Talk:List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election

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

One missing![edit]

In Category:UK MPs 2019–. Currently has 650 articles (649 MPs, plus this list). I've spent today populating the category, but obviously one has slipped through! If anyone can find it and add it to the category, that would be great. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts:, you missed Danny Kruger (MP for Devizes), added him now.
SSSB (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! Thanks for finding that one. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of an RfC concerning a link to this article[edit]

For anyone who might be interested, there is an RfC concerning a link to this artice, about whether to label the link as "58th", "The 58th, elected December 2019" or something else. It can be found at: Talk:2020 in the United Kingdom#RfC on what name to give to the incumbent parliament. – DeFacto (talk). 21:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Millar[edit]

Why is Robin millar, MP for Aberconwy shown as an Independent? I've googled him and "independent", with no enlightenment. Could it be a prank? Nick Barnett (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Barnett, he isn't shown as independent, his predessor was. The colmn to the left of the name shows the incumbent's party
SSSB (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SSSB Nick Barnett (talk) 15:21, 22 May 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) 01:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 June 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election → 58th United Kingdom Parliament – This name change will make this entry consistent with similar entries for other legislatures, e.g. 116th United States Congress, or 46th Australian Parliament. the actual numerical identifier for the PArliament is much more objective than indicating the year of the election. Also, the formal sequential number of the Parliament as an entry only appears right now as a redirect, at 58th UK Parliament. it seems more important than that, and should be used to identify the Parliament itself. By the way, this entry already actually uses this phrase in the first sentence, as if this was the actual name of the entry already!! so this seems a way to merely keep this consistent. Sm8900 (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Ordinal naming isn't often used in RS coverage of British elections, whereas it is in the USA. It's not the common name and I can't see a policy rationale to move the page. Ralbegen (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • it's not the common name in the US either. but it is the formal name, and is valid for using as a descriptor for a scholarly work. similiarly, 58th Parliament is the formal name, even if it is not used colloquially too often. thanks for your reply. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not the official name. It's not used anywhere on gov.uk or parliament.uk. It's not the formal name in any sense I can see. "57th parliament" has only been used to describe the UK in a couple of news sources and one scholarly source I can find. Most of search results relate to Australian governance. With a handful of exceptions, the only precedents are in other countries' conventions. Ralbegen (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • your reply on this is extremely informative and helpful, Ralbegen. I appreciate you taking the time to respond, to aid our common goal of improving this entry. ok, so let me simply ask you, what is the provenance or basis for this designation? I did find an article, List of United Kingdom Parliaments, which corroborates this designation. If you are saying this name is not commonly used, then I totally understand and accept your point.
however, wouldn't this still be considered the formal name, regardless of how often or how rarely it is used? if this is not the formal name or designation, then what is? Again, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this, and to provide your useful insights above. nice to meet you!! thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the main place that uses the Nth Parliament moniker for the UK is Wikipedia and Wikidata. Digging through old articles in this series, I think the phrase might have been introduced by Morwen in 2003 here. I gather that Wikipedia was less institutionally fussy then than it is now? It is true that it's the Nth Parliament and it is a description that's sometimes used in other sources, but it's rare and it does feel like an Americanism.
I don't think there is a formal name as such. This House of Commons report, for example, uses the phrase "Members of Parliament elected at the 2019 General Election". Journalistic sources will use "YYYY intake", "YYYY cohort" or "class of YYYY", usually. The approach we have now makes sense to me, though I appreciate there are shortcomings (the acronym in the name and the inclusion of MPs elected in by-elections in other articles in this series). It's nice to meet you too! Ralbegen (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ralbegen:, well, thanks, that is some very helpful information, like your other replies above. I will give this some more thought, and will look around a little more on this. I appreciate all of your help and info on this topic. thanks!!!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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]

Inclusion of Age – Discussion[edit]

Hi there – I am trying to have an article SOMEWHERE on Wikipedia with a list of Members of Parliament by age. This is in the same way that age is included on other pages such as List of current United States senators; List of current members of the United States House of Representatives.

