Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 7

Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom was nominated for deletion recently, the result being no consensus. I will declare that in that debate I supported deletion, or at best a merge, probably as a fairly brief mention in the Brexit article.

With the lack of consensus and thus continued existence of the article, I decided to tackle some of the more spurious inclusions of material therein. One regards a table of petitions, half of which are listed as having no signatures, which to my mind makes them neither a petition nor notable. Another regards a section on individuals purported to be neutral on the matter but who in fact have not demonstrably voiced an opinion either way.

I queried the puzzling petition material on the talk page and after around two weeks without response removed it today. The WP:SPA overwhelmingly responsible for the article's material, @Mdmadden:, has re-inserted it, still without a talk page response.

Per WP:BRD, I reverted the bold inclusion of the supposed neutral individuals, pending discussion. The SPA immediately restored the contended material without seeking consensus, responding essentially that they were not willing to engage in BRD on the basis of being right on the matter. I then queried: "If this category is intended merely to list those that have expressed no view on the matter, what is the qualification for inclusion or notability as the list is potentially all but infinite? This would be a pointless category, just padding out the article, to no illuminating end." Several days later and with no response to this, I removed the material again. It has again been restored.

I have concerns about the synthesis of disparate flimsy elements to construct this article generally but the two elements mentioned above seem entirely spurious and unjustified in their inclusion. Some additional scrutiny of the article and of its author's behaviour would be welcome. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

To quote: "after around two weeks without response removed it today. The WP:SPA overwhelmingly responsible for the article's material, Mdmadden has re-inserted it, still without a talk page response." Good faith, I'm sure, but any user can view the talk page to see that this statement is not the reality. Technically there have been 6 separate responses to Mutt Lunker's concerns on the talk page. 2 today, 4 previously, all in fact before the above posting, which I still respect none-the-less.

With regards Paul Scully's and Richard Ayoade's suggested neutrality on the topic. This is to accommodate two high profile figures, who have explicitly weighed into the topic, one on mainstream television, the other in his duties as a public servant. To quote Mutt Lunker, from above: "Another regards a section on individuals purported to be neutral on the matter but who in fact have not demonstrably voiced an opinion either way." This is literally a synonymous meaning of the word "neutral", I basically rest my case in this regard. Nobody has to say the word "neutral" to be reasonably considered or perceived credibly neutral, once explicitly addressing a topic. I can find no source material for this unique qualifying definition, nor has any been provided, and on top of this, said user has been invited twice on the talk page (again, both invitations before the above posting) to contribute a better description title than "neutral".

The other general concerns listed above have been exhaustively debated on the AfD talk page, and is of course available for all users to read. Around 10 users declared the notability and validity of the article, with over a month of discussion. I say this so as to not unnecessarily rehash an old and settled discussion. I also, of course, encourage the expansion and development of prose in the article and welcome any users wishing to do so. The list of people I'm sure will expanded into large paragraphs of prose over time. Mdmadden (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

No response was made in the two weeks between my query regarding the "petitions" and my removal of the contended material. No response was made to my question "If this category is intended... all but infinite?" between my posing it on the 9th and my removal of it today. The other posts on the talk page were made earlier and after rapid restoration of bold material without prior discussion (or, obviously, consensus). Today's responses by MDmadden were again immediately after their reinsertion of the material, again disregarding BRD, and after my reiteration that these questions were unanswered. That these eventual responses at the article were ahead of my post above can be explained by me being occupied in writing the thing, rather than checking for explanations that so far hadn't been given in weeks or in days respectively. Aside from BRD, the responses still don't satisfactorily address the spurious nature of the material. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Mutt Lunker that there are numerous problems with the article. Every trivial mention of the words "independence day" has been shoehorned in. If the article has merit, it needs reliable, secondary sources discussing the establishment of an annual holiday. Bondegezou (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone! More eyes would definitely be useful at Talk:Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom. Bondegezou (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

To add to a litany of WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour, refusal to engage with WP:BRD and the removal of a maintenance template, the SPA creator of the article has just enacted the most blatant example of WP:Canvassing I could imagine by pinging all of the users who favoured "keep" in the article's recent no-consensus AfD (and, for the record, none of those users favouring merge or deletion). I have not posted to WP:ANI as yet but if they carry on like this I can see it coming. More eyes scrutinising would definitely be appreciated. Mutt Lunker (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Also Mdmadden's behaviour shows some quite disrespectful, mostly recently aimed at Mutt Lunker, for example:

As stated in reply to your other tantrum on my user talk page: Mutt Lunker what total nonsense, do get a sense of reality. I clearly defined that those individuals backed keeping the article from the AfD discussion, as my point explicitly related to the rerunning of that debate, mainly instigated by your laborious censorship built on a discredited platform of personal opinion. Specifically relevant as 3 of 4 users on the Talk page had debated on the AfD discussion, 2 of those 3 were adamant in deleting it. It is therefore right and pertinent to bring in more varied opinion, as the discussion is seemingly a rerun of the AfD, except more myopic and less diverse presently. You're essentially saying, "please don't ask the opinion of people I disagreed with".

