Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

politicians who commit suicide

Wasn't there a northern woman MP who killed herself?82.13.186.89 (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

If there was, she's missing from this list. Number 57 16:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Ellen Wilkinson? Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I have investigated this and the position has been explicity dealt with by me and successive others in Wilkinson's biography article. As narrated in her ODNB article, the inquest declared her death an accidental overdose when she was suffering multiple respiratory ailments. She has been alleged to have committed suicide, over a relationship with married Herbert Morrison.Cloptonson (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review of Scottish independence referendum, 2014

I am reviewing the good article nomination of the article Scottish independence referendum, 2014. The nominator is busy with other things at the moment and so I am looking for other editors to help improve the article to good article quality in the next few days. If you would like to help, please address some of the issues I raised in the review. Thanks! Wugapodes (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Zac Goldsmith

I would appreciate input from experienced editors with an interest in British politics at Talk:Zac Goldsmith#Electoral spending section concerning WP:NPOV and style/wording issues. AusLondonder (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

N/A confusion

On 24th January somebody installed into Wikipedia a program that automatically fills empty boxes in the project's election tables with the notation 'N/A'. This was presumably done to indicate that information is 'Not available'. This indication is unnecessary and discourages this information from being obtained by another editor. It is also confusing because many of the project's editors have been using the notation 'N/A' to represent 'Not applicable'. The two meanings are different. The use of 'N/A' for 'Not applicable' represents a state of completion. Can someone investigate who installed this program and get it out of our project's election tables please. Graemp (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears to have been done by Obsuser in this edit. Judging by their edit summary, it appears to have been designed to automatically state "Not applicable" [edited, see below] if no-one has entered a change figure. Number 57 10:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Do we have to remove it? I actually quite like it. It styles much better than leaving the % change blank and saves us editors from having to input N/A manually. Given the context of the election boxes I can't see anyone assuming it means "not available" over "not applicable". Although, @Graemp: does have a good point about election boxes seeming complete when not. Perhaps we could standardise that a symbol be placed in the space to signify it is not complete or something along those lines. Alternatively, if we could keep the current N/A style but only have it show up when N/A is written that would work. C.david.ham (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Using N/A to mean 'Not available' as has been done by Obsuser is incorrect. When a box was blank, it was blank because nobody had put the available information in it. To fill this box with N/A to mean 'Not available' is factually incorrect as the data is available but just not yet inputted by an editor. Graemp (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, that was a mistake by me when I wrote my response. I think they mean "not applicable" not "not available". Number 57 10:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
If it was meant to mean "not applicable" then this is also not helpful as change in party % support when it exists is always applicable. The change to the template doesn't (and to be fare can not) distinguish between "not applicable" and "not available". It is confusing and it doesn't work. Graemp (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted per WP:BRD with the edit summary "cannot assume field blank because N/A - editor may simply not have data to hand or otherwise be unable/unwilling to complete it themselves". Of course, this doesn't affect all those cases where editors have already entered "N/A" (e.g. new constituencies, parties that didn't contest that seat) - those did and do still display "N/A". I've provided further reasons for the revert at Template talk:Election box#Automatic N/A, with a link to this discussion. NebY (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You all do impugn your own statements. We edit Wikipedia, someone comes to Wikipedia to read something and we state information. If there’s N/A written there it actually does have full meaning of "not available" (not "not applicable" – "not applicable" doesn’t make sense at all).

If an editor had had data he/she would have entered it so it would be available for Wikipedia reader to see it, but if it’s not the case – we can state "not available" ("not available for you who are reading this here").

However, I will take my edit back, and just omit "N/A" till confusion that doesn’t exist gets cleared out.

I suppose you all guys haven’t seen this so you reverted my edit, and got back {{{change}}} for "±%" and maybe other field back in the game.

PS It is not that "somebody installed into Wikipedia a program that automatically fills empty boxes" but only a morsel of code has been added to fix a little let’s say bug or much better omission of the template code that had caused template not to work properly. --Obsuser (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

One more thing: we can use N/A so template gets awesome! Your choice because I usually don’t edit English Wikipedia so I don’t know politics here and stuff, and I’m not speaking English at a native-speakers level (but I have enough knowledge to tell you for sure that "not applicable" doesn’t make sense at all in contrast to "not available"). --Obsuser (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Italics and -

Why do you use italics for names and why do you use - instead of – or — when info is not available or not entered? I can alter the code so whenever - is entered — will get displayed (same for italics, it can be turned off).

We can combine something so shaded grey field with — is always displayed when (proper) number’s not been entered (only applicable to Election box templates, not raw tables which should be corrected by bot). --Obsuser (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Obsuser: You did well to tackle the bug which caused United States Senate election in New York, 2000#Democratic primary results to display {{{change}}}. It's just that we can't display N/A instead.
First, may I try to explain the use of N/A in English and in these situations? As you'll see in in the English Wikipedia's article n/a, n/a or N/A can mean "not available" or "not applicable". Election results provide classic examples of the "not applicable" meaning when there have been no previous elections against which we can measure any change, or when a party is taking part in the election for the first time. But there are also times when the editor may have left the field blank because they did not know the number. We should not state that the field is inapplicable or the value unavailable merely because an editor has not located or inserted all existing information. We should simply leave it blank.
In some situations, we can simply use Election box candidate with party link no change and similar templates; this might be the best solution for United States Senate election in New York, 2000#Democratic primary results. But if you would like to apply your skills to make Template:Election box candidate with party link showed a blank when no data has been entered, that would be most welcome. NebY (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
For compatibility with the other templates, I suggest we keep the italics and avoid any special shading. As you'll see in York Outer (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections, in which the editor has carefully entered N/A in the appropriate places, the use of italics serves well to keep the N/As visually distinct from the actual numeric data.

Yes, we could substitute one type of dash for another. We just can't substitute dashes or N/As for blanks, or dashes for N/As and so forth - we don't know enough about the data and the intention of the editor. For similar reasons and to avoid confusion, we shouldn't apply any special shading - and we don't need to. The tables will be clear - indeed, clearer - without it. NebY (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I would like to think that anyone who had an idea to change/improve a project's template would discuss it with other members of the project first rather than simply going ahead with it themselves. I also think it helps for people with such ideas to have sufficient understanding of the subject area. I am familiar with some of the election templates used for other countries and I havn't come across anything that I think would improve on what we have. Graemp (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Is it a UK-politics template? I'd assumed it began, as so much else here, with a US focus. As for prior discussion, doesn't that vary? On the one hand we have project pages and village pumps, but on the other hand we have a norm of Be Bold. (Of course, that requires us to be prepared to be reverted if problems arise. In particular, editing existing templates requires that we think through many use cases and listen to feedback that may not be expressed in "correct" programming terms but may nevertheless be based on greater knowledge of the domain.)
Anyway, Obsuser has fixed a nasty bug that displayed {{{change}}}, you've detected and reported the problem with the fix, others figured out what had happened, Obsuser has listened and produced an improved version, and that's all happened very quickly. I find it all quite heartening! NebY (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

To conclude, I will remove shading so only omission will be fixed i.e. {{{change}}} won’t ge displayed when nothing is entered.