It was originally on the page List of United Kingdom MPs by seniority (2019–present) and has always been on this page but it got removed by User:FDW777 as according to the user it was not relevant to their seniority. I then created another article so that it could include age somewhere else and this has been redirected by the same user to this article.

There is a source here [1] which contains details for nearly all MPs who were elected alongside obviously looking at each MP's individual Wikipedia page.

Does anyone object to age being included within this page? Guyb123321 (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it got removed for several reasons, first of all WP:BURDEN. See also WP:BLPPRIMARY. You have a history of tendentious edits relating to dates of birth, which you then use to prop up content in other articles. FDW777 (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also regarding that database, there are numerous instances where there is not even a date of birth specified. For example Feryal Clark has no date of birth listed, instead the list's entry is simply <DateOfBirth xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:nil="true"/>. According to my browser there are 74 instances of that exact entry on the list. FDW777 (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – age isn't relevant to this list (so long as you are older than 18). I see no evidence that adding their ages would be anything other than WP:FANCRUFT.
SSSB (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@SSSB: this isn't a formal suggestion yet, just wanted to size up whether it would be worth doing. List of United Kingdom MPs by seniority (2019–present) seems to be a pointless article to me (as are the similar articles for 2010, 2015 and 2017), it could easily be covered in this article with a column when the MP was elected. Does that sound like a proposal with potential? FDW777 (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could support merging the seniority article here.
SSSB (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I hesitate before taking part because things appear to be a tad confused and messy. I do think we need to decide whether we need a list of MPs by "seniority" in addition to a list of MPs listed by alphabetical order because both articles do have their uses as separate entities. However we would need to take this to a project or a wider audience, really. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There will be a wider audience, I was just seeing if even proposing it would be worthwhile. The issue is that we don't need two articles, the table in this article can be sorted in a variety of ways by clicking on top of the columns. The proposal would be to add another column giving the date of election, thus adding the "seniority" to this article. FDW777 (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Age is frequently included in other pages which list details of parliamentarians List of current United States senators; List of current members of the United States House of Representatives and is a pretty fundamental characteristic about a person so I oppose it being considered as niche. If it is good enough for those pages why is it not for this page? Guyb123321 (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It being present on those articles doesn't mean it needs to be included here. I would also disagree that it is a pretty fundamental characteristic – it doesn't make any real difference if Boris Johnson is 30, 40, 50 or 60. I would therefore argue that (with the exception of extremes) thier age is niche information. If it is good enough for those pages why is it not for this page? – the key point here is I don't think it is important enough for those pages.
Rather than go back and forward, the way to persuade me to the contrary is to give me sources which sources which mention the ages of politicians.
SSSB (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Age or date of birth is relevant to each individual politician's article. Relevance to general list articles like this? None that I can see, save for one editor believing we need a list of MPs that can be sorted by age. But why stop there? Why not include hometown, education, number of children and so on? All could be seen as valid items to search a list by, if date of birth is seen as important. FDW777 (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SSSB “it doesn't make any real difference if Boris Johnson is 30, 40, 50 or 60” – er, yes it does! A person’s age limits how much experience they could have had. It’s also noteworthy how the age of a PM might have evolved over time. Afraid I also completely disagree with FDW777 – date of birth is important for public figures who are effectively lawmakers. “Relevance to general list articles like this? None that I can see, save for one editor believing we need a list of MPs that can be sorted by age.” There are at least two editors who believe that actually, myself being the other, and I doubt we are alone. Some editors have a strangely stubborn resistance to MPs’ DOBs being thought of as interesting. It is interesting to many, which is why no less a publication than Who’s Who includes it for their entries. National newspapers include daily lists of birthdays, which would come from the DOBs. “But why stop there? Why not include hometown, education, number of children and so on? All could be seen as valid items to search a list by, if date of birth is seen as important.” This reply seems rather facetious. The HoC Library does prepare research based on education, which is interesting, but I feel wouldn’t merit a list on WP. The other items are trivial, especially given the fact that WP has a whole range of articles based on “oldest xx” or “youngest xx”. I agree with Guyb123321 that we could do with a list article allowing us to sort current MPs by age. I would recommend this be discussed further at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, where an article listing living former MPs, including their DOBs, is underway. Any such article would currently have incomplete information though, because there are some current MPs whose DOB hasn’t been published. The main RS for the others is The Times Guide to the House of Commons, which is rather expensive. I have requested it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request with no luck so far, and at my local library. However, I don’t think the DOBs should be included on this particular article; possibly the list of MPs by seniority, which I do find useful, or possibly it should have its own article.—TrottieTrue (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TrottieTrue: This discussion is about including DOBs in this article. I disagree, it doesn't make any real difference. A persons age is no guarantee of experience. A seventy year old can have less experience in politics (or in any field) than a 20 year old. It’s also noteworthy how the age of a PM might have evolved over time. this list cant provide you with that information even if we did include age so it is irrelevant. date of birth is important for public figures who are effectively lawmakers – how? A politicians age does not effect their ability to participate in politics, it is no guarantee of experience of priorities or policies. Something being interesting does not make it a suitable entry for a list. See WP:INTERESTING. National newspapers contain dates of birth because it is interesting, not because they are notable or important. I don't deny dates of birth are interesting but they are not a noteworthy detail in a list of this kind, a redundant detail. I should finish by making clear that I am opposed to including age in this list but may be open to listing it on other pages.
SSSB (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://data.parliament.uk/membersdataplatform/services/mnis/members/query/House=Commons%7CIsEligible=true/
Quote from User:Guyb123321: "I am trying to have an article SOMEWHERE on Wikipedia with a list of Members of Parliament by age." I'm not fixed on the DOBs being in this article – I'd rather have them in a separate article of current MPs, which could also include those members returned since the 2019 election (ie. at by-elections). Yes, age is no guarantee of experience, but someone elected at the age of 20 is likely to have done far less with their life than someone aged 70. Yes, a list on this article wouldn't tell you how the age of the PM has evolved over time, but you did say "it doesn't make any real difference if Boris Johnson is 30, 40, 50 or 60". I think for many it does – I would frankly be astounded if he had reached the dizzy heights of No10 at the age of 30. How is DOB important for lawmakers? Politicians often make claims about their prior experience or history – ie. they could say "I worked on the planning of the Eurotunnel project", but if we knew they were born in 1985, we can deduce that is most unlikely. That's just a random example, but a DOB can help verify someone's accounts. It's also useful for writing their articles: they may have achieved something noteworthy in 2007, for example, and noting their age at the time helps put it in context. But in any case, I myself would prefer not to have DOBs at this particular article. I just disagree with the notion that DOBs are inherently unimportant, and I hope that in time they can be incorporated into another article, either the Seniority article or a new one.--TrottieTrue (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2021 (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) 23:35, 22 January 2021 (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) 01:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of by-elections?[edit]

