? Would any possible consequences (the fall of the government, for example) negate the need for an article on the government's contempt of Parliament? Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I would begin with a subsection in the existing article. If there's enough material over the next few days (or longer), then creating a new article can be discussed. But let's start within the existing structure. Bondegezou (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Theresa May no confidence vote

I'm concerned about the description of the no confidence vote as a leadership spill (such as here) as surely that is something different, and is not a term we use in the UK anyway. This is Paul (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It's the term in Australia but I think pretty much confined to Australian politics. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, and it seems to be an election, which this wasn't. This is Paul (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Nicola Sturgeon

There's currently a discussion at Talk:Nicola Sturgeon#Too much focus on foreign affairs in article about the remit and content of the article. All contributions and thoughts are welcome This is Paul (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Theresa May

I've opened a discussion at Template talk:Theresa May#Expansion as the template has been expanded quite significantly in recent weeks. Please feel free to add any thoughts to the discussion. This is Paul (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Vote of confidence or vote of no confidence?

2019 motion of no confidence in the May ministry has been moved to 2019 vote of confidence in the May ministry in this diff on the basis that the 1993 vote of confidence in the Major ministry (originally "1993 vote of confidence in the government of John Major") sets a precedence. I would have said that because the motion is of no confidence then the post-vote article should also be of no confidence.

Category:Votes of no confidence in the United Kingdom currently shows:

Thoughts? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

It's tricky. Presumably the current article titles reflect who won: it's a vote of no confidence if the government lost, and a vote of confidence is the government won. Bondegezou (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Hansard calls the debate "No Confidence in Her Majesty's Government" and quotes Corbyn as "I beg to move, That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. I would say that the move of the article was wrong. MilborneOne (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
We should go by what the reliable sources call it per our policy WP:COMMONNAME. "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)" but do read the whole policy. They're mixed and it's not easy to get the search right, but I think "no confidence" is the most common. Doug Weller talk 11:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the problem is that 2019 vote of no confidence in the May ministry sounds as if it was a successful vote, when it wasn't. Would 2019 motion of no confidence in the May ministry work? Bondegezou (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Really this shouldn't be complicated at all. Parliament in such cases is always voting on a motion that has been put before the House, and the motion is always that the House has NO CONFIDENCE in the government. Hence no confidence it should be, whether or not it passes. MapReader (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
That's how I see it, the motion is to decide whether the House has NO CONFIDENCE in the government rather than whether the House has CONFIDENCE in the government. Perhaps keeping it as 2019 motion of no confidence in the May ministry or maybe 2019 attempted vote of no confidence in the May ministry. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Early MP categories

I've recently been looking at categorisation for late medieval MPs (ie 14th/15th century). From the 1500s up to the modern era, these are categorised by Parliament, and the general rule seems to be one category per parliamentary term, eg "1547-1552", or in a more modern context "2010-15". (I recall seeing discussions about this years ago, but I can't seem to find explicit documentation of the consensus for it - the closest thing seems to be this 2012 CFD) In the 14th and 15th century, they are mostly just in century-level categories.

In the late medieval period, when Parliaments were much shorter affairs, there were several years with two distinct parliaments (see List of Parliaments of England). As far as I can tell they were completely distinct events - new sets of members returned, and so on, the same way as in the normal change from year to year. I recently started systematically creating categories for these terms, which mostly didn't exist, and found we had a couple of existing categories which lumped the two from a single year together (eg Category:English MPs 1388). My initial reaction was to split these out into separate categories for the two terms that year, but there have been some concerns raised about that.

So, some questions:

a) Is it appropriate to subcategorise in this period, or given the large number of Parliaments (~100x between 1350 and 1500) is it simplest just to leave everyone in aggregated century categories? (There are about 600 articles in each of them at the moment; if filled out, they could potentially exceed 2-3,000)
b) If we do subcategorise, should it be by each and every Parliament (as is done ~1500 to date), or should we use another approach, such as grouping by year, by decade, or by monarch?
c) If we do have Parliament-specific categories, what should we call these split ones? "English MPs April 1414"? "English MPs 1414 (early)"? Or something else? The History of Parliament labels these as eg/ April 1414 and November 1414, going by the date they assembled. After the 1400s, there's only one further case of two fully in the same year that I'm aware of, which is in 1553; here we have the slightly confusingly named Category:English MPs 1553 (Edward VI) for the first period, and Category:English MPs 1553 for the second.

@Liz:, who raised concerns over some of the split categories; also @Marcocapelle, Furicorn, Rathfelder, BrownHairedGirl, and Spiderjerky: who I think have worked on various of these early categories in the past.

