Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Coalition Liberals/Coalition Conservatives

After talking with @BrownHairedGirl it seems that almost all of the constituency pages needs to be updated from {{Election box}} to {{Compact election box}}. I've written a script that can read the current page source and convert it to a compact election box, although it still needs to be tested a bit to make sure it all works.

Since the {{Compact election box}} doesn't have a template like {{Election box candidate with party link coalition 1918}}, I was originally going to convert all Coalition endorsed Liberal candidates to be listed as Coalition Liberal, and do the same for Labour and the Conservatives/Unionists. While I think the first two cases should be done regardless, I was conflicted with doing the same for the Conservatives. Would this then imply there was a split in the Conservatives over support for the Coalition government that wasn't present in the same way that it was in the Liberal Party and the Labour Party?

However, the British Parliamentary Election Results 1918–1949 by F. W. S. Craig does list them as Coalition Conservatives and Whitaker's Almanack 1920 lists them as Coalition Unionists.

It is a bit confusing. A {{Coalition_Conservative/meta/shortname }} does exists and has been used (see transclusions), although not very extensively.

I'm not a big fan of {{Election box candidate with party link coalition 1918}} anyway, and I'm not sure it is better than using Coalition Conservative. If we do use Coalition Conservative, then it should probably be Coalition Unionist and a separate Coalition Unionist (Scotland)? What's the thoughts?

--Gharbhain (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gharbhain: This is great work.

If you can point me to some examples, I'd be happy to try to modify the {{Compact election box}} family to accommodate the 1918 coalition candidates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl No worries. I've been using Aberavon to test. There's also Aberdeen and Kincardine which I used to look at Unionist/Scottish Unionists.

Aberavon's page also has a few comments below some boxes. Not sure if these should be put under " | election_note = " section of {{Compact election box}} or if that would be too messy? I've also changed some of the ways that Swing is calculated which I put here but it might have been better to ask here instead.

--Gharbhain (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gharbhain: I have got a coupon solution working in a sandbox. {{Compact election box/sandbox}} supports the parameters |winner_1918_coalition_coupon= and |candidaten_1918_coalition_coupon= (where n is 2, 3 , 4 , 5 etc). The coupon markup is applied if the value of the param amounts to true, i.e. if it uses a case-insensitive form of Yes, y, true, on, and 1. So e.g. |winner_1918_coalition_coupon=yEs or |candidate3_1918_coalition_coupon=Y

I tested it on Bradford Central: see this test. But obviously I would encourage wider testing.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: What are your thoughts on PinkPanda272's suggest of a RfC on changing {{Election box}} to {{Compact election box}}? I think it sounds like a good idea, although I've never been involved with one before and unsure of what the wording should be. --Gharbhain (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gharbhain: An RFC is a good idea when there is significant disagreement, because it can help to establish a broad and and stable consensus. However, an RFC takes up a lot of editor time and delays a decision, so it's not helpful to hold an RFC when the issue is trivial or largely uncontroversial.

In this case, there is only one objector, whose comments imply that they not have read the earlier discussions. The really good reason to change which PinkPanda272 sets as a condition is as set out in the discussion at WT:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive_6#Election_box and then WT:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive 7#Compact_election_box: that {{Election box}} is far too bulky, and results pages which use it require unnecessary scrolling to read through a list of elections. This is a basic and well-documented usability issue: for an intro, see above the fold#In_web_design --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

For example, see the 1885–1918 elections in Bradford West:

1. Using {{Compact election box}}, it displays on one screen on my laptop: Bradford West 1885–1918 Compact format
2. Using {{Election box}}, it expands to three screenfuls on my laptop: Bradford West 1885–1918 Bulky format

That scrolling:

• makes reading harder ...because the display keeps changing
• impedes comparison of elections and viewing of trends ... because there is less data on each screenful

I can see no advantage to the bulky format, and PinkPanda272's objection offers no explanation for their claim that the compact format is harder to read. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I think the main problem I have with the template is that the information is laid out in a confusing order - if you read from left to right, then you get information such as turnout, majority and swing before you reach the actual results. In {{Election box}}, the results come first, followed by any additional information at the bottom. You are right that this format requires more scrolling on desktop, however in on the mobile version the opposite is true - because the compact box is wider, for every set of results you have to swipe left to read the actual results, then swipe right every time you want to return to the column containing the name of each election. Also, I don't think changing every election template on hundreds of articles is trivial or largely uncontroversial, and I would rather we got some opinions from other editors before any changes are made. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 07:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@PinkPanda272: I think you are wildly wrong about the order. In an FPTP election in a party system (which the UK has been for 300 years), the actual result is which party won, and whether it was a hold or a gain. That's the crucial info, followed by data like swing and majority, with votes-by-candidate as the last item.

In the compact box, that core data is in one column with the winning party colour, so the eye can easily scan up and down the column to note the shifts. However, in the bulky version, that core info is confusingly placed in the same column as the party of the candidates, where it is much harder to identify, as well as harder to scan because of the scrolling involved.

What you mistakenly call the "result" is in fact the vote counts, which are a subsidiary detail to the the actual result. Scrolling right to see that detail seems proportionate for the details ... and of course, such scrolling is needed only on small mobile devices.

That fundamental flaw with the bulky box is that it makes no effort to arrange the data hierarchically or to facilitate scanning a series. On the contrary, it is a visual mishmash with the core data at the bottom of each box, a presentation which doesn't distinguish different types of data, and a layout optimised for use on a single election, whereas the compact box is optimised for a list of elections.

Take a look for example at that compact version of Bradford 1885–1918. It's very easy to scan column 2 and see how the constituency was safe liberal for two elections, a Lib/Con marginal for three elections, and then increasingly solid labour three elections. You can't do that with the bulky box, because it is not laid out for use in lists.

I am aware of no printed publications which use a format like the bulky box. I have on my desk all the volumes of Craig's GB election results and Walker's volumes Irish election results, and they all use a columnar format similar to the compact box. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: You and I both have differing views which we are unlikely to change, so I think it would be a good idea at this point to see if other editors have an opinion. I've created a subsection below this discussion so that others can weigh in. Regards, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 14:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@PinkPanda272: I am disappointed to see that as soon as we get it into a detailed comparison, you withdraw from the discussion. That's no way to build consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Apologies if that came over as abrupt – I just felt we were going around in circles, but I am happy to continue our discussion if you have more to add. Maybe a compromise could be to design an alternative template that takes in positive elements from both the regular and compact versions? PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 21:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that friendly tone, PinkPanda272.

I don't think I have more to add at this stage, because I think I have demonstrated adequately that your points are mistaken. If you disagree, then I look forward to hearing why you disagree ... but so far you have chosen not respond to the substance, so I am left with no idea of what you might want any alternative template to do, and why you would want those features.

