Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 5

Navboxes for current MPs
I have nominated for deletion two navigation boxes for MPs:


 * Current Conservative MPs -- discussion at Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 25
 * Members of the House of Commons -- discussion at Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 25

-- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

PCC by-election
Heads up if this is the kind of thing you want on your watchlist doktorb wordsdeeds 14:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

local election results
The following discussion may be of interest to this project Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics Gaijin42 (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

By-elections for deletion
Please see this discussion. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Constitutionalist
I have just created the page Constitutionalist (UK) about the 4th party of the United Kingdom general election, 1924. Previously, all references to Constitutionalist directed readers via a re-direct to here Constitutionalism, which was unsatisfactory. I am in the process of altering the relevant links to the new Constitutionalist (UK) page. However, I have encountered one problem that I can not overcome. When I change 'Constitutionalist' to 'Constitutionalist (UK)' in the various tables, the name and party colour are not recognised. I assume that something needs to be set up somewhere so that the links in the tables work and a party colour is assigned. Can anyone help? Graemp (talk) 10:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do for you @Graemp User:Graemp doktorb wordsdeeds 12:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I doubt I will need to learn that trick. Graemp (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

New set of articles on minor Labour politicians needing review/improvement
User:Rathfelder has, in good faith, created several articles about minor Labour Party politicians, mostly candidates at the next election in safe seats. Many of these may well get elected next year and be notable in due course, but Wikipedia lags behind notability and, as per WP:POLITICIAN, I think the general position on Wikipedia has been that candidates are not notable until they are elected. Of course, some may be notable under general notability guidelines, but in that case, the articles probably need improvement.

I have been debating this matter with Rathfelder at User_talk:Rathfelder and Rathfelder has agreed to redirect some of the articles to the relevant constituency articles for now (thus preserving the work done should the individual become notable in due course). Other articles are outstanding. If other editors have time, could they please review these and help build on Rathfelder's work where possible, or move to deletion/re-direction where that is appropriate? Articles include:


 * Adrian Heald; AfD ongoing at Articles for deletion/Adrian Heald
 * Alex Sobel; AfD ongoing at Articles for deletion/Alex Sobel
 * Karin Smyth; Rathfelder contested my PROD, but has expanded article since
 * Jeff Smith (British politician); Rathfelder contested seconded PROD, but has expanded article since
 * Angela Rayner; Rathfelder contested my PROD, but has expanded article since
 * Duncan Enright -- for me, probably the most notable given his non-political career
 * Uma Kumaran; Rathfelder contested seconded PROD, but has expanded article since
 * Stephanie Peacock; Rathfelder contested my PROD, but has expanded article since -- I suggest merge into Tom Watson
 * Mark Hayes (doctor); Rathfelder contested my PROD, but has expanded article since
 * Sally Gimson

Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I deny responsibility for Sally Gimpson. But the others I am still working on. If the consensus is that any of these people are not notable can I please do a redirect on them, as I am confident that most will become more notable shortly. And I strongly oppose merging Peacock into the Watson article. Her relationship may have got her into the Daily Mail but she is much more significant in her own right. I've assumed in other articles that references from 4 independent sources was a reasonable number to establish notability, especially if they made different points. I hope politicians are not to be treated worse than other people.Rathfelder (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is possible that a ppc of any party, in any constituency may decide to resign or may be un-selected or may not be adopted for some reason or may even fail to hand in their nomination papers in time. While such an occurrence may be extra-ordinary, I don't think that it would confer notability. If I was Rathfelder, I certainly wouldn't be tempting fate. Graemp (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies over Sally Gimson: my bad. 4 references from independent sources may or may not be enough to satisfy notability. Passing references to an individual, or accounts of an election campaign that can be better handled in another article, are not sufficient. The key issue here is "significant coverage". See WP:GNG for details. WP:NEWSORG may also be relevant: less weight may be given to local newspapers. Bondegezou (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Just as update: the article on Adrian Heald has now been deleted and there is now an AfD for Karin Smyth: Articles for deletion/Karin Smyth. Bondegezou (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ... and I've now started Articles for deletion/Jeff Smith (British politician). Bondegezou (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And I've also now done Articles for deletion/Stephanie Peacock. Bondegezou (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Use of tables
Hi, Earlier this year I encountered problems with two editors who did not like edits I had made on articles of interest to this project. These edits related to the constituency electoral tables I had included. They did not think that these tables should be included and deleted them. Fullish discussion ensued and one of the other editors said they would raise the point on here to get other editors feedback, something that I supported. They chose not to do that, but I still think that it is a subject that the project should have a view on. The tables in question are tables that are widely used by this project in Constituency articles. They are also used in articles on by-elections and articles on individual politicians. They are similar/identical to tables used in other countries political projects, who use them in a similar fashion. As with all wikipedia tables they have been designed in such a way that text does not flow around them. The other editors felt that this factor meant that they should not be used in the body of an article as that broke the flow of text. I disagreed and said that I felt that was a good thing. They argued that the relevant information was better conveyed in text form. I disagreed stressing that tables help convey information more easily. Here are some developed/developing project articles which use tables alongside text. Discussion followed in an effort to reach a compromise. Proposed options included 1. Tables only to be used at the end of a paragraph. 2. Tables only to be used as a separate paragraph. 3. Tables only to be used at the end of the article. Wikipedia policies and guidance do not resolve this difference. I think we should continue to include the projects tables in the projects articles and feel that the articles are best served with their inclusion at the relevant point of the narrative. Graemp (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wednesbury (UK Parliament constituency) by User:Lozleader
 * Ceredigion (UK Parliament constituency) by User:Macs15
 * North West Durham by-election, 1914 by User:Graemp
 * Helen Fraser (feminist) by User:Graemp.

Missing PMs
Does a rough list exist of missing parliamentarians? I've encountered so many in my creation of Lord Mayor of London articles. P.S. I have been roaming the country photographing (or trying to) the graves or memorial plaques to PMs, any help would be greatly appreciated. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

How to reflect MPs seeking re-election on a change of allegiance
Further input at Talk:List_of_United_Kingdom_by-elections_(1979–present) would be welcome on how to summarise the recent UKIP defection by-elections in a table. Bondegezou (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

National Liberal
Hi, just a heads-up with regard to election tables and a new party description. For references to National Liberals, rather than use the label National Liberal Party (UK, 1931), we can now use the label National Liberal Party (UK, 1947) which I have just created. The difference is that the 1931 version displays the shortname Liberal National and the 1947 version displays the shortname National Liberal. This enables us to be more historically accurate with our descriptions. There is no change in colour. Graemp (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:Politics of the United Kingdom articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Designated Nationalist, Designated Other and Designated Unionist
I have noticed these three articles discusses terms that are purely creation of law and are highly identical in nature. Hence I propose to merge them into single new article tentatively titled Political designations in Northern Ireland, but I am open to the ides of merging it to any other existing article. Discussion is located at Talk:Designated Nationalist.-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  22:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

