466:– The civic mayor (now Council Speaker) post for Tower Hamlets is not notable enough have a separate article of its own. Take the Mayor of London that is just called "Mayor of London" as that is what it is commonly known by and no-one thinks of anyone but the holder of the post covering the whole of London (bar the City). There will be very few if any who think Mayor of London and then go oh you mean the Lord Mayor of London. It just doesn't happen. In the same way, in the same way as very few if any think of the old civic mayor or the now speaker of the council of Tower Hamlets when talking about out or searching for the Mayor of Tower Hamlets. Media do not refer to it in any other way other than the Mayor of Tower Hamlets except in a few minor and sparse instances. Creating a different title is a POV fork and is creating ambiguity where none existed before. The title should be just Mayor of Tower Hamlets as that is the least confusing, causing zero confusion if any at all and if there are any worries about confusion a simple one line, identical to the line stating Mayor of Tower Hamlets redirects here, which is already in existance. Also having 'Mayor of Tower Hamlets' redirect here as opposed to going to a disambiguation page makes the title Directly elected meaningless and the ambiguity arguments a figment only in the imagination of those advocating the Directly elected title. If such a Directly elected title was needed Mayor of Tower Hamlets would be a disambiguation page it clearly is not in this case. The reasoning for Directly elected title is just to try and avoid confusion where none exists and in doing so creates its own confusion. To undo the confusion which has been now created where none previously existed the title needs to drop the "directly elected".
386:
known by and no-one thinks of anyone but the holder of the post covering the whole of London (bar the City). There will be very few if any who think Mayor of London and then go oh you mean the Lord Mayor of London. It just doesn't happen in the same way, in the same way as very few if any think of the civic mayor of Tower
Hamlets when talking about out or searching for the Mayor of Tower Hamlets. Media do not refer to it in any other way other than the Mayor of tower Hamlets except in a few minor and sparse instances,. Creating a different title is a POV fork and is creating ambiguity where none existed before. The title should be just Mayor of Tower Hamlets as that is the least confusing and if there are any worry about confusion a simple one line, identical to the line staying Mayor of Tower Hamlets redirects here, which is already in existance. Also having 'Mayor of Tower Hamlets' redirect here as opposed to going to a disambiguation page makes the title Directly elected meaningless and the ambiguity arguments a figment of only in the imagination of the person advocating the Directly elected title. If such a Directly elected title was needed Mayor of Tower Hamlets would be a disambiguation page it clearly is not in this case. The reasoning for Directly elected title is just to try and avoid confusion where none exists and in doing so creates its own confusion.
531:. They are 1) The civic mayor that existed from 1965 to 2010 with around 45 post holders and 2) the elected mayor that has existed for the past three years. As both have been called "Mayor of Tower Hamlets" the name is ambiguous. It isn't typical for a mayor to be directly elected and there are only a handful of such posts in England. Knowledge isn't a snapshot of only what exists now and we don't automatically give primacy to recent events. The page title for the elected mayor should be unambiguous (and if you look above at the page title history it has been for the most part). There is no need for disambiguation pages where there are only two possible topics. "Mayor of Tower Hamlets" redirects here and there is a hatnote to the alternative. As it stands this article is still given primacy by the redirect here, but has a disambiguated title and hatnote clearly explain the name "Mayor of Tower Hamlets" has two meanings.
1197:
left the
English Democrats and re-stood as an independent and that is listed as a gain from English Democrats, not from Independent. I also cannot see how this is any different to listing bye-election hold as gains, even with weasel footnotes being used to try and justify it. A party wins a seat with voter approval at an election and then holds it at the next election surely the same candidate and label winning the seat after voters had said we want this person, regardless of it being an general election or a bye-election is a hold not a gain. This discussion is raising a lot of inconsistencies and is showing different rules for one thing and different rules for another, I wonder if this is to suit a certain desired outcome on here as opposed to wanting to get some wider consistency across Knowledge.
