Talk:2010 United Kingdom general election debates

ITV

Why are ITV, unlike the other two broadcasters, waiting until after the programme to make the transmission available to other TV broadcasters? 86.136.255.51 (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Time of the debates

Does anyone know the time of the debates. As they get closer, I guess they will be annoucned, but have they already clarified further than to say during prime time? KlickingKarl (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Article Title

The article title is way too ambiguous. In every election there are debates. Calling this simply the United Kingdom general election debates, 2010 says nothing about the fact that these are in fact Prime Ministerial/Party Leader debates. The equivalent U.S. articles are clearly named Presidential debates and this article should be renamed to give an indication of the preeminence of the participants so as to distinguish the subject from the hundreds of other televised election debates taking place during the campaign. Leaky Caldron 16:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Why not setup a move request? --Philip Stevens (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• The central premise is incorrect. There are not debates in every election. This is, in fact, the first time the party leaders have debated during a general election. If you are trying to say that candidates debate in each (or even most) constituencies, I'd ask for some evidence of it, but I'd also want you to convince me that there is a meaningful chance of confusion and that your proposal wouldn't unnecessarily lengthen the article name. For instance, United Kingdom general election party leader debates, 2010 seems a bit long to me. -Rrius (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• I am pointing out that the title doesn't identify the unique nature of these debates. As it stands there is nothing notable to tell me these are uniquely for the PM candidates, as opposed to politicians debating on Question Time, for example. Leaky Caldron 17:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess what I'm having trouble seeing is how anyone would ever get confused. The main purpose of the article is to be a content fork of United Kingdom general election, 2010. As such, almost anyone who visits it will have come from the section of that page that explains what the debates are and who will participate. Most other pages will link to as part of a passage that makes the context clear. For the few who follow the link from the navbox, the first sentence of the article would provide all the clarity necessary. Finally, I don't think it is entirely plausible that people will think an article about UK general election debates will focus on debates in 650 individual constituencies. -Rrius (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I never mentioned debates in 650 constituencies. I was talking about televised and radio broadcast debates with ranking politicians throughout the period. I've given the example of the Presidential debates which, rightly, stands alone. So should this. Leaky Caldron 17:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Again, I find it hard to believe anyone would make that error for the reasons already stated. Did you? Moreover, your reliance on the US case is misplaced (and slightly inaccurate; i.e., the equivalent article is not called "United States presidential debates, 2008"). The election there is the United States presidential election, not United States general election. The natural title for that fork is United States presidential election debates, 2008, just as the one for this one is United Kingdom general election debates, 2010. -Rrius (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, they are widely described as Prime Ministerial debates: [1] which is much more specific than general election debates. General election debates could be between anyone. The article should assert why they are unique. Leaky Caldron 18:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
          • You've managed not to address most of my questions, but how about this one: I think United Kingdom general election prime ministerial debates, 2010 is too long; is that the title you are seeking? -Rrius (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
            • The title is ambiguous. I don't care about forks, incorrect charcterisation of my concerns about general election debates in 650 constituencies, or taking it for granted that readers will not be confused. I intentionally did not suggest a title because I want to see what other editors think. FWIW, I would settle for United Kingdom Prime Ministerial debates, 2010 which is consistent with the rules of the debates [2]. Leaky Caldron 19:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a great suggestion, because a) only one of the chaps is the PM, and b) the article discusses the financial spokesmen debates too. ITV call it an "election debate"^[3]. Thus, I suggest "United Kingdom election debates 2010". No, this doesn't explain the 'unique' nature - but that should be done within the body of the article, not the title, otherwise we just end up with a damn silly long name.  Chzz  ►  20:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, referring to "prime ministerial debates" is both unclear and inaccurate. I still don't understand why anyone would think this article is about segments on the radio or on television featuring various frontbenchers. Would they be looking for an article about such things? Is there an article somewhere that would discuss such programs and link here? I do think this is a point you should address. There may be some ambiguity in the title, but the question is whether that ambiguity is meaningful.

