text:
Category talk:British MPs

If we include every article on anyone who was ever an MP, won't this category become far too large to be of any use? Timrollpickering 12:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There has been a similar discussion at List of British MPs without resolution, although there has been an attempt to subdivide them. It does strike me as being useful to have a alphabetical list showing every article on anyone who was ever an MP. The category is an easier way than the list mentioned. It throws up people who may not be widely-known to be an MP, families of MPs (Benns, Churchills, etc.) and makes them easier to locate generally. I think that simply ordering them by election year (which are the most comprehensive lists so far, post 1974) is not helpful on its own. But I sympathise with the category being too long - perhaps subdivide by first letter of surname, as in the list mentioned (not by Party or year). Mtiedemann 13:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a sub category for Current British MPs to keep them separated?

I've put in an alphabetical key for the category. There is probably a neater way of doing it.--Henrygb 18:30, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposed restructuring
This category name "Britsih MPs" is inaccurate: strictly speaking, MPs at Westminster are "UK MPs", since they sit in the parliament of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

So as a first step, I propose that this category be renamed "UK MPs": this would have the useful side-effect of allowing it to include MPs from Northern Ireland, and MPs from all of Ireland before 1922. Since this a direct successor category, a mass change could be implemented using WP:AWB.

The next issue is how to divide sitting and former MPs. I see three options:

 * 1) "UK MPs" with sub-category "Current UK MPs" (I suggest that the term "current is more readily understood than "sitting")
 * 2) "UK MPs" with sub-category "Former UK MPs"
 * 3) "UK MPs" as a parent category with two sub-categories Current UK MPs" and "Former UK MPs"

Of the first two options, option 2 seems better: I suggest that when people look at categories, "UK MPs" is most likely to suggest sitting MPs. However, option 3 seem to me to be he best of all.

The question that raises is what to do about "English MPs" and "Scottish MPs": logically they should be sub-divided in the same way, with a similar sub-division for new categories of "Welsh MPs" and "Northern Irish MPs"

The new structure would then be
 * UK MPs
 * Current UK MPs
 * Current English MPs
 * Current Northern Irish MPs
 * Current Scottish MPs
 * Current Welsh MPs
 * Former UK MPs
 * Former English MPs
 * Former Northern Irish MPs
 * Former Irish MPs (pre-1922)
 * Former Scottish MPs
 * Former Welsh MPs

(The "current" and "former" sub-categories for Scottish, Welsh, etc, could also be sub-categs for "Scottish MPs" etc. I'm not sure whether I like that idea, but have no strong views either way)

The only question I see is of how much multiple classification to do. I know that there is a general policy in Wikepedia that "Articles should be placed in the most specific categories possible", but I can see a persuasive case for an exception here as per Categorization/Categories and subcategories, with all MPs categorised both by nation and under "UK", so that (for example):

 * Tam Dalyell would be listed in Former UK MPs and Former Scottish MPs
 * Ann Clwyd would be categorised under Current UK MPs and Current Welsh MPs
 * retreads who crossed the border might have multiple classifications, such as
 * Teddy Taylor, who would fall under Former UK MPs, Former Scottish MPs, and Former English MPs
 * Malcolm Rifkind, who would fall under Current UK MPs, Former Scottish MPs, and Current English MPs

The only downside I can see of my proposal is that it dosn't accommodate Mtiedemann's desire for a category which includes everyone who is or was an MP.

Any thoughts?

BrownHairedGirl 11:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually, I have no problem with a subcat for former or current MPs - I even agree that option 2 is probably better.

What I would object to is a subdivision of politicians by nation. I don't believe it is (always) relevant to their politics or their position in the Union's assembly, unlike Categories like Category:Scottish politicians which can refer to those politicians where national identity or issues were integral to their politics. It could lead to confusion and should, if used, be titled Category:UK MPs representing Scottish constituencies, etc, which is, I assume, what this is proposed to be determined on.

The only exception to my objection that I can foresee is former MPs representing constituencies no longer in the United Kingdom, namely Ireland, which could be useful to separate. Mtiedemann 11:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

However, I think that it would be best to leave the English/Scottish/Irish/Welsh issues aside for now, and just consider two steps: 1) renaming "British MPs" to "UK MPs"; 2) splitting that into current and former. BrownHairedGirl
 * I'm sure you have a point about subdivision by nation, but it is becoming an increasingly relevant issue, for example wrt to the West Lothian question, and it does seem to matter to people in Scotalnd and Wales.

 * I would support option 2 for now, to distinguish current MPs from former. I don't think having subcategories for current MPs by home nation would be useful, as these can be done (with more detail such as constituency and party) by lists (although this might be a bit large for England). Mattbr30 00:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

April 2006
It seems User:Mais oui! (talk • contribs) has gone ahead and subdivided according to home nation without any further discussion here. There was far from consensus for making this change.

Anyway, if the categories are named "English, Welsh, Scottish", shouldn't it be "Northern Irish" not "Northern Ireland"? There should also be an "Irish Constituencies" for pre-partition MPs.  J Rawle  (Talk) 11:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I have tagged all four new subcats for merging back into Category:British MPs. Please join the discussion at Categories for deletion Valiantis 18:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Unfortunately, the editor in question seems to be on a mission to eliminate the word "British" from Wikipedia, which resulted in the excessively long category names. If people are thinking about the West Lothian question etc., perhaps we could have categories for current MPs representing Scottish and Welsh constituencies (e.g. Category:MPs for Scottish constituencies. But they should all also remain in the category "British MPs".  J Rawle  (Talk) 18:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I support a renaming to UK MPs but dividing between current and former is a needless complication. If we take football categories as an example, we do not differentiate between current and former mebers of a particular club. BlueValour 21:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Uniltateral subdivision of British/United Kingdom/Scottish constituencies
As noted above, the User:Mais oui! has been engaged in a massive exercise to subdivide this category, and has added several layers of sub-categories, removing articles from their parent categories.

My attempt to undo some of this excessive sub-categorisation triggered a minor edit war, and a strong reaction on my talk page (see Please desist). I have asked User:Mais oui! to desist from these changes until a consensus is reached here, but so far the user's response has unfortunately been to remove my comment from the user talk page. I have now reinstated it.

Personally, I believe that there is some merit in splitting the category British MPs, but I am impressed by the arguments here in favour of retaining some of the supercategories. In particular, I think that to removing MP articles from categories relating to the parliament as a whole and relocating them to categories as small as one constituency (e.g. Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Orkney and Shetland) serious impedes the use of the category system.

There may be a case for using the sub-categories, but I believe that if those suategories are to be usedk, the parent categories should be retained. As per WP:SUBCAT, "The basic principle is that the duplication makes it easier, and not harder, for users to find articles".

I hope that User:Mais oui! will join in the discussion here and seek a consensus for a categoristion system for members of the United Kingdom Parliament. --BrownHairedGirl 09:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I have been adding the MPs by party, MPs by nation and female MPs categories, I must confess, because they are, I believe, valid ways of subdividing a large category. But they have all made me uncomfortable as MPs are equal members of a UK parliament and subdivision by these factors might group people together in an artificial way. I was unhappy that these were created somewhat unilaterally, when we had been trying to consider the matter in discussion as above. But now that they are here and bedded in, I'll continue to use those three sets of categories. I try to use all of them together to make people easier to find, as WP:SUBCAT, but few do - that is the problem of this piecemeal proliferation, pigeonholing politicians by one factor only.

 * What I do object to however, is the further subdivision down to local areas and in addition the creation of Scottish subcats for every other type of category, and by implication English, Welsh and Northern Irish. Borough and county boundaries change, and constituencies even more regularly. When I first started editing here, I selfishly created a 'Croydon MPs' category because that was my first project. I kept articles in the parent cat but added any MP who had represented what is now the London Borough of Croydon. More recently I moved all this to Category:Politics of Croydon replacing the now-defunct MPs cat, which I think reflects what anyone who shares my interest is actually looking for and groups articles with councillors, etc. It is also a broader category so boundaries and so on don't matter - categories can be linked in a useful way. I would suggest the same for Fife MPs, Dundee MPs, Reading MPs, Cumbria MPs, etc.

 * As to the Scottish subdivision, this irks me because it creates English categories by default, which I think doesn't reflect the situation. These are categories for politicians who work across the UK in large part, or have the capacity to. Their constituencies can be defined by nation but their nationality and interests are much harder to define and I resist pigeonholing. Speaking as the son of immigrants to the UK, I think many of us first and second generation residents don't recognise English nationality for ourselves, as opposed to British, and I think labelling people as 'English politicians' in some roundabout way is POV, inaccurate and unhelpful.

