Knowledge talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 3

2089:

comment... Yes, I think the voting behaviour is of interest, particularly when the person appears to have voted in a manner which is rebellious, or inconsistent with their known beliefs, behaviour or commitments, or when the vote was important. No, not all votes should be included, because that would be ridiculous. So, which general votes should be included (with information on the voting behaviour of each individual who could have voted)? How about any that have been of singular importance in the media, or are of national/international significance, or which are involved in establishing or overturning legislation that is of importance. For example, a vote in favour or against engaging in a war, making fundamental changes in legislation (Death penalty, NHS, entry/exit from EU etc). There are situations in which the voting behaviour of only selected individuals or groups need be recorded on their pages. For example, if the individual contributed as a speaker in a debate, or if the individual can be shown to have voted in a manner that was different from how he/she had committed to, or if a group of individuals had voted as part of a block (and that block vote was rebellious or at odds with party political commitments). For Lords, it would seem that there should be more detailed information about voting, because these individuals are unelected, wield significant power and yet are open to less scrutiny than MPs. Rather than attempt to make judgements about the importance of the specific issues, it would seem better to allow more information on voting to be added, and then to review it at strategic times in the future. For example, the NHS reforms are clearly important, and may have a fundamental impact on health services, but perhaps in 1-2 years the final implementation of the reforms will have little impact. I also don't see that it should be the responsibility of one individual to propagate voting information across all pages for MPS/Lords who voted. This takes time. I would also suggest that if a particular voting event is considered important enough to be listed on a number of pages for MPS/Lords, then the aim should be to agree on a formal wording for a statement about that event which can then be applied to all pages (with that individual's vote being added). In that way, the information is neutral. For example, a description of a particular vote on whether to engage in war, complete with links to relevant articles and the individual's vote.

2243:; you are looking for reasons to block things rather than finding ways to work within the rules and produce something useful for people. Please can you start to think about how to include information sensibly, rather than trying to stop it being included at all. Here's an example of why this is important. Take the situation of a footballer; clearly we don't want wikipedia to be clogged up with every goal they ever scored, but it would be odd if there was no mention of a goal scored in a cup final. Likewise an unusual goal (say, the only header they had ever scored) or one scored in a match against a well known rival team. Without that information, you might as well be talking about a lamp-post rather than a footballer. The content of a person's page must represent their professional activity. If you have a page about a politician, it is essential that there is some record of their parliamentary actions. Yes, a lot of this is present within Hansard, but EVERYTHING in wikipedia is verified using information that is held somewhere else. As for conflict with beliefs or other behaviour being unprovable, that is nonsense. If a politician has been elected on the basis of specific commitments they have made (such as a rousing public speech about student fees, or declared involvement in a health charity, or a publicly held position on marriage or abortion)then these are things of public record. They are eminently provable. The whole purpose of an encyclopaedia is to bring together information that forms an essential picture of the subject. Voting with the party, under a whip, is also notable. The application of a whip that causes uniform voting across a party, particularly in the House of Lords, may be a notable event if the issue voted upon is significant. So, to take an example; if Liberal Democrat MPs voted, under a whip, with the coalition on student fees, in contradiction to their own pre-election manifesto commitments then that would be a notable event. Situations like this ARE notable; they pass 2411:

terms of the disputed changes I made. They give no ground because they don't want to concede any point that might undermine their position on the edits relating to the Lords votes. The fact is that people reading personal biographies of politicians expect to find information about their political activity. The pages on the liberal party and the health reform bill would become unreadable if they were filled with information about individual votes. The only sensible place to put this information is where it has most relevance; on the page of the person who voted. UNDUE is a nonsense defense. Firstly, because personal pages of MPs and Lords differ hugely in content even though information is known about these people. Does every MP's page record the football team they support, or that they have had affairs, or even that they have been remarried or had children? Some of this is very basic information, but it isn't present on all pages. Do we remove all information that is not duplicated between all MP's pages just in case it doesn't comply with UNDUE? So, congratulations; now none of the individual voting behaviour of MPs and Lords is available on wikipedia, regardless of its historical importance. What a victory

1215:, a bio on the guy who is apparently the current executive chairman of the UK Independence Party. So, as an Australian editor who has no idea about British politics, I'm wondering if holding that position makes him 'automatically' notable (like being an MP)? If not, can any of you find any significant coverage of him in independent sources. I've added three refs to the article, but two of them are from the UKIP website and the other is just a passing mention (definitely not significant coverage). In any case, the article has been created by a new user and I'm loathe to send it to AfD just because I can't find any significant coverage. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, 3075:

don't know. That's why the election boxes are hidden, and can only remain hidden until the candidates are known. The only specific information I have on the article is the summary of the 2008 poll. As I have suggested, the current red link bonanza that is the Template is a bit "off" and I suggest it should be removed from Wikispace for the time being. I suggest that it would be a bit much to turn all of these into redirects, instead we should agree to leave alone those which do exist and wait on others until information is available. I am willing to co-operate on how to ensure the 2012 articles (all of them) are treated and how best to handle this issue for the future

1983:; we have to treat all the UK parliamentarians eligible to vote for that bill equally. Furthermore, there have been other votes regarding tuition fees in previous parliaments which do not get a mention on the respective MPs articles. Also to note, other MPs that voted controversially in the most recent bill (e.g. the Conservative rebels) who do not all have that fact listed on their articles. Therefore to single out Liberal Democrat MPs for mention goes against Knowledge policy - either all MPs should have it noted on their articles for all tuition fee bills, or only the most important/influential (e.g. notably-related) MPs for that particular bill. 919: 928: 4081:- says that "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles." and I can't see how creating a separate page just for by-elections would avoid this problem - apart from creating another 200 pages, which I don't think those who already are not enthusiastic about having council elections on wikipedia would let happen. Having the by-elections split between the different pages stops this problem, while the summary keeps the info together. 427:

catch-ups. As for specific post-Census date, we're going to have to wait (obviously) for 2012 and the first info to come out. I suspect there will be a Bot around (either existing or invented nearer the time) to replace like-for-like stats. As for anything more specific or detailed, that may well be down to individual editors (there are many articles on suburbs or wards or who know what with Cenus information tucked deep inside the body text which will take good eyes to spot).

31: 2184:. Obviously the criteria we set out to test who is singled out would have to also keep within the policies of verifiability, neutral point-of-view and notability. A speaker in a debate sounds like a good idea, but as there are often many speakers in each debate, this effectively undoes any point on notability and causes problems with NPOV - unless it can be verified in Hansard that the speaker voted one way and spoke entirely differently on 2252:. There may be some individual variation if a particular person spoke in a debate, was a vociferous supporter of a Bill etc, but the core statement should be the same. The most important decision is which votes are important and how to include information about them. It would be nice if Zangar would discuss these issues here rather than removing content from pages and then threatening to have someone blocked just because of a disagreement. 1117: 3573:, given that we can be sure it will be one date or the other. As with any other article, we can start it once we can say something which is non-obvious and can be referenced to reliable sources (given that it is clearly sufficiently notable for an article). I doubt that is yet the case, but it will be long before there's a confirmed list of candidates - that comes quite late in the process. 4049:

was elected? The question might prove even more problematic in councils elected by thirds where some wards have fewer than three councillors. I think the most sensible options are either to keep them where they are, to have a separate by-elections page for each authority (or at least the ones that elect by thirds), or to have them on pages for the individual wards (where those pages exist).

4471:

Scotland" is all about a 2002 document published by the Scottish National Party. This was superseded by the 2011 document of the same name which was published by the non-partisan public body, the constitutional committee. Having an outdated proposed constitution, and at a time of national transformation/(or not) is a pretty scary failing, but it's not the only one, I'm afraid.

2118:, so I've revised the section on his voting interests to remove details of specific votes and include specific issues and areas of interest (such as his acknowledged views on abortion which differ from the mainstream view of his party) instead. This seems like a sensible compromise, and also addresses the difficulty of keeping info about votes on specific subjects up-to-date. 4338:

this stage we don't know how much coverage these elections will be getting in sources (such as newspapers, BBC etc.), but I think it pretty certain that some of these elections are going to get more coverage than others. The main article can still summarise the full candidate list and election results for all the elections, while sub-articles can add more where required.

2487:

issue of tuition fees isn't key, then I don't know what is. Remember that this was an issue that generated mass public attention as well as protests in London - mainly because Lib Dem MPs were being told to break the manifesto pledges that they had made barely nine months previously. Therefore, how those MPs actually voted on the matter is I think extremely noteworthy.

2364:

liberal democrats main article (if the fact that the liberals voted in support of this is really notable) the coverage of someones favorite issue at all the BLP articles that voted on it is imo undue and soapoboxing - it is worthy of a mention only at the parent article. If any of these additions Rongoggy has added still remain in articles they should be removed.

1931:

thing they have done since the Coalition is ludicrous and gives unnecessary weight to a single issue. The wording being identical and added by the same user also shows they had an agenda to put the information there in the first place. All i have done is simply tone down the POV on the relevant articles where the information is notable such as

1960:) about neutrality. There is an issue, clearly, but one which is flavoured by partisan concerns. Therefore Wiki editors must be careful not to show off their prejudices. Editing JUST the Lib Dem MPs to show this "evidence" without doing the same for all other 600+ parliamentarians is biased, and as such falls short of the standards we require 2483:, LNWWatcher. My talk of nonsense was mainly directed against this bizarre policy of content blanking and censorship that David Biddulph seems to be trying to enforce, which is not only completely unsupported by the discussion above, but was actually instigated on the 4th October - long before this discussion actually commenced on the 17th! 2279:

consistently, and I note other editors have suggested to you, that we include this information on the page of the vote/bill itself and not on the invidual's article (unless it is overtly notable and would not violate NPOV by it's inclusion). This seems to me an excellent resolution, as that information is still recorded and would not violate

4216:. It seems to me that those articles (certainly the ones for Scotland, Wales and NI for which other, better, articles clearly exist - England is a special case in government terms) don't really serve a very useful purpose, can be misleading, and would be better as disambiguation pages with the content stripped out. What do others think? 4397:, and the series of "Liberal Democrat Frontbench Team" articles, use "frontbench" instead of "front bench" Google reports an overwhelming majority in favour of the latter, but I don't know whether to put any stock in that. In the case of the Lib Dems, does it matter that it is being used as an adjective? Also, is there any reason for the 224:. A series of ip's have been making edits to the page that I think are wrong. I have made some comments on the talk page, but the ip's just keep reverting me without any discussion and I don't want to be accused of edit warring. I would appreciate another editor(s) taking a look at the disagreement and giving their opinion. Thanks. 3049:

candidate parties for each ward. Also, the general lack of references, errors in dates in some cases, continual use of red linked templates, these should all be addressed. I'm not sure as to the use of these articles at all right now. Why can't the existing 2011 articles simply have a statement stating when the next elections

2858:

could be made where significant reliable coverage starts earlier (such as controversy over party selection of candidates leading to candidates defecting etc.). As such I think the template should either by userfied or deleted until 1 April 2012 and the individual articles either deleted or redirected to the relevant page (e.g.