85:
64:
184:
973:
with no voter approval he set up his own party, the voters then in 2014 chose to elect him on a Tower
Hamlets first platform, but they didn't originally do so in 2010. The voters originally elected him as an independent. The voters were not given a say in the party of the mayor until the 2014 election, so the choice of the voters was to elect a THF mayor this time and not an independent mayor so when the voters were asked, they did not elect that same party as they did the previous time, so that is a change from the previous election and so is a gain for the new party from the last time the voters were asked their opinion at the ballot box.
839:, otherwise you will simply come up against the rules of Knowledge and get very frustrated and get nowhere with what you aim to achieve. The demand for a discussion to have already taken place does not invalidate the current consensus. The current examples shown above clearly demonstrate what the current consensus is regardless of any discussion having taken place. Demanding a discussion to have already taken place is POV pushing as it is an argument being used to try and push your preferred census over the current consensus and in the process is trying to avoid this current discussion.
904:
current path of semantic nonsense which will achieve diddly squat. Actually discuss why you want to make the change you do and discuss the merits of what you want to change it to as opposed to trying to have no discussion and force an opinion on the article, while acting like an article owner. I will also have to point out this is not a vote and stating this early on in a discussion "more people are on my side therefor i am right and this is the new consensus because of that" is a farcical augment and detracts from all forms of taking you as an editor seriously.
174:
153:
33:
267:
663:
he's created a party around himself. I understand where S&P is coming from in saying how, technically, this can be seen as a gain, but labelling it as such gives the wrong impression to the reader unless s/he then goes and reads other articles to work out what's going on. As a basic principle, we should make things clear to the reader, not get wrapped up in technicalities.
1306:
consensus just for this article and not wider
Knowledge. This appears to be a consensus that if a person stands as in dependent and forms a party round themselves it is a hold in all other cases it appears to be listed as a gain e.g. the speaker or Ken Livingstone or as is the case with the Mayor of Doncaster.
1211:
Results are listed against the previous result, not against any changes in affiliation since. No-one is questioning that. The difference here is that Rahman hasn't left or joined an existing party: he has created something around himself. He has formalised his position, turning his supporters in to a
903:
Consensus was developed by the current and longstanding stable article versions, just because you dislike it or there was no formal discussion does not invalidate it. I suggest engaging in a meaningful discussion on the merits of whatever you are trying to change to, as opposed to meandering down the
853:
I have asked you a few times now in various ways to show where this consensus was developed. Please link to the relevant discussion. If there is no discussion, then the consensus is developing here, and currently it's 2/3 in favour of including correct information rather than misleading and incorrect
754:
I understand the convention at play. I see a difference with the Ken
Livingstone case: there, he first won an election as an independent, standing against the Labour Party candidate. Next election, he had re-joined the party. That was a change in party. Likewise, with the Speaker of the Commons, they
1398:
It might help lift the fog of confusion if I point out that the term 'by-election' is only very rarely used in statute law, because the legal procedures are no different in by-elections compared to ordinary elections. A by-election, according to the dictionary definition, is any election which takes
1077:
There needs to be time given for discussion and not a reliance on this being a show of hands. Also the bye-election gain on the North Down page mentioned above lists UK Unionist gain from Ulster
Popular Unionist for the both the 1995 Bye-election and the 1997 general election, which is again another
972:
It is not "clearly wrong" that is only an opinion of yours and you cannot put words for other users you can only speak for yourself, other users are more than capable of putting their own views forward.. Rahman was not elected in 2010 as a Tower
Hamlets First candidate, in the intervening period and
918:
If you're so keen on having a proper discussion, why has your argument so far only been to repeat "there's consensus", "it's standard practice" or "this needs to be discussed somewhere else" when
Bondegezou and I have repeatedly pointed out that saying Rahman winning was a THF gain is clearly wrong
552:
that just redirects to the UK political party with a disambiguation line at the top. There is no confusion there just common sense. Changing to
Directly elected throws out common sense and assume every one is easily and always confused unless titles are magically made to conform to the least simple
1335:
I am in agreement too; I obviously didn't make myself clear. I wasn't suggesting that this sets a precedent for other articles which should therefore be changed, but that in fact the precedent in other articles already supports the acceptance of a distinction between a true gain and a simple label
595:
view of what constitutes "mayor" contradicts with
English sources, which naturally use "mayor" to refer to "mayor" - whether Victorian patriarch, 1930s reformer, 2010s ceremonial post, whatever. If an article excludes mayors who aren't directly elected from content (why?) then the phrase "directly
385:
The most well known mayor in England is the current one in existence the elected executive mayor of London. The civic mayor post for Tower Hamlets is not notable enough have a separate article of its own. Take the Mayor of London that is just called "Mayor of London" as that is what it is commonly
1196:
IMO the Lib Dems are a different thing here due to the Alliance before the merger so effectively Liberal and SDP seats were for what was basically he same party, just the party formalised its alliance in to a single entity. The other thing of note here has to be Doncaster's mayor as Peter Davies
1165:
The precedent (not really the same thing as consensus, by the way) actually tends to support the use of hold, not gain. For example, the Lib-Dem inherited seats following the 1988 merger, a much larger change than the creation of THF, are shown as Lib-Dem hold, not as gains from Liberal or Social
662:
from independent. I think that is highly misleading. The same candidate who won last time won this time. Shortly before the election, he created this new party around himself and then he stood with this label rather than as "independent". So it's the same guy; he hasn't joined an existing party -
1305:
restored to a hold for the 2014 Maayor of Tower Hamlet election results only and nothing else. I have to wholly dismiss the claims of "precedent" across Knowledge, there are clear examples of precedent, for not having this listed as a hop such as in the case of the speaker. This appears to be a
1054:
It's not inconsistent, they are very different cases. In 1979 Kilfedder had left an established party, which also put up a candidate in that election (who lost). By the '83 election he had formalised his independence by the creation of the UPP. The later is very much the same thing as the Rahman
1009:
where Jim Kilfedder was elected as an independent in 1979 and then formed a mini-party afterwards - we show 1983 as a Popular Unionist hold not a gain. De facto this sort of situation is a hold - the politician hasn't actually moved anywhere or joined a pre-existing force, they've just created a
1025:
The North Down article is inconsistent as in the election before in October 1974 Jim Kilfedder was elected as a UUP candidate and the 1979 election result lists Jim Kilfedder victory as "Independent Unionist gain from UUP" not independent hold. So the above example is not a sound example as the
1383:
says "Thirdly it will be Mr Williams’s task to arrange for a new Mayoral election and for a by-election in the Ward of Stepney." I am unclear why a by-election is being called, but the wording of the judgment appears to distinguish, therefore, between a by-election and a "new election"...?
780:
wishing to be changed here is wider than this singe article, so please raise the issue at the above wikirpoject as simply arguing here will achieve very little if anything, as it will not change the wider established consensus, as clearly demonstrated by the examples given.
1004:
Rahman is in the extremely rare category of a successful indepedent who subsequently forms a party that effectively is little more than the local big name politician and their coattail followers, then gets re-elected with the label. The nearest example I can think is
1251:
There appears to be a new creation "true gain" and "genuinely different party", these seems to be very wooly and ill-defined. A gain is a gain; One party or label wins at one election and a different party or label wins at the next election simple: it is a gain.
526:
article cannot be used as a reason for naming this article. In that case the directly elected mayor of London is clearly the primary topic for "Mayor of London". This isn't the case is Tower Hamlets, we have two different things that could rightly be located at
762:. I am not suggesting any revision to the convention. I am suggesting that, in this particular case, it would be clearer to omit the "gain" line of the table. If people or not happy with that, maybe a footnote or some text to clarify could be added.
755:
have a changed partisan affiliation. (The case of Doncaster is not relevant here: Davies was not re-elected.) In this case, however, Rahman has not joined or left an existing party. He has merely re-labelled, he has created something around himself.
1320:
I concur with S&P: the discussion above relates to this particular article. I, for one, was not and am not suggesting a change to other articles. I am happy for other cases akin to this one to be discussed on a case-by-case basis.
1233:
On the contrary, the discussion is demonstrating a remarkable level of consistency and logic. True gains (where a genuinely different party has won) are shown as gains while mere formalisation of the status quo are shown as holds.