 * A final comment: Republic of Ireland TDs are categorised by parliamentary session. If we were starting again, I would be happiest with this way of subdividing, with some special subcats for 'unusual MPs' such as those who represented more unusual parties or none. Mtiedemann 10:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 * There should be one category with all British MPs in it, however they are categorised elsewhere. If the reason for splitting it is because there were too many, I don't think having a category with all English MPs is sensible either, as there are very many of those. Instead, we could use the Government Office Regions (constituencies never cross borders of these) – but that probably won't satisfy those users on a crusade to split "British" into "English" and "Scottish".

 * Given the implications of the West Lothian question, there might be some merit in having a "British MPs representing constituenties in Scotland" category. However, those MPs should also remain in the main British MPs category.

 * As for female MPs, the guideline is quite clear. Categories should not normally be split according to gender. If there is a particular interest in a particular group (e.g. female heads of state) the people in that category should still be including in the main, gender-neutral category. From Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality:
 * Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered. A gender-specific category should only be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest. That category, however, does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default. Both male and female heads of government should continue to be filed in the appropriate gender-neutral role category (e.g. Presidents, Monarchs, Prime Ministers, Governors General.)
 * A similar discussion about Category:Female life peers concluded that they should also be included in Category:Life peers  J Rawle  (Talk) 13:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 * In response to Mtiedemann, it was me who created the categorisation-by-parliament for TDs, and I'm glad to see that you like it! It is perhaps slightly easier in Ireland, because there is clearly a "1st Dail", "2nd Dail" etc, and the nomenclature in the UK would be a little more unwieldly: "MPs elected to the 2001-2005 parliament" is not as snappy as Members of the 28th Dáil. I developed that categorisation partly by accident: starting from a "current TDs" idea.

 * (Minor pedantic aside: an election returns a new "parliament", and with each "parliament" there are several "sessions", which start with a Queen's speech and usually last about one year)

 * I think it's usually best on these things to look forward to where we want to be, and not to be too hung up on where we are now (think of the current situation as part of the learning process!).

 * So I'm going to tenatively stick my neck out and suggest that maybe we should work towards a parliament-based classification as a starting point: a not-for-subcategorisation system which should produce reasonably manageable categories. I'll knock up a draft proposal below.

 * As to the Scottish/Irish/Welsh/English division, I can see a case for it, and I don't have a problem with MPs being labelled that way. What I do object to is to them being labelled only in that way, because for many people it's likely to be the least useful categorisation.  ... and the further subdivision of Scottish MPs makes the categories near-useless for searching from a parliamentary perspective.  Those sub-divisions may be of relevance to those with an electoral focus (e.g. question = "who was elected in Stirling over the years"), but they are not much help if anyone wants to know whether there was ever a Zebbedee Smith in parliament, or whether there is a wikipedia article on Harry Houdini MP. --BrownHairedGirl 14:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I haven't seen the TD categories and don't know much about Irish politics. But would a similar system mean the likes of Tony Benn being in more than 10 categories just for being an MP?  J Rawle  (Talk) 14:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, I see for example Charlie McCreevy is in 10 categories: 9 for the different parliaments; 1 for former members. I guess the majority of MPs aren't members for that long.  J Rawle  (Talk) 14:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes. It's unusual, because Ithink that most MPs only sit for (at a guess) three to six parliaments, but as an example of how it looks in those extreme cases, see Oliver J. Flanagan, who was elected to Dáil Éireann no less than 14 times, or Tom McEllistrim, Snr, who won 15 elections. But those cases are rare: a more typical example of a senior politician is the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Brian Cowen, who was first elected in 1984 and is currently in his sixth Dáil. --BrownHairedGirl 15:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I absolutely support the principle that articles should remain in the parent category, especially for MPs by gender and MPs by local area, if we are to keep those cats. To be fair to User:Mais oui!, I pointed out to them that the female MPs by nation cats (subcats of Category:British female MPs which I'd still rather get rid of) were not helpful in this respect and they stopped removing them from the parent category. Mtiedemann 23:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

CFM for subcats of Scottish MPs
FYI: I have nominated the sub-categories of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies for merging into their parent category: see the CFM discussion. --BrownHairedGirl 15:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that the principle of dual classification has been accepted by User:Mais oui!, I have withdrawn the CFM. However, we really do need to do some work on restoring some order to this category: it was overlarge, but after various bits of subdivision, it's now a mess. --BrownHairedGirl 00:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

New hierarchy
To start off a new discussion, it occurs to me that there needs to be a new hierarchy starting one level above where we are now. I'll address a broad hierarchy and avoid too specific references to naming or detail lower down (please don't get fussed if I get nation and country mixed up, or British vs UK, or HoC vs Parliament, etc etc).

NEW TOP LEVEL: * Suggested new categories Mtiedemann 00:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Members of the Parliaments of the British Isles (which suggests the need to include most peerage cats unless there's a better name) *
 * Category:Lists of British MPs
 * Category:Speakers of the British House of Commons (name needs to include England & poss. Scotland too, or cat split and moved down hierarchy)
 * Category:Members of the pre-1707 English Parliament
 * Category:Members of the pre-1707 Scottish Parliament
 * Category:Members of the UK House of Commons (could be clearer to demonstrate post-Union)
 * (subcats of the last one) *
 * Category:Current members of the UK House of Commons
 * Category:Members of the UK House of Commons by political party
 * Category:Female members of the UK House of Commons
 * Category:Members of the UK House of Commons by constituency location *
 * (subcats of the last one)
 * Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies
 * Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Irish constituencies (1801-1922)
 * Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Northern Ireland constituencies
 * Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies
 * Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Welsh constituencies

 * Thanks, Mtiedemann, for being the one to get the ball rolling! I like a lot of what you suggest, but I have a few reservations:
 * It seems to me that the first big questions we need to address are:
 * a) what the categories are to be used for? The CFM discussion revealed several different needs, which hadn't been adequately explored beforehand, which was partly why the details became complicated.  I think that your list includes all possibilities except the breakdown by whuch parliament(s) they were in.
 * b) what level of multiple classification can we live with? I'm in favour using several categories, to facilitate different ways of using the categories, but I know that others are much less keen on that.
 * Beyond that, I question the practicality of trying to devise anything remotely approaching a single, consistent classification scheme for all the parliamentary chambers within these islands. Apart from the problem of the "British Isles" as a term (it doesn't always win favour in Ireland!) I can count at least nine parliamentary assemblies in these islands: Scotland-pre-union, England-pre-union, Ireland-pre-union, UK-parliament-since-1707, Commons-of-Southern-Ireland, Dail Eireann, Welsh Assembly, Scottish-parliament-post-1998, northern-Ireland-post-1922 ... plus various other short-lived post-1972 assemblies in Northern Ireland. And that's without getting into the issues raised by Irish peers, Scottish peers, UK peers, and the complex intersections between them all. Off the cuff, I can count at least three different electoral systems in use (FPTP, PRSTV, and AMS).
 * So how would you feel about restricting this effort to the House of Commons of the United Kingdom parliament, since it was established in 1707? From 1707-1801, it was techically the Parliament of Great Britain, becoming the Parliament of the United Kingdom only after the union with Ireland ... is there consensus for treating the two parliaments as the same body?
 * That would trim your list to the following:
 * Category:Members of the UK House of Commons (could be clearer to demonstrate post-Union)
 * (subcats of the last one) *
 * Category:Current members of the UK House of Commons
 * Category:Members of the UK House of Commons by political party
 * Category:Female members of the UK House of Commons
 * Category:Members of the UK House of Commons by constituency location *
 * (subcats of the last one)
 * Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies
 * Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Irish constituencies (1801-1922)
 * Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Northern Ireland constituencies
 * Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies
 * Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Welsh constituencies

 * I like your use of "United Kingdom" rather than British: the applicability of "British" is a matter of debate in Ireland (and possibly in Scotland), but while the union has always included those who do not see themselves as British, "United Kingdom" does seem to be a widely acepted shorthand for "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". However, I question the usefulness of spelling out "United Kingdom" in full, rather than just using "UK".  There may be existing policy/consensus on this -- sorry if I have missed it.
 * The existing categories "Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from xxxxx constituencies" are already in use (and have a lot of support in Scotland), but seem to me to suffer from two problems:
 * a) they are horrendously long
 * b) they may be somewhat misleading. The term "Member of Parliament" clearly applies to a member of the Commons, but "Members of the United Kingdom Parliament" is an unfamiliar construction, and could be read as implying that it includes peers.
 * So I prefer your construction "members of the UK House of Commons": it's unfamiliar, but shorter and unambiguous. Using that throughout, the list becomes:
 * Category:Members of the UK House of Commons (could be clearer to demonstrate post-Union)
 * (subcats of the last one) *
 * Category:Current members of the UK House of Commons
 * Category:Members of the UK House of Commons by political party
 * Category:Female members of the UK House of Commons
 * Category:Members of the UK House of Commons by constituency location *
 * (subcats of the last one)
 * Category:Members of the UK House of Commons from English constituencies
 * Category:Members of the UK House of Commons from Irish constituencies (1801-1922)
 * Category:Members of the UK House of Commons from Northern Ireland constituencies
 * Category:Members of the UK House of Commons from Scottish constituencies
 * Category:Members of the UK House of Commons from Welsh constituencies