2208:- which is essentially where adding individual votes to politician's articles is liable to fall down. Which is why it is far more prudent to add content to a single article on the vote/bill itself, as it would be harder to fail NPOV by giving undue weight to the vote and would be easier to identify and rectify any 4311:

would be starting individual articles for each Constabulary election. These would be easy to watch via bookmarks and watchlist, enable editors to focus on areas they know better than others, enhance the space available for each candidate's profile etc if required, and allow for a greater coverage for

4304:

would be keeping ALL 40+ election results on the same page. This would reduce the amount space used for British elections, reduce the likelihood of AfD discussions amongst the wider community on notability grounds, enable a co-ordination effort for the elections project, and enable editors to enhance

3968:

I think keeping to one list would be the best format for one-third elections as otherwise you are more likely to confuse the reader than anything else - especially when you get boundary changes and the whole council is elected. It is also the format used for probably the world's most famous body that

3811:

Secondly, at what point should we start listing fourth or fifth parties on the Election infobox? When they start winning (or losing?) control of councils, or when they get above a certain number of councillors (and if so, what kind of threshold should be set)? It seems odd that Plaid are not on there

3663:

My opinion is it's best to wait until we're sure the by-election isn't going to be in 2011. And this is from the person who started the Feltham...by-election, 2011 page! (I blanked in my mind how late it was in 2011 - I agree it's highly unlikely to be this year.) As others have said we're unlikely

3602:

I'd say that time would be when something notable happens for this particular by-election, e.g. some well-sourced campaigning or controversial issue - which might come before the official candidate list. Basically if we feel something needs to be recorded on wikipedia on this by-election (besides the

3504:

Consensus rules Wiki so the final decision will have to come from debate on this but....I am leaning towards "opening" the 2012 article once we have enough sources for candidate selection, dates etc. There's no way the by-election is going to be held this year, and in anycase, there is the taste and

2926:

This year the councils published the official candidate list on about the 5 April (+- a day or two). I don't think the official council lists have ever been published before 1 April (someone will no doubt correct me on that if I am wrong). My concern about the template is the redlinks on it encourage

2722:

where this can be discussed for all the future UK local election articles (I note 8 such articles currently - with not much difference between ayn of them). I'm personally inclined towards The Rambling Man's view that we should not have these articles at this stage and think a discussion could at the

2486:

I agree that we can't record how every single MP voted on every single issue on their personal page; that would not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. Nevertheless, as LNWWatcher said, it is surely appropriate to record their stances on key political issues - otherwise what's the point? And if the

2410:

I am not sure what you means Smartse. The text you reverted mentioned the subject of the article and how they voted. Anyway, I give up, because it is pointless arguing this any more. Clearly people like Zangar and Off2riorob are determined to see any form of general discussion on this subject only in

2348:

My views. Yes, it would be interesting to record voting records on particular policy issues. However, this is fraught with difficulty. If you focus on, say, tuition fees you'll have to ensure all MPs have the same information, covered as fairly for one as another. If you focus on, say, what is given

2314:

states that "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" - in this case it is appropriate to the party and the bill, but not to any MPs who are expected to follow their party

2278:

Please do not accuse me of making this a "private dispute" (or at least show me how I'm doing this), I am trying, like you to come to a resolution of this. You are right that we need to find a way to include any information on votes in a way that does not violate wikipedia policy - and as I have said

1411:

The present description of Charles Agar, 1st Earl of Normanton, includes a scanned image of an engraving claiming to be that of Charles Agar. This is untrue. The image is that of Robert Fowler, Archbishop of Dublin from 1779 to 1801. Below is information regarding this engraving as I have recently

993:

Images to the right are those for council control immediately before and after the elections: They include uncontested districts such as Cornwall or in London. The nominal date for the before map is April 2011 to avoid for any by-elections in past few months. I suspect there are a number of errors in

3647:

Without any date or candidates chosen, it just seems we could be opening ourselves to all sorts of claims if we create a dated article. I do accept the point that we have future election articles open already and it could be edited on this basis. I agree with Warofdreams' point that it is quite late

3436:

I've nominated some more county/city sub-divisions in the above AfD nomination, as was suggested to me over there. The articles are proving quite difficult to track down - which rather demonstrates a concern aired previously - so if anyone does find any related articles which have not been nominated

3144:

Despite what I said above about holding out on edits until we get consensus, I've added in some references to the Coventry article, as today's local paper ran a story about a candidate being selected. I think that makes the notability of that page beyond reasonable dispute. We do, however, need some

3074:

Rambling Man, I have been very careful in the Preston 2012 article (the only one I have written of that list). If you press "Edit this page", you'll see that I have hidden the election box templates. You are right to ask how we know that candidates are going to stand, because as of October 2011, we

3048:

Question: How do know these elections will be contested by the parties listed in each page? Where's the evidence that UKIP, Greens, Tories, Lib Dems and Labour only (and in each case) will contest these seats? No independents? Without references, these pages speculate as to the composition of the

2857:

I think we should be discouraging the creation of these articles until the beginning of April before the election, when the official candidate lists are published, campaigns begin and newspapers begin producing the significant coverage that is necessary to write articles on the elections. Exceptions

2849:

violations and we should not be creating such articles until the month before the election itself. The articles add little, (or nothing) to what can be found at the previous election article; typically just including the current composition of the council and the seats that will be contested, all of

2510:

In conclusion, I would argue that on Knowledge the assumption should always be in favour of the inclusion of factual sourced content, unless and until a clear consensus is reached in favour of removal, for whatever reason. I see no such consensus, or any kind of clear agreement about anything above

2188:

for that vote. Politicians who "voted in a manner that was different from how he/she had committed to", would again be impossible to verify as it is again subjective - unless they are rebelling against the party whip, in which case the inclusion of this vote can be permitted as per the above (rebel)

518:

has moved a number of articles titled "Premiership of " to "Prime Ministership of ". I do not know if this is appropriate or not, since the name Prime Ministership was said by him and another user to apply to Canadian prime ministers, but I don't know if that is also proper to do so also for British

409:

is topical at the moment. Obviously it will be a while before the results start to become available (particularly the detail down to parish or ward level) but is there a coherent plan anywhere of how the thousands of affected articles on wikipedia will be updated with the new data, perhaps involving

3678:

By way of an extra bit of information, over 3,300 people looked at Feltham and Heston yesterday, about 800 people looked at the 2012 dated by-election article. and only 350 ish people looked at the 2011 dated by-election article. Obviously these stats might be flawed but it's a good indication that

3643:

Thanks for the input. I am having something of an edit war about this because of some of the issues you have identified. I think it is silly, as well as breaking WP:Crystal, to have a 2011 dated article. There is no reliable source which says "There is going to be a by-election in December 2011".

3026:

guideline says that articles about future events should only be created if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Barring a collapse of British society, these elections will take place. Which just leaves the question of whether next year's elections are notable. If the notability is

2907:

happen, but an article does need to have meaningful content. I don't have a preference as to whether the existing articles go for AfD of not, but I don't think any others should be created until they can contain something meaningful. But I think the template is fine to leave where it is, as we will

2575:

who was very strongly in favour of legal abortion and a number of other things like that. When politicians are just voting along party lines, that's hardly news. That a someone voted with a three-line whip on something is not news. But, of course, Knowledge is not about news. Going back to the Greg

2159:

would have a huge section on this. But we could never apply the test of a politician being "inconsistent with their known beliefs, behaviour or commitments" because this is very subjective, as who are we to say what a politician believes in their head and how can we prove that a vote violates their

1930:

The information added to all and i mean all of the Liberal Democrat MP articles is uniform and NUS biased. The information should be on the Liberal Democrat page and not on each and every single Lib Dem MP. Adding it to every Liberal Democrat MP and only to them and in some cases having at the only

1334:

There may be merit in doing this, but as it is a relatively new invention (as far as I'm aware), as part of the coalition, there might not be enough material/history for a seperate article, especially if the bulk of the article is a repeat of PMQs. Also if it was discontinued after this parliament,

4337:

I would suggest leaning towards an Option C of starting with one main article and breaking out individual articles where that particular election attracts significant extra coverage (for example from some high profile candidates) and thus warrants a separate article so we can cover it properly. At

4048:

The navbox is great. Not sure about the by-election stuff though. I don't think it makes sense for them to be associated with the regular local elections. Particularly in councils that are elected by thirds - do they go with the previous election, or the one where the resigning/deceased councillor

3953:

I prefer by-elections to stay where they are. I like the idea of linking them to the relevant election article but feel it could get tricky and messy. Easier to keep an eye on by-elections if they have their own place together. And for a quick check on trends/patterns it works better that way too.

2703:

I suggest you look at all of the future election articles, all follow the same with the same templates I also suggest looking at articles for elections where candidates are known but the election has not taken places the same results template is used, giving identical results to as on this page. I

2088:

There are some basic questions raised above: 1) Is information about the voting behaviour of MPs (or Lords) of interest and of value to readers of these pages? 2 )Should all votes be included, or can there be a meaningful basis for deciding which should and which should not be mentioned? Here's my

1955:

Remember that Wiki is not a newspaper, nor is it a blog, nor is it a profile of a political nature. It is an encyclopedia. If it is viewed notable, by consensus and through the usual means of asking the wider audience, to add this detail to Liberal Democrat MPs, then it must also be added to /all/

1543:

After the Act of Union of 1707 the nations of England, Scotland and Wales together became Great Britain. The reigning monarch of the time was Queen Anne who styled herself Queen of Great Britain. Knowledge is littered with these inaccurate references. It makes a mockery of the intentions of a site

426:

Fair play for being interested in the long-term Rod :) I agree - we need to be prepared. My interest is constituency results and the like, and for most of the year editors like me are primed for May being the month of all action, and the period between March and July being packed with updates and

3587:

Well that seems reasonable. I understand the final candidate's list may take some time to come out, but my question is what would actually make a future election article useful? Right now I think everything can be covered in the existing election article. At what point is a stand-alone article

3119:

Well, that's partly why I've held back on nominating the weaker ones for deletion. I'm certainly reasonably new to this area of Knowledge and didn't want to rock the boat too much, but the creation of effectively empty, sometimes inaccurate and speculative, unreferenced stubs is, in general, not

3032:

I'd be fine with the template being temporarily deleted, but think that we should probably leave the existing pages as is. As for future elections, I'd be happy allowing them from any point after the previous round of elections have been finished. The latest point in the cycle that I could see an

2980:

I oppose any move to delete, remove, or otherwise redact the articles which have been created so far. This is not Crystal Balling, because we know these elections are going to happen. Yes, these elections are the same as those in the previous route, but they have always been so, and many vigilant

2741:

in this "article" that provides information that isn't in the 2011 article and it's unreferenced, contains broken templates and is frankly a shambles. They should be created when the election has taken place or if something "notable" has occurred prior to the election. I will have a look at the

2104:

My feeling is that it is entirely reasonable on an article about any particular politician to include information about that person's voting record. Provided it meets the criteria for WP:NPOV it is clearly likely to be information which is of interest to someone who may be reading about them. The

102:

I have just studied the Wiki page on the Government Office for Science but found I was rapidly lost in a sea of terminology, the most perplexing of which was the term "cross cutting issues". I have no idea as to what is meant here and hope this can be put into better English, noting in particular

2247:

very easily, because they are subject to a great deal of discussion in media, parliament etc, and are verified through numerous independent sources. As for the addition of stock paragraphs to personal pages, this is difficult. If someone goes to the page of a well known MP, and wants to find out

2234:

Zangar please don't turn this into a private dispute. The primary action of politicians is politics; that includes voting in whichever house they sit in. So, within reason there should be some basis for recording that in wikipedia. I can understand that there may be difficulties, but these pages

1939:

and removed the uniform NUS biased information which is only about one vote on one issue which is better covered in the main article on either the Coalition government or the Liberal Democrats. Adding the info only to LD MPs and having the information identical shows the information was only put

791:

Nowhere does the article explicitly state the mechanism of how the outcome is decided. From the table one can assume it is a simple majority but the article should state this at the beginning. In some jurisdictions, including the USA and Australia, simple majorities are not sufficient, requiring

2547:

and his views and record in relation to abortion - it is an issue specific to him rather than just showing a commentary on his voting record, and it is something which is relevant and interesting to people looking for information about Mulholland the person, rather than Mulholland the backbench

1739:

There are plenty of ministers who have served under 2 Prime Ministers - there are, however, very few who have served under 3 or more PMs. Would a list of such long serving Ministers be worthy of a Knowledge article - also researching the article may take some time (though, it would of course be

4096:"compromise". If there's enough by-election results to fit on the local elections 'core' page they can stay, otherwise put them in the relevant year. Separate pages won't be viable unless we can give the wider community a guarantee that the results are thorough and uptodate, never mind notable 2502:

Finally, I find the argument that since we can't do this equally for all MPs we should therefore not do anything at all, to be utterly bizarre. If we were to adopt this attitude across the whole of wikipedia then nothing would ever be done. Yes, there are massive differences and inequalities

2363:

How MPs vote on issues such as this is basically irrelevant in their articles - unless you can show that there is something notable about that vote, which in this case that has not been done and anyway, often the whip will tell them what to vote - if this is the case, perhaps a mention at the

4470:

I've noticed that several topics concerning Scotland's constitutional position are in dire need of updating. Ask for a general review - particularly because Scotland is at a time of massive constitutional uncertainty and people will be trying to look stuff up. Example "Constitution for a free

4095:

The other issue with by-elections at council level is keeping up with them. How many by-election results are added to their "core" council pages every week or month? Could this be carried out all the time, by the number of editors we have today? Maybe this is something for that dreaded word -

3320:

I think the point is that the area covered by each article in these cases is unrelated to the body to which elections took place. That is, there is no reason why "MPs elected in Cornwall" are any different to "MPs elected in Devon". They are all members of a national parliament, not a local

3104:

You're too kind :) I understand the concerns, and although I am usually a deletionist at heart I do worry about the consequences of redirecting those articles already created given that this area of Knowledge is already woefully understaffed as it is. We need to be careful not to administrate

2248:

about them, it seems reasonable that key voting history is an essential part of that MP's profile. If a vote is of sufficient importance to be included, then surely the wording must be the same (or very similar) for all individuals whose pages include that vote in order to avoid conflict with

3089:

Hello doktorbuk, yes I was aware that some of those listed articles were drastically different from the others, your Preston article being a good example of one which actually provides useful and in general referenced material. Unfortunately, most of the others don't do either and provide

327:

number in the list, which represents all the articles that haven't been assessed for both quality or importance - and work through this list, assessing them as appropriate (and hopefully reducing this number). I'll have a go at helping you as well. If you have any other questions please

2984:

I do agree with the issues about the Template. There are too many red links. If Knowledge was busier than it is now, those red links would be filled in before Spring. I am concerned that they won't be filled in this time quite so quickly (see DaveWild's contributions to see how long it

834:

I am interested in creating articles for individual wards in the constituency I live in, Pendle, but I don't know where to find or how to create the little pink and red maps showing the location of the ward within the borough. An example of this would be the top picture in the infobox

1804:

article. Please improve if you can, especially additional quality / academic refs. Ta. (By the way, I have redirected "the great unrest" to this article, but now doubt the wisdom of this, as the strike seems to be only a part of wider unrest. Maybe another, wider, article is needed?)

