Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Significance of candidates
What determines significance? Do by-election candidates get pages for the duration at least? Biscit (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally when put to AfD they have nearly all been deleted unless they are significant in some other way that helps them meet WP:BIO. - Gallo glass  13:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Biscit (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK - what about Edward Timpson?? Biscit (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless there's more to be added it would almost certainly fail an AfD. - Gallo glass  09:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the list of current by-election candidates there only Tamsin Dunwoody and Mike Nattrass would definitely meet the requirements. Gemma Garrett might well pass as well but I'd say that was 50/50. Neither of the others would though at the movement even though theres a reasonable chance both Edward Timpson and Elizabeth Shenton might well be the elected candidate. - Gallo glass  10:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Question
Would local authorities (and I mean articles about the councils not the land they are responsible for), come under the remit of this project? I'm thinking specifically, the Greater Manchester County Council article. Thanks, --Jza84 | Talk  11:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would assume these should come under the project yes, probably ranked low on the importance scale though. Pi  Talk  -  Contribs  20:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Project category
I have created Category:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom articles as a category for talk pages of articles that fall under the scope of this project. The category serves the same purpose as Category:Articles Related To UK Politics, but is standardised to match the naming standard used by most other WikiProjects. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment
As creating assessment criteria is listed as a major pending task on the Wikiproject's main page I have gone ahead and created an assessment scale and amended the project banner. Like other projects, the assessment is split between quality and importance; the quality scale is taken directly from the Version 1.0 Assessment Criteria, but the importance scale is more subjective. I have made a first attempt to draft an importance scale, but I would like your input on what you think is important for this project. Road Wizard (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, I didn't know how to do it myself. For assessing importance does there need to be concensus for each article or can they just be done according to the criteria? Pi   Talk  -  Contribs  20:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles will be assessed by individual editors based on the agreed criteria. Having a consensus on the overall criteria will help to reduce the chances of editors disagreeing over individual assessments.
 * The purpose of assessment is to decide which are the priority articles we want to work on. In theory editors would concentrate on what we see is most important first and then work down from there, though that will depend on how well organised this project becomes. The subject of UK politics is very broad, so if we are not careful we may end up with a thousand or more articles that are judged as "top priority". Road Wizard (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Importance
I am not really happy with the importance criteria at the moment. I don't think we are at a stage where it will be of any use for us as we still haven't agreed a scope for the project. I would suggest removing the importance assessment until we have at least finished the quality assessments and perhaps not even introducing it then. Does anyone have any objections to this? If you do want to keep the importance assessments, can you please suggest what benefit it will bring in managing the articles? If no one objects, I will remove the importance criteria in 5 days. Road Wizard (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Any comments on this? One day left before I remove the importance code. Road Wizard (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to keep it. I think that we can get the importances going, at least tag the important ones.
 * OK. If you want to keep it then we need to decide on an improved set of criteria. I have set out importance criteria for political party articles at WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Parties. Are the different levels acceptable? Road Wizard (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have an going discussion and policy review at User:Doktorbuk/pp which may be of interest. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My personal belief is that parties such as the BNP which are nationaly significant despite not having MPs or members of devolved parliaments are more important than Mid. The BNP are in the news so much and talked about so much that I can't think of many articles which are of higher importance, not enough to fill 2 categories anyway. I do however like the assesment scheme in general and would like to work on a similar one to assess imprtance of articles about people. I am sitting my last A level exam today, which is why I have neglected the wiki a bit and so tonight I will hit work again and get the assessment started Pi   Talk  -  Contribs  11:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have updated the party criteria to allow exceptions for a small number of articles. Does this address your concerns? Road Wizard (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, yes that's what I had in mind Pi   Talk  -  Contribs  16:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have created WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom/Politicians as a guideline for articles about politicians and would appreciate feedback and would like to know what changes anyone would like to see Pi   Talk  -  Contribs  16:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The definitions are a little too subjective for my liking. I will edit them a little then see what you think. We can always revert back to the original version if you disagree. Road Wizard (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A constituency sub-page has also been created. I doubt that any one constituency can be argued as being more important than any other, so I have rated them all as low importance. Is there any disagreement? Road Wizard (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Election results archive
Hello, Does anyone know where an archive can be found of election result. A lot of the articles on constituencies only go back to the 90s and it would be good to get them all bit farther back. Pi  Talk  -  Contribs  20:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The UK General Election Results - 1832 to 2005 page may be what you are after. It claims to have complete results back to 1945 and summary results back to 1832. Road Wizard (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you very much. I just started adding some and it's quite a tedious task so I'll look into making a semi-automated script to help. Pi  Talk  -  Contribs  21:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Scope of the Project
It may be useful to define what parts of Wikipedia this project covers. Once we have a list we can either decide to cut back the scope of the project to make things more manageable or set a priority list of what we should concentrate on first. The list below is what I think is currently included within this project. Feel free to add any subjects you think I have missed out. Road Wizard (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * UK Parliament and devolved parliament/assembly articles
 * Some European Union articles (See also WikiProject European Union)
 * Constituencies & electoral wards
 * UK Parliament constituencies (See also WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies)
 * Devolved constituencies
 * European constituencies (See also WikiProject European Union)
 * Electoral wards
 * Political parties (See the Parties sub-page for guidance)
 * Lobby/campaign groups (includes unions that are actively involved with Labour)
 * People
 * MPs/MSPs/AMs/MLAs/MEPs
 * Lords (partially covered by WikiProject Peerage)
 * Councillors who are notable (Being a councillor is not of itself notable. We will only accept councillor articles that have some specific claim to notability)
 * Candidates who are notable (Being an electoral candidate is not of itself notable. We will only accept candidate articles that have some specific claim to notability)
 * Official positions/titles (e.g. Home Secretary)
 * Government departments (e.g. Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills)
 * Council & local government articles
 * Constitutional legislation (e.g. House of Lords Act 1999)