@Graemp: How can you say you wouldn’t improve anything if there was an omission? Please don’t "protect" anything in a way you are doing it right now.

@NebY: You actually haven’t said anything in your comment of 20:24. I know all of that and what do you point out. However, confusion cannot exist because N/A is not referring to the outside data whether it exists or not but on internal availability of such (maybe) existing data.

If someone wants to point out data cannot be entered because it actually doesn’t exist (not because it’s simply not entered) then it would be convenient to use special message or abbreviation or small-number-note with legend below.

On .sr it is not practice to discuss two-three days about changing one letter in a template. Why? Because if a problem occurs, it will get noticed and template will get fixed (like in this case happened). Only major changes should be discussed before applying Be bold. If we discuss every single change we couldn’t work neither in namespace article nor template as we do.--Obsuser (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Before changing the template on the assumption that editors will "use special message or abbreviation or small-number-note with legend below", you'd have to examine and often adjust the existing 12,403 uses.

Perhaps on the Serbian Wikipedia the risks are - at present - smaller. At the moment, it has 330,862 articles and 979 active editors. This Wikipedia has 5,065,822 content articles and 125,701 active editors (see sr:Посебно:Статистике and SPECIAL:STATISTICS). NebY (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Citation style question for UK Politics articles.

I have recently become involved with the article David Lloyd George trying to cleanup some style issues. The article is a hodgepodge of different citation styles and per WP:CITEVAR a consensus needs to be reached for what style is best to use in this article. Would members of this WikiProject please visit the Talk page for the article and make suggestions on this matter under Section 14: Citation Style issues? Thank you. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 03:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Input welcome

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:43rd Canadian federal election#Requested move 9 February 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, AusLondonder (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Election box templates

Hello everyone. Could someone help out سعد علی خان with the Gilgit-Baltistan Legislative Assembly constituency articles that they've been creating, specifically the election box formatting? For a relatively new editor, they are doing a decent job on them, but it seems the wrong election box segments are being used as the number of columns in the results tables on the articles is often inconsistent. I'm aware this isn't a UK politics issue, but I know a few editors on this project are familiar with them (I'm not!). Cheers, Number 57 21:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Baroness Shields

Greetings! I'm quite familiar with UK politics but wonder if anyone could advise whether I've listed Joanna Shields on the right page? It seems to me that Shields was a relatively minor US businesswoman but is now much better known as a UK peer. However the article emphasises her US connections and is written largely written by WP:SPAs. Any help or comments appreciated. JRPG (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Conservative & Liberal Unionists in General Election Infoboxes

The Liberal Unionist Party split from the Liberal party in 1886 and informally supported the Conservative Party in parliament until they officially merged in 1912. The infoboxes and results tables for United Kingdom general election, 1886 to United Kingdom general election, January 1910 show them as a formal coalition. Besides being generally incorrect, this was particularly confusing for 1892, where the Liberals won the plurality of seats and formed a minority government supported by the Irish Parliamentary Party. I've fixed the Infoboxes for 1886 and 1892, but I didn't fix the result tables nor the elections of 1895, 1900, 1906, Jan 1910 and Dec 1910. Vagary (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem with this is that, especially towards the end of the period, there was no certainty about which candidates were in fact sponsored by the Conservative Party and which were Liberal Unionists. Even the most accurate election results compiler F. W. S. Craig had to resort to putting asterisks by candidates whose sponsorship was uncertain. However there is now an authoritative statement identifying all Liberal Unionists up to the union of the parties in 1912, which is in an appendix to "The Candidates of the Liberal Unionist Party, 1886–1912" by Wesley Ferris (Parliamentary History, Vol. 30, pt. 2 (2011), pp. 142–157). Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

List of current MPs and their party whip

We have various lists of MPs for the 2015-2020 period in Category:Lists of UK MPs 2015–20 but we don't seem to have one that simply supports the numbers in the infobox in Parliament of the United Kingdom. List of United Kingdom MPs by seniority, 2015–20 comes close but includes deceased MPs and still shows the original party of those who have resigned the whip so you have to apply the changes from List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2015#Changes. Would it be sensible to create one at List of current United Kingdom MPs by party (now a redirect to List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2010)? --Cavrdg (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Done -- Cavrdg (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Reminder that Results of the United Kingdom general election, 2015 by parliamentary constituency article is unfinished yet important to many.

James Tamim (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

U.K. Election info box

a new info box has for uk elections has been proposed on the 2015 uk election take page with the sogestion that it be implemented on all uk elections for consistency between all uk election articles 2.28.220.166 (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this up - I was not aware of the 2015 talk page discussion. I don't like this new infobox because it removes the portraits of the party leaders. I think it is important to retain an infobox design that includes the portraits. The design that we have been using is the same design as used in other countries Election articles. I think that it helps to have a consistency of style across countries. Graemp (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

House of Lord retirement / term dates

When a member of the House of Lords retires, does his term end on the date of retirement or the day before? I looked through the Wikipedia articles of all the former House of Lord members who retired in the last year (going by the list on parliament.uk) – the only Wikipedia article that even bothered to list term dates is Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon, where this question came up.

Editor FIN argues that since "he retired under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. You can see the text of the Act here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/24/enacted/data.htm House of Lords Reform Act 2014 states (1 Resignation, subsection 3): 'At the beginning of that date [retirement date] the peer ceases to be a member of the House of Lords.' Because a retirement under the Act takes effect immediately at the beginning of the retirement date on midnight, the last day when a retired peer was a member of the House was the day preceding his or her retirement day. In this case, the Earl of Snowdon retired on 31 March and his last day as a member was therefore 30 March."

While I can see Editor FIN's argument, it doesn't change the retirement date is the only given date and the official date. It's standard practice on Wikipedia to list the end date as the same as retirement date. The few news articles I could find online only listed the retirement date. Also, it's just makes logical sense that retirement date = end date.

