Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Westminster sexual misconduct allegations

What do others think of creating an article about the current sexual misconduct allegations at Westminster? The story has been running for several days now, and seems to be gathering momentum. I'm not certain how we begin something like this, but I would suggest a title such as Westminster sexual misconduct allegations, or even 2017 Westminster sexual misconduct allegations. In terms of content, I'd suggest a brief overview covering the allegations in a general sense, together with some commentary from May, Corbyn, etc, and the action being taken by Westminster authorities. I notice some MP articles mention the allegations, but I think we would need to think very carefully about naming specific individuals. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Obviously we have to be careful BLP-wise but it seems to have crossed the threshold into notability as of now, especially with the official statements and actions. Whether anything will come of this in terms of consequences is unclear. AusLondonder (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support There have been allegations made against Dominic Raab, Rory Stewart, Jared O'Mara, Damian Green and Mark Garnier etc. Then there is a supposed list of 40 MPs in regards to sexual assault/ harassment claims [1]. I think there is enough scope here to create an article on the subject. It's been discussed in Parliament and it's all over the news. It's certainly notable. IJA (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Clearly meets WP:GNG. Ralbegen (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment And now Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has resigned in connection with the scandal. AusLondonder (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Who wants to be BOLD and get this article started? Not gonna lie, I'm naff at writing articles from scratch haha. Any volunteers? We could perhaps use a sandbox on this wikiproject to draft an article outline??? IJA (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The following is just off the top of my head as to what could be included in such an article:

• It has happened in the wake of the Weinstein scandal.
• Who allegations have been made against and what they're accused of doing/ saying.
• Their response to the allegations.
• Who the victims are (we'll have to be careful here as they have the legal right to remain anonymous).
• Any political implications, ie O'Mara being suspended and Fallon resigning as Defence Sec.
• Parliament's response and any action taken.
• How society has reacted. Any consequences etc.

You thoughts? What's good? What have I missed? Like I said, these suggestions are just quickly off the top of my head. I doubt we'll struggle to find references. IJA (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

That seems to cover everything we know so far. I've started stuff from scratch before (see 2010 United Kingdom government formation and Scottish Labour Party leadership election, 2014 for examples), but I think this one requires someone more familiar with writing articles of this nature, at least to get it off the ground anyway. I'm happy to make contributions though if someone else wants to make a start. This is Paul (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I find myself in a similar situation, I could do with someone else getting it off the ground. I'll try and start a draft tomorrow (when I've got more time and when I'm more awake) unless someone wants to beat me to it. IJA (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's some articles that document how the events unfolded (see these from the Birmingham Mail, the Evening Standard, and The Independent). Unhelpfully though, they don't give any dates, but should be useful as a checklist. I used something similar to this when I wrote the 2010 government formation article a few years back. This is Paul (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I've just discovered 2017 Westminster sexual scandals, an article started on 1 November, and which I was unaware of until just now. It needs a bit of work doing on it, such as adding today's revelations, but at least someone's made a start. I'd also personally like to move it to a better title, but that's all for the future. This is Paul (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Was actually just coming here to mention that article as well. I've done a few minor tweaks but good to see something started for everyone to work on. AusLondonder (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Template for defections

Hi all,

I have created a potential template for MP defections/party changes and wanted to gather your thoughts before rolling it out. It only deals with 1 party change at the moment, but could easily be expanded to deal with more than one where necessary.

See an example here:

General Election 1892 St Pancras North

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±%
	{{{winner}}} win (new seat)
	Conservative	Edward Robert Pacy Moon	2,583	49.1	−4.3
	Independent	John Leighton	35	0.7	N/A
Majority			60	1.1	N/A
Turnout			5,261	77.6	+6.3
Registered electors			6,784
	Liberal gain from Conservative		Swing	+4.0

The code can be found at User:JMPhillips92/sandbox.

--JMPhillips92 (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate for these election boxes – only the party at the time of the vote is relevant. The later defection is better left to the list of MPs for the seat (e.g. St Pancras North (UK Parliament constituency)#Members of Parliament). Number 57 21:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Number 57. Bondegezou (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with Number 57. Perhaps there's scope for a separate template dealing with this topic, but not in the context of an individual election. This is Paul (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all - all good points. I will ditch it JMPhillips92 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Trivia in articles

Inspired by this, this, and the resulting discussion, I'm wondering about what we should consider relevant and irrelevant in political biographies. A lot of articles contain the kind of information that was removed, but how relevant is it to know what football team someone supports, that they enjoy a particular hobby, and so on? Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a good question. I agree about removing the Borgen reference. With something like football or a hobby, however, these can be an important part of a person's identity, so a (brief) mention does seem appropriate to me. What football team you support can be a very important question in Scotland. Bondegezou (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Maps of old constituencies

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 November 30#File:1885-1918 Eccles.png. Nthep (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Local authority executives

The issue I raised months back (now archived) about the template box for London Borough Councils - which labels all members of the largest/majority party as "Executive", remains unresolved. This is incorrect, in law and in reality, and a clear error in the encyclopaedia, as was accepted during the previous discussion. The problem does not, as far as I can see, affect other councils in the UK, most of which have executives also - whichever editor made this change to the template box for London Boroughs has made a mistake, which carries through to every article for the London Boroughs. It would be great if someone with experience/rights to amend templates could have a go at the London Borough Council one to correct its presentation/terminology? MapReader (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Systematic error in some local election results

Several pages of local election results show the total numbers of votes cast as turnout. In London boroughs where each voter has three votes, this can even mean we show a turnout that's larger than the electorate. I've fixed Brent London Borough Council election, 2014 by changing {{Election box turnout}} to {{Election box total}} after checking the error was uniform.[2] I see Brent 2010 and Barnet 2014 have the same error throughout, Lambeth 2014 has it in one case and Southwark 2014 shows turnout correctly. Does anyone have the patience and maybe AWB skills to check and correct many such pages? 92.19.24.9 (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I almost fell for the same mistake myself when recently creating a new article and have recently removed some suspect/unexplained figures from Isle of Anglesey County Council election, 2013. Presumably if the number of voters/percentage turnout isn't published elsewhere, we shouldn't try and calculate our own figures. I guess even if someone has three votes they may in practise only use one or two of them, so simply dividing the total by three won't be accurate. Sionk (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. As we all know, the actual turnout is a published figure, and cannot be derived by adding up the votes cast for the candidates, because there are always some spoilt votes, as well as (in multiple seat elections) people who only use one of their two or three votes. Indeed if, in articles about multi-seat elections, some editors are trying to derive turnout figures by adding up the votes for candidates, I am wondering whether there is a wider problem even in single-seat elections, with turnout figures being 'calculated' ignoring spoilt ballots, rather than using the actual published turnout data? MapReader (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

antisemtism

This may be worth a look Antisemitism in the Labour Party.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 18:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Anguilla white paper

The government of Anguilla wrote a white paper on the effect of Brexit on Anguilla: http://westindiacommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/The-White-Paper-on-Anguilla-and-Brexit-1.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Josephine Butler

You are invited to comment at Talk:Josephine Butler#Request for comment on names where there's an issue about naming; the article (which is currently a FA) refers to its female subject by her first name throughout "for simplicity". Any input is welcome. --John (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

