Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

"Term Start"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Party navboxes

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)

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

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)

Daily Telegraph and Spectator ownership

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 ). 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)

Reform UK Party Ltd - difference between members and supporters?

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)

Requested move at Talk:Robbie Moore (MP)#Requested move 7 July 2024

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)

Requested move at Talk:Lady Henry Somerset#Requested move 14 July 2024

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)

Metropolitan Borough Vote Share Changes Discrepancy

As mentioned earlier on this page, although not resolved then, there is a discrepancy among the change reported for councils which elect 1/3 of their councillors in each election, such as the current metropolitan boroughs. For all of the pages I've encountered, the per-ward change in vote share is reported from the last election to that term, four years prior, however, for the change in vote share across the council, it's split between the change from the election most recent or from the election four years prior.

In my opinion, it makes the most sense to have both changes from the same point, and to have that point be from four years prior. In all elections, incumbency plays a role, and in local elections especially, so to disregard the effect it has in the small scale would be to muddle the picture of the results, even if slightly. Other elections on Wikipedia which contain cycles of representatives elected with an offset take the shifts from the election for that seat, most notably those of the US Senate (see these examples). If we were to refer to reputable sources which record results by council, namely the work done by Rallings and Thrasher (e.g. ), these vote swings are from the election four years prior.

Finally, I wanted to give a hypothetical example of how representing the change in vote share from the most recent election (whether one or two years before) can be confusing. Now, I don't know if this has happened, but it's a reasonable situation that we should try to consider. Imagine a situation where 4 incumbents defect to form their own party and win reelection in 2024. They don't run candidates in the next two elections, but all four run again in 2028. If, say, two win and two lose, we'd show the party having lost two seats, but next to the vote share, it'd say New. And to me, if I saw that, it wouldn't make sense. I know this is only an example, but I think it shows how going off of the most recent election and not the one four years before can make things more confusing and harder to understand. AnOpenBook (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Article for creation: The Chris Smith List

Not sure if I can add this to “Articles for creation”, as it isn’t drafted. I think the LGBT+ Labour campaign fund The Chris Smith List could be notable enough for an article - anyone care to have a go? TrottieTrue (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Lord Chancellor

Hi I think all holder of the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain should have this in their info box, because you need consistency and also have the Monarch and Prime Minister as well.86.147.210.198 (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Museum of London#Requested move 29 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Museum of London#Requested move 29 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 07:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

General election results - the full compendium

In case anyone else hasn't yet noticed it, let me introduce you to:

Cracknell, Richard; Baker, Carl (18 July 2024). "General election 2024 results" (PDF). House of Commons Library.

A compendium of all the results, tabulated by party, region, etc. Potential useful authoritative source for lots of constituency or MP articles. (I spotted it when an IP added it as a bare URL ref, and with a space before the ref, in Westmorland and Lonsdale (UK Parliament constituency), in which I take an interest having delivered many leaflets there). PamD 20:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Should notional 2019 results be included?

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Notional election results which may be of interest to members of this project. PamD 18:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

And it's now become an RfC: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#RfC on Notional results and listing of result outcomes PamD 08:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for John Maynard Keynes

John Maynard Keynes has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

New party leadership election articles

Hi all, I've just created 2024 Social Democratic and Labour Party leadership election and 2024 Ulster Unionist Party leadership election is also relatively new. Input welcome! Bondegezou (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox for next UK general election

What parties to include in an infobox for a next election and what style of infobox to use has often been contentious. There is a proposal at Talk:Next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Use_of_TILE_rather_than_TIE on changing the type of infobox and what parties to show. Editors might like to input. Bondegezou (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of landlord Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of landlord Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

State Opening photographs

Twenty-eight photographs of the 2024 State Opening of Parliament have been found through Asset Bank and are now in a Wikimedia Commons category. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on the reliability of the Jewish Chronicle

There is a discussion at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard about the reliability of the Jewish Chronicle, interested editors can see the discussion here WP:RSN#RFC Jewish Chronicle. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Edward Heath has an RfC

Edward Heath 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. Emiya1980 (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Notional results, continued

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Percentage Changes in election boxes which might interest watchers of this page who haven't got that one watchlisted. PamD 07:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Crown Office

This name can refer to either the Crown Office in Chancery (central UK Government) or the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (devolved Scottish Government). Currently Crown Office refers to the London institution with Crown Office in Chancery being a redirect to it. I would prefer that these be swapped around so that Crown Office in Chancery becomes the name of the article and Crown Office becomes a disambiguation page. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Intergovernmental relations

I think that a section about the intergovernmental relations in the United Kingdom should be added as it is an important intergovernmental organisation that connects the UK Government and the Devolved Governments to discuss important matters. ChefBear01 (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

the most recent version of this is the new Council of Nations and Regions.ChefBear01 (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Politics of the United Kingdom § Intergovernmental relations (IGR)

New UK government coat of arms

The official rendering of the royal arms of Charles III in right of the United Kingdom as used by His Majesty's Government has changed. See this article from the Cabinet Office.

The Tudor crown is now used in place of St Edward's and the shield is no longer fully encircled by the Garter. All of our SVG files for government department logos now need updating. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

David Lammy

There is a current RFC at Talk:David Lammy#RfC: First sentence which is discussing how the subject should be described. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 14:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello, there appears to be edit warring on a number of politician articles over the use of Home Secretary or Secretary of State for the Home Department. Keith D (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

State Visit to Samoa

Draft:State Visit by Charles III to Samoa needs some help. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

National Wealth Fund Classification

Hi there, I'm writing to request your help in a discussion I've started on the Talk:National_Wealth_Fund_(United_Kingdom) page. I'm not sure whether to classify the new National Wealth Fund as a sovereign wealth fund or something else. Any input would be appreciated.