The following topics could be considered within the scope of the WikiProject but are currently seen as a low priority. Please start a discussion on this talk page if you want to take the lead in any of these issues.
 * Topics withdrawn from the scope
 * Non-constitutional legislation (e.g. Care Standards Act 2000
 * International bodies relevant to UK politics (e.g. NATO)
 * Journalists who are notable for their coverage of UK politics
 * Political issues relevant to the UK (e.g. Abortion)

When you say "unelected" does this refer to members of the house of lords or electoral candidates? Pi  Talk  -  Contribs  12:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was meaning electoral candidates, but I can see how it could have been misread. I am not sure what the exact criteria would be, but if the person's political involvement is notable enough for them to be referred to as a "politician" then I think they fall within the current scope of the project. Road Wizard (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I agree with flagging candidates who we deem important enough for an article. I am not sure about the political issues though, I think it could start getting a bit broad if we tag Abortion and so on. If there was an article which is specific to UK politics such as Abortion debate in the united kingdom then I would favour flagging those. Pi  Talk  -  Contribs  14:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we don't want the scope to become larger than we can deal with, which is the reason I prompted this discussion. I will be happy to exclude political discussions from the scope for now. One way to deal with the scope is that we can take it in stages.
 * For example, we start off with a scope focusing on national level UK politics, then when we have reached a certain level of quality in the articles, we expand to cover devolved and regional level politics. Again when we have reached a certain level of quality we expand the scope further to include either local level or European level politics. Further stages could be introduced afterwards to adopt historical politics articles, legislation articles, international organisations (such as NATO) and NGOs, political journalists or publications and finally political issues relevant to the UK.
 * Individual editors can start on areas outside the scope if they prefer, but the project as a whole would remain focused on the scoped areas.
 * If you are happy with this approach I will draw up a draft action plan then send out a message to current project members to see if we have agreement. Road Wizard (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed UK Parliament and European Parliament constituency articles from the scope. These are already covered by other WikiProjects that seem to be much better organised than we are at the moment. I suggest issues on these topics should be referred back to the related projects and not duplicated here. Road Wizard (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Election Results Bot
Hi Guys, I am developing a bot to add historic election results to constituencies and I am hoping to put a bot request in tonight, I was wondering how far back to go. I was thinking as far as 1945 because I think if we go too far it could clog the articles.

I was also considering the possibility of only having up to 1987 on the main article and then having a "Historic Election Results in ..... Constituency" article where I go back as far as can be found.

What do people think? Pi  Talk  -  Contribs  19:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you make a test article to show what the result will be? I would like to see what changes you are planning before I comment further. Road Wizard (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Its probably best to try a run on the 1992 election results as most seats don't have them already. Then we can judge how its worked and what changes (if any) need doing. Will it be working from the Keele source btw? Cheers - Gallo glass  15:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Keele results unfortunately aren't in a format compatable with the script. I think they're designed to not be copied or something, therefore the bot doesn't work Pi   Talk  -  Contribs  21:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added more sources to the /Constituencies page. The format of the David Boothroyd site looks fairly consistent if you want to try again. The results only go back as far as 1983 though. Road Wizard (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Parties sub-page
I have created a new sub-page to focus discussion on how we are going to deal with political party articles. There seems to be little control of party articles at the moment especially with regards to minor parties. Your comments would be very welcome. Road Wizard (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A proposal on notability criteria for Political Parties is being discussed at User talk:Doktorbuk/pp. I will read through it a little later today and see how much of it relates to us. Road Wizard (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Other UK politics projects
Wasn't there already a wikiproject for UK politics before 2008 (or am I having deja vu or something)? I've been on a long wikibreak recently and my editing is extremely eratic, but I'll try to concentrate some of my efforts on contributing to UK politics articles as someone who follows these things (and a Green Party councillor, I should confess). Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 03:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes Joe there are several others, the main one being WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies. For the full list, check the main page under Related WikiProjects. Cheers - Gallo glass  10:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment statistics
I have altered our assessment category structure so that it can now be picked up by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team's bot. The bot will trawl through the categories every few days and produce a table of current assessment statistics. The current statistics can be seen in the transcluded table below:

Due to changing the category structure the majority of articles are still stored in the old categories and have not been picked up by the bot. However this should be rectified after a few days when the Wiki's servers catch up with the changes I made to the WP UK Politics banner. Road Wizard (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council
Is now up for featured article review, and needs to have additional references and citations to maintain its status. please come by and take a look! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD notification
Please see: --Mais oui! (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Pensioners Party (Scotland)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Politics of the United Kingdom
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Denis Healey
Would anyone like to add Denis Healey to their watchlist? A dynamic IP editor keeps reverting to a previous version that says he died on 17 September. My request for semi-protection was declined on the grounds that the disruption isn't frequent enough, but I seem to be the only one reverting it at the moment, and as I'm not monitoring it constantly the right honourable gentleman lord has appeared to be dead as often as alive over the past three days. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added our project banner to the talk page so it is now on my watchlist. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Qwfp (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom
List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom has been nominated for a featured list removal. Lists are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the lst to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24 [c] 01:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Local council election result table
What template would be used for a local election results table? -- [User] Jamie JCA [Talk] 03:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In the first instance I would suggest using Election box for individual results or Election Summary Begin for summary results for the whole council. You can see the summary table in action on European Parliament election, 2009 (United Kingdom) and the individual result table on East Lothian (UK Parliament constituency).
 * If neither of these suits your needs, reply here again and we can see what alternatives we can find. Road Wizard (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna try and test some templates in my sandbox. It's for a council election (Wirral Council election, 2008) by the way. -- [User] Jamie JCA [Talk] 21:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried some in my sandbox. Can someone take a look if it's okay please? I'm also having a little trouble with the infobox election template, I can't get the following fields to display:


 * title             = Council majority | before_election    = No overall control | before_colour      = 808080 | after_election     = No overall control | after_colour       = 808080

Also, the party colours won't display. -- [User] Jamie JCA [Talk] 20:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have fixed part of the problem with the infobox, but I am not sure if it can handle a "No overall control" situation. I am also unsure why some of the colours are not appearing. I will do some further research. Road Wizard (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Update of project banner
I have updated our project banner, WP UK Politics, so that it now runs off the generic WPBannerMeta template. It has allowed a significant simplification of our banner code, so another editor can make updates more easily if I drop off the radar for any reason. It has also allowed me to implement some useful new features:


 * A checklist for assessing whether an article meets B-class will appear when any article is assessed as either C-class or B-class. Individual items can be marked as meeting or failing the criteria with a simple yes or no.
 * Articles needing urgent attention can be flagged with |attention=yes, which will add them to Category:Politics of the United Kingdom articles needing attention
 * Articles needing an infobox can be flagged with |needs-infobox=yes, which will add them to Category:Politics of the United Kingdom articles needing infoboxes.
 * Articles needing an image can be flagged with |needs-picture=yes, which will add them to Category:Politics of the United Kingdom articles needing images.
 * Biography articles needing persondata can be flagged with |needs-persondata=yes, which will add them to Category:Politics of the United Kingdom articles needing persondata.

There is also an option for including our to-do list within the banner, which I am currently considering implementing. Are there any comments or objections to these changes? Road Wizard (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Free image of John Stanley (politician)
Hi everybody, anybody know where/how I can get a "free" image of current MP John Stanley to use on Wikipedia? Ryan 4314  (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I have taken a quick look round the web but I can only find copyrighted images of him. The availability of free images is a serious problem for UK political biographies as we only have images for a minority of MP articles.
 * I am considering writing an email to the larger political parties to see if they are willing to release any images of their members under a free-use licence. I suspect that some party members will be more supportive of Wikipedia than others but we may be able to convince them to release a few images under a licence that we can use. The benefit to them is that any image they select is likely to be of higher quality than the amateur photos we usually have to deal with, so in many cases their choice of photo will be the one we use. Road Wizard (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I checked the US Gov sites n all (just in case he visited), but no luck either. I think that would be a good idea, it would certainly be more advantageous to them instead of having an amateur image snapped on a phone. Ryan 4314   (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Dispute: Wales Labour Party
I have stuck a dispute tag on the article Wales Labour Party. The reason is quite simple - where is there one reference where this party is called the Wales labour Party? It's official name is Llafur Cymru, translates at Welsh Labour which is what it is referred to in all literature. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have found a BBC article from February 2000 which refers to it solely as "Wales Labour" but a web archive of the party's website from April 2005 contains both "Wales Labour" and "Welsh Labour". Could this be a case of the party being rebranded over a period of time? Pre-2000 it may have been referred to as "Wales Labour" but in 2008 it is more commonly referred to as "Welsh Labour"? This is all a bit of speculation on my part as I can't say I have too much knowledge of the subdivisions of the Labour party. Road Wizard (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A google search of the Welsh Labour website throws up a few current pages that refer to the "Wales Labour Party", but these form a tiny fraction of the website and could be indicative of a name that is now in less common use than in the past. Road Wizard (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Cfd
There is a cfd relating to UK MPs - UK MPs re-revisited. Occuli (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Local chapter for the Wikimedia Foundation
AndrewRT(Talk) 21:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