PPCs in safe seats
I had this article for a PPC in a safe Labour seat submitted to WP:AfC. My understanding of WP:POLITICIAN is that candidates don't usually qualify for an article unless they receive national press coverage. I also understand that candidates are often allowed articles close to elections, but now is WP:TOOSOON. Rankersbo (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move
Please comment at Talk:Community Charge. I thought the RM might spark some debate, but very few people seem to have spotted it. Cheers, Number   5  7  22:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Is Molly Samuels a tory councillor?
Did Molly Samuels or Molly Samuel-Leport ever run for MP for Walthamstow and if so where did she finish? Dwanyewest (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * According to Walthamstow (UK Parliament constituency), no. Having reviewed also the Waltham Forest website, she is not a councillor either. She did run in 2014, but finished with a rather lowly 4% of the vote. --New Progressive (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Scottish National Party
I'm in a dispute at the Scottish National Party leadership election, 2014, concerning Nicola Sturgeon's previous position in the party. Was she the deputy leader or depute leader of the party? GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've checked the SNP official website. I thought Depute was a spelling error. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Rochester and Strood by-election, 2014
The Rochester and Strood by-election, 2014 article is currently assigned "low importance" for this WP. May I respectfully suggest that is should be at least mid importance. In the fullness of time, it may even be of high importance. Mjroots (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OT: Out of curiosity, what (across Wikipedia as a whole) does the importance assessment achieve? The only value I have ever been able to see in it is its ability to generate argument; which is a great spectator sport but not overly constructive. ;-) Bagunceiro (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Featured article review/Yes Minister/archive1
Yes Minister article has issues that should be fixed. Comment there by clicking above. --George Ho (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

ongoing AFDs on UK political parties
There are about 14 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on:
 * Articles for deletion/4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP)
 * Articles for deletion/Britannica Party (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Countryside Party (UK)
 * Articles for deletion/Fishing Party (Scotland)
 * Articles for deletion/Free England Party
 * Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (5th nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Miss Great Britain Party
 * Articles for deletion/New Nationalist Party (UK)
 * Articles for deletion/Roman Party
 * Articles for deletion/The Common Good (political party)
 * Articles for deletion/Patriotic Socialist Party (2nd nomination) (already deleted and closed)
 * For this one the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party has been disputed, with deletion of its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.
 * Articles for deletion/Independent Green Voice
 * Articles for deletion/Scottish Democratic Alliance
 * Articles for deletion/Yorkshire First
 * You may consider participating. -- do ncr  am  20:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Candidates listed on YourNextMP
Your Next MP is also crowd-sourcing who is standing at the 2015 General Election, and has a good set of data. License of the data is cc-by-sa, so we could re-use it on Wikipedia. I wrote a page comparing candidates listed on Wikipedia and those listed on YNMP. So far it's mostly been useful for fixing spelling errors in candidate names and at some point, I might try getting it to generate to copy-paste onto pages. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Electoral maps
About the time of the last General election I produced a complete series (except Northern Ireland) of all conceivable ward and constituency maps on Commons. However, I suspect a number of these will not be useful for the 2015 election due to boundary changes.

I had a request last week on Commons to produce current maps of the electoral wards for 3 London Boroughs, which I have done (eg changing Hackney from 2010 to 2014).

I don't really have time to trawl through and work out which others need a refresh. However, if any are needed please let me know.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Torridge and West Devon ..or Devon West & Torridge
Hi, can anyone tell me why we have an article on Torridge and West Devon (UK Parliament constituency) when the every wp:rs calls it Devon West & Torridge? I can't see any reason for this on the talk page or article ..but I know from experience there has to be one. Regards JRPG (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All possible variants appear to be in use by reliable sources - eg Torridge and West Devon is used by its Current MP, local parties, and the press. If the official name is "Devon West & Torridge", I'd be very surprised if is the most common name due to its awkward phrasing.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I'd missed your response. On reflection, its probably because of the sources I use as my routine wp:rs.  The Guardian uses Devon west & Torridge, Parliament.uk has Torridge and West Devon and the BBC suffered a bout of indecision by the end of the first paragraph! From what you've said, I think a redirect makes sense. Regards JRPG (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Complete list of candidates
Thanks to an external website, I have been able to create this extensive list of the candidates for the 2015 election. Details on the talk page. Suggestions for further development are welcomed. (,, .) &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Template needs bringing up to date
I've edited Template:United Kingdom general election, 2015 to bring the party leaders up to date, and to remove the BNP, since they no longer have any members in any of the parliaments or assemblies. However, the sorting of political parties leaves much to be desired, as it does not seem to match up with the information regarding seats held in the last parliament given in http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/, which I take to be definitive. Also, now I need to go to do some off-wiki work... Can anyone help, please? -- The Anome (talk) 10:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Swing with a change of second party
How should one calculate a swing where the second-place party changes from election to election?

Take the contrived example below.

The Conservatives have made a sufficient gain to pass the Liberal Democrats, but not to take the seat from Labour. Should Labour's swing be quoted against the Tories or the up-and-coming Lib Dems?

As a further question, given that Labour and the Liberals both lost voter share (-3.4% and -0.6% respectively), should the swing between them be calculated as (3.4+0.6)/2=2% or (3.4-0.6)/2=1.4% swing? Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Forthcoming election candidate order.
Following a discussion at Talk:Oxford_East_(UK_Parliament_constituency) and realization that there was nothing in the wp:mos BrownHairedGirl suggested I asked if there had been an RFC on this. If not can we have one? Regards JRPG (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have always presumed and usually seen ballot paper order being used. Bondegezou (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Which by law is alphabetical which is also the prefered order that is normally used in wikipedia for most lists so should not be an issue. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we've had this discussion a number of times in the past both on the older project page and on several by-election threads where a number of usually anon editors were all fighting to get their candidate at the top of the list. As I recall, alphabetical was agreed as the best solution for the following reasons; a) This is the order all candidates are listed on the ballot paper by law. b) The order they are given in as a rule when reported on. c) This is most even handed approach to put an end to the continual edit wars and be fair to all concerned. These I think are the main reasons this approach was adopted. Regards -  Gallo glass  11:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly thanks Bondegezou, MilborneOne &  Gallo glass  and apologies for a late response. I'll use alphabet rather than previous MP in future and in the absence of any citable policy refer to this discussion. Regards JRPG (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see has applied another principle, editing about 90 constituency articles to place UKIP first. NebY (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Whilst I can't think of a rational wp:npov explanation for his changes, it does highlight the problems of not having an unequivocal policy on this. JRPG (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So lets make a start on a consensus. I Support Alphabetical order. It's what the Electoral Commission demand by law and its the order on the ballot paper. - X201 (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of what happens in this case is there any easy way of getting the order formalized? JRPG (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , at this late stage an RFC wouldn't be closed until well after GE2015 is over, so that wouldn't help. But there seems to be consensus here, so I suggest implementing this consensus and referring any dissenters to this centralised discussion.
 * I am not aware of any relevant MOS, and am wary of instruction creep. I hope that this discussion will suffice. Just a suggestion, to give it more prominence: maybe it could be linked from the main project page. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I also support the alphabetical order list. I have added a reference to ukpollingreport on some pages which lists all the PPCs for the constituenciesOxr033 (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC).
 * Glad to hear that you support alphabetical order.
 * But as requested on your talk page, please revert the edits in which you did place UKIP first. I have reverted some of them (e.g., , ), but there are many more.
 * Please do not leave other editors the task of reverting these errors. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ok i'll take a look later if I missed some, mostly i've just been adding a ref so people can see all the PPCs, ty Oxr033 (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @Oxr033 appears to have accidentally moved the UKIP candidate in Rochester and Strood (UK Parliament constituency) to the top of the box again. Have now corrected this. -  Gallo glass  14:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Widespread UKIP vandalism
Anyone have any idea what is going on with any page related to UKIP showing a big picture of Miliband and the script "VOTE LABOUR"? I can't seem to find who is doing this or how to reverse it, it doesn't look like just a standard edit. WilliamF1two (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit, it's now been fixed WilliamF1two (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Move proposal: Disambiguate Burning of Parliament (British) and Burning of the Parliament Buildings in Montreal
There is a proposal to move Burning of Parliament to Burning of British Parliament and Burning of the Parliament Buildings in Montreal to Burning of Canadian Parliament. Please take part in the discussion at Talk:Burning of Parliament. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