For example, do you want to abandon the basic approach of a columnar list format as used by {{Compact election box}} and major scholarly reference books? If so why reject what the scholars devised? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: In the most respectful way possible, I think it's a shame that you are showing such a negative attitude to those who don't share your opinion on this matter. I think I have demonstrated adequately that your points are mistaken seems rather combative, and implies that anyone who dissents from your view is simply wrong. I have already given reasons to why I disagree with your position, namely that the compact template is currently too wide to scale well on mobile, and that the information is laid out in a less intuitive order than in {{Election box}} (although I accept your point that it could disrupt the flow when multiple results are shown together). I would also agree with the observation made below that the template is hard to read when you have dozens of elections in the same list - in the current format, the results section is split up into decades for easier navigation and editing. On your second point, just because a format works well in a book doesn't mean it is the best choice for an online encyclopedia - books don't have to deal with different sized screens, editing, or hyperlinks. However, I would point out that I don't think that using the columnar approach is a bad idea, I'm just not a fan of the way it is implemented in {{Compact election box}}.

With that in mind, I've made a start to an alternative version, taking parts from both templates. It keeps a coloured bar at the side to denote winning parties (I think this is one of the more useful features in {{Compact election box}}), but uses row headers for each election to increase legibility. I've put majority, turnout and swing on the left hand side; I'm not convinced that this is the best place for them (I like how {{Election box}} keeps the values in seperate columns), but there wasn't a logical position to put them without hindering the flow of the table. Is this (or something like it) an acceptable compromise? PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 17:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Alternative version

Elections in the 2010s General election 2019 Result Party Candidate Votes % ±% Conservative hold Majority: 4,423 (10.0%; -2.5%) Turnout: 44,269 (67.6%; -2.3%) Swing: -1.3% Conservative William Wragg 21,592 48.8 +3.4 Liberal Democrats Lisa Smart 17,169 38.8 +5.9 Labour Tony Wilson 5,508 12.4 -8.1 General election 2017 Result Party Candidate Votes % ±% Conservative hold Majority: 5,514 (12.5%; -3.1%) Turnout: 44,132 (69.9%; +1.4%) Swing: -1.4% Conservative William Wragg 20,047 45.4 +4.0 Liberal Democrats Lisa Smart 14,533 32.9 +6.7 Labour Nav Mishra 9,036 20.5 +3.0 Green Robbie Lee 516 1.2 -1.4

@PinkPanda272: Sorry, but this has to be a long reply, 'cos there is a lot to cover.

First, snipping a quote out of context is unhelpful. The full quote is I think I have demonstrated adequately that your points are mistaken. If you disagree, then I look forward to hearing why you disagree. I wrote that because you had not at the time given any response to the issues i raised there.

My response to FollowTheTortoise was to spend a few hours devising and documenting a modification to {{Compact election box}}: see below at #Linking to results table using Compact election box). That's not a negative attitude. And yes, I have been blunt in my replies to Doktorbuk, but that is because Doktorbuk has repeatedly made a false claim that the change is being proposed as change for the sake of change, which Doktorbuk must know to be false. It's sadly inevitable that rebutting such blatant falsehoods appears negative, but in such situations please blame the editor who chooses to use systematic misrepresentation to disrupt consensus-building.

Now, back to the substance.

Your assertion that with {{Compact election box}} the information is laid out in a less intuitive order than in seems odd to me, because:

1. in the scholarly reference books, the order of info is a) election title, b) electorate/turnout; c) political result, d) votes-per-candidate.
   After several rounds of discussion, you have not explained why you regard the scholarly aproach as less intuitive.
2. in TV news reporting of UK elections, the summary info reported in the ticker at the screen bottom and in the initial report starts with the political result.

If you are aware any reliable source which presents lists of election results as votes first, summary after, then please identify them. But right now, it seems to me that you are advocating a personal preference without any explanation of why you prefer votes-first, or what sources follow that structure.

I note your comment that books don't have to deal with different sized screens, editing, or hyperlinks. For me, the key issue is that the hierarchy of information doesn't change by medium, and the bulky {{Election box}} completely mangles the hierarchy used by every reliable source that I am aware of.

But neither editing nor hyperlinks impact the choice of layout, so that leaves only the width issue, which impacts only a small subset of readers: a) those using small-screen mobile devices, b) those who repeatedly want to see the vote counts. Wikipedia has many thousands of list which are presented as tables which may require some scrolling to the right, so there is nothing new about that: readers who use tiny screens don't get such a good experience.

Thanks you for taking the time to build a demo of your ideas. I know it's a lot of work.

It seems to me that your version does reduce the width, but that it does so by removing core data and significantly reducing usability.

1. The data removed is the figure for the electorate, which is significant for UK Parliament elections, where the size of electorate has varied widely over time, and also varied widely between constituencies at any given election.
   • Adding the electorate figure to your layout would increase the vertical height of that box, which would significantly increase the height of rows in elections with three candidates or less. One-or-two candidate elections were the norm in most single-seat constituencies in much of the 19th century, so the effect would be massively increase the amount of scrolling required in result sets such as the pre-1886 elections in Leith Burghs (UK Parliament constituency)#Election_results. That degrades usability, and it is one of the reasons why {{Compact election box}} was designed to use two columns for that data.
2. Placing the name of the election in a centred row rather than in the left-hand column has two adverse effects:
   • It makes it very much harder to scan down the list looking for a particular election, because the election name is not in a column of its own
   • Once the election is found, moving from the election name to details on {{Compact election box}} involves simply scanning rightwards. On your demo, it involves looking down one row and looking left before scanning rightwards. That's a big disruption to readability.

Again, I am sorry if this appears negative. However, I have spent a lot of time over the last 15 years documenting these elections and studying a vast array of reference books, so my comments are based on a lot of experience and a lot of study of how reliable sources organise this information. The format of {{Compact election box}} roughly follows the proposal[1] by Sam Blacketer at WT:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive_6#Election_box, and Sam is himself a noted psephologist with several volumes published under his real name. By contrast, it seems to me that those objecting to {{Compact election box}}'s mimicking of the reliable sources demonstrate no experience with those sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Thank you for your detailed reply. I'll explain clearly what I mean by "less intuitive" (for the avoidance of doubt I am referring to {{Compact election box}} in particular).

• Firstly each parties' colour is separated from their name, as instead placed next to the name of their candidate. This could easily be fixed by swapping the "party" and "candidate" columns over as in {{Election box}} and my proposal.
• Secondly, the figures for majority, turnout, swing and electorate are spread over two columns - far from simply scanning rightwards, you have to look down the first column to find the name, electorate, and turnout, then look up and along to the second column and look down again to find the result, majority and swing. When I tried to fix this in my version, you rightly pointed out that doing so would vertically extend the results rows in elections with only one or two candidates - but you could argue that {{Compact election box}} wastes a lot of space in elections with several candidates, as by having two columns you end up with far more whitespace below each than if you had combined the data into one. I prefer how {{Election box}} lists this information in neat columns for votes, percentage, and change, which match up nicely to the vote count rows.

