Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom


Politics of the United Kingdom

PROJECT

Devoted to improving coverage of British politics on Wikipedia.



discussion page
Primary article Categories · Featured content · Templates
This is the talk page for WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom.
Place notices here about UK politics articles, and you will surely receive helpful support from interested editors!
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.
Be polite, and welcoming to new users
Assume good faith
Avoid personal attacks
For disputes, seek dispute resolution
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Conservative Islamophobia inquiry


With the release of the report on the Conservative Islamophobia inquiry, Islamophobia in the UK Conservative Party (1997–present) could do with a major review and/or rehaul of content. I've tried to update the page but I haven't read the report; if anyone has any edits to make to the article I'd greatly appreciate it. --Bangalamania (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the Conservative Party


See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Conservative_Party#Deleted_passages for several sourced passages deleted from the Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party article that would benefit from more eyes (only the deleter and me have expressed an opinion so hard to reach a consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Brian Rose


Brian Rose recently stood in the 2020 London Mayoral election. Now that is over, there is discussion over his article and more input would be useful. The main discussion is at Talk:Brian_Rose_(podcaster)#Promoting_COVID-19_information. All thoughts welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

We're still rather deadlocked, so more input would be very welcome. We have progressed as far as Talk:Brian_Rose_(podcaster)#7_choices, which lays out the options in a clearer manner! Bondegezou (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Increase/decrease icons in election articles


Hi all. Recently, Sparkle1 has been removing the increase and decrease icons (/) from election articles, and replacing them with plus/minus signs (+/-). I have no intention of edit-warring, so I thought I would bring it here to discuss which is the preferred format. I personally prefer the icons, as the colours let you see which parties gained or lost at a glance. Thoughts? PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 08:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The icons appeared a few years ago at the whim of whoever was editing, and sometimes they stayed, sometimes they didn't. I'm not wedded to either really. If it's clear from first glance, it's good enough for me. I do get Sparkle's point about mobile readers and, because they're red and green, I assume colour blind readers may have problems too. However it's not really a great priority from my end, if the results themselves are accurate then the change in percentage is just an additional extra. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the icons are much nicer. They are differentiated by shape as well as colour, so they're not encoding information only by colour and remain accessibile to colour-blind. Increase and decrease icons also work straightforwardly with screen readers. If there's concern for mobile readers (presumably about line breaks?) then that can be solved using nowraps, surely? Personally I find it a lot easier to quickly parse material from tables with increase/decrease compared to plus and minus icons, so would be keen to see them used more in UK election articles. Ralbegen (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I prefer the +/– symbols personally. Number 57 12:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • +/- definitely better. They can be understood by people using screen-readers. They can be understood by computers doing natural language processing. While not explicit on this particular choice, I think WP:ICON would oppose using icons. Bondegezou (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I find the icons more distinctive, but I don't want to disadvantage people using screen-readers. However, can't their need be met by using alt tags on the icons? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for testing, Ralbegen. That is reassuring. I remain of the view that this goes against WP:ICON. Or, for another perspective, what do paper encyclopaedias do? Bondegezou (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I definitely agree that we should be cautious about using icons, but I think increase/decrease icons are "visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension" here. One aspect I think is the far better vertical alignment with the icons compared to the ASCII: compare icons used here to ASCII used here. I think that's probably the main thing I prefer about them and what makes them faster and easier to read! Ralbegen (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that with the issue of screen readers resolved, we are left with two issues:
  1. personal preference between icon and the plus or minus signs, which is subjective
  2. usage in reliable sources
My personal preference is for the symbols, but on reflection it seems to me that we should be guided by the reliable sources. All the printed, scholarly sources that I know use +/-, but it is arguable that this is a product of the limitations of monochrome printing. Has anyone done an analysis of how online reliable sources present this info? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
One's eye is strongly drawn to the icons. They certainly stand out. That is not a good thing. It is rare for a party to get exactly the same vote share in two elections, so there's nearly always a prominent or , but that's not what is informative. A small increase or decrease doesn't matter. It's the digit after the icon that matters. Was there a big increase or decrease? The icons exaggerate the importance of the direction of the change, but it's the magnitude that is important. Bondegezou (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Lists of office holders


I was carrying out some edits on Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and First Secretary of State and I couldn't find a single template for lists of office holders. Is there one and, if not, could we establish one? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Coat of arms, or not?


Article on govt minister who got a life peerage in retirement. Should his coat of arms be included?

Discussion at Talk:John Moore, Baron Moore of_Lower Marsh#Arms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Access to Information Central Clearing House


From an article in today's Guardian reporting on a legal judgement that is highly critical of this entity:

[Judge] Hughes said the Cabinet Office had offered an out-of-date Wikipedia entry as evidence that information about the Clearing House was available to the public.

Rather than attempt a rapid update, I felt it might be (more) helpful to post here. 86.186.168.129 (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Coalition Liberals/Coalition Conservatives


After talking with @BrownHairedGirl it seems that almost all of the constituency pages needs to be updated from {{Election box}} to {{Compact election box}}. I've written a script that can read the current page source and convert it to a compact election box, although it still needs to be tested a bit to make sure it all works.

Since the {{Compact election box}} doesn't have a template like {{Election box candidate with party link coalition 1918}}, I was originally going to convert all Coalition endorsed Liberal candidates to be listed as Coalition Liberal, and do the same for Labour and the Conservatives/Unionists. While I think the first two cases should be done regardless, I was conflicted with doing the same for the Conservatives. Would this then imply there was a split in the Conservatives over support for the Coalition government that wasn't present in the same way that it was in the Liberal Party and the Labour Party?

However, the British Parliamentary Election Results 1918–1949 by F. W. S. Craig does list them as Coalition Conservatives and Whitaker's Almanack 1920 lists them as Coalition Unionists.

It is a bit confusing. A {{Coalition_Conservative/meta/shortname }} does exists and has been used (see transclusions), although not very extensively.

I'm not a big fan of {{Election box candidate with party link coalition 1918}} anyway, and I'm not sure it is better than using Coalition Conservative. If we do use Coalition Conservative, then it should probably be Coalition Unionist and a separate Coalition Unionist (Scotland)? What's the thoughts?