And now that I have, uh oh, p-p-punishment. Very measured. Mdmadden (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Mdmadden's comments have this tone throught. A favourite thing is to accuse people they disagree with of talking "stawman nonsense". I don't think this is a constructive way to hold a debate. Full disclosure: I voted to delete the article in the AfD. That's still my personal preference. Shritwod (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was ignorant to rules such as 'canvassing', and many others incidentally, being a user in my first 100+ edits. This has been balanced out by pinging the rest of the users who discussed the AfD, as I understand. Regarding tone, being labeled "shameless" in the previous comment by an experienced user has it's own connotations. Nonetheless, I cheerfully withdraw the above statement. Mdmadden (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

With your earlier repeated refusal to engage with guidelines, despite being directed towards them, and your consistent combative tone, classification of others' rationales for edits as nonsense, questioning of motives and ad hominem sniping, the designation of your disregard of yet a further guideline as "shameless" would not seem disproportionate.

Only since you yourself have raised your low edit count and lack of experience in justification of yourself, I will note that it has already, and some time ago, been commented upon in regard to your edits at your now-deleted British independence article, and at a stage when your edit count was in the tens (now largely deleted from your history as a consequence of that article's deletion) that the article "is surprisingly well written and wiki-formatted for a new user, especially the 99 references in the first draft. Perhaps the user can tutor other new users on how to edit WP so expertly with no wiki-experience." (ping @BilCat: regarding my quoting of this observation). Aside from your lack of engagement with guidelines and sometimes moderately ragged editing and formatting, your editing does seem to show a surprisingly comparatively high level of competence from the very start. It may well be that you sprang fully-formed from the loins of Zeus but it would seem more reasonable to consider that you at least edited for some time as an IP before creating your account, in which case your combined edit count is likely to be somewhat higher than your stated figure above. IP-editing is perfectly legitimate and it is a perfectly normal progression to start so before deciding to create a user account but, that said, please be candid about your full level of experience if you are seeking to excuse yourself on the basis of it. For the sake of completeness on the matter and as this may be another policy you are unfamiliar with, if your gaining of experience was under another user account, there are legitimate uses for alternative account use or a change to a new account but, if this is pertinent to you, and, per you post above regarding your beginner-level edit count, you should be candid about this. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion now moved to the more appropriate Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies/Style#MP_lists_in_constituency_articles_-_format_change PamD 09:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Adam37: In Barking (UK Parliament constituency) the list of MPs has been reformatted with the edit summary "Table much improved in presentation". It lists the MPs parliament by parliament, numbering the parliaments (American style?), rather than just listing MPs by name. Is this an improvement? As MP lists are standardised across all UK constituencies, it seems there should be wide discussion before any such change is introduced, and this is perhaps the best venue. Not sure whether we need a formal RfC at this stage. PamD 09:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC) ::@Graemp: mis-pinged you last time. PamD 09:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I note that the same editor has reformatted about eight other lists already. PamD 09:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

