Template talk:United Kingdom elections

Created

I created this template from the template:New Zealand elections using the years from Category: UK General Election results --Zantastik

Rename this?

I changed how elections held in the same year are indicated - "1974 A" and "1974 B" don't make much sense on their own, so I wrote them to include the abbreviated month. Also I changed the title to United Kingdom general elections since this template seems to be about general rather than any other kind of election. Maybe this template should be renamed to reflect this? Qwghlm 00:23, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, and I'm the one who created made it, even though I wasn't logged in. I'm super busy -- perhaps you could fix it. Just don't make me add links to it in every uk election year article again! That'd be torture;) --Zantastik 07:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to have to go through every article either, I'm sure someone can do it fairly quickly with a bot. It's not an urgent task, I'll ask around after the election is over... Qwghlm 11:08, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

More entries

I have just added council elections (insofar as we have articles on them) and more referendums. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

comment below by User:Number 57 moved from User talk:BrownHairedGirl, where it was initially posted

Hi BHG. I've removed the non UK-wide referendums from this template, on the basis that (a) they are already on the Scottish/Welsh/N Irish templates, and (b) if we start including referendums in England, then we could fill the template a million times over with local referendums on all kinds of things (like elected mayors, tax proposals etc etc); I think it is best for local elections (ones held only for a specific locality, as opposed to local elections held across the country) should be on their own templates (e.g. Template:London elections).

Also, I'm not sure why you changed it from British to UK - last time I checked, "British" was the demonym for all the UK, not just the mainland (as much as some people in Northern Ireland don't like it, it's still the case). However, I'm not going to bother reverting that. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the renaming was simple: why use a contentious adjective when we can just as easily use the noun which is both accurate and uncontested? And be very careful about using the term "mainland" in this context, unless you have a flame-proof suit on.

I can see a case for removing the council elections, in that they are organised separately in the various constituent countries. But the solution should not be to entirely remove them from the template: that way there is no obvious path between (for example) an article on a general election or European election and the local elections. The best solution would be to have a an articles/lists on "local elections in Scotland", "local elections in England", "local elections in Wales" etc and link to those ... but if those articles don't exist yet, it's better to have some links than none.

As to referendums, I take your point about purely local referendums, such as the mayoral referendums. But the devolution referendums and the Norrn Iron referendums affected the status of the UK as a whole, even though polling was restricted to one part of it. Whether regionalising the referendums was a good or bad idea is a a wholly POV issue, but in each case there were demands that a referendum affecting either the borders of the UK (as in Norrn Iron) or the powers of its parliament (as in Scotland and Wales) should have been decided by a UK-wide vote. By omitting the NI/Scots/Welsh referendums, we are taking a view on whether there were any wider implications, and the endless parliamentary debates over the West Lothian Question suggest that is a highly partisan position. Inclusion leaves the reader to make up their own minds.

So I will now reinstate the Scots/Welsh/N.Ireland referendums. However, maybe it might help to subdivide the referendums list into UK-wide/Scots/Welsh/N.Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

How about adding the |below = Elections and referendums in Northern Ireland • Scotland • Wales, so links to the templates for the devolved nations appear on the template, similar to the bottom bar on {{U.S. presidential elections}}?

Also, I don't have a problem with the local election links being on here as they are (the "local" thing was largely aimed at the referendums issue). пﮟოьεԻ 57 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The below is a great idea: now done. That allows access to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh assembly elections, and local elections are probably best covered that way.

But per my comments above, the devolution and border referendums do belong in there too, so I will reinstate them now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I would like to propose adding the elections to the Parliament of Great Britain (the British general elections of 1707-1800). I have previous added these elections to the template but this was reverted. The reason given for the reversion was Great Britain and United Kingdom are not the same country. This is correct, however the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is not the same country as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but pre-1922 elections are listed here. Also, other templates ({{Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom}} and {{Chancellors of the Exchequer}}) list those articles applicable to both Great Britain and the UK. I think it would be helpful and appropriate to add pre-1800 elections here, especially given the separation between the UK and Great Britain is clearly indicated. --Philip Stevens (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misrepresenting the Ireland point - the UK was the same country before and after 1922, albeit with a change in name and territory - it was not a new country like the 1802 merger of the Kingdoms of GB and Ireland created.