706:
the 2004 London Mayor result should be Labour Hold, as it was the same candidate who was re-elected, which would be misleading at best. The standard practice of Knowledge is as shown in the above example and not as desired by
834:
Number 57 what you consider to be correct in your opinion does not make it right and does not entitle it to override the current consensus of Knowledge. Engage in a meaningful discussion before acting like an article
1104:
General elections are compared to the previous ones so a party retaining a by-election gain is shown as a gain with a note that this is what the comparison is. (Boundary changes complicate matters further.)
857:
As for the accusations of ownership, you are the one who has reverted two different editors four times on this article. I suggest you may want to consider your own behaviour before attacking that of others.
1033:
There's a difference between leaving an established party with the electors upholding the change and forming a party around oneself. Is there anyone else apart from you who is objecting to showing a hold?
1718:
135:
125:
293:; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
1461:
1713:
716:
101:
733:
This clearly isn't a gain. Rahman was THF before the election happened. Anyone adding that to the results table is inserting incorrect information, and it should be removed on sight.
797:
If you can show me where this was previously discussed, then I'll accept leaving it at the wrong version for now. Otherwise, the correct information should remain in the article.
1471:
1169:
506:
92:
69:
1361:
1728:
695:
691:
687:
230:
1462:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160304190212/http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/council_and_democracy/elections__voting/election_2015/mayoral_and_stepney_green.aspx
1651:
1647:
1633:
1523:
1519:
1505:
438:
678:
It is standard across Wikipeida to state from the previous party at the election in the gain hold box where the incumbent is re-standing. This can be seen with
1723:
1465:
1403:
and other election authorities include elections to fill seats that have been made vacant through the avoidance of the previous election as by-elections.
1619:
1286:
With one disenting voice there appears to be consensus here, and precedent across similar Knowledge articles generally, to restore this to to a hold.
820:
I have put a note on the WikiProject page inviting people to the discussion here. I have explained how I see a difference with the examples given.
313:
273:
1582:
1445:
1006:
683:
553:
and most complex title just to avoid confusion even where none exists, there isn't even potential confusion only synthesised potential confusion.
459:
364:
352:
240:
574:
we have a mess on this precise subject with both forms widely used. Really a consistency nomination should have been brought on the whole lot.
1472:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150613175324/http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/idoc.ashx?docid=d7835411-0206-499b-8307-311b86b29742&version=-1
571:
84:
63:
422:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
1173:
679:
183:
758:
Conventions are useful, but there is no need to stick them so rigorously if the result is confusing and misleading to the reader: see
1475:
1629:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
206:
1360:
The answer to that is: it is a byelection, and there isn't any such thing as a rerun election. And it was all explained in 2010 in
346:
326:
930:
869:
808:
744:
97:
1215:
I am unclear by what you mean by your suggestion that "this is to suit a certain desired outcome on here". I remind you of
1078:
things to consider here. Even though it was the same winning candidate at both the bye-election and the general election.
699:
1694:
1566:
1466:
http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/council_and_democracy/elections__voting/election_2015/mayoral_and_stepney_green.aspx
1311:
1257:
1202:
1083:
978:
909:
844:
786:
724:
558:
471:
391:
197:
158:
44:
322:
1620:
https://web.archive.org/web/20131102154955/http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgsl/1001-1050/1001_speaker_of_council.aspx
1162:
It really doesn't make much sense to call this a gain. THF is, more or less, a name for Rahman's "independendence".
1110:
1039:
1015:
579:
413:
1650:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1522:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
510:
32:
1623:
1685:
1611:
1557:
1453:
1408:
1369:
1307:
1253:
1198:
1079:
974:
905:
840:
782:
720:
655:
605:
554:
467:
387:
17:
1135:"As is standard the figures and result are compared to the 1992 general election, not the 1995 by-election"
658:. S&P (if I may call you that) feels the election box should show the 2014 mayoral result as a gain by
1607:
1603:
528:
463:
358:
312:
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant
1585:
which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —
1669:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1657:
1541:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1529:
1336:
change. Agree with you that discussion on a case by case basis is the right thing in this sort of case.