MPs' Expenses controversies
Hello people. I've just created this page, and could do with some help for what is quite a wide ranging but (I think) worthwhile article. Please pop your head in and improve it if you can. Thanks. Quantpole (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Douglas Hogg's Expenses
I disagree with User:Rwendland (talk | Contribs) removal of the table showing Douglas Hogg's total expenses claimed in respect of his parliamentary duties, as it does put the disputed amounts into context, and have created an entry on the talk page where this can be discussed. Please let me have your views. &mdash; GrahamSmith (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC).
 * I am seeking information mediation on how to present the controversial Additional Costs Allowance within the context of Douglas Hogg's total expenses . &mdash; GrahamSmith (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for help
Folks, would someone take a look at Surrey Council election, 2009, Guildford - it need some title, formatting and content help. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And Surrey Council election, 2005, Guildford. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Brown GAR notification
Gordon Brown has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Nick Griffin
There has been something of an overhaul to this article of late, by User:Parrot of Doom. However, there are a few outstanding issues that have resulted in some edit shuffles in the last 24-48 hours. Could a member or two of this project pop over a take a look? This could be one of your next WP:GAs. :) --Jza84 | Talk  19:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Regional Assemblies in England
I noticed that the page on the South West Regional Assembly needed updating following its winding-up and transfer of powers to South West Councils, so I've attempted a quick'n'dirty update. Is there a consistent approach being adopted across the board to the pages on regional assemblies? Should there be? Just a quick heads-up really - I certainly don't intend to update them all myself! Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop the War Coalition GA Sweeps: On Hold
I have reviewed Stop the War Coalition for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Crewe and Nantwich by-election, 2008
The figures on this page don't add up. The total of votes cast is given as 41856, which matches, but adding up the totals of the individual candidates gives 41498. Even the figure of 67 spoilt ballots on the Borough's web page doesn't make up the shortfall. Does anyone have any better figures? — sjorford++ 17:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Those figures may be right. As a candidate of many years standing, it's a shocking but true fact that the figures given out by the returning officer are the final figures regardless of how many votes were counted!! I would take the true figures to be those on the council's website, unless there's a YouTube video of the declaration (and such things do exist for other seats, would you believe....) doktorb wordsdeeds 17:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So, should we keep the individual vote counts to be right, and fix the total turnout figure accordingly? I note that the % figures in our article have apparently been calculated against 41498, but those on the council's website seem to have been calculated against their declared total of 41856. (Of course, there is no such thing as "official" percentages, you make of them what you will.) Holy baloney, what a travesty. This is a parliamentary election, for Zarquon's sake!
 * Also, there's a discrepancy on Glasgow East by-election, 2008, but there the shortfall of 45 matches the number of rejected ballots according to . In this case, I think we should either be adjusting the total by subtracting the rejected ballots, or showing the number of rejections in the table - having a table that doesn't add up is no good. — sjorford++ 17:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe, the out of date way our elections are run is quite the dissertation :) Wiki should always match the source, unless multiple sources contradict each other obviously, so I'd check with the BBC then run with what they have, OR have you tried the vote-2007.co.uk website? They have a by-elections forum you could ask at?doktorb wordsdeeds 18:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Motion of no confidence votes in the United Kingdom
Does anyone know where I could find a list of successful no confidence motions for Motion of no confidence votes in the United Kingdom? My knowledge of 19th century political history has been found lacking 12:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This doesn't go back to the 19th century, but try this pdf lists all confidence motions since 1945 and government defeats since 1895 (found with this search). If there's nothing else on parliament.uk, you could try making a Freedom of Information request. --h2g2bob (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Margaret Moran
Hello - would anyone like to update the assessment and suggest improvements to the Margaret Moran article? I've been making some fairly major changes (here's an [ older version] if you want to see what I removed/added). --18:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Expenses scandal
-- copied from my talk page-- Hi, an article that has been written has been vandalised and I have tried to delete the vandalism, but your bot (and I dont quite understand how they work) is being used to reverse the edits that are trying to take the article back to the original. IE someone is subscribing ( if that is the phrase) to your bot so that my corrections back to the original are seen as vandalism. How do I stop that? IE your bot is creating the vandalism and my corrections are seen as vandalism. I am not sure that this what your bot was set up to do. I am sure you are asking who is the vandal and who is the corrector? Given the vandal will read this i can provide details of the article by secure email if required. What do I do? Many thanks Goalcatcher (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just give me the name of the article. The chances are that there is something in the WP Manual of Style you are unaware of, but it could be that the bot is making a mistake. Rich Farmbrough, 18:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC).
 * Hi, the article is 'AnneMain', there are political opponents that are vandalising various MPs sites by placing political statements on them in the light of the expenses issues in the UK. You will see how your bot is being used. thanks
 * Anne Main I guess. Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC).
 * OK nothing to do with the bot some IP removed the stuff. Rich Farmbrough, 01:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC).
 * Hi Rich, I must have been ambiguos. There are political activists putting political statements on many MPs wikis regarding the expenses - so instead of a factual entry regarding the MP and their position it becomes a political noticeboard whihc is not what Wike is about., you ironically replaced what was required to be removed. :-) So the IP that has just removed what you put back (at c. 9:05 am UK time) is valid. You will see on many other UK MPs the same issues, people are just making political capital of these expense issues. I hope that I have explained correctly.The reason i contacted you was that one of the edits stated in the history was Smartbot and I just thought it must be one of these activists using your bot to automatically replace their vandalism when someone removed their vandalism. Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goalcatcher (talk • contribs) 08:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you were ambiguous, you didn't state which was the "right version"! The expenses scandal is noteworthy, being a significant step in the process of changing the financial accountability of UK MPs.  To remove well sourced information seems like using WP to push your own political viewpoint. The articles should remain factaul, NPPOV and well sourced. If there is a problem then I suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. Rich Farmbrough, 08:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC).