Also, if you insist on adding pre-1802 elections for GB to this template, pre-1802 elections for Ireland should also be added, which I think would make the template a little unwieldy.

Basically, I think things are fine as they are, although a good suggestion may be to add "Kingdom of Great Britain" and "Kingdom of Ireland" to the bottom bar where the links to elections in N Ireland, Scotland and Wales are. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Number 57. —Nightstallion 23:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, same reason as 57 above. They're different countries and the elections were to different institutions (Parliament of Great Britain v. Parliament of the United Kingdom, as it has remained since 1801 despite the partition of Ireland). Bastin 15:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Further Welsh powers

Number 57 quite properly reverted my edits to the template; I had, embarrassingly, missed the 1975 entry. However, the reason I removed the markup on 2011 was because "Further Welsh powers" wasn't italicized. Shouldn't the markup usage be consistent across the two entries? YLee (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Although, TBH, I am somewhat wary of the Welsh one, because although it is part of the government programme, a date still hasn't been set... пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sync with list

Probably a good idea for this template to repeat Referendums in the United Kingdom#Major referendums rather than have different criteria. MRSC (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Can Number 57 (talk · contribs) be drawn into a discussion on this? MRSC (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I made my comments in the edit summary section. The list you refer to is clearly WP:OR. Really, the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish referendums should not be on here either as they are not national across the UK, and are on the relevant templates for those countries. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for talking. Perhaps we could remove them and create a devolution template? The NEE and London referendums are part of that process. MRSC (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, although the London one already exists on {{London elections}}, so I'm not sure whether one would be useful. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I can definitely see the value in keeping the devolution stuff in one place. MRSC (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Updated

I updated this template with a new look. It should be more presentable now. RGloucester (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this looks awful. Why should this template be any different to the standard navbox format that almost all other election templates are formatted with? Number 57 08:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What is it that is unique with this template? ZEEnhle (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

PCC elections

Should the template be updated to include a link to the recent PCC elections? 82.22.71.26 (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just saw why this had been removed before. 82.22.71.26 (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed EU referendum

I don't understand the editor who keeps removing the link to the article on the proposed referendum - we already have links to some future elections on the template, and what is the point in obstructing readers who might want to find the article on this topic, particularly since it's not obvious what its title would be? W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Future elections will almost certainly happen. There is no guarantee the referendum will (hence the inclusion of "proposed" in its title) - it may end up being like the proposed United Kingdom European Constitution referendum, which never happened. Wait until it's been confirmed, and then it can be added. Number 57 13:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Why? People are writing about it, we have an article about it, readers are likely to want to read about it (far more likely than to want to read about most of the other elections listed here). So what if it doesn't happen? So what if the 2016 local elections don't happen? People now might be looking for this article, the navbox will help them to find it. Omitting it from the navbox (while including other future elections) might even imply that we don't have such an article, and discourage people from looking for it. There is plenty of space in the relevant section of the navbox, and the italics and word "proposed" differentiate it sufficiently from the polls that have in fact taken place. I don't see any practical arguments at all in favor of removing this link, and several other editors have also felt it worth adding, with only you removing it each time. Please defend your position or respect the apparent consensus. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:30, 5 Augukst 2015 (UTC)

(a) Again: These templates do not include speculative events. The next sets of general and local elections are not speculative events, as these have occured as scheduled for decades. On the other hand, the referendum may well never happen, as with the EU constitution one. Similarly we did not include the Scottish independence referendum in the Scottish template until it was actually called, even though we had an article long beforehand. (b) We have numerous articles on referendums that never happened and are not linked from these templates (because that's not what they are for, and (c) the fact that a few IPs (who are almost certainly unaware of the convention for what these templates do or do not include) does not mean there is consensus. Number 57 08:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You just assert that such a convention exists. Why do you think it exists anywhere outside your own mind? And if it does exist, what is the point of it? Why are you so sure that readers do not want to read our article about a ("speculative") event that is currently all over the newspapers? Are you here to help people navigate Wikipedia, or just to enforce rules of your own arbitrary choosing? W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of the convention because I have been involved in in editing these templates for 8-9 years. One reason for being so is that Iam keen for people to navigate between articles on actual elections and referendums. However, this is not one yet. Number 57 23:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