To answer some of your other points:

• The headers for each election are deliberate, to make the table more legible, as currently it can be hard to decipher where the results of one election stop and those of another start. If you are finding it hard to locate each election, the text could easily be left-aligned, and formatted as "2017 general election" instead of "General election 2017".
• If you are looking for an example of scholarly material that uses a format similar to {{Election box}}, then I would point you towards Bochel and Denver's series on Scottish local elections. In the 2003 version for example, the ward name (easily interchangeable for the election year) is followed by the vote counts, with turnout, majority, and political result at the bottom.
• Electorate is an omission on my part (I took the data for my demo from Hazel Grove (UK Parliament constituency), which doesn't list it). However, the assertion that adding electorate would massively increase the amount of scrolling is exaggerated, and I would question whether it is really necessary seeing as most constituency articles don't contain it.

Finally, it does seem that your heart is set on {{Compact election box}}, so I would simply ask whether you think that it is unimprovable, and that any changes would make it worse? If so, that would suggest to me that any alternative or compromise, however well-reasoned, is going to be disregarded. I don't think {{Election box}} is perfect, but as it stands {{Compact election box}} just isn't a good enough alternative to justify changing 1000+ articles. Regards, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 11:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@PinkPanda272: Thank you v much for that detailed reply. I think that there is a lot of scope here for exploring possibilities for how we can we meet everyone's concerns, and your post deserves a considered response.

Unfortunately, I am a bit headachey today, and not at my sharpest, so I am just doing a few clerical tasks on en.wp. So pls forgive me if it takes a day or so to get back to you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@PinkPanda272: Sorry for the belated reply.

Thanks for the link to Bochel and Denver's report[2] on the 2003 Scottish local elections. They do very high quality work, so was I curious to see what was going on here. Am I correct in thinking that you are referring to e.g. page 22?

If so, it seems to me to be a poor comparator to our constituency articles. That doc is their report on elections in a single year in multiple wards and councils (a horizontal slice of electoral data), whereas the constituency articles that we are discussing here are vertical slices which not only invite direct comparison over time, but actually include it (swing). So it's a different style, for a different use.

But I do note that their presentation puts the political result and the electorate size above the vote tally, which is better than {{Election box}}.

Thanks too for your other observations, which I will number to aid discussion:

1. each parties' colour is separated from their name, as instead placed next to the name of their candidate. This could easily be fixed by swapping the "party" and "candidate" columns over as in and my proposal
   • The reason for that is that the first choice was to put the candidate first :a) reference books lists candidate first, then party. b) in an FPTP election, votes are for an individual candidate, not a party; c) ballot papers sort candidates by surname, not party, giving primacy to name; d) ballot papers list name first, then party. So the {{Compact election box}} follows the order of the sources and the ballot. I would be reluctant to change that.
     The colour for the candidate can be placed anywhere on the line. Personally, i find it most helpful at the start of the votes section, as a quick visual cue, but I can see a case for placing it elsewhere. I will sandbox one or more alternatives.
     I take your point about the horizontal width, but except on mobile the horizontal width is fine; the problem is with vertical space. There is significant utility in being able to view a higher number of elections on one screen. The point you make about elections with lots of candidates really applies only to the last three decades. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries, a single-seat constituency very rarely exceeded two candidates, and before the Ballot Act 1872 it was common for only one candidate to sustain their nomination. For most of the 20th century, two- or three-candidate contests were the norm in England. So for most of our set of constituency articles, the vertically-shorter layout works better.
2. I prefer how {{Election box}} lists this information in neat columns for votes, percentage, and change, which match up nicely to the vote count rows
   • I know of no reliable source which presents the summary data as a continuation of the vote counts. Those columns are neat, but they invert the hierarchy of info, and misleadingly conflate different types of data. That seems to me to be a wiki artefact which the scholars avoid.
3. the figures for majority, turnout, swing and electorate are spread over two columns.
   • That is deliberate. The separation reflects the reliable sources, which first list the data on who was voting (electorate, turnout), and then at the end of the line list the two items of derived data on how they voted (majority, swing), which are part of the political result. Because the columns are very short, any "up and down" is trivial. Merging the columns loses the clarity of separating those two types of data, as well obscuring the crucial political result.
4. The headers for each election are deliberate.
   • I see what you are saying, but I know of no other type of list on en.wp which uses headers in that way to separate list rows. I agree entirely about titling the election a "YYYY general election" rather than "General election YYYY", and would support a wholesale change of that. But your draft effectively removes the row label from the row, which the sources don't do, and which makes it harder to identify each election.
     I take your point about how the rows may appear to run into each other (a point also made below by Ralbegen), but I think that a better solution to that is one or more of a) add whitespace to the top and bottom of each box; b) possibly use a thicker line between elections; c) applying difft shading to odd- and even-numbered rows, if that is possible.
5. Electorate is an omission due to it not being in the article used as example. ... most constituency articles don't contain it
   • Fair enough, you could use only the data which was there. It's a pity that so many articles don't contain that data, because it is included in all of Craig's and Walker's volumes. That is an omission which should be corrected, and we should design the page layout on the assumption that all fields will eventually be filled.

I think that's all your points answered, tho obviously pls correct me if I have missed anything.

As to whether I'm set on {{Compact election box}}, the answer is a qualified no. I am set on using a list format, as the reliable sources do, to allow the reader to more easily compare the results of different elections, and to more easily identify elections where the seat changed hands. I personally think that the current version of {{Compact election box}} does that well, but I hear the comments from others about the difficulties they have with that, so I will draft variations for discussions.

One key point is that because {{Compact election box}} uses one template to process all the data, its display can be completely reconfigured at any time without any modification to articles. That is not possible with {{Election box}}, because its layout relies on the positioning in the article markup of multiple sub-templates. For that reason alone, it would be good to replace {{Election box}} with an all-in-one template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@PinkPanda272: Hey, this is a really good alternative! I like that the party colour is to the very left so you can immediately see what party won the election. I think the addition of the election titles between each set of results goes a long way to addressing some of the 'wallpaper' concerns that Doktorbuk had.

I think that BrownHairedGirl does have a point about how tall your election boxes will become if you introduce the electorate information, and the names of the parties that are part of the swing. It might be a good further compromise to add in two columns to spread that information out, similar to the {{Compact election box}}. So the end result would be a reordering of {{Compact election box}} and the election titles that you've introduced? --Gharbhain (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gharbhain: can I ask why we are suddenly changing all of the election boxes over to a new template? I find {{Compact election box}} harder to read, and it doesn't scale well on mobile. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 21:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@PinkPanda272 There does seem to be a bit of confusion as to what the proper style for the pages should be. The style guide does suggest {{Election box}} but @BrownHairedGirl points to consensus being reached to use {{Compact election box}}. You can read the discussion I had with them here, and they point to here as the source of the consensus.