George Osborne
Unless I'm missing something, Osborne is NOT Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom as well as First Secretary of State and Chancellor. He is effectively/de facto Cameron's deputy, per , but I've seen nothing claiming he has been appointed to the office of Deputy. Cameron is not using the role in his majority government, as Gordon Brown didn't in his. I've been WP:BOLD and rectified this, if there are any objections please explain here. U-Mos (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Correct. There is no Deputy Prime Minister. Osborne is effectively Cameron's deputy as First Secretary of State, but is not Deputy Prime Minister, a title that I suspect will not be used in Cameron's new cabinet. Argovian (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Parish council elections
Anyone with an opinion on the notability of parish council elections may wish to contribute at Articles for deletion/Salisbury City Council election, 2009. Cheers, Number   5  7  13:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Which Lord Feldman?
Anyone know which peer was sworn to the Privy Council today? Basil Feldman, Baron Feldman of Frognal, or Andrew Feldman, Baron Feldman of Elstree. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Andrew Feldman, Baron Feldman of Elstree as the Conservative Party Chairman. http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-05-11/lord-feldman-appointed-conservative-party-chairman/ MilborneOne (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt you, but the source (government in 140 chars or less ;) ) isn't clear. Why wasn't he sworn to council in 2010 when he became (co-)chairman? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe you have to be a privy councillor to attend cabinet meetings which he didnt do before. MilborneOne (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought so too, but the ITV article and official tweet only mention political cabinet, not the actual cabinet. (For example, Boris Johnson is not a privy counsellor but attends political cabinet.AFP) Since the Privy Council Office didn't mention "Elstree" or "Frognal" (there are too many peers to keep track of them all! He is now on the official list, but again it doesn't say which one, and as they are both Conservatives, our guess has only a 95% chance of being right.) I think we'll have to wait and see when he adds it to his own bio before we add it to Wikipedia.--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion ignores the fact that no two Peers can have the same name (title). Basil's title is Lord Feldman, Frognal not being part of the title.  Andrew's title is Lord Feldman of Elstree.  The linked document records that "The Lord Feldman" was sworn as a privy counsellor, but I expect there is a mistake somewhere.  Either they have the wrong name or they swore in the wrong peer: it's clear that Feldman of Elstree is the party chairman and so the obvious new Rt Hon.
 * This Privy Council page lists "Feldman, Lord" as well.  This Number 10 page omits Feldman:  maybe a fact checker saw there was a mistake.  No doubt it will be cleared up soon.  Sussexonian (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

term end for MPs - Dissolution of Parliament
I thought it would be helpful to highlight a technical issue relating to the "term_end" for Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom. Most MPs who sat in the 55th parliament would have seen their term of office officially end on 30 March 2015- that was the date that this Parliament was dissolved. At that point these people ceased to become MPs and from that point those that were standing for election to the 56th Parliament were actually considered candidates. There was a lot of editing that occurred at the time to remove "MP" postnominals, but leave the rest of the "MP" Infoboxes on the article pages.

For those who were re-elected it doesn't make a big difference- it is east enough to reinsert the MP postnominal and remove any date that had been entered into the "term_end" field. For those who did not stand for re-election or who were not successful it would mean that they had indeed ended their term of office on 30 March 2015 (not 7 May 2015, the day the election was held, nor on 8 May 2015, the day that most of the constituency results were declared).

The official explanation is at: Dissolution of Parliament. There is a list of details for individual MPs that can be accessed at: MPs at dissolution - 30 March 2015