That just sounds like "I own these templates, so what I say goes." When was it agreed by anyone other than yourself that "scheduled" future elections (whatever that precisely means) should appear, but "speculative" ones should not? And even if it was, given the huge amount of interest in this particular speculative referendum, isn't this an obvious case where the rule should be ignored? Another problem with this template (probably resulting from the same kind of rule-imposing mentality) is that referendums of huge importance for the United Kingdom, particularly the Scottish independence referendum, do not appear except via an indirect "see also" link (presumably because they were held only in part of the UK, but why does that influence the likelihood of a reader's wanting to navigate to them? and in any case many of the local elections listed also covered only limited parts of the UK). W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It was probably decided in a talk page discussion like this earky on in their history, but as there are hundreds of these templates, it's difficult to know where. Same goes for the convention on only including national-level elections/referendums. Local elections are a different kettle of fish and it would be difficult to segregate them given the amount of overlap between which parts of the country they are held in. More importantly, all the articles are titled "United Kingdom local elections", so it is appropriate that they are listed here. Number 57 14:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any arguments, nor can I conceive of any, as to how or why readers are supposed to be helped by our omitting these potentially high-interest links. Can you give some? W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Because this is a template for actual events, not proposed events or ones that didn't happen. Number 57 15:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The question was how readers are going to be helped by our omitting the links. Any answers? W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Because they won't be misled into thinking it's an actual referendum. Number 57 08:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

But if it is linked using the word "Proposed", then they won't be misled in that way, just as they aren't misled by the "Next" link that we already have. And how are they helped by our omitting the links to the devolution and independence referendums? Those were also "in the UK", and very significant for the UK, so it seems only natural for users to look for them here. W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@W. P. Uzer and Number 57: just seen this, but I do believe that this should be included. This referendum will happen (even though a date hasn't been determined), there has been a bill passed in parliament for the referendum to take place and there are already campaigning groups formed to take the official in or out positions during the referendum. There has been lots of media attention about this referendum and I can't see David Cameron not going ahead with this referendum (a massive u-turn). What could be inserted is Proposed referendum in the Referendum section of the template.  Seagull123  Φ  21:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I still disagree. Let's wait until it's officially called – then we'll also have a date to use in the template. As is clear, it's still a proposed referendum, not an actual one. Number 57 22:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57: But what about the next general election? That date isn't set, yet it is still in the template with the text Next. Alright, it will have to be in the next five years and there is legislation to do with the timing and the election. But it hasn't been called and we don't know when it will happen. Same with the EU referendum, we know it will take place before the end of 2017. So should we remove the next general election from the template?  Seagull123  Φ  22:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

We know the next election will happen, and we almost always have the next election listed (as we also do for the next local and European elections) as they are regularly scheduled events. Apart from in Switzerland, referendums are irregular one-off events and as such we only list them when they are a reality rather than a proposal. Number 57 22:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57: The referendum is almost definitely going to happen; see this BBC News article from 5 days ago, A guide to the UK's planned in-out EU referendum. This reads as if it is going to happen, it says that The one thing we know for sure is that Prime Minister David Cameron has said it will happen by the end of 2017.. (Alright, he did just say it would happen) but it is going to happen, and if it is going to happen, then surely it should be included to help the reader navigate between articles?  Seagull123  Φ  22:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Once a date has been set, I'll be happy to include it. The article is linked to from both United Kingdom general election, 2015 and United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975, and can be easily found through the search function. Number 57 23:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Still you give no reason as to why the date being set should be the criterion for inclusion in this template. These templates serve no function other than to help people to navigate articles of interest - what is the point of deliberately making them less helpful by excluding articles that we know are of much greater interest than many of the articles that do appear? W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I have explained this multiple times, but let's try again: Referendums should be included only when they are definitely going to happen, not when they are simply proposals. A date being set means it's actually going to happen. Number 57 10:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The question is why you think that this should be the criterion for inclusion. W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

We need to have some kind of cut-off point. There are numerous proposed referendums, but many of them never happen. As a result, I think it's reasonable that we only include links to referendums that are actually going ahead. Number 57 18:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

