Politics of the United Kingdom PROJECT Devoted to improving coverage of British politics on Wikipedia.

discussion page

Primary article

Categories · Featured content · Templates

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Last month, I added the results to the page 2024 Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council election. I included the raw results figures that were included on the declaration PDF and council web page (electorate, turnout percentage, rejected ballots), but I didn't add anything that had to be calculated manually (turnout, majority, vote percentages, percentage changes, swing).

Since then, other users have added those calculated figures - but they've also removed all of the Rejected Ballots (Template:Election box rejected) lines from the results tables. This means that the tables now appears to have an inconsistency: the tables' "Turnout" raw figures column show the number of valid votes, but the "Turnout percentage" comes from the source results declaration, which is calculated using "Turnout = valid votes + rejected ballots". So anyone trying to confirm the figures based only on what's listed on this Wikipedia page will encounter this discrepancy.

So, my preference is to add the Rejected Ballots lines back in for the sake of comprehensiveness. (The figures are published, they're relevant to making the tables as accurate as possible, so why not include them?) However, I'm also aware that a lot of election results pages don't include them. (For example, the 2023 election page is the only one of that council's results pages that includes them.)

So, my question is: should I add the Template:Election box rejected lines back in? Nick R^Talk 15:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, absolutely. Not sure why anyone wouldn't include that, as turnout cannot be calculated correctly without it. Cheers, Number 57 22:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update July 2024, after the general election: Despite the above comment, I never got round to adding the rejected ballots numbers back into that local election page. But now that the general election has happened, I've encountered the issue again with being unsure which source of figures to use in the article Walsall and Bloxwich (UK Parliament constituency), as there are various slight differences between them. I've put together a more detailed comparison of the differences between them on its talk page, but to summarise:

• The Council's own Declaration of Results PDF? (That seems the most comprehensive.)
• The Council's results web page? (That shows a completely different turnout percentage figure.)
• The BBC or Sky's results pages? (They each show completely different numbers of electors. They don't show rejected ballots. And I can't work out how the BBC gets its turnout percentage change since 2019 figure.)

(I think that the other seat with results announced by Walsall Council, Aldridge-Brownhills (UK Parliament constituency), has similar discrepancies, but I haven't looked into that in as much detail.)

Whichever one gets used as the source, there'll be a mismatch somewhere - even if that's a mismatch between what's used in the 2024 results table, and what was used in the articles for the two predecessor seats Walsall North and Walsall South (neither of which include lines for rejected ballots).

I've found related recent discussions about the inclusion of rejected ballots at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums/Archive_26#Calculation_of_election_percentages and Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Election_Percentages. (I was looking at the Wikipedia:NOR page because I wasn't sure if it's preferable to cite a primary source like the Council's declaration of results PDF, or a secondary source like the BBC's results pages.)

Also, when it comes to seat gains and swing changes, I'm unsure about whether Walsall and Bloxwich should be treated as a new constituency, or a continuation of the former seat Walsall North. (2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies#Linked_seats includes it in the "Linked seats" table, and the BBC seems to treat it as a continuation by describing it as Labour gain from Conservative - although as I said, I can't work out how the BBC has reached its turnout percentage change since 2019.) But that might be a better question for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies or Talk:2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. Nick R^Talk 22:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Update regarding the strikethrough bit: having looked again at How the BBC reports this election, it says that its results are not a direct comparison of Walsall North (2019) -> Walsall and Bloxwich (2024), but are instead based on notional 2019 results with the new boundaries. That explains why they're treating it as a Labour gain, and might also be how they're getting the strange percentage change in turnout. (The Guardian's election map has a similar disclaimer: "New constituency. Change figures based on modelled 2019 results.") Which raises the question: with these new constituencies, should Wikipedia articles follow the BBC when it comes to listing party gains/holds, and using notional figures to compare turnouts and swings? Should that be done even if, as in this case, the BBC's results for 2024 contain some figures (e.g. registered voters) that don't match what the Council's own announcement says? Nick R^Talk 23:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick R: If it's a new creation we don't have to portray it as a hold or gain. Use {{Election box new seat win}}. Rcsprinter123 (negotiate) 19:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a dispute at Neil Kinnock with an IP, whether it should state politican who was Leader of the Opposition vs the pre-existing politican who served as Leader of the Opposition. Although, I probably forgot to argue that as "Leader" is capitalised it refers to a title rather than a general term. But after the IP reverted citing lack of policy, and avoiding edit warring, I raise it here. Should we adopt their shorter wording "was" and "is" over "served as" and "serving as" on politicans? If there is a guideline/consensus on this, apologies if I haven't found it. DankJae 10:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"served as" is needlessly wordy and implicitly approves of what they were/did. "was" is preferable, both for euphony and neutrality. DuncanHill (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. is/was is fine and reflects usage in reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou@DuncanHill