I note this issue was also raised in a discussion in 2010 at the last UK general election in 2010. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion ported from User talk:Therequiembellishere
Hi, I noticed you had been going through the pages of articles relating to the end date for some people who were Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom. As far as I understand for most MPs that were not re-elected this should read 30 March 2015. That was the date that this Parliament was dissolved and when these people ceased to become MPs- not the date of the general election for the next Parliament, which was held on 7 May 2015. I was wondering if it would be helpful to point you towards the official explanation of this, which can be found here: Dissolution of Parliament. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, all MPs cease to be MPs when Parliament is dissolved. That's how it works. After dissolution there are no Members of Parliament until the election results are declared. If they held ministerial posts then they continue to do so until a successor is appointed, but one does not need to be an MP to hold such a position. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I started writing that before Drchriswilliams posted the comment above, but I am happy to second what s/he said! --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I third that, and suggest you undo all of your own undos on this issue. – Smyth\talk 17:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere rarely answers any requests for explanations of why reverts are taking place against users that have clearly provided a solid foundation for their edit. As the law states that members stop being an MP on the dissolution of Parliament then May 7 is obviously incorrect as the end date for the previous term in office. They stop being an MP but may be a Minister of the Government until relieved or they resign, a completely separate body. Nasnema  Chat  18:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Nasnema, have we ever interacted before? Am I not allowed to leave my computer. I was going to say something about apologies and thanks for the info to the three above but after your unwarranted jibe, I'll just leave it at that. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Total nonsense to whoever declares an MP end date before a new MP is returned. See all previous UK general election articles and infoboxes. the date of dissoluitonment is not taken on Wikiepida as per longstanding general consensus if you wish to make such a sweeping and unilateral change go to the main wikiproject and not a user talk page. The WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom is where to discuss this. Sport and politics (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I second what says regarding this. If you were seriously going to say the term ended on 30 March, then yuo'd have to show a gap in tenure for every other MP in the house who retained their seat. Clearly that would be silly, and we don't bring the technicality of the dissolution of parliament to imply that the seat was vacant for that time. Legally yes, but practically no. As said above, if you really want to change this long standing convention, an RfC would be needed at WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion continued
That an error is longstanding does not make it a consensus, nor is it in itself a reason to continue to perpetuate the error. Neither is the omission of intervening term ending dates a reason for deliberately making the ones we do include inaccurate. Yes, there are a lot of dates that need changing - but so what? We've got the crowdsourcing power to do it, that's the whole point of wiki. Considering it's only taken two or three person-hours' work to correct the dates for the most recent outgoing MPs, a small task force should be able to tackle the rest in short order. After all, the correct information is readily verifiable. Let's make Wikipedia better! --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Omitting the gaps within tenure is a reasonable simplification, but displaying a blatantly incorrect end date is not. We should not perpetuate a "convention" which is inconsistent with what all the authoritative sources say. – Smyth\talk 12:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, the convention of talking of a multi-term MP as having been an MP since, say, 2001 is normal and in keeping with sources. But I agree, we shouldn't give the impression that retiring or defeated MPs have remained MPs until the date of an election. This is not just a legal nicety; it has direct and practical consequences. On dissolution, sitting MPs lose Commons privileges and the use of facilities, including their parliamentary offices and staff. Likewise, constituents no longer have an MP to take up their cases or pursue issues. However it was that we fell into this rather surprising error, we shouldn't perpetuate it. NebY (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * For MPs who were not re-elected, the end of term should be the date of dissolution: the authorities are quite clear. While I don't see it as a productive use of time to go changing all of the articles, everyone makes their own decision on priorities. I would strongly object to anyone discouraging or reverting this small improvement in accuracy.
 * For those who are re-elected, there is a technical 6-week hiatus that no-one has suggested including in Wikipedia.
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is an example from the closest we have to an official bio for an MP that wasn't re-elected: "Member of Parliament 06 May 2010 - 30 March 2015, Member for Wells	2010-15" . By comparison, this person was re-elected twice "Member for Welwyn Hatfield	2005-15"
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I have made a start on correcting dates for those MPs whose terms ended in 2010. Those MPs who lost their seats) have been done, those who stood down are yet to be done. For those wishing to help, the appropriate dates for the last few elections are 12 April 2010, 11 April 2005, 14 May 2001, 4 April 1997, 16 March 1992, 18 May 1987, 13 May 1983, 7 April 1979. Also, as User:Nasnema has pointed out, terms do not begin until the declaration of results; outside Sunderland, these are almost always on the date after the election. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 10:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

With regard to those MPs who stood for re-election and lost their seats, they stopped being MPs on either the 7th or 8th of May not the March, so I will be going through all of those MPs and re adding the correct dates to their articles! SleepCovo (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you read this discussion at all? – Smyth\talk 12:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Common sense should not be abandoned, especially in an encyclopedic environment. Could we agree on that? The term obviously ends at the dissolution. Period. (Reasons and sources have been stated above.) For those who were re-elected, the gap is omitted for convenience. That makes sense. I suggest SleepCovo et al. drop the haggling, and I'd like to remind all that WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. No RfC is necessary to correct obvious mistakes. Kraxler (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * While this is not a bureaucracy there needs to be some account of avoidance of confusion to those with little or no prior knowledge of the subject mater. With a complex explanation, individuals simply clicking through will likely be confused as to why the dates do not match up properly. Seeing one term date end and another not start continually, unless it is blindingly obvious, e.g. death, resignation and so on, will likely cause confusion where none before. Accuracy is one thing but this appears to go in the absurdity category of slavish adherence to the letter of the rules as opposed to what is generally accepted to be the case, Sport and politics (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources make it clear what is "generally accepted to be the case". If people find the gaps surprising, then that's because the reality is surprising. It's not our place to fix that. – Smyth\talk 12:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It is though the job of an encyclopedia to be accessible and understandable.having an unexplained date which is not continuos will confuse and will start to reduce the accessibility of the encyclopedia to those who do not have prior knowledge of the subject matter. Please see WP:TECHNICAL. Sport and politics (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:TECHNICAL contains the following:
 * It is important not to oversimplify material in the effort to make it more understandable. Encyclopedia articles should not "tell lies to children" in the sense of giving readers an easy path to the feeling that they understand something when what they then understand is wrong.
 * As NebY points out above, this is not a mere technicality, but has direct practical conseqences for all of the MP's constituents. – Smyth\talk  12:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Correct dates are not overly technical. They may surprise some readers; that's fine. We don't restrict this encyclopedia to repeating common errors (and we've seen no evidence that this error is indeed common). As WP:TECHNICAL says at WP:OVERSIMPLIFY, "It is important not to oversimplify material in the effort to make it more understandable. Encyclopedia articles should not "tell lies to children" in the sense of giving readers an easy path to the feeling that they understand something when what they then understand is wrong." NebY (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If you follow the above stated "common sense usage", there will be nothing surprising and nothing unclear. The term of those who did not return to the next parliament ends at dissolution of the previous one. Those who return are considered to continue in office, there is no gap. This is also handled in this exact manner by the sources. It beats me that there can be any discussion about this. Kraxler (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Peers who are not Privy Counsellors
In reply to Which Lord Feldman?

A minor point: all barons are Rt Hon. whether Privy Counsellors or not. Opera hat (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia says so, but I can't find a source. parliament.uk says the opposite: "Rt Hon. should be used when a Lord is a member of the Privy Council." --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hroðulf is 100% correct on this point; in the UK only members of the Privy Council should be asigned the prefix Rt Hon. and being made a Baron does not automatically confer membership of the the privy council. Graemp (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I just read that this was already discussed at Talk:The_Right_Honourable. It seems everyone is right: Debrett's and older usage applies (applied?) it all peers below the rank of Marquess, while a succession of government websites restrict it to privy counsellors. I suggest we follow the current practice of www.parliament.uk, and restrict it to privy counsellors. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Template for Leaders of Greater London
I was wondering if anyone could create a template for Leaders of Greater London such as Mayor Boris Johnson, Lord Mayor of City of London and leaders/elected mayors of Borough councils in a similar style to Template:Mayors of the largest 50 US cities or Template:Australian Capital City Mayors? I can't figure out how to do it. AusLondonder (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the WikiProject, and a belated welcome to Wikipedia. That idea sounds to me like it will be useful to readers.
 * A basic navigation template is straightforward. You simply create a new article with a suitable name (follow a red link if you like Template:Heads of local government in London or Template:Mayors in London perhaps ) and paste in the example text from one of the navigation templates such as navbox or navbox with columns (or even copy and paste from a template that you like.) There are several of us can help you tweak it or fix glitches if you get stuck.
 * Have you decided if you want to link the articles for the offices (such as Mayor of London), or the articles for the incumbents (such as Boris Johnson) - or even make a template of each type?
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

