Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of parliamentary procedure on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 
Archive Index

Standard Abbreviations[edit]

I added a list section of standard abbreviations on Wikipedia:WPPP project page. RONR and TSC are abbreviations that are both promoted by their respective books and therefore would be proper to use in articles, as they are verifiable (I probably should add citations). I've noted that there is some Wiki-use in parliamentary procedure articles of the abbreviations 'DEM', 'RID', and 'MAS'. While use of these abbreviations is appropriate for template: cite parl, their use as standard abbreviations within articles is not supported by any citations that I can find - although I'll keep looking. Use of a short name of a work should either be promoted by the author or be accepted as a standard or in general use by the community.

Demeter, in particular, included in his books how to correctly pronounce his name, so he probably would not have supported shortening it to DEM. "Demeter", "Demeter's", or "Demeter's Blue Book" are commonly used. "Riddick" or "Riddick's" is commonly heard/written, never RID. "Mason", "Mason's", "Mason's Manual", or "Mason's Legislative Manual" etc., but not MAS.

This abbreviation list could include not only abbreviations for parliamentary authorities, but any accepted abbreviation that would be recommended for use by editor's of the parliamentary procedure articles. Parlirules (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about the non-standard abbreviations myself. I have not added any, as the only authorities that I have cited are RONR and TSC. Even those abbreviations need to be used with caution in articles; in some cases, they have been used when there is no "full reference" to the book in the article. Since we are writing for a general audience, the abbreviations should be used only on "second reference." The non-standard abbreviations should be removed from the citation template -- but by someone who is more skilled at template coding than I am. Neutron (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree on using RONR and TSC as shorthand only when it is clear to the general population, and that usually means only when the full title appears prior to their use. We can leave DEM, RAS, and MAS to be used in the template variables as it is a shorthand that doesn't show up in the article. I changed Template:Cite parl to move the year up to the second position, right behind the author's name. I did this in order to mimic the citation that is formed when I use the Template:Cite book for books not automatically handled by the "cite parl" template. I don't have a favorite citation style, be glad to discuss it, so we can adopt one style over all the articles that comprise the core of WPPP. Wiki Citations suggests that the APA style is used for the social sciences, so that may be a good candidate. Parlirules (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

¶ I would like to call attention to the fact that there have been, by now, a number of editions of RONR (Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised), the first RONR in 1970, followed by heavily revised editions every ten years (another is expected in 2011), that Demeter is available in at least two editions - the original red and the revised (1969) blue, Mason also went through a few revisions - the last long after Mason's death. Perhaps some more detail on the citation style to indicates these various editions. Sussmanbern (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Are all these categories necessary? Are there others? What guidelines should we follow in placing the various categories and sub-category links on each article? The cite parl template places the categories that start with "Articles that cite..." Is this necessary; do we want more such cite categories? Parlirules 14:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that fewer, more meaningful categories is better than a lot of categories, which can get confusing. I personally do not see any point to having those "cite categories." I also think we could live without "incidental main motions classed with motions that bring the matter again before the assembly" or whatever it is. The remainder of the "motion class" categories make sense, and the assessment categories are pretty much automatic and somewhat helpful in identifying tasks for the project. I cannot think of any new categories that we need at this time. Neutron (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed "incidental main motions classed with motions ..." from the Infobox Motions template - so now there are no articles in that category (there was only one to begin with.) If no one objects, I'll take steps to remove that category entirely - it is empty now. As for the cite parl induced categoriess (RONR, TSC, Mason's) they might be of value if one wanted to find all articles with RONR citations (or at least the articles that include the use of the cite parl template. For now, we can leave them there, but I am going to make them hidden categories, so their names do not show up in the category listings on the individual article pages. I might also look into renaming them with a shorter name. ~ Parlirules (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cite Parl template changed[edit]

Changes to Template: Cite parl now allow the ability to just enter the shorthand title for RONR, TSC, DEM, RID, and MAS and the reference citation will be produced for the latest edition.
Example {{cite parl|title=RONR|pages=120}} [1] will produce.

  1. ^ Robert, Henry M. (2000). Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th ed., p. 120

Parlirules 22:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

abbreviated citations[edit]

I added another feature to Template: Cite parl. If one uses Title=ronr, tsc, dem, rid, or mas (all lowercase), the template will produce an abbreviated citation. This is useful if the book has already been cited on the page. If the page gets edited/rearranged and the first full citation gets deleted or moved, one will only have to change "ronr" to "RONR".