3321:

authority. Elections to, say, Cornwall Council could have their own page, but splitting up national election results in accordance with irrelevant (for that purpose) local boundaries seems unnecessary, regardless of whether the elections reported have already taken place or not.

491:) with respect to Elizabeth Taylor. We can hope that the nonsense doesn't reach Knowledge, but if it does it would be handy to have an extra eye or two on the article. Since there are no BLP concerns I don't think this needs to be escalated past a few watchful editors. Thanks. -- 2349:

to us by Theyworkforyou.com or whatever it is, then we have to ensure there's no problem with copyright, terms of use violations etc, and all which goes on from there. I am wary about Wiki being some form of consolidated version of existing sources for this kind of information.

1867:

that many records were destroyed in a fire in 1834, so I was wondering if anyone had or knew of good sources to try to complete these lists? If no records are available is it worth keeping the "incomplete list" tags on the articles if they are unlikely ever to be completed?—

3949:

The NavBox is something I was thinking of doing and think it's a great addition. What would you recommend for "in thirds" elections? One idea I considered was to put into rows each "tranche" (Elected in 2004 and then 2008 then 2012, etc.) rather than a long list. Would that

3461:

that the UK general election results in individual counties be merged into regional articles. What do others think to this? I think it would be a good compromise, and indeed it would be in keeping with the sub-national results articles as well as most media coverage (e.g.

3105:

ourselves to death. If there is consensus to redirect the least....what's the word......constructive? Useful? current articles to their 'central article', then I think it's only fair enough to accept the consensus. I think we should wait on more editors getting involved.

2175:

within a politician's article (bearing in mind that there are hundreds of votes each parliament) and that any politicians (of which there are 570+ in each House) singled out for inclusion of information are not given undue attention over others, which would also violate

4424:

Hello. I simply wanted to point out that the picture of Robert Hart in Chinese dress is reversed. I can see that from the characters printed in the top left corner - they're backwards. It also puts his robe on the wrong way. I hope that you can redress this. Thank you.

2902:

I think that these type of articles should be created once the councils have declared the candidates for the wards (is this before 1 April?) or as Davewild says if coverage starts earlier, ensuring that there is content within them, as it is notable that an election

4368:

I think this option C is a good idea. Maybe a good way to avoid sidetracking conversations about article splitting would be to put a FAQ notice on the talk page that states when a constabulary area election should be split off, based on any consensus garnered here.

3523:

This is tricky, seeing as it's near the end of the year and that we don't know exactly in which year the by-election will be called (although my guessing is it'll be called for 2012). When thinking about where such an article should reside we should bear-in-mind

2494:"you are looking for reasons to block things rather than finding ways to work within the rules and produce something useful for people. Please can you start to think about how to include information sensibly, rather than trying to stop it being included at all." 1415:

Archbishop of Dublin by William Daniell (1769-1837) after George Dance (1741–1825) Soft-ground engraving after an original drawing from November 23rd, 1795 Published 1809 Image 18.5 x 13.5 cm., Sheet 27 x 20.2 cm. Courtesy of the National Library of Ireland

3644:

To start an 2011 dated article would be jumping the gun. I opened a 2012 dated article which redirects to the main article page, and I think it would be much, much more common sense to edit THAT when the time comes (i.e., after the funeral if nothing else).

3458: 3418: 792:

either supermajorities and/or majorities of states (in addition to an overall majority) etc. Some may also require a specified margin, below which either a recount or a null result is called. Or a minimum percentage of all voters may need to have voted etc.

4063:

The same principle for the by-election would apply on by-third councils i.e. by-elections between May 2007 and May 2008 would by on the 2007 page and by-elections between May 2008 and May 2010 on the 2010 page, etc. It's what I have started doing on the

3236:? I can understand the logic for creating relevant articles for the sub-nations of the UK in a post-devolution environment, but to me it just seems rather silly to have the results for every single county (and even more bizarre for just two counties).-- 4076:

have by-elections taking up most of the page already (and this is not one of the worst such pages and it may need by-elections after 2009 adding - I haven't checked), think what they will be like in 5 or 10 years with more by-elections still. Policy -

2459:

as things stand. Per my comments above, I actually think that an MP's position on specific issues is relevant and encyclopedic, but this isn't the way to go about it. On the other hand, the removal of voting records was also done in a way that ignored

4179:

for an example of their use; and I think these are better than in the "Vote counts by round" section in the example you show. But the summary one at the top might be a good idea and the templates can probably be used without any adaptation. Cheers,

2290:

if in each match 500+ goals were scored per game as a norm (which usually happens with votes). But certainly for a game where an average number of goals is around 3, inclusion of an important goal on the scorer's article is OK and would not violate

3679:

the main page is more of a draw *at the moment* than the by-election pages. Now that everything has calmed down a bit I suggest we can leave things as they are until the by-election date is confirmed. By that point we can then work on the article.

4305:

their working knowledge on how to election results boxes, source material etc. It would be a very long article, require intense concentration to reduce confusion and enhance clarity, be open to sidetracking conversations about article splitting.

1886:

about the inclusion of some parish council by-elections and the description of a candidate in a council by-election. My reasons for my reversions can be seen on the article talk page, while a brief argument from the ip can be seen on my talk page

2988:

We all agree that these election articles must stay, eventually. We all agree that this project exists to work towards building a reference point for researching UK local elections. What we disagree on is looking into the future. I suggest the

672:

But it's quite clear that the same terminology is not used between them. The set-up of their government doesn't determine what terms are used in each country. It's quite clear that Premiership is used in the UK, while it is not used elsewhere.

3178:

Until there's something factual to report other than the date of the next election, no new article should be created. It would be pointless and speculative. The third choice above is the best one, however the second at a push, as long as it

2507:- thus making them all 'equal' in saying virtually nothing at all? No, surely the correct attitude to adopt is that Knowledge is not perfect and will never be perfect, but that we are all continuing to improve it and build on it day by day. 2105:

difficulty in the case above is that it appears that, following the vote on raising the cap on tuition fees, someone went through and added info to every single Lib Dem MP, which it has legitimately been pointed out looks suspiciously like

4068:

pages, although I have still got 2008 onwards to do. This keeps everything in chronological order, while the summary on the main page keeps them together with just one click to any particular by-election the reader want to see more detail

3756:. I don't understand why it uses a colon to apparently point to a subpage within article space - but, of course, I don't want to break anything; so, I've reverted, and will leave it to others to sort out. Apologies for any problem caused. 1667:

So I've moved all pre-2011 threads from Archive 3 to Archive 2, and all start-2011 to present threads from 2 to 3, and sorted by last entry date. In addition, as Archive 2 was now really big, I moved all pre-2010 threads from Archive 2 to

458:

I don't have the time myself right now, but hopefully by bringing this to attention some well-meaning Wikipedians could give it a go. It just seems dispiriting to see a Knowledge article of something fairly important largely out-of-date.

3273:

Personally I would prefer both articles to be deleted. Articles for UK sub-nations in a post-devolution environment are understandable, but this is not applicable to either of the counties referred to. How would we go about deleting the

164:

With another round of local elections now just four months away, is anyone interested in (or already) working on scripts to pull in candidate lists and results from local authority pages which use Open Election Data, as described on the

719:... It's certainly not an incorrect phrase to use. Given that GoodDay's only reason for moving them was his assumption that the terminology used in Canada was applicable to all similar governments, they should just be moved back now. 1460: 2388:, the reference did not even mention the article subject, let alone how they voted. The only time I think it would be relevant to include voting decisions would be if sources have written articles entirely about the subject's votes. ( 1914:

has been systematically erasing all references to Liberal Democrats voting on tuition fees. It seems to me that this a relevant topic. He seems to be gearing up for an revert battle. What do think is the best way of handling this?

4259:

Prior to 1998 Wales certainly had the Welsh Office and a Minister for Wales in the UK government. In previous centuries the region was monitored by strategically placed lords and before that the Welsh Princes, wasn't it? I agree

3201:

I think that Rambling Man is right that articles should only be created when something factual can be reported. Although I would prefer option 4 (with the "other relevant events" caveat), basically when the councils release the

1279: 123: 3550:

I would favour waiting until a referenceable list of candidates is available, as in all cases in these articles. This is a sad example as to why creating future election articles is, as my mother would say, a bit previous.

195: 2498:

If the wording isn't ideal, then let's work together to produce something better that works. Surely that's a better and a more productive response then seeking to remove it all and ban any mention of it on the MPs' pages.

1705: 3033:

argument for not having the articles is the point at which nominations are formally open. Even then, you may have some parties declaring their candidates in advance of that date, and hence have more detailed information.

2688:

We shouldn't have articles that contain broken template links and we shouldn't have unreferenced articles and we shouldn't have articles that actually don't say anything of any use. Unless this is fixed, I'll AFD it.

2657:

There are a number of red links here which appear to be part of a poorly/incorrectly used template. It needs to be fixed, or perhaps the article should be deleted until the election is actually referenced and notable.

3005:

One further point - 2012 is pretty heavy on elections. Scottish local elections, Welsh local elections, English local elections, London Mayoral elections - if we can all work together, then it will be smooth running.

2005:

may be correct but its application in this case is staggeringly inconsistent since the IP editors are simply going through and blanking whole sections about Liberal Democrat MPs while ignoring MPs from other parties.

1891:. If some uninvolved interested editor(s) could have a look and give another opinion and/or edit the article, as I fear it just becoming an edit war, or having to ask for the page to be protected otherwise. Thanks. 2571:: the reason the abortion stuff is interesting is because it would seem to go against the majority of Lib Dem policy on abortion, which is generally for legal access to abortion. The flipside would be someone like 482:

article on my watchlist and would ask if a few other editors with time to spare could do this as well for the next few days or so. He's suddenly become a figure of scandal in certain English daily newspapers (the

89: 1669: 1656: 81: 76: 64: 59: 2672:

Under that reasoning there would never be a future class election article and the whole 2012 local elections template would need deleting. As for the red links that will correct itself when the election takes

4499:

OK, would you be able to provide a list below of articles that need updating please? Just to make it easier for editors of this project to target any work. You can always tag the offending articles with the

3980:

The problem with the way by-elections are at the moment to me, is that they can be at least 80% or more of the local elections page, giving them undue weight compared to the main council elections. (e.g. on

249:

and plan to expand it over the next few days, but I'm by no means an exxpert on this subject, so if anyone else who is more familiar with banking, economics, etc, can help that would be fantastic. Cheers

4292: 320: 3628:

I would vote to keep in the constituency article until more information comes about. More specifically, the date at which the by-election is named could be the point at which to start a new article.--

291:

I think some of the articles in the project need recategorising for importance and quality. Can someone help me as to how this is done? I am keen to do it, but I don't know what procedures you follow

2440:

and has twice (once after having been made aware of this discussion) reverted as vandalism a number of edits which complied with that consensus. Does the community agree with his interpretation? -

4231:

It would be worth exploring the idea of merging the Scottish and Welsh articles into their respective assembly articles. Norn Iron is always a harder case to discuss, I am minded to leave "as is".

511: 324: 3884:

The biggest change is that I have moved the individual by-election results to the council election page occuring before the by-election (e.g. by-election results between 2007 and 2011 are on the

2147:

I'll address point 1) first. I think that there are cases where an individual's votes may be recorded, but these are most likely to be very few. Don't forget, inclusion criteria for wikipedia is

2964:

be another election in 2012. That can be covered in a sucbox/infobox/prose in the 2011 election article. No need for this redlink farm which will be entirely useless for the next six months.