PS: I know this project is intended as post-1707, but I'm not sure if anywhere actually covers pre-Union politicians, and the issue touches on a UK politics category scheme, so it seemed appropriate to raise it here... Andrew Gray (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I dont think we should worry too much about what would happen if there were 5 times more articles than they are now. Apart from any other consideration its probable that many people were elected to multiple parliaments. But I think if I was studying that period it would be helpful to have them categorised by each parliament of which they were a member.Rathfelder (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of by decade. The disadvantage of the post-1500 approach of diffusing by each and every Parliament is that many MP articles are in a large number of categories. By monarch would have the disadvantage that the length of periods of various monarchs were very different. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • When I've taken a look before, it was from the perspective of organizing all the stub biographies of pre-Union parliamentarians. After some analysis, I personally felt that for pre-union parliaments, by monarch/reign was the cleanest division. As you've noted, sometimes there are multiple parliaments a year, and parliaments can cross decades, but I'm under the impression no parliaments cross reigns. Also, I think it would be fine to have two parallel categorization trees (decade and monarch), as long as they were cleanly separated. -Furicorn (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the notes, @Rathfelder, Marcocapelle, and Furicorn:. Yes, lots of them were/will be multiples. For MPs covered in the 1386-1421 History of Parliament volume, ~43% sat for one term, ~87% for five terms or fewer. Only ~4% sat for ten or more terms. In the 1509-1603 volumes, it's ~54% one term, ~91% five or fewer, ~3% ten or more.
These figures go a little higher than we get for modern MPs, but not shockingly so - for MPs who served purely between 1886 and 2017 (and aren't currently in Parliament, so we can assume they're retired), it's ~35% one term, ~90% five or fewer, less than 0.4% ten or more. The proportion who served a reasonable 1-5 terms is about the same for all three periods, interestingly.
If we do switch to a different model for early Parliaments, one question would be where to put the cut-off for "bundled" versus "separated". Other than the Long Parliament, I think the first to explicitly cover two reigns may have been 1701-2. Maybe 1604 would be a good cut-off - the first Stuart parliament? Most of the subcategories of Category:17th-century English MPs are well-filled already, suggesting someone's already been interested enough to do that work, but it's a bit patchier in the (especially early) 16th century. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: After digging around and refamiliarizing myself with the existing categories, I realized my initial response needs additional clarification. I think the best category tree would be as follows
However, even if the consensus is the century groupings make the most sense then I think it's fine to have one category per parliament below the century category, and for parliamentarians to be tagged to multiple parliamentary categories. The hard work is going through and adding at least one category to all the MPs in the first place, and once they are categorized to the most granular level, it's fewer pages to edit to rework any higher level categorization schema.
Also, sort of separate, but I went ahead and added what I think is the ideal set of wikiproject templates for these MP bio categories to the talk pages of all of the parliament subcategories of Category:15th-century English MPs. If you like those, do you want to go ahead and add them to any new parliament categories you create? -Furicorn (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Updated above to correct mention of most granular category. -Furicorn (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Where to put the cut-off? 1707 would be a much more logical cut-off than 1604, from a historical perspective, because it would then cover the entire history of the Parliaments of England. The fact that we already have many 17th-century categories by Parliament can be solved by proposing to have them merged to decades at WP:CFD. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
So, how does this all shake out? Are we categorizing each member by year? Year and month? Or some other system? Right now, most are categorized by year but there are a few by year and month and I wasn't sure where to go to sort this out. Kudos to Andrew for coming here and asking what we should do. But it should be consistent, whatever system you decide upon. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Marcocapelle:, I think we can hold off on the 17th century until the other centuries are completed, then we can revisit the 17th century and make the case to have it conform to the other centuries.
@Liz: I think the proposal and the work that has been done is to categorize each MP by year the parliament was assembled, with the caveat that when two parliaments were assembled in a year, the category names include month and year. User:Andrew Gray, please correct me if I'm mistaken. -Furicorn (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so there will be some MPs categorized by year and some MPs by month & year. If that's the consensus, so be it. Liz Read! Talk! 18:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, in terms of who supports listing each individual parliament, I think it's me, Rathfelder, and possibly Andrew Gray? Marcocapelle has expressed a preference for decades.
@Marcocapelle: I still support eventually going through and having a consistent structure include all pre-1707 MPs, but I note that there are two seperate templates {{Parliaments of England 1558–1601}} (Elizabeth I) vs {{Parliaments of England 1601}} (Stuarts until Union). Perhaps this is a common historiographical delineation? Not knowing a ton about UK history this may be the arbitrary preference of that particular template creator (@Plucas58: in case you care to weigh in)). -Furicorn (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Sounds fair. In addition better hold off on the 13th century as well, considering the few articles that are currently in there. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah that makes sense. -Furicorn (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Furicorn: I think at this point I am definitely leaning towards one-per-parliament as well - to clarify, though, rather than "each by year" we should probably say "by years" -
  • "...MPs xxxx-[yy]yy" for parliaments that run over more than one year [this is the existing standard after ~1700]
  • "...MPs xxxx" for parliaments that were assembled and dissolved in the same year [common before ~1600]
  • "...MPs Month xxxx" where more than one parliament was assembled in the same year, listed by month of assembly
This should keep things consistent with the existing system. Definitely agree on avoiding the 13th century for now! Andrew Gray (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I'll leave it to Andrew to do any recategorization that needs to happen. No point in me messing around with a system that others understand better than I. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: as I'm tagging MPs, I notice that a slight advantage to having the category format be "... MPs YYYY Month" is that an uninformed user using HotCat is more likely to encounter the category while using the search function than if the formate is "... MPs Month YYYY". Any thoughts? -Furicorn (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@Furicorn: Good thought. It also means we don't have to fiddle around with defaultsort. "English MPs 1553 April" feels a bit clunky grammatically, though - would any of "English MPs 1553 (April)", "English MPs 1553, April", "English MPs 1553 (early)", or "English MPs 1553 (first session)" seem suitable? I think (April) works best and is also conceptually correct - it's there as a disambiguator between the two 1553 sessions, not because it was only in April. But happy to be flexible, I don't work with category naming rules much :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: Well, I think we would still have to fiddle with defaultsort since months would still be sorted alphabetically, not chronologically. I would hesitate to add punctuation to category names, and I don't personally find the expression too clunky to be serviceable - I feel like they should be somewhat terse, and if we are really concerned about unpacking what the category is about I think we can always add explanatory text that goes at the top e.g. adding a note that says "this category is for the parliament that assembled April XXXX." I decided to poke around and see what guidance was available - I note that MOS:DATEFORMAT frowns on "YYYY Month" within articles, while WP:CATNAME doesn't really get granular enough about dates to say much. I've gone ahead and asked a question at the CATNAME Talk -Furicorn (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The two templates I created (see ::: contribution above) were intended to be navigation templates and and have no real bearing on the issue of categorisation. However, for what its worth, my view is that the present system of categorisation is perfectly adequate as it stands, at least for the 1400s onwards. Individual parliaments (using year and month where necessary) are currently aggregated by century. There seems to me no problem with that. For the 1300s the century only category would suffice for the time being as there is very little information readily available that would enable meaningful biographies (as distinct from "dictionary" articles) to be written for such peoplePlucas58 (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC).