would we have to add "the" though, so per MOS:JOBTITLES,

is a British politician who has served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party since 2022

becomes

is a British politician who is the prime minister of the United Kingdom and leader of the Conservative Party since 2022

?

"is Prime Minister since 2022" sounds odd, it has to be "is the prime minister since 2022" or "serving as Prime Minister since 2022". DankJae 16:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add “the” if you want. I think it can work without, but probably more usual to have “the”. Bondegezou (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"has been PM since 2022" would be the norm, no? CipherRephic (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CipherRephic, "who has been" is as wordy as "who served as", the argument here is to shorten "who served as" to "who is (the)". DankJae 20:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DankJae "Rishi Sunak, who is the Prime Minister since 2022," is just incorrect English, though. The present continuous would work on its own (i.e. "Rishi Sunak, who is the Prime Minister,") but when using "since" it has to go in the present perfect (so, "who has served as"), Therefore you'd either need to keep it as "served as" or delete the "since 2022", so if it's between the two then it'd be "served as". That being said, in cases like that of Kinnock, where they aren't the thing any more, it'd be perfectly fine to simply use "was" (i.e. "Neil Kinnock, who was Leader of the Opposition from 1983 to 1992") because that's in the past continuous - the issue is purely in the present tense.

(i hope this doesn't come across as too grammar-nazi, but this was the most succinct way of describing the issue that wasn't just "it feels wrong" or "that's not how you do that") CipherRephic (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CipherRephic, commented that as "who is Prime Minister since 2022", "who is Member of Parliament of" also sounds off, but seems that is just me. So "who is Prime Minister since 2022" or "serving as Prime Minister since 2022"? Unless @Bondegezou, @DuncanHill should we only change it to "was" for past positions? and leave current positions alone? DankJae 22:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need to cram so much into one sentence? DuncanHill (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? DankJae 13:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use shorter sentences. Don't try to put so much information into the first. DuncanHill (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are agreed that "served as" is unnecessary and we should just use "was". I don't see why we need this further discussion: editors can be trusted to write in grammatical English without us first discussing every possible particular phrasing. Bondegezou (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it on various from "served as" to "was". But all changes from "serving as" to "is" was reverted back to "serving as". So appears many others agree it was bad English.