--Gharbhain (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gharbhain: This is great work.
If you can point me to some examples, I'd be happy to try to modify the {{Compact election box}} family to accommodate the 1918 coalition candidates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl No worries. I've been using Aberavon to test. There's also Aberdeen and Kincardine which I used to look at Unionist/Scottish Unionists.
Aberavon's page also has a few comments below some boxes. Not sure if these should be put under " | election_note = " section of {{Compact election box}} or if that would be too messy? I've also changed some of the ways that Swing is calculated which I put here but it might have been better to ask here instead.
--Gharbhain (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@Gharbhain: I have got a coupon solution working in a sandbox. {{Compact election box/sandbox}} supports the parameters |winner_1918_coalition_coupon= and |candidaten_1918_coalition_coupon= (where n is 2, 3 , 4 , 5 etc). The coupon markup is applied if the value of the param amounts to true, i.e. if it uses a case-insensitive form of Yes, y, true, on, and 1. So e.g. |winner_1918_coalition_coupon=yEs or |candidate3_1918_coalition_coupon=Y
I tested it on Bradford Central: see this test. But obviously I would encourage wider testing.
Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: What are your thoughts on PinkPanda272's suggest of a RfC on changing {{Election box}} to {{Compact election box}}? I think it sounds like a good idea, although I've never been involved with one before and unsure of what the wording should be. --Gharbhain (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Gharbhain: An RFC is a good idea when there is significant disagreement, because it can help to establish a broad and and stable consensus. However, an RFC takes up a lot of editor time and delays a decision, so it's not helpful to hold an RFC when the issue is trivial or largely uncontroversial.
In this case, there is only one objector, whose comments imply that they not have read the earlier discussions. The really good reason to change which PinkPanda272 sets as a condition is as set out in the discussion at WT:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive_6#Election_box and then WT:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive 7#Compact_election_box: that {{Election box}} is far too bulky, and results pages which use it require unnecessary scrolling to read through a list of elections. This is a basic and well-documented usability issue: for an intro, see above the fold#In_web_design --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
For example, see the 1885–1918 elections in Bradford West:
  1. Using {{Compact election box}}, it displays on one screen on my laptop: Bradford West 1885–1918 Compact format
  2. Using {{Election box}}, it expands to three screenfuls on my laptop: Bradford West 1885–1918 Bulky format
That scrolling:
  • makes reading harder ...because the display keeps changing
  • impedes comparison of elections and viewing of trends ... because there is less data on each screenful
I can see no advantage to the bulky format, and PinkPanda272's objection offers no explanation for their claim that the compact format is harder to read. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: I think the main problem I have with the template is that the information is laid out in a confusing order - if you read from left to right, then you get information such as turnout, majority and swing before you reach the actual results. In {{Election box}}, the results come first, followed by any additional information at the bottom. You are right that this format requires more scrolling on desktop, however in on the mobile version the opposite is true - because the compact box is wider, for every set of results you have to swipe left to read the actual results, then swipe right every time you want to return to the column containing the name of each election. Also, I don't think changing every election template on hundreds of articles is trivial or largely uncontroversial, and I would rather we got some opinions from other editors before any changes are made. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 07:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@PinkPanda272: I think you are wildly wrong about the order. In an FPTP election in a party system (which the UK has been for 300 years), the actual result is which party won, and whether it was a hold or a gain. That's the crucial info, followed by data like swing and majority, with votes-by-candidate as the last item.
In the compact box, that core data is in one column with the winning party colour, so the eye can easily scan up and down the column to note the shifts. However, in the bulky version, that core info is confusingly placed in the same column as the party of the candidates, where it is much harder to identify, as well as harder to scan because of the scrolling involved.
What you mistakenly call the "result" is in fact the vote counts, which are a subsidiary detail to the the actual result. Scrolling right to see that detail seems proportionate for the details ... and of course, such scrolling is needed only on small mobile devices.
That fundamental flaw with the bulky box is that it makes no effort to arrange the data hierarchically or to facilitate scanning a series. On the contrary, it is a visual mishmash with the core data at the bottom of each box, a presentation which doesn't distinguish different types of data, and a layout optimised for use on a single election, whereas the compact box is optimised for a list of elections.
Take a look for example at that compact version of Bradford 1885–1918. It's very easy to scan column 2 and see how the constituency was safe liberal for two elections, a Lib/Con marginal for three elections, and then increasingly solid labour three elections. You can't do that with the bulky box, because it is not laid out for use in lists.
I am aware of no printed publications which use a format like the bulky box. I have on my desk all the volumes of Craig's GB election results and Walker's volumes Irish election results, and they all use a columnar format similar to the compact box. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: You and I both have differing views which we are unlikely to change, so I think it would be a good idea at this point to see if other editors have an opinion. I've created a subsection below this discussion so that others can weigh in. Regards, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 14:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@PinkPanda272: I am disappointed to see that as soon as we get it into a detailed comparison, you withdraw from the discussion. That's no way to build consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: Apologies if that came over as abrupt – I just felt we were going around in circles, but I am happy to continue our discussion if you have more to add. Maybe a compromise could be to design an alternative template that takes in positive elements from both the regular and compact versions? PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 21:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that friendly tone, PinkPanda272.
I don't think I have more to add at this stage, because I think I have demonstrated adequately that your points are mistaken. If you disagree, then I look forward to hearing why you disagree ... but so far you have chosen not respond to the substance, so I am left with no idea of what you might want any alternative template to do, and why you would want those features.
For example, do you want to abandon the basic approach of a columnar list format as used by {{Compact election box}} and major scholarly reference books? If so why reject what the scholars devised? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: In the most respectful way possible, I think it's a shame that you are showing such a negative attitude to those who don't share your opinion on this matter. I think I have demonstrated adequately that your points are mistaken seems rather combative, and implies that anyone who dissents from your view is simply wrong. I have already given reasons to why I disagree with your position, namely that the compact template is currently too wide to scale well on mobile, and that the information is laid out in a less intuitive order than in {{Election box}} (although I accept your point that it could disrupt the flow when multiple results are shown together). I would also agree with the observation made below that the template is hard to read when you have dozens of elections in the same list - in the current format, the results section is split up into decades for easier navigation and editing. On your second point, just because a format works well in a book doesn't mean it is the best choice for an online encyclopedia - books don't have to deal with different sized screens, editing, or hyperlinks. However, I would point out that I don't think that using the columnar approach is a bad idea, I'm just not a fan of the way it is implemented in {{Compact election box}}.
With that in mind, I've made a start to an alternative version, taking parts from both templates. It keeps a coloured bar at the side to denote winning parties (I think this is one of the more useful features in {{Compact election box}}), but uses row headers for each election to increase legibility. I've put majority, turnout and swing on the left hand side; I'm not convinced that this is the best place for them (I like how {{Election box}} keeps the values in seperate columns), but there wasn't a logical position to put them without hindering the flow of the table. Is this (or something like it) an acceptable compromise? PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 17:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Alternative version
Elections in the 2010s
General election 2019
Result Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Conservative hold