I'd like to get other's opinions on this. Also, for consistency, have this decision be project wide instead of just on that one article. Thank you, 15zulu (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that it's quite clear that the term ends on midnight, when date changes. But in Wikipedia infobox, is it better to add the retirement date as the term end date or the preceding day, which was the last day when the peer actually was a member of the House of Lords?
News articles list retirement dates, because these news are on retirements and don't give terms of service with first and last dates. I think that retirement date is mainly the start and first day of retirement, but the day preceding is the last day of service. Retirement date is official as such, but the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 specifies that a peer is not a member of the House at any point of his retirement date.
In my point of view, a term end date given in an infobox should rather be the last day of service in the position mentioned above than the retirement or resignation date, if these are clearly different, which is the case with all peers retired under House of Lords Act 2014. --Editor FIN (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
@Cassandro: Given you're recent edit, I thought you might have interest in partaking in this discussion. Cheers, 15zulu (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
@15zulu We haven't got any other opinions or evidence on whether to use the resignation date or the last day of the term as the end date for term of office given in an infobox. I think that the last day of term should be used in all cases. Trying to make myself more clear, I don't actually think that this would be an exception. In many cases, resignation date and the last day of term just are the same date, but (in my point of view) the last day of term should be used as the end date in all cases, because it is the last day that belongs to the term of office. I must admit that I can't (at least for now) provide sources confirming the use of this that would satisfy you. Therefore, my opinion should only be treated as my own opinion. Your opinion is that the resignation date should be used in all cases. You have also argued in our other discussion that this would be the standard practice, but you haven't provided sources for that. If you provide reliable source or sources confirming that using the resignation date (and not the last day of term) is the standard practice, I'll back up and let this be. Otherwise, I'll put this to the Wikipedia dispute resolution. --Editor FIN (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Even if Cassandro hasn't bother to weigh in here, his edit did give his opinion. In the specific case, all reliable sources have listed only one date, 31 March 2016. The burden is on you, if you want to list a different date. If you'd like to go to a different board, sure, just send me the link to where you posted. — 15zulu (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
In the case of the Earl of Snowdon, 31 March 2016 is his official date of retirement and I agree with that, but my argument is that the last day of his tenure as a member of the House of Lords should be used, not the technical retirement date. And I have provided you a source (House of Lords Reform Act 2014) that confirms that these dates are different. Any reliable source, as far as I know, hasn't given his term of 'office' with start and end dates and neither of us has provided other sources for common practices or other cases similar with this one. Thus, we don't know, should the end date given for the term be the official retirement date or the last day which actually belongs to the term. I think that neither I or you have the burden on this issue at the moment. I'll put this to the dispute solution. --Editor FIN (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not showing up until yet but I had little time the last couple of days (and enwiki is not my homewiki). So just shortly: maybe I am too formalistic here but if the official parliamentary documents state the resignation as such (in respect of the Earl of Snowdon 31 March) I don't think we should overwrite it. Cassandro (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

For reference, the discussion on dispute resolution noticeboard was closed (diff) with conclusion to use 31 March 2016, since current argument for 30 March relies on WP:SYNTHESIS which is against Wikipedia policy. 15zulu (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Names and titles of candidates in election boxes

I'm opening this discussion up again as I seem to recall we didn't reach a consensus last time. There is some disagreement over the styling of candidates in election boxes, specifically two main issues - full names and titles:

1. Full names for candidates with articles My view is that we should only use common names (as specified in the article title per WP:COMMONNAME) in the election box, so in Woodford (UK Parliament constituency) we would use Winston Churchill rather than Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, and in Tatton (UK Parliament constituency), Neil Hamilton instead of Mostyn Neil Hamilton. And we should try to link to the actual article itself using a piped link rather than linking to a redirect page - so for example in Bury St Edmunds (UK Parliament constituency) the 1929 Liberal candidate should be [[Dar Lyon]] rather than [[Malcolm Douglas Lyon]] which is a redirect to the Dar Lyon article. I think that for well-known politicians it is unnecessarily confusing to use non-commonly used names, and a proliferation of middle names can make the election boxes look unwieldy.

2. Full names of candidate without their own articles Again, my preference is for a commonly used name (where known) and for Forename (+ possibly middle initial) Surname, or Initials + Surname. The problem we have here is that different sources use different formats (especially for historical elections - for current/recent elections determining a common name is fairly easy).

3. Titles of candidates I don't think we should use titles at all. Firstly, titles such as Rt Hon and Sir can change - someone could be a Rt Hon at one election having not been one previously, and again this makes it confusing as it can look like two different people. Secondly, adding Mrs/Miss for women is completely wrong. It may well have been commonplace in the past, but that does not make it right, and I don't think we should be spreading the prejudices of the 1950s around wikipedia.