Ministers in House of Lords erroneously appointed to the Privy Council

I've noted that the vast majority of Lords that have been Government Ministers are stated to be members of the Privy Council (with the prefix 'The Right Honourable'), however in most instances this is not the case. I've removed the prefix from most serving Ministers, but if someone has more time to remove previous Ministers that would be great. We also need to be aware not to state this going forward. A comprehensive and up to date list of Members can be found here: https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/privy-council/privy-council-members/privy-counsellors/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MassiveNewOrderFan (talk • contribs) 13:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Reality check on extracts from the Register of members' interests

In what seems extraordinary to me, I've had an edit to Richard Benyon MP reverted by Absolutelypuremilk. The revert was of an addition of extracts from his entry in the Register of Members' Interests, and specified payments he has received from various sources. Absolutelypuremilk commented "Undid revision - not clear why this is particularly notable".

It seems to me that the whole purpose of the Register of members's interests to to require politicians to be transparent about their interests, so that the electorate can decide if there is a conflict of interest. Such information seems absolutely notable to me, and should ideally IMO be included in the articles of all MPs.

I'd be interested in comment from this forum: are neutrally written, well sourced and referenced exerpts from the RoMI notable or not? --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I've had a previous clash with Absolutelypuremilk regarding their removal of similarly reliably sourced material using the dubious claim of original research and that things like the RoMI are primary sources and can't be used. Number 57 13:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
If you're here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, then this might not be the place for you. Why should we include particular payments to MPs unless there is a secondary source or they are obviously notable in themselves? If there's a secondary source saying they are notable then perhaps, but interested voters can just go on the Register themselves if needed. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Interested voters tend to come here first and, I suspect, rarely visit the Register of Members' Interests. We should include all payments; we should strive to produce as well-rounded a picture of MPs as we can. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
So you think we should include all payments to MPs on here? How do you decide what is notable? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
What part of all are you misunderstanding? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
So if someone had a hundred payments then we should list all of them and take up half the article? Wikipedia shouldn't be a collation of all information about a person. "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[1] Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight." "As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
In that unlikely event, some effort should be made to summarise the payments. You're scraping the bottom of the barrel of arguments against incusion of this pertinent information. Our job is to provide a well-rounded description of, in this case, MPs. MPs financial interests are absolutely relevant to an appraisal of the MP, which is why there is a RoMI. Such payments are relevant since they allow readers - and strictly not us - to make judgements along the lines of "is the MP spending too much time on other activities", or "is the MP likely to be representing the interests of their paymaster rather than of the electorate". --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
It does appear that someone involved here is on Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, particularly with regards to Conservative MPs and a certain Mr J. Corbyn, but it's not Tagishsimon. Number 57 15:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

If there's something notable about an MP's financial interests, there will be secondary coverage of it. If something hasn't even been covered by a local newspaper but only in a primary source, I don't see the value of including it in the encyclopedia. Ralbegen (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. There's a lot of stuff on the register of members' interests that's far from notable. Perhaps you could add an external link to the register on the page without discussing content drawn exclusively from there. In the event that an MP's interests or expenses come under scrutiny, a link to that primary source could be warranted to support the text. I imagine there is a lot of stuff in the register and expenses reports that could be used to form a critique of a sitting MP, but without secondary coverage of that I don't think its our job to include it. Maswimelleu (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
What Maswimelleu and Ralbegen said. An external link seems sensible. WP:PRIMARY is clear that we should use primary sources with care. If there's no secondary RS reporting of something, then WP:UNDUE would suggest we shouldn't cover it either. If something is reported by secondary sources, then we could use primary sources for additional detail. Bondegezou (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I think this is the best way to do things as it's keeping true to our principles. If it's notable, and backed up with sources, it should be included. Trying to transfer everything from the Register into an article is a bit much and could cause all manner of problems. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'm also quite happy with a link to the register of interests.Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move discussion

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:2011 Welsh devolution referendum#Requested move 10 February 2019, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 17:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Brexit Party

The new Brexit Party is getting a lot of attention now Nigel Farage is on board. The article could do with some additional eyes on it. There's an IP SPA with strong views about it. Bondegezou (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi all. 7 MEPs have now joined the Brexit Party. I've listed them at Brexit Party, but we need updates at Template:UKEUparties and List of members of the European Parliament for the United Kingdom, 2014–19. This is fiddly as MEPs are also members of larger groups, so you need to check these are all lined up. I'll have a look this evening, but if anyone wants to have at it now... Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Template:Political parties in the United Kingdom also needs updating. Bondegezou (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
And all the MEPs' individual pages, and also the pages for the Libertarian Party and Thurrock Independents. Bondegezou (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Searching for "Brexit Party" here [1] and I can only get one result, so things aren't as simple as I thought they would be to try and help you out! doktorb wordsdeeds 11:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I've semi-protected it; easier than having to block waves of sockpuppets and IPs. Number 57 12:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks all. I've done Template:UKEUparties, Template:Political parties in the United Kingdom, Libertarian Party, Thurrock Independents and some at 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom. Someone please check my work! Bondegezou (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that I've managed to work out how to do the Returned Members table after dozens of attempts and previews so hopefully I can fathom out the others! doktorb wordsdeeds 13:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The Independent Group