 * I have tried applying this to a few MPs:
 * Betty Boothroyd: Members of the UK House of Commons|Labour Members of the UK House of Commons|Female members of the UK House of Commons|Members of the UK House of Commons from English constituencies
 * Paul Flynn: Members of the UK House of Commons|Current members of the UK House of Commons|Labour Members of the UK House of Commons|Members of the UK House of Commons from Welsh constituencies
 * Malcolm Rifkind: Members of the UK House of Commons|Current members of the UK House of Commons|Conservative Members of the UK House of Commons|Members of the UK House of Commons from Scottish constituencies|Members of the UK House of Commons from English constituencies
 * Enoch Powell: Members of the UK House of Commons|UUP members of the UK House of Commons|Conservative Members of the UK House of Commons|Members of the UK House of Commons from Northern Ireland constituencies|Members of the UK House of Commons from English constituencies
 * Alistair Carmichael: Members of the UK House of Commons|Liberal Democrat members of the UK House of Commons|Members of the UK House of Commons from Scottish constituencies|Members of the UK House of Commons from Orkney and Shetland
 * To my mind, that looks verbose but manageable. I still think it would be better to further contract "Members of the UK House of Commons" to the much shorter "UK MPs", but there appears to be a consensus against that, so I won't push the point.
 * Sorry for being so verbose, and congrats again on getting the discussion started :) --BrownHairedGirl 02:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 * That all makes sense. I was trying to find a neat place to shove the pre-1707 categories and we aren't closer to solving that, but you're right, my way would create a new minefield - you can add Isle of Man and (incorrectly) the Channel Islands. A 'Britain and Ireland' cat might be more acceptable, but still so complicated.

 * I am certainly happy with contracting United Kingdom to UK in all cases. I think I prefer HoC to just MP or Parliament as there is the peerage issue. I am sure we could have found a way round the Irish peerage issue to bring UK peerage under a parliament supercat, but the removal of hereditary peers makes it a much larger problem.

 * And in terms of what is it for, I see the smaller sub categories as being the most useful in many cases: Communist or Lab Co-op or Independent MPs categories will be much more interesting and useful than Labour or Conservative MPs categories. Without wanting to encourage trivial groupings, are there any other subcats or themes of interest we can identify at this stage? I have successfully proposed or supported the move of British Asian and LGBT categories to cover all politicians, not just MPs, and I'd encourage that usage for personal aspects of MPs, but there may be other political issues, such as parliamentary positions, expelled members, etc. Maybe I'm complicating things now... Mtiedemann 07:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"it was techically the Parliament of Great Britain, becoming the Parliament of the United Kingdom only after the union with Ireland ... is there consensus for treating the two parliaments as the same body?" No. For a start, the whole potential "by session" numbering system (which I think is a good way of subcategorising, in addition to by geography and by party) is based upon the fundamental differentiation between the Parliament of Great Britain and the Parliament of the United Kingdom, see: I have several other thoughts on this whole discussion, but let's start off slowly here, cos I strongly suspect that my contributions to this debate will not be treated with the respect they deserve by certain parties, Mtiedemann and BrownHairedGirl excluded. (Quickly though, I support 3 methods: by location, by party - which can never be comprehensive by the way - and by session.) --Mais oui! 08:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * List of Parliaments of Great Britain (nos. 1 - 18)
 * List of Parliaments of the United Kingdom (nos. 1 - 54, so far)

UK/GB parliaments
Hmm, thanks MaisOui. This one is messy, isn't it? You're right to suggest that we proceed slowly. In that spirit, I offer the following three suggestions for discussion, below.

However, I think that I may have been over-hasty in trying to encourage mtiedemann away from looking at all these parliaments. I still think that it is most pertinent to focus on the UK parliament post-1800, but I think that we do need to make some outline decisions on how to handle some of the other long lists of parliaments, otherwise the articles on MPs from those parliaments will end up being miscategorised under UK.

--BrownHairedGirl 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

UK-GB option 1: separate all
This is logically the simplest of all the options: to have completely separate hierarchies for the pre-1707 parliaments, the GB parliament 1707-1800, and the UK parliament 1800-onwards. I think it is broadly what mtiedmann initially proposed, above. When I started writing, this was my by far my least favourite option, but the more I look at the subject, the more it seems to me to be the best. It has two strong advantages: a) it maintains rigorous historical accuracy, and b) the terminology for Westminster parliaments can be unambiguous:
 * English House of Commons (pre 1707)
 * GB House of Commons (1707-1800)
 * UK House of Commons (1801-onwards)

On the downside, it will require some careful explanation and monitoring when in use, because most people are not aware of the distinctions. But it should be reasonably future-proof, because the logic doesn't require any tortuous explanation.

--BrownHairedGirl 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

UK-GB Option 2: combine UK+GB
The GB parliament (1707-1800) and the UK Parliament (1801-present) are separate institutions. However, from reading the 1707 Act and the 1800 Act, it seems to me that there is slighty more commonality between them than between the GB parliament and the pre-1707 English parliament (although both UK & GB parls started with members co-opted from predecessor bodies, rather than with an election).

So I suggest treating the UK & GB parliaments as one parliament for the purposes of creating a container for all the other categories relating to those parliaments, and allowing a common nomenclature for the 18th century onwards. The text on the category page should make it clear that this kludge is being used for convenience, and to prevent a multiplicity of hierarchies.

If this agreeable, then the classification by parliament (yes, I know that's not strictly speaking the correct terminology) would look something like the list below. Some of the categories would merely be containers, but others would be populated, and I have placed the mark @#@ by the ones which I suggest should be populated:

 * Category:Members of the UK House of Commons
 * (subcats of the last one) *
 * Category:Current members of the UK House of Commons @#@
 * Category:Members of the UK House of Commons by Parliament
 * Category:Members of the House of Commons of Great Britain by Parliament
 * Category:Members of the 1st House of Commons of Great Britain @#@
 * Category:Members of the 2nd House of Commons of Great Britain @#@
 * ... and the rest of the series @#@
 * Category:Members of the UK House of Commons by Parliament since 1801
 * Category:Members of the 1st UK House of Commons  @#@
 * Category:Members of the 2nd UK House of Commons  @#@
 * ... and the rest of the series @#@
 * Category:Members of the UK House of Commons by political party  @#@
 * Category:Female members of the UK House of Commons @#@
 * Category:Members of the UK House of Commons by constituency location
 * (subcats of the last one)  @#@

--BrownHairedGirl 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

UK-GB Option 3: Westminster parliaments
I think that we should also consider this idea. It makes a slightly larger step way from most historically precise form of labelling, but it avoids the kludge in option 1 of placing the GB partliament under UK.

This suggestion is to refer to every Parliament which has met in Westminster (or Oxford, where it moved for a while) as a "Westminster parliament". This would include the English parliaments pre-1707, the 1707-1800 GB parliaments, and the 1801-onwards UK parliaments.