Majority: 4,423 (10.0%; -2.5%)
Turnout: 44,269 (67.6%; -2.3%)
Swing: -1.3%

Conservative William Wragg 21,592 48.8 +3.4
Liberal Democrats Lisa Smart 17,169 38.8 +5.9
Labour Tony Wilson 5,508 12.4 -8.1
General election 2017
Result Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Conservative hold

Majority: 5,514 (12.5%; -3.1%)
Turnout: 44,132 (69.9%; +1.4%)
Swing: -1.4%

Conservative William Wragg 20,047 45.4 +4.0
Liberal Democrats Lisa Smart 14,533 32.9 +6.7
Labour Nav Mishra 9,036 20.5 +3.0
Green Robbie Lee 516 1.2 -1.4
@PinkPanda272: Sorry, but this has to be a long reply, 'cos there is a lot to cover.
First, snipping a quote out of context is unhelpful. The full quote is I think I have demonstrated adequately that your points are mistaken. If you disagree, then I look forward to hearing why you disagree. I wrote that because you had not at the time given any response to the issues i raised there.
My response to FollowTheTortoise was to spend a few hours devising and documenting a modification to {{Compact election box}}: see below at #Linking to results table using Compact election box). That's not a negative attitude. And yes, I have been blunt in my replies to Doktorbuk, but that is because Doktorbuk has repeatedly made a false claim that the change is being proposed as change for the sake of change, which Doktorbuk must know to be false. It's sadly inevitable that rebutting such blatant falsehoods appears negative, but in such situations please blame the editor who chooses to use systematic misrepresentation to disrupt consensus-building.
Now, back to the substance.
Your assertion that with {{Compact election box}} the information is laid out in a less intuitive order than in seems odd to me, because:
  1. in the scholarly reference books, the order of info is a) election title, b) electorate/turnout; c) political result, d) votes-per-candidate.
    After several rounds of discussion, you have not explained why you regard the scholarly aproach as less intuitive.
  2. in TV news reporting of UK elections, the summary info reported in the ticker at the screen bottom and in the initial report starts with the political result.
If you are aware any reliable source which presents lists of election results as votes first, summary after, then please identify them. But right now, it seems to me that you are advocating a personal preference without any explanation of why you prefer votes-first, or what sources follow that structure.
I note your comment that books don't have to deal with different sized screens, editing, or hyperlinks. For me, the key issue is that the hierarchy of information doesn't change by medium, and the bulky {{Election box}} completely mangles the hierarchy used by every reliable source that I am aware of.
But neither editing nor hyperlinks impact the choice of layout, so that leaves only the width issue, which impacts only a small subset of readers: a) those using small-screen mobile devices, b) those who repeatedly want to see the vote counts. Wikipedia has many thousands of list which are presented as tables which may require some scrolling to the right, so there is nothing new about that: readers who use tiny screens don't get such a good experience.
Thanks you for taking the time to build a demo of your ideas. I know it's a lot of work.
It seems to me that your version does reduce the width, but that it does so by removing core data and significantly reducing usability.
  1. The data removed is the figure for the electorate, which is significant for UK Parliament elections, where the size of electorate has varied widely over time, and also varied widely between constituencies at any given election.
    • Adding the electorate figure to your layout would increase the vertical height of that box, which would significantly increase the height of rows in elections with three candidates or less. One-or-two candidate elections were the norm in most single-seat constituencies in much of the 19th century, so the effect would be massively increase the amount of scrolling required in result sets such as the pre-1886 elections in Leith Burghs (UK Parliament constituency)#Election_results. That degrades usability, and it is one of the reasons why {{Compact election box}} was designed to use two columns for that data.
  2. Placing the name of the election in a centred row rather than in the left-hand column has two adverse effects:
    • It makes it very much harder to scan down the list looking for a particular election, because the election name is not in a column of its own
    • Once the election is found, moving from the election name to details on {{Compact election box}} involves simply scanning rightwards. On your demo, it involves looking down one row and looking left before scanning rightwards. That's a big disruption to readability.
Again, I am sorry if this appears negative. However, I have spent a lot of time over the last 15 years documenting these elections and studying a vast array of reference books, so my comments are based on a lot of experience and a lot of study of how reliable sources organise this information. The format of {{Compact election box}} roughly follows the proposal by Sam Blacketer at WT:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive_6#Election_box, and Sam is himself a noted psephologist with several volumes published under his real name. By contrast, it seems to me that those objecting to {{Compact election box}}'s mimicking of the reliable sources demonstrate no experience with those sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: Thank you for your detailed reply. I'll explain clearly what I mean by "less intuitive" (for the avoidance of doubt I am referring to {{Compact election box}} in particular).
  • Firstly each parties' colour is separated from their name, as instead placed next to the name of their candidate. This could easily be fixed by swapping the "party" and "candidate" columns over as in {{Election box}} and my proposal.
  • Secondly, the figures for majority, turnout, swing and electorate are spread over two columns - far from simply scanning rightwards, you have to look down the first column to find the name, electorate, and turnout, then look up and along to the second column and look down again to find the result, majority and swing. When I tried to fix this in my version, you rightly pointed out that doing so would vertically extend the results rows in elections with only one or two candidates - but you could argue that {{Compact election box}} wastes a lot of space in elections with several candidates, as by having two columns you end up with far more whitespace below each than if you had combined the data into one. I prefer how {{Election box}} lists this information in neat columns for votes, percentage, and change, which match up nicely to the vote count rows.
To answer some of your other points:
  • The headers for each election are deliberate, to make the table more legible, as currently it can be hard to decipher where the results of one election stop and those of another start. If you are finding it hard to locate each election, the text could easily be left-aligned, and formatted as "2017 general election" instead of "General election 2017".
  • If you are looking for an example of scholarly material that uses a format similar to {{Election box}}, then I would point you towards Bochel and Denver's series on Scottish local elections. In the 2003 version for example, the ward name (easily interchangeable for the election year) is followed by the vote counts, with turnout, majority, and political result at the bottom.
  • Electorate is an omission on my part (I took the data for my demo from Hazel Grove (UK Parliament constituency), which doesn't list it). However, the assertion that adding electorate would massively increase the amount of scrolling is exaggerated, and I would question whether it is really necessary seeing as most constituency articles don't contain it.
Finally, it does seem that your heart is set on {{Compact election box}}, so I would simply ask whether you think that it is unimprovable, and that any changes would make it worse? If so, that would suggest to me that any alternative or compromise, however well-reasoned, is going to be disregarded. I don't think {{Election box}} is perfect, but as it stands {{Compact election box}} just isn't a good enough alternative to justify changing 1000+ articles. Regards, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 11:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@PinkPanda272: Thank you v much for that detailed reply. I think that there is a lot of scope here for exploring possibilities for how we can we meet everyone's concerns, and your post deserves a considered response.