Do we need to include the upcoming by-elections in this article for Airdrie and Shotts, Chesham and Amersham and Hartlepool? RyanPLB (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RyanPLB: – By-elections have been included in the articles for 2017, 2015, 2010 etc, so they're fairly established as an element of these articles. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Error in graphic needs fixing[edit]

The current version of the WikiCommons graphic (File:UK House of Commons 2020.svg) is incorrect. It shows the 8 DUP MPs as Plaid Cymru and doesn't show the 3 PC MPs at all. Looks as if this is the result of an edit on 28 March. I don't know how to edit this kind of graphic – can someone fix it? JayZed (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for proposal or any alternative proposal, with discussion stale for more than 9 months. Klbrain (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the real world nobody cares that in 2019 Lyn Brown was the 119th MP by seniority and Philip Davies was 120th. What is important is how long a person has been an MP, which can still be covered by merging List of United Kingdom MPs by seniority (2019–present) into thia article and adding a column to the table for that information. Similarly the following mergers are also proposed.

FDW777 (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger as this article's table focuses specifically on newly-elected MPs and includes their photo, whereas the other article includes all MPs in a more concise table. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Completely false. The very first entry in the table is Stephen Kinnock, MP since 2015. How is he "newly-elected"? FDW777 (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore you have just suggested here that List of United Kingdom MPs by seniority (2019–present) should be moved to List of United Kingdom MPs (2019–present). That's precisely what this article already is, so it makes no sense for you to oppose the merger at the same time as suggesting that move. FDW777 (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I hadn't noticed that all MPs were present. In that case, I would conditionally support such a merger, albeit I would still suggest the title List of United Kingdom MPs (2019–present) and I would also propose moving the table layout from that article to this one: as the layout in that article is significantly more readable thanks to the lack of photos, and has more useful information such as age and seniority. Shall I remove that RM to centre support here? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 18:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article would be easier to read without photos, but the seniority article is less readable because it contains a lot of clutter and additional material. The tight focus of this article is a strength. I would support removing the photos but I oppose merging them and I would oppose adding more information into this article's table such as dates first elected, trivia, honorific cruft or additional demarcation rows. Remove the photos from the main table by all means but I don't think there's a case to add anything extra! (I am unconvinced of the suitability of the seniority article for the encyclopaedia altogether, to be honest). Ralbegen (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ralbegen:, I wasn't necessarily planning on merging the whole table from the "seniority" articles. If there's an agreement that MPs from each parliament need to be viewed by length of service, I think it's sensible enough to do it in this article by the addition of an "MP since" column. It doesn't make much sense for separate articles to exist for the sole purpose of doing what can be accomplished with a single column addition here. I would have no objection to the deletion of the seniority articles either, but thought a merge might be a more easy option in case there was a strong desire to keep some of the information. FDW777 (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I notice that I was quite the supporter of adding/retaining dates of birth in this article at one stage and I'm not sure that's accurate now. My views do change and alter after all! Anyway, I can see both sides of this debate so will stay neutral for now. Having two articles makes sense to me because each has its purpose. But, yes, having one list in alphabetical order and in date order does seem excessive. I'm concerned that we may lose the quite important post-election tables at the very, very bottom, they're already quite squashed by the table of MPs and their photographs. I'm also wary of formatting such a large table. My Wikimarkup skills are ropy as it is, could a newbie be expected to navigate something so complex as a single table of MPs, their seniority, and everything else, in one go? I can see why the rather obvious duplication would be frowned upon. I can see why each article has its own reason to stand alone. So for now, I'll leave it to consensus. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merged table layout[edit]