 * Category:Members of the Westminster House of Commons @#@
 * Category:Members of the Westminster House of Commons by Parliament
 * Category:Members of the English House of Commons by Parliament
 * Category:Members of the 1st English House of Commons @#@
 * Category:Members of the 2nd English House of Commons @#@
 * ... and the rest of the series @#@
 * Category:Members of the House of Commons of Great Britain by Parliament
 * Category:Members of the 1st House of Commons of Great Britain @#@
 * Category:Members of the 2nd House of Commons of Great Britain @#@
 * ... and the rest of the series @#@
 * Category:Members of the UK House of Commons by Parliament since 1801
 * Category:Members of the 1st UK House of Commons  @#@
 * Category:Members of the 2nd UK House of Commons  @#@
 * ... and the rest of the series @#@
 * Category:Current members of the Westminster House of Commons
 * Category:Members of the Westminster House of Commons by political party
 * Category:Conservative members of the Westminster House of Commons @#@
 * Category:Whig members of the Westminster House of Commons @#@
 * Category:SNP members of the Westminster House of Commons @#@
 * etc @#@
 * Category:Female members of the Westminster House of Commons @#@
 * Category:Members of the Westminster House of Commons by constituency location
 * Category:Members of the Westminster House of Commons from English constituencies @#@
 * Category:Members of the Westminster House of Commons from Irish constituencies (1801-1922) @#@
 * Category:Members of the Westminster House of Commons from Northern Ireland constituencies  @#@
 * Category:Members of the Westminster House of Commons from Scottish constituencies @#@
 * Category:Members of the Westminster House of Commons from Welsh constituencies @#@

--BrownHairedGirl 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I think all three suggestions are sensible, and an improvement on the status quo as the multi-cat system allows cross-referencing by several different relevant attributes. If pressed, I would have a slight preference for the third option.  The only possible suggestion I would have is the shortening of the session cat title to a mere 50th House of Commons, etc. This would slightly reduce clutter in the cases of long-serving MP's, and would create little extra confusion. The only thing that could be added to these renamed cats (other than the Members) would be Acts and important issues from that session, and perhaps that would be no bad thing. Aquilina 21:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I now rather regret suggesting the third option, of the "Westminster" nomenclature, because I think that it is likely to be dificult for nationalists: it seems to me that it skates too glibly over the constitutional fact that there have been three bodies in Westminster called "House of Commons" (although it works well for the Whig view of history which seems to underpin British House of Commons: there is no mention there of any of the Acts of Union!). The one advantage that I see is that it avoids having separate Whig and Tory categories for the English, GB and UK parliaments ... but maybe that could be accommodated anyway by having some sort of single "Whig" caregory which was sub-catted to each of the three parliaments?
 * The problem with Category:xxth House of Commons is that it's ambiguous. OK, I dunno if Canada has got its 50th Commons yet, but if we take Category:1st House of Commons, that could apply to Canada or to the short-lived House of Commons of Southern Ireland or to the North Carolina House of Representatives from 1760-1868, or to the English parliament pre-1707, as well as to either the UK or GB parliaments.
 * If we expanded it a litle, to "Category:xxth UK House of Commons, it wouldn't be ambiguous, but I'm a little uncomfortable about lumping MPs and legislation into the same category. It seems to me to be better to have a category Category:xxth UK House of Commons, with a subcat of Category:Members of the xxth UK House of Commons.  Category:Acts of the xxth UK House of Commons doesn't really work, because Acts are Acts of Parliament as whole, not just of the Commons. --BrownHairedGirl 11:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No new hierachy is required
There are two other schemes in place already, subdivision by constitient country, and Category:British MPs by political party. There are also several specialist categories for women and current MPs. etc. There are quite enough systems for allocating MPs already, and no need to agree on the creation of any more, as they would be harmful category clutter. I am also alarmed to see a near total neglect of party affiliations in the above, which are by far the most relevant criteria for allocating MPs in my opinion. All the proposals above give overwhelming priority to nationalist considerations, so none of them comply with WP:NPOV. Hawkestone 16:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think that last point is fair. I didn't include party affiliation beyond a parent category into my original proposal as it is largely uncontroversial with a sensible hierarchy. I seem to be the only person populating the MPs by party categories, at the moment mainly by tidying User:Dovea's contributions. I would like to rename the by party categories, however - I did create several of them in an attempt to be consistent with the original ones, but would prefer Category:UK Conservative Party MPs or perhaps something even less ambiguous (than the current Category:Conservative MPs (UK)).

 * Also, this hasn't been an attempt to encourage the break-up of the category into national elements but rather halt that process. I would like to get rid of the national subcats of Category:British female MPs for instance.

 * The need for a new hierarchy is as a result of the following:

 * The chance to have a one-off reorganisation now that we have everybody's attention
 * The poor and inconsistent naming of categories
 * The mixture of pre-union Parliaments with the GB and UK Parliaments, plus Irish MPs

 * That said, I don't think anything too radical has been proposed anyway. Mtiedemann 17:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with everything mtiedmann has said here. At the moment, all MPs appear to have been categorised according to national boundaries, but what is being discussed above is parallel classification by parliament and by party, in addition to the existing category for female MPs.  I too would oppose subdividing the party and session categories by nationality, and would like to remove the national subcats of Category:British female MPs.
 * That would leave MPs being classified as in something like the example below (an update of an earlier set of examples), which I think rightly meets the needs of those with a nationalist perspective without prioritising that view over other perspectives:

 * Paul Flynn: Members of the UK House of Commons|Current members of the UK House of Commons|Labour Members of the UK House of Commons|Members of the UK House of Commons from Welsh constituencies|Members of the 50th UK House of Commons|Members of the 51st UK House of Commons|Members of the 52nd UK House of Commons|Members of the 53rd UK House of Commons|Members of the 54th UK House of Commons
 * Betty Boothroyd: Members of the UK House of Commons||Labour Members of the UK House of Commons|Members of the UK House of Commons from English constituencies|Female members of the UK House of Commons|Members of the 45th UK House of Commons|Members of the 46th UK House of Commons|Members of the 47th UK House of Commons|Members of the 48th UK House of Commons|Members of the 49th UK House of Commons|Members of the 50th UK House of Commons|Members of the 51st UK House of Commons|Members of the 52nd UK House of Commons
 * Malcolm Rifkind: Members of the UK House of Commons|Current members of the UK House of Commons|Conservative Members of the UK House of Commons|Members of the UK House of Commons from Scottish constituencies|Members of the UK House of Commons from English constituencies|Members of the 46th UK House of Commons|Members of the 47th UK House of Commons|Members of the 48th UK House of Commons|Members of the 49th UK House of Commons|Members of the 50th UK House of Commons|Members of the 51st UK House of Commons|Members of the 54th UK House of Commons
 * --BrownHairedGirl 18:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Member for ...
OK; when you are speaking about an MP in a general context, then referring to 'Freda Bloggs, Member of Parliament for Little Puddleton' is appropriate and normal since the full title is needed to clarify her position. However, under the heading 'Parliament of the United Kingdom' then the full title is clumsy and unnecessary and 'Freda Bloggs, Member for Little Puddleton' is all that is required. To provide an example of authoritative useage, in the Commons MPs are always referred to, when their title is used (putting aside the modern regrettable practice of using names :-)), in the short form 'Member for Little Puddleton' because, as here, the context does not require the longer version. BlueValour 03:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

CFM for national subcats of Category:British female MPs
See Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 2. --BrownHairedGirl 15:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 * A second CFM process has also been started at Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_2 - please check both. Martín (saying/doing) 16:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Martin. Unfortunately, Mais oui has not started a new CFD, he has overwritten the one I made. I am reporting him for vandalism. --BrownHairedGirl 16:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. .

Get your facts straight before accusing people of vandalism. You ought to be ashamed of the way you are conducting yourself. --Mais oui! 16:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Somehow Mais oui!'s CFD did take over the name of the first, but I amended the link to reflect that (it added '_2' to the link).

 * It is unfortunate to have two together and I hope that both of you can point to the other CFD at the top of each to help editors make one single decision. That is why it would have been better, Mais oui!, to have brought this bigger objection to categorisation by gender to here first, and have some kind of consensus on renaming/merger/hierarchies. I had proposed the CFM that BrownHairedGirl has taken forward and you didn't seem to object, so it was a useful first stage to bring this whole category into some kind of order. Your CFD has made that more complicated, although you have a valid point in nominating it. Martín (saying/doing) 16:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Mais oui!, I did not "make a personal attack", I objected to the creation of a new CFD which took over the old one. I am sorry that I was incorrect in saying that the discussion had been overwritten, when in fact what had happened was that the link was duplicated (the higher one taking pecdence) and was I wrong to revert your addition of it. However, it appeared to be an overwriting, and I believed that I needed to act quickly to prevent what reasonably appeared to be the sabotage of a CFM, before more comments were added, complicating the reversion process.
 * I am sorry for thar error, but it arose only because you made a CFM which appears to be in bad faith. As noted on the CFD, why on earth are you nominating for deletion a category for which you created the subcats, and making that nomination immediately after the upmerge CFM was posted? What's the logic in that?
 * As noted by Martin, your CFD has made things more complicated ... and I fear that may have been your intention. If it wasn't, perhaps you can explain more about what you were trying to achieve by the CFD at this time, rather than when Category:British female MPs was created.  I agee that you have a valid point, but why now if not to disrupt? --BrownHairedGirl 18:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

MPs by Parliament
The wider discussions on categorising MPs seem to be stalled, so I thought that it might be a good idea to start with one aspect of categorisation on which there seems to be agreement: MPs by parliament.