Unfortunately, I am a bit headachey today, and not at my sharpest, so I am just doing a few clerical tasks on en.wp. So pls forgive me if it takes a day or so to get back to you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@PinkPanda272: Sorry for the belated reply.
Thanks for the link to Bochel and Denver's report on the 2003 Scottish local elections. They do very high quality work, so was I curious to see what was going on here. Am I correct in thinking that you are referring to e.g. page 22?
If so, it seems to me to be a poor comparator to our constituency articles. That doc is their report on elections in a single year in multiple wards and councils (a horizontal slice of electoral data), whereas the constituency articles that we are discussing here are vertical slices which not only invite direct comparison over time, but actually include it (swing). So it's a different style, for a different use.
But I do note that their presentation puts the political result and the electorate size above the vote tally, which is better than {{Election box}}.
Thanks too for your other observations, which I will number to aid discussion:
  1. each parties' colour is separated from their name, as instead placed next to the name of their candidate. This could easily be fixed by swapping the "party" and "candidate" columns over as in and my proposal
    • The reason for that is that the first choice was to put the candidate first :a) reference books lists candidate first, then party. b) in an FPTP election, votes are for an individual candidate, not a party; c) ballot papers sort candidates by surname, not party, giving primacy to name; d) ballot papers list name first, then party. So the {{Compact election box}} follows the order of the sources and the ballot. I would be reluctant to change that.
      The colour for the candidate can be placed anywhere on the line. Personally, i find it most helpful at the start of the votes section, as a quick visual cue, but I can see a case for placing it elsewhere. I will sandbox one or more alternatives.
      I take your point about the horizontal width, but except on mobile the horizontal width is fine; the problem is with vertical space. There is significant utility in being able to view a higher number of elections on one screen. The point you make about elections with lots of candidates really applies only to the last three decades. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries, a single-seat constituency very rarely exceeded two candidates, and before the Ballot Act 1872 it was common for only one candidate to sustain their nomination. For most of the 20th century, two- or three-candidate contests were the norm in England. So for most of our set of constituency articles, the vertically-shorter layout works better.
  2. I prefer how {{Election box}} lists this information in neat columns for votes, percentage, and change, which match up nicely to the vote count rows
    • I know of no reliable source which presents the summary data as a continuation of the vote counts. Those columns are neat, but they invert the hierarchy of info, and misleadingly conflate different types of data. That seems to me to be a wiki artefact which the scholars avoid.
  3. the figures for majority, turnout, swing and electorate are spread over two columns .
    • That is deliberate. The separation reflects the reliable sources, which first list the data on who was voting (electorate, turnout), and then at the end of the line list the two items of derived data on how they voted (majority, swing), which are part of the political result. Because the columns are very short, any "up and down" is trivial. Merging the columns loses the clarity of separating those two types of data, as well obscuring the crucial political result.
  4. The headers for each election are deliberate.
    • I see what you are saying, but I know of no other type of list on en.wp which uses headers in that way to separate list rows. I agree entirely about titling the election a "YYYY general election" rather than "General election YYYY", and would support a wholesale change of that. But your draft effectively removes the row label from the row, which the sources don't do, and which makes it harder to identify each election.
      I take your point about how the rows may appear to run into each other (a point also made below by Ralbegen), but I think that a better solution to that is one or more of a) add whitespace to the top and bottom of each box; b) possibly use a thicker line between elections; c) applying difft shading to odd- and even-numbered rows, if that is possible.
  5. Electorate is an omission due to it not being in the article used as example. ... most constituency articles don't contain it
    • Fair enough, you could use only the data which was there. It's a pity that so many articles don't contain that data, because it is included in all of Craig's and Walker's volumes. That is an omission which should be corrected, and we should design the page layout on the assumption that all fields will eventually be filled.
I think that's all your points answered, tho obviously pls correct me if I have missed anything.
As to whether I'm set on {{Compact election box}}, the answer is a qualified no. I am set on using a list format, as the reliable sources do, to allow the reader to more easily compare the results of different elections, and to more easily identify elections where the seat changed hands. I personally think that the current version of {{Compact election box}} does that well, but I hear the comments from others about the difficulties they have with that, so I will draft variations for discussions.
One key point is that because {{Compact election box}} uses one template to process all the data, its display can be completely reconfigured at any time without any modification to articles. That is not possible with {{Election box}}, because its layout relies on the positioning in the article markup of multiple sub-templates. For that reason alone, it would be good to replace {{Election box}} with an all-in-one template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@PinkPanda272: Hey, this is a really good alternative! I like that the party colour is to the very left so you can immediately see what party won the election. I think the addition of the election titles between each set of results goes a long way to addressing some of the 'wallpaper' concerns that Doktorbuk had.
I think that BrownHairedGirl does have a point about how tall your election boxes will become if you introduce the electorate information, and the names of the parties that are part of the swing. It might be a good further compromise to add in two columns to spread that information out, similar to the {{Compact election box}}. So the end result would be a reordering of {{Compact election box}} and the election titles that you've introduced? --Gharbhain (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
@Gharbhain: can I ask why we are suddenly changing all of the election boxes over to a new template? I find {{Compact election box}} harder to read, and it doesn't scale well on mobile. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 21:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@PinkPanda272 There does seem to be a bit of confusion as to what the proper style for the pages should be. The style guide does suggest {{Election box}} but @BrownHairedGirl points to consensus being reached to use {{Compact election box}}. You can read the discussion I had with them here, and they point to here as the source of the consensus.
I was personally like you in that I found {{Compact election box}} harder to read initially but I feel a bit different now after looking at it for hours. I hadn't considered the mobile scaling issue, though. --Gharbhain (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. However, I would rather we had a proper discussion or RfC before implementing anything, rather than rely on a 11-year-old consensus made by only a handful of editors. {{Election box}} is the standard template used across Wikipedia, so I think we would need a really good reason to change to a different (and in my opinion inferior) template. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 06:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@PinkPanda272 Yeah, fair enough, maybe there should be an RfC to push any consensus on changes to this style guide. I appreciate that it comes under a different WikiProject but there's a lot of overlap between this and that project so seems fine to me. --Gharbhain (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Changing the format of election results on constituency articles