I tried to merge the important information of both tables (as would be needed in the event of a merger); here's a snippet to demonstrate one possibility. Thoughts? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name Party Constituency 2019 Elected Seniority
rank 		Date of birth and age Notes Prev. party Previous MP
47th Parliament (elected: 10 October 1974, first met: 22 October 1974, dissolved: 7 April 1979)
Bottomley, PeterSir Peter Bottomley C Worthing West 26 Jun 1975 001 (1944-07-30) July 30, 1944 (age 79) Father of the House, first elected to Woolwich West, which was replaced by Eltham in 1983 before moving to Worthing West in 1997.
48th Parliament (elected: 3 May 1979, first met: 9 May 1979, dissolved: 13 May 1983) [1]
Sheerman, BarryBarry Sheerman Lab Huddersfield 3 May 1979[2] 002 (1940-08-17) August 17, 1940 (age 83) Former Chair of the Education Select Committee
Harman, HarrietThe Rt Hon Harriet Harman Lab Camberwell and Peckham 28 Oct 1982[2] 003 (1950-07-30) July 30, 1950 (age 73) Longest-ever continuously-serving female MP. Former Acting Labour Leader and Leader of the Opposition 2010 and 2015
57th Parliament (elected: 8 June 2017, first met: 13 June 2017, dissolved: 6 November 2019)[3][4][5]
Daby, JanetJanet Daby Lab Lewisham East 14 June 2018 488 (1970-12-15) December 15, 1970 (age 53)
Jones, RuthRuth Jones Lab Newport West 5 April 2019 489 (1962-04-23) April 23, 1962 (age 62)
58th Parliament (elected: 12 December 2019, first met: 17 December 2019, dissolved: TBD)[6][7][8]
Fuller, RichardRichard Fuller C North East Bedfordshire 12 Dec 2019 490 (1962-05-30) May 30, 1962 (age 61) Previously served 2010–2017 for Bedford. C Alistair Burt (retired)
McCartney, KarlKarl McCartney C Lincoln 491 (1968-10-25) October 25, 1968 (age 55) Previously served 2010–2017. Lab Karen Lee (defeated)
Mangnall, AnthonyAnthony Mangnall C Totnes 492 (1989-08-12) August 12, 1989 (age 34) LD Sarah Wollaston (defeated)
Loder, ChrisChris Loder C West Dorset 493 (1981-09-05) September 5, 1981 (age 42) Ind. Oliver Letwin (retired)
Bristow, PaulPaul Bristow C Peterborough 494 (1979-03-27) March 27, 1979 (age 45) Lab Lisa Forbes (defeated)

References

  1. ^ "Members Sworn". Hansard. Hansard Digitisation Project. 10 May 1979. Retrieved 17 November 2011. (Sheerman to Field in order sworn)
  2. ^ a b "No title given". data.parliament.uk. Retrieved 8 December 2020.
  3. ^ "Members Sworn". Hansard. Hansard. 14 June 2017. Retrieved 14 June 2017. (Davey to Williams in order sworn)
  4. ^ "Members Sworn". Hansard. Hansard. 15 Jun 2017. Retrieved 15 Jun 2017. (Ruane to Russell-Moyle in order sworn)
  5. ^ "Members Sworn". Hansard. Hansard. 21 Jun 2017. Retrieved 21 Jun 2017. (Swinson to Coad in order sworn)
  6. ^ "Members Sworn". Hansard. Hansard. 17 Dec 2019. Retrieved 18 Dec 2019. (Fuller to Howell in order sworn)
  7. ^ "Members Sworn". Hansard. Hansard. 18 Dec 2019. Retrieved 18 Dec 2019. (Everitt to Nicolson in order sworn)
  8. ^ "Members Sworn". Hansard. Hansard. 19 Dec 2019. Retrieved 19 Dec 2019. (Eastwood sworn)
You've added columns which dont exist in either table. I advise we use the current table and simply add the seniority and first elected columns after the candidates names (as you've done now, but without DoB. I also don't see why we need the yellow headers. I know that the list of MPs by seniority has it. But the article we are merging too is still list of MPs elected, and therefore the default sort should be MP name, and therefore the yellow banners simply don't work anymore. They dont add a great deal anyway apart from creating visual separation between different elections, which can be deduced by looking at dates.
SSSB (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only column I added was the "previous MP" one because that information sounds more useful than just having previous party. The other information I added was getting the template to mention age as well as birthdate- again useful information. As for the default sorting being by date elected- it could be useful to have it as the default so people can easily see, for example, which MPs were newly-elected. But I can see the argument for alphabetical order. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 11:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm not seeing something, but neither article seem to include dates of birth? I dont have any problem with any of the other columns, in fact I fond the new column arrangement an improvement. I dont have any major complaints. Though I am wondering what the purpose is of the leading zeros (why not 1, instead of 001)
