User talk:FollowTheTortoise

Hi FollowTheTortoise! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi FollowTheTortoise, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• How to edit a page
• Simplified Manual of Style
• How to create your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia

Ask questions at the Teahouse or my talk. On talk pages, remember to sign your messages by typing a space then four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. That automatically inserts your user name and the date. Happy editing! Andrew🐉(talk) 15:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you added WorldCat references to this article but these are NOT sources. They are catalogue entries only for the books in question. You need to read WP:CITE and WP:RS which explain what is required as sources. As far as books are concerned, we need a direct citation of the exact page number from the book itself. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I had put page numbers in my references, but I'll make sure that my edits are up to policy when I can. Have a nice weekend! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have effectively used book adverts as sources instead of the books themselves. You cannot possibly obtain the page numbers from the WorldCat entry. You must reference the actual book. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that I always either had the physical book or book on Kindle in front of me when I was doing those edits. I think what I must have done was use the automatic citation tool, which adds the WorldCat entry, without knowing that that was wrong. I'll have a good read over those policies and fix my edits in the future. Thanks for informing me of my mistake! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Have a good weekend yourself. All the best and stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done (at last). FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to give you a heads up that I replied to some discussion on the Prime Minister of the UK talk page regarding the lead :) WildComet (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know and for leaving such a detailed comment! :) I've now left my response, so hopefully we'll be able to sort something out that we're both happy with! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Minor barnstar
	Great work with regards to Boris Johnson's page. I appreciate the alteration of the wording of the article. DukeLondon (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. DukeLondon (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add a lost of the informal DPM's please as I think they could be great asset. Mr Hall of England (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you mean Rodney Brazier's unambiguous 14 that are referenced in the article Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes also would the Liberal Leader under Churchill War be considered? Mr Hall of England (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can get to work on adding them to the article. I feel that adding them in prose rather than in a table would be better as, while they may be unambigous to Brazier, some might be arguable! And I'm not completely sure who you're referring to. Under Winston Churchill, Rodney Brazier includes Clement Attlee (1940-5) and Anthony Eden (1945 and 1951-55). FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, made a little point score as Archibald Sinclair could of been a DPM as the Liberal Party.

Ahh I see. If you can find a source, you could of course add this to the article! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am blocked from editing by the way, but I enclose the template for you to do with the DPMs (Official and Unofficial)

Deputy Prime Minister

Portrait		Deputy Prime Minister	Political Party and position	Portfolio(s)	Term of office		Ministry	Monarch (Reign)	Ref.
					Took office	Left office
		The Right Honourable Clement Attlee MP for Limehouse (1883–1967)	Labour Leader 1958–71	Dominions Secretary (1942–1943) Lord President of the Council (1943–1945)	19 February 1942	23 May 1945	Churchill War	George VI (1936–1952)	[1]

Archibald Sinclair was not DPM though. Mr Hall of England (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. It's perhaps not my finest work, but I think that it'll do the trick and I or somebody else can always come back to it in the future now that the full list with references is there. My apologies for the delay and, while I don't know the full story, it does seem that Wikipedia is a poorer place for not having you as an editor anymore. On this note, please do get in touch with me again if I can help in any way to get your ban lifted or if you have any other suggestions. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vice President of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Collins. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed FollowTheTortoise (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FollowTheTortoise. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Spring 1974 United Kingdom government formation, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was wandering if you could do me this favor for me please? Could you add this to the following, Add #89CFF0 this to

• List of law life peerages
• List of life peerages (1958–1979)
• List of life peerages (1979–1997)
• List of life peerages (1997–2010)
• List of life peerages (2010–present)

Because these are for Lords who are alive but retired from the Lords not died.

Mr Hall of England (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[reply]

Hey, I'm afraid that I'm not completely sure what you want doing, so if you could re-explain then that would be great. I will also need to check that this would be within the rules before I do it. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You just need to change the colour of the Lord's who are alive but left the House of Lords. That's all. Mr Hall of England (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal references

• Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010
• House of Lords Reform Act 2014

This is what I propose for you:

Hi I was wandering if you have added the changes? Mr Hall of England (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. It looks like we're good to go and I do think that your suggested edits would be constructive, so I will put them into place as soon as find the time! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on this edit request! MHE has also been trying to rework lists of women who were members of the house of lords (I think). You might be better suited to help than me. If you're interested, see this discussion. Either way, let me know if you need my help, and thanks again! — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I was just scrolling through my talk page when I was reminded of this task! I know that it's been a couple of months, but I'm afraid that I'm not going to be able to do the edits. It's not really my area, I'm still not 100% sure what needs to be done and I can be quite busy. Sorry! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's dissolution day tomorrow. Are you ready to start deleting post-nominals? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - thanks for reminding me! Maybe I could start from the end of the alphabet. Also, are we okay to start at midnight or is there a specific time? I can't find anything on Google. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a specific time either so I would assume midnight. I'll start with A and you start with Z.Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have also knocked up this template to put at the tops of the articles concerned.