Further to the discussion above, Gharbhain has proposed changing the current {{Election box}} templates used on constituency articles over to {{Compact election box}}. You can compare the two formats below (with thanks to BrownHairedGirl for the links):

Is this a good idea? PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 14:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I personally prefer 2. It's less overwhelming and I fear that 1 would end up taking up a lot of space in contests with a lot of candidates. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@FollowTheTortoise, {{Compact election box}} always takes less vertical space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh yes, I can see that now. My mistake! But I still prefer 2 on the ground that it is less overwhelming and, additionally, it makes it easier to browse and link to different contests. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@FollowTheTortoise: What do you mean "easier to browse and link to different contests"? {{Compact election box}} is designed to be easier to browse, by a) requiring much less scrolling, and b) using a columnar format so that the different types of data are in separate columns. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
It's effectively because the information is more separated. I find this easier to read and it also makes it possible to link to a specific result (like this). I completely understand that others may disagree, but this is my view, as a long-time Wikipedia reader! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree To FollowTheTortoise:. Just put that below. Far easier to access and link, particularly on mobile, and better than having a great big wallpaper of names and numbers. Change for the point of change is not an improvement. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
As explained several times on this page, this is change for improved readability, to a format close to that used in the most reliable sources (Craig & Walker).
Calling it change for the point of change is a blatant misrepresentation of the proposal and the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
PS the linking issue has been resolved: see below at #Linking to results table using Compact election box. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the linking issue! I still find 2 more readable, but I'm happy to conform to whatever the consensus is. Thank you to everybody for their efforts on this, particularly BrownHairedGirl for replying to my concerns. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Probably not surprising but I would vote for 1 as well. If you look at certain constituencies like Isle of Wight, the election results just trail and trail on. Converting to {{Compact election box}} would reduce the total space taken up by the election results significantly while also providing improved readability. I know that PinkPanda272 mentioned that they had some issues with finding the results in {{Compact election box}} more difficult to read, and I was the same initially but once I adjusted to the change I found it a much better way to present information. As BrownHairedGirl said, it does make more sense to present the election result (hold/gain, majority and swing) first since that's what's key to a FPTP election.--Gharbhain (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Question what is the point of this section, @PinkPanda272? It is not formatted as an RFC, is not notified like an RFC (and esp doesn't notify those who participated in the previous discussions). It appears to have been created solely because PinkPanda272 decided to withdraw from actual discussion after I explained in detail why the compact box had been designed as it is. WP:NOTAVOTE, and it seems to me to be unhelpful to create an informal vote section when discussion was ongoing.
If you want to start an actual RFC, then please work with others to define the question and set it up properly ... but please, let the actual discussion continue for a bit, so that we can clarify the issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I didn't intend for it to be a vote, merely a break in the conversation so that there was a more visible section for others to add their opinions. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 21:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I remember when the compact box was created and how there was great hope in it. However, as above, seats with hundreds of years of history would change from a historic summary broken up with headings - 2020s 2010s 2000s 1990s etc - into a great big wallpaper of candidate names and numbers. I wonder if the compact box would be a great fit for by-election articles instead? I can see them being a good fit for stand-alone articles. My preference would be to keep the election box for constituency articles, if only for accessibility reasons. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@Doktorbuk: there is absolutely no reason why {{Compact election box}} would require a single great big wallpaper. It works well when broken up in to chunks, as per the example above of Bradford West. In that case the break is due to a period when the constituency did not exist, but in other cases it would be simple to split the list at major historical points, e.g. the Reform Acts of 1832, 1885 and 1918, the Act of Union in 1707, etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@Doktorbuk: I think I know what you are meaning but to me it seems that using {{Compact election box}} in only by-election pages would kind of defeat the purpose of what the template is trying to do - condense long lists of results into a more compact form. By-election pages would probably only have at the most two election results listed, the by-election itself and the election previous. In that case, having two {{Election box}}s would be fine since it wouldn't take up too much space (although for consistency, if we did adopt {{Compact election box}} for constituency pages, they should also be used for by-election pages).
I get what you are saying though with it maybe looking like a big wall of numbers, but it can be broken up pretty easily. I don't know if the break points that BrownHairedGirl suggested are the best ones, but we could break it up by century? I think even the current system of breaking up by decade is a little excessive when we should only expect two elections every ten years, and I think the most there has ever been is four?
Also, do you mean accessibility as in being able to link to specific elections or accessibility as in the design principle? --Gharbhain (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Gharbhain: the reason I suggest breaking on major political events such as the Reform Acts is that significantly changed the nature of the constituency, by widening the electorate in all cases, and by changing its boundaries in many cases. That's why the years 1832, 1868, 1885 and 1918 usually mark a big change in the voting pattern.
Breaking up the lists by century or decade amounts to an arbitrary division, which unhelpfully splits the epochs used by most electoral historians.
And yes, I agree that using {{Compact election box}} in only by-election pages would defeat its purpose, which is to create lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: Ah, yes, I see what you are saying. I did think that chopping it off by century might be not great as well since some points of interest would be lost (I'm thinking of anyone wanting to see a swing between Blair's first two elections). I just worry that maybe using breaks at Reform Acts might not be very intuitive to someone not familiar with those pieces of legislation? Maybe the subheadings above a {{Compact election box}} could be reworked to make this clear? Elections After the Third Reform Act (1884) rather than Elections 1885–1918? Maybe that's not any better. Would you recommend further splitting sections after 1918 to account for the Reform Acts in 1928 and 1969? Or would that be excessive? --Gharbhain (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Gharbhain: There is a balance to be struck between unwieldiness and excessive splitting, because splits impede the ability follow trends. So I would advocate splitting only if the list gets unreasonably long. My preference is keep each section to no more than two screenfuls, but others may have reasons to prefer different thresholds.