-- copied from my talk page ends-- Rich Farmbrough, 08:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC).

More on the expenses scandal
I have just blocked, for a second time, the user User:Mpsheff for removal of material from the article Angela Christine Smith. On review of the article I felt that perhaps there was undue weight being placed on this MP's expenses claims so I have edited the article in an attempt to attain a more NPOV. I would be grateful if an editor with more expertise in this area would review the article. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment - Template:Politics of Wales
We'd be grateful for any comments on the most suitable image to depict Welsh politics & government on this template. Please comment at Template talk:Politics of Wales. Thanks for your help. Pondle (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Marginal seats
I think it would be great to improve the articles on MPs standing for marginal seats at the next election, before the next election. I've listed them at User:H2g2bob/UK Marginal Seats. I think we could probably improve them all to C-Class by then. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Kevan Jones MP
This article seems to be at risk of POV editing and censoring at the moment. He is currently involved in a fairly major controversy - the alleged attempt to smear General Richard Dannat - and i was rather surprised when i had a look at his article for the first time this morning and so absolutely no mention of this. However the fact that the page had been given semi-protected status led me to check the edit history and sure enough previous edits had been made, and referenced, with regard to the story this has become but promptly reverted as can be seen here and here. Now i realise we are supposed to assume 'good faith' on wikipedia but it's hard for me to look at these immediate reverts aimed at deleting any mention of what has become a considerable news story, with references to it in major media outlets, without immediately assuming that some fairly blatant political POVing is going on here. I've reinserted the passage dealing with the scandal and added a few more references to it. siarach (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi - it looks ok now, but I'll keep an eye on it. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Far right in the United Kingdom
Have I missed it, or has there been no discussion of the actions by User:Yorkshirian to move Far right in the United Kingdom to Radical nationalism in the United Kingdom, and Template:UK far right to Template:Radical nationalism in the UK? What are people's views on these moves? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "radical nationalism" may be a more accurate term for it. Most sources say "far right", and we normally stick to the most commonly used terms. --h2g2bob (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

New list of interest
I have created Her Majesty's Government frontbench modelled on Official Opposition frontbench. Please edit mercilessly. -Rrius (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --h2g2bob (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010
I've nominated Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010 for AfD. The discussion page is Here.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Geographical co-ordinates in constituency articles
I am concerned that the application of geographical co-ordinates (or of coord missing tags) to articles on parliamentary constituencies may be misleading to readers. There seems to be a lot of this underway at the moment. I have opened a centralised discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates, and would welcome further input.

Thanks! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's interesting stuff - thanks --h2g2bob (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A very useful resource, thank you. I can see some interesting uses for it once we have more of our articles tagged, such as a task to get all stubs in the top 500 articles to Start class or all articles in the top 10 to GA.
 * I have created a new sub-page, WP:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Top 25 articles, to keep track of the top 25 popular pages each month. Road Wizard (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Conservative Party (UK)
Come on, the Conservative Party (UK) page is pretty poor! I'm suprised that this project isn't all over the article. There are citation requests in the lead. --Jza84 | Talk  10:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest edits from earlier in the year
Here's some analysis I did earlier this year, showing expenses being removed from MPs articles using computers in the Houses of Parliament: http://dbatley.com/mpexpenses/ --h2g2bob (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Borrowing too much from the US?
Editors have understandably had to improvise in dealing with the commencement of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. I rather it has gone a bit far with the template used at justices' articles. The template Start United Kingdom Supreme Court composition and its relatives are obviously drawn from the equivalent US template. The problem is that the one I linked to above causes "The Phillips Court" to appear. It has long been the tradition in the US to describe an era by the Chief Justice who presided over it. As such there was a "Warren Court", a "Burger Court", and "Rehnquist Court" before the current "Roberts Court". It may be that a similar usage will develop in the UK, but it seems to me that Wikipedia should not be on the leading edge of that trend. There are a number of ways of dealing with the problem, but I think simply getting rid of that "The X Court" title would be the simplest. If a change is made, it might make sense to add a second line below where it says "President: Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers" that says "Deputy President: Lord Hope of Craighead" because that is a statutory role in its own right. -Rrius (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Labour Party immigration scandal
I'd be grateful for comment on the notability and neutrality of this recent article. Thanks,--Pondle (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's all base on one former Labour employee, with many references to newspapers covering the same story, plus some comment pieces thrown in. And I don't quite see how that "second related immigration scandal" is actually related. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:34, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)


 * Need any help in setting this up or do you simply do not want the Alerts?Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out, it sounds very useful. I was on an extended wikibreak the first time you posted here and so no one got round to implementing it. I have now followed the instructions and everything should be working. Thanks again for your offer of help. Road Wizard (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

FAR of Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006
nominated Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. HonouraryMix (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know
Someone implemented the book-class for your project. However you currently don't have any books. So, assuming you feel like writing some, here's a small guide.