An editor is arguing that the SWP-backed, RESPECT splinter, Left Alternative should not be described as socialist or far left. This seems odd to me. Additional viewpoints and input would be valuable. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing odd about that sort of debate but it is incomprehensible. Timrollpickering 11:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Incomprehensible in what way? Whichever way, a third (or fourth, fifth...) opinion would be helpful. Bondegezou (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I added the assessment template for this Wikiproject to Book_talk:Brexit,_Article_50,_and_other_articles because I think it's in the project's scope, I hope you're okay with that. Let me know if I should have done it differently. --Kakurady (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The article List of Labour Party (UK) MPs needs a lot of work adding new Labour MPs since 2010 and updating MPs who have left Parliament since 2010. It is very out of date. Any help would be most appreciated. AusLondonder (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bootle by-elections, 1990 page has been split up. I can't see any discussion about it (here or on the by-election talk pages), and personally I think they were better off on one page given the similarities between the candidates. I'd be in favour of merging the articles again. Any other thoughts on this? Frinton100 (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd support you on that. Makes far more sense to have them merged. doktorb _words^deeds 00:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinions on this other than whatever we do regarding instances of two or more by-elections in the same constituency in the same year, we should try and be be consistent. Bootle 1990 is not the only example of two or more by-elections in the same year. Bootle is the only example I know of where the by-elections were combined into one article. If Bootle is out of step, that should be corrected. Graemp (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It saves space having them merged, though. doktorb _words^deeds 09:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see the RfC at Talk:Tony Blair#RfC on inclusion of Iraq in the first paragraph. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, I'm Exemplo347. I have just initiated This Article for Deletion Discussion regarding the article "Republic Party (UK)" and I thought I'd inform this Wikiproject. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello all. I have requested comment over whether a hatnote to Community Charge should or should not be necessary at the Poll tax article. Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 22:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pinging various users I am aware of who have contributed to this discussion in the past - apologies if I miss/annoy anyone: @Macs15, AusLondonder, Graemp, Timrollpickering, Number 57, Nizolan, Warofdreams, Cordless Larry, 15zulu, Doktorbuk, IanB2, and 80.5.88.70:

This issue has come up again recently, specifically at Liverpool Exchange (UK Parliament constituency) and Leigh (UK Parliament constituency). There was a long discussion last year, here - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 6#Names and titles of candidates in election boxes in which the majority of users expressed a view that we should use commonly used names for candidates in election boxes. There was also a view that middle names help research of new biographical articles. I suggested the following (slightly tweaked from original version following discussion over "Sir"):

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, Rt Hon and others

My impression was this achieved broad approval, but other users think not. We need to get this cleared up as we can't keep edit warring. I don't see there's much point re-opening the debate again, but did other users consider the above to be the consensus that was achieved from last year's discussion, and is it acceptable to those who did not contribute last year? Frinton100 (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely agree that for any candidates with their own linked articles, the normal name (generally fore- and sur- only) should be used. There is no value in adding additional middle names or initials into references to that person as cruft, since anyone wanting to research an individual can link straight through to the dedicated page. For candidates without a linked page there is an argument for more names, sufficient to identify the person, but after one or possibly two middle names there is nothing to be gained by adding subsequent names that just make a page look ridiculous whilst adding no value. Thanks for the ping - as you say, this is an issue I have challenged before. Following the links I also see the IP user mentioned above has also made a valid point (deleted for some reason from Graemp's talk page) about information needing to be referenced. On the face of it he or she raises a fair point? IanB2 (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I think if you are adding middle names to an unlinked candidate you have to have them all - otherwise which one do you choose? Referencing of middle names should generally be available on the person's own article, I don't see a need to add the ref to the election box. If however there are no RS on the candidate page, that's a problem. I don't though think this applies to any of the ones I've come across. Frinton100 (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the best way forward is to accept middle names for notable candidates, commonly used names where appropriate (Paddy Ashdown, etc) and just first and last names for non-notable. I know Graemp thinks otherwise but it's really pointless filling election boxes with middle names nobody uses doktorb _words^deeds 06:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It is clear from this discussion that there is no consensus for what Frinton100 outlines above. Frinton100 wants only one forename for linked candidates while doktorb wants to accept their middle names. Frinton100 wants to include middle names for non-notable candidates, while doktorb wants just one forename for these. Either practice is unnecessarily complicated for other editors to follow and results in an inconsistency with how candidates names are presented. That is why I favour the consistent approach of including all available forenames/initials regardless of whether a candidate is linked. This approach has the added benefit of highlighting where information is lacking while encouraging other editors who know it to include it.

Whilst we are talking about this subject, another dispute that has sprung up has been Frinton100s edits that remove red links from candidates in election boxes. (see discussion at Talk:Liverpool Exchange (UK Parliament constituency)) Another example of this was in Manchester Withington where he removed the link for Alfred Deakin Carter who was MP for the constituency. I think red links should be retained where the individual concerned meets notability criteria under WP:BIO. Graemp (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I would hope that we should be able to get consensus on the following:

• Proposition 1: Where a candidate is notable and has an article about them, the format of their name in election result tables should be as per WP:COMMONNAME (i.e. usually forename and surname only) with the first occurrence on the page linked to the dedicated article in the normal way
• Proposition 2: Where a candidate is not notable, their name should not be red-linked, and any information added about their initials or full name should be referenced as per a WP:VERIFIABILITY IanB2 (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with Proposition 1. Firstly, WP:COMMONNAME specifically relates to a title of an article, so should not be used as guidance here. Secondly, while a reader can always click on a link, we should not make them do so if they are not sure what candidate is being referred to; for instance 'Winston Churchill' may refer to Winston Spencer Churchill or Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill. Proposition 2 does not help us as nobody is arguing that we should red link non-notable candidates. Also, nobody is arguing that data should not be referenced. Graemp (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for the ping. My view supports the existing consensus which is that we should always use common names for candidates. That is the existing consensus, it cannot be changed by aggressive edit-warring. So, for Keir Starmer, the election box should say Keir Starmer and not Sir Keir Starmer. For Boris Johnson, we should use Boris Johnson, not Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. For Liz Kendall, we should use Liz Kendall, not Miss Elizabeth Kendall. That is a common-sense and consistent approach. I strongly oppose the use of Miss or Mrs in election boxes. It is archaic, borderline sexist, not used in any reliable sources, and totally unnecessary. It also possibly conflicts with WP:NPF and WP:BLPPRIVACY. Non-notable candidates should not be redlinked. AusLondonder (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no existing consensus that we should always use common names for candidates as both the previous discussion and this current one demonstrate. One of the reasons for this is because we often don't know what the common name of a candidate was and a number of editors don't think we should be making a guess. Graemp (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Another one in favour of using common names. I'm pretty sure there was a consensus for it last time around, it simply seems to be a case of Graemp (who opposed this) refusing to accept it. Number 57 09:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not the only editor in this discussion (or the last) who thinks that in some instances there is a case for including more than one forename. Frinton100 summarised the previous discussion as "For un-linked candidates - Formats could include Full Name" before going on to comment in this discussion that "if you are adding middle names to an unlinked candidate you have to have them all". IanB2 says in this discussion "For candidates without a linked page there is an argument for more names". doktorb says in this discussion "I think the best way forward is to accept middle names for notable candidates". Graemp (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

My proposition 2 appears accepted, and if Graemp will henceforth cite his sources there is no remaining issue. Rather than get tied up in knots can everyone support, comment or oppose my proposition 1 please. If we can get this agreed we can make some progress. IanB2 (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Proposition 1 - Support IanB2 (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Mostly Support though I feel we should continue with the practice of linking each occurrence of a candidate in election boxes. Frinton100 (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

darrenjolley I think there is a case for middle names, even for unlinked and otherwise unnoteworthy candidates. I take the case of Christopher (John) Howard, who stood in Cambridge in 1987. He obviously has quite a common name and who is to say that there will not be a politician or other notable person with the name of Christopher Howard in years to come.

That isn't a point particular to UK politics; the same crops up with any common-named person in any field of endeavour. WP already has a comprehensive disambiguation policy to cover such cases, which generally involves qualifying the person's field in brackets. For example Christopher Howard (English politician), (Labour politician), (Cambridge parliamentary candidate), or whatever. Politics should apply the same common standards that apply across WP. And if they are still living but non-notable, you need to demonstrate publication in multiple reputable sources before filling in someone's full name as per WP:BLPPRIVACY IanB2 (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Graemp, I think you are being rather disingenuous - I do not think that "there is a case for including more than one forename" (unless that is how someone is usually known), and I have always made this view known, but I am willing to accept this practice for unlinked candidates as a way of reaching a compromise. doktorb, could you explain what your rationale is for "accept middle names for notable candidates, commonly used names where appropriate" - how do you propose determning which candidates have their middle names added and which use common names? You give the example of Paddy Ashdown, presumably you would also use Tony Blair, Boris Johnson and Bessie Braddock. But what about Margaret Hilda Thatcher, and what about some "less notable" notables e.g. Bill Rammell or William Ernest Rammell? I'm not dismissing this suggestion, it's just different from what was broadly agreed last year, and different from other suggestions so I'm just a bit confused by it! Frinton100 (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