SSSB (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the date of birth column would have to go. It's the topic of discussion all the time here and inclusion seems to be too controversial. If we're starting this from scratch with no prior article ever existing, would we include MP's name, party, constituency and date of election? Yes. Would we include date of birth or age? Probably not. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The date of birth column was perfectly well accepted in the other article until a few months ago, when FDW777 removed it thanks to lack of sufficient citations- and then removed it anyway even after I found citations to add. It's definitely useful information to be able to compare the ages of MPs without having to go to their articles, and I'd oppose any merger that involves removing said information. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 18:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and then removed it anyway even after I found citations to add is again, inaccurate. You can see the citations in your version of the article here. There are 89 in total, and only one is cited more than once (a mere three times, and completely irrelevant anyway as will be demonstrated). The version before you added citations can be seen here, and contains 43 citations, including the same citation that's cited three times. You added well over 600 alleged dates of birth, yet the number of references only went up by 46. FDW777 (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, you removed all dates of birth- even those with citations. If lack of citations is the issue, I'll re-add the dates of birth but only the cited ones. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 21:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of citations is not the only issue, the key issue is that nobody has ever been able to explain the direct relevance of dates of birth to list articles which are nothing to do with age. And there's no way I'm wasting ages manually removing ~600 unreferenced additions to clean up your mess. FDW777 (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would be quite willing to remove all unreferenced dates of birth, if that would be acceptable to you. If not, I can only assume that the citation of "lack of references" being an issue was in fact not the genuine reason you removed them in the first place. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 13:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think this is an improvement, sorry. We have a nice clean table on this article at the moment that includes precisely the useful information. If users want to find out trivia about an MP, such as former ministerial office or formal style, they can find it on that MP's article. Moving it to a seniority order would be giving a lot of weight to something which doesn't merit it, and restructuring the table to include extra rows for numbered Parliaments (which is already largely a Wikipedia-ism!) makes it harder to follow or re-order to get information from quickly. A lot of the problems are also problems with the seniority article. (If that article series has a future, I think it should remove leading zeros from seniority, strip away the formal addresses, replace the text-on-colour party names with the standard stripe-and-name format, and remove the notes column. The earlier two articles in the series are full of out of date notes...) Ralbegen (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any table including dates of birth, that's a matter for the MPs' own articles not this one. FDW777 (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What we can agree on[edit]