Thanks to some great work by Morwen and others, we already have a list of session numbers for the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which makes a good starting point, so it seems to me that we have the foundation to start making the categories.

I suggest the following:

 * United Kingdom MPs by Parliament
 * MPs of the 1st UK Parliament (1801-1802)
 * MPs of the 2nd UK Parliament (1802-1806)
 * MPs of the 53rd UK Parliament (2001-2005)
 * MPs of the 54th UK Parliament (2006-)
 * MPs of the 54th UK Parliament (2006-)

The subcategory names look a little ugly to my eyes, but they are the best I can come up with so far. The reasoning:
 * 1) MPs rather than "Members of Parliament" because it's shorter, and since some MPs serve in ten or more parliaments, brevity is essential
 * 2) "UK Parliament" rather than "United Kingdom Parliament"' for exactly the same reason
 * 3) Date at the end because although it adds significantly to the length, the numbering system for parliaments is insufficiently known, and without it the "xxth Parliament" phrase will be meaningless to most people. (Yes, the name of the category for current parl will have to be changed when parliament is dissolved, but that job will only be needed once every few years)
 * 4) It might be more logical to say "MPs of the 54th UK House of Commons", but that would be even longer:(

Any thoughts? --BrownHairedGirl 21:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I hope we can agree this. I agree with having the dates and the abbreviations in this instance. I think I'd prefer House of Commons but I'm not that bothered, so I'd be prepared to just agree without qualification. Martín (saying/doing) 21:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 * In many ways, I like this suggestion. The sole problem is the sheer number of categories which will be added to some articles on MPs.  For instance, David Lloyd George served in fourteen Parliaments, and these will replace only one of his fourteen current categories.  Similarly, Winston Churchill served in fourteen Parliaments, and I'm not clear whether these will replace any of his twenty-eight current categories.  Perhaps this could be addressed by merging some of the proposed categories - for instance, Category:MPs of the UK Parliament (1801 - 1852); Category:MPs of the UK Parliament (1852 - 1900); Category:MPs of the UK Parliament (1900 - 1950), Category:MPs of the UK Parliament (1950 - 2001) and Category:MPs of the UK Parliament (from 2001).  The exact divisions chosen aren't very important, just the rationalisation of categories. Warofdreams talk 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Warofdreams, I take your point, but ... but but. :) A few points:
 * Condensing the categories like that would seriously dilute their usefulness. Parliaments are shaped one at a time, not in chronological clusters. e.g. the 1983-87 parliament had huge changes over the 79-83, and the same happened in 97. Clustering the categories obscures those changes.
 * Clustering the categories makes it much harder to check their accuracy: there no lists of those clusters, whereas the single-parliament categories can be directly checked against the arricles in Category:MPs elected in UK elections: the list and category serve as checks on each other, and are a huge aid in maintaining accuracy.
 * I for one wouldn't find the clustered categories at all useful, but I would find the categories-by-parliament very useful.
 * I would hope that once this scheme is in place, we could agree to delete the existing (and badly named) Category:Current British MPs (or at least turn it into a cstegory redirect), so that would save one category in the list;
 * A few long-timers who would be categorised under a dozen parliaments, but not many MPs served in quite that many parliaments. Plenty last for only one or two terms, but most seem to serve for about fifteen years (e.g. Mo Mowlem was in three: 87, 92, 97).  Apart from a few periods where elections were held every other week, that means an avergae off about about four or five categories each. (Once I have finished this message, I will doodle a brief list of MPs who retired/were defeated at the last election to give an idea of how many parliaments they sat in: see Category talk:British MPs/Selected list of MPs by Parliament)
 * For a comparison of how this has system worked for TDs in Ireland (I implemented those cats), see the subcats of Category:Teachtaí Dála and a few long-serving TDs such as Bertie Ahern, or John Bruton. The very worst case I can think of is Séamus Pattison, and even on that article the categ list looks OK. Others such as former Deputy Prime Minister Dick Spring don't look too cluttered, and a more typical example might be the minister Micheál Martin --BrownHairedGirl 13:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate my support for the MPs by parliament categorisation scheme, as outlined by User:BrownHairedGirl. I also still support the by party and by geography schemes: we can have a pluralistic scheme, as elsewhere on Wikipedia. I fail to understand why this needs to be pained over so much: just get on with it. (I am still awaiting an apology from User:BrownHairedGirl for her behaviour last week.) --Mais oui! 23:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have already apologised in several places for the bits I got wrong in trying to sort out the mess. But I am still awaiting your apology for trying to disrupt a CFM by creating a new CFD with the same name, which obscured the previous one. --BrownHairedGirl 11:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

 * That is just an unfounded personal attack: plain and simple. For the last time: the Wikipedia software automatically designates CFD titles. You are seriously stretching my ability to WP:AGF. I believe that your behaviour in this matter is well below that expected of an Administrator. And no, I have not received a single apology from you, least of all for trying to block me for 7 days (!!!): which was immediately revoked by your peers. Look to your own behaviour before throwing false allegationsat at other User. Disgraceful. If you are going to apologise, do it properly on my User page, and show a little contrition. And stop maligning me. --Mais oui! 11:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Mais oui, you did create a CFD with the same name as an existing CFM, and this did have the effect of obscuring the CFM. I know the Wikipedia software automatically does that, and I'm sure that you knew that too when you created the CFD, and I'm not going to waste time posting all the links to the apologies. However, it's worth noting that when things appeared to have been sorted out, and the links separated, you then changed the CFM/CFD titles again so that the links on the category page pointed to the CFD rather than to the pre-existing CFM, and it was that piece of vandlaism which prompted me to place to the block (which I agree was of excessive duration, and whose reduction and subsequent removal I supported). I'm not the only one to have concluded that this was all done with the intent of causing disruption, but we're obviously not gong to agree on this, so I won't reply again on this subject. --BrownHairedGirl 13:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories now being built under Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament. --BrownHairedGirl 13:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Pleased that you're going ahead, but also that you did come here for discussion first, BrownHairedGirl, even if it "pains" us. After all this discussion, unilateral action is the last thing we need. Martín (saying/doing) 14:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Martin! I don't feel that we have had quite as wide a consensus as I would like, but having general support I thought I'd push ahead before I go off on holiday on saturday ... 'cos then everything might fall by the wayside again. I hope that what's being done meets with general approval: there is already one comment on my talk, suggesting it might be better done differently (leaving out dates). As I wrote there, I wouldn't object much if that change was considered appropriate; it seems like a margin call to me, with good arguments either way. --BrownHairedGirl 14:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Am now running AWB to populate Category:MPs of the 49th UK Parliament (1983-1987), and have done over 200 so far. I have also added a complete set of categs for a few of the longer-serving MPs, such as Norman Tebbit and Paddy Ashdown and Denis Healey, and I am beginning to think that it might all be better without the dates after all. :( --BrownHairedGirl 16:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I've categorised T. P. O'Connor for an example of one of the longest-serving MPs (albeit one with few other categories). I'd strongly agree with removing the dates. Warofdreams talk 02:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know what procedure would be best to use? Do we need to do a huge AWB run, or is there any way to get a bot to do it? -BrownHairedGirl 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Eeek, that's horrible! OK, we do have to rename.

There's nothing for it except a rename request at WP:CFD, and my recent experience of that has been far too bruising for me to want to try it. If anyone else wants to do it, I'll support it, but I'm not going to initiate the CFD. --BrownHairedGirl 09:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this situation does not appear to qualify under WP:CFDS, so the speedy option is out. :(

 * Yes, it can be speedied. You just created them, so you are allowed to ask for a speedy rename, as long as no-one objects, which I cannot see happening. --Mais oui! 12:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In any case, a very sensible suggestion on my talk page is to leave them as is while they are being populated, to help checking ... and I'm inclined to go along with that. Meanwhile, have just noticed an issue with Keith Joseph: the display of categs appears to be truncated. He is in Category:MPs of the 49th UK Parliament (1983-1987), but although he shows up in the categ listing, that categ is not displayed when the page is viewed. Definitely a case for shortening the names. --BrownHairedGirl 17:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, sorry to disagree, but from my reading of the criteria it doesn't fitWP:CFDS.

