Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 10

Local Councils
I'm trying to gather a general consensus of opinions regarding creating a new Wikiproject/sub project solely concerned with local councils. With 100s of councils, and 1,000s of wards, and 1,000s of election pages, I believe that this is sufficient for the creation of a new project. What are your thoughts? SmartyPants22 (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I doubt there are enough editors editing in this sphere to make it worthwhile having a separate project; I can only think of a handful of editors who regularly create these types of articles; you would be better off raising any suggestions at WP:E&R IMO. Number   5  7  21:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, a specific project with specific guidance and resources, sounds useful. The challenge of updating and monitoring and properly sourcing the existing local election and ward articles is a challenging one. It might be beneficial to get as many local election editors as possible 'singing off the same song sheet'. Local election and ward articles suffer from many of the same problems common to Wikipedia (rampant recentism, poor - often primary - sourcing, promotion) and it feels like I'm trying to push water uphill sometimes.
 * On the other hand, I find most if not all the issues can be covered and supported by WikiProject Elections and Referendums (and 'Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom' for UK elections). So maybe a sub-page, or some form of augmentation, to one of the existing projects would be more achievable. Sionk (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

You may find that the people at Democracy Club - who collate and aggregate election info at a local level - would be able to help with this. Edhammond2 (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Charles Kennedy for WP:GAN consideration
Hi. I would like to announce that, after getting it through the verification phase, I am going to nominate Charles Kennedy for Good Article consideration. Thoughts on that? ミラP 23:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * There's still a bit of a shortfall in coverage of his career from 1983 to 1999 - just compare the number of sub headers for the pre and post leadership sections, reflecting when Wikipedia was around. Greg Hurst's book (*) may be the best source for the basics on this and there are some books on the Alliance and the Ashdown era Lib Dems that should help.
 * (There's another book called "A Life" listed on Amazon but it's not in the British Library catalogue, nor does Google yield much. Given the timing I suspect this was an alternate proposed title for the updated edition that was instead published under the same "A Tragic Flaw" title.)
 * Timrollpickering (Talk) 00:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't have any means of accessing the entire book, but I'll see if there's anyone who does. Access to the book will be required only for parts of the book that cover 1983 to 1999. Oh, and I'll invite anyone with the book to help out in filling as much missing gaps as possible. ミラP 02:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

FLRC for Chief Mouser
I have nominated Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject History needs people
Hi everyone. I am the new coordinator for WikiProject History. we need people there!! right now the project seems to be semi-inactive. I am going to various WikiProjects whose topics overlap with ours, to request volunteers.


 * If you have any experience at all with standard WikiProject processes such as quality assessment, article help, asking questions, feel free to come by and get involved.


 * and if you have NO Experience, but just want to come by and get involved, feel free to do so!!!


 * For anyone who wants to get involved, please come by and add your name at our talk page, at our talk page section: WikiProject History needs you!!!!


 * Alternately, if you have any interest at all, feel free to reply right here, on this talk page. please ping me when you do so, by typing in your reply.

we welcome your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Use of disambiguation in UK politics category titles
Input would be welcome at Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 10. Thanks. Opera hat (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

List of Stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds split to resolve technical issue
Officeholders from 1751 to 1849 are now in List of Stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds 1751-1849.

Explanation is at Talk:List of Stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  17:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Any reason why it needs hundreds of "data missing tags" rather than just a note at the top of the page, certainly would not look as bad as it does. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Second this point, the article List of Stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds 1751-1849 currently has 1,013 [?] tags. That is a little bit redundant. Editing with Eric (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Constituency categories
Due to concerns raised here, I'm opening a non-CFD discussion on constituency categories. Inviting for input. ミラP 19:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the discussion. I dont see why  Category:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707) and all its subcategories need to have the date included when Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain and Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom  dont.  The main article is Parliament of England.  Should we be matching that? Rathfelder (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * If there are categories by constituency or geography then I think they should normally be divided into England, GB and UK, if they encompass all three parliaments. Rathfelder (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I also suggest multi-layer division by county and the periodic nationwide constituency changes. I tried to go to CFD but there was a lot of drama there. I'm away from home now so I might not respond by 5pm EST. ミラP 20:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * At present I'm paying more attention to the historic cases. Contemporary MPs are pretty well categorised.  I think it will take me some weeks to sort out the Parliament of GB. Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna abort creating more constituency categories for the time being until we get a consensus on whether or not the categories should have the date. And yes, the date should not be in the categories - omitting it should be fine. That said, I'm interested in a multiple-choice CFD on renaming them to be the same - remove date dab or keep date dab or rename to "pre-1707 English Parliament" or rename to "pre-1707 Parliament of England". ミラP 22:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll do a bit of populating the categories we already have. Rathfelder (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Per my comments at Miraclepine's talk, I remain unpersuaded that categorisation by individual constituency is a good idea ... and convinced that it is a thoroughly bad idea for the era of rotten boroughs and pocket boroughs. It was not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of any MP that they bought a seat in one borough rather than another.

When I see a category such as Category:Members of Parliament for Weymouth and Melcombe Regis, I see the work of editors who have not taken the time to make even a cursory study of the subject before categorising. For much of its history, Weymouth and Melcombe Regis was a treasury borough, part a large set of seats which were simply handed out by HM Treasury to friends of the faction in power. Similarly Category:Members of Parliament for Wootton Bassett; Wootton Bassett was one of the rotten boroughs and pocket boroughs where seats wee simply bought and sold by borough mongers. The fact that Wootton Bassett was a rotten borough in not some obscure detail; it's mentioned in first sentence of the article's lead.

The fact that a politician bought seat A rather than seat B, or that the Treasury allocated them sat C rather than seat D, is no way a fact that meets the test in WP:DEFINING that A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. It is a minor detail of a political career in many MPs changed seats at each election as their patronage changed.

It appears that those creating and building these categories assume that these parliamentary seats were something like their modern equivalents, where an MP is closely engaged with the constituency ... but before the 20th century, such assumption was often simply false. Until introduction of the secret ballot, the Westminster parliament was so corrupt that for many MPs the constituency was a form of legal fiction.