Also, the new National Wealth Fund (United Kingdom) page could likely benefit from some further refinement. LunaExplorer (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

FYI - a merge proposal

There's an open merge proposal at Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal that UK politics watchers might be interested in. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Crown Office#Requested move 28 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Crown Office#Requested move 28 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Aneurin Bevan

Aneurin Bevan has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Reactions to the 2019 Conservative Party leadership election for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Reactions to the 2019 Conservative Party leadership election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2019 Conservative Party leadership election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Source applicability & spectrum position on Conservative Party (UK

Cambial Yellowing and I are in dispute about the applicability of three – or four – sources being used to describe the position of the Conservative Party on the left-right spectrum. Outside opinion would be helpful in breaking the impasse. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

FYI - Call a General Election has been nominated for deletion

The Call a General Election article about the Parliament petition of that name has been nominated for deletion. For anyone interested, the discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call a General Election. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Honours lists

Draft:2025 New Year Honours and 2024 Political Peerages need some help. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for British Library

British Library has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Political Party special interest groups - lists of exec team members

I've recently AfDed a number of articles about youth wings of British political parties, the result being merging the articles into the national party's article, as there aren't enough third party sources on the activities or impact of these groups. Of the ones that remain, I've noticed a common feature is a long list of the names of all the executive officers - for example: Young_Liberals_(UK)#Executive. If these have any source at all, it's the organisation's own websites, blogs or social media. I suspect this is WP:PROMO by members - young, ambitious, prospective politicians trying to generate a bit of SEO and they add nothing to the encyclopedia so I'm going to delete them wherever I come across them. However, I've already had one deletion reverted so I'm looking to see if there's any consensus on whether or not this is the right approach. Orange sticker (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

More eyes please on Catherine Fookes

re the recent vote over an amendment to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and whether this should be termed "voted against an inquiry into grooming gangs" with no further detail or explanation. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:Politics of the United Kingdom

At some point in the history of the Template:Politics of the United Kingdom, the entry for "Government" with a link to Government of the United Kingdom (which ostensibly remains part of the series) has been replaced by "Executive" with a link to Executive (government). Not sure if this is just vandalism, but plainly Executive is not an adequate description of HM Government and the article linked to is pretty inadequate, not sure why the change has been made. Ziggy1010 (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ziggy1010: For "at some point", read "nine and a half years ago" (long before you joined Wikipedia); it was changed by Gold Wiz113 (talk · contribs) with this edit. There does not appear to have been any related discussion at the time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

New article idea

Seeing that a second Labour MP is now suspended as a result of a WhatsApp group chat being leaked (source), could I have some opinions as to whether all this is now notable enough to have a stand-alone article? SuperGuy212 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The King's visit to Nansledan

I've converted this Flickr album into this Commons category, but I seem to be missing four of the photographs and I can't work out which ones. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Mike Amesbury

Former Labour MP Mike Amesbury has been sentenced to 10 weeks in prison after having pleaded guilty to assault. This may trigger a recall petition. I've thus created 2025 Runcorn and Helsby recall petition. He is appealing his sentence: if he is successful and gets a non-custodial sentence, then the petition wouldn't go ahead, although it seems unlikely that that will occur. He may just resign, which would obviate the need for the recall petition, at which point we can convert the article into a by-election one. If the petition happens and is successful, again, as we've done in the past, we can then convert it into a by-election article. Bondegezou (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, someone has AfD'd that, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Runcorn and Helsby recall petition. Input welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

King's Letter to Trump

Based on this photograph by Simon Dawson/10 Downing Street and this one by Chris Keplonis/Getty, I was able to transcribe most of what His Majesty wrote:

Dear Donald,

I just wanted to write and thank you for receiving====
in Washington so soon after your Inauguration. Given the====
breadth of challenges across the world, I can only think that====
of our two countries has a vital role to play in promoting and====
the values which matter so much to us all.

I remember with great fondness your visits to the United Kingdom
during your previous Presidency, and recall our nascent plan for you to
visit Dumfries House, in Scotland, as the global pandemic began and all
bets - and flights! - were off... I can only say that it would be a great
pleasure to extend that invitation once again, in the hope that you might at
some stage be visiting Turnberry and a detour to a relatively near
neighbour might not cause you too much inconvenience. An alternative
might perhaps be for you to visit Balmoral, if you are calling in at Menie.
There us much on both Estates which I think you might find interesting
and enjoy - particularly as my Foundation at Dumfries House provides
hospitality skills-training for young people who often end up as staff in
your own establishments!

Quite apart from this presenting an opportunity to discuss a wide
range of issues of mutual interest, it would also offer a valuable chance to
plan a historic second State Visit to the United Kingdom. As you will
====, this is unprecedented by a U.S. President. That is why I would find
it helpful for us to be able to discuss, together, a range of options for

location and programme content. In so doing, working together, I know
we will further enhance the special relationship between our two countries,
of which we are both so proud.

Yours Most Sincerely

Charles R

Robin S. Taylor (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:David Maxwell Fyfe, 1st Earl of Kilmuir#Requested move 26 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:David Maxwell Fyfe, 1st Earl of Kilmuir#Requested move 26 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 13:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

State Visit to Italy

I have created a category on the Commons which so far consists entirely of photographs from the FCDO Flickr feed. Are there any other free photographs of the tour? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

New article for Everyone Hates Elon

Just a note that a new article has been created for Everyone Hates Elon, a political campaign group based in London. This article might be of interest to this project; I didn't want to presume though, so haven't added a banner to the talk page myself! If the article is within the project's scope, please feel free to add the banner to Talk:Everyone Hates Elon. Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Pale Reform colour for table? And watch for bad updates to tables.