I was personally like you in that I found {{Compact election box}} harder to read initially but I feel a bit different now after looking at it for hours. I hadn't considered the mobile scaling issue, though. --Gharbhain (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. However, I would rather we had a proper discussion or RfC before implementing anything, rather than rely on a 11-year-old consensus made by only a handful of editors. {{Election box}} is the standard template used across Wikipedia, so I think we would need a really good reason to change to a different (and in my opinion inferior) template. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 06:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@PinkPanda272 Yeah, fair enough, maybe there should be an RfC to push any consensus on changes to this style guide. I appreciate that it comes under a different WikiProject but there's a lot of overlap between this and that project so seems fine to me. --Gharbhain (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Changing the format of election results on constituency articles

Further to the discussion above, Gharbhain has proposed changing the current {{Election box}} templates used on constituency articles over to {{Compact election box}}. You can compare the two formats below (with thanks to BrownHairedGirl for the links):

• Compact election box
• Election box

Is this a good idea? PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 14:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I personally prefer 2. It's less overwhelming and I fear that 1 would end up taking up a lot of space in contests with a lot of candidates. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@FollowTheTortoise, {{Compact election box}} always takes less vertical space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, I can see that now. My mistake! But I still prefer 2 on the ground that it is less overwhelming and, additionally, it makes it easier to browse and link to different contests. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@FollowTheTortoise: What do you mean "easier to browse and link to different contests"? {{Compact election box}} is designed to be easier to browse, by a) requiring much less scrolling, and b) using a columnar format so that the different types of data are in separate columns. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It's effectively because the information is more separated. I find this easier to read and it also makes it possible to link to a specific result (like this). I completely understand that others may disagree, but this is my view, as a long-time Wikipedia reader! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree To editor FollowTheTortoise:. Just put that below. Far easier to access and link, particularly on mobile, and better than having a great big wallpaper of names and numbers. Change for the point of change is not an improvement. doktorb _words^deeds 21:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

As explained several times on this page, this is change for improved readability, to a format close to that used in the most reliable sources (Craig & Walker).

Calling it change for the point of change is a blatant misrepresentation of the proposal and the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

PS the linking issue has been resolved: see below at #Linking to results table using Compact election box. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the linking issue! I still find 2 more readable, but I'm happy to conform to whatever the consensus is. Thank you to everybody for their efforts on this, particularly BrownHairedGirl for replying to my concerns. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Probably not surprising but I would vote for 1 as well. If you look at certain constituencies like Isle of Wight, the election results just trail and trail on. Converting to {{Compact election box}} would reduce the total space taken up by the election results significantly while also providing improved readability. I know that PinkPanda272 mentioned that they had some issues with finding the results in {{Compact election box}} more difficult to read, and I was the same initially but once I adjusted to the change I found it a much better way to present information. As BrownHairedGirl said, it does make more sense to present the election result (hold/gain, majority and swing) first since that's what's key to a FPTP election.--Gharbhain (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Question what is the point of this section, @PinkPanda272? It is not formatted as an RFC, is not notified like an RFC (and esp doesn't notify those who participated in the previous discussions). It appears to have been created solely because PinkPanda272 decided to withdraw from actual discussion after I explained in detail[3] why the compact box had been designed as it is. WP:NOTAVOTE, and it seems to me to be unhelpful to create an informal vote section when discussion was ongoing.

If you want to start an actual RFC, then please work with others to define the question and set it up properly ... but please, let the actual discussion continue for a bit, so that we can clarify the issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't intend for it to be a vote, merely a break in the conversation so that there was a more visible section for others to add their opinions. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 21:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I remember when the compact box was created and how there was great hope in it. However, as above, seats with hundreds of years of history would change from a historic summary broken up with headings - 2020s 2010s 2000s 1990s etc - into a great big wallpaper of candidate names and numbers. I wonder if the compact box would be a great fit for by-election articles instead? I can see them being a good fit for stand-alone articles. My preference would be to keep the election box for constituency articles, if only for accessibility reasons. doktorb _words^deeds 21:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: there is absolutely no reason why {{Compact election box}} would require a single great big wallpaper. It works well when broken up in to chunks, as per the example above of Bradford West. In that case the break is due to a period when the constituency did not exist, but in other cases it would be simple to split the list at major historical points, e.g. the Reform Acts of 1832, 1885 and 1918, the Act of Union in 1707, etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: I think I know what you are meaning but to me it seems that using {{Compact election box}} in only by-election pages would kind of defeat the purpose of what the template is trying to do - condense long lists of results into a more compact form. By-election pages would probably only have at the most two election results listed, the by-election itself and the election previous. In that case, having two {{Election box}}s would be fine since it wouldn't take up too much space (although for consistency, if we did adopt {{Compact election box}} for constituency pages, they should also be used for by-election pages).

I get what you are saying though with it maybe looking like a big wall of numbers, but it can be broken up pretty easily. I don't know if the break points that BrownHairedGirl suggested are the best ones, but we could break it up by century? I think even the current system of breaking up by decade is a little excessive when we should only expect two elections every ten years, and I think the most there has ever been is four?

Also, do you mean accessibility as in being able to link to specific elections or accessibility as in the design principle? --Gharbhain (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gharbhain: the reason I suggest breaking on major political events such as the Reform Acts is that significantly changed the nature of the constituency, by widening the electorate in all cases, and by changing its boundaries in many cases. That's why the years 1832, 1868, 1885 and 1918 usually mark a big change in the voting pattern.

Breaking up the lists by century or decade amounts to an arbitrary division, which unhelpfully splits the epochs used by most electoral historians.

And yes, I agree that using {{Compact election box}} in only by-election pages would defeat its purpose, which is to create lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Ah, yes, I see what you are saying. I did think that chopping it off by century might be not great as well since some points of interest would be lost (I'm thinking of anyone wanting to see a swing between Blair's first two elections). I just worry that maybe using breaks at Reform Acts might not be very intuitive to someone not familiar with those pieces of legislation? Maybe the subheadings above a {{Compact election box}} could be reworked to make this clear? Elections After the Third Reform Act (1884) rather than Elections 1885–1918? Maybe that's not any better. Would you recommend further splitting sections after 1918 to account for the Reform Acts in 1928 and 1969? Or would that be excessive? --Gharbhain (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gharbhain: There is a balance to be struck between unwieldiness and excessive splitting, because splits impede the ability follow trends. So I would advocate splitting only if the list gets unreasonably long. My preference is keep each section to no more than two screenfuls, but others may have reasons to prefer different thresholds.