I will start bringing these categories to CFD. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this varies by time and place. Just because a constituency was bought and sold at some points does not show that it was never defining.  Rathfelder (talk) 08:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Category:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707) have the date included in this format by consensus at a previous cfd. Until there is a different consensus all subcats should include the date using the same pattern: this is speedy condition WP:C2C. I do not personally support any 'MP by constituency' scheme: MPs are in quite enough categories already.  Oculi (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Modern MPs possibly. MPs before the eighteenth century  are poorly categorised. And in the vast majority of the articles I've looked at from that period the MP clearly had a close connection with the constituency. Rathfelder (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please Stop now!.  You are both aware that categorising MPs by constituency is controversial; that's why Miraclepine opened this discussion.  You now have two editors objecting to this form of categorisation (me + ), yet Rathfelder's contribs list for he last few hours shows that Rathfelder is proceeding to populate create and populate these categories even while discussion  is underway. :
 * Rathfelder, your WP:IDHT approach is starting to look like tendentious editing, with a whiff of WP:FAITACCOMPLI.
 * Additionally, the three CFD nominations today by Rathfelder and Miraclepine (see Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 6) demonstrate a very pour understanding of the issues.  You are both editing prolifically in area where you demonstrate no ability to check even basic facts, let alone understand the wider context.  At very best, this is WP:RECKLESS editing. Unless you conform that you are going to stop this pending wider discussions to establish a consensus, I will have to consider escalating this to seek restraint on you. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree there's little point in having categories for every rotten borough, but I think there could be some merit in retaining the "MPs for constituencies in Barsetshire"-type categories. a couple of years ago you set up the system of Category:Members of the Parliament of Ireland (pre-1801) by county, Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for Irish constituencies (1801–1922) by county, &c. – do you not think it could be applied to the successive Parliaments in Great Britain too? Opera hat (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * in principle, yes the Irish model could be used here. But in practice there is a significant difference, viz that Ireland has had a stable set of counties for over 400 years (since County Wicklow was created in 1606).  See WP:IECATNAVP for a wider explanation of how that stability allowed the creation of a handy set of Ireland-by-county category navigation templates.
 * The problem is that the geographical situation in Britain is v difft. All three countries of Britain have had significant reorganisations of counties.  I am familiar with the major reorganisations in 1974 and in the 1990s.  That means that for example Abingdon consituency was in Berkshire until 1974, but then in Oxfordshire until its abolition in 1983 ... even tho no boundaries changed. So Thomas Benyon was MP for a constituency in Oxfordshire and then for a constituency in Berks, even tho he represented only one seat whose boundaries were unchanged. That sort of thing gets very messy to categorise by.
 * Meanwhile, Wales and Scotland ripped up their administrative maps in the 1970s, basically abolishing the shires. And both had another go at it in the 1970s, so for example East Dunbartonshire includes significant territory that was not part of Dunbartonshire.
 * I don't know the history of English counties so well, but I have a hazy notion there were reorganisations before 1974, including I think some consolidation of enclaves and exclaves in the 19th century. Do we have an expert on the history of English counties who could tell us which (if any) English counties have had stable boundaries for the last ~900 years since Willie the C divided up England between his pals? Or at least until parliaments began to be convened in the 1300s?
 * We could make a better examination of the feasibility if we had a clearer guide to which bits of England's political geography have been stable. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Apart from the creation of the County of London in 1889, English counties were pretty much unchanged for our purposes until 1974. The Ridings of Yorkshire and East and West Sussex can still be categorised under Yorkshire and Sussex. The Detached Parts Act in 1844 did not affect any of the parliamentary boroughs. All of the counties corporate were unambiguously within a county, with the exception of Bristol which is between Gloucestershire and Somerset and could have its own category like Athlone or Portarlington.
 * Yes, post-1974 it gets more complicated, especially in Scotland and Wales. But for all MPs in the Parliaments of England, Scotland and Great Britain your Irish category model would work perfectly well. Opera hat (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * On a related topic, does Category:English MPs 1322 seem a good idea? Oculi (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Delay of the 2020 to 2021 English local elections
Due to the postponement of the 2020 English local elections to 2021 due to the coronavirus, I was wondering when someone creates the 2021 English local elections category, should we put the former 2020 elections within it as well by adding the 2021 English local elections category within those pages. D Eaketts (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:2021 Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council election
Hi, I'd appreciate some input on Talk:2021 Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council election; we (courtesy pings:, and I) seem to be struggling to reach a consensus over whether local party leaders and retiring councillors should be included. YorkshireLad ✿  (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of all articles on local government subdivisions wards, divisions etc.
These articles generally fail notability guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. Individual council wards do not warrant their own individual inclusion unless they are notable in their own right. The only sources on these pages if any are generally of from the Government creating the ward, the census data and the local authority. Wikipedia is not a place for the indiscriminate collection of information and these are an example of Wikipedia being used to indiscriminately collect information. Local government electoral areas with their own articles are generally a duplication of information on articles for the main council elections. Wikipeida is not for this kind of duplication or collection of non notable information (in and of its own right).

These individual local government subdivisions generally fail to be notable in their own right. There is enough information on articles about the places they are in such as towns and cities. There is also enough information on these subdivisions on the main election results page.

As such all of these articles should be deleted from Wikipeidia

Individual areas which can demonstrate meting the notability criteria on Wikipeida may exist but they will need to meet that burden on their own merit.

Sparkle1 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt this discussion is from a proposal to this procedurally closed deletion request. Sparkle1 (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Seriously, withdraw this now before it gets you in trouble. You're never going to get consensus for any kind of "all articles on a particular topic are automatically non-notable" mass deletion; that's just not how we do things on Wikipedia. Either something is the subject of coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources or it isn't; we don't presume to dicatate that particular topics are inherently non-notable. Even in the unlikely event that you manage to get any support for this proposal—which you won't—it won't have any effect, since WP:Notability is top-level and can't be overruled by a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. &#8209; Iridescent 19:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Seriously, withdraw this now before it gets you in trouble. You're never going to get consensus for any kind of "all articles on a particular topic are automatically non-notable" mass deletion; that's just not how we do things on Wikipedia. Either something is the subject of coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources or it isn't; we don't presume to dicatate that particular topics are inherently non-notable. Even in the unlikely event that you manage to get any support for this proposal—which you won't—it won't have any effect, since WP:Notability is top-level and can't be overruled by a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. &#8209; Iridescent 19:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I am going to ignore the claims of "before it gets you in a lot of trouble". I interpret this as a clear intimidatory threat but am willing to let it slide as a genuine mistake with no malice intended. Please remember to assume good faith and behave courteously towards other contributors. Remember not to comment on the contributor.