So guessing "was" is only the accepted. Unless you wish to enforce "is". DankJae 23:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a stub article for the Labour Party manifesto at Draft:2024 Labour Party Manifesto. I invite contributions to expand it to the point where it is ready to submit as an article. — The Anome (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have we got a category of articles for the manifestos showing those of other parties in this election that we can look at for examples of layout, infoboxes, templates, etc? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome, do you know of any other articles about a British political party's election manifesto? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not for UK political manifestos, no, although we have them for the USA, see Category:American political manifestos, Category:United States political party platforms and . But this seems like notable information (vast amounts of discussion on the topic in WP:RS makes it clearly notable) that should go somewhere. The important thing isn't the manifesto as such, it's the party's political platform; where should it go? — The Anome (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The longest suicide note in history comes closest. I think the 1997 Labour and 2010 Conservative could be articles. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really a notable topic? Recent edits suggest the title is not understood, at least, so I've tagged it. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto: I agree that this article is simply put unsuitable in terms of inclusion criteria, and fails WP:LISTCRITERIA, especially since the article is light on references and coverage in reliable sources. The clearest evidence of this is in the lead, where it states plainly that the seats listed are not necessarily the seats that the parties are choosing to target. If this is the case, why create such an article at all? Pinging the creator of this article as a courtesy: @Moondragon21. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 01:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started the list in anticipation of the general election continuing the series of 2015, 2017 and 2019. Moondragon21 (talk). 02:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that all 4 lists should be renamed "List of most marginal seats before the ...". Target seats are those a party chooses to invest its efforts and funds in campaigning for, not just the seats which are the most marginal, as the preamble to the lists explains. The lists are wrongly titled. PamD 07:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any reply, I've proposed moving all four articles. See discussion here. PamD 23:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few years back, This is Paul contributed Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_14#Police_and_Crime_Commissioners to raise a question about the notability of police and crime commissioners. We have an article for every incumbent PCC except Ben Adams (police commissioner), so I recently set about creating one for completeness. Although I thought it contained more well-sourced information than several other PCC articles, it was swiftly moved to Draft:Ben Adams (police commissioner) on the grounds that further sources were needed to demonstrate WP:Notability. A subsequent WP:AfC review was also unsuccessful, so it is languishing as a draft. This implies PCCs are still not considered inherently notable, unlike MPs, MSPs, directly elected mayors, etc. What are anyone's thoughts on this, and is there a way to establish/formalise consensus under WP:POLOUTCOMES? Failing that, would someone be willing to review Draft:Ben Adams (police commissioner) and move it to mainspace? AJP (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created a lot of the PCC bios after the 2012 and 2016 elections, and there were a couple of occasions where someone would think them not notable. An example that springs to mind is John-Paul Campion. I would argue that with a constituency that covers several hundred thousand constituents, PCCs meet the requirement for WP:OFFICEHOLDER and are on a par with the directly elected mayors, and in some cases the role of PCC has been subsumed into the office of mayor (in Greater Manchester for example). I’m not quite sure how to do the paperwork for reviewing an AFC, but the article looks fine to me and there are plenty of good references in it. This is Paul (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks This is Paul for the helpful response. I'm wary of resubmitting Draft:Ben Adams (police commissioner) for another AfC review because the submission declined banner states that unedited submissions will be declined again and potentially deleted. A sympathetic AfC reviewer familiar with the PCC role (e.g. Edwardx or No Swan So Fine ?) would probably agree that any elected PCC is inherently notable. I fear others might interpret the notability guidelines differently, leaving this lone PCC bio doomed to remain a red link. AJP (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think they are inherently notable - the large and broad electorate should be proof of this. Your references are solid but I can see how the article suffer from a lack of in-depth sources. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago I created Category:Constituency contests in United Kingdom general elections and am coming back to it. While by-elections are well covered there are some very notable contests that although they seem to have been well covered by either the media at the time or in history books do not seem to have articles in Wikipedia.

If there are examples of constituency contests that already have articles that aren't covered then I'd be grateful so I can add them to this category. I'd also be grateful for suggestions for constituency contests that could do with articles (they will currently be redirects).

JASpencer (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the category needs a scope note to define "Constituency contests", especially as many of the entries are redirects to sections of articles rather than stand-alone articles. What's the criterion for a seat to be a "constituency contest"? PamD 07:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Chingford and Woodford Green (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections in the 2020s might be one, with the deselected candidate standing as independent? PamD 07:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely the sort of contest I was thinking about. Thank you. JASpencer (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently drafting an article about the 2020 deputy speaker/chairman & deputy chairman of ways and means election in my sandbox, and I've got the current title of it as "2020 Chairman and Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means of the British House of Commons election"

