Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Category:Lists of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom table markupEdit

Currently Category:Lists of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom contains a lot of pages using a horrible table markup seemingly involving tables within tables, and a template ({{Legislationuk}}) which is explicitly marked as not to be used directly, which relies on a alpha module. Its also bad enough that currently editors using VE can't edit them, because VE just spits out the raw wikitext. The easiest way to deal with it I think is to reach consensus on a better table design, and then use a (semi) automated way to mass replace them. See List of Acts of the 5th Session of the 51st Parliament of the United Kingdom for one example of what I mean. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 14:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK these pages are due to the work of Theknightwho (talk · contribs) six or seven months ago. I first spotted it when this became this. It's since been split down into separate pages for each year (example), despite the fact that Senedd Cymru rarely passes more than five or six new Acts each year. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a case of a project getting interrupted while half-way done, and me not having had the time to properly sort it in the meantime for a few different reasons, not least of which being to ensure it’s not a complete mess to actually use.
In terms of a way forward, my preferred solution would be something that makes use of Wikdata for the structured data (i.e. the short/long titles, citations etc). This has already been uploaded to Wikidata by me going back to 1960, with more coming in time.
The actual formatting on the Wikipedia side obviously needs sorting out. While I think that the current layout is both aesthetic and functional for a reader, it’s obviously not in a fit state for any editor. Would be happy to brainstorm some solutions to this. I’d prefer if we didn’t just strip it right back, as a lot of the motivation for this was trying to ensure readability and accessibility, as I myself struggle with lengthy, bland tables of plain text. I have no issue with merging some of the annual lists, though.
Theknightwho (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Just as an addendum to this: the note that {{legislationuk}} was not to be called directly was added to the documentation in error by someone else. It has now been removed. Theknightwho (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC on lead of devolution in the United kingdomEdit

Their is an RFC going on here which may be of interest to editors who are interested in the UK.--Llewee (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Quatermass and the Pit under FA reviewEdit

I have nominated Quatermass and the Pit for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--George Ho (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

There are some very specific concerns there that could really benefit from some UK-knowledgeable feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR for General aviation in the United KingdomEdit

I have nominated General aviation in the United Kingdom for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 17:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

GA ReassessmentEdit

Staffordshire Bull Terrier has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Asquith_Xavier#Request_for_comment_on_images_in_this_articleEdit

If you have an opinion, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Federalism in the United KingdomEdit

Could other editors please take a look at recent changes at Federalism in the United Kingdom. Another editor has been making major changes to that article, including moving it to a different title, without any discussion - other than claiming that their text is "much improved". I'd be grateful if other interested editors could make their views known so that we can have a proper discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Favor request - access to 1949 Daily Telegraph piece through Gale?Edit

Hi all,

Non-UK editor here. Is there anyone here who has access to old Daily Telegraph articles through Gale? I'm trying to find the following:

  • "Obituary". The Daily Telegraph. 5 April 1949. p. 3.

I looked through Wikipedia:Gale, but it seems that we only have access to The Times historical articles with the Wikipedia subscription. Does anyone happen to have access through their UK library? Thank you in advance. Pilaz (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Neopaganism in the United Kingdom#Requested move 10 March 2022Edit

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Neopaganism in the United Kingdom#Requested move 10 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Requesting inputsEdit

Issue of Street grooming seems to have been inconclusively discussed twice in the past in 2012 and 2016 @ Talk:British Pakistanis. It seems to have come up again along with some preliminary edit warring episode etc @ Talk:British Pakistanis#STREET GROOMING.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Important to note that the issue was probably resurrected because of recent official reports and recent changes to in legislation. The NCA has appealed for more victims to come forward and are expecting more prosecutions throughout 2022. So the issue has not gone away. e.g.

https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/operation-stovewood-investigators-launch-new-appeal-for-victims-and-witnesses-to-come-forward

Fight against grooming gangs hindered by fear of being branded racist, says official | The Independent

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crime/rotherham-grooming-more-than-1000-victims-identified-between-1997-and-2013-3542879

It's an ongoing issue. Koppite1 (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Might be worth giving WP:SPA a read. Your edits are falling into it and it. GimliDotNet (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
i disagree. It's contemporary news. Koppite1 (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I haven’t commented on the validity of the news, but your edits are concerning as you seem to be focused purely on a single issue.
On topic the Yorkshire post link you’ve given by the way doesn’t mention Pakistanis, neither does the NCA link. The independent says you cannot draw a link between ethnicity and offences which is what the article was inferring before it was cleaned up. GimliDotNet (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Completely disagree. If you look through my editing history, i have commented on a range of topics--from Tennis, Formula 1, football and other things. I have only recently started to edit on the topic of race and crime and that was purely because the article was grossly unbalanced and only included black crimes with ZERO mention of crimes from other ethnicities. My edits have merely tried to address that GROSS inbalance which no one had the impetuous to rectify,
Yorkshire Post "The 20 men originally jailed were predominantly of British Pakistani descent and Mr Marshall confirmed that the suspects still under investigation are mainly from 'one community' but would not provide further details."
As for operation stovewood, it relates to Rotherham between 1997 and 2013. Rotherham child abuse: The background to the scandal - BBC News Koppite1 (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I've been through your editing history. That's why WP:SPA is concerning me. GimliDotNet (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Completely disagree. If you go through my very first edits, they were mainly about F1-mainly Schumacher and Hamilton. Edits re race and crime is a recent thing and i'm merely adding other ethnicities as were requested by many contributors on the relevant talk page who were concerned about the inbalance on the article. There's even an official wiki notice on the page warning of the inbalance towards certain groups. Perhaps you would prefer. the article was kept to its original state looking at only black crime while other ethnicities get zero mention.... Koppite1 (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Your edits on formula one are from nearly 12 months ago. Other stuff existing is not an argument and your subtle accusations of racism are not going unnoticed. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Koppite1: Is your issue more to do with the article Race and crime in the United Kingdom‎‎ rather than British Pakistanis as it makes no sense to discuss black crime of any kind at British Pakistanis. GimliDotNet (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