More party splits! More fiddly Wikipedia tables to update! I've done Template:Political parties in the United Kingdom and see that The Independent Group has already been created. Bondegezou (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 Newport West by-election

I've created this page over a redirect that doktorb created earlier today. A by-election is pretty much certain to happen short of it being countermanded or prevented by a snap general election, and I've used the lead sentence "a by-election is expected in" rather than "a by-election will be held in" to indicate the fact that the writ has not yet been moved. This is the rationale I used for Lewisham East and West Tyrone prior to writs being moved there. I've found there was at least a small amount to discuss in the article that warranted it being separate from Newport West (UK Parliament Constituency). The content is all new wording I put in today so I'd like other editors to check through it and tweak things that don't sound quite right.

As with most by-elections I somewhat expect this to be a magnet for people who want to skew the NPOV and assign undue weight to fringe topics or parties, so I'd be grateful if other people could be vigilant against attempts to bombard the article with minor party candidacy announcements and improperly sourced additions. The news of Paul Flynn's unfortunate death has been overshadowed by the Independent Group being announced, but I suspect there will be relatively significant primary coverage of the by-election in the next few weeks given that the seat is not 100% safe and given that Labour selections often do attract direct media attention. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Utterly ludicrous to create an article about something that hasn't been announced, or dicussed, or might not even happen. But hey-ho. Sionk (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
It has been discussed: there is mention of it in the Evening Standard and the New Statesman, for example. It may not happen, but it probably will. UK by-election articles are usually created this quickly and that may be a mistake, but I don't think it's worth trying to fight it! So my attitude is we might as well make it as good as possible. Bondegezou (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 9#RfC: Stamford Hill may be of interest to this project.Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Democrats and Veterans

There's a very active new editor on the Democrats and Veterans article. Could we have some eyes on the page, and some friendly support of a new editor? Bondegezou (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Percy Glading

This article—of interest to this project—is currently undergoing a peer review. All project members are welcome to comment there. Thank you! ——SerialNumber54129 19:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Request to move Meaningful vote to Meaningful vote on Brexit

Discussion here. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on Antony Lerman of openDemocracy at the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Antony Lerman of openDemocracy on the reliable sources noticeboard with respect to the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party article. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Antony Lerman at openDemocracy. — Newslinger talk 03:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Merge Request discussion ongoing

Proposed merger of 2019 People's Vote March into People's Vote; Proposer's reational: "Seems may not pass the criteria of WP:N(E) to have an individual article." -B dash. The discussion is >>>Here<<< Please join the debate. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 14:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Election seat totals - Speaker or not?

I've noticed that our elections and lists of MPs are a bit inconsistent in how they handle the Speaker. For example, in Feb 1974, the total is given as 297 Conservative seats, and the Speaker not mentioned. (List of MPs elected in the February 1974 United Kingdom general election & February 1974 United Kingdom general election). In 2017, the total is given as 317 Conservative + 1 Speaker. (List of MPs elected in the 2017 United Kingdom general election & 2017 United Kingdom general election). In some cases, they differ; in 2001 the Speaker is counted separately on List of MPs elected in the 2001 United Kingdom general election, but as Labour in the totals at 2001 United Kingdom general election.

Should we have a consistent approach, and if so, what? In some years, eg 1992, there is no Speaker standing for re-election so obviously the person who will shortly become the Speaker should be counted with their party, but in others, I can see arguments either way. My preference would be "count separately", but happy to be convinced otherwise. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

MP since [date of election] or [date of swearing in]?

It appears that convention is to list MPs as having 'assumed office' on the day of results being announced. However, I'm not sure whether this is potentially misleading – would it not be more accurate to state that prior to being sworn in, that person is an MP-elect? As regards specifically Sinn Fein 'MPs', I'm not sure it is accurate to call them 'members' of a Parliament that they reject the legitimacy of to govern for Northern Ireland. It could lead to a potentially bizarre situation in the future where Wikipedia considers the longest-serving MP to be one that has never taken their seat. Domeditrix (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Domeditrix: On the SF point, Parliament definitely seems to think the Sinn Fein MPs are Members; see for example this paper (2006), and in particular George Young's comment:
I should explain to the House that Members who, for whatever reason, have not taken their seat are still Members of this House. The code of conduct and the rules on registration and declaration of interests apply to all Members of this House, whether or not they have taken their seat. ...
So while they don't have the full rights available to them, they are still considered MPs, and I think we're in safe company describing them as such.
As for dates, I looked into this a while ago as part of the Wikidata MPs project, and asked around a bit to see if we could get any guidance. The response seemed to be ... it varies. There are sound arguments for a few possible dates (two of which are usually the same).
1. Day of polling.
Pro: it's simple and easy to remember, and it means everyone elected gets included, even people who died on the day of polling. Parliament's own data system uses this date (example)
Con: it's conceptually a bit strange because they are almost never known to have become the MPs on that day.
2. The day after polling.
Pro: it's a simple rule and easy to apply. This is the one used by the Recall of MPs Act 2015 and the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (for pay purposes).
Con: it's not necessarily linked to the actual declaration, though it's usually the same day. It also seems to be a quite modern rule and only used for administrative convenience.
3. The declaration of the result.
Pro: it is possibly the legally correct date (as the returning officer's valid certificate is what's required for them to become a Member). It's when they're first identified as an MP.
Con: it can be a bit hard to work out for older elections, and for modern ones it means a dozen or so people become MPs a day before everyone else, which seems a bit strange. In 1918 & 1945, the results were not declared until two weeks in arrears, not the day after.
4. Date of swearing in.
Pro: it's the date used for calculation of seniority, and they don't get to take their seats until this point.
Con: anyone who isn't sworn in doesn't get counted this way. As well as Sinn Fein, there are occasionally MPs who die in the gap, or (historically) who never attended for more prosaic reasons. Plus, most people have already been going around being called MP for a week or two.
I personally prefer #1, date of election, as it's a simple rule, and easy to find out (at least in the modern era of single polling days for all constituencies). #4 would cause problems with abstentionist MPs or those who die before swearing in (five cases in the twentieth century), and as noted above I think we need to include them. #2 feels a bit arbitrary (why not just use day of polling?). Finally #3, while perhaps the most constitutionally correct, is not widely used (I don't think I've seen any sources systematically using it), and also a bit confusing given people may be returned on different days at a single general election. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Very interesting, very enlightening. Domeditrix (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Conservative Party EGM