 * Best to rename them now really as only a few MPs have been added so far. We have two to three thousand already extant pages for these categories to be added to and waiting on all of them to be populated could take a while. Galloglass 21:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh dear. We probably should have done the renaming before the inevitable CFD for these categories was started, but the latest suggestion there (from Stephen B Streater there seems like a good one: rename to  etc. I like that: conveys the basics, and it's very short. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

List of members of the British Labour Party
FYI this list is up for AFD:. Thanks/wangi 10:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

 * And it's gone. Phew! :) --BrownHairedGirl 07:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

New template:UK-current-MP-stub
 : purpose should be self-explanatory. Should assist anyone wanting to prioritise unstubbing current MPs. --BrownHairedGirl 19:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Now nominated for deletion, but nomination withdrawn. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

CFD for MPs by Parliament
see CFD for category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament and subcategories. --BrownHairedGirl 17:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm about to close the CFD discussion, and I figured with this discussion going on here, I'd give an explantion as to my reasoning. On any other CFD, I'd have given it a no consensus.  It seems people are split between deleting or renaming to a shorter name.  From what I've read here, you people aren't opposed to a rename.  I checked a few of the cats, and since they are empty, I'm just going to go ahead and delete them.  That will appease the people at CFD who wanted to delete the cats, and it will allow you all time to come up with a new naming scheme that will be more acceptable (shorter or whatever).  Technically, a category rename is just a delete and create anyway, I'm just leaving the "create" step to you.  I hope this works for you, and good luck with the rename.  --Kbdank71 18:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Succession boxes
For people interested in the format of succession boxes for MPs, I've put up a page at WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines. This is still preliminary, so feel free to add on or make changes. Choess 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Seems fine Choess. Not sure that we need to lay it down too tightly though as a bit of variation here and there may be useful. Galloglass 23:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Parliament of Great Britain
I have created, for (as the name suggests) Members of the Parliament of Great Britain 1707–1800. I am slowly running through to recategorise the the GB MPs.

(I created this a week ago, and should have announced it at the time. Sorry!) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hugh Fraser, 1st Baron Fraser of Allander
Hugh Fraser, 1st Baron Fraser of Allander was categorised under, but Rayment shows no sign that this guy was a MP, so I have removed him from the category and commented him out in List of British MPs: F. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Rename the List of British MPs?
See Talk:List of British MPs.

I suggest that the discussion (if any) should take place on that talk page, rather than here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Now done: renamed to List of United Kingdom MPs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring again, now largely done
Drawing on the discusions earlier this year (see above, and ), I have largely completed the restructuring.

The first step was to create a new. I then set about recategorising all the articles which were in : over 950 of them when I started. Some belonged, some in , and most in one of the national UK categories, such as

I finished that job yesterday, and have now created a new container category,, as a container for all the UK-Parliament-related subcategories.

Meanwhile, with other editors, I finished reinstating the subcats of. Some of these had been deleted after a CFD in August, but with the clear intention that they shoud be recreated with shorter names (see above, ). That's now done; the new naming format is rather than the previous over-verbose.

So we now have most of the structure discussed above: a clear separation of categories for MPs of the different parliaments, with subcats by nation (England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland 1801-1922, N. Ireland), by party and by parliament (the later categories need more work before they are fully populated, but I will put WP:AWB on the case).

As a result of this, I think that some renaming is now both possible and desirable, and before launching into a CFD, I thought it would be helpful to float my ideas here: see, below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Renaming subcategories after restructuring
Now that the sub-categories of have been restructured (see above,, it seems to me that the names of some of the sub-categories should be renamed to reflect the fact that they refer only to the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Here's what I suggest:

 * to
 * to
 * to

It also seems to me that it would be a good idea to shorten the names of the by-nation subategories, which are currently of the format "Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from xxxxish constituencies".

I suggest two changes:
 * 1) contracting the "Members of the United Kingdom Parliament" prefix to "UK MPs", as with the new subcats of
 * 2) replacing the "from xxxxish constituencies" with "for xxxxish constituencies": the word "from" could mean that an MP was born there, but "for" makes it clearer that they were elected to represent the constituency, even though they may be "from" somewhere else (such as Michael Heseltine: he is from a Welsh constituency, but was an MP for English constituencies).

So:
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to

Any thoughts? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Reasonable and sensible proposal. Support. --Mais oui! 08:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Shorter, but just as understandable. Sensilbe, how User:Mais oui! said. Support. Phoe  talk 14:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Seems fine. Only query I have is into which Category would MPs from Northern Ireland go prior to 1922? Apart from that a very good proposal. Support. Galloglass 17:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Current practice is that pre-1922 Northern Irish MPs go into, reflecting the historical situation that at the time Ireland was not partitioned. I do not propose changing this, and susgest that after the reanme they should go to that category's successor,.
 * (As an aside, I support this practice: whatever view anyone takes of the merits or demerits of the partition of Ireland, it seems to me to be historically undesirable to categorise 19th century MPs according to a division which did not exist in the 19th century).
 * I can't see any neat way of incoporating into the name the fact that it includes Northern Ireland, but maybe editors would like to review the text in and in  to check that the distinction is clear?
 * Once these renamings are complete (whetever he outcome), I intend to draft a guide to classifying articles on MPs, which is now a lot more complicated than it was when we just had Category:British MPs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Thats fine. As long as contributors know then it won't be a problem. Galloglass 23:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Three CFDs

 * Note: three CFDs currently underway:
 * National sub-categories of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament (replacing earlier withdrawn CFD at Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies)
 * Category:British female MPs (the female MP categories have been nominated for deletion)
 * Current British MPs and British MPs by political party. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

CFR
See Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 10: a proposal to lengthen the names of the sub-categories of Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament.

The sub-categories are currently of the form Category:UK MPs 2001-2005; the current proposal is to change them all to the format Category:United Kingdom Members of Parliament 2001–2005 (with an ndash as the hyphen). The short category names were created after problems caused by the earlier categories of the form Category:MPs of the 49th UK Parliament (1983-1987): see discussion above.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Current British MPs
See Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 22. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of national subcats of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament
See Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 16. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

title: Category talk:British MPs


text:
User talk:128.243.220.22

Proposed deletion of Warren Thomas

The article Warren Thomas has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. - Rich T|C|E-Mail 01:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:128.243.220.22


text:
Rutherford Alcock

Sir John Rutherford Alcock, KCB (25 May 1809 – 2 November 1897) was the first British diplomatic representative to live in Japan.

Early life
Alcock was born in St James's, Middlesex, the son of the physician, Dr. Thomas Alcock, who practised at Ealing, near London, and his wife, Mary. As he grew up, Alcock followed his father into the medical profession. In 1836, he became a surgeon in the marine brigade which took part in the Carlist War, gaining distinction through his services. Alcock was made deputy inspector-general of hospitals. He retired from this service in 1837.

Service in China
In 1844, he was appointed consul at Fuzhou in China, where, after a short official stay at Amoy, he performed the functions, as he expressed it, "of everything from a lord chancellor to a sheriff's officer." Fuchow was one of the ports opened to trade by the Treaty of Nanking, and Alcock had to perform an entirely new role with regard to the Chinese authorities. He served there for 18 months, arriving in March 1845 (his wife followed shortly after, when appropriate accommodation was found, and his sister in law Emma S. Bacon, and mother in law, Mrs. Bacon, arrived one year later). He was able to work on restoring peace and order and in doing so, he earned a promotion to the consulate at Shanghai.

Alcock, along with his wife, Henrietta, sister-in-law, and mother-in-law, moved to Shanghai in the fall of 1846, where they were part of a burgeoning community of expats, merchants and missionaries from England, France, and North America. Alcock made it a special part of his duties to superintend the established Chinese government and lay out the British settlement, which had developed into such an important feature of British commercial life in China. This included initially hosting a small church in his home, which his sister in law described as "...an immense rambling Chinese House containing fifty two Rooms / surrounded by courtyards, and divided by Galleries and Passages in all directions". In April 1847 it was, however, decided to apply to the Church Missionary Society for a Clergyman and to plan and build a church on land donated by a merchant, and it appears that Rutherford was heavily involved in this initiative.

Emma S. Bacon, Alcock's sister-in-law, writes in April 1847, that the consulate was about two miles from Alcock's house and was to be built on ground "...by the River Side appropriated to the English...but as it is not yet commenced, it is uncertain when we shall inhabit it + but on the site appropriated for the Building Rutherford has at present Offices and a pretty sitting Room for our use, opening into a garden very nicely arranged...".

In 1853 Alcock's wife, Henrietta died (March), and the Taiping rebellion reached Shanghai. The city was besieged and attacked until February 1855 when the rebels were starved and burned out of the city. Alcock remained in Shanghai until April of that year to restore peace and order, and then moved on to the Consulate in Canton, the original seat of much unrest in the 1840s. He was stationed in Canton for 1 year and then took a furlough to return home to England in October 1856, just before tensions once again ignited in Canton.