4295:. There will be over 40 concurrent elections in each of the Constabulary areas, with the potential for numerous candidates and the fun and games associated with using STV as a voting system. 4316:

We have just under a year to decide, though in real terms, the May election period is going to be a nightmare anyway (and that's without tying to keep up to date with the Boundary changes).

1335:

there maybe calls to merge it back into PMQs. I'd say the best way to procede would be to expand the section within the PMQs article until it appears there is enough info and then propose a

2742:

discussion at the Wikiproject that Davewild has mentioned (should one exist) but will be inclined to nominate this, and the other 8 that Dave notes, for deletion sooner rather than later.

2719: 2642:

A discussion has been started on a page regarding future election articles. in this case it is regarding the UK local elections in 2012. The below is taken from the original discussion. --

2056: 47: 17: 4176: 2981:

editors have permitted them on the grounds that they get updated. Those which are not updated (and with me and Davewild working so well, that's not so many) are almost always redirected.

866:

that may or may not be helpful (if not please let me know so I can improve them(!)). Note these maps are not the red/pink ones, which I'm trying to move away from for a few reasons (see

1587:

the worst. Does anyone have access to a source with the missing data? Or even a suggestion as to where it might be found (I not far from a very large library ...)? Thanks in advance,

3233: 148: 3714: 2567:

Just a view from someone uninvolved: I'd say that how politicians vote is quite important, but obviously there are huge neutrality and notability concerns here. Let's have a look at

950:

showing the control of the councils. No overall control is easy enough, we have a colour for that (black). But what about those councils which did not have elections? White perhaps?

319:

Hi Pi! You're very right that the articles need to be reassessed (or even assessed to begin with!) For an overview of how to go about doing this please have a read of the Project's

3988:

The summary itself should provide a quick look at trends for most readers, but to try and address your objection I have added links from the summary to the full information on the

4312:

the contests in specific electoral areas. However they would be very difficult to watch all 40 at the height of the election period. It would also attract coordinated vandalism.

3306:

Election articles that have occurred should stay, those that haven't should be nominated for deletion unless they do more than just tell you the date of the election next year.

3930:

showing the council composition as of the last election (2011 in this case), but in this case there were boundary changes in 2011 so don't have a map to do it yet (I have asked

2204:, whether it is an important vote or not. And unless all those politicians who voted are covered and all the politicians' individual with-party votes are included it would fail 1544:

like Knowledge for such an error to proliferate. If you do not understand the issues, please do not write about them because you just pass misleading information into the world.

703:("For Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Britain's first woman prime minister, was about to embark on what was undeniably the most tumultuous peacetime premiership of the 20th century"); 455:

Granted most sections are summaries, but 13 years of government deserves at least as much content as past sections. Not to mention there is nothing at all after September 2007.

2384:

to be honest, by my £0.02: There are other sites that are likely to do this better than we ever can such as theyworkforyou. Specifically regarding the edit by Rondoggy that I

1579:

For many of the articles on Scottish local government elections prior to the 2000s some data (usually the number of votes cast for each party but sometimes more) is lacking.

887:

Thanks. It took me a while (about three hours) but I created the 20 individual ward maps and have uploaded them all to Commons. Your instructions were very helpful, cheers,

2200:

But politicians voting with their party can never be seen as necessary to be included in an individuals article, as that happens in the grand majority of cases - it fails

1613:

Otherwise, dunno really. Gale databases are generally available in libraries with archives of various newspapers, but the results are generally just seat gains and losses.

2212:

incidents. By singling out certain politicians for having stock paragraphs of vote information added and not on others that meet the same criteria will always fail NPOV.

4010:

I approve! Very smart. I'll have a crack at that tomorrow. Agree with you on the NavBox thing; I'll play around and see what I can come up with. Great work, as ever :)

606:

I'll move them all back. "Premiership" is the standard word used in the UK and "Premier" is often used as an alternative for "Prime Minister". Canada may be different.

2850:

which can be found at the 2011 and 2008 (or 2007) articles. There is no significant coverage of these elections at these stage, also meaning that they do not meet the

2490:

Of course, I recognise that there are issues surrounding bias, and that it is important that we get the wording right. However, I share Rondoggy's view when he said:

3812:

in 2007, despite winning more council seats than Labour managed in 2009 (yes, I know they were vastly different electorates, but it still seems odd at first glance).

3392:

EDIT #2: I've added all Essex-related articles to the same deletion list. I'll add Cornwall depending on the outcome of the deletion request for the Essex articles.--

1828:

and am now tacking incomplete lists. Many of these are constituencies where the lists of MPs are not complete - generally between 1295 and 1640. Specially these are:

4405:

to be capitalised for the Lib Dem articles? I can't see one since "Liberal Democrat Frontbench (or Front Bench) Team" does not seem to have been an official name. -

3498: 3206:

candidate lists, so that the articles are less open to speculation (such as independents who may or may not be standing, but don't go through a selection process).

2464:(i.e. they only went and removed voting record from Lib Dem MPs, ignoring MPs from other parties) and so I'm not sure that it's fair to say concensus was achieved! 1286: 452:

needs some heavy updating--namely Labour in power between 1997-2010 to be in much more depth, and Labour after the 2010 election (leadership election, new leader).

4298:

I want to know how people feel about the election coverage. I have two options in my mind, and want to ask people how we should work on the forthcoming elections.

975:

Good thinking! White seems good (grey might get confused with independents or those others we haven't got a meta colour template for). It also keeps with what the

3664:

to miss out on notable information by not having a 'Next Feltham...by-election'-type article. Nothing will really happen until the candidates are chosen anyway.

1231: 3151:

After the first candidate announcements (or possibly other relevant events, such as boundary changes or announcement/reporting of a concurrent local referendum)

2786: 2318:

I'd like to point out that I have always discussed the issue and left policy reasonings regarding my reversions in my edit summaries, where I have not used the

3255:, and Cornwall's historic status of having been outside England for so much longer than everywhere else. Can't see the reasoning behind the Essex one, though. 2576:

Mulholland thing, what concerns me is that the link is to Public Whip, which is hardly a reliable source and is basically a primary source, so there are major

4127: 3881:(and the relevant individual council election pages) and wanted to get some opinions on whether this is an improvement or not before changing any more pages. 3536:), and then move it to the appropriate year once the by-election has been announced, or once parliament breaks up for Christmas and we know it'll be in 2012. 3027:

in doubt, then I can probably find a citation or two for that particular page, but I'll hold off doing anything to the article until we've reached consensus.

3367:

article for deletion. If there is any easier way to nominate all articles in a category than editing each article then the information would be appreciated.

3057:

take place on those dates, although it is most likely the do...) which would therefore cover all the information in the vast majority of these "articles".

1708:). Your project may be interested. The FAR is open to comment. I'll hopefully find the time to look into the article over the coming months myself. Thanks, 3926:

So what do others think - are these changes an improvement or not? Anyone think of any further improvements or changes? I would like to add a map to the

3873:

Council election pages in England are mostly in pretty much the same format as when I first started creating them back in 2005. This format can be seen

2193:. Again this applies to "a group of individuals had voted as part of a block" - which again would be covered in the "rebel criteria", as seen with the 535:. Those were the ones linked to in the AfD and I do not know if GoodDay moved any other articles as well. Do note that after moving them, User GoodDay 143: 4245:

The articles do mention the historical development of current government arrangements, which is why I suggested disamb rather than a simple merge.

3904: 3900:. This means the West Somerset local elections page is less dominated by by-elections as happens when there are lots of by-elections for a council. 1438: 859: 700: 1664:

150K) and the bot's counter parameter was still set to archive in '2'. This made it very hard to find old threads based on a chronological order.

1328: 4172: 4156:). Could this be adapted for the UK? Could it be worth having a look into adapting it to fit, say, the Police Commissioner elections next year? 3970: 2167:

Point 2) of who: I think LNWWatcher hits the nail on the head with this one, when including information on a vote we have to follow the policy of

2029: 1837: 1679:

Hope people don't mind - it was just for ease of use. Please feel free to check the page histories to check I've cut and paste correctly. Cheers,

1584: 3852: 1265: 130: 1256:

Hi. I have opened an RfC on the above article, about whether we can refer to it as "Eurosceptic". Any comments gratefully received, thank you.

1180: 2801: 2385: 1847: 1842: 1673: 4390: 3989: 3889: 3885: 3801: 3708: 3533: 3494: 3490: 2928: 2909: 2863: 2836: 1852: 1012: 947: 3364: 3229: 2704:

suggest moving this to the politics project if you wish to take this further as opposed to just critiquing my edits articles i create.--

2620: 1455: 1093: 777: 705:"...assesses Margaret Thatcher's premiership for BBC News Online's special report on the 20th anniversary of her first election victory" 449: 346:

OK. Basically I wanted to know whether I should just start tagging articles or whether you do it by a group decision. I'll make a start

185: 153: 104: 4523: 4491: 4460: 4434: 4414: 4378: 4361: 4347: 4331: 4273: 4254: 4240: 4225: 4189: 4165: 4139: 4105: 4090: 4058: 4037: 4019: 4005: 3963: 3943: 3863: 3821: 3787: 3773: 3745: 3730: 3688: 3673: 3657: 3637: 3616: 3597: 3582: 3560: 3545: 3517: 3475: 3446: 3430: 3401: 3330: 3315: 3301: 3283: 3264: 3245: 3215: 3196: 3172: 3129: 3114: 3099: 3084: 3066: 3042: 3015: 2973: 2940: 2921: 2893: 2875: 2765: 2751: 2732: 2713: 2698: 2682: 2667: 2651: 2632: 2608: 2595:

Possibly a bit of a tangent but... how is Public Whip not a reliable source? It's simply a factual record of all divisions, taken from

2589: 2561: 2520: 2473: 2449: 2420: 2401: 2373: 2358: 2335: 2261: 2221: 2131: 2098: 2040: 2015: 1992: 1969: 1949: 1924: 1900: 1872: 1814: 1787: 1729: 1688: 1638: 1622: 1594: 1568: 1553: 1533: 1514: 1442: 1394: 1380: 1366: 1348: 1302: 1243: 1224: 1195: 1097: 1035: 1006: 988: 969: 900: 882: 852: 824: 801: 781: 747: 732: 684: 667: 653: 637: 615: 597: 573: 550: 500: 468: 436: 418: 395: 358: 341: 311: 277: 259: 233: 210: 201:

The above FPC nomination has not received much attention- comments either way are appreciated, hopefully we can get a clear consensus.

189: 112: 2866:

page itself is fine as it shows where elections are going to take place, what number of seats will be contested and previous control.

1941: 1857: 1317: 135: 3974: 3920: 3897: 2816: 1832: 1759: 1526: 1451: 3992:

page (and could do the same for earlier pages as well). This enables a quick one click to the full information on the by-election.

4352:

Thanks Dave. That kind of Option C has been suggested elsewhere. Could be the way to go, I'll wait to see what other ideas we get

3698: 3570: 2806: 1765: 863: 585: 581: 528: 4291:

I am typing this question in a number of different locations to help measure opinion. As you may know, next year should see the

3336: 2854:. They also do not make it easier to work on articles after the election as they are sometimes abandoned by the article creator. 2294:

You are right that information such as the tuition fees vote should be included but this is significant to the Liberal Democrat

2171:

at all times, just as we have to follow other wikipedia policies. We have to ensure that the material on that vote is not given

4487: 2831: 2796: 2429: 1724: 1184: 1023: 1019: 943: 221: 139: 3000:

A new policy is agreed amongst all active users which agrees when, and how, articles for the forthcoming years are dealt with.

4511: 4394: 4213: 4073: 3982: 3805: 3566: 2826: 2821: 1580: 4028:. I think I will have a go at Carlisle next as an in thirds council and see how it works there - could take a while though! 2599:(which is the primary source) and analysed using in that case a keyword search (making it by definition a secondary source). 957:. The same two concepts would apply for the individual districts too: One of the election, one of the current composition.-- 3466:). If people think these mergers into regional articles would be a good idea then I will begin collating the information.-- 2884:

I have notified the creators of all the above pages of this discussion (apart from Lucy-marie who is already aware of it).

3927: 3916: 3912: 3911:

this template is used. This allows movement, say from 1999 to 2007, in one click and the template can also be used on the

3893: 3878: 2504: 1771: 1694: 642:

But the UK is not Canada/Australia. The terminology of another country shouldn't be used on other countries just because.

3529: 994:

both, but haven't had chance to check thoroughly. I figure both images are useful, but not sure where they can be used.--

1559:

Well of course you are free to edit such errors where you see them. I have placed some useful links on your talk page.

1434: 1053: 520: 3648:

before we know a full list of candidates (it is, iirc, only a few weeks before polling day when the list is confirmed)

1825: 953:

I also think a second map with the composition of every council is handy - it might be appropriate for a subarticle of

759: 704: 3090:

speculative and incorrect and unreferenced information. Typically that would make a good candidate for deletion...!