Having this discussion is in no way wrong and proposing such a discussion is in no way wrong. Please take a look at the actual deletion discussion and the reasons behind this discussion before coming in and trying to shut down a discussion. In no way will I be closing, or withdrawing this discussion. It is legitimate to have this discussion. It is also wrong to say whole categories of articles are not discussed as to if they can or cannot be included on Wikipedia. What Wikipedia is not, contains categories of article which are prohibited.

The deletion of a large number of articles which in my opinion fail to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia was proposed. It was said to be the wrong venue and should be discussed at an appropriate forum for a large number of articles to be proposed for deletion. As such a wider discussion on the whole category is required, was proposed. The alternative being obliquely suggested is to individually nominate each and every article, which would be seen as an abuse of Wikipedia processes, and not a good use of Wikipedia. The better way to do this is to discuss the principles as to if local government subdivisions inherently are notable or not-notable.

Getting back to the issue at hand and not the side issue which is a procedural claim to try and stop the discussion ad, in my opinion, should be ignored. In my opinion, the default position on local government wards should be that they are not notable for inclusion. In my opinion, the default should be that the articles are inherently not notable and newly created articles which clearly fail to establish a reason for inclusion on Wikipedia should be speedily deleted from Wikipedia.

Sparkle1 (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What a boring set of articles that nobody will ever read. It's sufficient to just list election results by council and year (e.g. 2017 Cornwall Council election). Creating thousands of poorly sourced articles for every ward in the UK (or hundreds of thousands when taking a global viewpoint) is completely redundant and goes against the idea Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Editing with Eric (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * they are not at all boring to locals. I ran workshops here in Montana on how local librarians etc can start articles on their locales and the demand was high. Participants in USA told me that people really care about their neighbors and neighborhoods, and I suggest in UK as well,  Keep them. Rjensen (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Interest does not get over the hurdle of notability or the fact that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, Wikipedia disallows articles based simply on them being liked by one or more users. 21:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Sparkle1 (talk)
 * actually almost nobody in the UK know what ward they belong to or even cares. Workshops that I've run tell me that local interest groups here associate with their local district, almost always a much larger organisational unit than a ward. The folks living in Great Bridge (ward) will almost certainly look for information about their area in the Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council article or via the Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council elections article. We really don't need thousands of non-notable stubs documenting individual local election results for each electorate of 7,000. --RexxS (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * April Fool's Day was two days ago. DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are going to be rude and not participate constructively please keep yourself to yourself. Sparkle1 (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see your proposal as being in any way constructive. DuncanHill (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion other users clearly do find this proposal has merit or at least sympathise with the core points of this discussion. It is entirely voluntary weather you take part. If you do not think this is constructive you do not need to take part in it. If you have specific problems with my actions you can always talk to me on my talk page. I look forward to seeing you there. Sparkle1 (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So this "discussion" is only for people who agree with you? Perhaps you should have made that clear at the start. DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Editing with Eric makes a reasonable point when does this become an indiscriminate collection of information which is largely duplicating information on other parts of Wikipedia? Sparkle1 (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Editing with Eric makes a reasonable point when does this become an indiscriminate collection of information which is largely duplicating information on other parts of Wikipedia? Sparkle1 (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to the argument that all ward articles should be deleted, but I've got some sympathies with the argument that many electoral wards won't pass WP:GNG. I'm unaware of a guideline that says they automatically meet WP:GNG, regardless of how mundane and uncontroversial their history may have been. Personally, I've written many ward articles, but generally only if I can find something to make them stand out - a long history, specific news coverage, a controversial by-election, suspended councillors, controversies etc. Is there an acceptance on Wikipedia that all electoral wards are automatically notable? Should there be some sort of guidance on the subject? Sionk (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This proposal is not about some or even many articles potentially not being notable, that's a different matter. It's about them all being automatically non-notable, which is patently unsustainable so can we stop wasting each other's time now, per WP:SNOW? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The opening comment says "Individual council wards do not warrant their own individual inclusion unless they are notable in their own right." Isn't that the basic tenet of WP:GNG? Sionk (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * FYI - based on the above (not read in detail), I am removing the RfD templates from all of these redirects in the process of NPP re-review. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Clarify: but I'm not removing templates from the articles (non-redirects), none of which got bumped into the NPP queue. Nominator might wish to do a sweep here and sort these out. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Notability" has a special meaning in Wikipedia WP:SIGCOV: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. To delete an article that exists you have to show that it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources such as local newspapers and public documents & censuses. I think it's impossible to make that judgment without looking at the specific case involved.  Rjensen (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for Scotland, where recently a large set of ward articles have been created, but in my opinion these wards are sufficiently large to have more than very local media coverage due to them being multi-member entities covering a reasonable population (between 15k and 30k). For the previous system in place (before 2007) with much smaller single-member wards with very obscure identity in some cases, I would have said that GNG criteria would have been difficult to justify (e.g Glasgow moved from 79 wards to 21). So it really depends what you are looking at. Cornwall was cited as an example that still seems to have a single member system with 121 wards, I don't see the need to create articles for those, unless in exceptional instances as also mentioned above where there is sufficient input from the editor(s) to produce a good quality article and sufficient sourcing to demonstrate its notability and significance beyond its mere existence. Crowsus (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * you were not best advised at the AfD. There is no SNG that I'm aware of that would suggest that Prescot North (ward) is inherently notable, so your proposal here is tilting at windmills. My advice, FWIW, is to take Prescot North (ward) to AfD on its own. Have the debate; suggest it be upmerged into a parent article or two; see the objections; try to show that it doesn't meet GNG (lack of significant coverage in multiple independent sources – not just the local tabloid or the Knowsley MBC website). When that's run its course, you'll have a much better idea of whether or not it's worth tackling the others. But you don't need this proposal; it simply can't achieve anything. --RexxS (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * My two cents. Individual wards may not be notable per se: but the communities they represent are, as almost all geographical entities have notability. Local councils are notable, as are elections to them, because Wikipedia generally leans towards accepting that democratic elections have inherent notability. This creates a grey area where elections to wards have notability but the wards themselves do not. I accept that boundary changes create newly shaped, newly named local government divisions, which might lend weight to the notion that they are of dubious notability, as they change so often. However we are talking about a very niche, very narrow area of Wikipedia, and one which requires expert opinion, rather than broadbrush assumptions about their status. My view is that this discussion is unhelpful and not constructive if it's based on the automatic "delete all" prejudice of some posts above. Wards can be statistically important and the ONS does divide the country up into wards and divisions. We may yet save them from the "delete all" tendency. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with the issues behind the suggestion, as I have seen some ward pages where the only notable information is the run of election results, which is already carried on the relevant election pages for the respective local authority. And, having this information duplicated increases the chances for error or data conflict. Nevertheless I agree with others that simply deleting them all without any review is too drastic. Why doesn’t the OP identify one or two that don’t meet the notability criteria, and put them up individually for deletion? And link the AfD discussion here. Having dealt with these we can all be more informed. MapReader (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you going to clean up all the articles you've left tagged with deletion templates, linking to a discussion whcch you have since closed as withdrawn? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for starting this discussion. I don't think articles about council wards are useful for the encyclopedia and would be happy to see consensus against their presumed notability. It might be worth getting the attention of Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features), because that's the notability guideline wards fall under. WP:GEOLAND says populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable but I suspect that doesn't cover electoral wards in the same way it clearly doesn't cover LSOAs or other statistical territories in the UK. If any ward passes the GNG then by all means keep it but it doesn't seem reasonable to me to presume in favour of the notability of electoral wards. If they are then there's a pool of hundreds of thousands of historical wards that all need stubs created for them, which feels contrary to WP:WWIN. Ralbegen (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wards might pass WP:GEOLAND as legally recognized places but then wards often change (both boundaries and name) so might fail similar to census tracts.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * They are not similar to census tracts, which are called output areas (and lower layer/middle layer super output areas) in the UK. I don't think we have any articles about these; if they have names they consist of the district name followed by a number and sometimes a letter. Peter James (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Is GEOLAND even relevant? These articles aren’t about places in the round - history, geography, climate, culture, wildlife etc. - that is already covered by the article for the relevant town or village. They simply contain (replicate) the election results already on WP, plus some additional political information about the election campaigns, elected politicians, and local issues. MapReader (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * They shouldn't be deleted but could be combined into lists with links to the elections and places that are in them. Another possibility is something similar to the articles for wards of Sheffield. Peter James (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

