Talk:Lists of female political office-holders in the United Kingdom

Protection

Please talk and reach a consensus on the content and title of this article instead of edit warring. If this continued after the expiry of the protection, editors will be blocked from editing. -- KTC (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

In mid-April 2015, this article had reached a size of over 200KB, at which point any page starts to become unmanageable.

Knowing that it would expand even further when many new women MPs were elected in May, I split it into several pages:

• List of female Members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom
• List of female MEPs for the United Kingdom
• List of female Members of the Scottish Parliament
• List of female Members of the Welsh Assembly

All those pages were either linked to this page, or transculded in it.

Regrettably, nearly a month after the split, an inexperienced editor User:SleepCovo has repeatedly engaged in a partial reversion of the split by restoring the outdated full content to this page .... but without merging in the content from the split-out pages listed above.

This has had the effect of creating a content fork, which is particularly disruptive with regard to the Members of Parliament: editors are busy updating results of the general election on 7 May, and the list women MPs should now be considerably expanded.

The standalone list at List of female Members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom is now 141KB long, and after expansion it will be even longer. Editors who want to expand the list should not be distracted into maintaining a duplicate copy.

Additionally, SleepCovo reverted withoutr explanation[1] my addition of {{sortname}} to List of female Members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. SleepCovo's unexplained actions meant that the list could no longer be sorted by surname, and no explanation was given anywhere as to why SleepCovo thought that this should be disabled.

User:NeilN asked SleepCovo on 11 May[2] to explain why they repeatedly revert the split, but there has been no response.

I would like this issue to be resolved promptly, and the split properly reinstated to end the content forking, so that editors are not disrupted from updating these lists after the election. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason for the split not to occur. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I like how I just got called an 'inexperienced editor', just because someone is not an administrator does not make them inexperienced. You say 'editors are updating results', yes I was the editor who was updating the results if you look at the edit history. What I do not understand is why BrownHairedGirl did the edits she did without consulting the talk page and if you look at the edit history she has contributed very little to the creation of this article yet, using other editors handwork, has decided to create other articles, when in reality there is no reason why any change needed to occur. SleepCovo (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) She gave a good reason: "In mid-April 2015, this article had reached a size of over 200KB, at which point any page starts to become unmanageable. Knowing that it would expand even further when many new women MPs were elected in May, I split it into several pages" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore she has removed various women's titles and honours that are used, so I think they should be re added as there was no reason for their removal! SleepCovo (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

SleepCovo, the reason that I referred to you as an "inexperienced editor" is that

a) you have made only about 980 edits

b) appear unfamiliar with WP:SPLIT: "If an article becomes too large, or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is often appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles".

c) you don't use edit summaries

d) you display an overt sense of WP:OWNership

I am sorry that you were unaware of the splitting process, but as NeilN pointed out, I set out was a sound policy-based reason for doing it. Sadly in your reply you chose to falsely assert "there is no reason why any change needed to occur". Discussions proceed more constructively when editors don't simply deny the existence of rationales which they dislike.

Your updating of results was being done on outdated version of the list. The fully-updated list is at List of female Members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, to which this page no longer links because you have reverted several weeks worth of changes. When we restore the split, the lists will be up-to-date.

As to the titles and honours, you should be well aware that I did not "remove" honours. Instead I moved them to footnotes[3] to reduce visual clutter in the list. I removed titles "except where they alter how name would be recorded in Hansard" [4]. All these honours and titles can be displayed in full in the linked biographical articles; they do not need to be displayed in the list, because they cause clutter which impedes the identification of the MPs concerned. That is why honours and titles are not displayed on other similar lists such as List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2015 (and dozens of other similar lists of MPs).

SleepCovo offers no policy-based reason to reverse the split, let alone to half-reverse it as they have done. The objections all seem to be based on an unfortunate sense of WP:OWNership.

It is time for SleepCovo to stop edit-warring, and work on maintaining the updated pages rather than repeatedly reverting to a way-outdated version. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Listed[5] at WP:3O. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I see that User:BrownHairedGirl has requested a third opinion. On the one hand, this isn't really a proper case for third opinion, because a third opinion is applicably when two and only two editors disagree. The third opinion is already that of User:NeilN, who agrees with BrownHairedGirl that the split was correct and that User:SleepCovo should stop edit-warring. However, here is a fourth opinion. I agree with User:BrownHairedGirl and User:NeilN that the split is correct and User:SleepCovo should either accept the split or submit a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The two edits to Joan Ryan and Dawn Butler are all that I am saying should be changed so I cannot fathom why BrownHairedGirl has made so many complaints especially since the two edits I made is exactly how all other politicians in the article are treated?? SleepCovo (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert McClenon.

SleepCovo, your response makes no sense :(

The reason that the page has been protected is that you have repeatedly reverted the split: 19:35, 11 May 2015‎, 08:54, 14 May 2015‎, 16:03, 14 May 2015‎.

Once the list of women MPs is split out, Joan Ryan and Dawn Butler no longer appear on this page; they are on List of female Members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. Since we have a consensus here in favour of the split, your concerns relate to content on another page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

User:SleepCovo - The article is locked because you were constantly partially reverting the split. Any specific errors on proper pages can be discussed while the article is locked. There is currently a three-to-one consensus in favor of the split. If you want the consensus of the community, you can publish a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for edit of protected page, to restore split

I ask that this page be edited to restore the revision #662290625 #662290625 dated 12:05, 14 May 2015.

That revision restores the split-out of the most of the article's content to separate pages. This has been agreed above by 3 out of the 4 editors discussing the issue: @BrownHairedGirl, NeilN, and Robert McClenon:.

From the comments above by User:SleepCovo, I am unable to determine whether or not they still oppose the split. However, I think that 3 out of 4 editors amounts to a rough consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 16 May 2015

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: moved. Number 57 15:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

---

List of elected female political office-holders in the United Kingdom → Lists of female political office-holders in the United Kingdom – To a) use the plural "Lists", since this is developing into a list-of-lists; b) remove the word "elected".
This proposed new name follows the titling used in the category trees Category:Lists of female political office-holders and its parent Category:Lists of political office-holders.
I proposed dropping the word "elected", because many significant political offices in the UK are appointed rather than elected: for example the Prime Minister is appointed by the monarch, and the Cabinet is also appointed. Both are chosen primarily from elected people, but the offices are not filed by election.
Also, members of the House of Lords are not elected, and I see no reason to exclude female peers from the scope of this list-of-lists. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom, seems like a reasonable proposal. PC78 (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2015 (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.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Luke Nash-Jones with Janice Atkinson (cropped).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)