Frinton100 (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

  • 1. Full names for candidates with articles Policy WP:COMMONNAME refers to how people should be described in article titles and should therefore not be used as a guide for how someone is referred to in the body of an article. There is nothing confusing about using a candidate's full name rather than a commonly used name in an election box, particularly when the use is linked to their article. When candidates apply to stand for parliament they are required to submit their full name. At the election count, when the returning officer reads out the official result, they give the candidate's full name as in 'Michael Denzil Xavier Portillo'. The problem with using commonly used names is that they change over time; for instance the 1951 Conservative candidate for Dartford was Miss Margaret Hilda Roberts, not Margaret Hilda Thatcher as she was to become. To call her Margaret Thatcher in a 1951 election box would be incorrect. Using full names avoids confusion such as the case with two Labour MPs of the 1970s/80s who were both commonly known as Ron Brown, one was Ronald Duncan McLaren Brown and the other Ronald William Brown. Also using full names would be consistent with using full names for candidates without their own articles.
  • 2. Full names of candidate without their own articles My view is that it is important for non-linked candidates to have their names listed in full. The reason for this is that it helps with identification. It is possible that a non-linked candidate does in fact have their own article or might subsequently have one created. In such circumstances editors will more likely be able to identify this and create the link when the name is listed in full. Think of a hypothetical example of a Welsh constituency where a candidate's full name is David Evans Jones; if this is listed as David Jones or David E. Jones, how is someone to know if it is David Evans Jones or David Edward Jones. If an editor knows it is David Evans Jones, then we should allow it to be shown as David Evans Jones. It is correct that different sources use different formats with historical elections. This has been the cause of much additional work for editors, trying to identify candidates who in some sources are only listed by their initials. The full candidates names are out there and are gradually being tracked down by editors such as myself. In some cases this tracking down of full names has resulted in other editors realising that a seemingly little known candidate is in fact a notable individual who has their own article.
  • So linked or non-linked, I think we should always list candidates names in full where we have them, for consistency. The number of instances where we don't have the full name is small and gradually getting smaller.
  • 3. Titles of candidates I think that we should use most titles. The most widely used source for historical elections FWS Craig's British Parliamentary Election Results always used Rt Hon. and Sir. I think that most readers will appreciate that titles like Sir and Rt Hon. are acquired over time and that it is helpful to see this reflected in election tables. I don't think any reader would get confused by this and think that an added prefix means that somehow it is a different person. As for using the prefix Mrs/Miss for women, I would treat this issue differently depending upon weather the candidate is linked or not. There is no need to include the prefix with a linked candidate but there is a need to include it for an non-linked candidate; the reasons go back to to the points I made in para 2. If the marital status at the time is included, it helps with subsequent identification. Let's assume that we didn't know who Margaret Thatcher was and we came across a non-linked wikipedia entry that listed a candidate as Margaret Roberts. There would be nothing to suggest that this is the same person. If they were listed as Margaret Hilda Roberts, this still may not alert us to the fact that they could be the same person. If they were listed as Miss Margaret Hilda Roberts, it gives us a hint that this person may have had a later life in which her surname changed. The same applies with using Mrs if we have it; it allows us an opportunity to link a candidate with an earlier version of themselves when they used their single name. In the past, women were often described as Mrs. followed by husband's initials. There will be some cases where we might come across a candidate who is listed in a source as Mrs D. Thatcher rather than Mrs M.H. Thatcher. 'Mrs D. Thatcher' at least tells us this is a woman and not including or deleting the 'Mrs.' part doesn't. So I think we should always indicate a woman's marital status for non-linked candidates, to assist with subsequent identification. Graemp (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
IMO, we should just use people's normal names (as they were at the time of the election if they later changed them) and no titles. Number 57 11:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the point about subsequent identification really holds up. If you are creating an article about an individual and you see that someone with the same full name contested a particular election, you cannot make the leap to assuming that is the same person and not just someone with the same name. You need a RS to back up that individual's candidacy, if you have such a RS, there is no need for the name to be shown in full in the election box. If you don't have a RS, then the information shouldn't be added to the biog, doing so would constitute OR
It is confusing to the average reader to see these names written out in full. I think this is a case where taking a step back is helpful to work out what we are actually trying to do - we want to create a readable resource for a wide audience. It is confusing if Winston Churchill is referred to as "Winston Churchill" virtually everywhere else on wikipedia, and then as "Rt Hon Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill" when standing for election. Someone wanting more detail about him (e.g. his full name) can click on the link.
I still see absolutely no reason to list women's titles - we do not refer to men's marital status, referring to women's is outdated and sexist. There should be no place for that on a 21st century encyclopedia. And if it is really just about identifying whether the person was still unmarried at a given time (and thus still using their maiden name), then why use the "Ms" prefix (see Bury St Edmunds (UK Parliament constituency) - 1997 election). It seems to me this is less about helping subsequent identification, and more about sticking to an outdated formality.
What the (Acting) Returning Officer reads out at the declaration should have no bearing on what we do on wikipedia. Practices have changed over time. Since 2006 candidates can have their commonly used name only on the ballot paper (so Boris Johnson can now be simply "Boris Johnson", and indeed he was in Uxbridge last year - and this what was declared at the count). Prior to that, they could only have their common name in addition to their full name (so Johnson would have been "Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Known as Boris Johnson)"). Whether or not the common name was used at the declaration instead of, or as well as, the full name, was down to the individual ARO. Local practice also varies over whether names are read surname first (e.g. "Johnson, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel") and whether candidate descriptions are read out - nowadays they usually are, but not always, and if you go far enough back descriptions were not allowed on ballot papers at all. So the form of the name that is read out at the count by the ARO is completely inconsistent.
Finally, I was not suggesting that married names be used before people are married, so yes, in Dartford in 1950 Thatcher should be [[Margaret Thatcher|Margaret Roberts]] - my suggestion is basically in line User:Number 57 that we basically just use common names at the time of the election - most of the time this will be their article titles as per WP:COMMONNAME, shorn of any subsequent peerages awarded.
I suggest this is left open for now to see if it generates more discussion. Frinton100 (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Graemp on this. The convention of using the full name with an appropriate wikilink to the relevant article appears to be a sensible way forward. Macs15 (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
@Frinton100 If you are creating an article about an individual and you see that someone with the same full name contested a particular election, if you are a good editor, you will undertake the research to find out if it is the same as the person in your article. If the name is just listed by initials, it won't even show up on your wikipedia search.
There will be little doubt in any reader's mind that when they see Rt Hon Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, it will be the same bloke who used to be Prime Minister. If however, they see it listed as just Winston Churchill, they could easily conclude that it is Winston Churchill and they would be wrong. That is in fact an additional reason to include full names, not a reason not to.
It is a shame that you simply don't understand the value of including marital title and resort to accusing other editors of sexism. Have another go at trying to understand it. I agree with you about using "Ms." because it does not help with subsequent identification, which is why I don't include it.
User Number 57 did not say to use "common name" as you infer, but to use "normal names". I think User 57 was talking specifically about prefixes and not number of forenames. Graemp (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
By "normal names" I meant their usual first name and surname (so Harold Wilson not James Harold Wilson). Number 57 14:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Just because we disagree, does not mean I am stupid as your "have another go at understanding it" suggests. It simply means that I have a different point of view to you. Someone who knows that the ex-PM Churchill's middle names were Leonard Spencer is also likely to know he was the Conservative MP for Woodford in the 1940s. Someone who sees "Winston Churchill" as the Conservative candidate for Davyhulme in 1987 and thinks it's the same person is not likely to be any the wiser if his middle names are included.
I'm afraid Graemp that you do use Ms, as shown by this recent edit. There can be no reason for using this other than indicating that the candidate is female unlike the other candidates on the ballot paper. I appreciate that this used to be common practice and so shows up in RS, but I continue to feel that it is outdated and sexist and should have no place in wikipedia. Frinton100 (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding "I still see absolutely no reason to list women's titles - we do not refer to men's marital status, referring to women's is outdated and sexist." I provided reasons (that you don't see) why marital status should on occasion be included. You pointing out that we don't use it for men was either done because you simply don't understand the reason I gave or to enable you to attack me for having "outdated sexist" attitudes. Using a woman's marital status is not being done as a style preference but as a practical consideration, to enable us to give fuller and proper coverage to women on wikipedia, which could not be further from the sort of outdated and sexist attitudes you have now accused me twice for having. Graemp (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I have not accused you of having outdated/sexist attitudes, but I feel the practice of including women's titles is outdated/sexist. I do not see that it serves any practical purpose given that an editor creating an article should know when a woman was married, so in an election that occurred before then you would obviously expect to see the maiden name, and after you would probably expect to see the married name, adding Mrs or Miss does nothing to help in this. Frinton100 (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
An editor creating an article may not know if a woman was married or what her maiden name was. Graemp (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If an editor does not know the maiden name, they will not then be helped by having a title and full name, given they don't know the surname of the person they are searching for. And I would think that maiden name and (rough) date of marriage - if applicable - are fairly basic pieces of information that are needed for any half-decent biog. Rather than adding lots of scraps of information that may or may not be useful to someone creating an article, I still think we need a step back to consider the usefulness of the information to the average reader. I still no use for full names when a candidate has their own article, or for the use of title, especially gender-specific ones like Miss, Mrs or Ms. I'm thinking an RfC may be the way to go on this to generate more interest. Frinton100 (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


RfC: Names and titles of candidates

How should candidate names be displayed in election boxes: 1. Should we use common names or full names? (E.g. Margaret Thatcher or Margaret Hilda Thatcher; Harold Wilson or James Harold Wilson). And, 2. Should we use titles e.g. Mrs/Miss/Ms/Dr/Rt Hon etc. Frinton100 (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC follows on from discussion above which hasn't reached a consensus. Frinton100 (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I remain in favour of using full names with a wikilink to the relevant article, if one exists. This seems a sensible way forward and reflects the practice of using full names for electoral purposes. Macs15 (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment Use common names (usually also the name used on ballot papers), such as Boris Johnson rather than Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. I can see no need for using titles such as "Miss" or using middle names or initials. AusLondonder (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Macs15 that we should always use the fullest name available, such as Winston Spencer Churchill rather than Winston Churchill to distinguish from Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill which is crucial when we are dealing with non-linked candidates. Also for the reasons detailed above, specifically to assist with subsequent IDing. Marital status titles should be used for non-linked candidates to assist with subsequent IDing, as detailed above. Graemp (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