What the Government owns

Shareholder Executive used to be the best place online to find a comprehensive list of companies that the UK Government owns or holds shares in (and companies it used to) but since the management of these assets has been moved to several departments the list on this page is no longer updated. I understand that this is logical because the article is about the government body, but I think it would be a good idea to have separate page that contains an up to date list regardless of which government body currently has responsibility for them as this would be a really useful resource. RobsterUK (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Positions on Jerusalem

I added the WikiProject's template to the talk page of Positions on Jerusalem but it was removed. I think that it's on the scope of the project because it has a section on the position of the United Kingdom. Do you think that it should be re-added? Rupert Loup (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

CANZUK International

Happy Xmas all. We could use some additional input at Talk:CANZUK International as to what the article should cover and what it shouldn't. Bondegezou (talk) 11:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Peers elected to Parliament

There's a discussion of how to format the names of (Irish and courtesy) peers elected to the British House of Commons at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Peers in election result boxes. Your commentary is invited. Choess (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Parliamentary election pages

I want to open a discussion into what it says in the infobox on election pages I understand that |posttitle=Elected prime minister isn't accurate as in the uk pms arent actually elected but I think changing the post title on those pages to |posttitle=Prime Minister after election is better than what it is now |posttitle=Appointed Prime Minister Your commentary is invited. עם ישראל חי 20:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that "Prime Minister after election" is probably the best form of wording. Number 57 20:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it worth having a standalone article on the "Magic Circle"? (circa 1963)

Harold Macmillan says:

Macmillan was succeeded by Foreign Secretary Alec Douglas-Home in a controversial move; it was alleged that Macmillan had pulled strings and utilised the party's grandees, nicknamed The Magic Circle, who had slanted their "soundings" of opinion among MPs and Cabinet Ministers to ensure that Butler was (once again) not chosen.[188]

Magic_circle_(disambiguation) doesn't seem to mention this group.

Is this "Magic Circle" interesting or important enough to warrant a standalone article?

(Or if such an article already exists, then we should add it to Magic_circle_(disambiguation).)

Thanks -- 189.60.63.116 (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm doubtful of the potential for an article, the term was only coined for that election and didn't refer to a fixed or defined group. It has occasionally been retrospectively applied to people from whom soundings were taken for previous leadership elections, but there just doesn't seem enough to say for an article. Perhaps a redirect could be useful. Warofdreams talk 14:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Righto -- 189.60.63.116 (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Notification of discussion which may be interest to users

There is currently a discussion regarding they layout of Scottish parliamentary constituency articles here. It relates to how seats are presented after boundary changes and if every election of a member should be included and if their picture should be included. Sport and politics (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Query on inclusion of Massacre of Glencoe

I've substantially updated this article and I notice it is included in this project; this seems inconsistent since it is pre-1707 and relates only to Scotland.

Any thoughts? If it is to be included, I'd like it re-assessed but don't want people to invest their time without reason. Thanks!

Robinvp11 (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be removed from this WikiProject. There must be a more suitable history WikiProject? Bondegezou (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger of Baron Tweedsmuir and John Buchan Pages

I have proposed these two pages be merged, Baron_Tweedsmuir is a stub article and there already exists a more substantial page on the same person John_Buchan. I'm quite new to all this still so am not sure if I have followed the correct procedures. Claireliontamer (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

All-Party Parliamentary Groups

I was thinking of doing some work on All-Party Parliamentary Groups - creating pages for ones that currently don't have them, updating those that do. Given the number of different groups this would take sometime. Before I started I figured I'd ask about the notability for such groups; would they have presumed notability as a result of what they are, or would they need to have had some form of media coverage in order to accrue notability?

Many thanks, Mark49s (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I think they'd need some sort of coverage by someone, WP:GNG in other words. Bondegezou (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Election box for Momentum

A discussion is currently taking place about the election box for Momentum. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Adopt a council! (a project proposal)

Political make-up of local councils in the United Kingdom, summarising the number of members of each political party making up each council in the UK, is rated High on this WikiProject's importance scale. As a very high-maintenance page, thanks to there being on average 8 changes to UK council party/member compositions per week, it could really use a crack team of editors to divide the labour of monitoring and updating both this summary page and the relevant council pages which provide supporting detail.

Most of the heavy lifting in this mammoth task is done by a php trawler by Jon Lawson (User:Jlwsn) on Open Council Data UK (who has in the past contributed to the page). From that it's a matter of getting the tables copied (requiring Excel work to insert formatting code).

In parallel, the latest election page for each council in principle needs a section detailing changes since the election to back up calculations for the summary tables, and both the election and council pages need several elements updated when a council member retires or changes affiliation. See for example Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council election, 2014#Changes during the term and Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council.

Value is then added to the tables on Political make-up in the form of a "last change" and "next change" column. In the "last change" column, I have been inserting a link to the Changes during the term section of the last election page in the "last change" column, concisely labelled with, and citing, the most recent change. This tells editors and readers exactly how up to date each row is.

There are already several people performing elements of this task recently, so a shout out to them: User:Leftwinguy92, User:Sceptre, User:Becksperson. My proposal is that each editor adopts 20-30 councils to maintain, perhaps those nearest them (shotgun NI ☺), and we keep a project table of who has agreed to do what so we can collaborate effectively. "Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Councillors"??

I'm keen to share, extend and build on the methods I've been developing on the Northern Ireland council pages, to learn from others, and to review the importance of updating the page and how else it might best be maintained. Please shout if you'd like to collaborate. Or do it your way. Anything so long as the job gets done! -- sam^💬 15:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I've recently taken an interest particularly in Welsh local government, though it's a bit too soon to commit to keeping an eye on all of them! All the same, useful to be aware of the existence of Political make-up of local councils in the United Kingdom. Sionk (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Coolio User:Sionk :) Shout out to User:Devite a recent contributor to NI council pages - see if the above would interest you. -- sam^💬 21:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I did recently try and update changes to NI local government, which interests me. I try to update changes to ROI local government also and changes and by-election results in Scotland.Devite (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

List of political parties in London

List of political parties in London is a bit neglected, but with forthcoming elections, it could do with some eyes on it. I've tried to tidy it up a bit. Bondegezou (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

One Nation

Should we create One Nation (UK political party) or wait a bit? This is Henry Bolton's new party. They've got a website and were covered today by BBC News. Bondegezou (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Or possibly OneNation. Bondegezou (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The party currently doesn't have any MPs, MEPs or other elected persons of any significance. However, neither does Renew Britain as far as I can tell, but that's a bit further along in terms of organisation. I would suggest that it just passes notability at the moment, but any article would be a bit devoid of content. Shritwod (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be plenty of coverage of its founding; I'd argue enough to justify creating an article. If it turns out to be of no lasting notability then it could be deleted further down the line. It looks like they're going for the spelling and style OneNation. Ralbegen (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree there's enough info to start an article on this. We should probably go for OneNation. Having no parliamentary or local government seats isn't necessarily a factor given we have articles on parties like the Women's Equality Party and One Love Party which currently don't have elected representatives. This is Paul (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

There's info out there, but as it hasn't done anything yet, might be better covered in the article on Bolton, with a redirect, and spin it out when and if it does notable things? Warofdreams talk 21:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a sensible idea. I'll kick things off with a redirect. This is Paul (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Can I get some help with some tiny categories?

