Talk:Corruption in the United Kingdom

Appropriateness of the 'Political corruption' sidebar
I do not currently agree that the 'Political corruption' sidebar is appropriate for this article. The guidelines for the use of these things states that Good navboxes generally follow most or all of these guidelines:, followed by a list of 5 of them. The placement of the that sidebar in this article fails at least items 2, 3 and 5 on the list. Specifically: 'political corruption' is not mentioned in this article, this article does not refer to any of the articles in the sidebar and none of the articles in the sidebar refer to this article, and there is no apparent reason to suspect that an editor of this article would be inclined to link many of the articles in that sidebar in the 'See also' section of this article.

The huge flag on the sidebar falls foul of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. I know the article is new and, as yet, undeveloped; so perhaps wait and see how the article expands and then, if it meets the criteria, think about using the sidebar - which currently occupies more area in the article than the main prose of the article itself! What happens in other articles is not relevant here - other stuff exists. I don't plan edit-warring over this, but ask you to reconsider its appropriateness. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your perspective. My rationale for the sidebar is that it does satisfy (2) since political corruption is the main focus of the article in the first two paragraphs (with them being about TI's CPI), which measures political corruption; (3) is also satisfied since the article refers to the CPI (with other countries referring to the CPI) and Bribery (with Bribery being mentioned in the sidebar). Also, since the CPI measures political corruption, political corruption does have to do with this article. Contrary to your claim as well, the topic "political corruption" is discussed when the article mentions "public sector corruption" - which seems to be synonomous with "political corruption". I'll comprimise with you on MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Would you mind providing reasons that would outweigh mine? Also, I'm not quite sure about what you mean by WP:OTHER. Respectfully, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , the title of the sidebar is "Political corruption", not "Bribery" or "Public sector corruption". The article only covers public sector corruption, so far, which is not at all the same as political corruption. The public sector, per its article includes "military, law enforcement, infrastructure (public roads, bridges, tunnels, water supply, sewers, electrical grids, telecommunications, etc.), public transit, public education, along with health care and those working for the government itself, such as elected officials" (my emphasis). So no, it isn't mainly about political corruption, hence the sidebar is inappropriate. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The sidebar is common to all pages in the Corruption by country category. Your point feels more relevant to this discussion: Template talk:Political_corruption_sidebar. 2A01:4B00:F632:5700:D4C6:5A9:397A:2732 (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Roberto Saviano
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/roberto-saviano-britain-corrupt-mafia-hay-festival-a7054851.html

Roberto Saviano's views should be in this article? Anyone who knows how to edit might like to add this?

Htrowsle (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

"Corruption in Wales" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corruption_in_Wales&redirect=no Corruption in Wales] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 04:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)