Talk:List of expenses claims in the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal

Page title
The current title is a draft, but is horribly long and unweildy. It has the advantage of being accurate(ish) but not much else. Can someone think of a better title, and be bold?

My suggestion would be: List of claims criticised in the British Parliamentary expenses controversy

FT2 (Talk 01:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I moved the page. The old draft name was painfully long to read. If anyone can improve the name further, please do so. FT2 (Talk 02:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't think of a suitable title. I can think of lots of OK'ish ones, but nothing which is satisfactory. Sorry. Maybe just drop the "list of" bit from List of claims criticised in the British Parliamentary expenses controversy?


 * On another issue - and I'm not sure if you've done this yet or not - please ensure a prominent position for the link from the main article to this sub-article. I feel the link to the sub-article should be in the intro/lead of the main article.


 * Good work by the way. Not easy and you've done a good job! Setwisohi (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is though a list article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And the updated title is a slight misnomer - because it isn't actually a "list of notable expenses claims" per se, but more, a list of notable expenses claims in the expenses scandal/controversy. (It excludes notable claims from the rest of history, so to speak.) FT2 (Talk 11:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Query on sub-heading - The Opposition
Strictly, I think it is incorrect to sub-list the parties under the heading "Opposition". The "official" opposition party is currently the Conservatives. Liberal Democrats may be in opposition some of the time. Sien Fien do not attend Westminster and so cannot be described as opposition at all. I would suggest either "Other Parties" with sub-headings, or the "Official Opposition" and then "Other Parties". leaky_caldron (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. And my preference would be for "official opposition" and "other parties". Setwisohi (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Mine would be all parties, in alphabetic order. There isn't much reason to prefer Labor or Conservative, just because one is the government or the other the formal opposers. In many articles to prevent inadvertant bias through ordering, we sort by some objective criteria - size, alphabetic, time, etc. FT2 (Talk 02:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of expenses claims in the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090621212800/http://www.parliament.uk:80/parliamentary_committees/mec/repayments.cfm to http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/mec/repayments.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)