John F Kennedy is an obvious example of an exception, as he was commonly referred to as such. But in Britain such affectations are rare, and I would be surprised if there is more than a handful of notable politicians for whom first name-last name plus a link to their article won't do the job IanB2 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a minor note but when creating biog articles it is sometimes of use when finding out if they already appear somewhere to use the full names in the search, so John Smith is not much help but John Everest Smith may tie down an individual. This comment is only about those that dont already have an article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Frinton100, sorry, I was typing on my tablet rather than my laptop so I was trying to summarise and compromise at the same time. You know how working on tablets on Wikipedia is difficult! My view at the moment is touched a bit my exasperation. With Graemp not really standing down on much, and he and I talking a bit on my talkpage on this, I wanted to look at a compromise to try and move us away from having this discussion every so often. I do believe that putting middle names for each and every candidate is over-egging the pudding. We don't need a full and frank roll-call of names, we really don't. If there's a middle ground here, then middle names should be added to notable candidates and what-not. If this means we should have the middle names on the MPs summary at the top rather than in the results boxes, to avoid repetition, maybe? doktorb _words^deeds 10:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The logic behind the proposition is that, for notable candidates, the full name is already given (once) in the dedicated article in line with WP naming policy. There is no need for more than the normal name in the results pages that will link through to the dedicated page. It would be helpful to have support or objection on my proposition, and in the latter case ideally an alternative? IanB2 (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

IanB2, I think most people in the discussion have effectively supported what you propose, or they did last time round - it is essentially a less detailed version of my compromise position above. doktorb, thanks for the clarification, I understand a bit more what you were suggesting now! The problem is, we have already compromised to some extent - my proposal from last year brought in the concerns of users who feel that middle names aid in identifying unlinked candidates, while also trying to satisfy the majority view that we should only use commonly used names for linked candidates. The fact that a minority dig their heels in does not mean that we should keep compromising on the compromise - if we keep doing that we end up all just falling into line with the minority. Frinton100 (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Fine. But we need to get to a situation where somebody makes a proposition and a string of others support it. Otherwise nobody ain't goin' nowhere. IanB2 (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

To propose what I hope might achieve consensus:

1) Where a candidate's WP:COMMONNAME at the time of an election is known, that should be used in the election box.

2) In other cases, any form of the candidate's name which is found in a reliable source may be used. Editors should not presume that a candidate was known by their first name without evidence.

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

I'd happily support this or a slight variation on it. I think other suggestions such as policies on redlinking would be best discussed separately. Warofdreams talk 21:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Support 100% Frinton100 (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Support. To state the obvious, where a candidate has a linked article the common name should be evident and uncontroversial from that article. And we might better say "is referenced from a reliable source"? IanB2 (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Support New to this but this seems sensible. --JMPhillips92 (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Support with the caveat that if there are two sources available for names in situation (2) and one shows use of name plus surname, that is prefered to the source using the full name. Otherwise I can see this rule leading to endless edit warring when one editor points to a source using the common name and one using the full name. Number 57 11:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I would support your caveat. Editors should also note WP:BLPPRIVACY, which requires that for the full name of a living person (clearly encompassing many past candidates) to be edited into WP, the full name must have been "widely reported by reliable sources". A single source is insufficient unless the person is dead. IanB2 (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I support the caveat from Number too. Frinton100 (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me like there is a consensus for this, with the caveat stated by Number 57. Warofdreams talk 01:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on the requested move at Talk:UK miners' strike (1984–85)#Requested move 26 March 2017.--Nevé–selbert 13:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The work of this WikiProject in the next two years and much of the news relating to the UK in the next two years will be focused on Brexit - aka, the UK's withdrawal from the EU. Can I propose that this WikiProject creates a Brexit task force to deal with this? It will allow us to focus efforts in the editing process and to ensure relevant articles are maintained to a high standard. This process will affect all members of the EU, as well as the UK, so is it appropriate as a task force of this WikiProject, as opposed the European Union one? Does anyone have any thoughts on this idea or just see it all as a bit irrelevant? --Andrewdwilliams (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I came to this page to suggest just such a task force. Perhaps you could involve both projects? I'm sure I've seen joint task forces before. JASpencer (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on the requested move at Talk:First Cameron ministry#Requested move 5 April 2017. Thank-you.--Nevé–selbert 13:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, I've recently fallen into conflict over the topic of displaying House of Lords membership in the infoboxes of politicians, with some editors adamant that they should not be displayed there, and others such as myself feeling that it is absolutely vital that seats in both Houses of Parliament have equal place in infoboxes. After all, these are seats in the upper chamber of a legislative parliament and we wouldn't typically exert the same kind of editing predjudice upon Canadian or Australian senators etc. I wonder if I could guage general thoughts on the matter/a consensus here? --Oliver Cooke (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It should definitely be in there. Given that it's a prominent political office, I can't imagine why anyone would think it shouldn't be, so I'd be interested to hear the reasoning, if there is any. Number 57 17:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I can see no reason to exclude it. And I too would be interested to hear the reasoning of opponents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I also think it should appear on the member's pages. Maybe a compromise could be having it at the bottom of the infobox, like on the Alan Sugar article.--Crasstun (talk | contributions) 17:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the blank maps available on Commons to account for the boundary changes leading up to this year's local elections. I've also consolidated the available maps with valid boundaries into this page on Commons. I will keep that page current, so in future you can just go to a single resource. The main gap is Northern Ireland, and I intend to upload the Northern Irish maps over the next few weeks.