The 1928 and 1969 reforms were not as significant as the 1832/1868/1885/1918 reforms, which led to much bigger expansions of the franchise. After 1918, the most significant breaks are probably the boundary changes in 1950, 1974, 1997, and 2010 (or 2005 in Scotland).

Where a break is made, headings should be concise, i.e. just years. Headings are just signposts, so they should indicate what is there not why it is there. (Think of how a road sign just says "Cambridge", not "Cambridge, home of the eponymous university and a lot of hi-tech business")

If any explanation is needed, it is better placed as the first line of the section, where relevant links can be included. For example:

== Elections 1885–1918 ==

Elections after the [[Third Reform Act]] (1884)

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl:I can see your thinking on 1928 and 1969 not being as significant (although I think 1928 was), but I don't think we should mix dates from different events, if you see what I mean. As in, we shouldn't have any breaks from boundary changes if we use breaks from Reform Acts. I don't think you're analogy quite works either, I think that Elections after the Third Reform Act (1884) is as concise as Elections 1885–1918 my issue was that I think Elections after the Third Reform Act (1884) doesn't provide enough detail on when the section dates end. Although, I think your suggestion of having both, one as a title and one as a description would be a good compromise. Should we decide to split them that way, that is. --Gharbhain (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gharbhain: boundary changes and the major reform acts both significantly alter the composition of the electorate. So, if a split is needed, they are both good points for a split, because both mark a major change in the constituency.

I don't think that the data supports your claim that 1929 was as significant as the previous reforms. For example, in Bradford Central, 1929 saw a 16.7% increase in the size of the electorate, when compared withe previous general election. But the 1918 election saw a 452% increase in the size of the electorate when compared with Dec 1910.

As to headings, the function of a heading is not to provide detail. The job of a heading is to uniquely identify; detail should supplied below. And no, "Elections after the Third Reform Act (1884)" is NOT as concise as "Elections 1885–1918". The former is 43 characters, the latter is 19. Plus the shorter form is more accurate, because it includes the end date. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I'm afraid I find the condesned election box template a pain to read. It appears to prioritise information density, and joining multiple results into one big table reduces clarity of delineation that we have in the existing version. I understand the motivation behind it and appreciate the effort that's gone into it but I don't think it's suitable as a replacement for {{Election box}}. Some specific issues I have with it are: removal of juxtaposition of turnout/majority from the results; visually confusingly splitting party colour from name; juxtaposing worst-performers from newer elections with best performers from older elections; a visually exhausting subtable of values for the rightmost three columns; formatting issues in the Bradford sample offered where there are two candidates and more text on the left. I think the solution to those issues is to continue using {{Election box}}! Ralbegen (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Ralbegen: thanks for your reply. Some of your concerns may be resolvable by layout tweaks.

  I am a bit headachey today, but will try to reply properly tomorrow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Ralbegen: sorry I have been slow to reply. I have just written above a long reply[4] to PinkPanda272, which overlaps a lot with the issues you raise. I hope it's ok to not repeat all that here.

  Some of the issues you raise are matters of layout and formatting, which can of course be modified. So I will start work on a few sandbox variants of {{Compact election box}}, to see how much of your concerns can be resolved. I will start a new sub-section to collate all the issues, and will ping you then to check that I have noted all your points.

  However, can't see any formatting issues in the Bradford samples. I'm not sue whether I have missed something or whether dift browsers are rendering things differently. Please can you help me to identify the problem by describing the formatting issues and identifying which election(s) show problems, and what browser you used? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Ralbegen: I agree with your concerns. When used in by-election articles, with only two results, the compact box makes sense because you have a clear and straightforward comparison between results. And, for us editors who have to deal with these boxes, having two is easy to edit. With scores and scores of results on an ordinary constituency article, it becomes ridiculous, very hard to maintain, very difficult to tell one apart from another, and as you say, the lowest ranked candidates from Year X can be conflated with the winning candidates from Year Z. I am getting very close to flat-out refusing to accept this change if it happens. It's starting to sound like unnecessary busy-work. doktorb _words^deeds 18:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Doktorbuk: that is now the third time you have made the same bogus claim, which you have phrased this time as unnecessary busy-work. There have been plenty of explanations here of the problems which compact election box tries to solve ... and at this stage, your continued claims that those reasons do not exist can not be excused as a misunderstanding or as transient frustration. You ae clearly engaged in a sustained campaign of intentionally misrepresenting others in this discussion. Please stop those disruptive smear tactics.

  I am astonished by your claim that ith only two results, the compact box makes sense because you have a clear and straightforward comparison between results. In a constituency article, readers have the opportunity to compare a series of results ... and the list-style layout used by the reliable sources facilitates that, whereas {{Election box}} impede comparison.

  It is truly bizarre to support easy comparison only in pairs of results, but oppose it in longer series.

  {{Compact election box}} tries to mimic the list-style presentation of the reliable sources, precisely to help that comparison.

  I hear the feedback here that some aspects of the presentation of {{Compact election box}} may need tweaking, esp to provide greater visual separation, and I will make some sandbox drafts with testcases so that we can explore that.

  However, maintaining {{Compact election box}} is no harder than maintaining {{Election box}}, so that complaint is unfounded. In any case, results are static historical data, so once entered they need little maintenance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: I hear what you are saying with your concerns about maintance, although I would say that having seen and worked with how the tables are structered it isn't too difficult to tell different election sections apart. The number of candidates is actually a big help when compared to {{Election box}}, to me at least. You also wouldn't need to worry too much with regards to converting between formats, I've created a script that can do it automatically and only the final output would need to be pasted into an article. I will say that I can see where you frustration could be coming from but refusing to work with a consensus seems unfair. I know above a RfC was suggested and it feels like once the particulars of what the options could be between {{Election box}} and {{Compact election box}} are worked out then there should be an 'official' one to work out what to do. --Gharbhain (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• I echo the comments of other editors in that I find the compact box difficult to read. It is too compact! I oppose. Bondegezou (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• It appears like there's not a whole lot of support for {{Compact election box}} at this time. Seems sensible then to convert any cases of {{Compact election box}} to {{Election box}}? Then in future we could revist the issue with other templates if necessary? --Gharbhain (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• @BrownHairedGirl: Would you be able to revert the {{Compact election box}} on Bradford West in light of this discussion? Lots of good work done here, but think that the majority opinion is still for {{Election box}}. Thanks --Gharbhain (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Gharbhain: My reading of the discussion so far is that is that there are some reasoned objections to the current formatting of {{Compact election box}}. That's why I have offered to sandbox some variations in formatting and layout, to see if the difficulties can be overcome.

  I have been busy for the last week on another wiki-task, but hope to be back to this later this week. It seem to me to be better to complete the testing process before making a final decision, and before removing the few existing uses of {{Compact election box}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  @BrownHairedGirl: That's not my reading, but I'm looking forward to seeing what other templates you will put up for discussion. --Gharbhain (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Gharbhain: there also seem to be some fundamental objections to the principle of using list-style layout, like the scholarly sources do.