Service in Japan (1858–64)
In 1858, he was appointed Consul-General and Minister Plenipotentiary in Japan, and remained in that position until 1865. Alcock played an important political role in Japan in the 1850s and 1860s, alongside fellow Western diplomats Dirk de Graeff van Polsbroek, Townsend Harris, Max von Brandt and Gustave Duchesne, Prince de Bellecourt. Although these men were bound by personal friendship, national rivalries and differences in dealing with the Japanese led to conflict and antagonism. However, the chaotic and ungovernable circumstances of the first few years forced them to cooperate.

Alcock opened the second British legation in Japan within the grounds of Tōzen-ji in Takanawa, Edo (now Tokyo), the first being at Hiogo (Kobe), under Sir Harry Parkes and the vice-consul Frank Gerard Myberg (also known as Francis Gerard Mijburg and Frans Gerard Mijberg, died 18 January 1868 buried at Kobe). He saw ""peace, plenty, apparent content, and a country more perfectly cultivated and kept, with more ornamental timber everywhere, than can be matched even in England", Sir Rutherford Alcock, 1860."

In those days, foreign residents in Japan faced some danger, with noticeable Japanese hostility to foreigners (sonnō jōi). In 1860, Alcock's native interpreter was murdered at the gate of the legation, and in the following year the legation was stormed by a group of ronin from the fiefdom of Mito-han, whose attack was repulsed by Alcock and his staff.

In September 1860 he became the first non-Japanese to climb Mount Fuji.

From March 1862 to March 1864, Alcock was on leave in England.

Service in China (1865–69)
Shortly after these events he returned to England on leave in March 1862, and was replaced in Japan by Colonel Neale. Alcock had already been made a Commander of the Bath (CB) (1860). In 1862 he was made a Knight of the same order (KCB), and in 1863 received an honorary Doctorate of Laws from Oxford University.

In 1864, he returned to Japan, and after a year's further residence he was transferred to Peking, where he represented the British government until 1869, when he retired.

Later years
Although no longer in official life, he remained active. He was for some years president of the Royal Geographical Society, and he served on many commissions. The official Japanese section at the 1862 International Exhibition in London was prepared by Sir Rutherford and included his own collection. This is considered one of the most important events in the history of Japanese art in the West and a founding date for English Japonism in the decorative arts, the Anglo-Japanese style. From 1882-93 he was chairman of the British North Borneo Chartered Company.

He was twice married, first in May 1841 to Henrietta Mary Bacon (daughter of Charles Bacon), who died in 1853, and second (on 8 July 1862) to Lucy Lowder (née Windsor) widow of the Rev. John Lowder. Lucy died on 13 March 1899.

Alcock was the author of several works, and was one of the first to awaken in England an interest in Japanese art. He tried hard to learn the language and even wrote a textbook. His best-known book is The Capital of the Tycoon [= shogun], which appeared in 1863, whilst the Mikado's Seat was at Kyoto. He died in London on 2 November 1897, and is buried adjacent to Sir Lewis Pelly in St Katharine's Churchyard at Merstham in Surrey.

Selected works
In a statistical overview derived from writings by and about Rutherford Alcock, OCLC/WorldCat encompasses roughly 70+ works in 100+ publications in 5 languages and 1,000+ library holdings.

 * Notes on the Medical History and Statistics of the British Legion of Spain; Comprising the Results of Gunshot Wounds, in Relation to Important Questions in Surgery (1838)
 * Life's Problems: Essays; Moral, Social, and Psychological (1857)
 * Elements of Japanese Grammar, for the Use of Beginners (1861)
 * Catalogue of Works of Industry and Art, Sent from Japan by Rutherford Alcock (1862)
 * The Capital of the Tycoon: a Narrative of a Three Years' Residence in Japan (1863), a volume of memoirs covering his service in Japan, but only until March 1862 though he remained in that post until 1865.
 * Correspondence with Sir Rutherford Alcock Respecting Missionaries at Hankow, and State of Affairs at Various Ports in China (1869)
 * Despatch from Sir Rutherford Alcock Respecting a Supplementary Convention to the Treaty of Tien-Tsin, Signed by Him on October 23, 1869 by China (1870)
 * Chinese Statesmen and State Papers (1871)
 * Art and Art Industries in Japan (1878)
 * Handbook of British North Borneo: Compiled from Reports Received from Governor Treacher and from other Officers in the British North Borneo Company's Service by Colonial and Indian Exhibition (1886)

title: Rutherford Alcock


text:
Havock-class destroyer

The Havock class was a class of torpedo boat destroyer (TBD) of the British Royal Navy. The two ships, HMS Havock (1893) and HMS Hornet (1893), built in London in 1893 by Yarrow & Company, were the first TBDs to be completed for the Royal Navy, although the equivalent pair from J.I. Thornycroft, HMS Daring (1893) and HMS Decoy (1894), were ordered five days earlier.

Background
The invention of the self-propelled torpedo by Robert Whitehead and Austrian Navy Captain Giovanni Luppis in 1866, combined with the introduction of small fast torpedo boats, posed a threat to battleships: large numbers of torpedo boats could overwhelm a battleship's defences and sink it, or distract the battleship and make it vulnerable to opposing capital ships. Torpedo boats proved devastatingly effective in the 1891 Chilean Civil War.

The defence against torpedo boats was clear: small warships accompanying the fleet which could screen and protect it from attack by torpedo boats. Several European navies developed vessels variously known as torpedo boat "catchers", "hunters", and "destroyers"; while the Royal Navy itself operated torpedo gunboats. However, the early designs lacked the range and speed to keep up with the fleet they were supposed to protect. In 1892, the Third Sea Lord, Rear Admiral Jackie Fisher, ordered the development of a new type of ships equipped with the then novel water-tube boilers and quick-firing small calibre guns.

Orders
Six ships to the specifications circulated by the Admiralty were ordered initially, comprising three different designs each produced by a different shipbuilder:
 * HMS Havock (1893) and HMS Hornet (1893) from Yarrows.
 * HMS Daring (1893) and HMS Decoy (1894) from John I. Thornycroft & Company (the Daring class).
 * HMS Ferret (1893) and HMS Lynx (1894) from Laird, Son & Company (the Ferret-class destroyer).

Design

Havock was built with conventional locomotive boilers (giving her two closely spaced funnels) while Hornet was provided with 8 water tube boilers (giving her 4 widely spaced funnels). In other respects they were largely identical.

These boats all featured a turtleback (i.e. rounded) forecastle, characteristic of early British TBDs. All six of them were removed from service and disposed of by the end of 1912, and thus were not affected by the Admiralty decision in 1913 to group all the surviving 27-knot and 30-knot destroyers (which had followed on these six 26-knot vessels) into four heterogeneous classes, labelled "A", "B", "C" and "D" classes.

The design of the Russian Russian Sokol-class destroyers was strongly influenced by the Havock-class.

Construction and trials
Havock was launched first, on 12 August 1893. Her sea trials on 28 October 1893 were successful, her top speed indicating that she was capable of keeping up with battleships. However, her bow torpedo tube proved to be useless as the ship would usually outrun her own torpedo. It also tended to cause the bows to dig into the sea, resulting in a very wet turtleback. As such it (and later, the turtleback) was absent in later destroyers.

Havock "behaved well" on trials. It was noted that Hornet "steers readily and well" but her coal consumption trial revealed that she used considerably more fuel than her sister.

Ships
Four other boats based on the Havock class, the Corrientes Class torpedo boat destroyers, were built for the Argentine Navy:

Royal Naval Service
Both ships served in home waters, although Hornet was briefly in the Mediterranean in 1909. Havock had her locomotive boilers replaced with water-tube boilers in 1899–1900, altering her appearance to a more standard 3-funnel arrangement.

Fate
Havock and Hornet did not survive to see World War I, being broken up in 1912 and 1909 respectively. With the exception of ARA Santa Fe (sunk 1897), three Argentine Corrientes Class boats served until 1930.

title: Havock-class destroyer


text:
Talk:Huey Lewis

Trent Reznor
it seems highly suspect that trent reznor is a huge fan. could this have been vandalism from some time ago? can anyone find a reference for this? a quick web search turned up nothing suggesting trent is a fan, i suggest it gets deleted. Eliz81 06:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A friend of mine who is a huge Trent Reznor fan said that Huey Lewis was named among a list of "thank yous" Reznor read on stage upon accepting an award sometime last year. Not too far-fetched to believe he's a fan. Just because Reznor is in a completely different genre of music doesn't mean he likely doesn't enjoy listening to other styles. Michael24 01:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the same guy who played harmonica in the Dave Edmunds' album Repeat When Necessary? As Hughie Lewis?