Please let me know any other maps that people would like. I imagine the mayoral elections for the new combined authorities are one?--Nilfanion (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Having those subdivided by voting area (I presume each borough council) would be helpful. Maswimelleu (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll split those ones down to councils first (eg Bath & NE Somerset, Bristol and S Glos for the West of England CA). If they actually use different voting (like wards?), please let me know and I can adjust accordingly.

I also have data for even smaller regions: Polling districts in England and Community wards in Wales. As examples: Cornerswell, Plymouth, St Augustine's and Stanwell within Penarth, Vale of Glamorgan and SOA, SOB, SOC and SOD in Southmead, Bristol. I don't see any value to polling districts, but maps of community wards might be useful if we want to cover elections like these.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Why do we have parties categorised in both Category:Far-right political parties in the United Kingdom and Category:Far-right politics in the United Kingdom? That appears to be an example of overcategoristion, as the former is categorised under the latter. Our guideline says "each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." Category:Far-right political parties in the United Kingdom isn't a non-diffusing category, so there's no need for both. Fences&Windows 13:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The 56th Parliament of the United Kingdom is set to dissolve on Wednesday 3rd May. This means that all 649 current MPs will lose their post-nominal letters and their succession boxes must be modified to remove any suggestion of incumbency. I managed one hundred and fifteen such corrections in 2015 (and many dozens more in the devolved elections since) but some assistance would be much appreciated. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Is the dissolution at midnight, or at close of business? If the former, I will pitch in. (If the latter, I'll be out and it'll probably be done by the time I get in.) --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

legally it happens at one minute past midnight. MapReader (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Have you considered using AWB? Would seem idea for edits like this. You can do one every two or three seconds if you set it up properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Number 57 (talk • contribs)

I think it might be a good idea if someone could get AWB onto this. I've done some former SNP MPs but I realised that they are usually identified as serving MPs in the lede as well, so I've edited the ledes too. Finding the best form of words is a bit tricky - mainly I've changed "is the MP for..." to "was elected MP for ... in 2015 and is standing for re-election in the United Kingdom general election, 2017," though on reflection, the last bit might not be necessary. I'm trying not to give the implication that people have stood down if they haven't. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Question: There seems to be some mild edit warring on some political party pages over whether the infobox should say "0" MPs in the House of Commons, or reflect their pre-dissolution numbers. What's the consensus? Anyone remember what we did in 2015? — Richard BB 16:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Technically, the House of Commons ceases to exist. Saying 0 is misleading. I'd just use the pre-dissolution numbers, but can't remember what we did last time. Bondegezou (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me — Richard BB 19:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems overdoing it and a bit misleading to put zero. Pre-dissolution is fine and I think implicitly understood by readers. SocialDem (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

While reading an article in today's Sunday Times, I came across: "The detail of the plan, circulated by Labour officials, shows only the standard rate of VAT will be frozen. It says nothing about zero-rated goods and services such as insurance, food, medicines and building supplies, meaning they could be hit. The plan also leaves room for increasing the 5% rate on gas and electricity bills." (Shipman, Tim (7 May 2017). "Labour tax rise to hit earners on £80,000". The Sunday Times. pp. 1–2.). Could someone with competence in economics please expand Zero-rated supply? (While I'm at it, Tim Shipman, the political editor of The Times, could probably do with an article, if anyone is able to find enough RS.) Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

In the same article, Karie Murphy is described as "Corbyn's gatekeeper"--potentially passes GNG?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The Proposed return of traditional blue British passports article is apparently prodigiously sourced but a quick inspection might indicate that some of the sources are being somewhat stretched to support the text in the article and there is at least one plain error (a quote that does not appear to be in the source). The title also seems rather cumbersome, the word "traditional" questionable, possibly POV, and the title is contradicted in the first sentence by the statement that it "is an action to be taken", rather than the "proposal" indicated by the title. It could do with an inspection and possibly some revision. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a completely unnecessary article. Should be merged to British passport. Number 57 19:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I can certainly see strengths in that view. (Additionally, just clocked a couple of MOS:ENGVAR examples, regarding North American terms or spellings.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

there is also nothing in the article pointing out that we could have made our passports blue within the EU, if we had wanted to, like Croatia still does. Yet strangely no-one thought it worth making a fuss about until now. Also no mention of the limitations imposed by modern passport-reading technology, which would for example rule out a return to the old hard cover. MapReader (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Entirely agree with Number 57 - this seems ripe for merger. Bondegezou (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