How about this as a bad example? I can’t see why this page should exist. MapReader (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * By searching for "Ancoats and Clayton" on Google, I get language date (https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/mlm-datatool/areas/ancoats-and-clayton/), neighbourhood profile (https://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/download/6522/neighbourhood_profile_-_ancoats_and_clayton_and_bradford), a local community profile (https://www.manchestercommunitycentral.org/ancoats-and-clayton-community-first-panel) and a neighbourhood team (https://www.manchesterlco.org/ancoats-bradford-and-clayton). The election history is nothing we don't see on numerous American and Canadian equivalents. With a bit of care and attention it could be rescued. If not, it could be re-directed to/merged into the Manchester elections main page. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What for? It’s not even a ward anymore.  The election results are already on other pages, and it contains no additional information.  Any info about that corner of Manchester that is notable would better be added to the Manchester article. MapReader (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No longer existing is not a reason to delete something from Wikipedia. However, as already has been suggested, for most short-lived wards, the information will be held elsewhere (and a bespoke article unnecessary). Sionk (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Is Prime Minister a title in the UK - or just a job?
See. In other words, which is better, " killing the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Prime Minister David Cameron and the deputy PM Nick Clegg" or " killing the Archbishop of Canterbury, Prime Minister David Cameron and deputy PM Nick Clegg". I'd be happy with killing the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Prime Minister and the deputy Prime Minister", but adding "the" seems odd and possibly ambiguous. But I get US/UK English confused at times, so... Thanks.  Doug Weller  talk 15:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think MOS:JOBTITLES (which doesn't distinguish between US and UK style) means it can be constructed as Prime Minister David Cameron or the prime minister, David Cameron. In any case the construction in that example seems quite awkward: wouldn't killing Rowan Williams, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, who at the time were serving as Archbishop of Canterbury, prime minister and deputy prime minister or killing Rowan Williams, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, who at the time were serving as Archbishop of Canterbury, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom be more natural? Ralbegen (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's unnecessarily verbose. The natural form in British English would be killing Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg or killing the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "I'd be happy with killing the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Prime Minister and the deputy Prime Minister". Thanks for the offer  but even the most fanatical remainer would think it's pointless now Brexit's happened. Cabayi (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the recent appalling comments by Steve Hedley about the PM, maybe not! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Edward Heath
Hello I started a topic on Talk:Edward_Heath asking about a clarification to the article's lead. I'm posting it here for some feedback before the archive bot gets to it. Thanks. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Leader of the Council
The recent deletion of List of council leaders in the United Kingdom (for good or ill) drew my attention to the Leader of the Council stub article. Searching for "Leader of the Council" on Google seems to suggest it might be an actual formal title, though specific to the United Kingdom rather than broader usage. As it stands at the moment, the article doesn't seem to be of much use, though I would prefer to see it expanded or developed, rather than join in with the current trend to delete articles about UK local politics.

Does anyone else have an opinion? Is "Leader of the Council" a recognisable, formal title that derserves a Wikipedia article. Or would it be better moved to something like "Local authority leadership in the United Kingdom", or simply proposed for deleation? Sionk (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is the formal title for councils that do not have an executive mayoral system (see COSLA or the Essex CC constitution). Whether it is article-worthy is a question I am not sure on – the Leader is already mentioned at places like Local government in England, which could be expanded. Number   5  7  08:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Other roles such as Mayor and Party Leader have WP articles, and on the basis that the Council Leader is a key role after the 2000 Local Government Act as subsequently amended (particularly the introduction of the so-called “strong leader” model) it probably merits an article. That said, a lot of such articles appear very weak - the WP one on party leader is really just a dictionary definition followed by a few random examples and commentary from around the world. MapReader (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've always wondered why some councils have an internally elected leader and other have an executive mayor. That would certainly be useful to explain in the article. Sionk (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But that is explained here MapReader (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

(Yet another attempt at) Boundary reviews
Evening all,

Following the two aborted attempts at the Sixth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies, the government is trying again, having today published the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill (see https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0127/20127.pdf ). I have thrown together a very rough and ready 2021 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies to help us all get prepared for the process which will soon be starting. The title, incidentally, is not "Seventh..." or "Eighth..." because I believe there is some uncertainty over the official designation and I thought it better to have an article in place than play "catch up". In anycase, this article can always be moved if we get any official title in the future.