To me, that seems a bit too long, so does anyone have any better suggestion for a title? I've thought of "2020 Deputy Speakers of the British House of Commons election" as a possible alternative, but I don't know whether I should mention Deputy Speakers or Chairman/Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means in the title. SuperGuy212 (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't think this sort of election is notable enough for an article. I would suggest adding it into the Chairman of Ways and Means article for now (as the most recent election), and if there is appetite to record historic elections, you might be better off with a 'List of Ways and Means chair elections'. Number 57 01:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yeah, fair enough, I did think that might be the case. SuperGuy212 (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current articles lack crucial information about the number of MPs for each party. For example, the Conservative Party (UK) infobox includes House of Lords, Scottish Parliament, etc but omits the vastly more important number of House of Commons MPs. Although MPs are technically not in office during the dissolution period, they still receive salaries and have staffed offices, making the omission of their numbers misleading.^[1] I will add the MP numbers as of 30 May 2024 to the party infoboxes and include a note about the dissolution period. Additionally, I will restore the seat map on the UK House of Commons article with a similar note.

MarkiPoli (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate it if any users would like to make an input on whether a poll of GB News viewers is appropriate to include in the main table of polls on Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election. Ralbegen (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'd advise against including this in the main table of polls, because surely if we included this, then wouldn't it be fair to include polls of other news viewers/readers? Also, if we did decide to add polls of other news outlets, then the averages would get messed up because these polls would inherently focus on a specific subset of people.

For example, you could get 40% Labour, 16% Tory, 15% Green, 15% Others, 7% Reform and 5% Lib Dem with Al Jazerra watchers, 52% Labour, 13% Lib Dem, 12% Tory, 7% Reform and 6% Green with Guardian readers and 60% Reform, 16% Conservative, 13% Labour and 1% Lib Dems with GB News watchers.

I wouldn't be opposed to adding a section solely dedicated to polls, with sub sections according to different outlets (like how constituency polling is currently organised) though SuperGuy212 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been drafting an article, this time on the Tory election date betting scandal (link to it here), and I've given it the provisional title of "Gamblegate", as I can see people starting to call it that. Does anyone have any objections to this being the title of the article, and if so, do you have any suggestions for better titles before I move this to mainspace? SuperGuy212 (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I googled it and it doesn't seem to be the common name yet, as there's only 2 results on the first page of Google relating to the scandal with the rest being casinos. I'd suggest "2024 United Kingdom general election date betting scandal". Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, if more sources start calling it "Gamblegate", it could be moved to that. MarkiPoli (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah fair enough. SuperGuy212 (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its a good article though, I think it could be mainspaced, you'd definitely get editors expanding it as the scandal continues to grow. MarkiPoli (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-gate names are often too tabloidy unless they really take off more generally. Looking at the news headlines they are currently quite descriptive, along the lines of "election date betting scandal". As MarkiPoli suggests you should follow that but with "UK" and "2024" added - remember the audience is global. I'd avoid "scandal" at this point as there are as yet no convictions and the article will cover BLPs. I'd suggest 2024 UK election date betting controversy. DeCausa (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided on "2024 United Kingdom election date betting controversy" as the title, but just one thing before I mainspace it; DeCausa said to avoid using "scandal", but the first part of the article is "The 2024 United Kingdom general election date betting controversy is a political scandal in the United Kingdom". Do you have any suggestion as to how to re-word this so to remove the use of "scandal"? SuperGuy212 (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Often with descriptive titles it's a good idea to dispense with opening with a repetition of the title per MOS:BOLDAVOID and MOS:REDUNDANCY otherwise you tend to end up with a circular opening sentence. I think the opening probably lends itself to something like "During the 2024 United Kingdom general election campaign, allegations were made that a number of individuals..." etc DeCausa (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that seems good, I've made that edit plus some other minor ones in that first paragraph to fit with that edit and now I've mainspaced it (link here) SuperGuy212 (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick thing, I think I should probably add this article to the Rishi Sunak sidebar template but I don't know where to put it. First off, should it go in there in the first place? And if so, in which section should I put in? I'm not sure whether to put it in the Prime Minister section or the electoral history section. Also, apologies if this should've been a new topic instead of a reply. SuperGuy212 (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially a NPOV/BLP issue putting it in the Rishi Sunak template. I would suggest Template:2024 United Kingdom general election series would be better. DeCausa (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any systematic way in which the many articles for newly-elected MPs will be created? Perhaps there are already a lot of drafts out there for likely candidates. Some new MPs will already have articles under other reasons for notability, but those articles will need some tweaking beyond just adding that they've been elected.