When I looked at the article it reminded me very much of Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom. And behold, it seems to be largely a product of the same editor. I think there is some useful material here to be merged, but for various reasons I don't think that it needs a separate article. Shritwod (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Crazy title - can't see anyone looking that up! In any case, it is not the job of an encyclopaedia to predict what might or might not happen, especially when no official proposal has been made. Daily Express? Well, really. Crystal ball of the highest order. Emeraude (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It would be useful to have some of these views expressed over at Talk:British_passport#Merger_proposal. Bondegezou (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Mutt Lunker, please give some examples of some of sources being "stretched to support the text in the article". A claim like that would need evidence, otherwise anyone can just saying anything about anything. Unproven, until shown otherwise. Next, the claim that the phrase 'traditional' is "questionable" - a quick search through the first 20 cited sources has, at my count, 7-8 mentions of "traditional" and ostensibly 3 mentions of it in the headline of articles, across all the references section. That's fairly basic research. Would you care to count and reassess your statement? The one "error" you did manage to find was an accidental different quote from Liz Hurley's support, which has now been reconciled.

Number 57, can you provide some insight into why it's "unnecessary", in your opinion? Perhaps I don't like that national newspapers, magazines, BBC programming and an explicit campaign with national coverage is pushing for that issue. But would it make them unnecessary and not allowed? That may not be your position, but I'd be interested to see what criteria on Wikipedia you claim this isn't necessary or allowed.

MapReader, I think those are good suggestions and if you can find notable sources like national newspapers and popular online publications (like the majority of the references I've sourced) which cover the issues/angles you've raised, then they should certainly go into the article. I may be able to find a few in the meantime.

Shritwod, under what Wikipedia criteria would this not merit being a stand-alone article? The issue is the subject of nationally reported campaigning and coverage. Can you explain what standards of notoriety that doesn't reach, with regards Wikipedia standards? Or is this just a sort of ad hominem swipe on my previous contributions with zero evidence against the new contribution? Time will tell.

Emeraude, whether you can "see" people "looking that up" is not criteria for the notability of an article. Articles such as London independence (not happening) and Proposed second Scottish independence referendum (at time of creation, completely unconfirmed) would not exist by those standards. You may be slightly muddling the concepts of; if something is being reported with enough consistency and notability to be an article versus; if it will definitely happen. London independence is clearly not happening, but it's still a credible article due to the reporting and campaigning. Which is why Proposed return of traditional blue British passports (almost certainly happening, based on the sounds coming out of the government and legislative sources) is a credible stand-alone article. Mdmadden (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Not everything deserves a standalone article, but the new passport format certainly would merit an inclusion in the main article. As for an ad hominem attack? Well, I try to avoid those but the truth is that there was a long and rather fractious AfD debate about Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom which did seem to split along pro-Brexit and anti-Brexit lines. Both articles appear to follow a pattern indicative of WP:AXE. Shritwod (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, Mdmadden you make a fair point about London Independence and the Indyref2, but certainly in the latter case there is a legislative process that has started off. Perhaps a closer comparison would be Bank of England £5 note where the new £5 merits a section, but not its own article. Shritwod (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Although it was evident in a small amount of comments made by a minority of contributors to the discussion over the Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom, I refute that the division of views on the article's content and validity was based on a pro- and anti-Brexit split. As most contributors, quite rightly, did not use the discussion as a forum for their own personal viewpoint on the desirability of the concept of the topic it is impertinent to imply that their view of the article split along such lines. Likewise it would not be appropriate for viewpoints on this new passport article to be based on anything other than the article's pertinence, factual basis and validity as a stand-alone article. It should have no basis in support or otherwise for leaving or remaining in the EU, a preference between blue and maroon or any such irrelevance. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's how it should work. But I think in that AfD debate it was not the case. It is not so much the content of the article (and by and large both articles do explore every aspect in great detail), but the assertion somehow that the topic is a "thing". Creating an article on a contentious topic can help to create an impression somehow that this is a matter pressing on the minds of the citizens of the UK. Astroturfing, perhaps? Shritwod (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. It comes under WP:CFORK. Bondegezou (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It does seem in both discussions that there is a leaning towards merger. How can we progress this? Shritwod (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, WikiProject members. If you have the time, please consider dropping by at Talk:First Cameron ministry. Many thanks.--Nevé–selbert 16:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• (Mass ping:)
  • @Barryob, Galloglass, RFBailey, Gr8opinionater, Road Wizard, W Tanoto, John Cross, Doktorbuk, Orthorhombic, Timrollpickering, Pondle, H2g2bob, Warofdreams, WFCforLife, WFCforLife, SmokingNewton, Rrius, AnthonyBurgess, Fences and windows, Geoking66, JRPG, Zangar, Flatterworld, Vernon39, Pigsonthewing, Lozleader, Topperfalkon, Andrewmc123, Thom2002, JeevanJones, Pbl1998, Veganfishcake, Presidentman, OrangeM16, Willde1, This is Paul, LRC Techie, Jemclear, Adam37, Richard BB, Rjensen, Edmondo Italiano, Tom Morris, EP111, Cloptonson, SA Thomas1994, ForgottenHistory, Whizz40, Mirrorme22, and Graemp:
  • @Sunil060902, Curlymanjaro, AusLondonder, Stephen, Dpchalmers, Prof tpms, Kaptinkeiff, JMPhillips92, Aimeec110, Medea's Argonaut, SteveIkura, Robomilk, Atchom, Absolutelypuremilk, Graham11, Ministre d'État, N Oneemuss, FrederickII, Druddigon, CarlDurose, Robin S. Taylor, and Samillar94:
• Sorry to bother you all, but it would be very much appreciated indeed for y'all to comment. Thank-you.--Nevé–selbert 22:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 7/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello projecteers and @JRPG:, @Frinton100:, @BrownHairedGirl:, @Galloglass: and any others who may wish to contribute