When the Fifth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies happened, and decisions made on new constituencies, I remember the existing constituency articles were sometimes flooded with editors wanting to add the new boundary details, and it sometimes got a bit rushed and confused. We need, I think, to be very careful about starting new constituency articles until we're absolutely certain about the name and boundaries.

(With regards to constituency names, I noticed during one of the "zombie" Reviews that the Scottish Commission named "North X" something Wikipedia already had an article for named "X North", with an existing redirect. I think we may, if this happens again, have a Project discussion about how we name articles where "Compass Point X" and "X Compass Point" converge. Again, however, this is a long way off).

Hopefully we can all get together and work on the relevant articles when the time comes. Good luck! doktorb wordsdeeds 16:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Racial views of Winston Churchill
This AFD has been opened and may be of interest to members of this project. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source?
Would you consider this a reliable source for updating List of electoral wards in Suffolk to include Newmarket's new wards in West Suffolk

https://www.doogal.co.uk/AdministrativeAreas.php?district=E07000245

--Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Senedd on television article
I have started a deletion discussion for the Senedd on television article. Comments would be appreciated. Elshad (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Content dispute at Churchill war ministry
There has been a dispute over content (specifically, the list of Ministers) at Churchill war ministry. Things have gotten heated to the extent that it got to Administrators noticeboard with the result that the article has been given full-protection against editing. If advice or guidance could be directed to the articles talkpage that would be helpful. Thank you. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Center for Countering Digital Hate
The Center for Countering Digital Hate article contained quite a lot of loaded language: I've tried to remove some of it, but I think some review by non-involved editors would be useful to ensure that the article meets the WP:NPOV criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing drive to improve Constitution of the United Kingdom
We are seeking editors to collaborate on improving the Level-5 vital article Constitution of the United Kingdom. There is further discussion on Talk:Constitution of the United Kingdom. Welcome any editors who are interested in getting involved, and grateful for any contributions, large or small. Whizz40 (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Welsh UK constituencies
On the Template:Infobox UK constituency can someone please change the welsh national region government overlap from Welsh Assembly to Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament. Thank You.Cwmcafit (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Edited just. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Diolch/ Thanks. Cwmcafit (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Russia report
This is currently dominating the UK news. There are two relevant articles: Intelligence and Security Committee Russia report, about the report itself, and Russian interference in British politics, about the wider issue, including material not directly related to the report. I invite editors to improve these articles. -- The Anome (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Early MP categories, redux
There was a big discussion about a year and a half ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 9, which I think ended with a general agreement to categorise MPs with one category per parliament, broadly the same system as with modern MPs.

I have been going through the early English MPs categories today and recategorising some which seem to be errors, as there were no Parliaments which began in those years (cf List of Parliaments of England). In a lot of them, eg 1436, the Parliament was summoned in 1436, and the members selected, but it actually sat in 1437 so we already have a category for that year. In some others, eg 1473, the Parliament sat for several years (1472-75) so we categorise everyone under the year it opened.


 * Emptied categories

Category:English MPs 1400, Category:English MPs 1409‎, Category:English MPs 1430‎, Category:English MPs 1436‎, Category:English MPs 1440‎, Category:English MPs 1446‎, Category:English MPs 1448, Category:English MPs 1465‎, Category:English MPs 1466, Category:English MPs 1469, Category:English MPs 1471, Category:English MPs 1473, Category:English MPs 1477, Category:English MPs 1479, Category:English MPs 1480, Category:English MPs 1482, Category:English MPs 1492, Category:English MPs 1503


 * Not yet emptied but working on it

Category:English MPs 1449‎ (which covers two terms), and still to check others pre-1381

One thing this points up is that it might be worth relabelling the categories that span multiple years, to avoid confusion. We already do this for all Parliaments after 1510 (see Category:16th-century English MPs) but we don't do it before that date, with a couple of exceptions (Category:English MPs 1335–36‎). Is this something we should think about changing? Andrew Gray (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Seems that a lot of these have since been deleted after I emptied them (hadn't realised that was automatic now). I think the next step is to rename the 1400s categories in line with the post-1500 schema to avoid confusion:
 * Category:English MPs 1423 -> Category:English MPs 1423–1424
 * Category:English MPs 1427 -> Category:English MPs 1427–1428
 * Category:English MPs 1429 -> Category:English MPs 1429–1430
 * Category:English MPs 1439 -> Category:English MPs 1439–1440
 * Category:English MPs February 1449 -> Category:English MPs 1449 (checking existing members)
 * Category:English MPs November 1449 -> Category:English MPs 1449–1450
 * Category:English MPs 1450 -> Category:English MPs 1450–1451
 * Category:English MPs 1453 -> Category:English MPs 1453–1454
 * Category:English MPs 1455 -> Category:English MPs 1455–1456
 * Category:English MPs 1460 -> Category:English MPs 1460–1461
 * Category:English MPs 1461 -> Category:English MPs 1461–1462
 * Category:English MPs 1463 -> Category:English MPs 1463–1465
 * Category:English MPs 1467 -> Category:English MPs 1467–1468
 * Category:English MPs 1470 -> Category:English MPs 1470–1471
 * Category:English MPs 1472 -> Category:English MPs 1472–1475
 * Category:English MPs 1485 -> Category:English MPs 1485–1486
 * Category:English MPs 1489 -> Category:English MPs 1489–1490
 * Category:English MPs 1491 -> Category:English MPs 1491–1492
 * 1449 is an odd case; the Feb term runs through Feb-Jul 1449, but the Nov term runs through to June 1450. Breaking it up like this is consistent with what we've done in the 1550s (eg Category:English MPs 1554 & Category:English MPs 1554–1555‎)
 * If there's no objection here I'll set up a CFD request in a little while. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Lower casing 'prime ministers', etc
Should we lowercase prime minister, deputy prime minister, cabinet ministers, party leaders/deputy leaders etc per WP:JOBTITLES, in the bios of individuals who've held those positions? GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:JOBTITLES is MOS and should generally be followed: prime minister is one of the examples there. I'd use Cabinet ministers instead of cabinet ministers though, as Cabinet is usually capitalised. Wouldn't the relevant MOS talk page be the appropriate place to discuss this rather than this WikiProject talk page? Ralbegen (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. But in the past, I faced resistance on the British prime ministers etc, bio articles, when attempting to lower case. Figured it best to get a feel for what editors in each country felt. I've posed a similar question, at the Australian & New Zealand politics WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As per the MoS, these should be lowercased, except when the full, formal title is used, i.e. "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom". As we don't refer to our prime ministers as "Prime Minister Johnson", capitalisation for title purposes is a non-issue in a British context. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've noticed (for examples) inconsistency in application: Justin Trudeau (uncapitalised), Boris Johnson (capitalised), Scott Morrison (capitalised) & Jacinda Ardern (capitalised) intros. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Prime Ministers listed in Speaker of the Commons info box
I recall this was debated and settled a while back but it seems to have come back.

