Talk:Palace of Westminster

Removal of "Rules and traditions", beginning with "Forms of address"

After much thought, I have arrived at the conclusion that the "Rules and traditions" section of the article ought to be removed. It does not address the Palace as a whole, but speaks somewhat disparately about some customs of the two Houses (with a heavy bias towards the Commons) which are or ought to be addressed in the appropriate House and/or Chamber articles (the latter do not yet exist but I am planning to create them). For this reason, I have removed the "Forms of address" sub-section, which is already covered in the two Houses' articles, and intend to gradually remove the rest of them as their content is integrated in other articles or elsewhere in this article. The "Ceremonies" sub-section that I have considered adding also seems unnecessary, as the State Opening of Parliament is covered in the progression of rooms in the section "Interior", and the other ceremonies are or will be covered in the appropriate room sub-sections. Waltham, The Duke of 19:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I cannot but agree with His Grace. Tony (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of infobox

I was surprised to see the recent addition of an infobox to this article, considering the rather convoluted circumstances surrounding the construction of the Palace of Westminster. The unfortunate result is a table containing information selected and presented in such a manner as to be largely misleading:

1. Neoclassical and Gothic Revival are given equal billing as the style of the Palace. Although some features of the Palace's layout are classical, this seems like an exaggeration.
2. The timeline is way too simplistic. The Old and New Palace are essentially different buildings, and yet the almost total reconstruction of the mid-19th century is given as a "renovation". What exactly is a renovation? Do the two stonework restorations count? In any case, the Old Palace evolved organically over most of its life, and the New Palace also changed a lot in its internal arrangements over the years. I realise that the template can't do any better, but this is exactly why I believe it is unsuitable for use here.
3. The Palace's covering an area of 8 acres is not equal to its having a floor area of 8 acres. For one thing, it has multiple storeys; for another, the number probably includes the courtyards and river terrace.
4. It may seem obvious that the UK Parliament was the client, but the situation was not so straightforward. Apart from the fact that the two Houses often acted separately, the Treasury and the First Commissioner of Works had much of a say in what works were allowed, and the Commissioners of Woods also played a part. It is this confusion in oversight of the work which shaped, to an extent, the building that we know.
5. The matter of whether Augustus Pugin can be considered an architect of the Palace has been much debated, and we cannot simply dismiss it in the infobox. The inclusion of Scott next to Barry seems disproportionate.

In short, the infobox will have us ram square pegs into round holes or, at the very least, octagonal ones. I have therefore decided to remove the infobox and revert to the previous state of the article, where there existed only the UNESCO World Heritage Site infobox. It is not any personal preference for this box that has motivated me to retain it—in fact, I have spent much time thinking whether it is worth keeping, and whether the article might not be better off without any infoboxes at all (like the FA Tower of London). However, the building in question is part of a joint Site which includes another two buildings, each with its own article, and I consider it appropriate and useful for the readers to keep the WHS infoboxes in all three articles. In any case, this infobox is small and includes no information that offers itself for misinterpretation.

If you disagree with my action, please discuss it here rather than revert me. There is no rush, after all, and the infobox can always be restored if we agree that this is the best course of action for the article. Waltham, The Duke of 16:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

written speeches

Although the article says that they're not allowed, they have unfortunately become widespread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Westminster Hall debates

I do not think it is quite right to state that "controversial matters are not usually discussed" in Westminster Hall. Although adjournment debates are often narrow in focus, and thus are often sparsely attended, that is not quite the same as being uncontroversial. It is certainly true that the debates tend to be conducted in a more civilised manner than is sometimes the case in the main chamber, but, again, that is not necessarily a reflection on the relative controversy of the subject.

Words such as "controversial" are loaded and subjective, and they can often give the wrong impression. I suspect that MPs don't request adjournment debates because they want to pass the time of day. In the last couple of weeks there have been debates on badger culls, dangerous dogs, defence procurement, the future of S4C, arms export controls, the future of BBC local radio and sex education in primary schools. To suggest any of those subjects are "uncontroversial" is something of a stretch. Perhaps an alternative wording might be in order. 81.178.197.158 (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)