1106:
1035:
1011:
640:
575:
423:
50:
1610:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1452:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
487:
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
1496:
1422:
1389:
1326:
1276:
1224:
825:
767:
668:
1373:
925:
864:
803:
777:
739:
659:
448:
1476:
http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/idoc.ashx?docid=d7835411-0206-499b-8307-311b86b29742&version=-1
205:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
100:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1404:
1365:
1341:
1291:
1239:
1186:
1142:
1060:
601:
597:
1654:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1526:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1670:
1542:
549:
277:
592:
1677:
1549:
1295:
1261:
1212:
formal party, just as the Liberals and SDP formalised their alliance in to a single entity.
1190:
1019:
672:
1418:
1385:
1380:
1322:
1272:
1220:
821:
763:
712:
708:
703:
664:
523:
1636:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1508:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1400:
920:
859:
798:
734:
536:
443:
375:
298:
1676:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1548:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1707:
1586:
1337:
1287:
1268:
1235:
1216:
1182:
1138:
1056:
836:
759:
305:
189:
1364:
if you open up the little box at the top which says "By-election vs re-run debate".
630:
173:
152:
1699:
1589:
1571:
1426:
1412:
1393:
1345:
1330:
1315:
1280:
1243:
1228:
1206:
1146:
1114:
1087:
1064:
1043:
982:
935:
913:
874:
848:
829:
813:
790:
771:
749:
728:
609:
583:
562:
540:
475:
453:
395:
379:
330:
1643:
1515:
1301:
I can only agree with that there is a consensus here that it should be changed
1642:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1514:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
639:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
266:
179:
1267:
Life is complicated. It doesn't fit neat boxes. Within that context, I think
301:
then you may need to upload it to Knowledge (Commons does not allow fair use)
532:
371:
319:
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image
1624:
http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgsl/1001-1050/1001_speaker_of_council.aspx
715:
wishes to attempt to change the wider consensus then please do so on the
370:
The naming should avoid ambiguity with the civic mayor of Tower Hamlets.
654:
If you look at the edit history, you will see a dispute between me and
1026:
article does things in effect both ways and supports neither position.
202:
548:
Mayor of Tower Hamlets redirects here. Another example is seen with
258:
File:Lutfur Rahman by Khalid Hussain.jpg Nominated for Deletion
26:
522:
We take the naming of each article on its own merits, so the
1481:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
1614:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1456:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
919:
and misleading. How do you justify it on a factual basis?
412:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
1449:
1719:
Low-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
572:
Category:Directly elected mayors in the United Kingdom
629:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
314:
image page (File:Lutfur Rahman by Khalid Hussain.jpg)
1170:
Ross, Cromarty and Skye (UK Parliament constituency)
201:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
110:
Knowledge:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
96:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1714:
Start-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
1646:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1518:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
509:, please explain your reasons, taking into account
426:. No further edits should be made to this section.
304:If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no
113:
Template:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
1362:Talk:Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, 2011
1010:banner to more easily rally and identify support.
643:. No further edits should be made to this section.
345:This article was created on 14 September 2010 at
1356:Is it a by-election or is it a 'rerun election'?
700:Ken Livingston in the 2004 London Mayor election
435:, but perhaps a group move request would work.
1632:This message was posted before February 2018.
1504:This message was posted before February 2018.
8:
18:Talk:Directly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets
1137:. This is not relevant to the Rahman case.
591:- one of a whole group of articles where a
30:
1602:I have just modified one external link on
1581:There is a move discussion in progress on
507:polling is not a substitute for discussion
147:
93:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
58:
1444:I have just modified 2 external links on
274:File:Lutfur Rahman by Khalid Hussain.jpg
1583:Talk:Directly elected mayor of Copeland
1446:Directly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets
1007:North Down (UK Parliament constituency)
460:Directly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets
365:Directly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets
353:Directly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets
149:
116:Politics of the United Kingdom articles
60:
1729:Low-importance London-related articles
1595:External links modified (January 2018)
717:main UK politics Wikiproject talk page
698:as examples. It can also be seen with
351:It was moved on 21 September 2010 to
1493:to let others know (documentation at
276:, has been nominated for deletion at
7:
568:Reject individual article nomination
511:Knowledge's policy on article titles
431:The result of the move request was:
363:It was moved on 31 October 2013 to
195:This article is within the scope of
90:This article is within the scope of
1724:Start-Class London-related articles
1174:Yeovil (UK Parliament constituency)
308:then it cannot be uploaded or used.