Prime Ministers have been (re)added to the info boxes for Speakers of the House of Commons.

John Bercow for example was Speaker during the terms of four Prime Ministers, whilst that's an interesting political fact or pub quiz question, I fail to see why it's included in the info box as the two are really unconnected. Bercow example was neither appointed by or held accountable to any of the four Prime Ministers during his term. If we include PMs in the Speakers info box why not list Bercow in Cameron or May's info box?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Bercow#PMs_in_info_box

Littlemonday (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You could make a case for both. There is no direct link between the PM of the day and the Speaker, that's true. However I can see why you would want an article to make clear that during the period of office the Speaker oversaw the time during which X, Y and Z were Prime Minister. It helps connect the office with the era, so to speak. I do understand your view though. The Speaker is chosen by the House, is not necessarily tied to a specific Parliament or general election, and has no party affiliation. Also it might look as though there was a system of appointment or approval by successive PMs. I would err on the side of inclusion, as a personal view more than anything, but am open to persuasion. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Category for 1832-34/5 MPs
I have put a CFD up at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_August_5, to rename Category:UK MPs 1832–1835 to Category:UK MPs 1832–1834. Hopefully this should be uncontroversial (it's not changing the system, just correcting a date) but please do comment if you have concerns. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:FLRC Nomimination
I have nominated List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk)  @ 23:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

TL:DR

 * I believe it is wrong & will rename a header to correct this unless anyone objects. ( Change From Offences to Offences within SSSIs )
 * Or wishes to make a better comprehensive edit of the section, or article.
 * That does not fix the article. But it makes it more or less accurate for what is then covered.
 * ERROR an article about SSSI s has been interpreted as if it always applies country wide.
 * I do not know where to post this. Whether I should put this in the article discussion. Or the temporary discussions on the projects page, so I will post in both.

My Interest / Lack Of
I do not have interest or knowledge of politics or legislation. I do believe the article to be inaccurate, and would like to make it more accurate.

Inaccuracy
It is specifically the Offences section that I am talking about. Although I suspect other sections, and then Offences NOT within an SSSI could be improved or added to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandee2 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Of the bullet points within the sub sections the main citation used is http://www.english-nature.org.uk/Special/sssi/images/EnforcementPolicyNotice.pdf
 * I can not find that. I don't think it still exists. see https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/english-nature"English Nature English Nature has closed English Nature promoted the conservation of wildlife, geology and wild places. It was merged with the Countryside Agency and Rural Development Service to form Natural England in 2006."

Gandee2 (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC) I do have links relating to the subject of the article but not sure whether they may be considered inappropriate as they could be considered original source/original research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Gandee2 (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Gandee2 (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Gandee2 (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The info regarding offences may well be correct for SSSI s but it no longer has a valid citation to support it.
 * BUT this does NOT apply nation wide. Mostly the points are valid only within SSSIs
 * Common sense may suggest linking to Government guidance documents. Is that allowed ? It will not necessarily be the original legislation, instead it will be public documents from Government departments.
 * I doubt these will be up to to required standard, and are not the best examples but they do back up my contention that something applying to a sssi (or for that matter a protected species) does not necessarily apply to the whole countryside, or every plant and animal. https://gallowaywildfoods.com/welcome-to-wild-food-heaven/foraging-and-the-law/ http://www.environmentlaw.org.uk/rte.asp?id=217 <== note some legislation relates only to protected species.
 * As I understand it Removing wild plants may be allowed if not a protected species and not a SSSI. And certainly with the land owners permission fruit may be removed. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11584156 https://britishlocalfood.com/foraging-british-law/
 * also waters will be temporarily muddied by European Laws although we are now out of the Eu and in a transition period http://www.environmentlaw.org.uk/rte.asp?id=211
 * The only other citation used once in the current edit of the Offences section is relating to public rights of way http://www.southampton.gov.uk/s-environment/rightsofway/maintenance.aspx
 * . Hey Gandee, thank you for your thorough explanation and evidence-gathering. The article is not one that I know, and clearly you have an expertise and awareness of the subject at hand. In the first instance, I'd recommend that you try to fix the errors yourself. Remember that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and given that you have all the sources and citations to hand, you've got what it takes to justify any edits you make. So if you're confident enough, click Edit Page, and get cracking. My second point is that we here in the politics project need people like you more than ever. Editor numbers are sine-waving at the best of times. Your forensic attitude to articles would be a great asset. Please consider working on other pages if you can. Good luck. Come here if you need help editing. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Doctorbuk, Can't figure out the ping markup, but guess you are watching the thread. Maybe the ping only works once the edit is posted. . does not seem to work  Update found https://en.wikipedia.org/work/wiki/Template:Reply_to but not sure yet if I can get that to   I live in Southport. So not far from you in Preston. I do have an interest in computers, and sure I can pick up Wikipedias markup eventually. I have found the help pages on that. No problem in making an edit, however did not want to tread on toes especially on an article that is part of a project Doubt I will ever get hitched on creating or modifying many Wikipedia articles, however it is a great resource and so time permitting I am happy to make make minor contributions, where I see something I am interested in that could be improved.. I will modify the section heading of that article. I may even try to follow the article and keep it up to date. One advice that would help is: Are you able to answer the question I raised:  Common sense may suggest linking to Government guidance documents. Is that allowed ? It will not necessarily be the original legislation, instead it will be public documents from Government departments.