When does a new government begin?
Isn't it the appointment of a new Prime Minister, rather than a change of majority party, that marks the start of a new government? I was surprised to see several instances of Wikipedia lumping two Prime Ministers together as a single government, e.g. Liberal Government 1859–66 and Conservative Government 1957–1964. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear whether your question is about British constitutional practice or Wikipedia articles. If the former, then the end of an administration is when the Prime Minister hands in the seals of office, and the beginning of one is when a new Prime Minister 'kisses hands' (it seems not always a literal term). But in terms of articles, sometimes a change of Prime Minister doesn't mark a significant change in the policy or personnel of an administration and it probably makes more sense to treat them as one - especially when one of the Prime Ministers isn't in office for long, as with Sir Alec Douglas-Home and Lord John Russell. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ofwat updates
Hi. I'm quite new to this and am not sure how to make changes. However, I have noticed that the Ofwat page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofwat) needs updating to reflect the outputs from PR14 (price review 2014) and the start of AMP6. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.128.179.130 (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically you click on the "Edit" tab and go for it! This tutorial should give you the basics: Tutorial. If you don't want to do it yourself, you could add   at the top of the page and then put any particular suggestions for updating it on the talk page. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status of party mission statement
I've just added this projects banner to the talk page of Independents for Frome, a new small local politics party written up in yesterdays Guardian. Any help with the article would be appreciated, but specifically can anyone say what the copyright status of a parties "mission statement" is - this article includes a copy and pasted from a facebook page and I'm unsure if that is allowed.&mdash; Rod talk 08:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The text also appears on the party's website and has been there since at least 2013, but has only been added to the article this month, so we need not fear that the Facebook text is recently taken from Wikipedia. Copyright resides in mission statements just as in other published material. I've removed it from the article. NebY (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Scottish party leaders
A user has changed United Kingdom general election, 2015 (Scotland) to show Jim Murphy, rather than Ed Miliband, as Labour leader. My instinct is that this is incorrect (for one thing, there's no separate Scottish Labour group in Westminster) but I invite any opinions on the matter. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Scottish Labour Party goes into great detail: it is not a separate party operationally or legally. I've reverted. NebY (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

John Pugh listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for John Pugh to be moved to John Pugh (Liberal Democrat politician). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Michael Seymour (Royal Navy officer) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Michael Seymour (Royal Navy officer) to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

List of elected female political office-holders in the United Kingdom listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of elected female political office-holders in the United Kingdom to be moved to Lists of female political office-holders in the United Kingdom. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Peer review for Cheshire West and Chester Council election, 2015
Hello everyone. I've nominated the article Cheshire West and Chester Council election, 2015 for peer review here. I would very much appreciate if a couple of people from this group could have a look at the article. It's not the most exciting election, but the unusual result (only council which went from Conservative to Labour control at the last UK local elections) and active local press means that there's a lot of information available. Thanks in advance for any advice you can give. Smurrayinchester 12:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

‎Discussion about colour for independents
If you've been working on election articles recently, you may have noticed a lot of fluctuations in the colour used for independents. There's a discussion going on at Template talk:Independent (politician)/meta/color about whether a pale or a dark shade is better. Since it's not a well-watched template, I thought I'd put a note here. Smurrayinchester 09:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC on List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom
Hi. There's an RfC about List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom open here. It's not attracted any comments yet, so input from project members would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As a result of the discussion, I have now started an AfD discussion about this article at Articles for deletion/List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Local Government Act 1988
While the Section 28 is more notable, this Act (with Amendments) is lesser known. Currently, the Act page is a stub and needs expansion or proof of importance. --George Ho (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Full names of candidates in elections
There has been some disagreement over the use of full names of candidates in election boxes - most recently on Falmouth and Camborne (UK Parliament constituency). I think that we should in general stick to commonly used names instead of full names, e.g. Sebastian Coe instead of Sebastian Newbold Coe, and Candy Atherton instead of Candice Kathleen Atherton.

The full names not only make the boxes look cluttered, they also can be quite confusing, especially when a well known politician is known by a different name to their full name (e.g. Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson).

I'm not sure if this issue has come up before and a consensus reached, if so I'd be grateful to know where and what the decision was, otherwise, it seems like something we should have a consensus on now. I would suggest that we use names commonly used by the candidate (e.g. Boris Johnson in the above example) Frinton100 (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Frinton100 has chosen to delete the middle names of candidates in the election boxes. I have restored the full names where known for this consistency. The practice of using full or the fullest names available assist in the further identification of individuals, Frinton100's edits actually were detrimental to that process. Some but not all of the main sources used for constituency election results provide full names while others only use initials. Where an editor has included fuller information, it has helped them and other subsequent editors from IDing a candidate and providing an appropriate link to the individual concerned. Not to include this information makes this task harder.
 * I think that if anyone trawled through the current and historical constituencies, they would soon realise that consistency on this matter does not exist one way or another but that there are a clear majority of articles that include full names. I think this difference is merely a difference in the extent of the development of each article.
 * Perhaps the style that seems to have been adopted of placing full names in the boxes is because it apes the official records which are read out by returning officers at a count. If so, I think that is a nice touch.
 * Regarding the point about confusion. Where these boxes are used is in articles where there are also tables listing MPs whose names tend not to be listed in full. With this and the fact that any potential confusion can be removed if the reader clicks on the link in the box. Graemp (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Practice varies all over the place so there isn't a single pattern to match. Some returning officers read out very full versions of names - e.g. "Jeremy John Durham Ashdown commonly known as Paddy Ashdown" - whilst others will go for just the simple version - e.g. "Nick Clegg". The ballot papers themselves can vary depending on what the candidate's agent writes in and/or the local practice. (I was an agent in the recent general election and have been a council candidate under both the long and short forms of my name.)
 * I think it would be better to use the common form in all circumstances as it makes it easier to recognise names, particularly unelected candidates who achieved notability elsewhere. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Another one in support of using the common name. Having some very long full names makes the results tables less readable. Number   5  7  15:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Having an un-linked candidate only entered as say "John Thomas" will tell the reader little and will not assist other editors in trying to work out who this person was/is. If we have a source that lists him as "John S. Thomas" and an editor lists him as "John S. Thomas" then this might help another editor work out his middle name. An on-line search may throw up some options and an editor may correctly conclude that the full name is in fact "John Stradling Thomas" and enter it as such. They may not know if "John Stradling Thomas" is notable or may not bother to find out. However, if they do change the entry to "John Stradling Thomas" it will make it easier for another editor to come along and work out that it is John Stradling Thomas. This sort of gradual development happens a lot on here. If the project takes the view that middle names should not be included then "John Thomas" un-linked may remain as "John Thomas" un-linked.
 * Secondly if we encourage editors to go around and remove the middle names of un-linked candidates, they may unwittingly be removing the name that an individaul was commonly known by. Also in the Falmouth and Camborne article, Frinton100 removed the middle names and in doing so changed Gilbert Granville Sharp to Gilbert Sharp. Then realising that there was no page called Gilbert Sharp decided to remove the link, leaving us with just Gilbert Sharp. Fortunately I spotted this and restored it to Gilbert Granville Sharp.
 * These are the main reasons why we must encourage not discourage editors to use the fullest names wherever possible. Graemp (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If blue-linked, the COMMONNAME should be used. If that is the article title, use that without mentioning the rest of the name, if not pipe the article title with the COMMONNAME or use a redirect if it exists. If unlinked, the full name is appropriate so that the person can be properly identified. Kraxler (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately agreeing on a consensus to use COMMONNAME can still be problematical. Margaret Thatcher is a good example of this; when she first stood she stood as Roberts not Thatcher as that was her name as she had yet to get married. Graemp (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict - I am referring here to the post at 15:47) I think the second point you raise about Sharp actually shows why a policy of displaying commonly used names will help - then there will be no confusion over whether a name is a middle name or part of the surname.