49:It is of interest to the following
1399:place between ordinary elections.
596:elected" is required in title per
25:
1606:. Please take a moment to review
1448:. Please take a moment to review
347:Executive Mayor of Tower Hamlets
265:
182:
172:
151:
83:
62:
31:
405:Requested move 01 November 2013
357:It was moved on 4 May 2012 to
272:An image used in this article,
235:This article has been rated as
130:This article has been rated as
1355:
107:Politics of the United Kingdom
98:Politics of the United Kingdom
70:Politics of the United Kingdom
1:
1572:17:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
499:, then sign your comment with
209:and see a list of open tasks.
104:and see a list of open tasks.
1700:07:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
1133:As it explains on the page:
610:16:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
584:12:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
563:11:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
541:10:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
476:10:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
454:22:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
396:20:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
380:20:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
282:Deletion requests March 2012
215:Knowledge:WikiProject London
1577:Move discussion in progress
280:in the following category:
218:Template:WikiProject London
1745:
1663:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1599:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1535:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1441:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1427:21:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
1413:20:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
1394:17:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
1374:16:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
682:and the Speakers seats of
331:17:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
241:project's importance scale
136:project's importance scale
1590:00:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
1346:19:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
1331:17:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
1316:09:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
234:
167:
129:
78:
57:
1296:19:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
1281:15:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
1262:14:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
1244:14:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
1229:10:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
1207:09:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
1191:00:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
1147:01:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
1115:00:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
1088:20:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
1065:01:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
1044:16:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
1020:15:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
983:21:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
936:21:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
914:21:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
875:21:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
849:20:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
830:17:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
814:19:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
791:17:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
772:17:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
750:14:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
729:14:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
673:17:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
650:A gain that isn't a gain
636:Please do not modify it.
622:Any additional comments:
419:Please do not modify it.
1437:External links modified
1271:has summed it up well.
656:User:Sport and politics
221:London-related articles
1604:Mayor of Tower Hamlets
649:
529:Mayor of Tower Hamlets
464:Mayor of Tower Hamlets
433:Move proposal rejected
359:Mayor of Tower Hamlets
323:CommonsNotificationBot
39:This article is rated
1644:regular verification
1516:regular verification
1634:After February 2018
1506:After February 2018
1485:parameter below to
680:the Doncaster Mayor
660:Tower Hamlets First
1688:InternetArchiveBot
1639:InternetArchiveBot
1560:InternetArchiveBot
1511:InternetArchiveBot
1308:Sport and politics
1254:Sport and politics
1199:Sport and politics
1080:Sport and politics
975:Sport and politics
906:Sport and politics
841:Sport and politics
783:Sport and politics
721:Sport and politics
702:. By the logic of
696:Croydon North East
692:West Bromwich West
688:Glasgow Springburn
555:Sport and politics
468:Sport and politics
388:Sport and politics
306:fair use rationale
198:WikiProject London
45:content assessment
1664:
1536:
550:Liberal_Democrats
442:
439:non-admin closure
337:
336:
286:What should I do?
278:Wikimedia Commons
255:
254:
251:
250:
247:
246:
146:
145:
142:
141:
16:(Redirected from
1736:
1698:
1689:
1662:
1661:
1640:
1570:
1561:
1534:
1533:
1512:
1500:
1107:Timrollpickering
1036:Timrollpickering
1012:Timrollpickering
933:
928:
923:
872:
867:
862:
811:
806:
801:
747:
742:
737:
638:
576:Timrollpickering
503:
497:
491:
446:
436:
421:
297:If the image is
269:
262:
261:
223:
222:
219:
216:
213:
192:
187:
186:
176:
169:
168:
163:
155:
148:
118:
117:
114:
111:
108:
87:
80:
79:
74:
66:
59:
42:
36:
35:
27:
21:
1744:
1743:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1704:
1703:
1692:
1687:
1655:
1648:have permission
1638:
1612:this simple FaQ
1597:
1579:
1564:
1559:
1527:
1520:have permission
1510:
1494:
1454:this simple FaQ
1439:
1417:Thanks. I see.