    • That's a terrible example. "Winston Spencer Churchill" frankly applies more to the wartime PM than to his grandson - it was the name he used on his books to distinguish himself from Winston Churchill the American. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm in favour of using the common names of candidates (i.e. what the title of their articles would be at the time of the election, if no disambiguation was required). Number 57 21:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Common names are better. Full names are a pain when they produce something unfamiliar ("John Jeremy Durham Ashdown"). Also in the modern age returning officers are terrible about what is and isn't a common name - some will allow the tidying away of middle names, others won't - and also over what goes in the declaration. Stick to making the candidates identifiable. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Full names are better. There is nothing painful with using a full name for a linked candidate as the reader will be able to access an article about them. The majority of candidates are candidates who are not linked and may not have an article about them. The problem with common names is that they are often not known or an assumption is made about a common name which can be wrong. Even with people who have their own articles, an assumption that the person's first forename is their common name is often made and this can often be wrong.
  • With historical elections, the most used source for results is FWS Craig's British Parliamentary Election Results. The problem with Craig is that he neither used common names nor full names, he used initials. The same problem exists for the second most used resource http://www.politicsresources.net where initials have been used for historical elections. As a result, most UK Election articles originally had historical data that listed un-linked candidates only with initials. Much work has been undertaken by numerous Wikipedia editors, trying to properly identify candidates by adding full names and providing links where they had been found. This is an on-going process which would be hampered by editors going through articles, arbitrarily deleting a forename here or an initial there on the assumption they think they know what the common name might have been.
  • It is vital for identification purposes to retain and further explore the full names of candidates who are not linked. The recognition of this process will be helped if the linked candidates names are also detailed in full and we will have a more consistent look to the data. Stick to making the candidates identifiable and recognise that this is an on-going process. Graemp (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Common names should be used per Timrollpickering and Number 57, with appropriate editorial discretion where disambiguation is required. Users shouldn't need to click through to the article to be enlightened as to who's being talked about, per WP:EGG. I could support a compromise where both the full and the common name are given, though it might be unwieldy. Titles are a definite no per the Manual of Style (MOS:HONORIFIC). —Nizolan (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
With pipe linking, there are always going to be circumstances where a reader may not be certain who is being talked about with either the use of full or common names. MOS:HONORIFIC is not relevant to this discussion about UK Constituency articles as it relates to how a person should be described in their own Biographical article. Graemp (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Graemp: This page sets out guidelines for achieving visual and textual consistency in biographical articles and in biographical information in other articles... —Nizolan (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I am very much against using titles (except in the very rare case of being needed to distinguish between otherwise identically named candidates at successive elections). In general I always prefer using the common name as of the time of the election; if not the name by which they are known to history (e.g. "Margaret Roberts"), the better known common name could potentially be included in brackets or as a footnote ("Margaret Thatcher"). There are definitely cases where the candidate's common name is not known or is unclear and in those cases we should use the full name until and unless a common name can be determined. Warofdreams talk 03:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment (summoned by bot): Use common names, per WP:COMMONNAME, without titles. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment : Adopting a "using common names policy" is really problematical because for the overwhelming majority of candidates, we simply don't know what the common name is and guessing would be a really bad practice. Graemp (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


Across the debate above and the one last year on the same topic, we seem to have a majority in favour of using common names - at least for linked candidates - and against using titles. However, this is not 100%, so how about the following compromise based on a couple of the ideas contributed above:

For linked candidates - we use their commonly used name at the time of the election (i.e. the title we would give to their article if we were producing it at the time of the election (per WP:COMMONNAME - minus any disambiguations)

For un-linked candidates - we use any form of the name that is given in a RS. For current/recent elections this will normally be the ballot paper name or the name used by the candidate in their publicity. For historic elections there are various sources for this information. Formats could include Full Name, Forename Surname, Initials Surname, Forename Middle-initial Surname.

In all cases titles should not be used per WP:HONORIFIC. This includes Mrs/Miss/Ms, Dr/Prof/Rev, Sir/Rt Hon and others

Pinging everyone who has contributed to the discussion this time round for views on this - @Macs15, AusLondonder, Graemp, Timrollpickering, Number 57, Nizolan, Warofdreams, and Cordless Larry: Frinton100 (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"Sir" is a different thing from honorifics - it becomes part of the name in a way that "Rev" etc doesn't. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:HONORIFIC, The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article. — 15zulu (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I like the compromise above, other than agreeing that "Sir" should be removed as an example; the information at WP:HONORIFIC already provides useful detail on its use and it would be easier for people to refer there. Warofdreams talk 21:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
15zulu, you've confused me now. Are you suggesting we should use "Sir" in election boxes or not - btw we are discussing election boxes not infoboxes - like these. Frinton100 (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, my comment wasn't very clear. My response was partially in regards to Timrollpickering comment. (When my comment was moved behind a new comment & I moved it back to where it was originally, but accidentally lost a colon.) WP:HONORIFIC does give special status to certain titles like Sir/Dame/Lady/Lord, so Timrollpickering isn't wrong that it's different from other honorifics. However WP:HONORIFIC, doesn't give clear rules on whether Sir/Dame/Lady/Lord should or shouldn't be used in other places, instead saying leave it be or get consensus. Main point, WP:HONORIFIC does not tell us not to use "Sir" in election boxes – that's a decision we have to get through consensus, not from that MOS page. 15zulu (talk)
Frinton100's proposal sounds good to me, with the exception for sir/lord/etc as discussed. I imagine that ladies and lords are generally not contesting commons elections anyway? —Nizolan (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Frinton100's new proposal still proposes common names for linked candidates. However, I would guess that in the majority of cases, particularly with regard to historical elections, we actually don't know the common name of the individual concerned. Frinton100 seems to understand this problem when talking about un-linked candidates by proposing a more flexible approach.
There is the question of consistency of presentation. Should we seek it or not? If we have an election box with a linked candidate shown as common name and two unlinked candidates shown as full names won't that look a little odd? I have felt that we need to be consistent but I would be prepared to sacrifice that purely style concern in order to retain the necessity of presenting fullest name available for non-linked candidates where further research can still have an impact.
If however, we wish to present a consistency of style in our election boxes, perhaps there is another compromise we should consider. We could have a different approach depending on whether the election is modern or historic. With historic elections, many sources we rely on only used initials which is why editor research has been so important. My guess is that this is not really a problem with modern elections where we not only know the full name but probably the common name as well. My work has been mainly on elections up until 1970 so I an guessing about more modern sources. So if we want to see consistency of style in any given election box we could consider displaying candidates full names up to 1974 an then common names from 1974 onwards.
As for titles, I am relaxed about this issue in every respect except for the use of Miss or Mrs for un-linked candidates, because retaining this information can also be key to subsequent research and possible linking. I accept that this consideration may be less relevant with modern elections, so the use of this prefix could be ignored from 1974. Graemp (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Improving citations for parliamentary elections

Hundreds of pages on UK elections are referenced simply to a title, with or without "Craig", e.g.:

Though these should all ideally be replaced with complete bibliographic references, such a massive task is unlikely ever to be accomplished manually. Since I have no experience in constructing bots, I have written Template: Craig, which can be quickly pasted after such references. It simply says

(See F. W. S. Craig#Bibliography)

I am not offering to do this, but this seems the right place to mention the issue and offer a possible solution. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

UK General Election Infobox Discussion (From United Kingdom general election, 2015)

Hello all, There's been an almost constant discussion on the appropriate infobox for the United Kingdom general election, 2015 since the results came in, with the Lib Dems reduced to 8 MPs, the SNP becoming the 3rd party, the large votes of UKIP and Greens, etc. There's a broad agreement that we're not particularly content with the current infobox options available to us to adequately display this, but that there's value in consistency with other UK election infoboxes. We like the use of leader pictures which UK election infoboxes currently encourage, but several people are broadly unhappy with the apparently arbitrary distinctions which are made between whether a party 'counts' as important enough for an infobox. While other 'multi-party' elections from the eg 1920s have gone for extending that infobox, there are concerns with the use of this: for example, in an election for seats, how can we justify including UKIP (3.8 million votes, 1 seat) at the expense of the SDLP (under 100,000 votes, 3 seats)? Yet if we have the SDLP and not UKIP, we're probably misrepresenting the election. The point here is that we've found the existing infobox to have significant limitations.

Recent discussion has lead to the production of a table, which I and a group of others feel has the possibility of offering a new infobox for, at the very least, all UK General Elections. It's an effort to compromise between 'table' based infoboxes that list all parties which won seats, and the 'leader' based infoboxes that prioritise the leading parties. The advantage I think is that it nicely focuses on both the parliamentary element and the prime ministerial element of a general election:

2010←
→2020
or before
Election of the 56th Parliament of the United Kingdom
7 May 2015
Turnout:
66.1% 1.0%
Party
Leader 		Votes
Seats 		Swing
Seat change
 
Conservative
David Cameron
for Witney 		11,334,576 36.9% Increase0.8%
331 / 650
 Increase24
 
Labour
Ed Miliband
for Doncaster North 		9,347,304 30.4% Increase1.5%
232 / 650
 Decrease26
 
SNP
Nicola Sturgeon
Did not stand 		1,454,436 4.7% Increase3.1%
56 / 650
 Increase50
 
Liberal Democrats
Nick Clegg
for Sheffield Hallam 		2,415,862 7.9% Decrease15.2%
8 / 650
 Decrease49
 
DUP
Peter Robinson
Did not stand 		184,260 1.2% Increase0.0%
8 / 650
 Steady
 
Sinn Féin
Gerry Adams
Did not stand 		176,232 0.6% Increase0.0%
4 / 650
 Decrease1
 
Plaid Cymru
Leanne Wood
Did not stand 		181,694 0.6% Increase0.0%
3 / 650
 Steady
 
SDLP
Alasdair McDonnell
for Belfast South 		99,809 0.3% Decrease0.0%
3 / 650
 Steady
 
UUP
Mike Nesbitt
Did not stand 		114,935 0.4%
2 / 650
 Increase2
 
UKIP
Nigel Farage
Standing in South Thanet 		3,881,009 12.6% Increase9.5%
1 / 650
 Steady
 
File:Natalie Bennett portrait (cropped).jpg
 Green
Natalie Bennett
Standing in Holborn and
St Pancras 		1,157,613 3.8% Increase2.8%
1 / 650
 Steady
    Independents
and other parties 		251,805 0.8%
1 / 650
 Decrease1
Before
Prime Minister
of the United Kingdom 		After
David
Cameron 		David
Cameron
Con-LibDem
coalition 		Conservative
majority

I'd be interested in some comments on this from the wider Wikiproject, with a view to initially rolling it out for General Elections (I'm not a historian, but my understanding is that the current infobox may remain more appropriate for pre-sufferage elections), and then looking at other forms of local and regional election in the UK after that.Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The latest round of discussion for United Kingdom general election, 2015 is at Talk:United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015#A_proposed_statement_of_Consensus.2C_and_a_suggestion and we would welcome further input there, as always. We may move to a formal RfC.
I find it useful to distinguish between a content argument and a formatting argument. The central content argument is over which parties to include in the infobox. The current infobox at United Kingdom general election, 2015 and Next United Kingdom general election include every party that won seats. Prior UK general election article infoboxes, e.g. United Kingdom general election, 2010, just include the bigger parties. There is then a formatting issue. If you use the older format at United Kingdom general election, 2010, the template only allows you to include 9 parties and arguably it looks pretty ugly with more than 6. However, 11 parties won seats in 2015 and it gets pretty contentious which are the top 9 of those (if you go by seats won, you'd exclude UKIP, who got the 3rd most votes, and the Greens, who got the 6th most votes). So, if you make the content decision to include every party who won seats, you have to change the formatting. We did this, using the model at Dutch general election, 2012. Whether that was the right choice for United Kingdom general election, 2015 is currently back under discussion.
If you reject the content decision and want to stick with a smaller number of parties (leaving aside arguments over which), then the old style formatting works fine and I don't think there's much interest in change. So, Super Nintendo Chalmers has raised, in effect, two points. Is the content decision to include all parties winning seats right and, if so, then what's the best format? The new format suggested above mixes elements of the old style format and the Dutch-style infobox. It was largely based on an infobox format used on some other language Wikipedias, e.g. here. I think it's an interesting approach and hope more people take a look at it and comment.
Personally, I favour including all parties who win seats (for reasons explained at length at Talk:United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015 and elsewhere) and then the Dutch-style infobox. I welcome all the work put into the infobox shown above, but ultimately I prefer the more compact Dutch-style. I dislike infobox bloat: infoboxes are meant to be small. However, it is the content argument that concerns me much more than the formatting one. If we include all parties, I'm not too bothered by the formatting. Bondegezou (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that the driver behind changing the format of the infobox is the result of one particular election ie. UK 2015. I don't think that one particular election result should be the reason why the infoboxes should be changed for all other UK parliament elections. I think it helps to have consistency of style for all UK elections not just those to the UK parliament. I also think that it helps to have a consistency of style across countries. This new proposal runs contrary to both those areas. Regarding previous UK parliament elections, I was aware of some differing views among editors about how many and which parties/leaders should be included in the infobox. None of these discussions provoked a total re-design of the infobox and were resolved. I think the discussion going on over at the UK 2015 talkpage needs to resolve this question based upon how this information has been presented in other UK parliament elections rather than seeking to overhaul the whole presentation style of UK election articles. Graemp (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
But the options available to us from the previous parliamentary elections are not adequate for the 2015 election. One response to this discussion could be 'the 2015 page can have a different infobox to previous elections'. That's fine. But if that isn't acceptable and the editors at 2015 won't use the pre-existing boxes, how do you expect us to proceed? I agree with the claim that the limitations of the infobox at 2015 have revealed wider limitations of the infobox for all elections. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
It is not a question of adequacy of the infobox, it is a question of editors being willing to accept/agree a criteria of how many and which parties/leaders should be included in it. Graemp (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Important article infinished