 * Regarding your wider point, I don't see how it helps having the full name in the election box. If you see the Liberal candidate in Dunny-on-the-Wold in 1955 was called John Ernest Cholmondley-Warner, and you are working on an article about John Ernest Cholmondley-Warner the eminent brain surgeon, then either:


 * a)You will already know that Cholmondley-Warner was the Liberal candidate for Dunny-on-the-Wold in 1955 as you will have a RS which says as much and which you can use as a citation on his page, or
 * b)You should not be making the leap that the John Ernest Cholmondley-Warner who stood in Dunny-on-the-Wold in 1955 is the same one who was the eminent brain surgeon. It could be his father, or son, or cousin, or someone completely unrelated.


 * Frinton100 (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Re. the Thatcher example - it's very easy. You use the commonly used name at the time of the election, with a piped link to the person's article if it exists. So for Thatcher in Dartford in 1950 we would use Margaret Roberts Frinton100 (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It is only easy in those instances where the editors knows, but often we don't. I often don't know if an Albert Henry Smith was known as Albert Smith or Henry Smith. If he has an article he may be listed as Albert Henry Smith merely to distinguish him from other Albert Smiths and Henry Smiths. Somebody may even have decided when creating his article to title it Albert Smith (politician) without knowing by which name he was commonly known. This sort of thing has happened a lot and often an assigned COMMONNAME can be wrong. If he was actually known as Henry Smith, this doesn't matter that much if you are on his page. If however, you are on a constituency page (or anywhere else) and in an election box it says Albert Smith linked as [Albert Smith (politician)|Albert Smith] then you are reading something misleading. So in this example, using [Albert Smith (politician)|Albert Henry Smith] is better because you can guarantee it is correct.
 * This is a difficult area which will not be helped by a use of the COMMONNAME in all circumstances. Graemp (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * But if you don't know, then you shouldn't be making the connection without a RS to back you up. If Albert is known as Albert, then [Albert Smith (politician)|Albert Smith] is perfectly OK. If he is known as Henry, then his article shouldn't be called Albert Smith (politician). If someone has made a mistake then the article's title needs to be changed, provided there are RS to back it up.


 * If you are working on an article about Albert Henry Smith the rugby player who was known as Henry, and there was a Communist candidate in 1945 called Albert Smith, then I accept, you would be unlikely to put two and two together. However, even if the candidate was listed as Albert Henry Smith, you could not assume that him and the rugby player were the same person, unless you had a RS from outside wikipedia to tell you. You would then be able to change his name in the constituency that he stood in and link to his page as [Henry Smith (rugby player)|Henry Smith]. If you make the assumption that the candidate and the rugby player were the same person and you have no sources to back that up, then that is original research. Frinton100 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @Frinton100: In the hypothetical Albert Henry Smith example I used, you were meant to assume that it actually was the person that needed to be linked to the hypothetical article. The example was meant to get you to think about how we title people in an election box, not to consider research methods we adopt. For the record, I don't know any Albert Henry Smith or variants of.
 * Time for me to come clean; I created Gilbert Granville Sharp and chose that title because I didn't know if he was known as Granville Sharp, Gilbert Sharp, Gilbert Granville Sharp or G.G. Sharp. Basically when I create a biog article and don't know how the individual was commonly known I assign the full name. This is the safest way to progress, which I also think is how we should progress when editing the election box, because not every editor did as I did. Graemp (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I realise that the Smith example was not real. My point was that whichever way you are coming at it, whether you are looking at an election result and trying to work out who Albert Henry Smith is and whether he has a wikipedia article, or whether you have stumbled across Albert Smith the Communist candidate and are wondering whether he is Albert Smith the rugby player, you can do neither without a RS, so saying that we should leave his full name in the election box simply so that he can be linked to the article when it is created (or if it is already created) suggests that the editor who would wish to do this is engaging in OR.
 * Going OT for a moment, surely no one should be starting a biographical article if they don't know what the person's commonly used name was? If you don't have a RS for that how can you create an article? Frinton100 (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are supposed to tell you how the person was known. That's the essence of WP:COMMONNAME. It's not the article creator who has to come up with something, it's the sources who determine it. Kraxler (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We should put in the box what was on the ballot paper for the election in question and link it to our article, we should not be converting it to any other form for display purposes just to suit ourselves we should be following the source. Keith D (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with only using ballot paper names. There are a couple of problems with this approach. Firstly, for older elections we only usually have sources such as the Times Guides and so on, which typically list candidates with first name + middle initial(s) + surname, or just initials + surname. We don't always have the full name as used on the ballot paper.
 * Secondly, for more recent elections, we would end up with some of the confusing names mentioned above, and even for current politicians who straddled the rule change pre-2010, different versions at different elections (Boris was for example Alexander Boris de Pfeffel in 2001 and 2005 but plain Boris in the London Mayoral 2012 (and '08 I believe) and in 2015). This would add further confusion, especially where a candidate has stood in the same constituency for several elections. Frinton100 (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @Keith D: There is much logic to what you say about going back to the source of the ballot papers, however this is impractical. Frinton100 correctly highlights some of the logistical problems with this solution.
 * @Frinton100: You correctly raised the issue here of "Full names of candidates in elections" to try and seek some sort of consensus about what we display in the election box. If you wish to additionally discuss issues relating to research methods, it might be best for you to raise that in some other discussion. Graemp (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing is, all of your justification so far for keeping full names is that it helps you connect people in election boxes to people in biographical articles, which sounds very much like a research method - hence the reason so much of this discussion has been devoted to research methods.
 * What would be your reasoning for keeping full names for people who are already linked such as sitting MPs, former MPs and other notable candidates? I think there is a reasonable case to be made for the suggestion made above by Kraxler. Frinton100 (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What you are doing is original research you have to report what the source says. I suggested that ballot paper as that would be the easier option to avoid different sources using different methods but if you are using some other document to source the information then you should put what the source gives as the entry in the box, be it full names or initials. It may give problems with differences between elections but we should be portraying the source which we get the information from. Keith D (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, typically the source used for modern elections is a news site such as the BBC, which uses commonly used names in election results. For historic results we typically get first name + middle initial + surname or initials + surname from most RS. So using the principle that we only use what is written by the source, we would use any one of three formats - e.g. A.C.L. Blair, Anthony C.L. Blair or Tony Blair. No sources that you would tend to see listed on wikipedia would use full names.
 * But either way, don't see that simply dropping someone's middle names for the sake of clarity is OR. Frinton100 (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I try to use middle names where known so as to distinguish people (e.g. Jones's in Wales).