I'm not sure how widespread this formatting is, but in the table at Lancashire County Council elections#Council composition the party in control has a coloured background, a pale version of its party colour. In the past it's been pink or pale blue: could someone please add an appropriate pale turquoise instead of the pale blue currently in use?

Also: This table was a horrible mess until a few minutes ago, as an editor had cheerfully added Reform UK as a new entry in the header line, and in the 2025 results, but hadn't bothered to create the rest of the new column, so the table was showing Lib Dem numbers as Reform UK numbers for the 1973-2021 elections. Members of this project might like to be on the lookout for similar sloppy edits to tables, in this unprecedented situation where a new party has appeared! PamD 18:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I have attempted a pale reform colour, but it was just me guessing what would look good rather than selecting the colour scientifically. Rankersbo (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:United Kingdom–European Union relations#Requested move 20 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:United Kingdom–European Union relations#Requested move 20 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH ^talk! 21:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief

I would like to get a consensus on somthing

The UK Government currently has a non statutory office called UK's Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief, however prior to December 2024 it was called Prime Minister's Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief.
The only difference between the two names seems to be that the UK Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief reports to the Foreign Secretary via Lord Collins, where as the Prime Minster's Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief reported directly to the Prime Minster.
Should these be counted as two separate offices or just the same office with different names? Maurice Oly (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

References

RfC on changing the article title format for local elections

People might want to give their input here. Cheers, Number 57 23:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Konni Zilliacus#Requested move 11 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Konni Zilliacus#Requested move 11 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 06:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Vehicle Excise Duty#Requested move 21 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Vehicle Excise Duty#Requested move 21 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 01:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Commencement of a UK Public General Act

If a UK Public General Act does not have an explicit commencement date, and also does not provide for a commencement date to be subsequently set (for example, by Statutory Instrument), does the Act automatically come into force on the day upon which it receives Royal Assent? Please see Talk:Railways Act 1921#Commencement and reply there. Thank you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

More eyes on Homeland Party (United Kingdom) please

Over the past few months there have been a lot of new accounts who have very few edits (and in many cases zero edits outside of this article) trying to water down or remove the far-right and fascist labelling of this party. Given that this group is known to be quite coordinated I assume these are members of the party itself. They're not quite giving up, so I'd request some of you add this to your watchlist and keep an eye on the talk page discussions. Thanks. — Czello ^(music) 16:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Blair Babe#Requested move 4 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Blair Babe#Requested move 4 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 08:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse#Requested move 13 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse#Requested move 13 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 01:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Endorsements for 2025 Green Party of England and Wales leadership election

Can I request more input at Talk:2025 Green Party of England and Wales leadership election#Removals on the appropriate application of WP:ENDORSE? This is about what endorsements to include for 2025 Green Party of England and Wales leadership election. Bondegezou (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Me again. We could really do with some additional input, a third opinion, here? Bondegezou (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Your Party with Corbyn and Sultana

I've created Your Party (UK), but just a tiny stub so far. Bondegezou (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I See it has been PRODded. Correctly in my opinion, since the sourcing seems entirely inadequate to even establish that the name is correct. Wait for proper sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

There seems plentiful sourcing for the party, it's just that the official name hasn't yet been decided: "Your Party" is the common name today. PamD 15:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Debrett's Digital Source

We've already got links to many old editions of Burke's and Debrett's Peerage through the Internet Archive, Gutenberg, Google Books et al. but these are all scans of physical books. Burke's hasn't actually published for a long time and Debrett's announced in 2019 that future editions will be online only. How shall we get access to these? On their website access requires a paid subscription. Is there anyone in this project group with access? Is there any chance of getting Debrett's added to the Wikipedia Library?

I asked this to the Heraldry & vexillology project in February but there was no reply. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

RM notice for "Mosley"

An editor has requested that Mosley be moved to Mosley (disambiguation), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Manatee (talk • contribs) 16:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Robert Wedderburn (radical)#Requested move 22 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Robert Wedderburn (radical)#Requested move 22 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 15:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Political parties and their various committees, groups etc - lists of positions

I've noticed that @Hxrrsxmp has added a full list of positions, with names of the current post holders, to Young Greens of England and Wales (diff). I see this happening a lot on various articles and it always either unreferenced, or as in this case, uses a primary source such as the organisation's own website. I will revert as this information is not encyclopaedic (WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC), and contravenes other policies such as WP:PROMO, WP:NOTDB and I suspect often WP:COI/WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY.