The 1928 and 1969 reforms were not as significant as the 1832/1868/1885/1918 reforms, which led to much bigger expansions of the franchise. After 1918, the most significant breaks are probably the boundary changes in 1950, 1974, 1997, and 2010 (or 2005 in Scotland).
Where a break is made, headings should be concise, i.e. just years. Headings are just signposts, so they should indicate what is there not why it is there. (Think of how a road sign just says "Cambridge", not "Cambridge, home of the eponymous university and a lot of hi-tech business")
If any explanation is needed, it is better placed as the first line of the section, where relevant links can be included. For example:
== Elections 1885–1918 ==
Elections after the [[Third Reform Act]] (1884)
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl:I can see your thinking on 1928 and 1969 not being as significant (although I think 1928 was), but I don't think we should mix dates from different events, if you see what I mean. As in, we shouldn't have any breaks from boundary changes if we use breaks from Reform Acts. I don't think you're analogy quite works either, I think that Elections after the Third Reform Act (1884) is as concise as Elections 1885–1918 my issue was that I think Elections after the Third Reform Act (1884) doesn't provide enough detail on when the section dates end. Although, I think your suggestion of having both, one as a title and one as a description would be a good compromise. Should we decide to split them that way, that is. --Gharbhain (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
@Gharbhain: boundary changes and the major reform acts both significantly alter the composition of the electorate. So, if a split is needed, they are both good points for a split, because both mark a major change in the constituency.
I don't think that the data supports your claim that 1929 was as significant as the previous reforms. For example, in Bradford Central, 1929 saw a 16.7% increase in the size of the electorate, when compared withe previous general election. But the 1918 election saw a 452% increase in the size of the electorate when compared with Dec 1910.
As to headings, the function of a heading is not to provide detail. The job of a heading is to uniquely identify; detail should supplied below. And no, "Elections after the Third Reform Act (1884)" is NOT as concise as "Elections 1885–1918". The former is 43 characters, the latter is 19. Plus the shorter form is more accurate, because it includes the end date. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm afraid I find the condesned election box template a pain to read. It appears to prioritise information density, and joining multiple results into one big table reduces clarity of delineation that we have in the existing version. I understand the motivation behind it and appreciate the effort that's gone into it but I don't think it's suitable as a replacement for {{Election box}}. Some specific issues I have with it are: removal of juxtaposition of turnout/majority from the results; visually confusingly splitting party colour from name; juxtaposing worst-performers from newer elections with best performers from older elections; a visually exhausting subtable of values for the rightmost three columns; formatting issues in the Bradford sample offered where there are two candidates and more text on the left. I think the solution to those issues is to continue using Telugu: Election box! Ralbegen (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Ralbegen: thanks for your reply. Some of your concerns may be resolvable by layout tweaks.
    I am a bit headachey today, but will try to reply properly tomorrow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Ralbegen: sorry I have been slow to reply. I have just written above a long reply to PinkPanda272, which overlaps a lot with the issues you raise. I hope it's ok to not repeat all that here.
    Some of the issues you raise are matters of layout and formatting, which can of course be modified. So I will start work on a few sandbox variants of {{Compact election box}}, to see how much of your concerns can be resolved. I will start a new sub-section to collate all the issues, and will ping you then to check that I have noted all your points.
    However, can't see any formatting issues in the Bradford samples. I'm not sue whether I have missed something or whether dift browsers are rendering things differently. Please can you help me to identify the problem by describing the formatting issues and identifying which election(s) show problems, and what browser you used? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Ralbegen: I agree with your concerns. When used in by-election articles, with only two results, the compact box makes sense because you have a clear and straightforward comparison between results. And, for us editors who have to deal with these boxes, having two is easy to edit. With scores and scores of results on an ordinary constituency article, it becomes ridiculous, very hard to maintain, very difficult to tell one apart from another, and as you say, the lowest ranked candidates from Year X can be conflated with the winning candidates from Year Z. I am getting very close to flat-out refusing to accept this change if it happens. It's starting to sound like unnecessary busy-work. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Doktorbuk: that is now the third time you have made the same bogus claim, which you have phrased this time as unnecessary busy-work. There have been plenty of explanations here of the problems which compact election box tries to solve ... and at this stage, your continued claims that those reasons do not exist can not be excused as a misunderstanding or as transient frustration. You ae clearly engaged in a sustained campaign of intentionally misrepresenting others in this discussion. Please stop those disruptive smear tactics.
    I am astonished by your claim that ith only two results, the compact box makes sense because you have a clear and straightforward comparison between results. In a constituency article, readers have the opportunity to compare a series of results ... and the list-style layout used by the reliable sources facilitates that, whereas {{Election box}} impede comparison.
    It is truly bizarre to support easy comparison only in pairs of results, but oppose it in longer series.
    {{Compact election box}} tries to mimic the list-style presentation of the reliable sources, precisely to help that comparison.
    I hear the feedback here that some aspects of the presentation of {{Compact election box}} may need tweaking, esp to provide greater visual separation, and I will make some sandbox drafts with testcases so that we can explore that.
    However, maintaining {{Compact election box}} is no harder than maintaining {{Election box}}, so that complaint is unfounded. In any case, results are static historical data, so once entered they need little maintenance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
@Doktorbuk: I hear what you are saying with your concerns about maintance, although I would say that having seen and worked with how the tables are structered it isn't too difficult to tell different election sections apart. The number of candidates is actually a big help when compared to {{Election box}}, to me at least. You also wouldn't need to worry too much with regards to converting between formats, I've created a script that can do it automatically and only the final output would need to be pasted into an article. I will say that I can see where you frustration could be coming from but refusing to work with a consensus seems unfair. I know above a RfC was suggested and it feels like once the particulars of what the options could be between {{Election box}} and {{Compact election box}} are worked out then there should be an 'official' one to work out what to do. --Gharbhain (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I echo the comments of other editors in that I find the compact box difficult to read. It is too compact! I oppose. Bondegezou (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