Interview for The Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (discuss)  @ 15:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Constituencies
Currently a large number of constituency articles start in the following way:

Wycombe is a constituency represented in the House of Commons of the UK Parliament since 2010 by Steve Baker, a Conservative. I could not find any discussion of where this style was decided but from the ubiquity of it, I suppose there must have been some. However, there are several problems with this.
 * 1) Generally, if something is useful and relevant, it should be in the text. If it is not useful or relevant, it should not be in the article at all.  Putting information in footnotes makes the significance or relevance of the information unclear.
 * 2) Footnotes and citations placed in the middle of a sentence are aesthetically displeasing and interrupt the flow of the article
 * 3) Here, you're interrupting the sentence after a mere 4 words, to give some information in a footnote which is of very little interest and probably doesn't even need to be mentioned at all in individual constituency articles
 * 4) The second footnote contains information about constituencies in general, which is properly placed in the article about constituencies. Putting it in a footnote in every single individual constituency article is massively redundant.

I suggest that simply omitting the footnotes would improve these articles. If you feel that the information is of such relevance to individual constituency articles that it needs including in the lead, then the following would be an improvement:

Wycombe is a constituency represented in the House of Commons of the UK Parliament since 2010 by Steve Baker, a Conservative. As with all constituencies, the constituency elects one Member of Parliament (MP) by the first past the post system of election at least every five years. For the purposes of election expenses and type of returning officer, Wycombe is a county constituency.

66.91.24.128 (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

1975 Referendum
Article has changed name a few times today, none of which appear to reflect the official or common name, currently at British European Communities membership referendum, 1975. Appears to be no discussion, the article doesnt appear to have an active talk page, if anybody with a better knowledge of the referendum have a look please, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The name it was (eventually) moved to is actually the correct title according to the WP:NC-GAL guideline. Ideally all the other election and referendum articles should be moved too. Number   5  7  00:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Article titles: Election or general election?
All the pages relating to general elections for the Scottish Parliament were moved to new names which used simply "election" instead of "general election" by RGloucester yesterday, on the basis that "general" was an unnecessary qualifier. I note that under the Scotland Act 1998 the process by which Members of the Scottish Parliament are chosen by the electorate is called a general election. The UK Parliament general election pages have not yet been moved, but presumably if the WP:CONCISE argument were applied to one Parliament, it could be applied to both. I hadn't seen any discussion of this and was wondering whether the naming conventions for these pages have been considered elsewhere? Drchriswilliams (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can make my reasoning clear. Official names of certain elections are irrelevant to our article titles policy, which is WP:AT. WP:CONCISE is an article title criteria, and specifies that the shortest possible unambiguous and WP:PRECISE name should be used. The "general" in the case of the Scottish Parliament election articles was not serving any purpose. Why is this different from British parliament election articles? Very simple. Those articles are titled like this: United Kingdom general election, 2015. The parliamentary body is not specified in those titles, only the country. The "general" in that case serves to distinguish general elections from local elections, devolved assembly elections, &c. In the case of the Scottish Parliament articles, on the other hand, the name of the body is already included, making the "general" redundant (e.g. Scottish Parliament election, 2016). I'd also note that the "general" was added to most of these articles without discussion. The original titles were plain "election", as it should be according to WP:AT. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The move was also correct per WP:NC-GAL, which actually cites Scottish Parliament election, 2007 as the correct title. Number   5  7  12:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding was that the "general" in "general election" is to distinguish a general election from a by election. There were no local elections, devolved assembly elections, European elections, &c., until the second half of the twentieth century. The term "general election" long predates such things, is used for earlier elections, and has an entirely different purpose from what you are describing. I'm not sure "general election" is necessary for Scottish Parliament elections, or whatever, but I think your reasoning is very problematic. john k (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about use outside of Wikipedia article titles. In the case of Wikipedia article titles, the "general" is merely disambiguation from local elections, by-elections, &c. Thinking about Wikipedia article titles is entirely independent of the reason that general elections are called general elections outside Wikipedia. If there were no other elections to disambiguate from, British general elections articles might well be called "United Kingdom election, XXXX", regardless of their "official" names. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course Wikipedia article titles are not entirely independent from what things are called in the real world. That's the whole point of them. And of course "general election" is a term that arose to distinguish general elections from other elections. What I'm saying is that it arose to distinguish general elections from by elections, and has nothing to do with local council elections, or Scottish elections, or Welsh assembly elections, or what have you. Which is to say, that a general election for the Scottish Parliament may just as easily be distinguished from a by-election for the Scottish Parliament as a general election for the Westminster parliament can be distinguished from a by-election for the Westminster parliament. Therefore, "Scottish Election" is, in fact, arguably not precise. Now, that's not really the important question, though. The important question is whether "Scottish general election" is actually in general use to describe general elections for the Scottish parliament. A quick google search suggests to me that it may very well be, but more in depth research would probably be wise. But the name of articles should not just be about the logic of disambiguation - it should also be about what things are called in the real world. And the origins of words is often closely related to their usage - as we can see in this case. WP:PRECISION pretty much always has exceptions, at any rate, so I don't see how it can be the deciding factor here. john k (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Gateway Protection Programme FAC
The Gateway Protection Programme article is currently a featured article candidate. The last time it was nominated, the review was archived due to a lack of comments, so I would be grateful if interested editors could take a read of the article and submit comments to the review. It's a topical issue at the moment, and you might even learn something about refugee resettlement! Cordless Larry (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn leadership campaign, 2015
A few more eyes taking an overview of that article would be appreciated. There are mixed views about its suggested deletion - and there are also points that need to be addressed about the use of a clearly incorrect infobox template in the article, and about the wording of the opening paragraph. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Can I ask what the problem is that you identify with the infobox? Do you mean that is uses a US election template? That is not evident publicly though. AusLondonder (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's now been corrected. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

If people are plugging AfDs, another one that may be of interest is at Articles for deletion/United Kingdom general election, 2015 (West Yorkshire). Number  5  7  23:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Party colours in table
I have tried myself but can't seem to do it. I was wondering if at List of London Assembly constituencies someone could add party colours next to the party name in the same format at used at London Assembly? I would be very grateful. AusLondonder (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Notification of discussion at Talk:UKIP
There is a discussion started at Talk:UK Independence Party. Contributions welcome. GregKaye 18:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Gil Paterson
I reverted this large unsourced edit to Gil Paterson by a new editor. Paterson is the MP for Clydebank and Milngavie (Scottish Parliament constituency), for the Scottish National Party (SNP) so username suggests possible COI.

