| Revision as of 07:04, 3 August 2012 editMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Robot: Archiving 3 threads (older than 40d) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 4.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:50, 27 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,296,962 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 17) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talkheader|wp=yes}} | |||
| {{WP UK Politics}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/header}} | |||
| {{Auto archiving notice | small = yes | age=40 | bot=MiszaBot II}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/talkpagebanner}} | |||
| {{Archives| age=40 | bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|search=no|auto=no}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archive= Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive %(counter)d | |archive= Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| |algo= old( |
|algo= old(30d) | ||
| |counter= |
|counter=17 | ||
| |archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize= |
|maxarchivesize=100K | ||
| |minthreadsleft=5 | |minthreadsleft=5 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive=3 | |minthreadstoarchive=3 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| <div class="afd-notice"> | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| There is a currently a discussion at ] regarding the wording of part of the lead section. Any input is very much appreciated. Thanks, ''']''' (] • ]) <small>] (etc) template appreciated.</small> 08:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == City Deal == | |||
| I was wondering if someone would be able to write an article about the whole ] thing. It's been used to get the ] scheme going, which falls in my area of interest, but I know nothing about the thing beyond "YAY TRAINS!!" -'']'' <small>(])</small> 21:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Linking MPs == | |||
| User Boelyn has been editing constituency articles, of both current and historic constituencies, with red links to Members of Parliament, some of these Members going back centuries. The explanation for this is to encourage the creation of articles, although this does not appear to have been successful, and in anycase, editors can create articles whenever they like without 'tagging' by someone else. In addition, Boelyn has been adding "Please wikify" tags en masse to hundreds if not thousands of constituency articles with a similar mindset of 'encouraging' editors to follow them behind. | |||
| My stance on this is pretty resolute - that mass red-linking of names (in effect, breaking the Over-link policy) is not best practice, and should be abandoned straight away? It is not difficult for anyone to create an article for an MP and then create the link "back". I don't agree that each and every constituency page - 650 current ones, remember, with potentially hundreds of names in each case, with hundreds if not thousands more totalled up - should become littered with line after line of red links. | |||
| I propose that Boelyn's edits are reverted, in full, from every page, to remove the line after line after line of red-links. I notice that there has been little, if any, discussion on this page or elsewhere which ended with the resolution that an editor should be tasked to create thousands of red-links. | |||
| Any assistance or input into this would be appreciated. 18:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC) {{unsigned|Doktorbuk}} | |||
| :My understanding is that MPs are notable, and thus should have redlinks, which hopefully will be turned into bluelinks, quickly or over time. If I have misunderstood this, of course I will cease adding wikilinks in constituency articles to MPs. ] (]) 18:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :To clarify: Doktorbuk is referring to ] (not Boelyn). There's been a discussion about this matter between Doktorbuk and Boleyn at ]. An example of what Doktorbuk means is .—] (]) 19:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Unfortunately, Preston is no longer a good example, as Doktorbuk has removed all links I added there, both red and blue links. He has also removed links (both red and blue) from Radnorshire, and several other constituency pages have had links to pre-18th century MPs removed; I haven't checked those ones to see if it's just redlinks that have been removed or blue also. I am unsure what would now be a good example; I know ] hasn't had links removed so far. ] (]) 11:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Could someone take a look at this little article? I came across it on an unrelated matter but it looks to have some ] and ] issues. Perhaps someone here would be more qualified than me to bring it up to scratch. Thanks, ] (]) 10:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree about the ] and ] problems, and I've removed some assertion that are not supported by the refs. that I can access (I couldn't read the Times one — paywalled.)—] (]) 11:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Cheers! ] (]) 12:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Looking at this again, I wonder what the future of the article should be. The concept itself is surely a world-wide one, and for much of human history — not essentially concerning the Brown premiership as some editor(s) have tried to spin it. On the other hand, perhaps a "non-job" is such a nebulous, vague thing that it can't ever be more than a ] and hence can't merit a useful article. Anyone got any thoughts?—] (]) 20:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I disagree – I think the article should be focussed on the social/political phenomenon of the "non-job" as identified in 2000s UK; contextualised, of course. So there would definitely be potential to chart the rise of the term, the settings in which it has been used, any analysis of it as a moniker, and perhaps and studies looking at the existence (or not) of jobs like those at this time. (This reply sounds all rather jargony, I hope you get the idea. I'm not a social scientist, so it isn't deliberate.) <span style="color:#3A3A3A;background-color:#FFFFFF">'''Grandiose''' </span><span style="color:gray;background-color:#FFFFFF">(], ], ]) </span> 14:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If the article is to be expanded rather than deleted, it should look at the origins of the term (if they can be found), and use more objective analyses of the term like that cover its use by highly politicised media as well as politicians. The term "non-job" is a political construct, not something that actually exists. ] (]) 14:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This really does seem guaranteed to produce a biased article particulary as job descriptions are geared more to attract applicants than to educate the public about their purpose. A non-job holder is unlikely to be given the opportunity of self justification. I recommend the article should become a non-article :) ] (]) 21:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I agree now — if the article exists, its focus should be on its usage in UK politics. I have doubts whether the usage merits its own article, but not strong enough to launch an ].—] (]) 09:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: I wrote the article as it's an established term. Just because the term is pejorative doesn't make the article any less valid. We still have "]" as an article! ] (]) 10:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Just because a politician invents a new pejorative term, it doesn't necessarily mean that we should have an article on it. ] (]) 12:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Discussion at Talk:Demography_and_politics_of_Northern_Ireland#Requested_move == | |||
| The article will be discussed at ''']''' 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. | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. {{#if:|{{{more}}}}} ] (]) 19:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC){{z48}} | |||
| 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.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 21:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == David Cameron. == | |||
| == Source applicability & spectrum position on ] == | |||
| Hi all. | |||
| I wonder if you could pass your expert unbiased eyes over a section I've added in the political commentary section on ] and also look the ]. It's a short section in an important article and I'd be grateful for any constructive input. | |||
| Thanks in eager anticipation. ] (]) 10:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{u|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, ] (]) 13:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == New Supplementary Vote election box template == | |||
| == FYI - ] has been nominated for deletion == | |||
| I didn't think there were enough Election Box formats (!) so I made one for the Supplementary Vote counting system used for English mayoral elections and the forthcoming ]. The template is based on the one created for ]. | |||
| The ] article about the Parliament petition of that name has been nominated for deletion. For anyone interested, the discussion is here: ]. -- ] (]). 18:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| You can see the box on ]. I have some more features in mind but any comments welcome, especially about the desirability of the bar graphic. Incidentally while looking at these mayoral elections there is some tidying needed as it is difficult to find whether a page exists for any given election, some have voting figures on the page about the position but most don't, etc. ] (]) 11:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Honours lists == | |||
| :Hi Sussexonian. Thanks for doing this. I like the look of the Mansfield box, and importantly how easy the template looks to fill in for regular editors. Has it been tested for parties with and without articles? ] <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 13:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ] and ] need some help. ] (]) 23:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Good article candidate == | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| Hi there. ] has been a ] for a little while; I was wondering if anyone could review it for me? Thanks. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 14:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 22:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:50, 27 December 2024
|
_(Tudor_Crown).svg) |
| Primary article | Categories · Featured content · Templates |
| This is the talk page for WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Shortcut
| |||
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 | |||
 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. |
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 Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages: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: Misplaced Pages: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)