Another vote of no confidence in Theresa May is on the cards after a petition from local Conservative associations passed the required number of signatures to force an Extraordinary General Meeting. 800 senior officials will vote, and although the vote will be non-binding I'd like to float the idea of an article on the topic, particularly as it's believed to be the first time such an instance has occurred. Obviously we'd need to wait for the meeting to be scheduled, and more media coverage of it (I imagine that'll be quite significant) but I'm interested in what others think. Is this a topic that can stand on its own as an article or can it be covered in existing pages? This is Paul (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd imagine it may sit more easily as part of the Premiership of Theresa May article, though if more ends up coming from this EGM then that could warrant it being spun-off. Domeditrix (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

MPs without Wikipedia articles

In case it's of any interest to anyone, I've put together these automatically updated maintenance lists:

Lists are based mostly on the History of Parliament volumes. They give all MPs know to have served in that time period together with links to History of Parliament and ODNB entries, plus (for modern ones) Historic Hansard and Who's Who. And a Commons image, if identified. Last date in Parliament + constituency is identified for some but not all periods.

At the moment, there are only about 45 MPs missing of the 5,100+ who have been in Parliament at any point after the 1918 general election, which is pretty good coverage! Wikipedia has an article for everyone since the 1929 general election with only two exceptions, George Powell and Richard Spencer, both one-term Conservative backbenchers in 1931-35. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Brexit Party position

Some additional input would be helpful at Talk:Brexit_Party#Third-party_sources_on_political_position?. We have some editors less experienced in Wikipedia's practices with strong views. Bondegezou (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I hope others express views at the RfC. We could still do with more input at Brexit Party around the party's ideology, in the article text as well as in the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Excessive length of article Constituency election results in the 1929 United Kingdom general election

Hey all

I have had my attention drawn to the article Constituency election results in the 1929 United Kingdom general election, particularly about its length. However I have broader concerns. I'm not sure the article should exist at all. Each constituency already has its own page, and summary results are found on the page for each general election. This article seems to collate the results just for the sake of it, and may be part of an intended series of articles which didn't materialise. My instinct is to AfD. What do others thing? doktorb wordsdeeds 18:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

There are a number of such pages, although you are right that they stop short of a complete series. I agree and don't really see the point; it is simply asking for inconsistencies to appear where corrections are made to the constituency page. I would support an AfD to avoid pointless duplication of the same data. MapReader (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree that an AfD might be the best bet given that the information is duplicated in the constituency articles. Also, the article size is way above the recommended limit (over 459kb), so isn't really great for browsing (WP:CHOKING). Number 57 20:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated the article for deletion doktorb wordsdeeds 21:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Is it really any more excessive than the numerous county council election results pages, which often give all the ward results? I'd say not. Wikipedia is hardly awash with articles about pre-internet-age elections, and I'd say general elections are even more important than local authority ones. Sionk (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd say yes. Local election resultn articles are small and often summaries. This is replicating existing articles for no good reason. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Consolidating the election box templates into tables like at 1928 United States House of Representatives elections would save a lot of space and be easier to read. Reywas92Talk 07:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

UK political parties template

An editor is proposing significant revisions to the template for political parties in the UK: see Template_talk:Political_parties_in_the_United_Kingdom#Inclusion_criteria_2019_discussion. More input into the discussion would be valued. Bondegezou (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Page move discussion

Hi. You might be interested in this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Listing the Secretary of State for junior ministers

@Member1494: has gone through a large number of junior minister pages and removed the relevant Secretary of State from the infobox. This is standard practice across UK politics and I don't see why this has been done without any discussion. The given reasoning was "PM appoints ministers not SoS" which is true, but the PM is also listed so I don't understand why the SoS shouldn't be listed as well. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

As per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, infoboxes are not meant to be these huge things listing everything, but summaries of the article. Let's cut down on what we put in them. Bondegezou (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
(e/c) I think there is a more general problem that politician infoboxes have far too much information crowbarred into them. IMO they need to be massively pared down to just ministerial roles and years in office so that they are a basic summary - the rest (predecessor, successor etc can be dealt with elsewhere in the article) – many infoboxes are far, far too long. Number 57 16:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more - it becomes ridiculous and all encompassing, not to mention misleading as to the relative interdependence of certain roles e.g. whips and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I'd prefer to curtail the boxes further, however think PM, predecessor and successor is acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Member1494 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Predecessor and successor are fundamental to the usefulness of the infobox and absolutely must remain. Captainllama (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Party article disambuguation (UK)

Hi,

I've noticed that all parties that require disambiguation from parties in other countries use (UK) rather than (United Kingdom) in the article title, whereas American parties use (United States). I think it would be better if British parties also had their article names changed to (United Kingdom) instead of (UK). Articles for other countries also seem to use the complete name of the country, not an abbreviation.