Historical Context Completely Absent in This Article
A guy born in 1950 who got good SAT scores and was a good athlete would have been prime material for the draft and Vietnam. I know. But the article doesn't even seem to understand that conscription and the war simply had to be enormous issues for a person Huey's age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

First name referents
I have no idea how or why he was referred to by his first name throughout the article, but I've changed it now to be in accordance with Wikipedia's (and the world's) policy of last names on second references in encyclopedic/professional writing. Moncrief 19:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A bit too glowing and lacking references
The article practically reads as if it was written by its subject: when album sales dipped its partly because the band "chose" a lower profile; it had higher sales than it can prove because its record company stopped counting (?!?). Also, where is the sourcing for many of these contentions? Is no one can provide evidence of the $100k figure for current shows, for example, I'm taking it out. --Patchyreynolds 21:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I would believe the band chose a lower profile because album sales dipped (not the other way around as stated here). Meaning, they knew their time in the spotlight had waned and weren't going to try to make "hits". --Makiwolf 11:18, 23 October 2007 (PDT)

I think what he's saying is that his audiences are becoming more selective. 203.214.128.180 06:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Kirk Baily
In the discouraged trivia section, it mentions that "actor Kirk Baily played an animated amusement park booth attendant in the music video for 'If This Is It'". I always that that it was John Means (aka Dr. Gonzo), a stand-up comedian from the 1980s. --Makiwolf 11:25, 23 October 2007 (PDT)

"Fan Base"
I believe the "Fan Base" section was intended as humor. I will copy it here, then delete it. If anyone seriously thinks it needs to be there in its current state, please comment and take whatever other action you deem appropriate. I will also note that skewing the interpretation of the article by using it as a source for the statement as given is rude to the developmentally disabled. Sinneed (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that whoever addded the Fan Base section did so with humorous intent rather than in an effort to add encyclopaedic content? What do you mean by your clarification? Do you mean that the text that you removed was rude, or the use of that specific newspaper article as the reference, or the news article itself?  I thought that the Bouncer article was great, but I can't decide if it's a hoax or not.  If it was intended by St. Clair to be factual, despite the humorous style, then it seems to provide valid content for an article on Lewis to me.--Hjal (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, you meant your comment to be humorous. *shrug* Sinneed (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article, while filled with (yes) many stereotypical remarks, certainly provides valid content for an article on Lewis. Using it as the sole source for the sole statement of a section titled "Fan Base"?  Nope.  That is just "cutesyism".  Sinneed (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fan base
In 2005 it was reported that Lewis has a strong following among developmentally disabled adults because of the sincerity of his songs and his good-natured stage performances.

I think a trivia on his unwillingness to contribute his 'Hip to be square' song to the American Pyscho OST should be notated. 68.146.100.43 (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

POP??!!
You guys are idiots. Huey Lewis is straight up pure Rock n' Roll. He is not POP. Listen to his music, this is not Britney Spears or Lady Gaga stuff, this is Rock. How dare you insult one of the most influential singers in the Rock n' Roll genre. Nardulli22 (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

 * HLN was 80s pop..."Pop" doesn't necessarily mean Britney Spears, in fact I thnk it's short for "Popular music"...I would never describe their sound as "Rock". "Rock & Roll", sure.  IN any case, this isn't a forum about them, it's about the article.   162.136.193.1 (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No Personal Section
Is Lewis married? Divorced? Have any kids? I remember reading somewhere years ago that his father was a jazz musician. All stuff that should go in a 'Personal' section - which is non-existent for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.11.101 (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I think the remarkable fact that his step-father was the eminent Beat-writer Lew Welch should be mentioned!

--Torsrthidesen (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

What an AWFUL photograph!
Why do Wikipedia photos of celebrities have to be recent geriatric photos?! He was such a handsome stud, so show him in his prime! CousinJohn (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 * There are two other pics on this page: that can be used. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the choice of "Huey" related to the Bell UH-1?
I heard in the mid-1990s the famous (in france) Laurent Boyer saying on radio programm "Europe 2" that Lewis choosed his nickname in relation with the Bell UH-1 helicopter, but never read this information anywhere else. Do somenone knows anything about this? In the same way, in 2000 when airplaying Huey Lewis & the News concert of Vienne Jazz festival on France Inter radio station, the jazz specialist of this last one, Julien Delifiori, said that the band was fighting against religious imprecators (the ones Genesis talks about in JESUS HE KNOWS ME, We Cant'Dance album). However, while being a huge fan of the band, I never heard or read that anywhere else... --80.67.176.85 (talk) 09:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Stéphane Ascoet

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Huey Lewis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060114160248/http://www.thenewsline.net:80/press/84letterman.html to http://www.thenewsline.net/press/84letterman.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100820163950/http://blogs.tampabay.com:80/80s/2007/02/the_stuck_in_th.html to http://blogs.tampabay.com/80s/2007/02/the_stuck_in_th.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Huey Lewis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150131074811/http://www.pocketfullofsoulmovie.com/the-film.html to http://www.pocketfullofsoulmovie.com/the-film.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

80s Photos
Why are there no 80s photos of Huey Lewis in this article? The decade was the peak of his career and public exposure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:c800:95c:3135:84b3:b2ce:cad9 (talk • contribs)
 * Because no one that took pictures of them in the 80s has decided to donate them to Wikipedia. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 18:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Huey Lewis


text:
Talk:WETP-TV

The studios haven't been located on the UT campus since the late 1980s when they moved to their current location on Magnolia Avenue. I was on my school's Scholars Bowl team in the 1988-89 school year and we taped our shows at the Magnolia Avenue studio and they gave us a tour the first time we were there. I would mention the move in the article but I don't know the exact date. LMUBill (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I do think that ETPtv is now on 24 hours a day when I checked. They used to sign-off at midnight every night. When did they start going 24 hours? -- Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.37.131 (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone be interested in expanding this web page? -- Anonymous

Don't think they use this logo anymore ... I've seen a different one on their Web site, but want to make sure I have permission to use it before putting it here. -- Blueboy96

"Most of the Knoxville area did not get a clear signal from the station" This seems to overstate the signal problems. In Blount County I got the signal pretty well. I have surviving VHS recordings of Doctor Who that look fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinetingler (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

What?
"Knoxville station, at last?"

Doesn't sound encyclopedic to me...64.18.115.225 (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Revert move
Can somebody move WKOP-TV back to East Tennessee PBS? (and if possible, move to WETP-TV as the main station?) 107.77.189.41 (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Move to WETP-TV
Should we move East Tennessee PBS to WETP-TV? 192.101.255.184 (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:WETP-TV


text:
Agatharchus

Agatharchus or Agatharch (Ἀγάθαρχος) was a self-taught painter from Samos, who lived in the 5th century BC. His father was named Eudemos (Εὔδημος). He is said by Vitruvius to have invented scenic painting, and to have painted a scene (scenam fecit) for a tragedy which Aeschylus exhibited. Hence some writers, such as Karl Woermann, have supposed that he introduced perspective and illusionism into painting.

However, as this appears to contradict Aristotle's assertion that scenic painting was introduced by Sophocles, some scholars understand Vitruvius to mean merely that Agatharchus constructed a stage. But the context shows clearly that perspective painting must be meant, for Vitruvius goes on to say that Democritus and Anaxagoras, carrying out the principles laid down in a treatise written by Agatharchus, wrote on the same subject, showing how, in drawing, the lines ought to be made to correspond, according to a natural proportion, to the figure which would be traced out on an imaginary intervening plane by a pencil of rays proceeding from the eye, as a fixed point of sight, to the several points of the object viewed.

It was probably not till towards the end of Aeschylus's career that scenic painting was introduced, and not till the time of Sophocles that it was generally made use of, which may account for what Aristotle says.

Agatharchus was therefore the first painter known to have used graphical perspective on a large scale, although rare occurrences of perspective do appear in vase painting around the middle of the 6th century BC. He is also said to have led the way for later painters, such as Apollodorus.

Agatharchus was a contemporary of Alcibiades and Zeuxis, and was often singled out for the ease and rapidity with which he finished his works. Plutarch and Andocides at greater length tell an anecdote of Alcibiades having inveigled Agatharchus to his house and kept him there for more than three months in strict durance, compelling him to paint it. The speech of Andocides above referred to seems to have been delivered after the destruction of Melos (416 BC) and before the expedition to Sicily (415 BC); so that from the above data the age of Agatharchus may be accurately fixed.

title: Agatharchus