Talk:British Parliamentary Style

The weblog http://1stpropinthefinal.blogspot.com should be included as an external link on this page. It is an account of the World Universities Debating Championships. Although Wikipedia guidelines reccomend against referencin blogs it is not an absolute ban. There are a number of reasons I think this source should be included.

1. It is not a "diary" type blog, the author used the blogger tool to record and publish results, motions etc in real time for debators who were not at the world championships.

2. The author is an authoriative source on debating having twice been a quarter finalist at the Championships and the previous year's convenor. He will be deputy Chief Adjudicator for the 2008 Championships.

3. Although it does include some light hearted comments it is largely a factual account of what happened.

4. There are many comments praising it for it's quality.

External links

I just noticed that a link to one of the oldest debate websites, which was originally added by [1], had been removed by an IP editor [2]. I have now restored the link. Please discuss removals of such long-standing content in the talk page before attempting to remove in the future. Radjenef (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Parliamentary Style. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120424202856/http://flynn.debating.net/ to http://flynn.debating.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Variations?

I've been editing this article a bit recently. I have a question about these two sentences:

"Speeches are usually five to seven minutes in duration."

"Depending on the country, there are variations in speaking time, speaking order, whether proposition whip can introduce new points, and the number of speakers."

• Is there any circuit where five-minute BP is standard? My experience has always been that seven-minute BP is the standard in university debating, while five-minute BP is a reduced format used in (for example) novice or school tournaments. If this is generally the case everywhere, then the first sentence should probably be changed to reflect that, rather than conveying the impression that speaking time routinely varies.
• Are there circuits where there are variations in "speaking order" and "the number of speakers"? That seems like quite a major deviation that would constitute a different format entirely, rather than just a variation of BP.

Of course, I'm not familiar with the norms in all circuits, and would welcome anyone providing info on circuits where these variations do occur (and are considered BP rather than a separate format). If these don't exist, I think these sentences should probably be amended. Does anyone have any thoughts? Helpful Cat (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

More role explanantions?

I don't know, but should I add more role explanations? Only the wip speeches isn't enough for the role explanations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph092111 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)