2811: 1419:

This portrait should be moved to the Knowledge description for Robert Fowler, Archbishop of Dublin from 1779 to 1801.

1313: 1172: 1159: 1128: 1106: 954: 532: 539:

change the lede to reflect this new title, so if this change is decided to be kept, the ledes will need to be fixed.

3603:

obvious that one needs to happen because of a death and previous results), it should go in its own article to avoid

2071:, who have been implicitly referred to in this discussion, have been notified of this discussion in compliance with 1940:

there to be political and push a certain POV regarding the LD MPs. It does not belong on articles for every LD MP.--

4264:

could survive as an article in its own right, though currently its intro in its current wording suggests a merger.

3593: 3556: 3311: 3192: 3125: 3095: 3062: 2969: 2747: 2694: 2663: 2623:

and may be of interest to some editors. Just to note, the proposals do not directly affect this project (to date).

2319: 1176: 812: 611: 406: 38: 2148: 1124: 1110: 797: 524: 4065: 2859: 2445: 1920: 1783: 1500: 918: 307: 2543:

When it comes to individual MPs, surely what matters is the key positions of that person? For instance, with

1607: 3850: 3844: 3421:

for deletion. Feel free to voice your opinions on the deletion of those articles at the AfD page linked to.--

1430: 108: 2315:

whip, the fact that they followed their party whip is not significant, as they do this over 95% of the time.

1801: 1794: 1635: 1601: 1591: 1089: 927: 773: 181: 708: 4205: 3753: 2235:

become meaningless if we don't put real information into them. I do not agree with your interpretation of

1945: 1750:, under Heath, Thatcher & Major (I am sure there are several ministers that will fit this description) 793: 679: 648: 545: 4483: 4201: 4135: 3589: 3578: 3552: 3307: 3188: 3121: 3091: 3058: 2965: 2743: 2690: 2659: 2140:

Previous interest statement: Rondoggy and I have been previously discussing a specific issue on this at

1564: 1510: 1390: 1362: 1261: 1070: 607: 464: 390: 255: 3934:

if a new ward map can be done), but will do that on future pages unless others think it is a bad idea.

2526:

FWIW, I'm not sure anyone is trying to stop the information being included. The pertinent question is,

1651:

Just to let members know, that I've had to manually sort out the archiving of this page. It seems that

103:

that the use of hyperbole and metaphor can make text incomprehensible to non native English readers.

3985:

most of the page is devoted to by-elections, when the main council elections are far more important.).

3848: 2503:

between various MPs pages. Should our response to that be to strip them all down so they're all like

4475: 4445: 3859: 3633: 3471: 3442: 3426: 3397: 3279: 3241: 2709: 2678: 2647: 2604: 2585: 2557: 2469: 2369: 2127: 2072: 2028:

A collaboration is being formed to promote this article to Good Article. You can join the discussion

2011: 1883: 1426: 1376: 1324: 820: 295: 4479: 4050: 3837: 3813: 3256: 3164: 3120:

good for Knowledge, regardless of the project guidelines. But I'm happy to help here where I can.

3034: 4456: 4357: 4327: 4261: 4236: 4209: 4161: 4101: 4054: 4015: 3959: 3817: 3783: 3741: 3726: 3684: 3669: 3653: 3513: 3260: 3168: 3110: 3080: 3038: 3011: 2516: 2441: 2412: 2354: 2253: 2090: 2064: 1965: 1916: 1810: 1779: 1720: 1672:. Archive 2 (now just for 2010) is still by far the largest archive - it's interesting to see what 1618: 1188: 1002: 965: 878: 496: 432: 378: 206: 4072:

The problem with by-elections as they are, is that it is just not sustainable. When pages such as

3841: 2931:

would reduce it's visibility significantly, or I could just restore it at the beginning of April.

1026:

will need to be updated as to the control of councils - is there one for the unitary authorities?

118:

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:British politicians convicted of driving offences

4430: 4343: 4250: 4221: 4123: 4086: 4078: 4033: 4001: 3939: 3604: 3437:

then please add them to the AfD article so that the discussion is kept in one place. Thank you.--

3326: 3297: 2936: 2889: 2871: 2761: 2728: 2416: 2287: 2257: 2094: 1896: 1888: 1632: 1588: 1080: 764: 229: 172: 169:? I'm in touch with the people behind that project, and would be willing to act as a go-between. 4514:

over this matter, as they no doubt have a editors with specific knowledge in this area. Thanks,

3888:

page now.) This is how some Scottish local government by-elections are being done already (e.g.

1545: 1289:

about standardising all the titles of articles for the elections of the Scottish Parliament to

998: 961: 874: 3525: 3023: 2953: 2846: 2789:

which redlinks to all the 2012 local council elections. Of these 8 have alreaby been started:-

2397: 2392:

isn't a content policy by the way, it's about what topics to cover, but not what to include).

2240: 2209: 2194: 2181: 1747: 1480: 1239: 1220: 1155: 743: 727: 674: 663: 643: 633: 593: 569: 540: 146:. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at 3808:

ones are on a separate page. Surely the UK page should contain the Scottish results as well.

2927:

editors to create new articles, which we don't want yet - however I suppose removing it from

2538:

on tuition fees should be included, but is it relevant to do so on each individual MP's page?

2155:. Party rebels could be described as notable, although if this was applied then the likes of 979:

did. If you get bored, perhaps you could do a before (eg 2010) map of the councils' control?

4519: 4374: 4185: 4131: 3612: 3574: 3541: 3211: 3145:

degree of consensus about when articles may be created in future. The options appear to be:

2917: 2628: 2331: 2217: 2141: 2080: 1988: 1753: 1684: 1652: 1560: 1506: 1386: 1358: 1344: 1298: 1257: 1250: 1208: 1031: 984: 893: 845: 836: 460: 382: 337: 329: 251: 3800:

A couple of questions about the pages for the United Kingdom local elections. Firstly, the

1911: 1864: 373:

Members of this project may be interested in assisting with the Good Article nomination of

4504: 4410: 4269: 3855: 3629: 3467: 3463: 3438: 3422: 3393: 3275: 3237: 2705: 2674: 2643: 2600: 2581: 2568: 2553: 2544: 2480: 2465: 2456: 2365: 2311: 2280: 2249: 2172: 2123: 2115: 2106: 2060: 2007: 1493: 1372: 1336: 1320: 716: 712: 3335:

How do I nominate an entire category of articles? For example, all of the articles here:

3251:

In the case of Cornwall, the argument for the article probably rests on the existence of

2534:. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Lib Dems' position/inconsistency/hypocrisy 816: 1461:"National Portrait Gallery - Portrait - NPG D12125; Charles Agar, 1st Earl of Normanton" 4449: 4353: 4323: 4232: 4157: 4097: 4011: 3955: 3931: 3779: 3766: 3737: 3722: 3680: 3665: 3649: 3509: 3106: 3076: 3007: 2512: 2461: 2381: 2350: 2236: 2205: 2177: 2168: 2002: 1976: 1961: 1806: 1716: 1614: 1549: 1530: 1212: 1201: 995: 958: 871: 492: 479: 428: 381:. GA is reachable, but it will require hard work. Any assistance would be appreciated. 246: 239: 202: 4152:

An American user has developed a new election box template for PR elections (see here

1412:

purchased a 50 MB digital copy of this portrait from the National Library of Ireland.

4426: 4339: 4246: 4217: 4116: 4082: 4029: 3997: 3935: 3846: 3839: 3835: 3322: 3293: 3289: 3252: 2932: 2885: 2867: 2757: 2724: 1980: 1957: 1892: 1701: 1505:. This probably merrits further discussion on the relevant article discussion pages. 1142: 225: 3919:

page rather than just having a list of council elections (again using a format from

3896:

I have added a summary of the by-election results using the format already found at

3228:

Is there really any point in having articles on UK general elections in places like

1631:

Oh, well, I was hoping there might be a shortcut, but thanks for the info. Regards,

760:

http://birminghamnewsroom.com/2011/04/local-elections-2011-background-briefing-pack/

2577: 2393: 2068: 2037: 1932: 1235: 1216: 739: 721: 659: 629: 589: 565: 515: 352: 303: 271: 4153: 2756:

There isn't one currently but If you give me a bit I will be happy to start one.

1141:

While all contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, content or articles may be

323:. As a suggestion a good place to start might be to click on the (at the moment) 4515: 4370: 4181: 3828: 3608: 3537: 3207: 2913: 2851: 2624: 2572: 2389: 2327: 2244: 2213: 2201: 2161: 2152: 2076: 1984: 1936: 1680: 1354: 1340: 1294: 1192: 1027: 980: 888: 867: 840: 333: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3183:

included confirmed candidates. (Incidentally, are those elections in Coventry

1655:

had been archiving old threads from April 2010 to the present randomly between

4406: 4265: 2455:'twas I who advised, and to be fair the user hasn't re-reverted my changes to 2156: 374: 367: 1165:

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing

1011:

They look good! I suppose if there is an "Analysis/Aftermath" section within

3759: 3486: 1869: 415: 2723:

wikiproject could reach consensus on when such articles should be created.

758:

2007 election results for Birmingham have recently been made available via

2619:

A discussion about a WikiProject merger for WikiProject Politics is going

1882:

I have got into a dispute with an unregistered editor (or editors) on the

2548:

lobby-fodder (which essentially is what commentary on voting records is).

196:

Knowledge:Featured picture candidates/George Campbell, 8th Duke of Argyll

134:, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for 3915:

page. Finally I have added a summary of council election results to the

3834:

I wish to import Nasty party information I found the origin of the word

4444:

Could somebody familiar with misrepresentation, libel, etc. comment at

2596: 1800:

Following an excellent BBC article published today, I have started the

347: 299: 266: 3417:

It was agreed that the Essex articles should be deleted. I have since

1278: 564:

for sovergien states, tend to be associated with Communist countries.

122: 1385:

As, I recall, he stood in occasionally when Blair was not available.

1371:

Sigh.But didn't John Prescott have his own questions when he was DPM?

1525:

Readers here may be interested in contributing to the discussion at

1661:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 3

1657:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 2

4510:

template to help alert other editors. Also you may want to notify

3505:

decency argument to be had around opening an article so quickly.

1735:

Ministers who have served under more more than two Prime Ministers

4024:

Thanks. I've done the same links with some earlier by-elections

3163:

My personal preference would be for the first or second option.

2190: 4293:

England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012

4126:

for 24 December, the 3rd anniversary of his death. Comments at

3709:

United Kingdom local elections, 2011#Non-metropolitan_districts

166: 976: 25: 4171:

There are already some STV election templates out there: see

1357:, no need for a split at present. Maybe in ten years or so. 1768:, under Macmillan, Douglas-Home, Heath, Thatcher & Major 1762:, under Macmillan, Douglas-Home, Heath, Thatcher & Major 1277: 1115: 658:

They should be, as they've all got the Westminister set-up.

556:

Eh, I forgot the leads. Meanwhile, in the english language,

121: 3497:

are currently redirecting to the main constituency article

2189:

reasoning and the fact that it is verifiable in Hansard or

1274:

Scottish Parliament general elections, articles name change

3778:

Oops, I hope my repair work hasn't made things worse =/.