As one of the editors who rather enjoys the activity of "the Friday morning after the by-election", trying to make sure that the articles we collectively create follow our policies and have all the available infrastructure, I'd like to tentatively suggest a boiler-plate outline for creating articles for newly-elected MPs. See User:PamD/MP. It uses "code" and "nowiki" so you can just copy what's visible and paste it into a fledgling article. It gives a flying start with remembering the various bits and pieces which can improve the article - defaultsort, succession box, link for their parliamentary profile when available (usually around 8am after a byelection), etc.

Any thoughts or improvements? Should it have an infobox? Would it be useful as a page within this WikiProject? Feel free to improve or copy it wherever.

Or is there some scheme I don't know about whereby articles are already systematically mass-created?

And do we agree on the optimum wording for that lead sentence - there will be so many new articles, we may as well agree in advance over the next couple of days. (Or is there already a "Model MP article" somewhere with agreed wording?) I've suggested ...is a British xxx party politician elected as Member of Parliament for [[[xxx (UK Parliament constituency)|xxx]] in the general election held on 4 July 2024., but you might disagree. PamD 14:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox definitely needed: done. PamD 15:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the template @PamD. I’ve tidied up Georgia Gould. Can someone look at this please? Luke Akehurst might still need some work doing. I updated at least a couple of ex-MPs’ articles too. TrottieTrue (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Gould looks good - though led me down the rabbit hole of upgrading the article on Queen's Park and Maida Vale (UK Parliament constituency)! And her talk page was a bit of a muddle, now sorted. PamD 15:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And re Akehurst - I've added the succession box, and moved Refs to above Ext Links. PamD 15:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So much to be done now! TrottieTrue (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD this looks great - I did some of the 2019 intake and I think I ended up using a similar boilerplate. Helps to get all the templates in place from day one!

I've been doing some tidying on the Wikidata side so I've run up a list of all candidates who have existing enwiki articles, in case that is useful. (One line per candidate, plus a blank line for seats where no candidate has an article).

There are 550 articles for people who were previously MPs, another 31 are current/former MLAs, MSPs or Senedd members, and the remaining hundred or so have other backgrounds. The majority of articles are on Conservative candidates (291x), versus 215x Labour. Given the numbers being suggested for Labour, there will probably be a lot of those needing created, I guess? From the constituency side, 65x constituencies have no candidates with existing articles, and several do have candidates with articles, but only minor party candidates (eg a single independent in Epsom and Ewell).

In terms of drafts, this list shows all draftspace pages linking to the 2024 election article, which has about ten more drafts for candidates. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moondragon21, Chessrat, Ravenpuff, Ellwat, and Therequiembellishere: a few other editors who seem to enjoy working on newly-elected MPs. PamD 14:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I started the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/New MPs to help out with this. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added a note about that to the top of my boilerplate article (and added Katie White (politician) to your list). PamD 15:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've searched through draftspace for anyone who sounds like a parliamentary candidate - a bundle now added, though some of the drafts are pretty thin and there isn't much there to transfer into a new article. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There may be more in userspace. I've got one, and presumably a lof other editors wil have one or more! PamD 22:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• All of what has been said sounds good. I'd also add that if Vix Lowthion wins Isle of Wight East, she previously had a lengthy and well-written article that was deleted under notability grounds in 2019 so I'm wondering if an undeletion request may be a good idea in preparation. The old article is visible on Way back Machine. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will be happy to undelete articles on people who now meet NPOLITICIAN after the election (if they had one previously and it was deleted). Just give me a ping. Cheers, Number 57 20:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll try and start a few in the wee small hours using Pam's amazing template. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• And more: I've added to the template page a boilerplate MP article talk page - just the key WikiProjects, but it's easier to copy-and-paste than to type from scratch. Glad to hear that some of you are finding the template useful. I'm upgrading MP articles rather randomly - eg Andrew Snowden was on my watch list because he was my local Police and Crime Commissioner, and Sam Carling (new baby of the house, and first MP born in 21st century!) was mentioned by one of his constituents while we were chatting about The Archers on our weekly Zoom this morning!