  • It appears like there's not a whole lot of support for {{Compact election box}} at this time. Seems sensible then to convert any cases of {{Compact election box}} to {{Election box}}? Then in future we could revist the issue with other templates if necessary? --Gharbhain (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @BrownHairedGirl: Would you be able to revert the {{Compact election box}} on Bradford West in light of this discussion? Lots of good work done here, but think that the majority opinion is still for {{Election box}}. Thanks --Gharbhain (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Gharbhain: My reading of the discussion so far is that is that there are some reasoned objections to the current formatting of {{Compact election box}}. That's why I have offered to sandbox some variations in formatting and layout, to see if the difficulties can be overcome.
    I have been busy for the last week on another wiki-task, but hope to be back to this later this week. It seem to me to be better to complete the testing process before making a final decision, and before removing the few existing uses of {{Compact election box}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    @BrownHairedGirl: That's not my reading, but I'm looking forward to seeing what other templates you will put up for discussion. --Gharbhain (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Gharbhain: there also seem to be some fundamental objections to the principle of using list-style layout, like the scholarly sources do.
    I hope that experimenting with the layout of the lists can help clarify the issues.
    A lot of work is involved, so it may take a while to get the first set of variations ready, and then I expect that there will be a few iterations of revision based on feedback. But there is no deadline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Linking to results table using Compact election box

In the discussion above, several editors noted that it was not possible to link to election results which use {{Compact election box}}. Pinging @FollowTheTortoise and Doktorbuk.

This seemed to me to be a reasonable concern, so I have modified the template to resolve this. {{Compact election box}} now automatically generates anchors for each election, and allows custom anchors to be added by parameters to the template.

Full details are documented at Template:Compact election box#Anchors, but here are a few examples of auto-generated anchors:

and one of a custom anchor:

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Mandatory?

Will changing perfectly acceptable, accessible, clear to read, easy to edit, and universally used election boxes to wallpaper be mandatory? On whose order? doktorb wordsdeeds 15:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: If the consensus is that we keep the normal election boxes, that's fine by me! I only meant to update them with what I thought had been decided was the new style. In fact, I have before converted some {{Compact election box}}s to {{Election box}}s! I think both styles have good and bad points, although I personally prefer {{Compact election box}}. But I can totally see why some prefer {{Election box}}!
To be honest, I'm really more interested in if 1918 Coalition candidates for the Conservatives should be listed as Coalition Unionist or not, hahaha --Gharbhain (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Well that was going to be a future question. Feels like your question has been hijacked. And I really don't want thousands of articles changed for the sake of change doktorb wordsdeeds 15:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Doktorbuk: the comment above is the second time that you have claimed that this is about "change for the sake of change". That claim is blatantly false: the reasons for preferring the {{Compact election box}} have been explained several times on this page, and also at WT:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive_6#Election_box, a discussion in which you participated.
So that claim will clearly have be known to you to be false. Please stop this intentional misrepresentation of other editors; that which is uncivil and disruptive. You are quite entitled to express your views, but you should do so by reasoned discussion rather than by repeated misrepresentation.
I have set out above why the {{election box}} is not a clear way of presenting the data on a series of elections, because it is vertically bulky (requiring scrolling), because it does not separate difft type of data into difft columns, and because it hides the most significant summary data below the details. You are quite entitled to disagree with that, by reasoned response; but slogans like "wallpaper" are not a reasoned response, and your bogus claims of "change for the sake of change" are disruptive nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement

I informed an editor who is on this page that I would not interact with them. That still stands. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

You are of course free to not respond to anyone. But your repeated misrepresentations are disruptive, and you have been asked twice to desist from disrupting the discussion by posting assertions about other editors which you must know to be false. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

United Kingdom Parliament constituencies page move


Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) is well established and agreed upon. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Is Labour Friends of Israel Zionist?


I'm guessing this has been discussed before, but the article Labour Friends of Israel is in the categories Zionism in the United Kingdom and Zionist organizations, while the category Labour Friends of Israel is in the categories Zionism in the United Kingdom and British Zionists (so anyone in the category Labour Friends of Israel is automatically in the category British Zionists).

The word Zionism does not appear in the article Labour Friends of Israel (until the categories). By WP:V, it should not be in these categories. I can't find a clear WP:WEIGHT of WP:RS that call the group Zionist, although some clearly NPOV sources do. I note the Zionism categories were not present on the article prior to the Corbyn-era divisions within Labour over antisemitism. The Labour Friends of Israel article states that the group "says it supports a two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, with Israel recognised and secure within its borders, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state." The Zionism article states it "espouses the establishment of, and support for a Jewish state centered in the area roughly corresponding to Canaan, the Holy Land, or the region of Palestine on the basis of a long Jewish connection and attachment to that land." It seems to me that support for Israel within its current borders is not necessarily the same as Zionism: this is WP:SYNTH; we need actual reliable secondary sourcing here.

The same is true of Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel: it's in Zionism categories, but with nothing in the article saying that. Ditto Conservative Friends of Israel. (Northern Ireland Friends of Israel is in the Zionism in Europe category, but not the other UK Zionism categories.)