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015_by_parliamentary_constituency

James Tamim (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Naming convention for UK local authorities (districts/boroughs)

Hello members of the project, I was wondering if a naming convention has ever been established for districts and boroughs in order to create articles on their individual councils. I've seen that most districts tend to be named just by the district name, but the districts and boroughs of Essex seem to be a confusing mish-mash. There are three districts which are unambiguously named without reference to any major settlements within their borders – Castle Point, Tendring and Uttlesford. But most of the other districts keep the word "district" in their titles in order to disambiguate them from the major town that gives the district its name – Braintree District, Maldon District, etc. In the case of Epping Forest the article title used to follow this naming convention, but was then renamed Epping Forest (district) which differentiates it from the forest and the constituency. Most of the boroughs are "Borough of xxxx"... and then we have Harlow and Southend-on-Sea which use the same article for both the town and the local authority. Any advice on sorting out this jumble? Richard3120 (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest the following:
1 - If the short form is unambiguous, use that (eg "Trumpton"). This would also apply where the same article is covering both the district/borough and the town itself.
2 - If it is a borough and the official long form that is unambiguous, use that (eg "Borough of Trumpton").
3 - Otherwise, use "Trumpton (district)".
This may just be my perception, but "districts" don't seem to have the same level of popular recognition as a place identity as "boroughs" do, possibly due to the much longer history of "borough" as a term for local government units. Rhialto (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by your question, because you start off by talking about local authorities and creating articles on councils, but then the rest is about the districts. Which do you mean? If it's councils, we already have a convention to use their proper names (e.g. Ipswich Borough Council) – see Category:Non-metropolitan district councils of England. Cheers, Number 57 16:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Number 57: sorry, I meant the names of the districts which those councils represent, not the councils themselves, which I'm guessing are rarely notable enough to have a separate article for them. Richard3120 (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

So Rhialto, if I understand you correctly, in this case Epping Forest (district) is the preferred title, and it is actually Braintree District that should be retitled Braintree (district), and the same for similar cases? Richard3120 (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

That is the intent behind my post, yes. Bear in mind it is just one opinion, and not official policy at this stage. Rhialto (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Historically, articles were actually at titles such as Maldon (district), Braintree (district), Kettering (borough), etc., but User:SilkTork moved them in 2012 [1]. You should probably discuss it with SilkTork to find out why they were moved. --RFBailey (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't really have an opinion on this per se, but I have closed hundreds of WP:RMs over the past year or two, and I would say you'd be better off going for Epping Forest District, as naming policy prefers "natural disambiguation" – i.e. a phrase rather than a disambiguator in brackets. See WP:NATURALDIS. In fact, further to that you might even be better off going for Epping Forest district as "Epping Forest District" is not a formal place name (the name, as far as I am aware, is simply Epping Forest), so the "District" part is not a proper noun. Cheers, Number 57 21:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for your input - I don't have a particular preference myself, I just want to get some consistency... at the moment the seven districts of Essex use three different naming conventions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I do recall making those moves. There were several discussions regarding that and they would be in the archives of various talkpages. The moves were made along the lines that Number 57 mentions, that we prefer to use a natural disambiguation than brackets, also that something like Maldon District is in more common usage (such as here) than Maldon (district). Per WP:NCCS, we prefer such administrative names to be standard, so once we establish that Foo District is the preferred form then we use that over Foo (district), so any district articles using brackets should be moved, either to Foo District or Foo district, whichever is more appropriate (if I recall, my searches at the time threw up Foo District as the standard form, though the results tended to come from local authority websites which tend to use Camel Case more often than Wikipedia does). In the few cases where the district name is unique and notable and common usage is not to use Foo District or Foo district, just Foo, then we would follow that and name the article Foo. In the case of Epping Forest District, that was moved in March this year by User:Crookesmoor, and it might be useful to bring him into this discussion to find out why he made that move, and if he has done others in the same way. Usage of Epping Forest District is found on the local authority website [2], while usage of Epping Forest district is found in the local newspaper [3]. Rather than have some articles named Foo District while others are called Foo district, it would be worth getting some consensus on which way to go, and sticking with it. As we are talking about a formal name for an area which typically appears in camel case (Foo District), then I would vote for that as the simplest option, but Foo district is also acceptable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like the 'standard' currently in use is "<placename> District". I haven't seen any uses (on WP) of "<placename> district". The parenthetical disambiguation format is much less used in the UK than USD. CalzGuy (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on a RfC at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#RfC on infobox image

Please share your input in an RfC relating to what image should be used in the infobox at the Wikipedia page for the Leader of the British Labour Party AusLondonder (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Executive Office

I am starting a RfC to gather consensus on how the newly-renamed Executive Office (Northern Ireland) should be referred to. The department was recently renamed from the Office of First Minister and deputy First Minister to the Executive Office, but this name is rather generic for use on Wikipedia. Should the department be referred to in the lead of articles as simply the Executive Office or the Executive Office of Northern Ireland. I'm asking because editors may take issue with a name other than the official name being used to introduce the department. st170etalk 17:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of brevity I'd say the former, but if some context is necessary then a full name might be more adequate. It is likely this needs case-by-case analysis. We also need to consider readers might be prone to confuse this with Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels and the Northern Ireland Executive. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Editor collaboration request

I am currently in the process of previously trying to write an article on the 1973 enlargement of the European Communities, I am struggling and would like to get some outside editors input. Please edit away if you are happy to collaborate. Sport and politics (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment: Order of the list of candidates in the infobox

What should the order of the list of candidates in the infobox be? See Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Order of the list of candidates in the infobox Sparkie82 (t•c) 11:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 01:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Murder of Jo Cox

There is sufficient independent notability for the first fatal attack on a British MP for a quarter of a century for a separate article. Coverage relating to the suspect and the motivation are not best covered in the biography of the victim. Please assist at Draft:Murder of Jo Cox AusLondonder (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Constituency rename

The following move request has been made

Please add your comments to the move discussion at talk:Batley and Spen (UK Parliament constituency) Keith D (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

UK EU Referendum

United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 needs looking at. It isn't a bad article, but for such a high-profile topic it really should be clearer and easier to read. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Edits relating to the British National Party