For a while we've had "Category:Tower Hamlets Independent Group councillors" that's only ever had one article in it (Rabina Khan). Khan left the Tower Hamlets Independent Group (THIG) and, a fair while later, the Tower Hamlets Independent Group turned itself into a formal party, Aspire. "Category:Aspire (political party) councillors" was then created with the THIG category turned into a re-direct. This then resulted in a situation where the Aspire category had only one article in it, Rabina Khan, someone who has never been in Aspire. Indeed, Khan leads a rival group to Aspire called PATH.

This is silly. As per WP:SMALLCAT, I think both categories should be deleted. This is a local council grouping with no broader activity. It's never had more than one article in it and is unlikely to get any more. If the categories are not deleted, then the THIG category cannot be a re-direct to Aspire as it existed for a significant period before coming Aspire and it is a nonsense to put Khan in the Aspire category.

Someone also created "Category:People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets councillors" for Khan's group. Again, this only one has one article in it. Again, it should be deleted.

THIG, Aspire and PATH are all fragments of the former "Tower Hamlets First" group. Again, we have "Category:Tower Hamlets First councillors", again with only Khan in it. Again, delete, delete, delete!

I'd try to tackle this, but I'm afraid I've never gotten into categories. I don't understand how to do categories for deletion or re-directs for them. Can someone have a go, or point me to a better description of what to do? Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply here as the categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I think some rationalisation needs to be done. For example, I think Category:Tower Hamlets First politicians is fine, but there's no need to split into two sub-categories, each of which only has one member. Similarly, I think Category:People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets councillors should be upmerged to Category:People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets politicians. There are other categories that Rabina and Lutfur can be put in (e.g. Category:Councillors in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and Category:Leaders of political parties in the United Kingdom) that means that the sub-categorisation is not really needed. I'd suggest taking these to CfD. Number 57 12:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Tanbircdq has now added Category:Leaders of People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets, again with only one member, Rabina Khan. Sorry, Tanbircdq, but this makes no sense. It is categorisation gone mad. Bondegezou (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I think, Tanbircdq, that you have misunderstood the purposes of categorisation on Wikipedia. To quote, "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages". It is not to construct a complete ontology. Being "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" does not override WP:SMALLCAT. Categories with 0-1 members with no immediate likelihood of growth should be deleted as they can clearly have no value in "provid[ing] navigational links". Bondegezou (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I've now got my head around nominating categories for deletion and am putting some of these through. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 11. Sorry, Tanbircdq, I acknowledge the work you've done creating these, but I think you've gone too far down a rabbit hole. Bondegezou (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help making Alexander Allardyce (British MP)

I'm currently working on creating an article on Alexander Allardyce, and would like this WikiProject to help with this article's creation. Kirbanzo (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Endorsements in the United Kingdom general election, 2017

We've got someone edit-warring at Endorsements in the United Kingdom general election, 2017. Some more eyes on the situation would be welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: I've semi-protected it and reverted to the stable version. Number 57 12:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Monitor and cleanup needed at Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal

I have begun some initial work on improving this article, it has a few wording and NPOV issues at this stage. Any assistance/eyeballs would be good. AusLondonder (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Merger of Taunton Deane and West Somerset

I note from today's BBC news and Somerset County Gazette that the councils voted for the proposed merger of Taunton Deane and West Somerset, although this still has to receive central government (Sajid Javid) approval (likely to be given in my opinion). What should be on the two articles now to reflect this and when should the new article about Somerset West and Taunton Council be created? I have put this on Talk:Taunton Deane#Merger with West Somerset - probably best to comment there to keep this discussion in one place.— Rod ^talk 20:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The existing articles should continue to exist, noting that the districts merged to form Somerset West and Taunton (another new article that needs creating once Javid has approved it, alongside the council one). Number 57 20:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Please come and help...

Two requested moves at Talk:Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and at Talk:Offences Against the Person Act 1875 have just been relisted. Please come and add your choice and rationale to the debates.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC about whether to include 'MP' as a post-nominal in lead paragraph

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the lead section of a British Member of Parliament contain the post-nominal 'MP' after their name? --Neve:selbert 20:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Example with post-nominal 'MP' at Theresa May's article
Theresa Mary May MP (/təˈriːzə/; née Brasier /ˈbreɪʒər/; born 1 October 1956) is a British politician serving as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party since 2016. She was first elected Member of Parliament (MP) for Maidenhead in the general election of 1997. Ideologically, she identifies herself as a one-nation conservative. References

In the interests of balance, below is a quote from one of the advocates against the inclusion of said post-nominals:

I'm afraid it has always been regarded as inappropriate for the lede paragraph of current British Parliamentarians to include a postnominal 'MP'. The issue is that it is not, as required by MOS:POSTNOM, an official postnominal designation "issued by a country" but simply an unofficial custom used in addressing current Parliamentarians. As such they belong in infoboxes but not the lede. The custom is also transitory - anyone may cease to be a Member of Parliament at any time. As an example see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2012 archive#Need help on titles and honorifcs.
— User:Sam Blacketer 21:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

However, I would argue that their argument is rather flawed. According to Debrett's, an authority on etiquette and behaviour, the post-nominal 'MP' is "In formal address ... always shown for a member of parliament ... shown seventh in the order of precedence of letters after the name". That their use is an unofficial custom used in addressing current Parliamentarians is dubious, especially when one considers their inclusion at List of post-nominal letters (United Kingdom) § Appointments. Moreover, I'm not certain whether the custom is also transitory in other countries, e.g. Canada; I would note that in the ledes for incumbent Canadian MPs, the post-nominal is used (see Justin Trudeau and Andrew Sheer). The 2012 discussion linked by the editor is inconclusive, and their argument that the post-nominal isn't an official postnominal designation is certainly questionable; the UK Parliament's official site uses the designation in their biographies (e.g. this one for Corbyn).

If it is acceptable to use the post-nominal 'MP' in infoboxes, it should (IMHO) be acceptable to use it in lead paragraphs.--Neve:selbert 20:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No I think it's unnecessary. It will be clear in their infobox and the introduction that they are MPs. Number 57 21:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• No - unnecessary clutter. Above all, the introduction needs to remain readable. Warofdreams talk 22:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• No as per Sam Blacketer and Number 57. Bondegezou (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• No, the article is about the individual, not (just) the parliamentarian; indeed some MPs may have done more notable things prior or since their election to office. Unlike US Presidents, UK MPs do not keep their title after leaving office, and indeed may not use it during campaigns for re-election (which would generate a lot of re-editing every time there is a UK election). References to someone as MP should be to specific actions or events at specific times, and not as a general reference to an individual. MapReader (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes/allowed - it seems to be the WP common thing from looking at several other MPs, but not universal or essential, so I'd say the preference is to do so for consistency but that it is not absolutely required. I looked specifically back to Category:UK MPs 2015–17 and then the first several I tried all had it -- yes for Peter Aldous, Heidi Alexander, Rushanara Ali, Stuart Andrew. As I went further it showed wome without it not Caroline Ansell; then yes Edward Argar; not Richard Arkless; then yes Ann Coffey, Thérèse Coffey, and Damian Collins; but not Oliver Colvile. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Consistency would most definitely mean they are disallowed! The ones you looked at had it because they had just been added by Neve:selbert, who got to J in the current Parliament before they were asked to stop! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