As an aside, "prime ministerial" or "party leader" should be lowercase, if used. Also, the 650-constituencies point was not an "incorrect characterisation". The point about "hundreds of debates" was unclear, and that is how I took it. I am not "taking it for granted" that there won't be any confusion. I explained why I don't think confusion is likely; you, Leaky Caldron, have refused to walk me through how a person would become confused and why the first sentence of the article is an inadequate remedy. -Rrius (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The name is not concise, nor is it precise. While recognisable, it is not what these debates have come to be known since this article was prematurely created last year. It is not consistent with the US equivalent. It therefore fails in a number of the criteria set out in Wp:TITLE#Deciding_an_article_title and can be improved. The financial spokesman’s debates is a red herring - there would be no article about that if it were not for what has come to be widely recognised as the Prime Ministerial debates involving the 3 party leaders together. That is why these events are unique, deserves its own article and needs to be readily identifiable as such. Leaky Caldron 21:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The obvious choice is United Kingdom leaders debates, if United Kingdom election debates is considered too confusing. The current title itself is already ridiculously over-precise. It takes longer to visually decipher the title than read the first line. United Kingdom prime ministerial debates just sounds ridiculous to me. MickMacNee (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean United Kingdom leaders debates, 2010? -Rrius (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No. The year is entirely redundant, unless or until future debates occur, and assuming they get a separate page. On current evidence, it would hardly be necessary even then. MickMacNee (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I would settle for United Kingdom leaders debates. Leaky Caldron 08:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this means: "On current evidence, it would hardly be necessary even then." Could you explain? Are you saying any debates held in the next election would be dealt with in this article? I'm not saying I disagree; I just want to understand how you understand this page. -Rrius (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In any event, since we don't know who whether there will be debates next time, it is probably wrong to name the article on the assumption there will be. While I'm willing to go along with this, I have posted a note at Talk:United Kingdom general election to give more editors a chance to weigh in, so I hope we can hold off for just a bit. -Rrius (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, going on size alone, it seems any future debate could be accommodated here easily, or at least this would become the main article with all the History, and spin out 2010 and AN other as child articles. Still, that's not going to happen for at lest five years, even if there was a hung parliament and another election in a year, I can't see there being another debate in that campaign. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool, that makes perfect sense to me. -Rrius (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well done, you've arrived at a proposed title entirely devoid of meaning. The present article title is far better. Mu2 22:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like it, please suggest another or defend the current one. Snidely criticizing the state of discussion is completely unhelpful. -Rrius (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

How about something like United Kingdom leaders live TV debates? --86.173.140.91 (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Or if the chancellor/s-chancellor debate wants to be more rolled in or expands, UK election live TV debates. Either way the key factor of the notability of these is they are the first live TV debates, so that seems the key part that needs to be in the title. --86.173.140.91 (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Leaders of what? All the political parties in the UK? Other political interest groups like the trade unions? The Black Hordes of Mordor? This proposed title is no less ambiguous than the current one - that is to say, both are perfectly fine because they can't reasonably be taken to refer to something else. If you want perfect precision you need a paragraph not a title. Although constantly expanding the titles of current events articles seems to be a popular past time on Wikipedia these days, you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 11:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The article has clearly expanded in scope beyond what was likely envisaged when it was created. If it had not been for the first time televising of the main party leaders – in what are now called the Prime Ministerial debates – there would not have been an article covering the other live debates now included in the article. Therefore, the current title is clearly more accurate than it was originally and I withdrawn my concern about it. Leaky Caldron 12:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Location of Birmingham debate

The source linked to as supporting evidence for the claim of where Thursday's debate is being broadcast fromdoesn't actually state the exact location. It just says "Birmingham". The actual location hasn't yet been disclosed, I assume for security reasons, and it doesn't follow Wikipedia rules if it's not mentioned in the source. I am therefore removing the mention of the location. Helvissa (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC) helvissa

tables

Sorry, but these tables stuffed with images, wikilinks and lists, are visually awfull, barely work on the largest screens, let alone anything smaller, and they offer nothing over the old bulleted format. They should be removed or rethought. MickMacNee (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Images nominated for deletion