The main ones to be changed would be Labour Party (UK), Conservative Party (UK) and Liberal Democrats (UK) etc.

Morris Schaffer (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Disambiguation under "UK" is as old as Wikipedia itself, changing it would cause unnecessary disruption and a vast amount of consequences to pages across the entire project. I'd say that there are far more important jobs in Wiki than changing UK to United Kingdom after all these years. doktorb wordsdeeds 13:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose There is plenty on Wikipedia that needs doing, this isn't one. Captainllama (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

List of MPs elected in ... articles

Hi. I'm wondering about the historical editorial background that led to the current convention of "List of MPs elected in the YYYY United Kingdom general election" (as opposed to, e.g. "Nth Parliament of the United Kingdom", which is the bold title used in the lead and infobox of the most recent articles). The United States has "Nth United States Congress", so I'm wondering whether there's a reason for the difference. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources in the US tend to talk about the Nth this or that. In the UK, they don't: they tend to talk in terms of years. Bondegezou (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks; this explains why years are preferred. There's still the part regarding why the focus is on the "list of MPs" aspect rather than "parliament", though. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a requested move at Talk:Winston Churchill (1940–2010) that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  23:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox content

There is a discussion here which would benefit from input from members of this project. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit request Lord Sheikh

Please see the request and respond at Talk:Mohamed_Sheikh,_Baron_Sheikh#Request_for_edits. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Reactions to...

Reactions to the 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election has been created. Why, for heavens' sake, why? What possible encyclopaedic value does a collation of empty and predictable soundbites have?

Sorry, got carried away there... what I meant to say was, do we have any Project wide view on articles of this nature? Bondegezou (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Labour/Co-operative colour

Very trivial question. At the moment, we use slightly different colours for Labour and Labour/Co-operative (neither one is the "official" Labour colour, which is a tad pinker, but we probably shouldn't care about precise party branding). They're just different enough that seeing them next to each other bugs me, but not different enough that you could tell them apart at a glance. Since there isn't any real difference in political terms, would anyone object if I just make these two colours the same?

Labour Party
Labour/Co-op
Official Labour colour
Co-operative

Smurrayinchester 12:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The Labour Party and the Co-operative Party are two distinct entities, and if they do use different colours with regards their branding (for combined candidates vs Labour-only candidates) then that should be reflected. Otherwise we're heading a little bit into WP:IDLI territory. If they do use the exact same colour then I don't see why that wouldn't be reflected.
As for the other point (not using the Labour Party colour but a similar red), is there any reason not to use the 'official' colour? As far as I'm aware, this is how things operate for the Lib Dems – with the template colour being identical to the one referenced in their official style guide. Domeditrix (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there's no official colour used for joint branded candidates (the Co-operative Party style guide doesn't talk about creating joint branded materials) - I believe a Labour/Co-op candidate produces normal Labour election materials with an extremely small "and Co-operative" in the logo (eg [2]). From a branding perspective, they appear to use the same colour - it's more a question of whether it serves Wikipedia better to use the same colour or (clearly) different colours. The source for the Labour official colour is this (Scottish) Labour party style guide, but it's a bit confusing - they use #E4003B in digital materials, but Pantone 199 C in print, which is apparently #D50032 accordng to Pantone. Smurrayinchester 15:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I consider myself to have very good colour vision, but I can barely tell the difference in the three reds above. I've never known my local Labour & Cooperative MPs to do anything other than represent the Labour Party, or be known as anything else. And bear in mind the Labour Party has been in existence for 120 years, so I don't think it's a great idea to change the colour after every re-branding. Sionk (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
It looks like Labour Co-op candidates use Labour branding, the Co-operative Party only use the purple and the bee for their own stuff. I think Pantone 199 is the current official colour of the Labour Party nationally, not just in Scotland? Whilst we don't really need to update colours after every rebrand, I don't think it'd be remiss for us to use the party's current colours. I'd support both Labour/meta/color and Labour Co-op/meta/color being moved to Pantone 199. Ralbegen (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Redirect. It is certainly correct that there is no official Labour/Co-op colour that is different from the official Labour colour, and I strongly suspect there never has been. So on the basis that the Wikipedia-defined colour for the Labour Party might be changed in future by random editorial action, I suggest the Labour/Co-op colour should be a redirect to the Labour one. Sussexonian (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about the Template:Brexit Party

It currently defaults to expanded. Discussion here. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hypothetical polls in the opinion polling table

Could we have some further input at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#ICM_dual_polls? The question is how to handle a number of recent opinion polls asking for voting intentions under certain specific scenarios, e.g. if Brexit does or does not take place on 31 Oct. Bondegezou (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Prorogation article split/possible constitutional crisis article?