3528:. I think we need to choose a time-neutral title, such as 1407:

INCORRECT PORTRAIT for Charles Agar, 1st Earl of Normanton

620:

Perhaps the Australian idea should be adopted? Move'em to

131:

Category:British politicians convicted of driving offences

2720:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

2306:

article not the individual MPs' articles as they are not

18:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

4177:

Cork South–Central (Dáil Éireann constituency)#Elections

3903:

Other changes are that I have created a Navbox Template

3804:

article includes the English and Welsh results, but the

2479:

Yes, I did see the point you were making with regard to

1059:

now has parameters for the language of the native name (

4025: 3993: 3908: 3874: 2434: 1183:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

519:

prime ministers. The articles that have been moved are

3694:

Template:Independent (politician)/meta/color is broken

1148:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the

2528:"is this the right place to include the information?" 1756:, under Macmillan, Douglas-Home, Heath & Thatcher 3365:

2001 United Kingdom general election result in Essex

2160:

belief/behavior. This kind of information cannot be

410:

county or regional wikiprojects, or is this left to

4154:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:DCary/SampleRcvResults

3907:so instead of using sequence boxes (like I removed 3154:

After the candidate nominations are formally opened

3715:List of members of London County Council 1919–1937 1285:Just a quick notice that there is a discussion at 713:"How will history judge Tony Blair's premiership?" 3973:and by bodies that are elected by halves such as 3752:I was trying to resolve the problem mentioned on 1527:Talk:Diet, Apparel, etc. Act 1363#Requested move 1312:I think there should be an artile seperate from 265:Hi, I'm interested in this. I will look over it 3499:Feltham and Heston (UK Parliament constituency) 2432:has decided that the consensus reached here is 1700:Unfortunately, I've placed this article up for 1603:(also gives some comparitive figures from 1990) 1287:Talk:Scottish Parliament general election, 2003 942:I'm thinking of uploading a derived version of 1232:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Steve Crowther 1064: 709:"September 11 transformed Blair's premiership" 3157:After the candidates are officially confirmed 2787:Template:United Kingdom local elections, 2012 8: 3699:Template:Independent (politician)/meta/color 3571:Feltham and Heston by-election, 2011 or 2012 2956:and in the Crawley example, the page offers 1663:- probably because Archive 2 was full (: --> 701:"Margaret Thatcher's tumultuous premiership" 4128:Knowledge:Today's featured article/requests 3877:. However I have tried a bit of a rejig at 1539:The United Kingdom did not exist until 1801 445:History of the British Labour Party article 3337:Category:General election results in Essex 2718:May I also suggest having a discussion at 1521:Move discussion concerning English statute 3148:After the previous election has finished. 2994:The created 2012 articles remain "as is". 3905:Template:West Somerset Council elections 1826:Cleanup listing for wikiproject Somerset 1018:I've also just seen that the templates: 860:File:Pendle UK ward map 2010 (blank).svg 4446:Talk:John Beddington#Fukushima incident 4173:Category:STV election infobox templates 3971:Template:United States Senate elections 3567:Upcoming Feltham and Heston by-election 3419:nominated the similar Cornwall articles 2845:My personal view is that these are all 1906:Liberal Democrat voting on tuition fees 1838:Bridgwater (UK Parliament constituency) 1824:I have been working my way through the 1585:Scottish local Regional elections, 1982 1154:notice, but please explain why in your 864:commons:User:Nilfanion/Maps/Derivatives 4122:I have nominated this article for the 3721:I can't figure how to fix it. Anyone? 3224:UK general election articles by county 1489: 1478: 1074: 1060: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4284:Police commissioner elections - query 3717:(Lambeth North: Rose Lamartine Yates) 2802:North Tyneside Council election, 2012 2536:(delete according to your preference) 1848:Somerset (UK Parliament constituency) 1843:Minehead (UK Parliament constituency) 1774:, under Thatcher, Major & Cameron 1676:can do for interest to this project! 7: 3990:West Somerset Council election, 2007 3890:Aberdeen City Council election, 2007 3886:West Somerset Council election, 2007 3534:Next United Kingdom general election 3495:Feltham and Heston by-election, 2012 3491:Feltham and Heston by-election, 2011 2929:United Kingdom local elections, 2012 2910:United Kingdom local elections, 2012 2864:United Kingdom local elections, 2012 2837:East Ayrshire Council election, 2012 2615:WikiProject Politics merger proposal 1853:Taunton (UK Parliament constituency) 1422:Robert Allen Johnson June 30, 2011 1013:United Kingdom local elections, 2011 948:United Kingdom local elections, 2011 506:Moving of "Premiership of " articles 220:Could someone please take a look at 4391:Her Majesty's Government frontbench 4145:New election box template (STV etc) 3969:elects by thirds - the US Senate - 3754:User_talk:TexasAndroid#Meta.2Fcolor 3530:Next Feltham and Heston by-election 3363:EDIT: I've managed to nominate the 1456:Charles Agar, 1st Earl of Normanton 1136:Does not meet notability guidelines 936:Before and after the 2011 elections 4420:Talk: Sir Robert Hart, 1st Baronet 3453:General election results by region 2532:"should the information be on WP?" 1858:Wells (UK Parliament constituency) 1143:deleted for any of several reasons 1131:because of the following concern: 245:Hi. I've started an article about 24: 4440:John Beddington misrepresentation 3975:Template:United Nations elections 3921:Brighton and Hove local elections 3898:Brighton and Hove local elections 2908:be using it later and the parent 2817:Broxbourne Council election, 2012 1833:Bath (UK Parliament constituency) 1760:Robert Shirley, 13th Earl Ferrers 1452:National Portrait Gallery, London 1318:Deputy Prime Minister's Questions 1308:Deputy Prime Minister's Questions 717:"Brown denies 'dual premiership'" 3508:What are peoples views on this? 2807:Sheffield Council election, 2012 1766:Bertram Bowyer, 2nd Baron Denham 1600:1994 (final) Regional Elections 1454:says that this is a portrait of 1046:Infobox legislature improvements 926: 917: 813:Talk:The Troubles in Omagh#2011? 586:Premiership of William Gladstone 582:Premiership of Benjamin Disraeli 529:Premiership of Margaret Thatcher 167:OpenElectionData project website 29: 3869:Format for local election pages 3796:UK Local Election Summary Pages 3489:has passed away. The articles 2832:Worthing Council election, 2012 2797:Coventry Council election, 2012 2785:We currently have the template 2180:and can lead to accusations of 1024:Template:English county control 1020:Template:EnglishDistrictControl 944:File:English districts 2010.svg 222:Solihull Council election, 2010 216:Solihull Council election, 2010 4395:Official Opposition frontbench 4214:Government of Northern Ireland 4074:South Somerset local elections 3983:North Somerset local elections 3701:appears to be malfunctioning. 2827:Preston Council election, 2012 2822:Crawley Council election, 2012 2286:The analogy of the footballer 1581:Scottish local elections, 1999 1291:Scottish Parliament election, 811:Please join the discussion at 787:How Referendum Vote is Decided 1: 4435:22:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC) 4415:00:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 4379:20:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 4362:17:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 4348:17:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 4332:12:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 4274:13:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC) 4255:17:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC) 4241:16:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC) 4226:15:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC) 4038:20:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 4020:20:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 4006:20:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 3964:20:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 3944:18:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 3928:West Somerset local elections 3917:West Somerset local elections 3913:West Somerset local elections 3894:West Somerset local elections 3879:West Somerset local elections 3788:14:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC) 3774:14:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC) 3746:14:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC) 3731:14:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC) 3689:07:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC) 3674:18:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 3658:16:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 3638:15:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 3617:16:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 3598:14:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 3583:14:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 3561:14:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 3546:13:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 3532:perhaps (in the same vein as 3518:11:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 3476:20:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 2912:article will remain. Cheers, 2505:Sir Robert Smith, 3rd Baronet 1772:Oliver Eden, 8th Baron Henley 1695:Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 1606:1995 First unitary elections 1373:Other dictionaries are better 1321:Other dictionaries are better 396:22:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC) 377:. The review can be found at 359:18:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC) 342:12:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC) 312:07:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC) 278:07:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC) 260:22:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 98:Government Office for Science 4524:16:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC) 4492:10:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC) 4190:10:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC) 4166:05:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC) 4140:02:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC) 4106:21:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC) 4091:10:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC) 4059:00:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC) 3864:02:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC) 3822:00:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC) 3711:(Mansfield and West Someset) 3457:It was suggested by some in 3447:17:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 3431:23:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 3402:21:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC) 3331:18:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC) 3316:18:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC) 3302:18:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC) 3284:18:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC) 3265:09:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC) 3246:18:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC) 3216:10:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 3197:17:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC) 3173:17:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC) 3130:15:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC) 3115:15:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC) 3100:15:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC) 3085:15:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC) 3067:14:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC) 3043:09:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC) 3016:22:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 2974:18:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 2941:17:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 2922:17:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 2894:16:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 2876:16:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 2766:16:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 2752:16:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 2733:16:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 2714:16:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 2699:16:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 2683:15:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 2668:15:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 2652:16:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 2633:10:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC) 2609:20:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC) 2590:18:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC) 2562:09:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 2521:12:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 2474:11:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 2450:11:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 2421:15:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC) 2402:12:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC) 2374:12:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC) 2359:12:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC) 2336:12:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC) 2326:threatened to block anyone. 2262:08:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC) 2222:02:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC) 2132:22:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC) 2099:16:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC) 2041:03:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC) 1865:Parliaments historic records 1575:Scottish local election data 1077:). Please make use of them! 738:They were already reverted. 