I have nominated the images in the "Daily Politics debates" section for deletion. See Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_June_28#File:The_foreign_affairs_debate.jpg. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Logos / images

I have reinstated the logos / images on this article, apart from those on the Daily Politics debates, as these are very similar to each other, and probably do not add much more to the article apart from showing those taking part in the debate. The other images are important, because they were widely used during the dedates, before and after...these should stay I feel. SethWhales ^talk 13:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The images are not important to the information off the article. You don't need them at all. This use is a gross misuse of WP:NFCC and especially criteria #3 ad 8. You could list the issue at WP:NFR, but you are not going to get anywhere. Rettetast (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to get into any edit war over this (or make it personal)...it is just not necessary. However I would appreciate the opinions of other editors on this issue. Therefore for the record, I support the images be included again into the article. Please indicate below if you support or oppose the inclusion of the images. SethWhales ^talk 23:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As no comments have been made, I have now put the issue onto WP:NFR. SethWhales ^talk 09:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United Kingdom general election debates, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121214014705/http://www.barb.co.uk:80/viewing/weekly-top-10? to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-10?

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on United Kingdom general election debates, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100421143339/http://www.comres.co.uk:80/page184332236.aspx to http://www.comres.co.uk/page184332236.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100502011021/http://www.comres.co.uk:80/page165453351.aspx to http://www.comres.co.uk/page165453351.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100503221429/http://news.sky.com:80/skynews/Home/Politics/Leaders-Debate-First-Instant-Polls-Suggest-Win-For-David-Cameron/Article/201004415622529?f=rss to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Leaders-Debate-First-Instant-Polls-Suggest-Win-For-David-Cameron/Article/201004415622529?f=rss
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100414153602/http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1381-tv-debates-must-include-ukip to http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1381-tv-debates-must-include-ukip
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100502084424/http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk:80/opinions/2010CSOH56.html to http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010CSOH56.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121004034311/http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/election/salmond-happy-with-sky-tv-debate-appearance-1.1019611 to http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/election/salmond-happy-with-sky-tv-debate-appearance-1.1019611
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928052434/http://www.skypressoffice.co.uk/SkyNews/Resources/showarticle.asp?id=2954 to http://www.skypressoffice.co.uk/SkyNews/Resources/showarticle.asp?id=2954
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100427014551/http://www.visioncritical.com:80/2010/04/clegg-defeats-cameron-and-brown-in-britains-first-televised-debate/ to http://www.visioncritical.com/2010/04/clegg-defeats-cameron-and-brown-in-britains-first-televised-debate/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100404032020/http://www.itv.com:80/electiondebate/ to http://www.itv.com/electiondebate/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100402232403/http://news.sky.com:80/skynews/Home/Politics/The-Leaders-Debate-On-Sky-News/Article/201003415580388 to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/The-Leaders-Debate-On-Sky-News/Article/201003415580388

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United Kingdom general election debates, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111113150810/http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Sky-News-Instant-Leaders-Debate-Poll-With-Fizzback-Panel-Texts-Feedback-For-Faster-Results/Article/201003315603598?lpos=Politics_Top_Stories_Header_1&lid=ARTICLE_15603598_Sky_News_Instant_Leaders_Debate_Poll_With_Fizzback%3A_Panel_Texts_Feedback_For_Faster_Results to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Sky-News-Instant-Leaders-Debate-Poll-With-Fizzback-Panel-Texts-Feedback-For-Faster-Results/Article/201003315603598?lpos=Politics_Top_Stories_Header_1&lid=ARTICLE_15603598_Sky_News_Instant_Leaders_Debate_Poll_With_Fizzback%3A_Panel_Texts_Feedback_For_Faster_Results

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)