In comparison, Friends of Israel in the Parliament of Norway, Christians' Israel Public Action Campaign, Sweden–Israel Friendship Association and Michigan Israel Business Accelerator are in the same category Israel friendship associations as the above UK political articles, but not in any Zionism categories. Even the Australian AIJAC, which was co-founded by the Zionist Federation of Australia, is not in any Zionism categories. It's just UK political friendship associations that are. Bondegezou (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure about what the actual rules are around categorising pages, but a quick Google search brings up this article from the director of Labour Friends of Israel. In the article, Michael Rubin describes himself as a 'proud Jewish Zionist'. Not enough to brand the entire organisation as Zionist, though, but might be where some of the thinking comes from. Like you, I can't find any good source that describes LFI as Zionist. Might be better to remove those categories if that is the case? --Gharbhain (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Categories are a bit of a world unto themselves, but basically they still follow the same epistemological principles of WP:V, WP:RS etc. I concur about that citation: I'd see it as sufficient to describe Rubin as a Zionist, but it would be WP:SYNTH to take that as proof that LFI are Zionist. Bondegezou (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Leaving this project


Because of the actions of certain people, I am leaving this project. Please remove my name from the roster on the title page within 24 hours. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

He said, she said...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Doktorbuk has made a big contribution to this project over many years, and I am sorry to see him leave.
For the record, it seems clear that the the actions of certain people to which Doktorbuk refers are my responses to Doktorbuk's comments about the proposed wider use of {{Compact election box}}. I repeated challenged Doktorbuk's misrepresentations of the proposal, which falsely described it as change for the point of change, changed for the sake of change, and unnecessary busy-work. The reasons for the proposed change have been set out many times in this discussion, including in reply to Doktorbuk. They can be summarised as being to display lists of election results in a list format similar to that used by the reliable sources.
Any editor is of course free to express their disagreement with any proposed change. However, they should do so in a reasoned and honest manner, to help build WP:Consensus. Sadly Doktorbuk chose instead to engage in a campaign of systematically misrepresenting this proposal as being made without a desire for improvement. That misrepresentation is the complete opposite of WP:Civil; it is a hostile act against the editors who make a proposal, by smearing them as irrational. Aside from the disruption cased by such incivility in souring the atmosphere, it is also disruptive to WP:consensus formation in a second way: because it attempts to deceive other editors about the nature of the proposal and the motivations of the proposers
For the sake of transparency, here are some diffs:
  1. 21:19, 10 June 2021: Doktorbuk writes Change for the point of change is not an improvement
    • BHG reply: 22:19, 10 June 2021
  2. 15:47, 11 June 2021: Doktorbuk writes I really don't want thousands of articles changed for the sake of change
    • BHG's reply: 16:57, 11 June 2021
  3. 18:29, 13 June 2021 : Doktorbuk writes It's starting to sound like unnecessary busy-work
    • BHG reply: 19:03, 13 June 2021
I am sad that Doktorbuk has chosen to behave this way, and I am particularly sad that he attempts to blame others for his own decision to engage in smear tactics instead of reasoned discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Have you ever considered your behaviour may be to blame? Dealing with you is one of the most unpleasant experiences I regularly encounter on Wikipedia and I have avoided discussions that I see you are involved in becauuse of this. In a recent discussion that I did partake in, I asked you to stop pinging me, so instead you 'thanked' me to draw attention to the fact that you had replied (and as a result are now one of the three editors on my 'ignore' list, which means I no longer get notifications from you). You seem to be completely unable to deal with editors disagreeing with you and instead continue the argument endlessly, well past the point at which it should be dropped. I had hoped the portals debacle would have led to some self-reflection, as a few years ago you didn't used to be like this. Please take this as another hint that you are not very nice to other editors. Number 57 21:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Number57, I am sad to see that you don't even attempt to assess the situation at hand, but instead raise an issue from elsewhere.
In that other discussion, I accepted your request not to ping you, and AFAICR I clicked the thanks button as acknowledgement. I am sorry if that was the wrong response, but it was intended as act of courtesy.
I expect that where there is disagreement, editors are open to reasoned responses, to which they may or may not choose to reply. I am sorry that you dislike that, but since WP:NOTAVOTE applies, don't see how consensus can be built unless disagreements are explored through reasoned discussion.
As to being "not very nice", the problem here is that Doktorbuk was engaging in sustained misrepresentation, for which "not very nice" is too mild a description. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, there is a time for reasoned responses and there is a time to drop a subject. Knowing which is which can be difficult for many of us! However, I am confident that continuing to make these criticisms of Doktorbuk in this subsection where he's announcing his departure from the project is not helpful. Bondegezou (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bondegezou: I would have preferred not to reply. But Doktorbuk chose to blame his departure on others in a way which when combined with a post on a user talk page, made it clear that I was his target.
That sort of thing can escalate to ANI, or alternatively remain on the record as a slur. I decided that the least worst thing to do was to set out the facts, so that they are on hand if anyone wants to escalate this episode, or to revisit it in future. Doktorbuk's disruption appears to have stopped (tho not in way I hoped), and I would be happy to leave the matter there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that he didn't mention you -- his post was largely just saying he was leaving the project -- so I hardly think it can be called a "slur". — Czello 10:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to hear this, Doktorbuk, and hope to see you on other parts of Wikipedia. Bondegezou (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Doktorbuk: Sorry to see this, seems like there has been a bit of communication breakdown on this topic. --Gharbhain (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Doktorbuk: Sorry to hear this mate, I do hope it's only temporary. — Czello 10:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The 10 most-viewed, worst-quality articles according to this Wikiproject


  • 63 Hartlepool (UK Parliament constituency) 113,741 3,669 Unknown Low
  • 96 Batley and Spen (UK Parliament constituency) 80,770 2,605 Unknown Unknown
  • 108 2021 England and Wales police and crime commissioner elections 70,276 2,266 Unknown Low
  • 142 London mayoral elections 55,127 1,778 Unknown Unknown
  • 305 Kate Forbes 26,943 869 Stub Low
  • 9 2021 Scottish Parliament election 598,152 19,295 Start Low
  • 56 Edwin Poots 125,356 4,043 Start Unknown
  • 66 Count Binface 110,988 3,580 Start Low
  • 84 Arthur Conan Doyle 89,262 2,879 Start Mid
  • 92 Mayor of London 84,790 2,735 Start Mid

Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure what this is about, the formatting seems to be off, but it might be worth remembering that everyone on this Wikiproject is a volunteer who edits Wikipedia in their spare time, with no obligation to do so, just like you. And I think that as a whole we do a pretty good job! So why don't you have a go at improving those articles? Or, failing that, it might be useful for you to explain in what ways those articles are "worst-quality". FollowTheTortoise (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
That articles relating to current by-elections are in a poor state is hardly a surprise; the visits reflect the topicality of the news yet the articles are bound to be in a poor state with so many adding to them. The worrying ones in the list are those relating to the London mayor and mayoral elections and the Scottish Parliament, which experienced political editors might usefully review? MapReader (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)