More reasonable in my view would be to include those for which we have articles (i.e. which are notable by Wikipedia standards). If there are too many of these (which I doubt) then we can use our common sense to decide which will be of significant interest to readers. It seems extremely detached from reality to claim that this proposed EU referendum is of no great interest, compared with many of the other articles (many of which don't yet even exist) that are listed on this template. W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming that it isn't of interest, but if you need to resort to making false claims to further your argument, then I don't really see the point in continuing to debate this. Number 57 22:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I really don't understand the justification for removing this. Sure, there is a possibility that the referendum won't happen, but it is highly unlikely. Almost as highly unlikely as the next election not happening. If there is a non-negligible chance of the referendum not happening, why are various campaign organisations (Vote Leave, Leave.EU, BSE) being formed? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Because we don't add referendums until a date is confirmed. Elections come in cycles; with the exception of Switzerland, referendums do not. I can't understand why editors are not willing to be patient or respect BRD. Number 57 11:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Waiting until a fixed date for the referendum is not appropriate. Until the fixed term parliament act was introduced, we had no idea on what date the next UK general election would be called (e.g. the notion in 2007 that Gordon Brown would call a snap election, which eventually came to nothing). All you need is a high level of certainty that the event is going to happen. I think that point was crossed for this referendum when the Tories won an overall majority in May. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is it not appropriate? For unknown election dates, we add them as "next"; they still come in cycles. Number 57 11:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not appropriate because the government could announce the date of this vote at very short notice (1 month), yet we have known since May that this referendum is practically certain to happen at some point before the end of 2017. It does not make sense to withhold this information when there is no substantial reason to believe that the referendum will not happen (WP:CRYSTAL). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

A further point to note in this case is that the draft bill does not set a date for the referendum. When it becomes law, we still won't have a set date for the referendum. That will only happen when the government calls the referendum under the provisions of the bill (act at that point). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I too think we should include the planned EU referendum. No one will be confused into thinking that the referendum has actually been called if we qualify the link by stating that the EU referendum is proposed or planned. Nothing is ever definite until after it's happened. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 11:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Explaining the referendums

This is basically the same situation as above, I think. User:Number 57 is trying to impose some pointless "standard" on the template, by edit-warring against others who want to make a simple change that obviously improves its usefulness. Is there any chance we can settle this trivial matter without another unnecessarily long argument? There is plenty of room in the "referendums" line to include information about what the referendums were about, which is obviously much more meaningful to people than the years in which they took/will take place. What on earth is the point of deleting that information? If the only reason is "to conform to a standard", then I suggest that this is no reason at all. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Reverting two separate users and asking people to respect WP:BRD is not edit warring. The template is a simple navigation template for displaying years of elections and referendums. It is far better to keep it simple – not everything has to be explained on the template. I hope you will appreciate that consistency is also a key facet of Wikipedia. Number 57 14:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding obviously helpful information in a place where there is obviously plenty of room for it is not in any way contradictory to "keeping it simple". In what way will any reader be helped by the removal of this? W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why the addition of the words is "obviously helpful" as hovering over the links shows the title of the article anyway. Wikipedia needs to have a consistent layout and this is part of that process. Number 57 09:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Flags

Disappointing to see the flagicon has become an issue again. As noted in the edit summaries, we've had several discussions elsewhere about their use on these templates previously and they have never resulted in a consensus that WP:MOSFLAG prohibits their use on these templates. The argument by the removers is that they are decoration; the counterargument is that they are visual cues (which are explicitly allowed under the guideline) as some articles have more than one navigation template on them and it helps identify which country/body the election is to (see e.g. the templates at the bottom of EU election articles or the 2004 Cypriot one (there are many more examples, this is just a couple to illustrate the point).

