Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

Politics of the United Kingdom


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, 13, 14, 15

Discussion at Isla Bryson case edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Isla Bryson case#RfC on the inclusion of Isla Bryson's former name, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This RfC is on the application of MOS:GENDERID in relation to Bryson's former name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BilledMammal (talkcontribs) 20:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are local authority by-election results DUE, UNDUE, TRIVIA, INDISCRIMINATE edit

Before the discussion above re Andrew Teale's blog gets sidetracked, I think it best to open a separate discussion on the general principle of LA by-elections and leave the details of how it is cited to that discussion.

It seems to me that council by-elections fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE (aka WP:NOTDATABASE). Unless a by-election has the effect of changing control of the council, why does it matter? And generally the data doesn't get maintained. (Yes, once in a while a dedicated individual like Alextheconservative does the Labours of Hercules but it doesn't last: there are too many to do and if it weren't for other dedicated individuals like Andrew Teale, the work involved would be unconscionable.) If we take the long view, these events really are insignificant: party leaders fall on their swords when the party gets trounced in the major round of council elections but nobody really notices a LA by-election decided by a risible turnout. The fact that it so difficult to cite a news organisation speaks volumes. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree that the fact that data is not maintained is a point against its inclusion. As an example, take the pages on select committees; party affiliation, membership, and leadership quite often lags weeks if not months behind the facts (up 18 December, Julian Knight was still listed as a Select Committee chair at Template:UKParliamentCommitteeChairs).
For your point about their importance, I agree that they are usually unimportant affairs, which is why they're listed in the relevant "[authority] elections" section rather than having their own page, like the elections themselves or parliamentary by-elections. Most individual local elections themselves lead to little or no change; for the past 13 years, Barking and Dagenham has returned the same result (51 Labour councillors), but each of those elections has their own page.
Alextheconservative (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly, when I think about the sheer amount of effort I put in, for years, compiling all these results for Wikipedia, I'll happily AfD everything if the mood now is that they're all non-notable. Wikipedia should be a record of facts, even if the council didn't change hands. If we're now saying that election results fail GNG, then I'm just going to delete everything I've ever done. What's the point. What's the point of doing so much for so little thanks? doktorb wordsdeeds 22:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the regular elections for local authorities get pages (as they routinely do, with a well-established set of templates), then we're missing a trick if we arbitrarily say that those are notable but by-elections aren't. I agree the by-elections are seldom of huge interest, but where a council composition changes as a result of by-elections we ought to try and keep the resultant standing of the parties up to date, accepting there will always be a bit of a lag. When it comes to writing up the election results for the next regular elections, it's helpful to know the standing immediately beforehand as well as at the previous election, and having decent records of by-elections can help pinpoint when changes to/from no overall control actually happened between elections.
Local media has been in decline and so in some areas reporting other than by the councils themselves is patchy, and councils have an infuriating habit of deleting old results pages fairly shortly afterwards. That said, as well as Andrew Teale / Local Elections Archive Project, I regularly use Local Councils by consultants Thorncliffe: their weekly updates by David Boothroyd are a pretty good record for by-elections / changes of allegiance. Stortford (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not really seeing an issue here. As far as I'm aware, local by-elections don't get their own pages, and are instead listed in the aftermath section of the regular election article. Also a bit confused about the data not being maintained point. Once the by-election has happened and the results published, what is there to maintain? The figures aren't subsequently updated. Number 57 19:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think anyone's suggesting that local by-elections get their own pages (and I wouldn't support that if it were the suggestion), but the suggestion seems to be to ignore the by-elections which at the moment generally get listed at the end of the page for the preceding regular election, which I think is perfectly sensible and should continue. Apologies if I've misunderstood what @JMF was saying. Stortford (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You've made a good point about the collapse of local newspapers being an issue. We need citations but if Reach has its way, we won't have any. Something to consider. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My concern was that it takes a lot of work (that is only going to get harder) to do these, so it would be a real pity if they were to be deleted as WP:NOTDATABASE violations at some future date. So if we establish a consensus now that they are worth having, then that at least is a first line of defence. It seems clear from the foregoing that this is indeed the consensus. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Something has pinged into my head and I'll get it down now as a suggestion. When I wanted to create articles for Lancashire County Council elections, even I knew that listing every single result for every single division with every single name might open opposition. My solution was just to do summary results instead. Another editor took offence and there was some edit warring. I wonder if this could be a workable compromise for the larger authorities, showing that we accept annual results as valid but not perhaps with every single candidate listed in full. My Wiki instincts are also looking at OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but I do wonder if we can look at how far down USA election results are compiled here? doktorb wordsdeeds 07:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just to jump in here, but state legislative special elections in the US are generally listed on the overall page for state legislative elections that year, like here, or in some cases have their own page, like in New Hampshire this session, if there's a particularly large focus. The latter is definitely more rare from what I can see, though. AnOpenBook (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillhouse (ward) edit

