Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

Politics of the United Kingdom WikiProject Improving the coverage of British politics.	Discuss

HomeJoin UsDiscussProjectsAlerts

This is the talk page for the WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom.	Place notices here about UK politics articles, and you will surely receive helpful support from interested editors! Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks For disputes, seek dispute resolution
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

Legislation pages external links

Template:UK-LEG is being used for external links and lists the legislation as it is currently and then as it was enacted. Both actually go to the same url (legislation as it currently is). I think this may be impacting a lot of pages and have no idea how to fix this. Examples 1 and 2. LateFatherKarma (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

It appears that the only parameters that actually affect the URL are |path= and |title= - all of the others merely alter the clickable text, or the text after the link. I think that using |asmade=yes is only really valid if you also specify e.g. |path=ukpga/2002/9/contents/enacted explicitly, instead of making the server at legislation.gov.uk guess what you want. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

looks like the |/enacted= is fairly consistent on the website so it should be a fairly small change to get this working Morwen (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both for responding. I have had a look at the template and appreciate it is a small change but having never changed a template that impacts quite a number of pages, I'm still a bit unsure of what to do and reticent to try and do this myself. If anyone with more competence and experience could help I'd greatly appreciate it. LateFatherKarma (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@LateFatherKarma: You need to specify the path explicitly, like this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the example, I thought there may be a trick where the template itself could be changed rather than every page it's used on. I have started to just change the enacted ones. Hope that's okay. This could take a while! LateFatherKarma (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

New unitary authorities

Kent

In 2028, Kent will have four new unitary authorities, replacing the current district councils and Medway unitary authority. So, it looks like we'll need four new articles creating - North Kent unitary authority, West Kent unitary authority, Mid Kent unitary authority and East Kent unitary authority. Mjroots (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

we've been having an ad hoc discussion at Talk:Upcoming structural changes to local government in England#More announcements which should probably be moved somewhere like here - there are drafts for the areas at Draft:East Kent (district), Draft:West Kent (district), Draft:North Kent, England, (and somehow one has leaked into mainspace at Mid Kent). Morwen (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Lancashire is also dividing into 4: N, S, E & W.(To include a couple of former UAs which weren't in the old county, just to complicate matters.) PamD 11:34, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Could a case be made to have one longer article covering the four Kent authorities? I imagine there's going tobe a lot of overlap and shared boilerplate text there. Same with Lancashire. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@RandomEditsForWhenIRemember: I'd say not. The four separate UAs are not Kent County Council. Mjroots (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

New Lancashire unitary authorities

Now that the number and boundaries, although possibly not the names, of the Lancashire UAs have been announced, I've created stubs for North Lancashire (unitary authority area), East Lancashire (unitary authority area), West Lancashire (unitary authority area) & South Lancashire (unitary authority area), modelled on those for other future UAs listed in the {{Unitary authorities of England}} template (and have added them there). If the names change, they can be moved, but at least there is now somewhere to link to in edits such this which I saw on my watchlist yesterday. I've added them to dab pages and hatnotes as appropriate.

I'm not a maps expert, so if someone would like to create maps for these new authorities to add to the infoboxes...? Thanks. PamD 15:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

General

People, there's a bunch of creation of articles about the new local authorities. We have drafts or articles for them all!

• Draft:Northern Derbyshire and Draft:Southern Derbyshire
• Draft:Devon Coast and Countryside
• Draft:North West Hertfordshire, Draft:South West Hertfordshire (district), Draft:Central Hertfordshire, Draft:Eastern Hertfordshire
• Draft:North Kent, England, Draft:West Kent (district), Draft:East Kent (district), Mid Kent†
• Leicestershire and Rutland†
• Draft:Rural Lincolnshire
• Draft:Southwest Nottinghamshire Draft:North and East Nottinghamshire
• Draft:Northern Oxfordshire, Ridgeway (district) † Draft:Greater Oxford
• Draft:North Staffordshire (district), Draft:Southern and Mid-Staffordshire
• Draft:North Warwickshire (unitary authority area), Draft:South Warwickshire (district)
• Draft:North Worcestershire (district), Draft:South Worcestershire (district)
• North Lancashire (unitary authority area) †, South Lancashire (unitary authority area) †, East Lancashire (unitary authority area) †, West Lancashire (unitary authority area) †

† in mainspace but included for completion

I don't know if it's possible to avoid further Leeroy Jenkinsing of them, but it would be nice. Morwen (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