The subject of this article was a member of the Welsh Parliament immediately prior to its dissolution on 29th April. Some of the content on this page may reflect the state of affairs from that time. The election will take place on 6th May, after which updates will be made as appropriate. Information may change rapidly as the election progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The latest updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. Please feel free to improve this article (but note that updates without valid and reliable references will be removed) or discuss changes on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

That's brilliant. Thank you and hopefully speak to you tomorrow. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Just checking now, it seems that you've done everyone! Thanks a lot for sorting this! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have reverted your edit on Democratic Unionist Party due to NPOV issues. I believe that "less than three weeks into the job" and "despite the fact that" is a violation of the policy. I might be wrong, if I am, please contact me through my talk page or reply to this message, but remember to ping me. Justiyaya (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Justiyaya. Thanks for your message. This is very concerning to hear. I, of course, didn't mean to breach any policy. I'm not convinced that those quotations are in violation of any policy, but I take any complaint very seriously and am happy to rewrite to prevent any percieved violation. Specifically, is it WP:IMPARTIAL that you're concerned about?

I wrote a similar statement on Edwin Poots, so was wondering if you could approve a rewrite that I've done in light of your comments and a rereading of the current version of my referenced articles, which is as follows (I'm afraid that I haven't been able to work out how to add citations to my talk page, but I'm using the same sources as before and have included citation numbers in square brackets): "On 17 June, Poots announced that he had requested a new leadership contest.[76] He said that he would stay in post until a successor was elected.[76] This followed a reported vote by DUP MLAs, 24 to four, against Poots nominating Givan to be First Minister.[77]"

Thanks again for your message. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I remember debating with myself (for like 10 minutes) whether to revert or not because this is a really small issue. I believe that writing "less than 3 weeks" is more biased than "after 20 days" (WP:VOICE) and that "despite the fact that" can be removed without much change of the information in the sentence (if you fix the grammar), this is not a huge issue but I would argue that it's still slightly biased. In hindsight, I probably should've made the edits that were mentioned before and accept the revision, so that's what I'll do after I finish writing this message.

I would approve the similar statement that you mentioned. To put citations into talk pages, you just simply do the same as you would in normal pages, like this.^[2]

Consider applying for pending changes reviewer, you seem to have enough of an understanding of the policies that are needed (if not, read them) and you probably have enough experiance to do so too.

-- Justiyaya (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, @Justiyaya! And thanks for the heads up about citations - I think that the normal button has disappeared because I'm using the new reply feature.

And I'll have a think about applying - perhaps when I hit 1,000 edits or when August (my one year Wikipedia anniversary) comes around will be a good time to apply. I spent most of yesterday evening correcting edits saying that Edwin Poots was no longer DUP Leader, so it would have been a useful tool then! Though my usual arena is adding information to relatively uncontentious pages which don't have that feature, I'll have a think, especially if I end up branching out into pages with that feature.

Thanks again and have a nice weekend! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you do choose to apply, good luck. If you need anything, feel free to talk to me on my talk page. Have fun editing :) Justiyaya (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little puzzled by your commented out note to his article. The City of London, for example, has been unchanged (except for minor boundary adjustments) for a millennium. Are you saying that such authorities cannot elect a mayor or Lord Mayor? 89.240.112.154 (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I wasn't saying that at all! I spent a bit of time adding the style "Mayor" to the articles of the nine 'Metro Mayors' before their names earlier today, as per the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, s 107A(5) (for example, on Andy Burnham's article). However, as the Mayor of London technically isn't "[a] mayor for the area of a combined authority" and I have not been able to find any other authority to the contrary, it is clear to me that Sadiq Khan is not entitled to the style of "Mayor" before his name. The comment is there to make editors aware of this. In other words, my comment was about the style of "Mayor", not the existence of a Mayor! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Section (2) of the legislation you cite begins:

(1)The Authority shall consist of—

(a) the Mayor of London;...