    There's no need to get excited here. I made a mistake in using AWB, hopefully this Rfc will settle matters.--Neve~selbert 19:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

    Merely clarifying that it is not a convention to include them as Markbassett appeared to believe on the basis of a brief survey of recent MPs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• No per MapReader's very well argued rationale. This is Paul (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes – MOS:POSTNOM is pretty clear on this in my opinion: widely used post-nominals should be included in the lead section of the article. Taking my own MP for an example, it seems that the MP post-nom is very widely used such as on their GOV.UK profile, Parliament profile, Wiltshire Council profile, Facebook page, Twitter profile ect. The fact that MP have to seek re-election every 5 years or so isn't relevant to the discussion. It would be very easy to make a mass change to MP's articles with AWB when a general election is happening. ToastButterToast (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: As for the argument about placing the post-nominal in the Infobox I would point to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The MP post-nominal needs to be included in the article, and not just in the infobox. The lead section is the most logical place for this inclusion based on my previous point. ToastButterToast (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• No. We do not generally include transitory postnoms in the lede. We only include postnoms that are permanent once conferred. Only a tiny number of MP articles have had the postnom added (presumably by editors such as Neve:selbert who were unaware of the convention), so consistency actually mandates we continue to omit them. As does good sense, in my opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • And note that we do not even include all permanent postnoms. We do not, for instance, include postnoms indicating degrees or most memberships (unless very prestigious). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• No I think it is unnecessary. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• No — MPs' articles usually explain that they are members of parliament in the first sentence of the lede anyway. That seems much more sensible to me. Ralbegen (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• No Unnecessary. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)(Summoned by bot)
• No Unnecessary and unhelpful duplication since the lead will always state the the person is/was the MP for Wherever, which is more informative than simply using the post-nominal. Pincrete (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• No - Per Pincrete's argument. It would be redundant to include since it will already be mentioned in the lead. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• No per Pincrete and others, it's not necessary. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• Infobox and article or neither. After being invited here by a bot, I have read the arguments above and cannot find any logic in the argument that it is correct in the infobox but not the article. Either it should be mentioned in both places or neither place. I don't have a strong opinion which it should be, as long as we are consistent. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
• No. Unnecessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• No. Adds nothing to the article, given that in most cases the fact that they're an MP is mentioned just a few words later in the introductory spiel. I suggest that for consistency it should be removed from Heidi Alexander and those others mentioned above.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• COMMENT: The practice for Canadian MPs is a little more complicated. Trudeau and Scheer are members of the Privy Council AND sitting members so it appears they get "MP, PC". Ordinary members like Colin Fraser don't have "MP". Former members like Joe Clark retain "PC" if the have it, and lose the "MP". But I have no idea how consistent this is: I only checked a few.  – Modal Jig 20:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I happened thru Terry Beech and Don Rusnak, as examples of showing MP in the lead. My impression is that the MP is commonly shown for the English holders, but is infrequent for the Canadian holders. Markbassett (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• As per MapReader above, MPs are explicitly banned from using the title "MP" during an election: see p. 8 of this. Bondegezou (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep it simple - if it's a suitable post-nomial then it goes in. MOS:POSTNOM finishes that showing it should be limited to the lead sentence, infobox, and anywhere it is under discussion. This inclines me towards a 'both or neither' reading -- if it is suitable to go in the infobox, then it should also be on the lead sentence. I do see extensive post-nomials for individual Canadians also such as Julie Payette, but think pulling in Canadians or a broader description of what post-nomials apply would only complicate the discussion and the guidance. Let's at least keep it simple that a post-nomial to be listed in one should or at least can be in both locations rather than evolving something that varies depending on the post-nomial or the nationality. Markbassett (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I see that @Necrothesp: is currently removing the postnominals from many UK MP articles, presumably not knowing that this discussion is going on. PamD 16:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • You are correct. I did not. Thank you for pinging me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jeremy Corbyn and antisemitism

There is a discussion at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#Separate subsection for "Corbyn's response to anti-semitism" about the extent to which Corbyn's response to anti-semitism should be covered in the article. The section in question currently has several tags on it. Feel free to join the discussion. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Football Lads Alliance

We need some more eyes on this newly created article. We have a 'new' editor using primary sources that appear to be propaganda. I'm note its even noteworthy as an article so fresh eyes appreciated -----Snowded ^TALK 16:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Please try to ensure the article fully complies with the neutral point of view policy. PlatinumHeron (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Heidi Allen

There is a discussion at Talk:Heidi Allen#POV content that other editors might be interested in. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion on structure of Home Office hostile environment policy

Hi all

I just started Home Office hostile environment policy, the policy includes many parts, which have been changed, challenged in court, widely criticised etc. Does anyone have any suggestions of articles that may be a bit similar that I could copy the structure of?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on notability of local elections in the UK

For those of you that haven't seen it, there is a discussion on notability of local elections in the UK. This AfD is also pertinent. Cheers, Number 57 06:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Voter ID trial

I've added

XXXXXXXX is one of the boroughs subject to a trial of voter ID restrictions.<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/28/polling-station-voter-id-plans-are-deeply-flawed-say-critics |title=Polling station voter ID plans are deeply flawed, say critics |last=Press Association |date=2018-04-28 |work=The Guardian |access-date=2018-04-29 |language=en}}</ref>

to Watford & Bromley's 2018 elections but can't see the corresponding articles for the other boroughs affected, Gosport, Swindon, and Woking. If anybody were to find or start those articles I'd be obliged if they'd add this fact to the articles. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Life peerages & infoboxes

Greetings, Comrades. On 8 April [3] I BOLDly altered the infobox headers of several very recently ennobled life peers, and @Nford24: reverted with the comment that this wasn't standard. That was the idea, obviously. The effect remains at Shami Chakrabarti's bio.

My proposal is that: for all recent life peers (perhaps since the 1999 House of Lords Act? Perhaps since 2010 or 2015?) who have not become overwhelmingly known solely as Lord/Baroness Something, their name ought to be visible in the infobox header; as it is a prominent portion of the page in a non-mobile browser. However, because there will inevitably be some insistence that, for some reason unclear to me, the reader simply must know the new peer's full formal address, I created a compromise whereby a single-line summation of their formal style is placed underneath the name (using the honorific-suffix field). Where the peer's title doesn't involve their name, like Robert Rogers, Baron Lisvane I can see that both should be visible; but, honestly, David Blunkett is David Blunkett — The Lord Blunkett is surely, at this stage, merely a strange sort of medieval quirk of the political system. That he's a member of the Upper House is important; that he has a title (especially since it's simply Lord Surname) surely isn't vital information for the reader; and even when it is (such as Rogers/Lisvane), it's in the article title, and therefore in massive bold letters above.