I've removed these sections several times now and I'd appreciate some feedback on whether I'm doing the right thing and if some stronger guidelines or policies are needed. Thanks! Orange sticker (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the guidance there is very little to suggest it shouldn't be there as it does provide useful information, the organisations own website is going to be the most reliable source for information on positions and post holders. The only thing is possible it being autobiographical but its not like they're making biased claims it is just stating who holds the elected positions as shown on the official young greens website. AlexAthena (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

It's more a case of notability and whether this is giving WP:UNDUE weight to what are normally temporary, voluntary positions which never receive any coverage in news or academia. Orange sticker (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Some more examples: Young Liberals,Young Labour, an incomplete list of members of a sub-branch of a student union, the obsolete 'strategy board' of a think tank... I can't help but think this is nearly always a case of WP:SEOBOMB. Orange sticker (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it really has any of the characteristics, it's not excessively detailed it's just stating the names of people who in most cases aren't mentioned anywhere else on the internet. AlexAthena (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

If they are not mentioned anywhere else on the internet, how did they get here? Orange sticker (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@AlexAthena I'm sad to see you have restored the names to Young Greens of England and Wales though we have not reached consensus here. I'm restoring my edit, please wait until we have wider input to avoid an WP:EDITWAR. I see you are a new editor so it might be worthwhile familiarising yourself with the policies I've linked, and giving your arguments as to why the inclusion of these lists does not contravene them. Orange sticker (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I have looked at all of the policies you have linked and believe they have no relevance, there is nothing to suggest it is not encyclopaedic as it is not trying to be a dictionary; original thought; promotion; mirror or repository of links, images or media files; blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site; directory (which I will come back to); manual, guidebook, textbook or scientific journal; crystal ball; newspaper; indiscriminate collection of information. It may seem like it is a directory but it follows the guideline of being a "# Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32 KB) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, Listed buildings in Rivington. If reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable buildings and two non-notable buildings, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable buildings. However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:CSC&redirect=no) It is not autobiographical as it is not an opinion, is verifiable through the young greens website, and does not contain original content. It is not undue weight as it not a viewpoint and is just the information on who was elected to these roles. There is nothing to suggest that it is a case of WP:SEOBOMB as it is not excessively detailed, linking to any articles, or giving praise. AlexAthena (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidacy for J. K. Rowling

J. K. Rowling has been moved from being reviewed to being nominated for removal of featured status.. Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive4#FARC section. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 10:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Membership Overhaul

Hi everyone, you might have noticed I made some visual changes to the project. The old style was from like 2012, and it didn't work well with Wikipedia's new dark mode. Let me know if I need to update anything.

Whilst I was updating the project, I also decided to improve the way membership worked. Instead of adding yourself to a list, I made it so that the members roster is drawn from users who are displaying the userbox. I also added a 'add userbox' button to make it easier to engage with the project.

Just thought I'd mention this in here, as it's a pretty big update to the project. LunaExplorer (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Northern English nationalism

Needs a lot of work but I think could be salvaged. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I gave up, took it to AfD. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Halsbury's Statutes

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Closed per WP:DENY and WP:BRV. James500 (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

---

This follows from User:Landpin#Stop wikilawyering (pun not intended)

Should the following line be considered a citation?

Halsbury's Statutes

Several pages such as Traffic Management Act 2004, Local Government Act 2003 have a wikilink just to Halsbury's Statutes.

Halsbury's Statutes is a very very very large publication, so I don't think these wikilinks are helpful. Wikipedia:HOWTOCITE mentions citations of books having "edition, if not the first edition", "volume when appropriate", "chapter or page numbers cited, if appropriate". I think these would be necessary to comply with Wikipedia:V, because this is a very very very large publication.

I have rewritten several pages, such as Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004, Transport (Wales) Act 2006, and in doing so, I have removed these wikilinks, but I have ensured that there are enough sources to justify notability for the rewritten content. My view at the time was that I was not removing citations, I was removing wikilinks posing as citations.

This has been disputed on the basis that a user promises that they have visited a library and verified these things for themselves. They have stated that the rewrites constitute vandalism, because it would be vandalism to remove the wikilinks because they demonstrate notability.

WP:INDICATEAVAIL states that In this context a citation lacking an external link should have an ISBN or OCLC number or link to an established Wikipedia article about the source, but in this case, it lacks these lack the other features of citations to ensure Wikipedia:V. "Halsbury's Statutes" lacks these things, so I think removal is justified. Landpin (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

In my assessment, the removal of valid sources, in an attempt to make a topic look less notable would constitute WP:VANDALISM. The citation of INDICATEAVAIL and HOWCITE above is sealioning. WP:INDICATEAVAIL is not applicable, because Halsbury's Statutes is not unavailable. It is availale online as part of the LexisLibrary, and it is probably in every decent university law library in England. Indeed, scans of many (and possibly most) volumes are freely available online in the Internet Archive and Google Books. WP:HOWTOCITE is not applicable, because the Consolidated Index is available online, and the alphabetical list of statutes tells you exactly which volume the statute is in, and what page it is on. All of this has been explained to him. There is no verifiability issue whatsoever. I agree that it would be preferable to add volume and page numbers to existing citations of Halsbury as soon as possible, but removing the citation altogether is certainly sealioning when you know perfectly well what the volume and page number are and could easily add them in about 30 seconds. James500 (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

A large number of the pages I have rewritten didn't have any reference to Halsbury's statutes e.g. Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002 or Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Act 2017. They were just poorly written (lacking in citations, lacking in headings, etc). I have only improved the quality of the writing. I don't see how it makes a page's topic look less notable to go from 1-2 non-inline references to 4-5 inline references.

This is a very minor issue only with pages for acts from the 2000s and not for any from the 2010s, whereas my goal is broader. I just disagree with you.

You have invented a conspiracy theory about my behaviour, and it just doesn't add up.

I make no accusation about you acting in bad faith in keeping something I think is wrong. I think you genuinely believe I am trying to make wikipedia worse.

I just don't think a wikilink is enough to qualify as a reference. This is a perfectly valid opinion to hold. I can understand the views against what I think. I think there are good arguments to be against what I am advocating for. I just disagree.

