Talk:2019 in the United Kingdom

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

Scope[edit]

May I suggest that we try and keep to the "UK" scope this year, and that stuff not relevant to the UK as a whole be put in the more appropriate articles for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More info please[edit]

Wjfox2005, for the benefit of all us wannabe Wikipedia editors, can you please tell us where we can find a description of the correct Wikipedia style, and can you explain what was wrong with that edit you reverted. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't read the technical/style guides for Wikipedia, but I'm sure you can find them on here somewhere. It should be obvious that user 01leeteo's post wasn't acceptable. His edits have been well-documented on previous UK pages, and he's been warned many times before, not just by me. In this case, he literally just copy-pasted the headline and opening standfirst. He also failed to include a space after the first sentence, used a dash instead of ndash, and didn't fill the reference. If I was going to include his article entry, I would have written something like:
"The Old Bailey is told that Islamic State (IS) supporter, Lewis Ludlow, was undergoing a government de-radicalisation programme at the time he planned a vehicle-ramming terror attack."
And yes, I could have corrected it myself. But my point is, 01leeteo has done this so many times before. Whether it's changes to the sentence structure or grammatical/typing/other errors, literally everything he posts needs major corrections/editing, every single time. Check the previous UK articles if you don't believe me. Frankly I'd rather he just didn't post here at all. Sorry. Wjfox2005 (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've come across 01leeteo's edits before. They tend to be a copy/paste of the opening paragraph of a news story, with no attempt to even rewrite the text. Without checking I think I may have urged them not to do this, but I know I've definitely corrected a lot of their edits. However, I kind of lost the will to do it because they don't seem to take on board what anyone is saying. Now I just tend to delete anything of theirs I see. It's sad but what else can you do? This is Paul (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with This is Paul here. Wikipedia is what it is, we can't ban people for poor-quality editing, just repair the damage as we go along. And if the editor doesn't engage in discussion there's not much which can be done.--Bcp67 (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought here, but having reverted another one this afternoon I wonder if this behaviour is a violation of WP:COPYVIO. I've reverted it as copyvio, but not a hundred percent certain. Certainly a large chunk of text copied in such a way would be a copyright violation. This is Paul (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Future events?[edit]

Are future events being listed on this article or not? I thought that its now only being used for events which have actually happened, hence my removal of the Brexit vote entry. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so as a lot of stuff was removed the other day. This is Paul (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per not a crystal ball, no. Even adding things that are very likely to happen encourages people to add things that are far from certain to happen, and the clutter builds. And, as we've seen with parliament and votes, what was definitely going to happen on a set day might not take place, so there's no justification for including it until after it has. These lists are meant to be chronicles of events that took place, not events that are scheduled to take place or events that were scheduled to take place and then didn't. EddieHugh (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular policy that they shouldn't be included? So far as I can see it varies but leans towards inclusion:
Has future events:

No future events:

DelUsion23 (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the United Kingdom[edit]

We seem to have a small number of "events" being added that didnt happen in the United Kingdom but effect a random number of British citizens. As this is not British people in 2019 but is meant to cover UK events do we need a consensus on what seems to be deaths of Britons not in the United Kingdom are within scope although they cleary are nowhere in the UK. There is a number of deaths overseas all the time should we be including them or not, thoughts, MilborneOne (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If these are British people, their deaths will affect the public mood, daily life and culture of Britain. Eight Britons killed in a major terrorist attack is clearly noteworthy and deserves a mention here. We aren't talking about an entire article devoted to their deaths, just a brief few words. For precedent, see September 2001 and numerous other events since then.Wjfox2005 (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But this list is not about the mood and feelings in the United Kingdom, lots of Brits die outside of the United Kingdom very week, why should some be reported and not others. Perhaps we should get some other opinions MilborneOne (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it didn't happen in the UK or involve a notable Brit, then I agree that it should be left out. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be left out. However, I feel it is appropriate to add the FCO's warning against all but essential travel to the country, since that is a UK event. This is Paul (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to accept this compromise. Wjfox2005 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need to keep entries neutral and in line with WP:BLP[edit]