User:Timjones86 has made a number of recent edits to UK election articles, mostly relating to the BNP. Some of these seem pointless to me. Some are changing election results with no citation given: I have reverted these, but if someone has time, it would be worth checking what the right figures are. If there are mistakes, they should of course be fixed. It would be helpful if other editors could review, or if Timjones86 could explain his/her rationale for these changes. Bondegezou (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

all of my changes are all right and are all the facts. Timjones86 (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you give citations then showing this? Bondegezou (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
And why did you twice edit the next UK general election article to say that the Greens had 0 MPs? Bondegezou (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I realise people are a tad busy with other events right now, but some additional input would be helpful, e.g. see [4] where I reverted an addition by User:Timjones86. Has Timjones86 made an honest mistake, or is that vandalism? Bondegezou (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

its not to be vandalism all I am trying to do is give the truth in the election results all the input comes from the wiki page British National Party election results and I am righting the wrong on the local elections so can you put it right then Bondegezou. Timjones86 (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You twice made an edit claiming that the Greens have no MPs, when they do have one. You made an edit to United Kingdom local elections, 2010 where you replaced national numbers supported by a BBC article with a different set of numbers, giving a cite that made no mention of national numbers. These do not appear to me to be constructive edits. Bondegezou (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

UK Independence Party page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for assistance: Theresa May

Any editors who happen to have spare time and an interest in British politics are asked to help develop the new premiership of Theresa May and May ministry articles. Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated. RGloucester — ☎ 18:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

British liberal history edit-a-thon

Hello! Wikimedia UK is hosting an edit-a-thon with the National Liberal Club on 24 August, on the history of Liberalism in the United Kingdom. The Club has a large archive of materials on Liberal history, which they have agreed to open up to Wikipedia editors for the day, to help improve relevant articles. Anyone interested in political history is welcome to attend. To find out more and register, please visit the event page. We hope you'll join us! --Rock drum (talk · contribs) 17:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

1841 vote of no confidence against the government of Sir Robert Peel

The article 1841 vote of no confidence against the government of Sir Robert Peel makes little sense to me (see my note on its talk page). Could an expert from this project take a look please? Derek Andrews (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2016

Can some editors please take a look over Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2016 and try to tidy it up? This article is getting in a bit of a mess with reverts and the talkpage filling up with giant paragraphs. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Assessment request

Would appreciate an assessment on this article. If there is an assessment request page for this project, could someone point me in its direction? Thanks! Christine Evangelou and others v Iain McNicol (Labour Party) - Shayday~enwiki (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Traingate

Please join a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traingate about the recent incident involving Jeremy Corbyn. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:British independence

There's currently a discussion open at Talk:British independence that may be of interest to members. Please feel free to add your thoughts. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Brexit positions of Tory MPs

‎Zigzig20s has added the Brexit position of a considerable number (all of them?) of Tory MPs to their BLP, using the reference: [1] This simply lists MPs on each side and doesn't single any of them out - with over a hundred on each side, I don't think this should be inserted into all the MPs BLPs unless their views are specifically discussed in a reliable secondary source. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it should because this was an important event and it is scheduled to be the main political issue in the UK for the next couple of years. So IMO it makes perfect sense to include it in each MP's article. It's only one short sentence, but not trivial at all.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we should only mention their Brexit position if they've expressed particularly strong views on the subject, for example Anna Soubry is a prominent Brexit opponent, while Andrea Leadsom in arguing for Britain to leave the EU. This is Paul (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. It's certainly not undue if it's just one sentence about an extremely important issue. I would understand if it was longer than a short sentence, but in this case, I believe this is useful and appropriate information, referenced with a reliable source. Since there was no official party policy, this seems essential.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with This is Paul, we could make the same argument for inserting their views/votes on various topics from lists or primary sources - the only way to decide what should go in is if a reliable secondary source has mentioned their views/votes Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The Spectator is a reliable third-party source. And yes, we should add more info about other votes to expand their articles. (Having looked at most articles about current MPs yesterday, most of them need a lot of work.) And this vote is certainly not trivial.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Goodenough, Tom (16 February 2016). "Which Tory MPs back Brexit, who doesn't and who is still on the fence?". The Spectator. Retrieved 11 October 2016.

House of Lords COI views sought

Please could I draw project members' attention to my Help Desk post seeking views on possible editing of articles on behalf of the House of Lords. Any contributions welcome. Ejgm (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move of "Jim McAllister (Irish republican)"

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Jim McAllister (Irish republican)#Requested move 12 October 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks,  Paine  u/c 18:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 6 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

virtue signalling

I popped here for a discussion on virtue signalling, but there doesn't appear to be one yet. I was surprised to discover though, right at the top of the talk page I arrived at, an example of the very subject; virtue signalling by Wikipedia editors on LGBT pride, a subject fraught with controversy and dissent, and one of the main virtue-signalling offences as far as I'm concerned. Homosexual;ity is normal and universal across mammalian species, gay lesbian if people prefer to split genders. There is bound still to be ignorance as with racism, but it's a minority and realy not an issue in UK society or politics. But ngay has no connection to a biological impossibility and clear mental disorder, the imaginary idea that anyone can be in a 'wrongly gendered' body. It's a version of body dysmorphia and known to psychiatrists and psychologists, and to call it anything else, and to encourage those who claim it, is abuse of vulnerable mental patients. Throughout history transvestites have existed so we could consider that normal also, and it really is down to freedom of choice. In some cultures transvestites have specific roles. The idea of transgender appeared, it would seem, correct me if I'm wrong, in California University gender studies departments, already awash with activism and with an agenda. It spread across the US and then, as they all do, leaked out to the rest of the Western world, via the UK, and has seen been spread with a combination of revivalist fervour and fascistic bullying that virtue signalling is a part of ever sincve. The Twitter mob mentality seems to have infected a whole generation, or perhaps two. Older, wiser, saner people don't accept trans for one minute, except for the political toadies all desperate to be politically correct and not to stray from the liberal-left dogma and their chatterati sidekicks in the media terrified of social media storms attacking them [specifically the BBC]. I observe as an anthropologist with no binary bias; left or right. Intolerance over this and other issues is climbing steadily. Politics is in chaos, and the Labour Party is degenerating into a virtue signalling gang of irrelevants, their attraction to the electorate waning the more they posture and refuse to listen. Discuss! PetePassword (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to discuss. This is a personal rant, unrelated to the improvement of any encyclopedia article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

North East Scotland

I have added the new Conservative MSP to the table of additional members on North East Scotland (Scottish Parliament electoral region)#Regional List MSPs, but it still needs work. The column with Johnstone and Bowman isn't right, and I can't work out what to do with it. Other members are welcome to play around with it in my sandbox User:Frinton100/sandbox if that would help. Frinton100 (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Margaret Thatcher

Please see the discussion at Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Public image of Margaret Thatcher. Comments are much welcome.--Nevé–selbert 15:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_6&oldid=1190520262"