You have made a mountain out of a molehill, and can you please stop making personal attacks. Landpin (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I have just added complete citations and scans to Traffic Management Act 2004, Local Government Act 2003, Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 and Transport (Wales) Act 2006 which are listed above. In every case a scan was available on the internet, and it took me about two minutes to find the scan and determine the volume and page number. I didn't say anything about Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002 or the Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Act 2017, since this thread is about the citation of Halsbury. I do not think I can be accused of making a mountain out of a molehill when I am not the one who started this thread. James500 (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Bexley (UK Parliament constituency)

Hi,

Just wanted to report an inconsistency on the page Bexley (UK Parliament constituency): on one hand, it states "The constituency was formed entirely from the existing constituency of Dartford."; on the other it states "The constituency was created for the 1945 general election, from parts of the Chislehurst and Dartford seats". 45.122.229.126 (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the former is correct (it was made up purely of the borough of Bexley, which was entirely in Dartford). The maps of 1918 and 1945 boundaries seem to confirm this. I've updated the article. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minister of State for Local Government and Homelessness

I've started the above AfD though I doubt deletion is the best solution here, probably a merge, move or redirect, but the topic is quite niche (the evolution of ministerial roles) and sources are hard to find - would welcome input from people with knowledge of this area. Orange sticker (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Alistair Carns#Requested move 9 September 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alistair Carns#Requested move 9 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Big Ben lead paragraph

There is a discusssion at Talk:Big Ben#Lead paragraph about the wording of the lead paragraph of Big Ben. Anyone is welcome to participate. Thanks, A.D.Hope (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Kenneth Dewar

Kenneth Dewar has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Identity cards in the United Kingdom

Copying from talk:Identity Cards Act 2006:

The redirect Identity cards in the United Kingdom has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 27 § Identity cards in the United Kingdom until a consensus is reached. — Smjg (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to repeat what I have written at that discussion: the problem is not that Identity cards in the United Kingdom is a redirect to that article, but rather that there is no article on the general topic, full stop. We have nothing about ID cards during WW2, and nothing about the September 2025 proposal. So it needs someone who knows even a little [v my zero] knowledge of the topic to begin writing a new wp:broad concept article at Identity cards in the United Kingdom (including a summary of the 2006 Act article.

Anyone? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe ask in the British history project?Halbared (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Halbared: Of course. Please do. Feel free to recycle this alert.

(More recent comments at the RfD agree that a new broad concept article is needed and suggest some material from the 2006 article that could be transferred across to get it started.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Defunct and changed wards

I'm updating articles that still have pre-2024 Westminster constituencies, mostly in the infoboxes. There are some articles for wards that no longer exist, Pembroke St Mary South for example. Would it be better to leave the historic constituency or is there a risk of confusing readers who live in the area? Then there are ones like Pembroke St Michael that still exist but have different boundaries from those when the article was first written. It's tempting to think ward articles should be deleted if they're not being maintained but it would be a shame to lose any election information not copied elsewhere. Merging into the relevant local authority elections article would be good but could be a fair amount of work. Cavrdg (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

RfC on limiting Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles § RfC on pre-emptive disambiguation in constituency article titles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. On limiting the convention so it is only used when disambiguation is needed, i.e. Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket rather than Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (UK Parliament constituency). DankJae 20:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Aden Emergency#Requested move 25 September 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aden Emergency#Requested move 25 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Giles (British politician)

The discussion over the proposed deletion of the article James Giles (British politician) may be of interest to members of this project. VampaVampa (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Wales Green Party § Welsh independence in the infobox (again)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Wales Green Party § Welsh independence in the infobox (again), which is within the scope of this WikiProject. DankJae 08:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox political party § GB/NI affiliation

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox political party § GB/NI affiliation, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Coleisforeditor (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Growth/decrease tags on membership numbers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Prompted by a discussion earlier in the summer on Talk:Reform UK/Archive 4#How to report Reform's membership - most UK parties have a little / tag next to their membership numbers in the infobox, which is often a bit unhelpful - it's rarely clear if that's an increase/decrease from the most recent time the number was edited, from the most recent announcement, from this time last year, etc, or whether the change is dramatic (half the members left) vs insignificant (was 100,738; now 101,221). Since the sources are usually only a single datapoint, it's also difficult for us to clearly source the claim it's rising/falling, unless the numbers are discussed in detail in the article.

The tags were removed from the Reform infobox after that discussion, but it's still common on most of the others - at the moment the articles for Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems, SNP, Greens (E&W & Scotland), Plaid, Sinn Fein, & Alba use these tags. Most NI parties don't list membership numbers at all (with Sinn Fein as the exception). It's a bit more variable for smaller parties or for Welsh/Scottish branches of national parties, which sometimes have membership numbers without tags, sometimes with, sometimes no data.

I think it might be worth standardising across articles on this - I would be keen to remove the tags generally, since the reasons as given above are common to most parties, but curious to know what others might think. (Pinging @Quinnnnnby @Bondegezou @GothicGolem29 @Helper201 @DeFacto @Halbared from that earlier discussion) Andrew Gray (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I still support the use of these tags as I did in the previous discussion. It can be helpful to show if there has been an increase or decrease and we could always specify in the infobox what the decrease or increase is. However, I do agree that standardising whatever the consensus is should be what we do. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