521:Premiership of David Cameron 234:08:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC) 211:23:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 190:18:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 113:12:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 4461:12:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC) 2960:beyond the fact that there 2812:Adur Council election, 2012 2016:15:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC) 1993:23:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1970:23:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1950:22:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1925:19:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1901:20:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC) 1873:20:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC) 1815:14:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC) 1788:12:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC) 1187:allows discussion to reach 1168:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 1151:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 1125:Linda Smith (UK politician) 1111:Linda Smith (UK politician) 955:Local government in England 533:Premiership of Gordon Brown 4540: 3607:the constituency article. 2298:and should be included on 1956:MPs. There are rules (see 1583:represents the best case, 1314:Prime Minister's Questions 1207:Hi there, well looking at 825:09:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC) 802:01:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC) 782:19:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC) 754:Birmingham elections, 2007 748:14:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 733:14:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 685:14:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 668:14:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 654:14:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 638:14:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 616:10:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 598:23:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 574:23:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 551:22:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 469:09:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC) 407:United Kingdom Census 2011 401:United Kingdom Census 2011 4389:Some articles, including 4385:Front bench or frontbench 3994:This is the change I made 3187:taking place in 2011??!) 3053:for (after all, they may 2852:main notability guideline 1743:I know of a few already: 1730:16:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC) 1689:17:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC) 1639:23:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC) 1623:15:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 1595:22:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC) 1569:22:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC) 1554:19:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC) 1515:22:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC) 1443:07:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC) 1395:23:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC) 1381:15:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC) 1307: 1173:proposed deletion process 1015:then they could go there. 862:and some instructions at 525:Premiership of Tony Blair 501:15:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 437:20:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC) 419:20:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC) 392:Penny for your thoughts? 154:Categories for discussion 4466:OUTDATED SCOTLAND TOPICS 4320:Any feedback or ideas? 4066:Carlisle local elections 3996:- would that be better? 2860:Coventry local elections 2638:Future election articles 2114:I've only really edited 2057:above related discussion 1820:Source for MPs 1295-1640 1534:01:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1367:21:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC) 1349:14:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC) 1329:14:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC) 1303:10:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC) 1266:12:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC) 1244:07:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC) 1225:19:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC) 1196:12:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC) 1098:12:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC) 1073:) and date of creation ( 1063:; for example "RO" for " 1036:09:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC) 3288:Try nominating them at 2997:The Template is deleted 2024:Conservative Party (UK) 1802:Llanelli railway strike 1795:Llanelli railway strike 1740:eminently verifiable). 1702:featured article review 1160:the article's talk page 1066:Parlamentul of României 1007:22:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC) 989:11:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC) 970:18:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 901:17:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 883:00:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 853:18:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC) 4206:Government of Scotland 4130:would be appreciated. 1488:Check date values in: 1282: 1249: 1120: 1065: 126: 4202:Government of England 3892:). In replacement on 3827:I wish to create the 2149:not "interestingness" 1979:is correct, based on 1281: 1185:articles for deletion 1129:proposed for deletion 1119: 1071:Parliament of Romania 870:for the new style).-- 125: 42:of past discussions. 4512:WikiProject Scotland 4200:We have articles on 3736:Hooray someone did! 1884:Adur local elections 1878:Adur local elections 149:the category's entry 4262:Government of Wales 4210:Government of Wales 2288:falls down somewhat 2065:User:David Biddulph 2034:will be handed out. 1054:Infobox legislature 858:There's a blank at 379:Talk:Tony Blair/GA1 3704:See for instance: 3481:Feltham and Heston 3204:official confirmed 2001:The assessment by 1975:The assessment by 1674:a general election 1431:Robertfowlersilver 1339:on the talk page. 1283: 1177:deletion processes 1121: 1061:| native_name_lang 909:No election colour 478:I've just put the 160:Open Election Data 127: 4495: 4478:comment added by 3772: 2195:Maastricht Rebels 2084: 2055:editors from the 1748:Michael Heseltine 1499:CS1 maint: year ( 1446: 1429:comment added by 1353:Excellently put, 1107:Proposed deletion 897: 849: 622:Cameron Goverment 315: 298:comment added by 284:Re-Categorisation 156:page. Thank you. 95: 94: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4531: 4509: 4503: 4494: 4472: 4452: 3771: 3769: 3763: 3757: 3590:The Rambling Man 3553:The Rambling Man 3464:BBC election map 3308:The Rambling Man 3189:The Rambling Man 3122:The Rambling Man 3092:The Rambling Man 3059:The Rambling Man 2966:The Rambling Man 2744:The Rambling Man 2737:Agreed, there's 2691:The Rambling Man 2660:The Rambling Man 2439: 2320:rollback feature 2302:article and the 2051: 1754:William Whitelaw 1728: 1713: 1504: 1497: 1491: 1486: 1484: 1476: 1474: 1472: 1445: 1423: 1230:Now at AfD; see 1211:, I came across 1209:Special:NewPages 1170: 1169: 1153: 1152: 1118: 1096: 1087: 1083: 1076: 1068: 1062: 1058: 1052: 930: 921: 898: 895: 891: 850: 847: 843: 780: 771: 767: 682: 677: 651: 646: 626:Brown Government 608:Timrollpickering 548: 543: 393: 387: 355: 350: 314: 292: 274: 269: 188: 179: 175: 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4539: 4538: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4507: 4501: 4473: 4468: 4450: 4442: 4422: 4387: 4360: 4330: 4286: 4239: 4198: 4164: 4147: 4120: 4104: 4018: 3962: 3871: 3832: 3798: 3786: 3767: 3761: 3758: 3696: 3687: 3656: 3516: 3483: 3455: 3226: 3113: 3083: 3014: 2782: 2640: 2617: 2569:Greg Mulholland 2545:Greg Mulholland 2537: 2481:Greg Mulholland 2457:Greg Mulholland 2433: 2357: 2116:Greg Mulholland 2061:User:Off2riorob 2048: 2046:Voting patterns 2026: 1968: 1910:Hi there. This 1908: 1880: 1822: 1798: 1780:New Progressive 1737: 1714: 1709: 1698: 1649: 1647:Archive sorting 1577: 1541: 1523: 1498: 1487: 1477: 1470: 1468: 1459: 1424: 1409: 1310: 1276: 1254: 1251:People's Pledge 1205: 1181:speedy deletion 1167: 1166: 1150: 1149: 1116: 1114: 1085: 1079: 1078: 1056: 1050: 1048: 940: 939: 938: 937: 933: 932: 931: 923: 922: 911: 894: 889: 846: 841: 832: 819:(or Hrothulf) ( 809: 794:Drmichaelrjames 789: 769: 763: 762: 756: 680: 675: 649: 644: 546: 541: 508: 476: 447: 435: 403: 391: 383: 371: 353: 348: 321:Assessment page 293: 286: 272: 267: 243: 218: 199: 177: 171: 170: 162: 120: 100: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4537: 4535: 4527: 4526: 4467: 4464: 4441: 4438: 4421: 4418: 4386: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4366: 4365: 4364: 4356: 4326: 4319: 4315: 4285: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4235: 4197: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4160: 4146: 4143: 4119: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4100: 4070: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4040: 4014: 3986: 3978: 3958: 3951: 3932:User:Nilfanion 3870: 3867: 3843:and its usage 3831: 3825: 3797: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3782: 3749: 3748: 3719: 3718: 3712: 3695: 3692: 3683: 3661: 3660: 3652: 3645: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3605:WP:COATRACKing 3548: 3512: 3482: 3479: 3454: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3268: 3267: 3225: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3155: 3152: 3149: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3109: 3079: 3046: 3045: 3029: 3028: 3019: 3018: 3010: 3002: 3001: 2998: 2995: 2991: 2990: 2986: 2982: 2977: 2976: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2897: 2896: 2879: 2878: 2855: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2834: 2829: 2824: 2819: 2814: 2809: 2804: 2799: 2791: 2790: 2781: 2780:New discussion 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2656: 2639: 2636: 2616: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2565: 2564: 2550: 2549: 2540: 2539: 2535: 2477: 2476: 2442:David Biddulph 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2405: 2404: 2380:This is a bit 2377: 2376: 2361: 2353: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2316: 2292: 2284: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2198: 2165: 2145: 2135: 2134: 2120: 2119: 2111: 2110: 2086: 2085: 2047: 2044: 2032:Green plusses 2025: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 1996: 1995: 1964: 1954: 1929: 1917:Nunquam Dormio 1907: 1904: 1879: 1876: 1861: 1860: 1855: 1850: 1845: 1840: 1835: 1821: 1818: 1797: 1791: 1776: 1775: 1769: 1763: 1757: 1751: 1736: 1733: 1697: 1692: 1648: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1633:Angus McLellan 1626: 1625: 1610: 1609: 1604: 1589:Angus McLellan 1576: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1540: 1537: 1522: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1408: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1309: 1306: 1275: 1272: 1270: 1253: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1213:Steve Crowther 1204: 1202:Steve Crowther 1199: 1191:for deletion. 1171:will stop the 1139: 1138: 1113: 1104: 1102: 1047: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1016: 935: 934: 925: 924: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 910: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 831: 830:Ward maps help 828: 808: 805: 788: 785: 755: 752: 751: 750: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 601: 600: 577: 576: 507: 504: 480:Victor Cazalet 475: 474:Victor Cazalet 472: 446: 443: 442: 441: 440: 439: 431: 402: 399: 370: 365: 364: 363: 362: 361: 285: 282: 281: 280: 247:Project Merlin 242: 240:Project Merlin 237: 217: 214: 198: 193: 161: 158: 119: 116: 99: 96: 93: 92: 87: 84: 79: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4536: 4525: 4521: 4517: 4513: 4506: 4498: 4497: 4496: 4493: 4489: 4485: 4481: 4477: 4465: 4463: 4462: 4458: 4454: 4447: 4439: 4437: 4436: 4432: 4428: 4419: 4417: 4416: 4412: 4408: 4404: 4400: 4396: 4392: 4384: 4380: 4376: 4372: 4367: 4363: 4359: 4355: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4345: 4341: 4336: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4329: 4325: 4321: 4317: 4313: 4310: 4306: 4303: 4299: 4296: 4294: 4289: 4283: 4275: 4271: 4267: 4263: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4252: 4248: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4238: 4234: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4223: 4219: 4215: 4211: 4207: 4203: 4196:Four articles 4195: 4191: 4187: 4183: 4178: 4174: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4167: 4163: 4159: 4155: 4150: 4144: 4142: 4141: 4137: 4133: 4129: 4125: 4118: 4117:Harold Pinter 4115: 4107: 4103: 4099: 4094: 4093: 4092: 4088: 4084: 4080: 4075: 4071: 4067: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4056: 4052: 4047: 4039: 4035: 4031: 4027: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4017: 4013: 4009: 4008: 4007: 4003: 3999: 3995: 3991: 3987: 3984: 3979: 3976: 3972: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3961: 3957: 3952: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3941: 3937: 3933: 3929: 3924: 3922: 3918: 3914: 3910: 3906: 3901: 3899: 3895: 3891: 3887: 3882: 3880: 3876: 3868: 3866: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3853: 3851: 3849: 3847: 3845: 3842: 3840: 3838: 3836: 3830: 3826: 3824: 3823: 3819: 3815: 3809: 3807: 3803: 3795: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3770: 3765: 3764: 3755: 3751: 3750: 3747: 3743: 3739: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3728: 3724: 3716: 3713: 3710: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3702: 3700: 3693: 3691: 3690: 3686: 3682: 3676: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3659: 3655: 3651: 3646: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3635: 3631: 3618: 3614: 3610: 3606: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3595: 3591: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3581: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3549: 3547: 3543: 3539: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3515: 3511: 3506: 3502: 3500: 3496: 3492: 3488: 3480: 3478: 3477: 3473: 3469: 3465: 3460: 3452: 3448: 3444: 3440: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3428: 3424: 3420: 3403: 3399: 3395: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3366: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3338: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3299: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3253:Mebyon Kernow 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3243: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3223: 3217: 3213: 3209: 3205: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3194: 3190: 3186: 3182: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3156: 3153: 3150: 3147: 3146: 3143: 3142: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3112: 3108: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3082: 3078: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3051:are scheduled 3044: 3040: 3036: 3031: 3030: 3025: 3021: 3020: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3004: 3003: 2999: 2996: 2993: 2992: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2978: 2975: 2971: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2955: 2952: 2951: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2930: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2911: 2906: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2895: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2877: 2873: 2869: 2865: 2861: 2856: 2853: 2848: 2844: 2843: 2838: 2835: 2833: 2830: 2828: 2825: 2823: 2820: 2818: 2815: 2813: 2810: 2808: 2805: 2803: 2800: 2798: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2788: 2784: 2783: 2779: 2767: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2740: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2721: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2711: 2707: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2670: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2654: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2637: 2635: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2574: 2570: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2552: 2551: 2546: 2542: 2541: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2508: 2506: 2500: 2496: 2495: 2491: 2488: 2484: 2482: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2458: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2438: 2437: 2431: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2378: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2362: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2347: 2346: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2310:the subject. 