RE: Debate on creating a Chris Mullin disambiguation page (now it automatically leads to the basketball player)
Right now, the Chris Mullin page automatically leads to the basketball player - at the same time, there is a Chris Mullin (politician) - the one who led the fight to release the Birmingham Six and vote A Very British Coup (which was adapted to a TV series).

I've started a discussion on the talk page there, requesting to rename the basketball player page to Chris Mullin (basketball), and make the Chris Mullin page a disambiguation page with equal representation to both of them.

Arguments raised against my proposal:
 * The basketball player has more views.

My main argument for the move:
 * The basketball player gets most of his views from the US, while outside the US he's hardly known, and in Britain itself the politician-author Chris Mullin is much better known.

I invite you guys to take part in the discussion.

The link: Talk:Chris Mullin.

Thank you! Maxim.il89 (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pensions Ombudsman


The article Pensions Ombudsman has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "100% unverified to secondary sources for 13.84 years"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 22:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Ukip leadership mess
Ukip currently has rival groups claiming the leadership of the party with the leader and chairman from a month ago in opposite camps. Please can we have some more eyes on the article to ensure it doesn't turn into a battleground. See Talk:UK Independence Party for more details. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Autumn 2020 United Kingdom budget
Just a heads up to say I've moved the article to Next United Kingdom budget as the Treasury have announced this afternoon that the budget planned for this autumn has been scrapped. Likely it will be some time next year, but we'll have to wait for them to confirm that. Also it's likely there'll be a spending review instead this year, but I'd rather wait for official confirmation of that. This is Paul (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Plaid Cymru - democratic socialist?
Seeking the views of more editors on this matter Talk:Plaid Cymru. Your views on the matter are welcomed and would be much appreciated. Please leave them on the linked talk page, thanks. Helper201 (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Labour Party Black Sections
I don’t know whether this is the right place to ask – please re-direct me if this is not appropriate. There have recently been extensive changes made to this article. It looks to me as if some of the changes may be undermining its neutrality. I am also concerned about comments added about Roy Hattersley, Neil Kinnock, Gloria Mills and Bob Purkiss. I know virtually nothing about this subject. Would someone from this project please take a look at the article? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Scottish Parliament regional results by constituency
I have started a discussion at Talk:Next Scottish Parliament election about adding regional results to constituency articles. Any feedback on this would be great. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 12:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

British Empire Feature Article Review
I have nominated British Empire 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Quality posts here (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

List of council leaders in the United Kingdom
Could anybody point me towards the 'List of council leaders in the United Kingdom' article? I've noticed it on the open tasks list, but can't seem to find a link. Thanks! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It was deleted in April! Ralbegen (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah brilliant. Thank you! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've now removed the task from the open tasks list. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Cleveland (UK Parliament constituency)
Hello, wondered if members could look at the changed been made to Cleveland (UK Parliament constituency) article, a user is claiming this was recreated and adding information which I do not believe should be present. Using the existing replaced by links there appears to be no recreation. Out of my field but I have reverted a couple of times to a version that ends in 1974. Keith D (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Welsh_independence
Need some interested editors to weigh in on the matter of some recent opinion polls. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC on succession boxes on US presidential biographies (and the future of succession boxes)
An RfC is occurring at  that concerns the inclusion of succession boxes in articles about US presidents. The RfC's outcome may have implications for the future of succession boxes more generally. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the village pump. Thank you. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 : please review quality and importance rating
A great deal of work has gone into expanding, cleaning up and citing Calendar (New Style) Act 1750, so may I suggest that its classifications according to this wikiproject merit review. It is clearly no longer start class. Of course I don't expect this WP to pre-empt the GA process (unless of course someone would be kind enough to get two for the price of one and do the GA review: if not, then any suggestions or corrections that can be actioned while it is in the GAN queue would be most welcome). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Country vs state debate
A discussion is taking place at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Kingdom#Sovereign_Country about whether the term country or state should be used in the intro of the article for the United Kingdom if any one is interested in commenting. Llewee (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Brexit Party vs Reform UK
As many of you might be aware, the Brexit Party has officially renamed to Reform UK. Initially the Brexit Party article was moved to Reform UK. However this has been undone pending consensus on the talk page. If you're interested, please join the debate here. — Czello 21:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

FAR for royal assent
I have nominated Royal assent 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c)  buidhe  18:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Scottish Parliament
I have nominated Scottish Parliament 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c)  buidhe  22:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020
Hello

I noticed you have rated the importance of this article yet. It would seem quite important to me given its highly controversial impacts on devolution. I think it could really do with more expert eyes looking at it.

Perhaps it could be made a priority for this project?

Thanks 80.42.39.51 (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Addition of seemingly WP:FANCRUFT at Young Fabians
This was discussed very briefly on the talk page, but discussion appears to have stalled and the problematic edits have resumed. Further input would be welcome on the relevant talk page section. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

==Discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § British Members of Parliament - Date of Birth== You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § British Members of Parliament - Date of Birth. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

2021 Welsh Conservatives leadership election
Hello I would like to see what is your opinion on 2021 Welsh Conservatives leadership election and what should the title be called. It wasn't an election as the Conservative members of the Senedd just gave their unanimous support to one candidate (RT Davies) without any contest or vote. Therefore should it be called 2021 Welsh Conservatives leadership appointment instead? It would be good to hear your opinion. Thanks, Cwmcafit (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking into it, there's precedent for still calling them elections (see 2007 Labour Party leadership election (UK) and 2017 Liberal Democrats leadership election). --The Right &#39;Orrible (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree on using that title if we have an article. There may be merit in just merging the content into some history of the Welsh Conservatives or their leadership. I'm not convinced there's enough to justify a separate article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment on reliability of The Canary
There is a request for comment on the reliability of The Canary. If you are interested, please participate at. —  Newslinger  talk   04:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Broken results graphics
2019_Armagh_City,_Banbridge_and_Craigavon_Borough_Council_election, 2019_Ards_and_North_Down_Borough_Council_election and all the other 2019 Northern Irish council elections use this style of results graphic where you have a line, split into coloured segments for each party, with an arrow showing what you need for a majority. Previous discussions have agreed that these should never be used because they do not reliably display. On some screens, particularly with mobile devices, they display incorrectly: the arrow often doesn't work, small parties' segments are shown too big as the graphic won't shrink smaller than the numbers within it, etc. There's also the issue of what order to put the parties in as this can incorrectly imply a coalition, alliance or friendship between parties.

