Talk:List of female members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ellen Wilkinson - alleged suicide[edit]

I notice Ellen Wilkinson is stated who have committed suicide. Despite the citation used, and allegations mentioned in the Wikipedia article she committed suicide over private life concerns with Herbert Morrison, the selfsame article acknowledged it was officially (via coroner inquest) ruled an accidental overdose. (A not unknown occurrence in a society, pre-NHS, where self-medication had been encouraged.) Surely one should follow law, not rumour. Brian Harrison, her biographer in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, considers the overdose was "almost certainly accidental", and was taken when she was ill with multiple respiratory ailments. (I have amended the Wikipedia biography accordingly.)Cloptonson (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3 edits reverted[edit]

I have just reverted a series of 3 edits to this page by User:SleepCovo, which I list in chronological order:

  1. 14:18, 15 May 2015 — added un-needed verbosity to the name of Constance Markievicz, and replaced a direct link with a link to a redirect. Similarly with Nancy Astor, who is quite adequately identified by the shorter name form
  2. 14:21, 15 May 2015 — more addition of titles, which add visual clutter and do nothing to assist in identifying the MPs concerned, and in some cases replace a direct link with a redirect.
  3. 14:25, 15 May 2015 — pointless removal of the {{Party shortname}} template, and introduction of rowspan which doesn't work on sortable lists. SleepCovo claims that some of the party names were "incorrect", but the changes made do not appear to alter the party names.

Note that only 1 of these 3 edits was accompanied by an edit summary. If User:SleepCovo wishes to edit a collaborative project such as Wikipedia, it would be helpful if they would provide an edit summary for every edit, to explain their intentrions to other editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd point you mention I shall point out that they have crossed the floor to another party, so unlike all the other edits you have done, these ones cannot work properly as then their name is mentioned twice and it will be wrong. As to the other points, she is Nancy Astor, Viscountess Astor so that is how she will be in the article! SleepCovo (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SleepCovo, please read WP:BRD: discuss the changes here and seek a consensus. Until a consensus is reached, leave the page at the status quo ante, or I will report you for edit-warring. (fuller reply to follow) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On your substantive points: the full title of "Nancy Astor, Viscountess Astor" adds visual clutter and is not needed to identify her. She is perlectly well known as "Nancy Astor", and the extra words add un-needed visual clutter.
As to those who were MPs were elected on separate, non-consecutive occasions or for different constituenceies, what's the problem with them being listed twice? That way each entry is clear, and the lists sorts correctly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't list them twice its as simple as that! No other article about any politicians, regardless of whether or not they are british or american etc, lists them more then once otherwise it adds un-needed visual clutter. SleepCovo (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SleepCovo, there are indeed other lists with partially-duplicated entries, where some of the info is repeated in multiple rows. See for example List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1832.
The reason, as explained above, is a technical one: "rowspan" does not work on sortable lists.
In the meantime, I have repeatedly asked you restore the status quo ante while we discuss this. This is my last time of asking, before I ask for admin intervebtion against your edit-warring. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MPs elected in 1832 is not the same article as Female Members of Parliament so I do not think that they should be listed twice. So for Dawn Butler and Joan Ryan I have put the 2015 in the column next to 1997 and 2005 respectively as that is where it belongs! SleepCovo (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not the same, but it is a similar issue. Those entries belong in both places, so that when the list is sorted by date or by constituency, the right entries appear in the right order.
We have not yet reached agreement, so please may I ask you yet again to revert to the status quo ante while we discuss this? It is frustrating and time-wasting to try discussing things when you continue to edit away as if no discussion was happening. Please do read WP:BRD, and follow the advice therein. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what the problem is with using "rowspan". The current format looks messy with some people listed twice and others with duplicate "year elected" and "year ended" dates. Opera hat (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Opera hat, the problem with rowspan is a technical one. On a sortable list, the layout breaks when the list is sorted in an order which separates the two rows.
I agree that the current hybrid is messy. We need to settle on one format or the other, but so far there has been no consensus, and my attempts to discuss the matter with SleepCovo have been unsuccessful. We need to reach a consensus, and implement one form or the other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when sorting by columns, entries that span rows break into separate rows. But for MPs who changed party while maintaining continuous service like Lady Cynthia Mosley and Sylvia Hermon: they are currently on separate rows even before sorting, so there would be no loss there. And for MPs like Audrey Wise, Margaret Beckett and Margaret Ewing: they served two separate terms for two separate constituencies, so why should it matter if sorting by columns separates these terms? Opera hat (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, you talk about gaining a consensus before changing a format, yet you yourself did not use the talk page when you changed the layout to begin with! On the original article, MPs who had changed party were not on two different rows, but instead it showed clearly that they had joined another party, whereas now, after BrownHairedGirls edits, you cannot see that they have. SleepCovo (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to correct "Next United Kingdom general election"[edit]

Please edit this article to replace all instances of [[Next United Kingdom general election|2015]] with [[United Kingdom general election, 2015|2015]]

The article Next United Kingdom general election is (unsurprisingly) about whichever election is due next, whereas these links refer specifically to the 2015 election when the MPs concerned left the Commons. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to correct party affiliation of Kate Osamor[edit]

Please edit this article to correct the party affiliation of Kate Osamor MP. It is incorrectly listed as Conservative, but she is actually Labour Co-operative. This was my error while adding her to the list.

Sources:

News websites tend to abbreviate "Labour Co-operative" to just "Labour", e.g.

... but Wikipedia always acknowledges the full party affiliation of Labour Co-operative MPs. See for example List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2015

Here is the current entry: 

|-
| style="background-color: {{Conservative Party (UK)/meta/color}}" |
| {{Party shortname|Conservative Party (UK)}}
| {{sortname|Kate|Osamor}}
| [[Edmonton (UK Parliament constituency)|Edmonton]]
| [[United Kingdom general election, 2015|2015]]
|
| Serving


It should be replaced with: 

|-
| style="background-color: {{Labour Co-operative/meta/color}}" |
| {{Party shortname|Labour Co-operative}}
| {{sortname|Kate|Osamor}}
| [[Edmonton (UK Parliament constituency)|Edmonton]]
| [[United Kingdom general election, 2015|2015]]
|
| Serving

I hope that this is uncontroversial. @SleepCovo:, can you confirm that you agree with this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested changes reverted again[edit]

I have just reverted[1] a series of 6 edits[2] by User:SleepCovo.

These edits added peerage titles to the names of the MPs, which was one of the items in a disagreement 2 weeks ago. At the time, I asked SleepCovo to follow the process set out in WP:BRD, i.e. to discuss this disagreement and try to reach a consensus. Sadly, SleepCovo preferred to simply reinstate the contested changes, which led to the page being protected.

While the page was protected, it was agreed to restore an earlier version of the page as the starting point for frther discussion. This was done[3] by User:CambridgeBayWeather, who also accepted a further request to correct some links[4].

The version I have restored is as per the last edit by CambridgeBayWeather -- see diff[5]. This reversion may have lost some good changes as well as those contested, but sadly that is an inevitable consequence of the failure too settle the disputed issues.

Please may I ask yet again that SleepCovo discuss our disagreements and refrain from reinstating the contested edits until consensus has been reached. To facilitate the discussion, I have created a separate section below for the substantive discussion on this point.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have made one further edit [6] to reinstate two footnotes which had been added by SleepCovo, and which were removed in the reversion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that either all the women in this article have their titles added or none at all! We cannot have some and not others, so I think all titles must be removed so that only the forenames and surnames of the politicians be there! I moved Megan Lloyd George as since when did 1957 come between 1929? I moved Kate Osamor as since when does O come between J and K? I moved Joan Ryan and Dawn Butler because they had already been elected before! I think it is quite concerning that BrownHairedGirl, rather than checking if someone else's edits are correct, automatically reverts them and thinks that hers are right! SleepCovo (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also about the title changes, the last time there was a disagreement was because I had added all the titles to the appropriate women and BrownHairedGirl objected, so this time I decided that all the remaining women, that currently had titles, in the article should have their titles removed since it daft that some women have their titles and others don't, once again BrownHairedGirl objected! I wish she would make up her mind SleepCovo (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All other women who have lost an election and then been re-elected have the same layout and it has been that way since the previous article was created nearly a year ago and no one had any complaints about its layout or how it looked! Indeed the only person who has made any disagreement was BrownHairedGirl, when she 'created' this article, even though all of the information for this article had come from other editors hard work, indeed numerous editors add to the previous article without any complaints and then BrownHairedGirl has some strange notion that her way is better then everyone else's! She complains about other editors making bold edits and says that they should discuss before making such edits, but surely her changing the entire layout of an article is a bold edit and so she should have discussed before making the very edits she is saying others shouldn't do! Looks like utter hypocrisy to me! SleepCovo (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SleepCovo, please could you just discuss the substantive disagreement?
This could all have been resolved long ago if you would simply drop the WP:OWNership and start discusisng the diusagreement to ry to reach a consensus. The consensus may end up reflecting your view or my view, or some combination of both, or something completely different ... but on Wikipedia, that's how things work. When Wikipdia editors disagree, we discuss things to reach a consensus. It's a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia.
I have just reverted[7] a further series of edits by you. For about the millionth time of asking, please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please stop and discuss the issues where we disagree. Any changes can easily be made when a consensus is reached.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Points of disagreement[edit]

It is hard to track exactly what changes are made by SleepCovo, because SleepCovo refuses to use edit summaries. An edit without an explained purpose makes it more likely that any change will be reverted, but its intent and effect are unclear.

Furthermore, any explanations which SleepCovo gives on this talk page are mixed up with attacks on me. Let's keep the two separate.

So, to help us reach agreement, please SleepCovo set out in numbered-list form what changes you think need to be made. then we can see what we agree on, and discuss the remainnder. Please, keep this section only for discussion about the substance of the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peeresses[edit]

I gather there has been a disagreement as to whether wives of peers should be listed under their titles. It doesn't really matter when the husband's title is the same as his surname (Astor, Noel-Buxton, Borwick), but it seems wholly obfuscatory to list the Duchess of Atholl and Ladies Apsley and Tweedsmuir under names (Stewart-Murray, Bathurst and Buchan) by which they were never known while in Parliament, or even outside it. Opera hat (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I initially added all the peeresses titles to their names, though BrownHairedGirl objected, as they would have been addressed as the Duchess of Atholl or the Viscountess Astor. Not to include their titles is both incorrect and historically not accurate. SleepCovo (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Opera hat: I removed from the listing all the fluff which does not assist in identifying the people involved. Decorations and postnomials such as OBE/MBE/QC are quite properly included in the articles, but add no value to this list. In most cases "Jane Foo, Baroness Foo Bar" simply adds visual clutter, and has the disruptive effect of making the name column wider, thereby increasing the likelihood that list entries will wrap onto a second line, which reduces the amount of info displayed on each screenful -- which degrades usability.
As part of that, I removed titles from all MPs except those who were known by titles which differ from their surname -- e.g. Lady Apsely. Sadly, SleepCovo edit-warred to restore the titles in all cases, and when that was contested, set about removing all the titles, even from those such as Lady Apsley. That change seems to have stuck in the recent edit wars, and should be fixed.
Please can we agree to keep the peerages titles only when they differ from the surname? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not how titles work! Why should Lady Apsley have her title added to the article, but not the Viscountess Astor just because her title is the same as her surname? You say it adds visual clutter, but that is their titles so I do not understand why you think it is acceptable to remove it, just because you think it should not be there! SleepCovo (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SleepCovo, the purpose of his list is not to follow any notion of "correct form" or official title. The purpose of this list is to identify women MPs, and link to their biographical articles.
Changing "Nancy Astor" to "Nancy Astor, Viscountess Astor" does nothing to make it easier for the reader to identify her. It just adds extra verbiage to the name of the woman known overwhelmingly as "Nancy Astor". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you can't just add her title, what difference does it make to you if her title is added! For me personally if someone has a title and would have been addressed in the House of Commons as the Viscountess Astor, I believe it should be included! SleepCovo (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SleepCovo, please can you read before replying? In my post above at 10:48, I explained how including un-needed info creates visual clutter and degrades the usability of the list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does not create 'visual clutter', but instead adds factual and relevant information! If someone has a title it is not for a wikipedia editor to start saying that we should not include it because they believe it to be clutter! SleepCovo (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SleepCovo:, any extra info added creates visual clutter. In a list, more is less and less is more -- keeping focused on the most relevant info allows the reader to find the core information -- and as above, causing an entry to extend onto two lines reduces the amount of info available to the reader in each screenful.
No Wikipedia editor has the power to add or remove anyone's title. What do have is an editorial choice as to which information to present in the context of this list. There is plenty of factual, accurate info we could add to this list, such as dates of birth and death, age when elected to Parliament ... but the more info we add, the more clutter we create and the less prominence we give to the core info: which is that a woman named X was a Y-Party MP for Z from yyyy to yyyy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usage elsewhere[edit]

Please note that the practice of listing the MPs only by their given names is also followed the two major websites which track Parliament, and by Parliament itself. See the listings for Victoria Borwick (aka Lady Borwick):

On what policy basis is SleepCovo arguing that en.wp should abandon its WP:COMMONNAME principle, and adopt some sort of formal title which is not even used by Parliament itself? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just point out that TheyWorkForYou.com calls her "Viscountess Nancy Astor" in both their [8] and on her [9]. On what policy basis is BrownHairedGirl arguing that en.wp should abandon its WP:COMMONNAME principle, and adopt some sort of non-formal title which is not even used by Parliament itself? SleepCovo (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SleepCovo:, the policy is WP:COMMONNAME. GoogleBooks (which by policy is preferred for such tests, because it concentrates reliable sources) gives about 17,800 hits for "Nacy Astor" but only about 320 hits for "Viscountess Astor". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria Borwick seems a bit of an exceptional case in that she has a handle to her name but seemingly does not use it (like Michael Ancram didn't). The Countess of Iveagh certainly used hers, so that is how she should be listed. Opera hat (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Postnomials[edit]

Some time ago, to reduce visual clutter, I removed postnomials (QC, OBE, etc) from the main body of the list, and moved them to footnotes.

These items are quite properly included in the linked biographical articles. However, the purpose of this list is to identify the MPs, not to note all the other positions and honours or titles they may have held. Moving this info to footnotes is less visually cluttering than having the title in the body of the list, but in most cases it adds a footnote link which would not otherwise exist.

I propose removing all reference to postnomials from the list and from footnotes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leave them in the footnotes, if someone has been made a Dame e.g a DBE then they should be added to the footnotes as that has changed their named from Jane Doe to Dame Jane Doe, next you shall be saying we should remove the post nominals MP because its just clutter! You might think these things don't matter but if someone has post nominal names or a title, then I don't believe it to be appropriate for a wikipedia editor to suddenly believe that all this doesn't matter, especially when someone may have worked extremely hard to gain recognition for their achievements for example to be appointed as a Queens Counsel/QC or awarded an OBE! SleepCovo (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SleepCovo:, a DBE doesn't change anyone's name, it just adds a title before it in formal usage. That's the same as happens with a PHD -- "Jane Doe" with a PhD is still "Jane Doe", but she may use "Dr Jane Doe" when she chooses to use her title. However, wikipedia folows WP:COMMONNAME, not formal usage.
Other awards and decorations (QC, MBE etc) don't add anything to the name, so your argument doesn't extend to them.
People may work extremely hard for all sorts of things, but the purpose of this list is not to reward people for their efforts. This list exists to identify those women who have been MPs, and these decorations do not help to identify them. The decorations should of course be included in the biographical articles, where all that person's notable achievements can be listed. However, this list only needs to identify them -- and that can be done simply by the bare name, as used by PublicWhip, TheyWorkForYou, and Parliament.uk.
What part of WP:POLICY suggests that Wikipedia should clutter its listings with this info when even Parliament itself doens't bother? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't see the point of mentioning the titles by which MPs were raised to the Lords, either. If somebody's interested, they can go to the MP's article. I might support keeping a note to say if an MP was made a Dame during their time in the Commons, though, as this is a title which is used on a day-to-day basis (unlike postnominals). Opera hat (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Female mp’s[edit]

On list of female MP’s in the UK. The figures are totally wrong e.g. it says there are 35 Conservative women when actually there are 87, and it says the total women is 67 when actually it is over 200...sort it out please. Liamdaniel981 (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_female_members_of_the_House_of_Commons_of_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1207203520"