Tabloid-style phrases like "Tory leadership hopeful..." should be avoided. Why not write "Conservative Party leadership candidate...", or similar, which is more neutral. And we must certainly comply with WP:BLP, so cannot write "...will be prosecuted for misconduct in public office" when its only an alleged offence and still awaiting a preliminary magistrates hearing and could be stopped in its tracks by the CPS/DPP or for another reason. To balance it, it probably also need to be noted that it is a crowdfunded private prosecution and that there are allegations about the motivation behind it. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I have changed it. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) But WP:NPOV requires balance, which was absent in your version, so I've removed it again. If accusations are rebutted, that should be added for balance. What is your objection to that? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These are the basic, neutral facts:
- It was a crowdfunded legal effort
- The subject in question is Conservative Party leadership candidate Boris Johnson
- He was ordered to appear in court
- Concerning allegations related to claims made during the 2016 European Union membership referendum campaign of £350m being sent to the EU each week.
That's entirely neutral, and that's all you need. Its YOU who's making it unbalanced. Wjfox2005 (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not neutral - you are forgetting that the allegations have been rebutted, not only by him, but by third-parties too, and that isn't mentioned. It is currently a biased and one-sided account. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wjfox2005: I've made another attempt to add balance per WP:WELLKNOWN in WP:BLP. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WTF is your problem? Jesus. Why do you have to keep messing it around? It has the basic facts, and then you have to go and ruin it because of some apparent need for "balance". Your idea of "balance" is to insert a tabloid-style comment on the case. Just f***ing stop. Please. Leave it how it is, with the basic facts. Wjfox2005 (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wjfox2005: firstly, calm down - then we can discuss this. It only has one-sided facts, and Wikipedia demands a neutral POV, and WP:BLP is very strong on it. Offer a compromise wording for us to consider. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto, I apologise for my outburst here. I was having a bad day. And I have a particular hatred of that clown, Boris Johnson. I can accept the current entry as listed. Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not convinced that this worth including at the moment, all that is happened is basically a court summons has been issued, perhaps wait until he actually goes to court. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MilborneOne: I tend to agree with that. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MilborneOne: Whatever I may think privately, I have to agree with you both on this one. Deb (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute on related pages[edit]

Firstly, I'm posting this here because the relevant pages have few editors and inactive talk pages, so response should be much quicker here and from a wider audience of editors. The page 2019 in Wales and the page 2019 in British music have their dates linked. I have tried to remove these date links due to it breaking the MOS:OVERLINK and WP:DATELINK rules. However another editor is reverting me arguing the dates should be linked simply because the previous years have done so. However, I'd argue if something does not follow Wikipedia's rules it should be corrected, just because something is wrongly done elsewhere in a consistent fashion does not make it correct. Helper201 (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I explained this to you on your talk page in February. Deb (talk) 14:35, 11 June 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) 17:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to summarise the Channel 4 ice statue story[edit]

On 28 November the press was full of the story of how Channel 4 chose to display an ice sculpture rather than accept Michael Gove as a stand-in when Boris Johnson was unable to attend their debate on climate change. This was presented in the article as: The Conservative Party threatens to review Channel 4’s broadcasting remit if they win the general election, after the channel replaces the absent Boris Johnson with a melting ice sculpture during its climate change debate. This interpretation was, I believe, a wildly distorted and non-NPOV representation of the story and not supported by the facts in the cited source, or in the balance of reliable sources which recorded it, so I replaced it with what I think is a more balanced wording. My edit was quickly reverted by Birtig. So I as I found the original version completely unacceptable, I removed it, pending a consensus on it being achieved here. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its just not noteworthy in the big scheme of things, pretty sure that they threatned the same thing a few weeks ago about Channel Four, support not including it. MilborneOne (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

new item[edit]

new article created, 2019 in United Kingdom politics and government. I know it's pretty late for this year, but this might be useful for items in 2020. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:28, 16 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) 09:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1196845533"