Has anyone been updating the UK Parliament constituency field in infoboxes for UK human settlements, ie. towns, villages etc? For example, I just checked St John’s Wood, and it had the old constituency, which I updated. However, Maida Vale has the correct constituency in the infobox. Might there be work to be done here? With the new boundaries, lots of settlements will be in different constituencies. Queen’s Park also needed updating. TrottieTrue (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TrottieTrue, agree this needs to be done across the UK. However, is there some sort of easier way? It looks like it will have to be fully manual, i.e. looking at maps of the constituency and seeing where it falls into. That sounds to be very slow and a lot of work. Would be great if there were some sort of automatic way or a website plotting the coords of the articles and the constituencies? DankJae 11:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it’s a lot of work, even using What links here. You could share out the job amongst editors, but still. Electoral Calculus has maps but no idea how it could help. This has surely been done before when the boundaries last changed? TrottieTrue (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat boldly edited the infobox for Rishi Sunak to reduce the ministerial offices he held (other than PM) to a single heading. This format is used for Israeli ministers, see Benny Gantz or Benjamin Netanyahu. I would advocate this as a clearer style, and in line with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE ("The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance"). Someone who wants to a see the ministerial career of someone at a glance will discern it more with it in summary form of offices and years. This is particularly so with those who held quite a variety of office over time, Michael Gove or Alan Johnson. If I'm looking up Alan Johnson now, the at-a-glance information I'm interested in is more likely to be that he was SoS for WP, etc., rather than the PM who appointed him and who came before and after. That is relevant information to his biography and to Wikipedia, but defeats the purpose of an infobox if there's a heading for each separate office. Therefore, I've advocate grouping all ministerial offices under one heading, and similarly with all shadow ministerial offices. There could be debate about what merits its own heading, PM itself certainly would, for example. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think cabinet positions deserve their own heading. I've restored the single heading for his parliamentary secretary role. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that now from a visual point is that Sunak's cabinet positions are hidden by default. If the purpose of the infobox is to display key information, it's not aided by having them hidden in that way. It's not about the merit of the positions, of course Chancellor of the Exchequer is an important role, but whether boxes become too bulky or unwieldy by listing every office separately. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Michael Gove infobox and similar is ridiculous and clearly violates MOS:INFOBOX. Infoboxes need to be compact or what's the point of them? Bondegezou (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, we see many people being newly elected as MPs (and the flurry of new interest in editing of related articles). In template:Officeholder and in free text, I have seen some squabbles over when a newly-elected MP "starts".

I can see a brief discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 4#c-Road Wizard-2012-09-23T21:32:00.000Z-Grandiose-2012-09-23T21:25:00.000Z2012.

My understanding was that in this context, someone could not hold office until the the day the returning officer provided the constituency result.

The Polling was until 22:00. The first seat to be declared was Houghton and Sunderland South- at 23:15 on the same day as the polling, wereas the last was two days after the polling- Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire was the last seat to declare, due to multiple recounts after the election,

So, in this most recent election, results of declaration were announced across three dates.

Then there is the swearing in which might be an oath of allegiance or an affirmation.

The swearing in, might not be completed on the same day, according to IoG.

The Parliament website currently list "representation" dates for MPs- which seems to run from the date of election.

Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the UK Parliament website gives 4 July as the start date, even for the MP whose seat didn't declare until Saturday 6th, then that's good enough for me, and for Wikipedia. It has been discussed before, and we have agreed that the term start = election date. PamD 21:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although, what you link to doesn't really make clear what "4 July" actually signifies. The line above it says "Elected 1 time". What's certain is they were all elected on 4 July whenever the result was called. I think the question probably revolves around how significant is the swearing in, i.e. is that when they technically become MPs and between 4 July and then they are merely "MPs-elect". Are the Sinn Fein MPs technically MPs, for instance? I couldn't find any RS discussing that. DeCausa (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't argue with the source in terms of what goes in the box, but clearly the 4th is not technically the date they 'Assumed office', aside from the few counts called before midnight. You can't begin a job before you are confirmed as having the job. Crowsus (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is the established convention that MPs become MPs on polling day, as reflected in the Parliament website and elsewhere. It might be written down in legislation somewhere but I can't find where it might be. It's probably also incorrect if MPs elected at the same election have different start dates simply based on the declaration of results, the timing of which I don't believe holds any legal significance. The "Assumed office" wording is probably not helpful in these cases, so I think it's best interpreted as the date of election (i.e. 4 July) in all cases. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 19:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In order to centralise and clear up the ongoing debate around the inclusion of 4th, 5th, 6th etc parties in the GE2024 infobox, I have begun an RfC here. Your input would be greatly appreciated. CipherRephic (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly (rashly?) edited the redirect "Deputy Leader of the Opposition (United Kingdom)" to point to "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom", which seemed a more useful target than "Leader of the Opposition (United Kingdom)". The problem is that infoboxes for a number of politicians that pre-date the title of "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" make use of the "deputy" parameter, and link to this redirect. I've put things back as I found them for now. How to resolve? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help, please. I'm not a dab hand at tables, but thought it would be useful to add a table showing the complex origins of new seat Waveney Valley (UK Parliament constituency). I've carefully copied the code to get a bar of party colour ... but it isn't working. I've looked at it super-carefully and cannot see what's different between my attempt, in Waveney_Valley_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Boundaries, and the table in Waveney_Valley_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Members_of_Parliament and all the other examples I've looked at. I'm presumably missing something terribly obvious: please find it for me! (I thought of asking at the HelpDesk but thought I was more likely to find someone used to using this code here). (It turns out that it's pretty dull information for this seat, as all five contributing seats were previously the same party, but it seemed like an interesting table to add, for a completely new seat). PamD 14:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked at the HelpDesk too. PamD 15:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

- a knight in shining armour sorted out my line breaks. I thought I'd tried every variation but apparently not! PamD 15:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following the 2024 election, some party navboxes have become rather redundant: the extreme cases being Template:East of England Conservative Party MPs, which now only has one entry, and Template:Wales Conservative Party MPs, which is now empty and has been nominated for deletion. I think it might be useful if we consolidate the regional navboxes for Labour and the Conservatives into a single larger navbox, e.g. Template:Conservative Party UK MPs (which needs updating anyway), mirroring what is currently done for the other smaller parties. The Labour one might become a bit large, but we can nest the navboxes for each region and expand the relevant one as required for each MP's article. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 19:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the suggested approach. Rcsprinter123 (report) 22:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now updated Template:Conservative Party UK MPs and Template:Labour Party UK MPs as examples of how the above suggestions could work. The Labour navbox employs collapsible groups (otherwise it would be far too long when expanded), while the Conservative navbox is short enough to use the usual style. Comments welcome — RAVENPVFF · talk · 02:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting this here because the Daily Telegraph and The Spectator are explicitly political entities. They seem to have been seized as assets by Lloyds Bank as part of a financial dispute (see [1]). Does this mean that the entries regarding their being owned by Telegraph Media Group, owned in turn by Press Acquisitions Limited, owned in their turn by Press Holdings and May Corporation Limited and ultimately by Frederick Barclay, are no longer accurate, and all those articles should be updated to reflect this? — The Anome (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which of course is the official names of the company running candidates under the Reform UK label. I'm trying to find out what the difference is - the party used to have just supporters, now you can become a member. However, the organisation/party is completely controlled by its shareholders. Its article says ":Reform UK Party Ltd. has fifteen shares. Farage owns eight of these, giving him a controlling majority. The other shareholders are Tice, who holds five, and Chief Executive Paul Oakden and Party Treasurer Mehrtash A'Zami who each hold one share." Does anyone here have any information as to the significance of membership? I think this needs to be added to Political party affiliation in the United Kingdom. Oddly none of this is in the lead of Reform's article, and I'm discussing that on the article talk page. Doug Weller talk 08:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Robbie Moore (MP)#Requested move 7 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 22:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lady Henry Somerset#Requested move 14 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 22:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]