(I'll invite the Infobox wikiproject too, and post on the talk pages of the bios I edited; if anyone can think of other interested parties, please do ask them here; thanks.) DBD 18:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support The compromise you've set out on e.g. Shami Chakrabarti seems appropriate to me, treating life peerages like other honours and making the head of the infobox as the peer's actual name. Ralbegen (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

(Also, nb I omitted "Rt Hon" for non-Privy Counsellors and used "Rt Hon" and not PC for PCs, following current Govt and HoL usage; and partially for brevity.) DBD 18:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your suggested change seems perfectly fine to me. I edited a page about someone awarded a life peerage a while ago and thought the article title was rather archaic. JezGrove (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; though, as a note, I'm not (here and now) making a proposal regarding article names. Just infobox usage. DBD 19:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: I think you're trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and the proposed solution itself doesn't seem particularly good. ToastButterToast (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

What if I summarised the problem as: the person's common name isn't immediately obvious from their infobox. DBD 19:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support: Seems like a sensible idea. Most of the more recent peers are much better known by their name rather than title, so Wikipedia should reflect that. This is Paul (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• I also agree that the infobox at Shami Chakrabarti looks fine and presents the information clearly. The potential problem with deviating from accepted usage of infobox fields is that of polluting the metadata, but in this case the title microformat (fn) is the name she's best known by, and the honorific-suffix microformat contains "The Baroness Chakrabarti CBE", which is certainly understandable in that context. It clearly looks like a good solution, with little downside that I can see, and I would recommend it as standard practice for these sort of infoboxes. --RexxS (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: The suggestion as per Shami Chakrabarti looks a mess and is incorrect, so I can't support this. I don't understand the argument that the common name isn't visible: even on mobile you have the article title and opening paragraph appearing before/adjacent to the infobox. There is the option in the infobox for birth names. There is an option to suggest something similar to the |native_name=, which would then have the full common name/none-noble name appearing near the top of the infobox while maintaining the status quo. Also, regardless of government etc usage, barons/baronesses have The Rt Hon as an honorific prefix, PC is then additionally used by those who are members of the Privy Council: doing something different is simply wrong. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 20:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Really, Octavia? Are you really trying to assert that titles and styles have some kind of objective truth to them separated from their usage? DBD 20:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: I think you're trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Eddaido (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per ToastButterToast and Gaia Octavia Agrippa. This seems slightly nonsensical and fruitless – the individual's name already appears in the page name and lead, so reformatting infoboxes is simply complicating things that do not need to be complicated. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is an encyclopedia, not another version of Facebook. Common names can be used for the article title and also mentioned in the lead as has been done with many articles on WP English. Although not an article you edited, I had to fix the article about Francis Bacon, simply because it had two info boxes, the first seemingly to list him as 'Sir Francis Bacon' with the second info box listing him as the '1st Viscount St Alban'. That article is now a good example of how a common name can be used with peerages and Rt Hon prefix. Also I wasn't the only editor to revert your changes or the first, but providing a lack of explanation for the mass change was going to get them all reverted anyway until it went to talk. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 11:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

(Obviously the reverting doesn't bother me; it's procedure and I've been here 12 years.) I'm not sure Bacon is relevant to the proposal I'm making, since I am limiting to recent peers. Chiefly because their titles are (very often) their surnames so "The Lord" &c don't actually add anything to our audience's experience. Tbh, there are only a vanishingly small number of us types who know, let alone care, about formal styles (which are usually listed in full in their own section of the bio's end matter.) DBD 13:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Nford24 well apparently just "Francis Bacon" was good enough for the Encyclopedia Britannica's infobox equivalent. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Ivar the Boneful Encyclopedia Britannica is quite inconsistent. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 02:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nford24: Actually, I'd like to challenge that Facebook remark. I think that comment belies an assumption that peers are a special case; that we owe it to the 'pedia to note their formal style as often as possible. Whereas its equivalent for commoners — using The Right Honourable Mrs Philip May MP — in the infobox would (I hope!) be obviously absurd. So why peers? DBD 19:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

DBD If a commoner has been granted the title Rt Hon, then they've earned it a number of ways, excluding it from those articles would be as inappropriate as removing it from articles about peers. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 23:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Did you miss my point — that Mrs Philip May is overly formal and deprecated — deliberately or otherwise? DBD 19:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support and apply to all peerage-holders. If someone's title was granted after they left public life and is basically just a footnote, then it shouldn't be in the infobox. `Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you; I am on this occasion, only proposing application to recent peers (probably not all of them, either). There have been very many peers in these Isles over a thousand years, and until (relatively) very recently many were routinely/overwhelmingly known as The X of/Lord Y. DBD 19:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Gaia Octavia Agrippa and others. This is a truly appalling idea and I struggle to see any merit in it whatsoever. The peer's common name should already be displayed in the article title. The way things presently stand is perfectly acceptable, and ought to remain the same and apply to all peers for the sake of consistency.--Neve~selbert 00:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone suggest more groups or individual editors who might like to contribute to this discussion? DBD 14:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Seems to be rather driven by a dislike of titles ("a strange sort of medieval quirk of the political system. That he's a member of the Upper House is important; that he has a title (especially since it's simply Lord Surname) surely isn't vital information for the reader"). Sorry, you may not like them, but they are a fact. He is usually referred to as Lord Blunkett now he's in the Lords. See the BBC, for instance. Can't see any evidence there that he's still overwhelmingly referred to as David Blunkett. He simply isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring the ad hominem, I think claiming Lord/Baroness X as common name for these recent peers might fall foul of recentism a little? Since they haven't had the peerage all that long, it's quite soon to judge how they'll become best-known? DBD 09:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you'll find you have your answer even if you don't like it. As the saying goes, you seem to be flogging a dead horse... Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 11:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Brilliant. DBD 18:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Survation polls include NI and what do we do about it

There is a dispute at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#NI about how to handle that Survation's opinion polls are of the whole UK rather than just GB, as the other pollsters. This is a much used page, so we could do with input to come to a conclusion soon. If you don't want to read the whole discussion, I've tried to summarise at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Summary. Bondegezou (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Democrats and Veterans: 2 generic questions

Recent editing disputes at Democrats and Veterans, a small kind-of-UKIP-spin-off, raise some generic points and more input would be welcome.

Firstly, how much should articles about parties rely on how parties describe themselves in their own materials (i.e. primary sources)? How much should this depend on what secondary source coverage we have? How do we handle disputes when secondary sources paint a rather different picture than primary sources?

Secondly, many party infoboxes have those little bar graphs showing how many seats the party has in various contexts. Should all parties have those, including small parties with no seats? Which ones should they have? Bondegezou (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Bondegezou, you should use secondary sources where possible, though I suppose you could say "NFP describe themselves as a fish-friendly party, however numerous publications noted they endorse eating fish.[1][2][3][4]" -mattbuck (Talk) 21:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

To summarise the points I was trying to make on the D&V talk page, WP:PRIMARY only permits primary sources for "straightforward, descriptive statements of fact". Whilst this could mean quoting sections of party constitutions or manifestos to supplement secondary sources, I don't think it can mean using a party's description of itself only on the merits of primary sources, per WP:PRIMARY and (to an extent) WP:NOPROMO.