The first step (well there are different ways) is to enable the "book creator" (click "Create a book" on the print/export toolbox on the left). You'll have a banner-like thing at the top of the page. If you don't feel like creating a book page by page, go to a category like Category:Speakers of the House of Commons of Great Britain, and then click on "Add this category to your book".

After that's done, you can click "show book", and arrange articles into chapters, remove irrelevant one, and so one. If some article is missing, then just go to that article and add it ("Add this page to your book"). Once you're happy with your book, save it (Wikipedia:Books/...), tag it with your project's banner, and you're pretty much done.

See Help:Books for more details (and on how to create books manually). If you have any questions, just ask me and I'll help you as best I can. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Villages, towns, cities, suburbs, areas, hamlets
Do all inhabited areas really fall under the scope of this project or should this project be more specific? Simply south (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * These articles should be more relevant to WP UK Geography, unless there is a particular local government angle.--Pondle (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with that in principle. It should be left to other WikiProjects unless there is specific coverage of Politics or Government. As this project covers those subjects we would be interested in ensuring that the articles handle them properly. There is no harm in having more than one WikiProject looking after an article and it may in fact be more beneficial.
 * Some town/village articles are possibly being tagged by the bot run at the moment as they are in a "Local government of..." or "Politics of..." category. If they genuinely deserve to be in those categories then they are probably within our scope. Road Wizard (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Bot tagging
A bot just tagged Arthur Sifton as being within this wikiproject. It is of course this project's business what articles it wishes to include in its scope, but from reading WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/scope I cannot fathom why Sifton should be included. Just wanted to give you the heads up in case there was something amiss. Steve Smith (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the report. He appears to have been included as he is in Category:Members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom. Membership of the council was often extended to senior officials in the British Empire and later the Commonwealth. The extent of involvement of the privy council members in UK politics varied but was often treated as an honorary position. The Arthur Sifton article doesn't seem to mention any direct involvement in UK politics so I will remove the banner.
 * I will ask the bot owner to remove the privy council category from the auto-tagging run. If you spot any other errors please report them here or at User talk:Xenobot Mk V. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes sense (I probably should have figured this out myself, actually). I figured you were just trying to leach off of WP:ALBERTA's FAs.  Cheers, Steve Smith (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The bot also tagged Celtic nations. It may surprise you to know that Brittany, the Isle of Man, Ireland, Asturias and Galicia are not part of the UK (anymore/yet) - I reverted the tag, although project members are, of course, welcome to make improvements to the article. Also, I would be interested to know how the project intends to improve the other articles recently tagged. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

→Thanks for the report. Celtic nations was included as it appears to be in Category:Home Rule in the United Kingdom. I have had a quick skim through the article and I can't see anything that stands out as relating to Home rule. Should the category be removed from the article? For your second point, this WikiProject intends to improve articles in similar ways to what other WikiProjects do. The last one is aspirational and will depend on the level of interest in this project. The first 4 are already in operation and are probably worth the effort of tagging on their own. Road Wizard (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) This talk page will be a central hub to bring issues and concerns relating to articles in our scope.
 * 2) We will assess articles with the aim of doing our part towards universal assessment of Wikipedia articles.
 * 3) We will monitor articles through the automated article alert system, which will allow participants to keep up to speed on issues they are interested in.
 * 4) We will receive monthly updates on our popular pages, which will hopefully allow us to prioritise the articles we need to improve.
 * 5) Depending on the level of involvement from other participants we could also start article improvement drives, A-class assessments and the various other functions carried out by the best quality projects.
 * Celtic nations' inclusion in Category:Home Rule in the United Kingdom may also have been aspirational :) The article doesn't really relate to political ideals, though. That would be more like the '... nationalism' series, but please, don't include Brittany, the Isle of Man, etc. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You may wish to reconsider including Cornish language too. Daicaregos (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to untag anything the bot tagged that is clearly out-of-scope; but either move the offending category to "Manual tag" or add this to the page: . –xenotalk  21:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have taken a leap and removed the Home Rule category from the Celtic nations article. The Cornish language article appears to be in Category:Cornish nationalism and makes reference to government recognition of the language, a question in the UK Parliament, government funding and comparisons of the level of funding between minority languages within the UK. I think this one definitely qualifies as being within our scope. Road Wizard (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The scope of this project appears to be limitless: anything which may have been discussed in parliament; anything recognised by the government; anything receiving government funds. Looks like you're gonna be busy. But may I also suggest: biogs of anyone paying taxes to the government? Daicaregos (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am trying to be generous and assume that you are attempting to be helpful, but I can't help but read a slight undertone in some of your comments here. Maybe it is just me. In any case, if you spot any other articles that you feel are mistagged feel free to report them here or at User talk:Xenobot Mk V and I will investigate. Road Wizard (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that an article about a language should be within the scope of a politics project. As has been shown, it would be simple to make a case to include virtually anything in the UK, by virtue of having some connection to government. The tag on this article should be reconsidered. In a slight change of subject - the tag placed on Cornish self-government movement is on a redirect page. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for highlighting the new error. I will point that one out to Xeno as I don't think it is intended for the bot to even try posting on redirects.
 * At the moment I am primarily focussed on trying to shape the larger scope of the project around the big hurdles of Empire, Commonwealth and independence. Obvious cases of mis-tagging can be resolved straight away, but where issues are on the borders of the project scope it may be worth keeping them on one side until after the auto-tagging task is complete. I have started a list at User:Road Wizard/Sandbox 3 and you are welcome to add any other articles there that you have concerns with.
 * Would that be an acceptable compromise? Road Wizard (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Good idea. Daicaregos (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