Anyway, I'm happy to have yet another RfC (I believe at least two of the discussions previously were also RfCs) if there is an insistence that they are decoration. Number 57 14:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Robsinden: Could you join this discussion rather than keep reverting? Thanks. Number 57 14:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Flags serve no navigational function, so therefore do not belong in a navbox. They are just clutter. See Wikipedia:Navigation template#Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative and WP:ICONDECORATION. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Also pinging @John:. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

For me, they do serve a navigational function as they're a useful visual cue. I'm sure John will just state the same thing he does every time we have this conversation, so how to you propose to actually reach a consensus as to whether their use is prohibited or not other than bludgeoning with the same thing over and over again? Number 57 14:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

They do not help you navigate to an article, therefore they have no purpose here. I feel the same way about images too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand that you feel that way, but I hope you understand that I disagree because I find them useful visual cues, which are an acceptable use of these icons. Number 57 15:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

What about {{International schools in Taiwan}}? Clutter. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually I found it quite helpful to easily identify the national identity of each school. Perhaps you're a words guy and I'm an images guy. But also, it's nothing like what we have here. Number 57 15:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

But it completely fails every aspect of WP:MOSFLAG. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

But it doesn't – visual cues again. Number 57 16:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, also, a navbox with a flag in its header also fails WP:UNDUE as it will attract more attention than other equally important navboxes on the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you're clutching at straws a bit here – the vast majority of election articles don't have other navboxes, and even so, claiming undue is a bit of a stretch. Number 57 16:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for pinging me. The flags are just clutter and should be removed. They serve no navigational or encyclopedic purpose and breach WP:ICONDECORATION. One editor's opinion that they look nice should not be able to outweigh project-wide consensus. There are also concerns with anachronism, nationalism and how this plays into UNDUE. --John (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

(a) they do serve a navigational purpose and as such (b) don't breach ICONDECORATION or any other project-wide consensus. It's also not just my opinion – the reason other discussions ended in no consensus is because there were other editors in favour of retaining them. I invite @Impru20, SPQRobin, and Nightstallion: to add their views. Number 57 21:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, please, again? This has been discussed many and many times and in any of them the choice to remove them won it through. Project-wide consensus is actually to keep them in, because they're not merely a decorative but serve a navigational purpose by helping identificate the specific country AND the specific political regime/historical period in which the election is taking place in such a country. I should also remind that the use of icons in election-related templates is common practice across several Wikis, with others also making use of this, so it's not just "one editor's opinion". I'm not going to (once again) state all of my views on this, so I'll just refer back to my own arguments last time we discussed this, but just to hint that ICONDECORATION usually discourages the repeated use of flags and to use them for purely decorative issues, something which is not done here. To point out, people that press for the removal of flags just keep pressing that those serve "no navigational function" without further arguing it, yet when in these discussions you find lots of people saying otherwise and that these do indeed help them to navigate/identify the topic of the page, the result always ends up the same. Unless you bring out a VERY strong reasoning to break such an established Wikipedia common practice for elections, stop bringing out this issue again and again and again, because it's always the same and it always ends the same (specially if people will end up edit-warring over it). Impru20 (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for linking to that earlier discussion. I stopped reading it when I got to MOS:FLAG was written by a small group of MOS fanatics and has little support outside of the clique of about six editors who try and enforce it. It is widely ignored, usually to the benefit of Wikipedia. Expressing contempt for the Manual of Style and for the guiding principle of consensus that Wikipedia uses disqualifies you from being taken seriously here. I propose a further discussion. Let's see where and how we think it can best be taken forwards. For those who spit on consensus and who edit war there are always behavioural sanctions available. --John (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Ignoring guidelines where they prevent editors improving Wikipedia is an official Wikipedia policy, and therefore trumps guidelines – WP:IAR. But this is a distraction from this particular discussion as the guideline isn't being ignored here.

If we want yet another discussion on this, I propose another RfC at WP:E&R as it's the most relevant WikiProject for this to be discussed at. Number 57 14:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Akhumzi jezile

When did Akhumzi did his grade 12 at Winile secondary school? ZEEnhle (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

2020

Would it be worth putting a note to say that there were local elections scheduled for 2020, but these were cancelled. 2020 United Kingdom local elections is a redirect to 2021 United Kingdom local elections so I am not sure if it would be helpful to have it in the template or not. Dunarc (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. Elections are regularly postponed around the world (including many due to covid), and we just link to the year they actually happened. Cheers, Number 57 00:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough - I think anyone looking would work out what happened fairly easily from the 2021 article in any case. Thanks Dunarc (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)