On the second point, I think empty seat graphs are only useful when there's something notable about it (like when a reader may expect a party to have seats, and it doesn't; such as the British National Party having recently lost its last councillor and hence its last elected representative above parish council level). For a new, minor, party, I don't think it's useful. I'd support presumption of exclusion of empty seat graphics. Ralbegen (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia's coverage of smaller parties is valuable. But I find the big problem with articles for minor parties (and I'm thinking of recent edits for For Britain, Democrats and Veterans, Renew Britain and Women's Equality Party) is that they come across as overly promotional and in contravention of WP:NPOV. This is for several reasons: (a) interested editors (often IPs or new) will tend to be supportive, (b) there's less secondary source material, so articles lean more on primary sources, and (c) what secondary source coverage there is will often have been written based on the party's press releases -- it takes time for more critical secondary source coverage to emerge.

So, we end up with articles with lots of self-sourced descriptions of the party's own views, even when the party's presentation of itself is misleading (e.g. far right parties describing themselves as centrist and "common sense"). We also end up with articles that try to squeeze anything positive they can out of abysmal election results, so statements on how the party were close to winning somewhere, or how their candidate beat a major party candidate to take third place. Or a whole paragraph about how a parish councillor defected to them.

As an antidote to this, I generally trim down material to maintain NPOV. I'm not against some self-sourced material, but as per WP:NOPROMO, there shouldn't be lots of it. If a party isn't getting much secondary source coverage, the answer is a short article, not to pad out the article with primary source material. I also trim overly promotional interpretations of poor election results. If a party won no seats, we should say, "The party won no seats." Not, "The party beat a LibDem candidate somewhere" (which says more about a poor LibDem performance somewhere than about the minor party). In that context, empty seat graphics can be a useful piece of context so a naive reader can immediately see what they're dealing with. Bondegezou (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

That all sounds reasonable to me, and a good summary of issues with articles about minor parties — though I think self-sourcing is best restricted to uncontroversial facts or for corroboration. I still think that, as in the case that spawned this discussion, it's inappropriate to include material on a party's platform and stances based solely on self-sourcing...

Your case to include empty seat graphics makes sense, though if they are to be included then a useful rule of thumb may be to only include empty seat graphics for areas the party has contested. So if a party hasn't contested parliamentary elections, not to include the House of Commons; and to avoid empty Lords graphics altogether. Ralbegen (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think we should use empty seat graphics for minor parties. I think it clutters the infobox and inflates their significance. I'd prefer to delete long primary sourced sections as a matter of course, but I don't think this is a good approach to take if the editor who wrote the material is passionate about the subject. I've already enraged an editor for Pirate Party UK for removing badly structured, primary sourced and non-notable material from "his" page. In that case, I pointed him to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and he hasn't been in touch since. I've been building up a list on political parties in the UK, and I've added a lot of the recent eurosceptic and pro-European "pop-up" parties to my watchlist. I tend to manually review edits for NPOV and reliable sourcing. I think in most cases where an editor has come in to add statements like "The party beat a LibDem candidate somewhere" we should intervene to cut it down only to meaningful facts (the party won no seats, or the party's best result was 10% of the vote somewhere). Another post-UKIP party I've had to strip down was Thurrock Independents, where I tagged the page for the editor to address and didn't get any further activity and eventually just deleted the whole "ideology section" as it was an indiscriminate copy of their website. One of the biggest problems we run into with pages like these is that some of the editors who work on them are simply WP:NOTHERE and aren't interested in engaging with other editors to meet Wikipedia's standards of quality and accuracy. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Lewisham East by-election, 2018

There is a discussion at Talk:Lewisham East by-election, 2018#Other parties about which parties (if any), other than Labour warrant their own section sub-heading. Comments invited. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

There are some generic issues at play here that often come up, so input would be most welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Finally, @MapReader you may find this to be a place to seek further comment. Maswimelleu (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to present the information as we have. There's not enough information about the other parties for any of them to have their own section. This is Paul (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Is self-sourcing sufficient evidence of a candidacy?

Slightly related to the above, we're discussing at Talk:Lewisham_East_by-election,_2018#Secondary_sources whether we should list a candidacy based solely on self-sourcing. So, both For Britain and the Women's Equality Party have announced they are standing, but this hasn't (yet) been covered by secondary sources. Should we list those in the article? The SOPN will be out soon enough, but when it comes to the next election, we're going to hit the same issue again. More input wanted please! Bondegezou (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I feel Bondegezou that you and I have been working away at these articles and pages for many many years! This discussion and others connected to it flare up from time to time. On the talk page you (I think) reminded other editors that Wiki can't become a real time newsfeed for an event, which is a danger when we're trying to keep the article up to date with candidate announcements. I am a touch wary about using self-sourcing, because often it encourages anon-editors to ramp up their candidate and what-not. An early mention of For Britain's candidate included a whole sentence about what kind of party it is, which is not the sort of thing a by-election article needs. HOWEVER, this by-election seems to have virtually no coverage beyond the Labour Party's troubled selection process. That has resulted in a very one-sided looking article. This could be argued that, as a safe seat, it's fair to have more coverage for the holding party. I think self-sourcing should be considered acceptable if, at the very least, it's a blog or news-site. Twitter etc. can encourage anybody to say "I'm a candidate", and I know Wiki has guidelines against using social media as a definitive source. Incidentally, and I'll check this in a minute, I used the Libertarian Party's Facebook page as a citation for their candidature in Lewisham East. It appears nothing has come from that, which proves your point that single-source citations can come to nothing. I have a question: how do American editors deal with this for special elections? Could we learn something? doktorb _words^deeds 08:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Depending on how they are phrased, I think self-sourced candidate declarations can be incorporated into the article ("The Barnstar Party announced its intention to stand with Jimmy Wales as its candidate.." rather than "Jimmy Wales is going to stand for The Barnstar Party") in the absence of any better source. It's clearly the case that many of these candidates don't make it to the SOPN (per Bondegezou's examples on the Lewisham East discussion) but the beauty of by-election articles is that we know we are going to get an SOPN, a perfect reliable source. I think it is interesting to note the fringe parties and candidates who intended to fight the elections. I am thinking here of researchers decades from now who are looking into fringe politics in the UK in our decade (and god knows it's a fertile ground for research) who would value information about candidates that intended to stand regardless of whether they got the requisite number of signatures. It's all about context. Jdcooper (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

But we need to be careful about getting into OR territory. Wikipedia isn't meant to be about cataloguing self-sourced/primary source material for future researchers. We base most of what we do on independent, reliable secondary/tertiary sources, with our coverage, as per WP:BALANCE, following what RS say. There may be value in cataloguing UK fringe political activity, but I don't think that's Wikipedia's job. Bondegezou (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we need to establish what constitutes WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There's a lot of info I could already have pulled onto the page, but I've chosen not to because it would be excessive. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It's what I've said recently about balancing accuracy with commentary, to avoid becoming a sort of RSS feed. I don't think we need to get into writing formal policy on this, just a decision on how to treat candidacy decisions with fairness. I know, because the law of sod is like this, there will now be no by-election until 2022, but better be prepared! doktorb _words^deeds 12:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Are all mayors and lord mayors notable?