Why would the Act provide for a Mayor but not allow him to be addressed as such? What would be the point of the restriction? 89.240.112.154 (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insane, right? I think that it's just one of the oddities of the UK constitution! Mayors of single authorities are entitled to the style, as per the Local Government Act 2000, s 9H(2), but that subsection only applies to mayors elected under the provisions made by or under part 1A of the Local Government Act 2000 and I can't see how that applies to the Mayor of London. My theory is that it was forgotten when the Greater London Authority Act 1999 was being drafted and hasn't been fixed yet (because, let's be honest, it's not going to be any government's top priority, though incidentally I would like to see a local government consolidation act).

I can't see how somebody could have the style of mayor (for a mayoralship first elected in 2000) but not have it granted by primary legislation. Too, Debretts says that "[n]o courtesy title or style has been ascribed to the office of Mayor of London." But feel free to correct me if you can find any provision to the contrary! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the Act cited, section 9C(2) says "The executive may consist of-

(a) an elected mayor of the authority".

Section 9H.(1) says:

In this part "elected mayor", in relation to a local authority, means an individual elected as mayor of the authority by the local government electors fror the authority's area...

Sub-paragraph (2) says:

An elected mayor is to be entitled to the style of "mayor"

Section (2) falls within Part I of the Act and section (9) falls within Part 1A. Thus the exclusion of the courtesy title "The Worshipful" under section 9 does not extend to mayors elected by the councillors under section 2. This is borne out by Debrett, which says that for mayors who are not directly elected the style is "The Worshipful the Mayor of...". The Mayor of London, being directly elected, is referred to as "The Mayor of London" and similarly with other directly elected mayors. If he has been appointed to the Privy Council he will have the style "The Right Honourable". What I'm not seeing is any prohibition on directly-elected mayors being addressed as "Mayor". 89.240.112.154 (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that LGA 2000 s 9H(1) applies here, as the Greater London Authority isn't a local authority (see gov.uk).

I also don't think that you'll ever find any prohibition in law that says that the Mayor of London isn't entitled to the style of "Mayor". As I say above, the fact that there is no provision granting the Mayor of London the style of "Mayor" (in my view) must be a minor drafting oversight, rather than a deliberate decision.

The crux of what I'm saying is that I can't see anything in law (or otherwise) that says that the Mayor of London is entitled to the style of/prefix "Mayor". And I can't see how a statutory provision wouldn't be required to grant this.

What I'm not saying is that it is incorrect to call Sadiq Khan "The Mayor" or "The Mayor of London" or indeed address letters to him this way. But what I am saying is that, say if you were writing a letter to him, as far as I'm aware, it should technically start "Dear Mr Khan" instead of "Dear Mayor Khan", unlike a letter to the Mayor of Greater Manchester (which as far as I'm aware should technically start "Dear Mayor Burnham", because Andy Burnham is entitled to the style under Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, s 107A(5)). As an aside, I don't think that the Debretts article has been updated since combined authorities were introduced.

Although the above Debretts article satisfies me that Khan isn't entitled to the style of/prefix Mayor, I'm happy to have that note from Khan's article removed, so long as "Mayor" isn't added in its place. We must remember that we are talking about the most minor of details here, though it is interesting! One way to solve this might be through asking the Greater London Authority itself. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. Combined authorities (of which the GLA is not one) do not have a mayor unless the government allows it. Apart from the mayor, all their members are appointed, not elected. All the members of the GLA are elected. The mayors of elected authorities have always had the status of "Mayor" despite there being no specific statutory provision conferring the title. Hence when the office of Mayor of the GLA was created there was no need to specifically provide that the office holder had the status of "Mayor".

Thanks for replying. I'm completely with you that the GLA is a different beast to a combined authority, though most of its actual staff is appointed, including the Deputy Mayors who are political figures. Nonetheless, I see your point and completely agree with you in that respect. I also think that it's important to note again that the Greater London Authority is also not a local authority. I finally wanted to note that I'm talking about, and the change in Sadiq Khan's article refers to, styles/prefixes, not statuses.

I found this article, List of post-nominal letters (United Kingdom), quite interesting. In it, it is discussed how there was debate at first (and seemingly no legal authority) as to the post-nominal letters of AMs. The post-nominal letters of "AM", seemingly, therefore, didn't require legislation to be granted. However, the fact that the 2000 Act and 2009 Act both refer to the style of "Mayor" still makes be believe that the style of "Mayor" must require a legal authority to be granted, particularly to an office that was only first elected in 2000.

Apart from whether legislation is required to confer the style of "Mayor" or whether it can be confered without, I think that we're in agreement. I wonder whether it would be worth seeing what other editors have to say on this point, by linking this very interesting debate to Sadiq Khan's and the Mayor of London's talk page. Speak to you soon. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

section

Hi,

I'm busy iin RL but saw these links that show changes to the NSC membership and structures:

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/37957/pdf/

Changes to the NSC The Prime Minister has agreed the new terms of reference for the NSC. He has concluded that he will chair NSCs once a month and more frequently if circumstances dictate. Given the breadth and ambition of the agenda we have to deliver, Ministers will also meet as a subcommittee to the NSC as “National Security Ministers” (NSM), with a senior minister in the chair on issues that the Prime Minister wishes to delegate. On matters of foreign policy, the Foreign Secretary will chair; on homeland security, it will be the Home Secretary; the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will chair on matters of resilience; the Chancellor of the Exchequer on questions of our economic security; and if it is necessary for NSM to discuss Europe or trade related issues, it will be the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office. To keep the discussion decision focused and strategic, the core membership of NSC will be reduced to: ● Prime Minister (Chair) ● Chancellor of the Exchequer ● Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State ● Secretary of State for the Home Department ● Secretary of State for Defence ● Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ● Minister of State at the Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) ● Attorney General

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/2499/pdf/

cc @Mmitchell10: If interested.

Condo951795 (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thanks for these - I will update the article this afternoon. Thanks again! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've had a go at updating the article. It could do with some work (and I've made a list of possibly useful sources), but at least it's up to date! Thanks again for the heads up about the new sources: the first was really useful, but I'm afraid that I couldn't really find a way to work in the second one (though I have to admit that I didn't try too hard; another editor would probably be able to do it!) Thanks again! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Security Council (United Kingdom), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages PC and CMG.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed FollowTheTortoise (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'm not suggesting that caretaker, acting or interim is wrong, concerning Australian prime ministers. Just pointing out the inconsistencies between the office article & the related bios. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I thank you for not being insulting to me, at the Australian PM talkpage. Unlike that other fellow. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, you didn't come across that way at all! And I completely agree with you that consistency would be better than the current situation. That was also very rude of that user, I am sorry about that. Detailed knowledge isn't a necessary qualification for editing Wikipedia, but, for what it's worth, you still seem to have it! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FollowTheTortoise, how do you feel about PoliceSheep99's complete re-work of List of government ministers of the United Kingdom? Thanks. Mmitchell10 (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - thanks for messaging me. From the banner at the top of the page, it looks like editing is still in progress. I'm not at all opposed to the article becoming a list of the current offices in use, since we have the template to give a basic overview (I have been meaning to add some styling to the template, but I keep forgetting), but I do worry that adding offices that are no longer in use (a) might lead to unwieldy and perhaps never complete lists and (b) might be unsourced (no source for these older offices have been used yet, as far as I'm aware). But I'd like to wait until the edits are done to form a proper opinion! Perhaps once this happens editors could take any thoughts that they have to the article's talk page? Thanks again. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very sensible, thank you, will do the same and wait to see how it ends up looking. Regards. Mmitchell10 (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright saw the revert. Yet the list is dated, do we take that the Space Council exists? Further searches on the web do not confirm it or the Chair(s).

Also in the article, many sources are from archived links. Not really the fault. Gov.uk has not updated many of its links. Good Sunday.

Condo951795 (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Condo951795. Good Sunday to you too and thanks for the message! There isn't much online about the National Space Council, but I did find this speech from Wednesday which mentions the National Space Council as a current 'thing' (it also mentions that it's chaired by Boris Johnson). This recent Scotsman article also refers to it. So I am pretty convinced that the National Security Council still exists. It would be good if we could get a new 'List of Cabinet Committees' from the UK government soon (the last one being from November 2020), but until then, and without any sources pointing otherwise, I think that we should still take the November 2020 list as conclusive.

As for the other sources in the article, because Cabinet Committees are quite liquid-like, some of the article and its sources may very well be outdated. I can try and work on that if I can find the time! Thanks again! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok can you add it there?Condo951795 (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want me to add? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above references or what is relevant? Condo951795 (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As we already have a source for the name of the committee, its chair and deputy chair and its terms of reference, I don't think that we need to add any more sources. I also don't think that we need to continually prove that a committee continues to exist unless there are reliable sources pointing otherwise or the source in question is hopelessly outdated. Feel free to add the sources yourself, but I don't think that they're necessary. I will also try and fix the article when I have the time, but I'm a little busy at the moment - sorry! Thanks again for your messages! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the Canadian cabinet's order of precedence is not an order of succession, and has absolutely nothing to do with determining who would become the new Prime Minister in the event that Justin Trudeau were to die in office or be forced to suddenly resign — it only dictates the order in which people can act on behalf of the Prime Minister in the event that Justin Trudeau is temporarily unavailable. If, say, there was a hurricane making a beeline toward Ottawa while Justin Trudeau was out of town at a G7 summit, then that order of precedence would apply in determining who has the authority to shut down the government offices and send the civil servants home for the day: if Chrystia Freeland can't be reached then call Laurence MacAulay, and if he can't be reached either then try Carolyn Bennett next, and on and so forth.

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what would happen if, say, Justin Trudeau were to die in a plane crash on his way to or from the G7 summit. That is, it does not set in stone that Chrystia Freeland is automatically the new PM in the plane crash scenario, or that Laurence MacAulay is automatically the new PM if Chrystia Freeland was on the plane too, and on and so forth — in such an event, the Liberal Party has to meet to choose its own new leader, and its hands are not tied by whatever orders in council Justin Trudeau had issued while he was alive. The deputy prime minister does not automatically become the new prime minister in that scenario, the second person in that order of precedence does not automatically become the new prime minister if the PM and DPM are both dead, and on and so forth — the surviving members of the Liberal caucus get to choose their new leader themselves.

That's the fundamental issue: it simply is not equivalent to the US presidential line of succession at all, and has absolutely nothing to do with the order in which anybody would move up the ranks in the event of the prime minister's death. So it doesn't belong in our article about the deputy prime minister's role, because it has nothing to do with that — if content about the cabinet's order of precedence is desired, then the deputy prime minister's article is not where it belongs.

And no, the section as written is not unsourced, either. Bearcat (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed reply! I think that you misunderstood me though (or perhaps I didn't explain myself very well). What I'd like to do is add the following two sentences, which are very similar to the ones that were in the article before, though I have removed the paragraph break and the phrase "...line of succession..." because reading your comment made me think that it might cause confusion to our readers:

The Prime Minister sets a list of ministers who are able to perform prime ministerial functions and are authorized to act for the Prime Minister if the Prime Minister is unable to perform the functions of their office, in orders in council known as Acting Ministers Minutes.[3][4] The incumbent Deputy Prime Minister, Chrystia Freeland, currently heads this line.[4]

It is clear to me that succession and inability, as subject matters, go hand in hand (as they do on Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom), so where one is discussed the other should be too. It is particularly pertinent in this case as the incumbent Deputy Prime Minister, Chrystia Freeland, is second in the aforementioned list.

And I can see now that the most important part of the current section on succession is sourced, based on the following quote from the Policy Options article: "[t]here is no provision in the Canadian Constitution for a 'number two position' stepping into the PM’s role. Canada is not akin to a presidential system, with a vice-president enshrined in the constitution as the successor upon resignation, impeachment or death of the president. The elected PM is the PM for the life of the government, unless he or she resigns or dies in office, at which point an interim leader is selected by the government caucus, subject to endorsement by the governor general." It was my mistake to remove that information last month and it should definitely be included. It was because the information on succession was removed and replaced with information on Acting Ministers Minutes that I renamed the section 'Inability', but I can now see that they should go together in one section called 'Succession' (or 'Succession and inability' if you'd be more comfortable with that).

But it remains that most of the current section is unsourced, including some information in the first two sentences (for example, "[a]lthough he or she may serve in an acting capacity on a temporary caretaker basis to ensure continuity of government function during the immediate period of transition, the deputy prime minister does not automatically become the new permanent prime minister"). Before I made the edits last month, there had been a 'More citations needed section' banner (which, for the record, I didn't add) on the section since September 2020, so it would be great if we could (as well as adding the above sentences on Acting Ministers Minutes) remove the unsourced statements from that section. I hope that that makes sense and thanks for responding so quickly! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Bearcat, I don't want to spam you, but I just wondered whether you had read my above message? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've left you a message on the talk page. Richard75 (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/10/suella-bravermans-return-maternity-forces-cabinet-mini-reshuffle/

I'll post the relevant part

"It was a modest change, however, that resulted from the return of Suella Braverman from maternity leave rather than the seismic restructuring of his top team that was widely anticipated...The 41-year-old QC was reappointed Attorney General following six months off in the wake of the arrival of her second child....Number 10 confirmed on Friday that, as part of a mini-reshuffle, Mr Ellis and Ms Frazer would return to their previous roles."

You might wish to update the politics articles you made and expanded.

Regards

Condo951795 (talk) 04:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FollowTheTortoise. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Spring 1974 United Kingdom government formation".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For all your efforts. Hope you read this and do return when you can. Condo951795 (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - that's very kind. I'm looking forward to returning when I've got a bit more time in my life for Wikipedia! Merry Christmas to you and yours! :) FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]