  I hope that experimenting with the layout of the lists can help clarify the issues.

  A lot of work is involved, so it may take a while to get the first set of variations ready, and then I expect that there will be a few iterations of revision based on feedback. But there is no deadline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Just to update, the Bradford West page has been reverted to use {{Election box}} by another user. --Gharbhain (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  Good. The discussion here supports that. Bondegezou (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  I agree, don't get me wrong - I suggested doing so a month ago. Just thought I would add an update to help close the section. I'll mark some time out to convert the remaining UK articles that use {{Compact election box}}. Thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion! --Gharbhain (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  The IP editor did the article a favour, given how horrible is the compact format. It now looks much clearer. MapReader (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Linking to results table using Compact election box

In the discussion above, several editors noted that it was not possible to link to election results which use {{Compact election box}}. Pinging @FollowTheTortoise and Doktorbuk.

This seemed to me to be a reasonable concern, so I have modified the template to resolve this. {{Compact election box}} now automatically generates anchors for each election, and allows custom anchors to be added by parameters to the template.

Full details are documented at Template:Compact election box#Anchors, but here are a few examples of auto-generated anchors:

• Leith Burghs (UK Parliament constituency)#General Election 1886 result
• Spen Valley (UK Parliament constituency)#1906 general election result
• Bradford West (UK Parliament constituency)#general election 2015 result

and one of a custom anchor:

• Bradford West (UK Parliament constituency)#Galloway by-election win

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Mandatory?

Will changing perfectly acceptable, accessible, clear to read, easy to edit, and universally used election boxes to wallpaper be mandatory? On whose order? doktorb _words^deeds 15:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: If the consensus is that we keep the normal election boxes, that's fine by me! I only meant to update them with what I thought had been decided was the new style. In fact, I have before converted some {{Compact election box}}s to {{Election box}}s! I think both styles have good and bad points, although I personally prefer {{Compact election box}}. But I can totally see why some prefer {{Election box}}!

To be honest, I'm really more interested in if 1918 Coalition candidates for the Conservatives should be listed as Coalition Unionist or not, hahaha --Gharbhain (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Well that was going to be a future question. Feels like your question has been hijacked. And I really don't want thousands of articles changed for the sake of change doktorb _words^deeds 15:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: the comment above is the second time that you have claimed that this is about "change for the sake of change". That claim is blatantly false: the reasons for preferring the {{Compact election box}} have been explained several times on this page, and also at WT:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive_6#Election_box, a discussion in which you participated.

So that claim will clearly have be known to you to be false. Please stop this intentional misrepresentation of other editors; that which is uncivil and disruptive. You are quite entitled to express your views, but you should do so by reasoned discussion rather than by repeated misrepresentation.

I have set out above why the {{election box}} is not a clear way of presenting the data on a series of elections, because it is vertically bulky (requiring scrolling), because it does not separate difft type of data into difft columns, and because it hides the most significant summary data below the details. You are quite entitled to disagree with that, by reasoned response; but slogans like "wallpaper" are not a reasoned response, and your bogus claims of "change for the sake of change" are disruptive nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement

I informed an editor who is on this page that I would not interact with them. That still stands. doktorb _words^deeds 19:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

You are of course free to not respond to anyone. But your repeated misrepresentations are disruptive, and you have been asked twice to desist from disrupting the discussion by posting assertions about other editors which you must know to be false. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Caretaker Prime Ministers in the United Kingdom

I was thinking of writing an article on Prime Ministers staying on in a caretaker capacity in the UK. Here's what I've got so far:

• On pages 118 and 119 of 'Choosing a Prime Minister: The Transfer of Power in Britain', Rodney Brazier discusses what he calls the Wilson precedent. He explains that this is that a Prime Minister who wants to make way for a party colleague will not resign until their party has completed the necessary constitutional procedures for electing a new leader.
• The Cabinet Manual also discusses a similar phenomenon in paragraph 2.31, in relation to a loss of a vote of no confidence.
• Paragraph 2.10 of the Cabinet Manual also discusses what might happen (albeit not in a terribly clear way) when it is unclear who the monarch should call for to become Prime Minister (perhaps most notably following a hung Parliament).
• I also believe that chapter 3 of Anne Twomey's 'The Veiled Sceptre: Reserve Powers of Heads of State in Westminster Systems' discusses caretaker Prime Ministers, but I'm afraid that I don't have access to that book.
• The House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee report 'Lessons from the process of Government formation after the 2010 General Election' might also be a good source, particularly its focus on historical precedents (like Gordon Brown in 2010, whether he resigned too early, too late or at the right time). It also credits groups who set out to explain what would happen if there were a hung Parliament and I think that Wikipedia should play its role in this too.

What do people think? Is there enough to create a new article? Does anybody know of any other sources that might be useful? I also recently wrote a new section in Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Acting Prime Minister on what might happen following the death of a Prime Minister, so perhaps that could be included too. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear Amendment

I have tried adding the missing names to the grid for the division on the Dear amendment, but the markup is difficult. Can anybody help? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Arthur Conan Doyle has an RFC

Arthur Conan Doyle has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Peerage titles and honorifics: MOS amendments

I have made a proposal to amend the MOS at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Peerage titles and honorifics amendments; members might be interested to contribute to the discussion. DBD 14:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Judges & Courts

We have several diagrams explaining the structure of the English & Welsh judiciary, as well as articles listing all the different ranks of judges, but we do not have a graphic to indicate which sort of judge sits in which sort of court. This is one I have put together based on what was already written on various Wikipedia pages. It is only a first draft, and I welcome efforts by those with more familiarity to make improvements. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I like it, though I'm afraid that I don't know this area well enough to comment on its accuracy! I did just think of two things: I think that you've forgotten to link up the Deputy District Judge box. It would also make sense to me to lose the "Mr" from "Mr Justice", as judges of this rank are just known as a "Justice[s]" and "Mr" doesn't make it gender neutral. But well done, it looks very good and will, no doubt, be a very useful tool! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh and since the Supreme Court has been in use, its judges have been styled "Justice of the Supreme Court" (plus the President and Deputy President), not Law Lords. I hope that this helps! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I was generally trying to avoid repeating the name of the court in the title of the judge, lest it look a bit redundant. I have added lines for the DDJs. As far as I know they sit on the same courts as the full DJs, though as "District Judge" is itself divided into two distinct roles that may not be true. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Have you seen this webpage: "[d]eputy district judges sit on a fee-paid basis in the county courts and district registries of the High Court for between 15 and 50 days a year. In general their jurisdiction is the same as that of a district judge"? I'm afraid that I have no idea what a district registry of the High Court is though! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Order in Council#Requested move 11 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Order in Council#Requested move 11 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

'The Monarchy and the Constitution' by Vernon Bogdanor

Hi all. Apparently on pages 87 and 88 of 'The Monarchy and the Constitution' by Vernon Bogdanor there is a list of people who have acted as deputy to the Prime Minister. I'm afraid that I don't have access to this book and it's quite costly to buy, but I really do think that this information would be useful to add to Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, so if anybody has access to that publication, I'd be very grateful if they could add the relevant information! Thanks! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@FollowTheTortoise: there's a free preview of those pages on Google Books, see here. Hope this helps, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 16:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I hadn't even thought to check Google Books! I'll add any pertinent information as soon as I can. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

List of former MPs at AfD

The List of living former United Kingdom MPs was created after recent discussion here but has now been nominated for deletion. @Andrew Gray, FollowTheTortoise, PamD, and TrottieTrue: Andrew🐉(talk) 10:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Does England have a capital?