My instinct tells me yes, but I'd like to know the discussion or policy that has ruled on this. I'm thinking of working on List of mayors of Leeds, for instance. I note it has some blue links but no red links - it would be ugly to inflict that much red on a page, but aren't all of the individuals notable, by virtue of having been in that office? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• My instinct says no. That is to say, directly-elected Mayors are, but merely holding the office of Mayor of a principal local authority for one municipal year does not in itself make someone very significant. The post itself is, remember, a ceremonial one and rarely has any political power. In a major city things might however be different: the Mayor of Leeds is a more important figure than the Mayor of Rossendale. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• It would likely depend on whether you can find reliable secondary sources on the individual Mayors and Lord Mayors. If you can, it probably means they meet the notability guidelines. Otherwise there isn't a whole lot of point in creating a series of stub articles, with the only information being that said person was a Mayor/Lord Mayor. ToastButterToast (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• Definitely not IMO. Many boroughs have a new mayor every year. The role is usually titular and the leader/cabinet members are usually far more notable. Number 57 20:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• It doesn't make them automatically notable, but that doesn't preclude them being viewed as notable by extensive secondary coverage. If a specific authority has an article on every indirectly elected mayor then I would imagine that many of them fail WP:GNG. Maswimelleu (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• No. As per Number 57, in many cases the mayoralty is a ceremonial role that rotates among the non-notable, local councillors. Directly-elected mayors and the Lord Mayor of London are all notable, I'd say, and perhaps some others, but definitely not every UK mayor. Bondegezou (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Not always or often. But even unelected (appointed) mayors may be senior political figures in their area and may be notable for other things. Certainly in my city they're generally mayors on the 'buggins turn' principle, having been a councillor for many years, though occasionally in the past they have been recognised businessmen, nationally honoured. Go with WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Sionk (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all, that's useful. In going through the List of mayors of Leeds, I found John Arnott (politician). When I hovered over the link, I saw that the first line described him as Scottish, and, as John is such a common name, I thought it might be a different person. When I clicked through, I found that it was the correct person, who seems to have spent all the notable years of his life in England. He's not a "Scottish politician", as our article claims. I'm not going to let my instincts hazard a guess here, other than to say it doesn't sound right. Any advice? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

He's a British politician. Better to describe people who have strong ties to both Scotland and England as being "British" unless secondary sources explicitly describe them as one or the other. Maswimelleu (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

NI MPs on government benches

DUP MPs do not sit on Conservative government benches now, but there seems to be some evidence they did in the past.

In 1981, Enoch Powell said: "The Conservative Party in the House of Commons has played ball with Paisley for 18 months, during which he has sat among them on the government benches". Paisley said in his 1970 maiden speech: "I sit on the Government back benches".

Furthermore, Gerry Fitt of the Republican Labour Party apparently sat on the Wilson government benches.

As a result, if adequate sources can be found to define the exact period these NI MPs were on the government benches, would it be appropriate to alter the composition diagrams such as the one on List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general_election, 1970 to put them on the other side instead of always putting them in opposition?

Does anyone know if there are any further sources on this? --Jay942942 (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the seat diagram should accurately reflect who is (or was) on what bench. Maswimelleu (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

From a June 1990 debate: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199091/cmhansrd/1991-06-20/Debate-9.html UUP MP William Ross says he sits on the opposition benches, but the DUP MPs sit on the government benches.

There is also a post dated 2008 on Talk:Social Democratic and Labour Party stating SDLP MPs were sitting on government benches then. Can anyone find a reliable source for this? --Jay942942 (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

SDLP on government benches — "Friends in the SDLP who sit on the Government Benches with me". That's the best I can find from a cursory look around. This discussion might give others some material to work with in their research. Ralbegen (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Somerset West and Taunton

The government has today announced that Somerset West and Taunton will be formed by the merger of West Somerset and Taunton Deane. Any help with the new article (particularly the transition of status) would be appreciated.— Rod ^talk 11:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll assist with making it. Would be good to collate as many sources as possible to establish what we definitely know about the council and the fact that it will definitely be set up. I'd also like to point out that similar mergers may be taking place in Suffolk, Dorset and Northamptonshire, so this may be one article in a series of April/May 2019 establishments. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put in the sources I have been able to find so far.— Rod ^talk 12:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Great. I just noticed that Wikipedia doesn't have a page on shadow authorities, which are an important component of understanding the abolition/merger of UK local authorities. The legislation setting up the council makes reference to a shadow term lasting from the date of the order (about 5 days ago) to April 2019. It will consist of all existing members of both councils. How should we discuss that fact in the article? I could simply total up the councillors for both to give a membership for the shadow authority., but that might be difficult to present without confusing the reader. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC Football Lads Alliance

I think this follows on from conversations above about reliable sources, Talk:Football Lads Alliance#Comments on edits 2.

• Related question: if the best investigative journalism about far-right groups is done by campaign groups such as Hope not Hate and Dream Deferred, and publications like Searchlight should they be used on the condition they are contextualized? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Councillor positions in infoboxes

In politicians' infoboxes, we include their elected positions. However, we don't normally include local government stints, focusing instead on terms as an MP, MEP, MSP etc. But what if being a councillor is the highest office a person has achieved? This isn't normally an issue as local councillors aren't inherently notable, but we do have a few politicians who are, for other reasons, notable and where being a councillor is about all they've done in terms of popular election. Until recently, three of these did have their councillor positions listed in their infoboxes: Duwayne Brooks (councillor highest elected position), Sian Berry (who is also a London AM) and Jonathan Bartley (councillor highest elected position). There may be others, those are just the ones I've noticed. MassiveNewOrderFan insists on removing the information at Bartley's article and there have been past disagreement over Brooks'.

Should we have a settled position on this? I tend to think that, if a politician doesn't have higher offices, it is appropriate, but I am not wedded to that position. Bondegezou (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I would say only include in the infobox if it was the highest elected office they have achieved, but would always omit if it was bottom tier local government (Town/Parish). However, that's just my opinion. ToastButterToast (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

His only office of note is Co-Leader of the Green Party, minor elected positions are not of note. Just because Sian Berry also has her local government position in the infobox doesn't mean that is right. MassiveNewOrderFan (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I would say we should only include 'Councillor' infoboxes if the person was notable for being a councillor. If they are notable for something else (and are only coincidently a councillor) their infobox should reflect the position/activity they're notable for. Jonathan Bartley is a case in point. Sionk (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

There are a few reasons this could be treated in another way. Jonathan Bartley might place emphasis on his council position. As a national leader of the Greens, it is striking that his highest elected office is as a councillor. This combination might be something often mentioned in the press or media, and thereby be something he is know for. He may be referring to this fact in his internal election campaign, for instance. Thus it may be odd for this information to be missing for an external reader.

In Siân Berry's case, she is a very active local councillor, and has to be as she is in a very highly contested ward. She also uses her role as a councillor in Camden within her work on social housing policy for instance. For an external reader, therefore, it would be rather odd in her case also to find this information omitted, and they may find it helpful to be able to find it easily.