Hey guys,

You may be interested in the discussion I've opened at Talk:Prorogation in the United Kingdom, where I propose splitting off the section regarding Johnson's prorogation into its own article, which may, down the road, become a "2019 British constitutional crisis" article if the Government causes another crisis with regard to the EU(W)(2)A. Sceptre (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. thanks for this idea. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Irina von Wiese

Can I get some eyes on Irina von Wiese? There's someone with some theory about her having an aristocratic background that the world must be told about. Bondegezou (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The full name is verified by the fact she used it when standing in a byelection for LBHF in 2017: https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/councillors-and-democracy/elections/previous-election-results/2017-council-election-results Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Have added. Bondegezou (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Michael Howard article title

Could I ask for some views, please, on the article title question (regarding a UK peerage) that I've asked at Talk:Michael Howard#Primary topic?. Thank you. Carcharoth (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing for candidacies

When it comes to by-election articles, we tend to enforce a rule that candidacies need reliable, secondary sourcing. That is, a party or candidate tweeting that it/they will stand is not sufficient. This is in line with usual Wikipedia sourcing approaches and helps deal with the tendency for minor candidates to talk a big game before by-elections, but to fail to complete an adequate nomination.

So, what should we do on constituency articles where many have candidates listed for the next general election, but with sourcing just being to a primary source? I recently removed such for Ealing Central and Acton (UK Parliament constituency), but they were re-added. There are 2 candidates sourced to Twitter, and 1 to a party website. Do we have any WikiProject policy here? Bondegezou (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Prospective candidates (sourced) for "next general election"

There is discussion, and to-and-fro editing, on several constituency articles as to whether or not well-referenced selected candidates for "next election" should appear in Wikipedia - see Wyre and Preston North (UK Parliament constituency), Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (UK Parliament constituency) etc. PamD 08:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 United Kingdom general election

Hard to tell if this is just taking the ... Views of editors regarding the discussion here - Talk:2019 United Kingdom general election#Can an Irish citizen who does not live in the UK even apply to stand as an MP? - would be much appreciated indeed, thank you very much indeed. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on MP categories

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Upcoming dissolution

If the Early Parliamentary General Election Bill passes as expected then the 57th Parliament of the United Kingdom will dissolve early next month. This means that 648 biographical articles will need to have the "MP" post-nominals removed from their infoboxes, and for various other small amendments to be made as these people cease to be incumbent officeholders. In prior elections this has been accomplished, if at all, by a small group of dedicated editors trawling manually through dozens of articles each to make the necessary changes. Would it be possible this time to create a bot for the purpose instead? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. For the purpose of displaying, could there be a new parameter for {{Post-nominals}} to indicate whether the UK parliament is dissolved? When it is set to dissolved, the template automatically hides MP. I find it rather pointless to remove and readd two letters for several hundred MPs who would be reelected.
With this parameter, removal work only has to be carried out after a GE for the defeated incumbents (<100 generally?). A list could be easily generated and handled by AWB. (Though all MPs' pages would be updated anyway and it should be taken care of in the process.)--Roy17 (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Looking for Historical UK Westminister Shapefiles

Hello WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom


I run an election forcasting website, and I'm building an interactive map of past UK General Election results. I have results from 2005-2017, but I can't find any shapefiles older than that. Since you update the maps on the pages for the UK, I was wondering if one of you might have some older shapefiles to help the project out.


Check out the website at www.leantossup.ca and contact me from the "About the Author" page


Thanks

LeanTossup (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)LeanTossup

Deputy Speakers of the House of Commons

Would it be of interest to have a List of Deputy Speakers of the British House of Commons? I'd love to know for example who were deputies in a certain year. (There's a Category:Deputy Speakers of the British House of Commons.)--Roy17 (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

They are listed under they official title of (Deputy) Chairman of Ways and Means Hoffie01 (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

MPs during Purdah

Asked this on a different talk page and got directed here. Technically during Purdah, there are no MPs. Should we be updating every MP's page so the service is shown to have ended on 6th Nov? Strictly speaking, any MP that has served in successive parliaments should have their page edited to show that they were not MP for the election periods between parliaments they served in. Is there an official wikipedia policy on this? Jedi Master Bra'tac (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

We should and do edit pages for MPs now so they don't say they are currently an MP. We don't bother noting the dissolution gap for MPs in successive parliaments. Bondegezou (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jedi Master Bra'tac and Bondegezou: #Upcoming dissolution the fifth section above is on the exact same matter.
I have made my suggestion on {{Post-nominals/GBR}}'s talk page. This would be systematic and clean, save manual labour, and save the server 600+ edits.--Roy17 (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Just to concur with Bondegezou, and also Robin S. Taylor's comment a couple of sections above - yes, for the next few weeks it is correct to say that people are not currently MPs. (This is due to dissolution, not purdah - purdah affects the government & civil service, dissolution affects Parliament, though they happen at the same time). Similarly, if anyone stands down and does not run for re-election, or is defeated, we should say they were an MP until dissolution day, not until the next election (articles are sometimes a bit inconsistent on this).
Once we start looking at it retrospectively, it is strictly correct that people are not MPs between dissolution and "when they become MPs again", but most sources choose to gloss over this and treats them as having unbroken service throughout. We do likewise in most cases - it's simpler and less confusing to do it this way, and we're in good company. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately we did not devise a better solution in time, so for the moment we are stuck trawling through each page. I have been working systematically through members on this list and have gotten down as far as Jenny Chapman. Perhaps one of you could start from the bottom and work up. Hopefully we will meet before long. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Unite to Remain

Candidates in the "Unite to Remain" electoral alliance have been highlighted in lists of candidates in their respective constituency pages. This seems inappropriate to me—it's not information that appears on the ballot, and it's inconsistent with how candidates have been listed before. It seems undue to me and I think it should be removed. What do other editors think? Ralbegen (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I think yes and no. On the one hand, it would be inappropriate to add it into the charts - as you say, this should only really be used for information on the ballot. On the other hand, it would seem completely reasonable to have a line underneath saying "The Lib Dems chose not to nominate a candidate because..." or "The Green candidate, A B, withdrew before the election because...". We don't often have much narrative sections in the bits of articles with election tables, but there are a few examples around, and it can be quite helpful for giving context. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I think that accompanying text would be better, but still overkill for articles about constituencies and could easily add bloat—would we then also cover the Brexit Party not standing on Conservative-held seats, the WEP standing down, Renew standing down, and so on? That sort of thing is can be (and is) covered more naturally on pages including 2019 United Kingdom general election and Endorsements in the 2019 United Kingdom general election. Ralbegen (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Twitter refs - good, bad or indifferent?