Chessrat has made a great effort with the merged table and I thank them for it.

I think we can agree that a merged table (and merged article) is the best way forward. DoBs will always be a point of contention but I remember reading on Wikipedia years ago some advice – if you're installing a fire-exit, don't focus on the colour of the path away from the door. So let's not stop the good from happening just because of one potential bad.

Let's think about what we agree on. A merged article, a merged table, and including only that information (for now!) which is vital. I would say a good starting point would be:

  1. . Name (matching the article title, rather than titles from marriage etc.)
  2. . Constituency
  3. . Party/independent
  4. . MP since Date
  5. . Position currently held / positions previously held.

If this is accurate, then it can be created using Chessrat's proposed version, and in the meantime we can perhaps focus on the specifics such as DoBs etc.

Sounds good? doktorb wordsdeeds 19:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why adding dates MPs were first elected and career histories into the perfectly good table on this page would be an improvement. The tight focus of the table on this page makes it easy to follow and uncluttered, entirely unlike the table in the seniority article. If a reader wants to find out more about an MP, it's only a click away. Ralbegen (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so we don't agree on Ralbegen. I'm trying my best to work out a compromise. Editors seem to want some kind of merger so this article has to include some elements of the seniority article. I thought maybe adding the last two columns would be a good solution. I don't know where to move forward with this really. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One possibility that was raised on the other talk page a few days ago was having more articles, not fewer- another article to list MPs by age. My position is that as long as there's information that would be useful for people, it should be included somewhere; I'm open to having all that information in one article or in multiple but as a general principle believe it should be given on wikipedia somewhere. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 12:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with doktorb that Chessrat has made a commendable effort with the table, so thanks for their input. It looks fine to me. I like the inclusion of the previous MP. If you're looking at who was elected at a particular election, that's useful information. However, I am getting a bit confused about what exactly would be merged and deleted. If the table above would be the one list of all currently serving MPs, that's fine. As long as there is one article on WP which lists current MPs with their DOB and is sorted by their seniority in Parliament – the important aspect being to see who the longest-serving MPs are. I can also see the case for having separate articles which just list those MPs returned at a particular election (the main omission being by-election victors who arrive after a GE, but which could easily be found at other articles). Whilst I very much support the inclusion of DOBs in an article table, I'm not sure we need an article just focusing on listing the ages of MPs – I would oppose that in practice. I broadly agree with Chessrat though – information which would be useful to people such as DOBs and seniority should be on Wikipedia somewhere. I am one of those editors who thinks that dates of birth for MPs are important, and I'm trying to update the articles to include the dates with reliable sources. But I would prefer to have an article listing all current MPs as the one with their DOBs. We probably don't need to have a list of MPs by seniority for each parliament, though.--TrottieTrue (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My idea was indeed to expand the snippet of table I posted there to cover all current MPs, so that the table could be sorted by any of seniority, name, party, age, etc, as the user wants to. Which I think you're saying you agree with. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 20:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sounds fine.—TrottieTrue (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reaching consensus[edit]