Meantime, could I request that the positions are left listed as they were until a consensus is reached here.Greenhistory (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

We can't base a decision on how someone might place emphasis in the future. Do you have RS illustrating these points? Bondegezou (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am on a child filtered network that also blocks VPNs so I can't produce much right now. A quick search on Google shows that Bartley made a lot of his *candidacy* for Lambeth during the election, for instance launching the Green's council election campaign from Lambeth, where he was standing. I am sure more can be found. The Greens place a lot of emphasis on local council work because it is an area where they can do well, so I would be very surprised if Bartley has said little, been quoted little, or done little, around his role as councillor. That said: he has been elected for what: two months? So we probably need to look at the way he promoted his campaign and himself more generally, more than his record to date. Greenhistory (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Can I ask that MassiveNewOrderFan leaves the content present until we have resolved this by consensus? I have no desire to get into an edit war. I see that this user has removed the content again. As Siân Berry is well know as a councillor this makes no sense to me. Greenhistory (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, Bondegezou, and MassiveNewOrderFan , note that Jonathan Bartley's public office is that of being a councillor. Being co-leader of the Greens may be important, but it is not a public office. Greenhistory (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I follow politics very closely and I've heard very little about Bartley's role as a councillor. The truth is he is only known as the co-leader of the Greens, that he is now a councillor is only incidental. It would be far more consistent to leave out local government offices from the infobox of all politicians, unless they have held an executive council positions such as Leader of the Council. MassiveNewOrderFan (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

He was elected a matter of weeks ago. The Greens' election campaign placed emphasis on his candidacy. He speaks a lot about his local role and work. He regards himself as a Lambeth activist. This all seems to argue for relevancy in his case. Greenhistory (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

How he regards or promotes himself is irrelevant. What he is known for is as co-leader of the party. You don't get to choose what you are notable for. Imagine if he had never been leader, but had just become a councillor this May. I doubt he would even have an article let alone a mention of his council position in the infobox. MassiveNewOrderFan (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not express myself clearly. Wikipedia:Notability as a wikipedia concept is as I understand it primarily a question of whether people or things get an article, so the question is more about: is the useful information; would the reader expect to see it; does it help them. Politicians are a self-promotion phenomena. How they promote themselves in turn influences how they are perceived, and what the public know them for, and therefore, what is useful to mention in an infobox. Greenhistory (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE recommends exclusion of unnecessary content, so I can see the case against inclusion. But if somebody is notable for their political work, and their highest public office (rather than party office) is as a councillor, I don't see any issue with including that in an infobox to provide context. Claudia Webbe is another example. Ralbegen (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Being a councillor, alone, doesn't make someone notable, but if someone is notable, mentioning that they are a councillor is entirely reasonable. Once someone is notable and qualifies for an article, the correct comparison is with any other piece of information (such as the trivia about subjects' personal lives) that finds its way into articles. On that basis, the fact that someone is an elected councillor is of reasonable interest and should be included. MapReader (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

My personal preference has been to acknowledge sitting councillors in prose, but not in the infobox. I have no specific justification for doing that, but I do prefer to avoid infobox clutter. An infobox doesn't have to be an exhaustive list of everything we know about a person - just a list of the most notable aspects of them. I think this also has other implications - a Prime Minister (former or current) should have their previous executive titles listed less prominently and not in a box of the same size. Likewise, someone who has served as MP for multiple constituencies should have the less recent ones listed less prominently below their most recent. Thus is we must add council seats in too, it should be listed far less prominently in the infobox than their more notable titles. 99%+ of principal authority councillors in the UK are not notable, and those that are generally aren't notable because they're a councillor per se. Maswimelleu (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Though we should try and avoid WP:RECENTISM and not make value judgements on whether a position someone held 10 years ago is less important than the position they hold currently. That's sort of illustrated by the Jonathan Bartley debate - he's recently been elected as a local councillor and there is lots of run-of-the-mill info available online about it, but even though we could add this available info, it doesn't mean we should. Sionk (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Reading that brief summary, it says the infobox should "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". On this basis there is less case for Bartley than Berry to include his councillor role. However I also note it expects "exceptions where a piece of key specialised information" is hard to put into the main text, and that DBpedia reuses the information. I think there is a case for explaining that Bartley, a national political leader, only represents his party on a council – this has positive and negative connotations, but is useful for someone to understand who Bartley is. For both figures, it would be helpful to add some / more material about their role / elections to local council, in Bartley's case, explaining that his national role was used to focus attention on the Lambeth election and his candidacy, while of course keeping this brief to avoid "recentism". Greenhistory (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

With the exception of MassiveNewOrderFan, consensus appears to be to include Councillor positions when that is the highest elected position, so yes for all the examples above except Berry. Bondegezou (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Bondegezou. On Berry, I would reiterate that she is a very active councillor in Camden, for instance doing a lot around social housing issues. I think many people would expect to find this information, as they would know for this. I'd also add: what is the harm or disbenefit to the readership. After all, while Wikipedia strives to be reasonably consistent, it doesn't strive for perfect implementation of strict editorial guidelines. If we are striking information out of infoboxes, we ought to have a good, positive reason, such as it being excessive clutter, irrelevance, minor detail, trivia. Greenhistory (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

In terms of layout I'd be happy with a box listing all constituencies, then a box listing all principal authority wards, then a box listing all UK Ministerial positions, then a box listing all internal party roles, etc. I find infoboxes get bloated and unreadable if every individual position is just listed in chronological order rather than sorted by type. So Bartley can be shown as a councillor, but if he switched ward then the new ward should be listed in the same box. The infobox for Simon Hughes (in particular where his constituency is listed) is broadly what I mean. I'm not planning to go tinkering with infobox templates just yet but I think we ought to sort them by category for clarity's sake. That doesn't apply to Bartley but might in the future. Maswimelleu (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

That sounds interesting—the Simon Hughes article's layout for constituencies is definitely something that could be usefully replicated elsewhere. Would you be able to mock up a complete example of the layout you're proposing? Ralbegen (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Trident (UK nuclear programme)

I have this article up for review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Trident (UK nuclear programme). While I know plenty about the history of nuclear weapons, I little about UK politics. In particular, it is hard to tell whether a particular politician or minor party is important or merely quotable. Reviewers welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Meaningful vote

I've written an article on Brexit's meaningful vote it anyone is interested. It's already drawing flack in terms of demonstrating whether or not that is the common name the amendment goes by. Every news item I've seen on it describes it as the "meaningful vote". --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It might help if this was mentioned in the article. As it is, the term appears only in the lead and the last paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Windrush scandal article

The Windrush scandal article (which was originally 'forked off' from the Amber Rudd article), is barely coherent in its present form, but is getting page views in the many thousands. The section remaining in Rudd's article, is equally muddled (though less important).

The article bears all the hallmarks of being hurriedly written and added to, but left in a state which would be barely comprehensible to anyone who didn't already know most of what there was to know.

Help - involvement appreciated. (please ping if replying here or use my/article talk page). Pincrete (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Choice of infobox on articles about constituencies

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see this discussion and follow-up RfC concerning the relative merits of {{infobox constituency}} and {{infobox settlement}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Winston Churchill - reference probems

There are a number of unresolved reference problems on Winston Churchill. Please see the thread at Talk:Winston Churchill#Sources. Your attention would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

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