They should only have increase or decrease if the source for the latest membership figure says the membership has increased or decreased. For an editor to use data from another earlier source would violate WP:SYNTH. Helper201 (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Myself I prefer standardisation. The lil arrows seem like a newspaper ticker, it's not encyclopaedic and meaningless in the real world, with as you say ''from the most recent time the number was edited, from the most recent announcement, from this time last year,'' etc etc etc.Halbared (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• I would remove them – they're meaningless without knowing when the increase/decrease refers to (which should be a standard time period, which I don't think is possible). Number 57 15:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I also support removing them (as I said at the discussion on the Reform UK article). Along with the many good reasons given above, they also violate MOS:ICON. Bondegezou (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Remove them. The comparisons are unclear, the context is missing and the membership changes can have more to do with how the membership system is administered than anything else. Some of the bigger changes for particular parties over the years have more to do with when local branch lists are audited, the calculation of branch fees to the central unit, the allocation of voting power, even whether or not the online sign-up form has an autorenewal box and if it's default ticked or not. (Often the silly headlines about a party losing loads of members about fifteen months after a general or leadership election is actually about a load of people who signed up in the heat of the moment not taking the autorenewal option and now dropping off.) Arrows saying the number have changed don't say anything about whether there's been a mass desertion or whether the membership officer in a particular region has failed to upload a spreadsheet in time. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Remove - they can be misleading and they give undue prominence to that number by drawing attention to it as if it is particularly significant without attributing where the number came from or explaining the context of it. To put it another way, it is editorialising to imply that whether it is up or down is meaningful and important when isolated from its context, which it clearly is not. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Providing the most recent source explicitly states the membership has increased or decreased it is certainly helpful to state this. Helper201 (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LGB Alliance

Hey dear community of editors, I noticed someone added the conservatism in the United Kingdom template to the LGB Alliance article and I then thought maybe you guys would like to include the article as within the scope of your project. Your project is not currently listed on the talk page. Thank you and happy editing, Slomo666 (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure how to include a article within the scope but I support the idea of doing so after having a look at the article and given the Conservatism banner. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 04:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:National Socialist Movement (United Kingdom)#Requested move 1 November 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:National Socialist Movement (United Kingdom)#Requested move 1 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2026 United Kingdom local elections

An editor has requested that 2026 United Kingdom local elections be moved to 2026 English local elections, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. There are also a number of other page moves suggested for consideration relating to previous year's local elections going back to 1999. Qwerty123M (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification I will have a look. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

RFC on if Advance Uk should be described in lead and inbox as far-right or right-wing to far-right

This discussion is releavnt to this Wikiproject so I am posting a notice Talk:Advance UK#RfC on if Advance Uk should be described as far-right or right-wing to far right. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2026 United Kingdom local elections#Requested move 29 October 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2026 United Kingdom local elections#Requested move 29 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 02:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Aden Emergency#Requested move 10 November 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aden Emergency#Requested move 10 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:17, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for Input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Propose infobox political movement

Interested members of this WikiProject are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Propose infobox political movement regarding a potential political movement infobox. — EarthDude (Talk) 20:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

British Transport Police Authority nominated for deletion/merger

I have nominated British Transport Police Authority for deletion with a suggestion that it be merged into British Transport Police. Your input would be be very welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Transport Police Authority. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Template for the Life Peers

Dear All I have a Template for Life Peers:

FORMER LIFE PEERS

WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 17
Member of the House of Lords
Lord Temporal
In office 13 October 2015 – 26 September 2025

CURRENT LIFE PEERS

WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 17
Member of the House of Lords
Lord Temporal
Assumed office 13 October 2015

The reason is that all 1600 plus should have a universal template, I am sure you all agree.RugbyFan88 (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why former peers have their office described as Member of the House of Lords, while current peers have their office described at Member of the House of Lords. Furthermore, that you included piped links in your proposal show you haven't listened to what two editors said on your talk page yesterday. FDW777 (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

We need consistency with the life peers as some have as a life peer, also I wanted the current members of the House of Lords to have that as having peers from over 200 years ago linked to current members of lords doesn’t look good. RugbyFan88 (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)

German State Visit

Please help with this article. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Advance UK metadata

Already put this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Index of United Kingdom political parties meta attributes, but for a party with the backing and current media coverage of Advance it seems odd that we've got no metadata for it yet. LonghairSpaceHistoryGuy (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Percentages for multiple winners

So in elections where there are multiple seats up in each ward, should we have percentages for each candidate as there is in single seat wards or should the percentages be for each party fielding candidates in that election, with the exception of independent candidates since they don't have any party? I personally think that it is better with the second option as the first option would have percentages that add up to more to 100%. I'm hoping to get a consensus on this. TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

We would need to agree a consistent method for parties as there's a lot of different ways to calculate it and this can produce wildly varying results, especially when parties don't contest every seat. Dividing by voting power is probably the best. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

So far I've been doing it this way:

1. Add the votes of all candidates from a party
2. divide that total by the number of candidates fielded by that party (so if they field 3 you divide by 3 but if they only field 1 candidate you just add the votes of that candidate)
3. Add that value to a running total
4. repeat until all votes have been added
5. to get the percentage for each party you divide their average result by the running total of average results to get the percentage

The results held at London Datastore seem to use this method and get similar percentages TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

In what context is the question being asked? For the infobox, for an overall results table or for a 'by candidate' table? I would say:

• For the first two, percentages would be based on the overall number of votes cast for all candidates for each party. I think any attempt to try and level it out as suggested directly above (for example if one party runs fewer candidates in a multi-candidate seat) is OR given the lack of agreed methodology.
• For the candidates table, the percentage should be the total votes received by the candidate divided by the number of valid ballots cast (an example would be 2025 Saint Helena general election); this reflects the percentage of voters who voted for the candidate. If it is divided instead by the total number of votes cast for all candidates, it would appear that candidates were elected on tiny vote shares, which would not be representative of the reality.