General election, 2010
It's very likely the Next United Kingdom general election page will be moved to United Kingdom general election, 2010 soon (as a 2009 election is no longer possible). This will probably need some changes to articles mentioning the "next election". Discussion about move is on the talk page. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages
Hello all, I'm making a request for a page containing the most viewed UK Politics articles, updated automatically by User:Mr.Z-bot. This should appear at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Popular pages at some point. It'll be interesting to see what we should be concentrating on. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem, I meant WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Popular pages, of course. Should be created next time the Mr.Z's script is run, which will be within the next month or so. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Also (unrelatedly), the expenses section of Mark Lazarowicz keeps getting deleted, despite having references. More eyeballs on that is good. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, another attempt at whitewashing yesterday by yet another IP editor Little grape (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Auto-tagging by Xenobot Mk V
I am planning to request a sweep of Xenobot Mk V to add our project banner to some articles within our scope. We have a lot of untagged articles right now but I thought I would start off with just the UK MPs since 1801 (specific categories listed at WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Categories). We currently have 1,772 articles tagged and as a guess I would say we will be adding an extra 5 or 6 thousand from this one sweep. If successful we can look at expanding the category list for a second sweep later. Are there any objections? Road Wizard (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I went to make a request for the bot but it seems that "The category list should be exhaustive", so I will need to set up a full category list before it starts. Road Wizard (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have finally finished the list with 1,791 categories set for auto-tagging and 41 categories for manual tagging. I think I probably missed a few spots in the category structure, but this should fill out the majority of our scope. Are there any objections before I make a request for the auto-tagging? Road Wizard (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's quite a list! I can't see any obvious omissions. --h2g2bob (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I added some newly created categories and stumbled across a branch of election categories I missed. Auto list has now increased to 1,988. Road Wizard (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Added Civil parishes in England --h2g2bob (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like the bot has started. Road Wizard (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm getting 'er going now. Just FYI your estimate of "an extra 5 or 6 thousand" probably needs incremented to close to "an extra 25,000+" =) –xenotalk 22:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

→That is an awfully big number. O_o My initial estimate was based on just a sweep of Member of Parliament articles, so I was expecting a few more for the project as a whole. I was keeping track of rough figures when I started expanding the category list, but I lost track somewhere around 10 thousand. Thanks for your help with this. Road Wizard (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ 24,315 edits. 2,158 edits to cats,files,templates; 8,128 (3128 +5000) articles were tagged as "stub" because they had a stub template; 14,029 (4029 +5000 +5000) tags were placed that may have inherited a class from other projects. Please note in the final sweep, 18 articles were identified that were de-tagged after Xenobot tagged them - but they remain in an applicable auto-tag cat. To prevent these from getting picked up next time this bot does tagging for the project, a deny statement should be added to the talk page, the category should be removed from the article if erroneous, or the category should be moved to manual tag. –xenotalk  17:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Bounty Board - UK MPs
Anyone interested in nominating an article for us to focus on and secure a donation? Road Wizard (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How about Claire Ward? Former whip and junior minister in a genuine three-way marginal. Watford Football Club is being bankrolled by a prominent Conservative, while local government is predominantly Lib Dem, so there is a very good chance that she will not be an MP after the election (a good reason to work on it now). A bit short at the moment but personal life (often the hard bit) is reasonably well developed. I'd be keen to help out, but having never really worked on a biography before I'm also interested with working alongside someone with experience in that area. WFCforLife (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good choice. The article seems to be at start-class right now so there is a reasonable chance that we can push it up to GA in a short space of time. I will take a look and see what we need to work on when I get back from work. Road Wizard (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for involvement regarding Nigel Farage dispute
Talk:Nigel Farage

There's something of a dispute about whether to say that Nigel Farage is the former leader of UKIP in the infobox itself. All is explained at the relevant link. Any involvement would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. HonouraryMix (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom legislation
I've had a look at the links in UK legislation, and I've found them rather inconsistent. Here follow the lists:


 * Parliament of England
 * List of Acts of Parliament of the English Parliament to 1601
 * List of Acts of Parliament of the English Parliament, 1603 to 1641
 * List of Ordinances and Acts of the Parliament of England, 1642 to 1660
 * List of Acts of Parliament of the English Parliament, 1660 to 1699
 * List of Acts of Parliament of the English Parliament, 1700 to 1706
 * Parliament of Scotland
 * List of Acts of the Scottish Parliament to 1707
 * Parliament of Ireland
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of Ireland to 1700
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of Ireland, 1701 to 1800
 * Parliament of Great Britain
 * List of Acts of Parliament of the Great Britain Parliament, 1707-1719
 * List of Acts of Parliament of the Great Britain Parliament, 1720-1739
 * List of Acts of Parliament of the Great Britain Parliament, 1740-1759
 * List of Acts of Parliament of the Great Britain Parliament, 1760-1779
 * List of Acts of Parliament of the Great Britain Parliament, 1780-1800
 * Parliament of the United Kingdom
 * List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1801-1819
 * List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1820-1839
 * List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1840-1859
 * List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1860-1879
 * List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1880-1899
 * List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1900-1919
 * List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1920-1939
 * List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1940-1959
 * List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1960-1979
 * List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1980-1999
 * List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 2000-Present
 * Devolved
 * List of Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly
 * List of Acts of the Northern Ireland Parliament
 * List of Acts of the Scottish Parliament from 1999
 * List of Measures of the National Assembly for Wales

Apart from the inconsistency in the years (both to and hyphens are used), there is redundancy in most of the titles, where Parliament is repeated. If it is appropriate to use the form "Acts of the x Parliament" (as in the third link, for the Interregnum), and I think it is (note that "Acts of the Scottish Parliament" is official), we can remove this redundancy. Which leaves us with one last inconsistency: between ''English/Scottish/Irish/etc. Parliament and Parliament of England/Scotland/Ireland/etc.'' With the exception of the modern devolved parliaments, I am not aware of any specific rules that must be followed in each case; I understand that the latter form is the official but the former is perhaps more convenient. Here follow the two proposed sets:


 * Parliament of England
 * List of Acts of the English Parliament to 1601
 * List of Acts of the English Parliament, 1603–1641
 * List of Ordinances and Acts of the English Parliament, 1642–1660
 * List of Acts of the English Parliament, 1660–1699
 * List of Acts of the English Parliament, 1700–1706
 * Parliament of Scotland
 * List of Acts of the Scottish Parliament to 1707
 * Parliament of Ireland
 * List of Acts of the Irish Parliament to 1700
 * List of Acts of the Irish Parliament, 1701–1800
 * Parliament of Great Britain
 * List of Acts of the Great Britain Parliament, 1707–1719
 * List of Acts of the Great Britain Parliament, 1720–1739
 * List of Acts of the Great Britain Parliament, 1740–1759
 * List of Acts of the Great Britain Parliament, 1760–1779
 * List of Acts of the Great Britain Parliament, 1780–1800
 * Parliament of the United Kingdom
 * List of Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1801–1819
 * List of Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1820–1839
 * List of Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1840–1859
 * List of Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1860–1879
 * List of Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1880–1899
 * List of Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1900–1919
 * List of Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1920–1939
 * List of Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1940–1959
 * List of Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1960–1979
 * List of Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1980–1999
 * List of Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament, 2000–present
 * Devolved
 * List of Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly
 * List of Acts of the Northern Ireland Parliament
 * List of Acts of the Scottish Parliament from 1999
 * List of Measures of the National Assembly for Wales


 * Parliament of England
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of England to 1601
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of England, 1603–1641
 * List of Ordinances and Acts of the Parliament of England, 1642–1660
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of England, 1660–1699
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of England, 1700–1706
 * Parliament of Scotland
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of Scotland to 1707
 * Parliament of Ireland
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of Ireland to 1700
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of Ireland, 1701–1800
 * Parliament of Great Britain
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain, 1707–1719
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain, 1720–1739
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain, 1740–1759
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain, 1760–1779
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain, 1780–1800
 * Parliament of the United Kingdom
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1801–1819
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1820–1839
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1840–1859
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1860–1879
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1880–1899
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1900–1919
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1920–1939
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1940–1959
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1960–1979
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1980–1999
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 2000–present
 * Devolved
 * List of Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly
 * List of Acts of the Parliament of Northern Ireland
 * List of Acts of the Scottish Parliament from 1999
 * List of Measures of the National Assembly for Wales

(One could also argue for the replacement of the remaining to [year] with until [year] or pre-[year], or for the removal of the year for the two Scottish lists in case they end up with different titles, but these are minor concerns.)

I prefer the second form (right column), but others may disagree. I am also not entirely sure that this is the right venue and not, say, Requested moves. Please comment. Waltham, The Duke of 23:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be beneficial to add a note on the template talk page that this discussion is occurring here. I think far more people will be watching that template than are watching this project page at the moment. Road Wizard (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestion. Implemented eight minutes ago. Waltham, The Duke of 05:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It didn't work, after all. In the lack of dissent, and reluctant to expend the time and resources necessary for the notification of each page's talk page in order to seek wider input, I have proceeded with the moves outlined in my plan, created the appropriate redirects from the hyphenated to the dashed versions of the titles where applicable, and updated the template in question. Waltham, The Duke of 17:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)