1358:
931:
926:
921:
870:
865:
860:
809:
804:
799:
745:
740:
735:
652:
647:
634:
618:
524:Mayor of London
501:
495:
489:
483:
444:
417:
407:
342:
260:
220:
217:
214:
211:
210:
188:
181:
161:
115:
112:
109:
106:
105:
72:
43:on Knowledge's
40:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1742:
1740:
1732:
1731:
1726:
1721:
1716:
1706:
1705:
1682:
1681:
1674:
1627:
1626:
1618:Added archive
1596:
1593:
1578:
1575:
1554:
1553:
1546:
1479:
1478:
1470:Added archive
1468:
1460:Added archive
1438:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1401:F. W. S. Craig
1357:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1284:
1283:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1231:
1213:
1180:
1179:
1163:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1028:
1027:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
855:
818:
817:
816:
756:
752:
651:
648:
646:
645:
631:requested move
625:
624:
617:
614:
613:
612:
586:
565:
543:
516:
515:
490:*'''Support'''
482:
479:
457:
429:
428:
414:requested move
408:
406:
403:
401:
399:
398:
368:
367:
361:
355:
349:
341:
338:
335:
334:
310:
309:
302:
288:
287:
270:
259:
256:
253:
252:
249:
248:
245:
244:
237:Low-importance
233:
227:
226:
224:
207:the discussion
194:
193:
177:
165:
164:
162:Low‑importance
156:
144:
143:
140:
139:
132:Low-importance
128:
122:
121:
119:
102:the discussion
88:
76:
75:
73:Low‑importance
67:
55:
54:
48:
37:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1741:
1730:
1727:
1725:
1722:
1720:
1717:
1715:
1712:
1711:
1709:
1702:
1701:
1696:
1691:
1690:
1679:
1675:
1672:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1659:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1635:
1630:
1625:
1621:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1613:
1609:
1605:
1600:
1594:
1592:
1591:
1588:
1584:
1576:
1574:
1573:
1568:
1563:
1562:
1551:
1547:
1544:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1531:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1507:
1502:
1498:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1442:
1436:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1405:Sam Blacketer
1402:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1382:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1366:Sam Blacketer
1363:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1304:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1232:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1177:
1175:
1171:
1164:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1008:
984:
980:
976:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
937:
934:
929:
924:
917:
916:
915:
911:
907:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
876:
873:
868:
863:
856:
852:
851:
850:
846:
842:
838:
833:
832:
831:
827:
823:
819:
815:
812:
807:
802:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
788:
784:
779:
775:
774:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
753:
751:
748:
743:
738:
732:
731:
730:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
676:
675:
674:
670:
666:
661:
657:
644:
642:
637:
632:
627:
626:
623:
620:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
602:In ictu oculi
599:
594:
590:
589:Oppose, again
587:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
566:
564:
560:
556:
551:
547:
544:
542:
538:
534:
530:
525:
521:
518:
517:
514:
512:
508:
500:
496:*'''Oppose'''
494:
488:
485:
484:
480:
478:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
456:
455:
452:
451:
447:
440:
434:
427:
425:
420:
415:
410:
409:
404:
402:
397:
393:
389:
384:
383:
382:
381:
377:
373:
366:
362:
360:
356:
354:
350:
348:
344:
343:
339:
333:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
315:
307:
303:
300:
296:
295:
294:
292:
285:
284:
283:
279:
275:
271:
268:
264:
263:
257:
242:
238:
232:
229:
228:
225:
208:
204:
200:
199:
191:
190:London portal
185:
180:
178:
175:
171:
170:
166:
160:
157:
154:
150:
137:
133:
127:
124:
123:
120:
103:
99:
95:
94:
89:
86:
82:
81:
77:
71:
68:
65:
61:
56:
52:
46:
38:
34:
29:
28:
19:
1686:
1683:
1658:source check
1637:
1631:
1628:
1601:
1598:
1580:
1558:
1555:
1530:source check
1509:
1503:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1480:
1443:
1440:
1379:Thanks. The
1359:
1302:
1285:
1250:
1181:
1167:
1158:Two points.