A discussion is occurring, over whether or not London is the capital of England. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Police and Crime Commissioners

There's currently a deletion discussion open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Campion regarding the individual's notability, which throws open a wider question about the notability of PCCs in general. A suggestion has been made to merge the article John Campion into the West Mercia Police and Crime Commissioner article, and that many of the PCCs who currently have articles are not notable enough in their own right. Past consensus (albeit unwritten) appears to have been that PCCs are treated on an equal footing with MPs, MSPs, etc, and have articles created, even if those articles contain very little information. What are people's thoughts about this going forward? Should we merge some of the less notable PCCs into the articles about their particular office, or should they remain as individual articles? Any thoughts on this would be welcome. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Election month in lead for recently-elected MP?

Is it (a) useless or (b) helpful to include the month, as well as year, of election in the lead paragraph of the article on an MP elected in the current year, such as Sarah Green (politician)? Please comment on the talk page. Thanks. PamD 22:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum page move

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Health and Social Care Tax#Requested move 20 September 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Health and Social Care Tax#Requested move 20 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 20:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) has an RFC

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) has an RFC for possible consensus that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 09:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Content dispute

Hello, all. Please see this discussion. You are welcome to take part if you are interested. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

What about Benjamin Butterworth?

Should Benjamin Butterworth (journalist) get an article? He did run for public office as a Labour candidate for East Cheshire in 2011.Dwanyewest (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Being an unsuccessful candidate is not enough to confer notability for our purposes. If there are other grounds to make him notable then that would change things. Wikipedia:Notability (people) is the page to look at. DuncanHill (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC discussion Template talk:Socialism in the UK

Hi all, would appreciate any input into this template around the scope of socialism/ what parties to include. There is debate around whether to work on a broad church approach to socialism vs. narrowly defined. Please do put your thoughts on the talk page if you feel like contributing. Jamzze (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Matt Vickers

Hi. Please could someone cast an eye on recent edits to Matt Vickers page? Is something like this worthy of being mentioned? There seems to be a local journalist trying to use the page to promote their rag. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

MP for twenty years, but never spoke in Parliament: politician, yes or no

If somebody is elected an MP, and held the constituency for twenty years but never once addressed parliament, does that make them a politician? Does it warrant mention in the infobox and lead, or just in the body text? Please discuss at Talk:Daniel Gooch#MP. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

What to cover in a by-election article

We could do with some more input at Talk:2021 North Shropshire by-election on the question of what we should be trying to cover in an article on a by-election. Bondegezou (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Rhodesian mission in Lisbon Featured article review

I have nominated Rhodesian mission in Lisbon for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

New Towns Acts

I have done a comprehensive rewrite of New Towns Acts, fixing about 20 to 25 red links (elsewhere) in the process (though New Towns Acts#New Towns Acts 1971, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1980, 1982 and 1987 is a bit of a cheat. If anyone has access to the actual Public General Act books for these years, please fill in the gaps.)

It has been a one-person effort so it really needs a critical eye going over it because attention to detail is not one of my strong suits.

An update to the quality and importance scale would be appreciated. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Shortname templates

As the result of a TfD earlier this year, all the /meta/shortname, color and abbrev templates were merged into a single module. In the process, the contents of much of the shortname templates has been moved into the abbrev field in the module. An RfC on this and its potential impact has been started on the module's talkpage. Input from WikiProject members is welcome. Cheers, Number 57 20:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Monarchy in the United Kingdom FAR

I have nominated Monarchy of the United Kingdom for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Editing disputes on the Westminster Xmas parties

We could do with some additional input at Talk:Westminster_Christmas_parties_controversy#Reactions. On one point discussing reactions to the controversy, 3 editors support some text, 1 opposes -- we could do with further input to clearly resolve the matter. There are some additional points that have received less discussion. All input welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Renew Party and COI editor

At Talk:Renew_Party#Ideology_shift, there is someone on behalf of the Renew Party suggesting edits. They are acting respectfully and following advice. This is one of those cases with a minor party where the RS reporting is out of date compared to primary sources. I'm not certain how best to respond, however, given WP:PRIMARY etc. Could someone else look? Bondegezou (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Years in United Kingdom Politics and Government

I noticed the other day that there are articles for events in UK Politics and Government for each year since 2016. A lot of them are quite bare relative to what they could be though. I'm interested in getting to work on populating them, but I'm just wondering if there's a justification for having those articles as separate from the more general Years in the United Kingdom. Particularly with 2016 (for which the Politics and Govt article is empty except for the referendum), a lot of things that would be included in the politics article, like reshuffles and resignations, are already covered in the 2016 in the United Kingdom article. If there is a justification for having a separate politics article for each year, I'm happy to get to work on them. YeetMeInTheMiddle (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom § Category:Lists of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom table markup

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom § Category:Lists of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom table markup. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC) -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC on lead of devolution in the United kingdom

Their is an RFC going on here which may be of interest to editors who are interested in politics in the UK.--Llewee (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Partygate again

Unsurprisingly, there's lots going on at Partygate. I think the article is broadly very good, but there are multiple issues around how to best cover material with respect to WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE etc., as per multiple discussions on Talk. Input welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Liberal/Whig confusion

After looking at List_of_MPs_elected_in_the_1832_United_Kingdom_general_election, it kind of looks confusing to have MPs listed as Liberal under party in this page but in the main article for the election, 1832_United_Kingdom_general_election, it refers to Whigs. It would make more sense to me to have all the MPs in the former page to be listed as Whigs since the Liberal Party itself hadn't been formed yet. Would it be good to use the same/a similar clarification that the main article has about this issue so it's consistent? --Gharbhain (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Election Box Format

About half a year ago, I brought up the subject of the format of election boxes - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_14#Coalition_Liberals/Coalition_Conservatives. Unfortunately the conversation never managed to reach a conclusion. I thought I would bring it up again as it seems that there are still some differences between some articles on how the results are being presented. Mainly, there is the most commonly used one, Template:Election_box, and this occasional one that was considered changing everything over to, Template:Compact_election_box. Some articles, most notably I think is Bradford_West_(UK_Parliament_constituency), continue to use Template:Compact_election_box.