2309: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2282: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2196: 2192: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2163: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2143: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2122: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2112: 2108: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2059:, as well as 2058: 2054: 2050: 2049: 2045: 2043: 2042: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2023: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2004: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1952: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1938: 1934: 1927: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1913: 1905: 1903: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1885: 1877: 1875: 1874: 1871: 1866: 1859: 1856: 1854: 1851: 1849: 1846: 1844: 1841: 1839: 1836: 1834: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1827: 1819: 1817: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1803: 1796: 1793:New article: 1792: 1790: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1773: 1770: 1767: 1764: 1761: 1758: 1755: 1752: 1749: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1741: 1734: 1732: 1731: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1712: 1707: 1703: 1696: 1693: 1691: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1677: 1675: 1671: 1665: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1646: 1640: 1637: 1634: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1611: 1608: 1605: 1602: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1593: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1538: 1536: 1535: 1532: 1528: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1502: 1495: 1482: 1466: 1462: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1420: 1417: 1413: 1406: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1338: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1319: 1315: 1305: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1280: 1273: 1271: 1268: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1252: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1203: 1200: 1198: 1197: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1163: 1161: 1157: 1146: 1144: 1137: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1130: 1126: 1112: 1108: 1105: 1103: 1100: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1086:Pigsonthewing 1082: 1072: 1067: 1055: 1045: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1014: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1004: 1000: 997: 992: 991: 990: 986: 982: 978: 974: 973: 972: 971: 967: 963: 960: 956: 951: 949: 945: 929: 920: 908: 902: 899: 892: 886: 885: 884: 880: 876: 873: 869: 865: 861: 857: 856: 855: 854: 851: 844: 838: 829: 827: 826: 822: 818: 814: 806: 804: 803: 799: 795: 786: 784: 783: 779: 775: 770:Pigsonthewing 766: 761: 753: 749: 745: 741: 737: 736: 735: 734: 730: 729: 724: 723: 718: 714: 710: 706: 702: 686: 683: 678: 671: 670: 669: 665: 661: 657: 656: 655: 652: 647: 641: 640: 639: 635: 631: 627: 623: 619: 618: 617: 613: 609: 605: 604: 603: 602: 599: 595: 591: 587: 583: 580:I also moved 579: 578: 575: 571: 567: 563: 559: 555: 554: 553: 552: 549: 544: 538: 534: 530: 526: 522: 517: 513: 505: 503: 502: 498: 494: 490: 486: 481: 473: 471: 470: 466: 462: 456: 453: 451: 444: 438: 434: 430: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 417: 413: 408: 400: 398: 397: 394: 388: 386: 380: 376: 369: 366: 360: 356: 351: 345: 344: 343: 339: 335: 331: 326: 322: 318: 317: 316: 313: 309: 305: 301: 297: 289: 283: 279: 275: 270: 264: 263: 262: 261: 257: 253: 248: 241: 238: 236: 235: 231: 227: 223: 215: 213: 212: 208: 204: 197: 194: 192: 191: 187: 183: 178:Pigsonthewing 174: 168: 159: 157: 155: 151: 150: 145: 141: 137: 133: 132: 124: 117: 115: 114: 110: 106: 105:192.16.186.71 97: 91: 88: 85: 83: 80: 78: 75: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4474:— Preceding 4469: 4443: 4423: 4402: 4398: 4388: 4322: 4318: 4314: 4308: 4307: 4301: 4300: 4297: 4290: 4288:Afternoon. 4287: 4199: 4151: 4149:Morning all 4148: 4121: 3925: 3902: 3883: 3872: 3833: 3810: 3799: 3760: 3720: 3703: 3697: 3677: 3662: 3627: 3577: 3507: 3503: 3484: 3459:a recent AfD 3456: 3416: 3227: 3203: 3184: 3180: 3162: 3054: 3050: 3047: 2961: 2957: 2904: 2738: 2671: 2655: 2641: 2618: 2566: 2531: 2527: 2509: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2492: 2489: 2485: 2478: 2435: 2427: 2323: 2308:specifically 2307: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2250:undue weight 2185: 2173:undue weight 2142:my talk page 2087: 2069:User:Smartse 2052: 2033: 2027: 1953: 1942:95.147.53.59 1933:John Hemming 1928: 1909: 1881: 1862: 1823: 1799: 1778:Thoughts? -- 1777: 1742: 1738: 1710: 1699: 1678: 1666: 1660: 1650: 1578: 1542: 1524: 1469:. Retrieved 1464: 1425:— Preceding 1421: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1311: 1290: 1284: 1269: 1255: 1206: 1175:, but other 1164: 1156:edit summary 1147: 1140: 1135: 1123:The article 1122: 1101: 1094:Andy's edits 1081:Andy Mabbett 1075:|Foundation= 1049: 952: 941: 833: 810: 790: 778:Andy's edits 765:Andy Mabbett 757: 726: 720: 699: 625: 621: 561: 557: 536: 509: 488: 484: 477: 457: 454: 450:This article 448: 411: 404: 384: 372: 354:(Talk to me! 294:— Preceding 290: 287: 273:(Talk to me! 244: 219: 200: 186:Andy's edits 173:Andy Mabbett 163: 147: 129: 128: 101: 70: 43: 37: 4132:Jezhotwells 4124:WP:MAINPAGE 4079:WP:NOTSTATS 3829:Nasty Party 3588:required? 3575:Warofdreams 3274:articles?-- 2580:concerns. — 2573:Evan Harris 2511:whatsoever. 1937:Vince Cable 1653:MiszaBot II 1561:Jezhotwells 1529:. Cheers. - 1507:Jezhotwells 1387:Jezhotwells 1359:Jezhotwells 1258:Itsmejudith 1179:exist. The 1090:Andy's talk 868:West Dorset 774:Andy's talk 628:, etc etc. 558:Premiership 489:Independent 461:JeevanJones 385:HJ Mitchell 252:TheRetroGuy 182:Andy's talk 36:This is an 4448:please? -- 3856:Dwanyewest 3630:Jonesy1289 3569:- or even 3526:WP:CRYSTAL 3485:Labour MP 3468:Jonesy1289 3439:Jonesy1289 3423:Jonesy1289 3394:Jonesy1289 3276:Jonesy1289 3238:Jonesy1289 3024:WP:CRYSTAL 2989:following: 2954:WP:CRYSTAL 2847:WP:CRYSTAL 2706:Lucy-marie 2675:Lucy-marie 2644:Lucy-marie 2601:LNWWatcher 2582:Tom Morris 2554:LNWWatcher 2466:LNWWatcher 2366:Off2riorob 2245:notability 2241:WP:SOAPBOX 2210:WP:SOAPBOX 2202:notability 2191:PublicWhip 2182:WP:SOAPBOX 2157:Peter Bone 2153:notability 2124:LNWWatcher 2107:soapboxing 2073:guidelines 2008:LNWWatcher 1863:I note on 1465:npg.org.uk 1450:Well, the 839:. Thanks, 485:Daily Mail 414:editing?— 375:Tony Blair 368:Tony Blair 332:. Cheers, 90:Archive 10 4480:Jistaface 4051:Bouncelot 3814:Bouncelot 3738:Lozleader 3723:Lozleader 3666:Redverton 3487:Alan Keen 3257:Bouncelot 3165:Bouncelot 3035:Bouncelot 2513:Kyrenator 2430:Kyrenator 2322:and have 2186:specifics 1912:IP editor 1807:Mais oui! 1711:Grandiose 1670:Archive 1 1615:Lozleader 1531:GTBacchus 1189:consensus 1127:has been 493:NellieBly 203:J Milburn 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 4488:contribs 4476:unsigned 4427:Elbeejay 4340:Davewild 4309:Option B 4302:Option A 4247:Ghmyrtle 4218:Ghmyrtle 4083:Davewild 4030:Davewild 3998:Davewild 3936:Davewild 3806:Scottish 3565:Perhaps 3323:Ghmyrtle 3294:Ghmyrtle 3234:Cornwall 2933:Davewild 2886:Davewild 2868:Davewild 2758:Davewild 2725:Davewild 2673:place.-- 2436:nonsense 2413:Rondoggy 2386:reverted 2312:WP:UNDUE 2281:WP:UNDUE 2254:Rondoggy 2162:verified 2091:Rondoggy 1893:Davewild 1725:contribs 1481:cite web 1439:contribs 1427:unsigned 512:this AfD 487:and the 308:contribs 296:unsigned 226:Davewild 144:renaming 136:deletion 4354:doktorb 4324:doktorb 4233:doktorb 4158:doktorb 4098:doktorb 4012:doktorb 3956:doktorb 3780:doktorb 3681:doktorb 3650:doktorb 3510:doktorb 3107:doktorb 3077:doktorb 3008:doktorb 2985:takes). 2958:nothing 2862:). The 2739:nothing 2621:on here 2597:Hansard 2530:, not, 2462:WP:NPOV 2394:SmartSE 2382:WP:TLDR 2351:doktorb 2291:policy. 2237:WP:NPOV 2206:WP:NPOV 2178:WP:NPOV 2169:WP:NPOV 2003:doktorb 1977:doktorb 1962:doktorb 1471:13 July 1467:. 2011 1236:Jenks24 1217:Jenks24 817:Hroðulf 740:GoodDay 722:postdlf 660:GoodDay 630:GoodDay 590:GoodDay 588:, btw. 566:GoodDay 562:Premier 537:did not 516:GoodDay 514:, User 510:Due to 429:doktorb 152:on the 140:merging 39:archive 4516:Zangar 4505:update 4453:rose64 4371:Zangar 4212:, and 4182:Zangar 4175:, and 3609:Zangar 3538:Zangar 3290:WP:AFD 3208:Zangar 3185:really 2914:Zangar 2625:Zangar 2328:Zangar 2304:bill's 2214:Zangar 2151:, but 2077:Zangar 2038:Lionel 1985:Zangar 1981:WP:POV 1958:WP:POV 1681:Zangar 1636:(Talk) 1592:(Talk) 1490:|year= 1458:, Ref: 1355:Zangar 1341:Zangar 1295:Zangar 1193:TreveX 1158:or on 1084:(User: 1028:Zangar 981:Zangar 768:(User: 676:Silver 645:Silver 560:& 542:Silver 531:, and 412:ad hoc 334:Zangar 330:ask me 176:(User: 4407:Rrius 4358:words 4328:words 4266:Sionk 4237:words 4162:words 4102:words 4016:words 3960:words 3950:work? 3784:words 3762:Chzz 3685:words 3654:words 3514:words 3230:Essex 3111:words 3081:words 3012:words 2578:WP:OR 2428:User 2355:words 2324:never 2296:party 2030:here. 1966:words 1337:split 1069:" in 999:anion 962:anion 875:anion 807:2011? 681:seren 650:seren 547:seren 433:words 325:5,739 142:, or 16:< 4520:talk 4484:talk 4457:talk 4431:talk 4411:talk 4401:and 4375:talk 4344:talk 4270:talk 4251:talk 4222:talk 4186:talk 4136:talk 4087:talk 4069:for. 4055:talk 4034:talk 4026:here 4002:talk 3940:talk 3909:here 3875:here 3860:talk 3818:talk 3802:2007 3742:talk 3727:talk 3670:talk 3634:talk 3613:talk 3594:talk 3579:talk 3557:talk 3542:talk 3493:and 3472:talk 3443:talk 3427:talk 3398:talk 3327:talk 3312:talk 3298:talk 3292:. 3280:talk 3261:talk 3242:talk 3232:and 3212:talk 3193:talk 3181:only 3169:talk 3126:talk 3096:talk 3063:talk 3039:talk 3022:The 2970:talk 2937:talk 2918:talk 2905:will 2890:talk 2872:talk 2762:talk 2748:talk 2729:talk 2710:talk 2695:talk 2679:talk 2664:talk 2648:talk 2629:talk 2605:talk 2586:talk 2558:talk 2517:talk 2470:talk 2446:talk 2417:talk 2398:talk 2390:WP:N 2370:talk 2332:talk 2258:talk 2218:talk 2128:talk 2095:talk 2081:talk 2067:and 2012:talk 1989:talk 1946:talk 1935:and 1921:talk 1897:talk 1889:here 1811:talk 1784:talk 1721:talk 1706:here 1685:talk 1659:and 1619:talk 1565:talk 1550:talk 1546:Sgmp 1511:talk 1501:link 1494:help 1473:2011 1435:talk 1391:talk 1377:talk 1363:talk 1345:talk 1325:talk 1299:talk 1262:talk 1240:talk 1221:talk 1032:talk 1022:and 1003:talk 996:Nilf 985:talk 977:beeb 966:talk 959:Nilf 946:for 879:talk 872:Nilf 837:here 821:Talk 798:talk 744:talk 728:talk 664:talk 634:talk 612:talk 594:talk 584:and 570:talk 497:talk 465:talk 405:The 338:talk 304:talk 288:Hi, 256:talk 230:talk 207:talk 109:talk 4451:Red 3923:). 3501:. 3055:not 2962:may 2300:its 2239:or 2053:All 1870:Rod 1316:on 1109:of 1088:); 896:Dom 890:Big 848:Dom 842:Big 772:); 416:Rod 180:); 4522:) 4508:}} 4502:{{ 4490:) 4486:• 4459:) 4433:) 4413:) 4393:, 4377:) 4346:) 4272:) 4253:) 4224:) 4208:, 4204:, 4188:) 4138:) 4089:) 4057:) 4036:) 4004:) 3942:) 3862:) 3854:. 3820:) 3768:► 3744:) 3729:) 3672:) 3636:) 3615:) 3596:) 3559:) 3544:) 3474:) 3445:) 3429:) 3400:) 3329:) 3314:) 3300:) 3282:) 3263:) 3244:) 3214:) 3195:) 3171:) 3128:) 3098:) 3065:) 3041:) 2972:) 2939:) 2920:) 2892:) 2874:) 2764:) 2750:) 2731:) 2712:) 2697:) 2681:) 2666:) 2650:) 2631:) 2607:) 2588:) 2560:) 2519:) 2472:) 2448:) 2419:) 2400:) 2372:) 2334:) 2260:) 2220:) 2130:) 2097:) 2083:) 2075:. 2063:, 2036:– 2014:) 1991:) 1948:) 1923:) 1899:) 1813:) 1805:-- 1786:) 1727:) 1723:, 1719:, 1717:me 1687:) 1621:) 1567:) 1552:) 1513:) 1485:: 1483:}} 1479:{{ 1463:. 1441:) 1437:• 1393:) 1379:) 1365:) 1347:) 1327:) 1301:) 1293:. 1264:) 1242:) 1234:. 1223:) 1162:. 1145:. 1092:; 1057:}} 1051:{{ 1034:) 1005:) 987:) 968:) 881:) 823:) 815:-- 800:) 776:; 746:) 731:) 715:; 711:; 707:; 666:) 636:) 624:, 614:) 596:) 572:) 527:, 523:, 499:) 467:) 389:| 357:) 349:Pi 340:) 310:) 306:• 300:Pi 276:) 268:Pi 258:) 232:) 209:) 184:; 138:, 111:) 86:→ 4518:( 4482:( 4455:( 4429:( 4409:( 4403:t 4399:f 4373:( 4342:( 4268:( 4249:( 4220:( 4184:( 4134:( 4085:( 4053:( 4032:( 4000:( 3977:. 3938:( 3858:( 3816:( 3740:( 3725:( 3668:( 3632:( 3611:( 3592:( 3555:( 3540:( 3470:( 3441:( 3425:( 3396:( 3325:( 3310:( 3296:( 3278:( 3259:( 3240:( 3210:( 3191:( 3167:( 3124:( 3094:( 3061:( 3037:( 2968:( 2935:( 2916:( 2888:( 2870:( 2760:( 2746:( 2727:( 2708:( 2693:( 2677:( 2662:( 2646:( 2627:( 2603:( 2584:( 2556:( 2515:( 2468:( 2444:( 2415:( 2396:( 2368:( 2330:( 2283:. 2256:( 2216:( 2197:. 2164:. 2144:. 2126:( 2109:. 2093:( 2079:( 2010:( 1987:( 1944:( 1919:( 1895:( 1809:( 1782:( 1715:( 1704:( 1683:( 1617:( 1563:( 1548:( 1509:( 1503:) 1496:) 1492:( 1475:. 1433:( 1389:( 1375:( 1361:( 1343:( 1323:( 1297:( 1260:( 1238:( 1219:( 1030:( 1001:( 983:( 964:( 877:( 796:( 742:( 725:( 662:( 632:( 610:( 592:( 568:( 495:( 463:( 459:— 336:( 302:( 254:( 228:( 205:( 107:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 3 - Knowledge

Index