Number 57 22:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

It's for the results table for each ward or constituency in a council, also again I would point to results published by the Greater London Authority which yield nearly identical percentages to the ones produced by said method. same for the ones published by the London Research Centre. Also going off the total number of ballots cast isn't a good way either given that in elections with multiple seats up for election you can't guarantee that everyone uses all votes they can e.g. in a 3 seat ward some people vote for 2 candidates or only 1 candidate and leave the rest blank. Not only that but having percentages for every candidate leads to percentages that add up to more than 100%. TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

If it's results by constituency, then the second bullet above applies. Contrary to what I think you're saying, this method that accounts for people not using all three votes far better than the alternative. For example, if 1,000 people cast valid ballots, if you divide the total number of votes received by 1,000, then you get exactly the percentage of voters that voted for that candidate. If you use the total number of votes across all candidates, then it skews the results. Number 57 00:05, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

To give some more context to others what this is about, the two versions of the results tables are this (percentages by candidate) and this (percentages by party). I seriously struggle to see how the second (which TheHaloVeteran2 has been introducing to articles since 2024; prior to this articles have used the other approach) is preferable. I'm also struggling to see the justification for this revert removing all the by-election results. Pinging Icc27 whose edits to restore the original figures in the articles you have been undoing and don't seem to have had the decency to notify of this discussion. Number 57 00:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Apologies about forgetting to ping him. I went to post this without thinking about that. If that is the overall consensus and I've been doing it wrong, I aplogise for that also. Will you allow me then to correct this without removing the other work I have done to improve those pages and add information?TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Though one thing I believe is redundant is the inclusion of by-election results in the page, as they are already in the main page for all elections for each council, for example Southwark_London_Borough_Council_elections#By-election results and Blackpool_Borough_Council_elections#By-election_results TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

From what I've seen, by-election results are generally in the article of the election that they precede; I think this is a more useful place than in the main election article. On your first point, it would be great if you could put them all back to the previous method. Cheers, Number 57 11:38, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

awesome I'll start work on that. Should we remove the by-election results from the main election pages to avoid duplication? or leave it as is and add the results back to the election pages as well? TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it's fine to have them in both places. Number 57 12:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

cool TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Just a quick question, the by-elections in the page, should it be for the time between the last election and the election covered by the page or between the election covered by the page and the next election? because I've seen both used but im not sure which is right TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I’d suggest that the party totals, the way that the London Reseacrh Centre does it, are the appropriate figures to display. They’re the only ones that have any meaning beyond the context of the individual ward election, and the only data that allows some sort of meaningful comparison between one election in that ward and the next. Data calculated for each individual candidate shed little light. MapReader (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

MP photos

A newby editor has changed a few UK MP photos from their official portraits to newer ones. See Tim Farron as an example: I've reverted to the official 2020 image, but they had changed it to a 2024 shot.

I'm fairly sure that we've got an agreement, certainly an established practice, that the official photo should be used in the infobox, as a neutral choice and a way to avoid controversy between editors who want to flatter or denigrate the subject.

Could anyone point me to where this been discussed/agreed, so that I could quote it in edit summaries or talk page posts? Thanks. PamD 09:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to clarify what "official photo" actually means, obviously there are the portraits that appear on the Parliament.uk website, but the newer photo of Farron comes from the House of Commons "official" flickr page, so does that make it any less official? I think for high profile people with very well used articles we should be aiming for as recent a photo as possible. There's been a debate at Talk:Keir_Starmer#Caption over whether or not cropping an "official portrait" prevents it being referred to as that, so consensus on best practice here would be welcome. Orange sticker (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the official portrait used on their Parliamentary profile eg https://members.parliament.uk/member/1591/portrait should be used. Other photos may be photos on an official website, but it's not the same thing and opens a wide range of choices, and thus the possibility of choosing a flattering/unflattering image. The single well-defined official portrait (OK, with a choice of crops) simplifies matters. PamD 10:09, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The Keir Starmer question is interesting, as https://members.parliament.uk/member/4514/portrait shows a very different picture, but the round "thumbnail" image at the top of the page doesn't match it, but looks like the same image which is in use in his article. Skimming through the list of MPs at https://members.parliament.uk/members/Commons, the round thumbnail appears to be their "official portrait" for almost all, the A-Z first non-match being Alex Burghart at https://members.parliament.uk/member/4613/portrait . I'm now quite confused as to what constitutes an "official portrait" for parliament. PamD 10:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

There's no reason why anyone should only have one "official portrait". There's also several ways to define "portrait"! Those photos on Starmer's page are really out of date.

I think it's ok in this instance for portraits to come from a primary source, and the Houses of Parliament website and associated Flickr are neutral. But the nomenclature is problematic and vague, does it refer to it's provenance or just the style of image? I also think some people may be under the impression that there is only one true official portrait because of some allusion to the way the royal family commission them, but I think any photograph that has been taken by an in-house photographer and published via the official channels counts - whether it is truly a portrait or not is another debate. Orange sticker (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

And it gets worse: David Lammy has an "Official portrait 2025" which is just a bad photograph. It seems that the Number 10 Flickr feed is a source for a lot of "Official portraits". PamD 10:33, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGES really isn't much help here. Orange sticker (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

2024 UK general election: is the registered electors and turnout data false?

I report here this new discussion I’ve opened. Thank you for your kind consideration of the matter. Vittoriochichia (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Updating UK council composition data (and diagrams)

Hi all. While updating the Kent County Council article (correcting the seat total and rebuilding the composition SVG), I noticed that many UK council pages seem to drift out of date in terms of current political composition. I'm technically able to generate up-to-date composition tables and diagrams from structured sources (e.g. Open Council Data UK ), and in principle could apply this across a large number of council pages. Before doing anything broader, I wanted to ask: (1) Is there interest in a more systematic update of council composition data? (2) What sources are generally considered appropriate for "current composition" (3) Are there any existing projects or standards I should be aware of? I am new to Wikipedia editing. At this stage I'm just trying to test the waters as to whether this is something that would be welcome, and what best practice(s) would be. Thanks. AnEnlightenedCrow (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Party colours

Over the years there's been a bit of work to tidy up the colours in the various party templates, and we've struggled occasionally to find sources for what a colour should be, since there is no single central list. In general I think we've gone with whatever the party says their official colour is, with a bit of speculation when they don't explicitly say.