We are going round in circles. Best end the discussion there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koppite1 (talkcontribs) 14:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Spotlight on CorruptionEdit

I recently read about the organization Spotlight on Corruption. I have not been able to find out much about the history of the organization. Any help with sourcing would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Thriley: Found some history for you, expanded draft! PamD 10:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
@PamD: Thank you very much! Thriley (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Federalism in the United KingdomEdit

Another editor has been making numerous and very substantial edits to that article over the past few weeks, including changing the title to United Kingdom Federation (which has now been reverted). I haven't kept track of all the changes the editor has made - the last time I looked, some seemed to be OK, some seemed to be poor, and some seemed to be contentious and needing further discussion. None have been discussed on the article talk page. Other editors might like to take a look at what has been going on, and comment on the article talk page on whether the current version is an improvement, or not. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Requesting inputEdit

There seems to be a distinct lack of social issues being explained on articles such as British African-Caribbean people there is a particular issue with knife crime, high prison population, gang violence and low educational attainment which seems to be missing should it be added since other users are proposing adding certain social issues to other communities but when it comes to others they wish to white wash or deflect. I am an ethnic minority myself before anyone accuses me of racism. 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 07:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You have made no effort to edit the article, and your only comment on that articles’ talk page (and the one above) failed WP:AGF. You need to adjust your attitude and edit collaboratively or your time here is going to be very short. Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, follow it or leave. GimliDotNet (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Please note I will not be dictated to when I have done nothing wrong. 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
As for the topic of crime this is just a suggestion and I did edit a few weeks I just want an opinion on it like Koppite1 did. 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 3Edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 3#Former constituencies, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Roger WatersEdit

I have nominated Roger Waters for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 03:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Current events 2022 monkeypox outbreak task forceEdit

Just alerting editors that the WikiProject of Current Events now has a task force to cover the ongoing 2022 monkeypox outbreak. Feel free to join if you want to help. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:National Hedgelaying SocietyEdit

Hello, I recently created a draft for the National Hedgelaying Society. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Coronation of the British monarchEdit

I have nominated Coronation of the British monarch for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Dom Phillips, missing British journalistEdit

I recently created a draft for journalist Dom Phillips. He went missing on Sunday while on a remote part of the Brazilian Amazon. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC on sorting churchesEdit

Members of this project may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Request for Comment on sorting of UK churches in categories in English Wikipedia PamD 06:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Knave and Fiesta magazines: defunct?Edit

Have the venerable British softcore porn magazines Knave and Fiesta ceased publishing? I can't find any sign of recent publication of either, nor any mention of it in WP:RS. Presumably the Audit Bureau of Circulation ( https://www.abc.org.uk/ ) or similar will have some record of this?

An issue of Fiesta was published in 2020, according to their Twitter account, but I can't see anything after that. The magazine's website stopped working some time after that. This magazine collector's site (warning: pictures of porn magazine covers) suggests the final issue was Volume 54, number 4, in 2020.

Knave seems to have been publishing as late as 2015, and their website shut down around the same time. Their twitter account last posted in 2014. The same magazine collector's site (warning: pictures of porn magazine covers) seems to suggest the last issue was Volume 47, number 4, in July 2015.

Any thoughts? — The Anome (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

First, identify an independent newsagent with all-male staff in a town that you can reach, but where you're not well known. Get a grubby raincoat and turn the collar up, wear a hat pulled well down. Then, when there are no females and small children present, check out the top shelf. When somebody asks if they can help, say nothing but buy a can of fizzy drink and a bag of crips (pay cash, because cards can be tracked). Get out of town and deny everything. Don't do back in case you get caught. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
That is the best talk page comment ever. You have officially won Wikipedia, and I take my hat off to you. I'll get my coat. — The Anome (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
At the risk of being reverted again, I'll offer this: the kind of people who would have bought those magazines in the past probably now have other means for finding interesting images at a much lower price and in much greater quantities. I'd be surprised if any of those magazines are still in business unless they've switched to a web edition. If they are still being published, then by law, copies must be deposited at the British Library, who do have a catalogue entry, so you could pop along and ask them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I'd also point our that my request above was a serious one; and thanks, Redrose64 for the BL links. Pornography is interesting in a wider social context exactly because it is ephemeral -- expected merely to be used and discarded -- exactly because it was never written for the record, it carries the biases and attitudes of its time encoded in it in way that can be, unintended by its creators, far more revealing than "serious" works. — The Anome (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)