No more comments on this discussion for a few weeks. What, if any, consensus do we have? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add to the conversation as a novice editor but avid reader, I think the yellow bars for which election each MP entered Parliament at is a very useful and informative addition. I understand and support the removal of dates of birth, but keeping titles, initial election dates, and offices held (although suggest that should maybe be streamlined to just Party leadership, PM/DPM, and Great Offices of State, and Shadows for the aforementioned. If not it will be a lot of work to continually update everytime there is a minor Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet reshuffle. OGBC1992 (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to have petered out without a conclusion. My view is that this article should be retained as it is, but would just be an historical record as part of the series of articles covering general elections back over time; I suggest the photos are removed from these historical articles. I then propose that the List of United Kingdom MPs by seniority (2019–present) is deleted, but used as a template for a new, simpler "live" article which would list current MPs, with columns as proposed above, maybe including photos, and adding a "Notes" column for any other relevant facts, such as change of party etc.JSboundaryman (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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) 04:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Working majority[edit]

I am really sorry but I am rather confused by how the working majority is calculated – can someone help me understand it? Is the Speaker included or not? The table currently states that there is a 80 majority for the government now that Helen Morgan has won the North Shropshire by-election yet in the first table, it states a 79 majority for the government. I'm just rather confused (although, it doesn't take much to confuse me – haha!) RyanPLB (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2021 (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) 13:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of MPs in the first United Kingdom Parliament which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Brigden[edit]

Just a heads up. If this is accurate then this article might get a flurry of attention from editors both constructive and otherwise : https://order-order.com/2023/05/09/andrew-bridgen-officially-joining-laurence-foxs-reclaim-party/ doktorb wordsdeeds 18:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Progression of government majority and party totals[edit]

Just pointing out that the "Progression of government majority and party totals" table has for some time consistently overstated the size of the government's working majority by one. Thus, as of 1 March 2024, there are 345 voting Conservative MPs, and 293 voting opposition MPs (including independents), giving a working majority of 52, but the table gives the figure as 53. I am not sure of the reason for this. My initial assumption was that it did not account for the fact that Eleanor Laing (Con, Chair of Ways and Means) is on an extended leave of absence, and Roger Gale (Con) has been temporarily appointed as acting Chair of Ways and Means, but I've double-checked and can see that this is not the case. Not sure what's been missed!Joeskeaping (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair (and if you press edit you'll see) it's an incredibly complex table to edit/maintain. Human error is the most likely cause. @Alextheconservative has often been on top of curating this section and may know more. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page here shows 348 Conservative MPs - the table only lists the Speaker as a separate party, as the Deputies are still members of a political party. Alextheconservative (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but the "working majority" stats definitely won't include the deputy speakers, hence why the same site gives the working majority as 52, which only makes sense if you take away three Con & 1 Lab deputy speakers.
https://members.parliament.uk/parties/Commons Joeskeaping (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_MPs_elected_in_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election&oldid=1211852003"