Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

Politics of the United Kingdom

PROJECT

Devoted to improving coverage of British politics on Wikipedia.

Categories · Featured content · Templates

This is the talk page for WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom.
Shortcut WT:POLUKWT:POLUK 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, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

RM notice for "Mosley"

An editor has requested that Mosley be moved to Mosley (disambiguation), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.

More eyes on Homeland Party (United Kingdom) please

Over the past few months there have been a lot of new accounts who have very few edits (and in many cases zero edits outside of this article) trying to water down or remove the far-right and fascist labelling of this party. Given that this group is known to be quite coordinated I assume these are members of the party itself. They're not quite giving up, so I'd request some of you add this to your watchlist and keep an eye on the talk page discussions. Thanks. — Czello ^(music) 16:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Blair Babe#Requested move 4 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Blair Babe#Requested move 4 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 08:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements for 2025 Green Party of England and Wales leadership election

Can I request more input at Talk:2025 Green Party of England and Wales leadership election#Removals on the appropriate application of WP:ENDORSE? This is about what endorsements to include for 2025 Green Party of England and Wales leadership election. Bondegezou (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Me again. We could really do with some additional input, a third opinion, here? Bondegezou (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse#Requested move 13 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse#Requested move 13 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 01:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Party with Corbyn and Sultana

I've created Your Party (UK), but just a tiny stub so far. Bondegezou (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I See it has been PRODded. Correctly in my opinion, since the sourcing seems entirely inadequate to even establish that the name is correct. Wait for proper sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There seems plentiful sourcing for the party, it's just that the official name hasn't yet been decided: "Your Party" is the common name today. PamD 15:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Debrett's Digital Source

We've already got links to many old editions of Burke's and Debrett's Peerage through the Internet Archive, Gutenberg, Google Books et al. but these are all scans of physical books. Burke's hasn't actually published for a long time and Debrett's announced in 2019 that future editions will be online only. How shall we get access to these? On their website access requires a paid subscription. Is there anyone in this project group with access? Is there any chance of getting Debrett's added to the Wikipedia Library?

I asked this to the Heraldry & vexillology project in February but there was no reply. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Robert Wedderburn (radical)#Requested move 22 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Robert Wedderburn (radical)#Requested move 22 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 15:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political parties and their various committees, groups etc - lists of positions

I've noticed that @Hxrrsxmp has added a full list of positions, with names of the current post holders, to Young Greens of England and Wales (diff[1]). I see this happening a lot on various articles and it always either unreferenced, or as in this case, uses a primary source such as the organisation's own website. I will revert as this information is not encyclopaedic (WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC), and contravenes other policies such as WP:PROMO, WP:NOTDB and I suspect often WP:COI/WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY.

I've removed these sections several times now and I'd appreciate some feedback on whether I'm doing the right thing and if some stronger guidelines or policies are needed. Thanks! Orange sticker (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the guidance there is very little to suggest it shouldn't be there as it does provide useful information, the organisations own website is going to be the most reliable source for information on positions and post holders. The only thing is possible it being autobiographical but its not like they're making biased claims it is just stating who holds the elected positions as shown on the official young greens website. AlexAthena (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's more a case of notability and whether this is giving WP:UNDUE weight to what are normally temporary, voluntary positions which never receive any coverage in news or academia. Orange sticker (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some more examples: Young Liberals,Young Labour, an incomplete list of members of a sub-branch of a student union, the obsolete 'strategy board' of a think tank... I can't help but think this is nearly always a case of WP:SEOBOMB. Orange sticker (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it really has any of the characteristics, it's not excessively detailed it's just stating the names of people who in most cases aren't mentioned anywhere else on the internet. AlexAthena (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If they are not mentioned anywhere else on the internet, how did they get here? Orange sticker (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexAthena I'm sad to see you have restored the names to Young Greens of England and Wales though we have not reached consensus here. I'm restoring my edit, please wait until we have wider input to avoid an WP:EDITWAR. I see you are a new editor so it might be worthwhile familiarising yourself with the policies I've linked, and giving your arguments as to why the inclusion of these lists does not contravene them. Orange sticker (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at all of the policies you have linked and believe they have no relevance, there is nothing to suggest it is not encyclopaedic as it is not trying to be a dictionary; original thought; promotion; mirror or repository of links, images or media files; blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site; directory (which I will come back to); manual, guidebook, textbook or scientific journal; crystal ball; newspaper; indiscriminate collection of information. It may seem like it is a directory but it follows the guideline of being a "# Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32 KB) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, Listed buildings in Rivington. If reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable buildings and two non-notable buildings, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable buildings. However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:CSC&redirect=no) It is not autobiographical as it is not an opinion, is verifiable through the young greens website, and does not contain original content. It is not undue weight as it not a viewpoint and is just the information on who was elected to these roles. There is nothing to suggest that it is a case of WP:SEOBOMB as it is not excessively detailed, linking to any articles, or giving praise. AlexAthena (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]