Talk:Crossbencher

Interwiki to de:wikipedia wrong ??
The term Beisitzer does not mean the same like crossbencher. Therefore the interwiki is wrong in my opinion. --BKSlink (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. I have removed three which were incorrect. In future, you can always be bold and go ahead and remove them yourself, as long as you explain why you're doing so in the edit summary. Thanks again! ninety:one  17:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Numbers
According to the HoL website, the numbers for the Crossbenches is wrong. According to its table, there are 188 Tories, 182 Crossbenchers, and 26 "Other". Clearly this article (and the Times) count the others with the Crossbenchers, but is there a valid reason for that? Do they really even sit on the crossbenches or do they sit on the Opposition Benches. -Rrius (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Anglo-Centric Article
As I was linked to this article from one about the Australian parliament, I would think this article incorrectly focuses exclusively on the British Parliament. I would try to make the edits myself, but I don't want to incorrectly edit an article I am not completely knowledgeable on. 24.73.19.170 (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I recently removed the content that made very general reference to crossbenchers existing in "legislatures" as opposed to just the Lords because there was no evidence in the article to the contrary. I have now restored the multi-national lead sentence, but we really do need some information about how crossbenches work in Australia and elsewhere (if the term is used elsewhere). -Rrius (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-ordering
I want to move the Canada section to be above the Australia section.

Recently, the ISG was formed in Canada. As a senate nerd, I've been keen on following what happens to them. However, I've run into an odd problem. When I went to add them to this article, I found out that Canada already had an entry. Why? I really don't understand it. The best I can figure is this is a problem of flow. Right now it reads like this. "The UK has non-partisan crossbenchers that can provide a swing vote in the upper house. Australia has no such non-partisan crossbenchers, but, has small third parties. You know who else also has small third parties, Canada!" And while that flow is fine prior to the ISG, it NOW reads "The UK has crossbenchers. Australia has something different. Canada has crossbenchers. Also Canada is doing the australia thing". Flows very poorly.

As such I think this would work way better if Canada's entry were above Australia, and, as more countries are added, Canada's entry be kept at the dividing point between the non-partisan 'upper house swing voter' and partisan 'swing parliamentarian', or, at worst, alongside other countries where this happens.

However, I don't actually use wikipedia very much, and don't want to edit the article that radically, as, it may be in this particular order for a very good reason. As such, a bit bluntly, if someone would do this for me (someone who knows what they are doing) I would be very greatful. Nickjbor (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crossbencher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150418085208/http://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/appointments-so-far.aspx to http://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/appointments-so-far.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Canadian Senate Chamber.jpeg