21 edits in one minute

Hello fellow editors, I have become aware of a suspiciously enormous number of edits performed very quickly by User:Hughbe98. Looking at his contribs, at 18:01 he made 21 edits within 60 seconds - one every 3 seconds. As the majority of those edits fall under the Lists of Acts of Parliament in x articles, perhaps an editor or editors here could check those edits specifically, as it is well outside my area of expertise! As I am not a part of this WikiProject, please do ping me without apology as I may not see messages without it. Thanks! Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 19:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey - thanks for your message. My style recently has been to open a bunch of tabs and then hit publish all at once, so that I don’t have to keep going back to the same page and spamming edits. In this context, the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2013 had spread its repeals across multiple groups, each ordered chronologically. So I wanted to avoid having to keep editing the same page over again for each group of acts. Hughbe98 (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 19:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Chair of the Labour Party (UK)#Requested move 26 June 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chair of the Labour Party (UK)#Requested move 26 June 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Endorsements in the 2016 Labour Party leadership election (UK)#Requested move 26 June 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Endorsements in the 2016 Labour Party leadership election (UK)#Requested move 26 June 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:17, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Local elections page format, conventions.

I've been editing some local elections pages to add citations. While the election boxes are fairly consistent there's a lack of consistency other parts of tese pages. Like whether the reason for any by-election is listed in its own section at the top, or a above or below the relevant by-election election box. Some pages contain details of the incumbants before the election, some do not. Obviously ad-doc editing leads to all sorts of varation, but I just wondered whether there is a convention written down anywhere for these pages, before i decide I don't like the way a page is formatted and decide to rewrite it. JAC Esquire (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Times § Political position infobox descriptor

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Times § Political position infobox descriptor, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Two-tier policing conspiracy theory#Requested move 21 July 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Two-tier policing conspiracy theory#Requested move 21 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ruth Davidson, Baroness Davidson of Lundin Links#Requested move 22 July 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ruth Davidson, Baroness Davidson of Lundin Links#Requested move 22 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 10:10, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

There is a discussion in Talk:Restore Britain on whether the party can be described as ethno-nationalist in the infobox and body in wikivoice or whether it can be mentioned at all or something in between. The current focal point of the discussion is no longer the starters argument. It begings, as far as I can see, from my first comment here Talk:Restore Britain and includes everything thereafter.

You are all very welcome to join. Finfixer (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Should the Labour and Co-operative party color be changed?

At the moment the party colour used for Labour and Co-operative is identical to the Labour red:  
Labour Co-op candidates use that red but also Co-op purple ( ) as well as a gradient between the two (e.g. https://x.com/CoopParty/status/1979197397956772113). My concern is that using an identical colour for both fails to effectively inform readers of different party status between Labour representatives and Labour Co-op ones. In other countries, different colours are usually used in this situation, both for candidates standing for both local affiliate parties (e.g. Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party) and joint party cooperation (e.g. Ta'al) use different colours to the main party to distinguish. So I am wondering whether the Labour Co-op code in the "party color" template ( ) should be changed to either 1) having the Co-operative colour as its main colour (as the Co-operative Party does not stand in elections alone so there is no need to distinguish there) or 2) using the midpoint of the gradient that is commonly used for Labour Co-op candidates (i.e.  ). Thoughts? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:14, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you name an example of an article where you think it suffers for being identical? Morwen (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Thinking of articles like List of MPs elected in the 2024 United Kingdom general election where it's less easy to tell the parties apart at a glance in the "Affiliation" column because the colours are the same. We don't usually have completely identical colours for two different party descriptions like that. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:55, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I think this article is absolutely fine as is, particularly as there is a summary table which doesn't have an entry for Labour Co-Op. Morwen (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I find it odd that we can have one colour for two party names (Labour and Labour/Co-Op), yet at the same time have two colours for one party, see #Libdem colours above. This is a situation that needs to be resolved: either we have two different colours for Labour and Labour/Co-Op, or we have one for LibDem regardless of date. As I remarked above: the prime consideration should be distinctness - different party, different colour; same party, same colour. Was a new party founded in 2025 that is legally distinct from the previous one? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd agree the Lib Dem year split was a very poor decision. I get why it was done but since the old colours is still the default the end result is most people aren't aware of the 2025 version of the wiki colours, and use the old one, requiring cleanup from others afterwards. It also doesn't really make sense since as you say, it's still the same party. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree entirely. It may be (especially now that I'm learning how our lua modules work) we can devise a system where the Lib Dem colour chosen depends on an overall year for the table, but it's patently absurd to have that colour shift within a chronological table simple based on a branding decision. Morwen (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Notice of RfC on Restore Britain (yes, again)

There is an RfC, which is of interest to members of this project, on the political ideology of Restore Britain.

Talk:Restore Britain#c-Finfixer-20260723152000-RfC on political ideology Finfixer (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:No. 10 North#Requested move 24 July 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:No. 10 North#Requested move 24 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC)