Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Government
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well, Chronological is one possibility, but I might almost prefer Order of Precedence. Granted, that would annoying to keep track of, especially with later offices. Chronological, but keep the offices together (that is, if he was Home Secretary, Colonial Secretary, then Home Secretary again, list the two bouts at the Home Office first). Also, I think succession tables should be grouped by function (peerages grouped together, offices grouped together). Mackensen 22:47, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
What about party positions? Or Speaker of the Commons? john 23:12, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Hrmm. Current practice seems to be including the Speaker with titles, which I'm prepared to accept although I can't think of an argument for or against. The party positions I'd rather keep separate, unless that position placed them in the cabinet. We could always make cabinet inclusion the test. Mackensen 23:25, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think that the offices themselves need not be grouped together. I would prefer a chronological order, so that one may see the progression of the individual's career clearly. As for what should be included, I propose:
- Secretaries of State
- Great Officers of State
- Party Leaders
- Leaders of the Lords or Commons
- Speakers of the Commons
- Chancellors of the Exchequer
- First Lords of the Admiralty
- First and Second Lords of the Treasury
- Prime Ministers
- Governor-Generals
Any others that would be suggested? -- Emsworth 23:34, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Well, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the President of the Board of Trade. Mackensen 23:44, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
- Viceroys of India, Postmasters-General, Paymasters of the Forces, Secretaries at War, Attorneys General, Lord Chancellors of Ireland, (Solicitors General - not sure if we have a list yet, though...I'll try to hit that up soon, if not), Masters-General of the Ordnance, Commanders-in-Chief of the Forces and Captains-General, Lords Lieutenant of Ireland, Chief Secretaries for Ireland, Scottish Secretaries, Master of the Mint, Treasurer of the Navy, President of the Poor Law Board, President of the Local Government Board, First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, First Commissioner of Works, President of the Board of Agriculture, President of the Board of Education, Minister of Health, other ministerial positions from earlier in the century, officers of the royal household, master of the rolls, chief justices, secretaries to the treasury (maybe), first ministers of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland.
-
- I also agree with Emsworth that a purely chronological framework would probably make the most sense. john 23:52, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- Agreed. Mackensen 23:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
Are we going to go with the standard format, only the center dates being shown (Emsworth, I know you've been moving in that direction)?
| Preceded by: The Duke of Omnium |
The Non Extant Office 1855-57 |
Followed by: The Duke of Opprobrium |
As opposed to:
| Preceded by: The Duke of Omnium 1852-57 |
The Non Extant Office 1855-57 |
Followed by: The Duke of Opprobrium 1857-58 |
Mackensen 23:42, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Definitely, I would have the dates in the center only. Also, I would have the dates in plain font rather than in bold:
| Preceded by: The Earl of Emsworth |
The Non Extant Office 1855-1857 |
Followed by: The Earl of Carton |
-- Emsworth 00:14, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
I think that I've finished all of the Secretaries of State except for the Northern and Southern Departments. However, when individuals have held multiple positions, they may not be in proper chonological order. -- Emsworth 02:11, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
- I've been putting up navboxes for Lords Warden of the Cinque Ports, but I've been neglecting to put up navboxes for Lords Lieutenant of Ireland and Chief Secretaries of Ireland... I know, I know, I should be ashamed of myself... but do you not agree that Lords Warden of the Cinque Ports should be included? They were politically important people... ugen64 02:24, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
- And how are we supposed to deal with the Two Secretaries of State in the 16th-17th centuries... stupid British political system ^_^ ugen64 14:56, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Thoughts
Well, nobody's shown much interest in this, but some questions:
- Can anybody think of others who would be interested in this topic?
- Should we introduce some sort of mediawiki sidebar that lists all the various offices in the project? This would be rather extensive, given the number of articles there must be about the British government...
- What is to be the relationship between articles on British government departments (which I have generally not involved myself with), articles on offices, and articles which are lists of officeholders? john 04:07, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Further thought...how do we deal with obsolete offices, and the like? For instance, in some cases, we have a different article for each name change. In other cases, we list all the various ancestral positions (as in President of the Board of Education/Minister of Education/Secretary of State for Education) in the same article...