1157:
1134:
1003:
854:information.
653:
635:
628:
621:
588:
567:
545:
519:
504:
498:
492:
486:
458:
449:
432:
430:
418:
411:
400:
369:
318:
317:
311:
290:
289:
281:
236:
196:
131:
91:
51:WikiProjects
1497:Sourcecheck
641:move review
598:WP:CRITERIA
570:Looking at
424:move review
291:Don't panic
41:Start-class
1708:Categories
1695:Report bug
1567:Report bug
1419:Bondegezou
1386:Bondegezou
1323:Bondegezou
1273:Bondegezou
1221:Bondegezou
1166:Democrat.
822:Bondegezou
764:Bondegezou
713:Bondegezou
709:Bondegezou
704:Bondegezou
684:Buckingham
665:Bondegezou
616:Discussion
340:Page title
1678:this tool
1671:this tool
1550:this tool
1543:this tool
778:consensus
593:WP:RECENT
1684:Cheers.—
1587:RMCD bot
1556:Cheers.—
1381:judgment
1338:Naomhain
1288:Naomhain
1269:Naomhain
1236:Naomhain
1183:Naomhain
1139:Naomhain
1057:Naomhain
505:. Since
299:non-free
1608:my edit
1483:checked
1450:my edit
546:Comment
239:on the
134:on the
1491:failed
1217:WP:AGF
1055:case.
922:Number
861:Number
800:Number
760:WP:IAR
736:Number
520:Oppose
481:Survey
212:London
203:London
159:London
47:scale.
1168:(eg.
837:owner
719:. --
711:. If
450:Slash
1487:true
1423:talk
1409:talk
1390:talk
1370:talk
1342:talk
1327:talk
1312:talk
1292:talk
1277:talk
1258:talk
1240:talk
1225:talk
1203:talk
1187:talk
1172:and
1143:talk
1111:talk
1084:talk
1061:talk
1040:talk
1016:talk
979:talk
910:talk
845:talk
826:talk
787:talk
776:The
768:talk
725:talk
694:and
669:talk
606:talk
580:talk
559:talk
537:talk
533:MRSC
502:~~~~
472:talk
445:Red
392:talk
376:talk
372:MRSC
327:talk
1652:RfC
1622:to
1524:RfC
1501:).
1489:or
1474:to
1464:to
1303:not
633:.
231:Low
126:Low
1710::
1665:.
1660:}}
1656:{{
1537:.
1532:}}
1528:{{
1499:}}
1495:{{
1425:)
1411:)
1392:)
1372:)
1344:)
1329:)
1314:)
1294:)
1279:)
1260:)
1242:)
1227:)
1219:.
1205:)
1189:)
1145:)
1113:)
1086:)
1063:)
1042:)
1018:)
981:)
912:)
847:)
828:)
789:)
770:)
727:)
690:,
686:,
671:)
608:)
600:.
582:)
561:)
539:)
493:or
474:)
462:→
416:.
394:)
378:)
329:)
321:--
1697:)
1693:(
1680:.
1673:.
1569:)
1565:(
1552:.
1545:.
1421:(
1407:(
1388:(
1368:(
1340:(
1325:(
1310:(
1290:(
1275:(
1256:(
1238:(
1223:(
1201:(
1185:(
1178:.
1176:)
1141:(
1109:(
1082:(
1059:(
1038:(
1014:(
977:(
932:7
927:5
908:(
871:7
866:5
843:(
824:(
810:7
805:5
785:(
766:(
746:7
741:5
723:(
667:(
604:(
578:(
557:(
535:(
513:.
470:(
441:)
437:(
390:(
374:(
325:(
243:.
138:.
53::
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