More opinions would be welcomed on the above AfD discussion on Hillhouse (ward), thanks. Crowsus (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright on old portraits edit

A lot of articles on yesteryear British public figures use monochrome photographs by Bassano, Walter Stoneman, Walter Bird Elliot & Fry, Godfrey Argent or Lafayette. A lot of these have been uploaded (including by me) under fair use arguments but there are also several marked as public domain, according to rules which suggest a lot of the fair use uploads have actually been public domain this whole time as well. Do we have any guidance on this? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With photographs by Bassano, Elliot & Fry and Lafayette, the key factor is whether they were created over 70 years ago. However, under US law, NPG copies might still be copyrighted unless over 95 years have passed since creation. This is due to the restoration of copyrights under the URAA, unless the originals were simultaneously published in the US or the NPG or another holder publishes a copy under a free license.
Regarding Walter Stoneman, Walter Bird and Godfrey Argent, all Stoneman's photographs taken before 1929 are public domain in the US. Photos taken after 1929 and before 1954 are public domain in the UK, but similar copyright considerations apply in the US for NPG-published copies. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JJMC89 asserts that the files must all be public domain in the USA (whether or not in Britain) to be used freely, which contradicts what I've seen of the usage of other political portraits. DrKay asserts that Stoneman's photographs are not public domain until 2029 (and presumably the other artists seventy years after their respective deaths). Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stoneman's photographs published prior to 1929 are in the public domain in the US, which means you can upload them locally here, but not to Wikimedia Commons, as Commons requires works to be in the public domain both in the US and in the source country. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do I do with those published 1929-53 which are public domain in UK but not US. I was already uploading the files locally.

Also, what particular copyright law is being applied here? It's obviously not life+70 as Stoneman, Bird and Argent were all alive more recently than that. I've seen quite a few of the NPG photographs noted as public domain because they were UK government works prior to 1957, but I'm not confident in how consistently to apply that. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I actually said. PD-unknown "can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry." The author is known. See Is the author known. Yes. Is the work a photograph created before August 1989? Yes. Is the work a photograph taken before June 1957? Yes. Copyright expires 70 years after the author dies. If the photographer is not known, for example if it was created by anonymous company employee as opposed to a known individual, copyright expires 70 years after creation, etc. DrKay (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I work out which photographs fall under {{PD-UKGov}}, which explicitly applies worldwide? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Viscount & Viscountess Acheson 1946.jpgTake this image for example - it dates to 1946 and is credited to "Bassano Ltd" rather than a specific person so it should be public domain in Britain, but I've no idea when it was first published in the United States. Does this one need a fair use tag?

As for the others, I'm going to abandon my changes for now and revert to how they were before.Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seeking RFC input edit

Looking for input at this RFC which concerns England, Great Britain & the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Geographic data on constituencies edit

This is a bit tangential, but do we have data on the current constituency boundaries? We've got some nice graphics, but do we have coordinates describing constituencies? What I was actually thinking of was centroids for each constituency, either population-weighted or just geographic. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure if you're interested in the past constituency boundaries or the newly proposed ones (or even if this is the necessary format), but GIS files for the former can be found here: and geospatial data files for the latter can be found here: Hope this helps! AnOpenBook (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fantastic - thanks! Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should UK MP infoboxes include "majority"? edit

There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Template-protected edit request on 1 March 2024 which is relevant to this project. PamD 08:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]