Following a brief discussion over at the Oxford East page, it has become apparent that we need, as a project, to put into formal Wiki-ese the widely agreed upon convention about the way in which we design election boxes. My understanding of the convention is that the Manual Of Style needs to explicitly say that:

• Candidates are listed in alphabetical order by surname
• Citations are placed at the heading, not after the candidates

If this is agreeable and accepted by the project as a whole, I would like to move this proposal over to Manual of Style. Any ideas, thoughts? doktorb _words^deeds 11:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree Doktorbuk. We've been doing this for a good number of GE's now so moving it to the manual of style seems appropriate. - Galloglass 11:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree Doktorbuk. Anything which clarifies rules is to be welcomed. JRPG (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I am wary of instruction creep ... but if there is consensus that instruction is actually needed, then yes, it should be ballot paper order, which is currently alphabetical order by surname. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Could you link to the convention? Or do you mean that this is just the way it is done for most election boxes? I agree with the alphabetical listing, but citations in the heading surely makes it much more difficult to verify each candidate? (at least until we have a citation for all the election candidates in one place) Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Absolutelypuremilk: I also dislike forcing all citations into the heading.

It seems to me that it citations which list all candidates should be in the heading, but those which refer only to individual candidates should be beside their names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with Absolutelypuremilk and User:BrownHairedGirl: putting all the citations in the heading does not make sense to me when they refer only to individual candidates. Bondegezou (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Citations next to names is messy and potentially misleading. Do the citations indicate support? Do the citations link to a personal website, perhaps attempting to contravene rules on spam or promotion? It looks messy and unprofessional to link citations next to candidates when the correct place would be next to the heading ("Here's the election box and all the citations in one easy place to validate it"). doktorb _words^deeds 23:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I also favour listing candidates in alphabetical ballot paper order, ideally supported by a single citation in the heading that lists all candidates. I've found myself citing various regional newspapers, local council websites or PDF Statements of Persons Nominated recently. Today the BBC announced comprehensive listings for every constituency:

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies

These have the advantage of being accessible and from an impartial reliable source. They appear to use the same URLs as their 2015 coverage. I expect the BBC will update the content after the results are in, making the citations useful beyond the election too. Only 650 articles to edit... AJP (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

With election results for local authorities, the order used by sources is number of votes. Retaining the order in the sources makes it easier to get the data right, and to check it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The use of alphabetical order is just for before the election. Bondegezou (talk) 09:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The sitting Conservative MP James Heappey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), who is standing for re-election, has been involved in a controversy relating to comments he made at a school during a discussion on Scotland. The affair has been reported in several broadsheets, and has drawn in two party leaders.

The article's coverage of the incident has been repeatedly removed by single-purpose accounts and IPs, and at my request the page is now semi-protected for 2 weeks.

However, it is not being watched by many editors. Please can some members of this project keep an eye on it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)