Yesterday, I updated the list of candidates at Jarrow (UK Parliament constituency) from the Statement of Persons Nominated. I left the existing refs for a couple of the candidates which were links to their tweets announcing their candidacy. I see Nickoliver66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) later added one for candidate Nick Oliver (!) using the title There are 8 candidates standing to be the next MP for the Jarrow Constituency and I'm the only one from a party that can break the paralysing deadlock and Get Brexit Done.. On the one hand, it feels good to help readers find info on the candidates including what they're saying on Twitter but having election slogans as refs for some candidates feels wrong. Should we try to delete all such refs? --Cavrdg (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

In general, Twitter references are covered by WP:SELFSOURCE. They're sometimes useful, but third party published reliable sources are always preferred. On the specific case of constituency articles, I think the only useful references are statements of persons nominated or RS lists of candidates (and later the result from a reliable source). I don't think there's any need to have inline references in constituency election boxes except in the head, and I personally remove that kind of superfluous referencing when I come across them in constituency articles. Ralbegen (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Articles for candidates and AfDs

It's election season, which means a rash of articles appearing for general election candidates. Being a candidate is not sufficient under WP:NPOL for an article, although some of these may be notable for other reasons. May I suggest editors keep an eye on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians? There are 3 UK general election candidates currently there (2 nominated by me) and I wouldn't be surprised to see more. Bondegezou (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

There are 3 more general election candidates in the list (1 from me). Input welcome.
I think Ali Milani could do with more eyes on it too -- another general election candidate. Bondegezou (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Are Lord Mayors notable?

There's an ongoing AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Finucane (Sinn Féin politician). Finucane was Lord Mayor of Belfast. I'd like input on whether Lord Mayors, or perhaps specifically Lord Mayors of Belfast, should automatically be considered notable or not.

Being a Lord Mayor is a ceremonial role that moves between local councillors and local councillors. WP:NPOL says councillors are not inherently notable. That said, being Lord Mayor is a bit more than just being a councillor. I live in London and each borough council has a mayor, which isn't that prestigious a role. But the Lord Mayor of Belfast is a somewhat more significant role. So what do people think? Is it notable enough that we can presume all Lord Mayors (or perhaps all Lord Mayors of Belfast at least) are notable? Is it one factor that might tip the balance, but not in itself sufficient notability? Is it a minor detail that carries no weight and we should just stick to WP:NPOL/WP:GNG? Advice wanted. SVUKnight points out at that AfD that nearly all past Lord Mayors of Belfast do have articles: does that tell us something? Bondegezou (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

There was a discussion on this page last year that I think established that being a lord mayor isn't sufficient for notability. Other relevant discussion I can find are on the general notability talk page (which agreed that being part of a notable series isn't necessarily enough, but one user commented that they expected every Lord Mayor of London to be notable) and the notability of people talk page (where a user suggested that in the UK, only being a directly-elected mayor or Lord Mayor of London should be enough). I'm inclined to agree that Lord Mayor of London is a different class—at a cursory look, lord mayors of London have entries in Who's Who (which can indicate notability but doesn't guarantee it), but lord mayors of Dublin don't.
My instinct is that being lord mayor of a major city other than London is probably an indicator of notability, but not sufficient office for an article without passing GNG. It might add some weight towards inclusion, at a stretch. A lot of the lord mayors of Dublin seem to also be notable for other reasons (as it's reasonable to suspect Finicane will be at some point an MP or MLA). I think being lord mayor of London specifically is probably sufficient office for an article. Ralbegen (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

New input needed on coverage of the CCHQ Twitter incident

Hi all. Four of us are kinda deadlocked at Talk:2019_United_Kingdom_general_election#UK_fact_check_-_alternative_texts. Some additional input would be welcomed. Bondegezou (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

This is a fairly large list of spouses. Another large list has been added, namely Oldest Living Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The errors can be fixed eventually but any thoughts about the extra list? Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Not particularly convinced that the original list is particularly of note so an addition of what is trivia doesnt improve it. MilborneOne (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
The extra list seems pretty pointless. There is also a list of living former spouses, in the preamble of which I've just changed "currently" to an "as of" date. PamD 15:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Agreed that the extra list is pointless. Bondegezou (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

NEED HELP

Hello my name is Alisa. I am from the company q-home UK, we recently bought a Clock Corner in Doncaster and we are searching for a writer, who can write an artical in wikepedia about this clock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisa1239 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

well here's not the place to ask. This is Paul (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

"Election in progress"

I get that with the Fixed-term Parliament Act MPs cease to be MPs when Parliament is dissolved, but I'm wondering if it's necessary to add "election in progress" to the succession parameter of the infobox to every MP article (as for example here), especially with just two days to go before they all need changing again. This is Paul (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_9&oldid=1123677798"