Another question revolves around trying to devise categories for offices. Some are obvious like great officers of state or secretaries of state. Others less so. At any rate, there's lots of work that would need to be done to come to any sort of order about this stuff. john 04:12, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Possible classes include: The Queen's Household (Lord Steward, Lord Chamberlain), ecclesiastical offices and judicial offices. -- Emsworth 12:28, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
Yup, also privy council related jobs might form a category (as in President of the Board of Education, President of the Board of Trade, and so forth). Also treasury positions, Admiralty positions, army positions, party positions, and so forth. Of course, there will be overlap. The Lord Chancellor is both a judicial official and a great officer of state. And how on earth does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster fit in? He would, technically, not even be a functionary of the kingdom, would he, but rather of the Duchy? And what to do about pre-1922 Irish positions, or colonial positions? john 20:21, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Too much confusion... Perhaps the Duchy of Lancaster would fit in with the Cabinet positions? I think the Lord Chancellor should be treated as a great officer; Lords of the Treasury, etc, could be classed with them. Ireland, I'm sure, had great officers. Colonial positions could be classified as positions relating to India and other positions (India, of course, had its own Secretary of State, and was an Empire, not a colony, thereby necessitating the separate class, imho). -- Emsworth 22:07, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
I didn't think "cabinet positions" qualified as a category. It's too variable, in any case. I would suggest that positions which clearly fall into two categories be allowed to do so - Secretary of State for India could have a Secretary of State sidebar and an Indian Empire sidebar, for instance. Lord Chancellor could have a judicial sidebar and a great officer sidebar, and so forth. I agree that India should be separate from the other colonies (as should Ireland). john 23:50, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Leaders of the Houses succession boxes
Leader of the House of Lords, Leader of the House of Commons. Note: if the office was held concurrently with the position of Lord Privy Seal, Lord President of the Council, or some other sinecure office, and both the precedor and the successor are identical to both the house leadership and the great office, then simply write the table for the great office, not for the house leadersihp.
Apart from the fact that strict application of this rule generates anomalies (for instance The Earl of Home was Lord President at both the start and end of his Leadership of the Lords but not in the middle!) it rather downgrades the offices and can confuse heavily as the sinecures they're held with change far more than the indication here. Can I propose we change this so they are listed and make it clear who actually held the position? Timrollpickering 22:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] H. Roberts
Probably the wrong place to ask this, but can anyone aid me in identifying H. Roberts, who seems to have served in Whig/Peelite governments in the 1850s? Mackensen (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Prime Minister Info boxes
At the moment, there is no rhyme or reason for the infoboxes on British Prime Ministers. Many don't have any at all, thus resulting in different hand-coded styles, see: George Hamilton-Gordon, 4th Earl of Aberdeen, Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, Herbert Henry Asquith, Henry Addington.
Tony Blair uses Template:Infobox Person, which is rather un-specific, while Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington uses Template:Infobox President, which is factually incorrect (and POV, in some respects—His Grace would be outraged to be called President).
We need a standard infobox that suits the office. We need to figure out what that box should contain, and then make it look reasonable. We could use Template:Infobox BPM as a starter, but I think it's a bit dated (and unsuitable for PMs from before the Act of Union). Mackensen (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I've taken a stab at revamping Infobox BPM, and here's what it would produce with Disraeli:
 |
|
| Prime Minister of the United Kingdom | |
| Periods in Office: | February, 1868 – December, 1868 February, 1874 – April, 1880 |
| Predecessor(s): | The Earl of Derby William Ewart Gladstone |
| Successor(s): | William Ewart Gladstone |
| Date of Birth: | 21 December 1804 |
| Date of Death: | 19 April 1881 |
| Place of Birth: | London |
| Place of Death: | London |
| Political Party: | Conservative |
Thoughts? --Mackensen (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good :) – ugen64 19:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
And it's now a fait accompli. Should've done this two years ago... Mackensen (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Parliament Acts
Parliament Acts is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 01:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] House of Lords
House of Lords is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 00:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 17:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
