| Revision as of 10:56, 20 August 2012 editBrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,942,733 edits →Hansard listing for MPs: show how← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:50, 27 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,756 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 ]. | |||
| 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 == | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. {{#if:|{{{more}}}}} ] (]) 19:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC){{z48}} | |||
| == David Cameron. == | |||
| 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) | |||
| == New Supplementary Vote election box template == | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| == Good article candidate == | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Hansard listing for MPs == | |||
| == Source applicability & spectrum position on ] == | |||
| Lots of the MP pages seem to have Hansard record listed under 'external links'. For example ]. Is there any standard for putting a link to Hansard in an infobox, and if not can I suggest that it is adopted as a standard? I don't know what the process is for doing that here. ] (]) 07:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I have added Hansard links to thousands of MP articles, and it would be great to have them all linked. | |||
| :There are two sources for Hansard: | |||
| :#Current and recent Hansards (since 1988 for the Commons) are on the Parliament website at http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/ | |||
| :#Hansard from 1803 to 2005 are http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/. This is an experimental site which uses data from the Hansard Digitisation project; it has the advantage of covering a huge period, but the disadvantage of having imperfect indexing. | |||
| :So, the question of which to use depends on the period when the MP served. For anyone in Parliament pre-1988, there should be a link to the millbanksystems site, because that's the only on-line record of that period. For anyone in Parliament before 2005, I suggest that those links should be added anyway. | |||
| :I would like to recommend adding a link to the Parliament site for MPs since 1988, but Parliament website doesn't seem to have done a good job of indexing. At http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/by-mp/, they seem to have separate indexes for each session, and no combined index. | |||
| :There are two templates for adding the Millbanksystems links: | |||
| :#{{tl|UK MP links}}, which is a general-purpose template for creating lots of external links to websites on MPs, including Millbanksystems. I would recommend use of this template for those whose career as MPs includes the period after 2001. It includes a parameter for linking to the current Hansards, but AFAICS that setup is broken :( | |||
| :#{{tl|UK MP links}}, which is an older single-purpose template (written by me) for linking to the Millbanksystems. It includes instructions on how to create the link, which are also applicable to the {{tl|UK MP links}} template. | |||
| :Hope this helps. --] <small>] • (])</small> 10:56, 20 August 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) | |||
| == Stormont template == | |||
| == FYI - ] has been nominated for deletion == | |||
| Hi all. I've been doing some work on underused digital resources, and today produced {{tl|Stormont}}, for linking to the Stormont Papers project (effectively Hansard for Northern Ireland, 1921-72). Hopefully it'll be some use to anyone interested in working on the period. If there's anywhere else you think would be useful to notify people of the template, please circulate it... ] (]) 15:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Amendment requested for 'The Troubles' Arbitration remedies; input welcome == | |||
| == Honours lists == | |||
| Hi all, | |||
| ] and ] need some help. ] (]) 23:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Interested editors are invited to review and comment on a ''']''' to the discretionary sanctions remedy (R5) of the '']'' Arbitration case. | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| Regards,<br>] (]) 04:15, 19 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)