Talk:House of Commons (United Kingdom): Difference between revisions
imported>Tom Morris (New page: {{subpages}}) |
imported>Nick Gardner (→Fit for approval?: new section) |
||
(8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
==Move== | |||
I think this is going to have to be renamed because Canada also has a House of Commons. We could call this [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom]] (not 'British House of Commons' - the [http://www.parliament.uk website] has UK in it). I see no reason, for the moment, why [[House of Commons]] can't redirect here, though. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 03:17, 13 June 2008 (CDT) | |||
:Slept on this and though that [[House of Commons (UK)]] would be better, as [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom]] also looks like a formal name. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 21:58, 13 June 2008 (CDT) | |||
= Article moved == | |||
I acted boldy and moved it to [[House of Commons (United Kingdom)]]. I will work up the disambig shortly. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 18:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Overhaul == | |||
This article would benefit, in my opinion, from an overhaul to improve its clarity, remove irrelevant matter and repair its omissions and lack of citations. The present arrangement of the material is such that for much of it a piecemeal edit would not serve the purpose. Any volunteers? | |||
I have in mind an approach that would deal with the following topics on the main page and in linked articles and subpages:- | |||
*History - the Great Council, petitions, the glorious revolution, universal suffrage. (timelines subpage?) | |||
*Membership - qualifications, party members and independents, selection and election, constituency duties, pay and expenses, attendance, conduct and suspensions, promotions and resignations. | |||
*Functions - legislation, oversight, representation. | |||
*Organisation - speaker and deputy speakers, speakers' conference, front benches, the leader of the house, whips, select committees, galeries, library and research staff. | |||
*Legislative procedures - motions, public and private members bills, cooperation between government and opposition whips - bill stages (first, second, committee, report etc), divisions, the role of the Lords. | |||
*Delegated Legislation - statutory instruments, orders in council, scrutiny and oversight. | |||
*Parliamentary Questions - written and oral questions, supplementary questions, Prime Minister's questions. | |||
*The Lobby - pressure groups, the press lobby | |||
*Parliamentary privilege and libel. | |||
The more detailed stuff could be put on subpages, and much of it could be dealt with in linked articles ("Parliament", "Member of Parliament" etc) which may have to be amended for the purpose (and some of the present duplication among could then be reduced) Full use could be made of citations to HoC Library publications. | |||
[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 16:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
In the absence of a response to the above, I have made a start on the replacement of the existing text. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 07:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Fit for approval? == | |||
I believe that I have replaced the article as it was on 18th February with one that is fit for approval, but I should welcome an informed account of any deficiencies that it may have in that respect. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 22:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 16:21, 6 March 2012
Move
I think this is going to have to be renamed because Canada also has a House of Commons. We could call this House of Commons of the United Kingdom (not 'British House of Commons' - the website has UK in it). I see no reason, for the moment, why House of Commons can't redirect here, though. John Stephenson 03:17, 13 June 2008 (CDT)
- Slept on this and though that House of Commons (UK) would be better, as House of Commons of the United Kingdom also looks like a formal name. John Stephenson 21:58, 13 June 2008 (CDT)
Article moved =
I acted boldy and moved it to House of Commons (United Kingdom). I will work up the disambig shortly. David E. Volk 18:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Overhaul
This article would benefit, in my opinion, from an overhaul to improve its clarity, remove irrelevant matter and repair its omissions and lack of citations. The present arrangement of the material is such that for much of it a piecemeal edit would not serve the purpose. Any volunteers?
I have in mind an approach that would deal with the following topics on the main page and in linked articles and subpages:-
- History - the Great Council, petitions, the glorious revolution, universal suffrage. (timelines subpage?)
- Membership - qualifications, party members and independents, selection and election, constituency duties, pay and expenses, attendance, conduct and suspensions, promotions and resignations.
- Functions - legislation, oversight, representation.
- Organisation - speaker and deputy speakers, speakers' conference, front benches, the leader of the house, whips, select committees, galeries, library and research staff.
- Legislative procedures - motions, public and private members bills, cooperation between government and opposition whips - bill stages (first, second, committee, report etc), divisions, the role of the Lords.
- Delegated Legislation - statutory instruments, orders in council, scrutiny and oversight.
- Parliamentary Questions - written and oral questions, supplementary questions, Prime Minister's questions.
- The Lobby - pressure groups, the press lobby
- Parliamentary privilege and libel.
The more detailed stuff could be put on subpages, and much of it could be dealt with in linked articles ("Parliament", "Member of Parliament" etc) which may have to be amended for the purpose (and some of the present duplication among could then be reduced) Full use could be made of citations to HoC Library publications.
Nick Gardner 16:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
In the absence of a response to the above, I have made a start on the replacement of the existing text. Nick Gardner 07:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Fit for approval?
I believe that I have replaced the article as it was on 18th February with one that is fit for approval, but I should welcome an informed account of any deficiencies that it may have in that respect. Nick Gardner 22:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)