Talk:Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreement

Excessive copyrighted images

What precisely is excessive? Is it the presence of two party logos? If so, what else would one put on a page about an agreement between two parties? Lockesdonkey (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, 2 images is surely not excessive as I am unaware of there being a coalition logo or any other way of expressing it in one image (other than combining the logos into one image file). There are no other images on the page either (other than the normal wikipedia ones) so what else could it be? TheCodeMonkey (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikisource? Copyvio?

Shouldn't the verbatim text of the agreement be at Wikisource rather than here on Wikipedia? This page should contain encyclopaedic discussion of it, including short quotes, but not the whole amount of it. Is hosting it here actually permitted according to copyright (i.e. has it been released under a cc-by-sa, cc-by, cc-sa or other compataible license or released into the public domain?) - if not surely it is a copyvio. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not a verbatim copy of anything, it is most certainly not a copyright violation, and even if it was, it would not be acceptable content on either site, per our policy and theirs. It has the same section headers as in the agreement, but that is hardly a copyright violation. MickMacNee (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Tenses

Why is the introduction of this article written in the past-tense? Surely this document still exists (and, in fact, is still in effect)? For example:

"The Conservative – Liberal Democrat Coalition Agreement … was a policy document drawn up following the 2010 general election in the United Kingdom. It formed the terms of reference governing the Cameron Ministry, the newly formed coalition government comprising MPs from the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats."

The policy document still exists and has yet to be superseded (to my knowledge) by another one, so is still a current document. It also still governs the terms of the 'Cameron Ministry'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smiler jerg (talk • contribs) 16:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Title

I think this should be Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreement, like "Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact" and "Nazi–Soviet Pact": see "2. In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between" at WP:MOSDASH. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

No. Your version makes "Conservative" and "Liberal" both adjectives modifying "Democrat". When one of the elements separated by a dash is spaced, the dash is spaced as well. This is especially, where (as here), not spacing would cause a miscue. -Rrius (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the chances of confusion are slight. Also, the MOS disagreed with you, which I notice you've just changed. I object strongly to this judge, jury and executioner approach. If you would like the MOS changed you should go through the usual channels. What evidence do you have for "grossly out of step with practice across the project"? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I went out to test both theories against WP practice. I found that "one-off" articles split about 2-1 in my favour (although I had trouble finding enough to draw a firm conclusion). The big sets of articles, however, all followed what the MOS used to say; we have two hundred "United States–... relations articles, along with more for North and South Korea, Sudan, etc. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"United States" is a far more widely recognised term than "Liberal Democrat". You say the chance is slight, but it should not be assumed that all readers will be familiar with Britain's third party. As for "grossly out of step", I point to years of experience editing around the encyclopedia. Pointing to some titles of articles you have happened to find is meaningless, both because there is no indication of your analytical method and because it completely ignores what happens in prose, whose guidance is supposedly the main purpose of the MOS. As for judge, jury and executioner, I reject it, but I also don't really care that you object, especially since your objection is built on article titles rather than what MOS actually applies to. -Rrius (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand, if "United States–Russia" is appraently OK, why you edited the MOS to remove such examples. Your edit to the MOS made it sound like they should always be spaced, whereas now you're suggesting it should be a case-by-case thing. Which would you prefer? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page, per the discussion below and in deference to the position of the MOS. Dekimasuよ! 05:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition agreement → Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreement – Should hopefully be an uncontroversial application of MOS:DASH spacing, but I'm taking it to a full discussion because the issue has been discussed previously on this talk page. Jenks24 (talk) --Relisted. —innotata 02:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 12:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Rrius above. The suggested target name would suggest a closer association between "Conservative" and "Liberal" than between "Liberal" and "Democrat", which is not the case. (compare Fowler's "Warsaw-Brest Litovsk railway"). If the status quo isn't acceptable, I would suggest Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition agreement. Tevildo (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support, to follow the guideline. As discussed above, I think the risk of any confusion is slight. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support as far as I can tell, the current title is simply in error. There scarcely is any risk of confusion, and that can be dispelled by the first sentence. —innotata 22:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

RM (Cash)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 23 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The common name is what is supported per the opposers. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 22:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreement → The Coalition: Our Programme for Government – This coalition agreement was essentially a political manifesto, and is referred to by the official website of the British government and by the Cabinet Office as "The Coalition: our programme for government" and The Coalition: Our Programme for Government respectively. I'm proposing the latter rendition based on MOS:CT. Note also that policy programmes that have articles are usually titled as they are officially (e.g. New Labour, New Life for Britain and Contract with America). Furthermore, renaming this article may also help to disambiguate from First Cameron ministry; an RFC over that article's title is presently underway, and it has been noted that if First Cameron ministry were to renamed Cameron–Clegg coalition or Cameron–Clegg coalition ministry, the potential for confusion among readers between these two articles is possible. A move here might resolve that concern. --Nevé–selbert 20:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – The agreement is not commonly called by its official name. The present WP:NDESC title is more identifiable, and more WP:CONCISE, and should thus be retained. RGloucester — ☎ 15:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  The proposed title renders about 2,080 results in Google Books (12,000 ghits) compared to the current title which receives only about 498 results (5,910 ghits). Party manifestos on Wikipedia tend to use the official name, and this coalition agreement clearly resembled one, according to Mike Finn (ed.). The Coalition Effect, 2010–2015. p. 50. "On 20 May, the coalition published the full policy document on the basis of which it would govern, entitled The Coalition: Our Programme for Government. This document was notably more systematic, closer in look and feel to a party manifesto". I don't see how WP:NDESC applies here, there is nothing subjective about the official name. The current title is not the common name per sources.--Nevé–selbert 17:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – Limiting the search to Google Books is questionable. Why restrict just to that? Of course the official title will get a lot of hits there: It will have been used repeatedly in footnotes. I don't know that the current title is perfect, but in terms of how people use Wikipedia, it doesn't seem all that likely that many people would search for it using the official title or link to it in other articles using it. -Rrius (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  OK, how about Google Scholar, which renders about 1,510 results versus only 79 for the current title. The current title would remain a redirect anyway.--Nevé–selbert 18:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: the WP:NDESC title is the most appropriate for this article. Per WP:OFFICIAL to use the offical name in this context would mean the article title would fall foul of the obscurity principle. Furthermore the WP:COMMONNAME of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition agreement is the Coalition agreement so the current WP:NDESC title also includes the common name, thereby reducing the chance of WP:SURPRISE. Ebonelm (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100524102910/http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk/ to http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk/
• Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100919110641/http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk/files/2010/05/coalition-programme.pdf to http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk/files/2010/05/coalition-programme.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

lack of Criticism

Many observers suggest this deal was a failure for the Liberals. The article lacks any analysis or coverage of how this deal is evaluated. In short: criticism of the deal. Here are a few sources that could form a basis for the section:

• [1], [2], [3], [4]

In particular, where is the overview of the effort to change the election system of the UK? With a hung Parliament the Libdems had a change to move the country away from FPTP and become a real force in UK politics - and nothing came out of it. How? Why?

CapnZapp (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)