I can just go through and remove all of these, but does anyone have ideas for what to replace these with? Bondegezou (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The parliament diagrams might be an option? But yes, I agree these graphics are awful and I remove them on sight. Number   5  7  14:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to start removing them from these articles. Others are welcome to swoop in with replacements. Bondegezou (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

2021 Bristol City Council election
Hi, while patrolling the recent changes, I noticed that the latests edits to 2021 Bristol City Council election article were made by IPs and by editors with very little editing history. I think someone familiar with this subject ought to take a look.--JBchrch (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Legal Aid Agency
Majolie1912 (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Hi, I'm looking to improve Wikipedia's article titled 'Legal Aid Agency.' This is currently a stub class so needs more secondary sources and inline citations. So far, I have added in 8 referenced secondary sources, however would like to expand the article further to explore the works and progress of the legal aid agency over the years. Please let me know if you have any insights or would like to help. Majolie1912 (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Majolie1912 (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't help, but I've added this as a new discussion so it isn't hidden in the one above. TrottieTrue (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Privilege of peerage at FAR
FemkeMilene has nominated Privilege of peerage 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Upcoming Super Thursday
In advance of the 2019 general election I asked for help in removing suggestions of incumbency from the biographies of former MPs. Five years ago I did the same slog for MSPs, MAs and MLAs.

This time around the Scottish Parliament will not dissolve until the day before the election. The Welsh Parliament will dissolve on 29th April. The Northern Ireland Assembly is now off-cycle and not due again until 2022. Is is worth bothering to edit the articles of MSPs and MSs this time?

When last I raised this point it was suggested that special code could be used to automatically hide the post-nominals during purdah, but I have not heard anything further on the matter. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I would say no for MSPs, except the ones that aren't seeking re-election (which looks to be quite a lot this year). The Senedd might be an easier task seeing as there are only 60 members. I'm happy to help with any tasks we agree on though. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 07:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with PinkPanda272. It would be worth editing the articles of MSs and the MSPs who are not standing for re-election to remove references to incumbency. As for the MSPs who are standing for re-election, though it would be nice for accuracy, it might be logistically difficult to remove all references to incumbency and then, less than 24 hours later, readd in many (dare I say almost all?) cases. In any case, I'd also be happy to help. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Gavin Williamson re-assessment
Gavin Williamson is rated as a Start-Class article in respect of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. The article appears to have been developed and it may be time for a reassessment of the article. However, I do not feel confident enough with the assessment guidelines to conduct such an assessment myself. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Given what he's doing to education in the UK, "start class" would be a fair reflection of where he needs to be.  [<<< joke]   Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under Secretaries of State
I've noticed a lot of Minister of State for, Parliamentary of State for etc. pages being created recently, but the issue with these sorts of pages is that their purviews are so fluid that it can be rather difficult to keep track of when, when a new minister is appointed, a new office is created versus when they are just replacing a minister in an already-created office. Part of the issue comes from the fact that offices of Minister of State and Parliamentary Under Secretary of State rank, unlike those of Secretary of State rank, don't have Transfer of Function Orders when they're created.

Take Minister of State, Ministry of Justice for example, a rather well known example of a junior office. That page used to be called Minister of State for Prisons, but that hasn't been the name of the office, at least according to the article, since 2002. It is also the case that that particular office has varied between being of Minister of State rank, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State rank and not existing at all, again according to the article. It is clearly to its author's credit that they've managed to create a list of past holders. Therefore, I suggest that instead of having individual pages for every office of Minister of State and Parliamentary Under Secretary of State rank, we just have one article called, for example, Junior ministers, Ministry of Justice, for each department. Such an article would include every Minister of State and Parliamentary Secretary of State that that department has ever had and would remove any confusion over purviews. What does anybody else think? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've thought about these a lot and I share your concerns. I'm really not very convinced of their notability or verifiability. I'm also not sure there's much encyclopaedic to say about these various offices, or the holding of them - the duties of each office holder will vary so wildly that it's really nothing more than a list of people who at some point held junior ministerial office in that department - and even that becomes difficult when you consider the constant reshuffling of some areas (such as universities, say). I can see that it becomes very attractive to try and track office-holders throughout time but I'm not sure it's possible to do it in any kind of accurate or meaningful way, and I'm not sure what we're adding that services such as the new https://members.parliament.uk pages don't already provide - for example, . ninety:one  23:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just realised that this thread has been archived, but I completely agree and thank you for your reply. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The capitalisation of UK political offices
I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style concerning the capitalisation of UK political offices. If you're interested, you can find it here. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

FAR of United Kingdom corporation tax
I have nominated United Kingdom corporation tax 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Urban/rural district council elections
What are people's views on notability of these? While I appreciate they were at the same tier as modern district councils (for which we do have election articles), they were much smaller and I'm personally not convinced they are notable enough for articles. Maybe a single article on the RDCs/UDCs that includes all the election results should be enough?

Bringing this up as 1962 Orpington Urban District Council election has recently appeared. Cheers, Number   5  7  22:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say that they are not-notable unless sources give background coverage and not just a list of candidates/results. I agree that a single article for "Orpington Urban District Council elections" would be better in this case. If we wanted a guide for which elections are/aren't notable, I would suggest the following as a rule of thumb:
 * {|class=wikitable

! English/Welsh ! Scottish ! Notable?
 * County Council
 * County Council
 * Yes
 * County Borough Council
 * City Corporation
 * Yes
 * Municipal Borough Council
 * Large Burgh Council
 * Maybe
 * Urban District Council
 * Small Burgh Council
 * No
 * Rural District Council
 * Landward District Council
 * No
 * }
 * I've found from writing/improving a few Scottish election articles from the 1970s that the top two or three types generally receive an analysis/summary column in newspapers covering the elections, while the others only get a list of results (or sometimes no coverage at all). I can't speak for England and Wales, but I would imagine there is a similar situation there as well. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 09:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Rural District Council
 * Landward District Council
 * No
 * }
 * I've found from writing/improving a few Scottish election articles from the 1970s that the top two or three types generally receive an analysis/summary column in newspapers covering the elections, while the others only get a list of results (or sometimes no coverage at all). I can't speak for England and Wales, but I would imagine there is a similar situation there as well. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 09:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)