What should be done now? Should a complete move to Template:Compact_election_box be done, or should all articles currently using Template:Compact_election_box be changed back to Template:Election_box?

On a seperate point, when using Template:Election_box some titles aren't consistent. Some will have General election 2019: Constituency and some will have 2019 general election: Constituency. Some older articles like Antrim_(UK_Parliament_constituency) have the actual date in the title. What title format should Template:Election_box/Template:Compact_election_box use?--Gharbhain (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The compact one looks horrible and I would suggest we remove it. MapReader (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Personally I really like the old-fashioned ones ({{Election box}}). The individual templates are clean, easy-to-read, and have the advantage that you can fit contextual information into the sequence - eg a couple of lines explaining why a by-election, the nominated candidates for the 1939/40 election that never happened, notes on boundary changes, etc.

Conversely, I find the new one a lot more cluttered - it's harder to read off one set of results, and while it is in theory more compact overall, it can feel like it has a lot of wasted space (eg the 1964 section in the example). Neither are ideal on mobile, but the old style one squashes up nicely on a phone, while the new one seems to require a lot of left-right scrolling. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gharbhain: I think most people preferred the normal one, despite what one particularly persistent user had to say on the matter, so I suggest we continue with the status-quo for at least a little while longer. As for the title format, I prefer the "2019 general election" as it is easier to see at a glance which election is being referenced, and matched the format of the election articles' titles. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 21:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought the discussion when this was last brought up was pretty clear that no-one (bar one persistent user) likes the "Compact" version. Bondegezou (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with all of you, it should be changed to the normal one. I just wanted to make sure before I did it, since the last discussion didn't have a definitive end to it, I felt. I'll make an effort to clean it up, as well as tidying the format of the titles and so on. Thanks all! --Gharbhain (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Matt Vickers/Nigel Farage

Hi. Is this edit worth a mention? I'd earlier reverted it, but the other editor thinks it's worth adding to Vickers' bio. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Bipartisanship in the United Kingdom

Someone has created an article on Bipartisanship in the United Kingdom. I'm not an expert on UK politics, but the article is a stub, and lacks understanding of the Westminster system and how it functions. If someone wants to take a look at the article, that would be great. If you think it should be deleted, that would be fine with me too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

At present, the article appears to be a collection of pieces on "what happens if you take a US concept of bipartisanship and think how it applies to the UK system". There may be potential for some content somewhere on Wikipedia on such matters, but I don't think a standalone article like this works. I would support deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The subject may be notable, but WP:TNT would apply here. I don't know about the UK, but in Australia we don't use the term to refer to two political parties, but to accords between the government and opposition, either or both of which may be coalitions of parties. American-style de jure bipartisanship is unknown here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Wales Green Party

I'd appreciate if other editors could please comment on and/or get involved in this discussion on this talk page here - Talk:Wales Green Party#Welsh independence in the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I have commented (at length!). More input always welcomed. Bondegezou (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

A total and unmitigated defeat

Hello, all. There is a discussion at this article's talk page which may interest you. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Federalism in the United Kingdom

Could other editors please take a look at recent changes at Federalism in the United Kingdom. Another editor has been making major changes to that article, including moving it to a different title, without any discussion - other than claiming that their text is "much improved". I'd be grateful if other interested editors could make their views known so that we can have a proper discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Wards of Scotland

I'm looking into completing the 'set' of Scottish council wards before the upcoming elections in May - the last six areas are East Dunbartonshire, East Ayrshire, Fife, North Ayrshire, Renfrewshire and South Ayrshire. Due to lack of time and lack of detailed local knowledge, for my own part these probably would not get beyond the stub stage with ward map, brief description and list of councillors and previous results. I think I recall reading here that not everyone in the project was too keen on this level of political entity being given their own articles due to the limitations on possible expansions and the possibility that they would only exist for a relatively short time. So an alternative could be to create an overview article for each area ('Wards of Fife' etc) with the same limited info collated for every ward but held in a single page. What would be preferred by the project members? I would also like to request some help with creating the svg maps, really not sure how to do it so any guidance is a start - I can confirm that each of those 6 areas does have an outline ward map at Commons, so the base is there, it's the individual "coloured-in" derivative versions for each ward that are needed. These are also lacking on a few other areas (Falkirk, Inverclyde, North Lanarkshire and West Dunbartonshire) and would greatly enhance the ward articles aesthetically with their inclusion. Pinging user:Draqueeb who created most of the other ward articles and maps a couple of years ago - don't want to tread on your toes if you fancy doing another wave of these, and any help in either respect (particularly the maps to be honest) would be appreciated. Crowsus (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

My thanks to user:Crowsus for pointing out those missing areas for me. When I started the project I had planned to do the wards for all 32 council areas, but got distracted and forgot all about it at the final hurdle. I'd love to do the remaining ones and possibly have drafts for them somewhere on my computer.

The maps would be the easiest part of the project for me. I can't for the life of me figure out why I neglected to upload coloured-in maps for Falkirk, Inverclyde, North Lanarkshire and West Dunbartonshire; so I'll start with those, and can probably have those four areas complete with maps by the end of today. The remaining council areas might take me a bit longer, what with work commitments and a poor attention span, but I should have no trouble getting them done in time for the elections in May. Draqueeb (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Crowsus: I'd be happy to help as well if I get the time, I could even put together some interactive maps like the one I made for 1995 City of Edinburgh Council election if desired. I like the idea of the "Wards of [Council Area]" format, seeing as boundaries and names are subject to change (most recently in North Ayrshire, for example). PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 21:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello, there is a discussion at Talk:Churchill war ministry#Status-quo. You are welcome to take part if interested. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit war at Partygate

Could we get some more eyes on Partygate? Help at Talk:Partygate#Material_not_supported_by_citation would be valued. (I’m stepping back from article space editing on various topics for a bit.) Bondegezou (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Federalism in the United Kingdom [again]

As I said earlier... another editor has been making numerous and very substantial edits to that article over the past few weeks, including changing the title to United Kingdom Federation (which has now been reverted). I haven't kept track of all the changes the editor has made - the last time I looked, some seemed to be OK, some seemed to be poor, and some seemed to be contentious and needing further discussion. None have been discussed on the article talk page. Other editors might like to take a look at what has been going on, and comment on the article talk page on whether the current version is an improvement, or not. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing for Wakefield by-election

Can we have some input on adequate sourcing for the Wakefield by-election article, as per Talk:2022_Wakefield_by-election#Sourcing_for_candidacies? Bondegezou (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)