I had a chat today with someone from the Commons Library who mentioned they have established a "local" set of colours (link) - these are the ones used on eg the House of Commons member website and so on. They're a little different from the official party ones, as they're intended to be easily distinguishable from each other.

I hacked up a quick (incomplete) chart - this is various parties with the colour codes used on Wikidata, on Wikipedia, and on the Commons Library list. I am not suggesting we should change any of these but it seemed interesting to have a look at them.

Item	Article	Wikidata code	Wikidata swatch	Wikipedia code	Wikipedia swatch	Library code	Library swatch
Q9630	Labour Party	DC241F	ZZZZZZZZ	#E4003B	ZZZZZZZZ	d50000	ZZZZZZZZ
Q9626	Conservative Party	0087DC	ZZZZZZZZ	#0087DC	ZZZZZZZZ	0063ba	ZZZZZZZZ
Q9624	Liberal Democrats	FAA61A	ZZZZZZZZ	#FAA61A	ZZZZZZZZ	fc7d0b	ZZZZZZZZ
Q6467393	Labour Co-operative	DC241F	ZZZZZZZZ	#E4003B	ZZZZZZZZ	d50000	ZZZZZZZZ
Q10658	Scottish National Party	FFF95D	ZZZZZZZZ	#FDF38E	ZZZZZZZZ	fff685	ZZZZZZZZ
Q622441	Liberal Party	FFD700	ZZZZZZZZ	#FFD700	ZZZZZZZZ	eb7a43	ZZZZZZZZ
Q40052	Social Democratic Party1	7D26CD	ZZZZZZZZ	#7D26CD	ZZZZZZZZ	c33350	ZZZZZZZZ
Q841045	Ulster Unionist Party	9999FF	ZZZZZZZZ	#48A5EE	ZZZZZZZZ	a1cdf0	ZZZZZZZZ
Q215519	Democratic Unionist Party	D46A4C	ZZZZZZZZ	#D46A4C	ZZZZZZZZ	d46a4c	ZZZZZZZZ
Q76382	Sinn Féin	326760	ZZZZZZZZ	#326760	ZZZZZZZZ	02665f	ZZZZZZZZ
Q10691	Plaid Cymru	3F8428	ZZZZZZZZ	#008672	ZZZZZZZZ	348837	ZZZZZZZZ
Q175443	Social Democratic and Labour Party	006400	ZZZZZZZZ	#2AA82C	ZZZZZZZZ	4ea268	ZZZZZZZZ
Q104721252	Reform UK	12B6CF	ZZZZZZZZ	#1EB8D0	ZZZZZZZZ	12b6cf	ZZZZZZZZ
Q9669	Green Party of England and Wales	02A95B	ZZZZZZZZ	#02A95B	ZZZZZZZZ	78b82a	ZZZZZZZZ
Q244927	Alliance Party of Northern Ireland	F6CB2F	ZZZZZZZZ	#F6CB2F	ZZZZZZZZ	cdaf2d	ZZZZZZZZ
Q106205438	Alba Party	005EB8	ZZZZZZZZ	#005EB8	ZZZZZZZZ	005eb8	ZZZZZZZZ
Q135454755	Your Party			#FF3131	ZZZZZZZZ
Q97657388	Workers Party of Britain			#780021	ZZZZZZZZ	539acb	ZZZZZZZZ
Q985076	Traditional Unionist Voice	0C3A6A	ZZZZZZZZ	#0C3A6A	ZZZZZZZZ	0c3a6a	ZZZZZZZZ

¹ there may be some confusion here between different iterations of the SDP Andrew Gray (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

From founding, the SDP used red, white and blue as per its original logo, but once the alliance with the Liberal Party was speedily secured, moved to using yellow/gold as the colour for its window posters and leaflets, with Liberals sticking with their traditional orange, which unlike yellow comes in highly visible dayglo (the HoC orange in your swatches looks a little dark, rather like the darker orange a few of the old Liberal local parties used to deploy in the urban north and, for some reason, inner south London). In early elections, such as the 1983 GE, the colour used for the poster campaign for SDP candidates did vary, with a few using Liberal Orange but most sticking with SDP colours. After the merger with the Liberals to become, initially, the Social & Liberal Democrats, SLD, there was a period when yellow/gold almost became the standard colour used by the party, with the rump ‘continuing’ SDP reverting to red, white and blue. Under Paddy Ashdown, as Liberals began to reassert themselves within the party and the name changed to Liberal Democrats, orange once again became predominant, although you still see gold regularly used by campaigners, especially for leaflets but occasionally for posters, to this day. Whereas the rump SDP has slid towards purple. Best, for the SDP, would be a three colour French (or Dutch!) style bar, but I suspect that is technically impossible! MapReader (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Labour Party

Update on Starmer? ~2026-89811-2 (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)