Not sure if the info is 'good' if properly sourced. Just FYI. 220  of  Borg 00:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Government of Europe
Related to above, should Government of Scotland be added to Template:Government of Europe? 220  of  Borg 00:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If it were, wouldn't each of the Autonomous communities of Spain need to go on as well, and that's just the start? --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no idea, that's why I opened the discussion. 220  of  Borg 11:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth II
An Rfc is currently being held, to determine the intro to the article. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Parliamentary website references
I have recently added references to website fields (within Template:Infobox officeholder data) with effect of the box for Caroline Lucas presenting:

Official website parliament...caroline-lucas

on the basis of the address: http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/caroline-lucas/3930

and box for Nigel Farage presenting:

Official website europarl...NIGEL FARAGE

on the basis of the address: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/4525/NIGEL_FARAGE_home.html

I think that a format on this kind of basis may be worth rolling out across the boards. I had wondered whether there might be a heading that might be suitable for a subsequent field to website but nothing came to mind. Perhaps website might become websites. GregKaye 10:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would expect the website parameter only to be used for a person's own official website, not sites written about them by other people (even if they are official organisations). Number   5  7  10:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Number 57 The format of the displayed text for the links makes it perfectly clear as to the nature of the linked pages but perhaps something like "parliament.uk webpage" or "parliamentary webpage" might alternatively be used.
 * I've made a sequence of similar edits which resulted in thanks from Rms125a@hotmail.com and a query raised by Bromley86 on my talk page. Sorry for not following this page (which I lost track of) but I considered it a no brainer that politicians need to be kept accountable for there actions/inactions.
 * From what I have seen I also think that Template:url / Template:URL should be adapted to present "Official website" rather than "www.foobar.domain". Perhaps we could also add a template such as Template:urlpage to present "Official webpage".  This is because, on occasion, the website titles may be formatted so as to incorporate ~ wp:soapbox type messages.
 * GregKaye 06:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see it makes it clear, but I don't think it's an appropriate use of the function (especially if you write it all umgramatically in lowercase). Number   5  7  07:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you think of a way in which the information may be beneficially added? The website entry already performs a directory function but to a content that may well be more partisan and less structured than parliamentary entries.  GregKaye 09:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is what the external links section is for. Number   5  7  10:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me here Greg. As Number 57 says, it seems that this sort of link is added to Ex Links atm for politicians across the English WP.  Indeed, just taking one of your changes at random (Andy Burnham), the link you added to Website was already present in Ex Links.  Note the formatting of that entry as well, which is superior to a raw url.  I don't see a need to change the current format, especially not if it's an informal change that's just rolled out for one country.  Bromley86 (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Number 57 Bromley86, What do you think of the look of something like this: either as Parliamentary homepage, Governmental homepage or with another appropriate title?:
 * GregKaye 16:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Still not appropriate (it's not her homepage, it's a page about her). Should be in the external links section. Number   5  7  16:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Same here; I just don't see a need for it as it's even a part of a template used in Ex Links (UK MP links). Bromley86 (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"Styles" sections
These seem to have proliferated across politicians' pages, listing them depending on changes to people's jobs and status (eg when they join the Privy Council, get a peerage etc), but seem both redundant and confusing. First, WP is not an etiquette guide, secondly there is no single "style" for people – it depends whether they are being addressed or referred to and in what context (plus, arguably, on their preference too). For example, take Michelle Mone, recently ennobled. Who says she's "Miss" or "Mrs" before and after her marriage, and not "Ms" for both? As a peer, she could variously be "Baroness Mone", "Lady Mone", "the noble Baroness, Lady Mone", "The Baroness Mone", "The Right Honourable the Baroness Mone" and so on. If all these sections are doing is telling us that she got married, divorced and ennobled etc, that will already be clear in the substantive text; if they're trying to be an authoritative and definitive guide to "styles", they fail badly. Should pages not be consistent as to whether they are used, and probably not have them at all?  N-HH   talk / edits  10:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Created new article - British statistician Roger Thatcher
I've created a new article on the British statistician Roger Thatcher.

Additional input for further research collaboration and secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, at Talk:Roger Thatcher.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Ratings
I've been looking through the ratings for various pages in this space, and too many of them seem at best arbitrary. I imagine they're never updated. It seems that unmembers of the project are not encouraged to change the project's scalings, but there are heaps of pages rated Start, for instance, of much better quality than others listed higher. Can something be done about this? They never appear to be updated. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

National Liberal Party
I'd like to invite interested editors to join in the discussion on the National Liberal Party (UK, 1999) article. I believe the article as it stand as is misleading, as it focuses heavily on the activities of its founder (and an alleged co-founder) before the party was even founded. Aside from a basic list of elections contested, there is no mention in the article at all of its activities or stated policies since it was founded. Rhialto (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Green Party of England and Wales
There is currently an ongoing discussion surrounding wording and tone issues with the Green Party of England and Wales Please feel free to joining the discussions here. This will help to contribute to the general clean up of the article and improve the article. Sport and politics (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggested new offshoot pages from Records of members of parliament of the United Kingdom
I am not sure if this is something being worked on by someone unbeknown to me but, with the present article nearing 90 pages long, I suggest that to keep the contents within topic - relating to members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom as has existed since 1801 - that new pages, which would chronologically be prequels, are created called Records of members of the Parliament of England (existing until Act of Union with Scotland 1707) and Records of members of the Parliament of Great Britain (which existed from 1707 until Act of Union with Ireland in 1800). Into the pages can be transplanted the details relating to MPs who were in office during the respective periods the parliaments were in being. These pages would showcase the wealth of information I and others have contributed, rather than merely deleting them from the present article and losing them to the view of the Wikipedia reading public.

I am aware some of those Westminster MPs who were born in the 17th and died in the 18th century had careers that spanned from the existence of the Parliament of England to the Parliament of GB while some of those who were born in the 18th and died in the 19th century had ones spanning from the Parliament of GB to the Parliament of the UK.

I have no experience of creating articles myself (as opposed to editing them), so this is a chance for others to kick off. I am about to have a wrist operation tomorrow so I may be 'off the air' for a few days at least.Cloptonson (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)