{{cite parl|title=ronr|pages=120}}

RONR, p. 120


Parlirules (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that's great. I had recently done some short-form citations in a couple of articles "manually", and there are probably dozens of other articles where this had been done, but I guess over time we can gradually convert them. One thing I had not been sure about is whether the short-form cite should have the edition number. I had guessed in favor, but I see your short-form does not. I guess that makes sense. Neutron (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the correct short citation form should be. Usually the form is Author, then year or title, then page. The problem with RONR, TSC, and Mason is that the author is not really Henry M. Robert or Alice F. Sturgis or Paul Mason. - so for those editions that have been taken over by an organization, I left the author out and just used the short title; for others I opted for an abbreviation as in 'Demeter' to represent both the author and short title. With the Template: cite parl, if we want to change the format later, we can edit the template and it will change the citations -- for example I can change the template to include the year. I agree that the current manually inserted citations can be changed over as we re-edit those pages. ~ Parlirules (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Subsidiary Motions Template[edit]

Major Changes:

  • Renamed Template:Subsidiary motions to Template:Motions
  • Added parameter of pa with acceptable values: pa=RONR displays RONR; pa=TSC displays TSC; defaults to RONR.
  • Added parameter of class with acceptable values: class=s displays subsidiary; class=p displays privileged; class=b displays motions that bring a question back; defaults to subsidiary.
  • Added parameter of align with acceptable values: align=right box on right side; align=left box on left side; defaults to right.
  • Added parameter of width wtih acceptable values up to 100%; default value is 33%
  • Using {{Motions}} with no parameters defaults to RONR subsidiary motions on right side with width of 33%.
{{Motions|pa=TSC}} → →






 ← ← {{Motions|pa=TSC|align=left|class=b}}





Parlirules 18:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Assessment and Banner[edit]

Neutron-- good work on assessing the articles. There are 100 different articles that currently have the Parliamentary Procedure Project banner on their talk page. -- and probably a few articles that don't yet have the Project banner on their Talk page but should have. I think we should establish some (loose) criteria on what pages should be tagged as part of the Parliamentary Procedure Project. In particular there are a great number of voting articles that have been tagged, probably because of a past editor's special interest, but the content is drifting away from parliamentary procedure. I suggest, for our project's use, we classify articles into two different categories. - Those which are focused on parliamentary procedure and those in which parliamentary procedure is only present in one section. Then the project could guide editor's efforts into maintaining and upgrading our primary class of articles, and for the "shared" articles, concentrate on upgrading and maintaining the parliamentary procedure section. What I want to avoid is any wiki-wars or extended discussion about what should or should not be in the article. I would also like to enforce quality standards by our editors (verifiability; eliminate weasel-words, opinions and original work) on those articles and those sections that we regard as part of the Parliamentary Procedure Project. The best way to do that is to establish a clear boundary/structure for the project. ~ Parlirules 15:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Voting Articles - Parliamentary Procedure[edit]

I propose two main articles on voting for the Parliamentary Procedure project, potentially named something similar to:

  1. Vote Required (Parliamentary)
  2. Voting Method (Parliamentary)

Vote Required -- would be an article about majority, plurality, majority of membership, two-thirds, etc. the quantitative aspects of determining the vote required. I proposed that we rename/merge the Voting basis article into this article. I don't think we need to maintain separate articles on Absolute majority, plurality, etc. as those articles can easily go beyond parliamentary procedure aspects, but we do need an article contrasting/comparing the vote required to make a decision.

Voting Method -- would be about viva voce, division, ballot, show of hands, mail ballot, electronic (legislative), telleres, etc. - the "how" part of determining the ayes and noes. Some of the content in Voting systems in parliamentary procedure would be move to this.

These are the two main aspects that involve parliamentary procedure. I do not favor using the word system in an article title because that can too easily be expanded to the political aspects, elections etc. and there are already many Wikipedia articles on these subjects. The current article Voting systems in parliamentary procedure has more information about systems that are not mentioned in RONR, not mentioned by name, or only slightly mentioned than what is actually covered in RONR.

Things that might be considered systems such as 'preferential voting' could be covered in the Vote Required article because the more pertinent aspect for parliamentary procedure in preferential voting is understanding how the final vote count is determined. ~ Parlirules (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I have been wondering about the arrangement and titling of the voting articles myself. Neutron (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Not expecting any negative comments (also based on comments previously left on the talk pages of these motions) I have completed the move as suggested. ~ Parlirules (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoist (motion) - New article on dilatory motions.[edit]

I have placed a move request on the discussion page of Hoist (motion). If we were to do this, it might start a move towards creating articles based on functions of parliamentary motions, rather than articles on names of parliamentary motions. ~ Parlirules (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

See comment there. Neutron (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Standardizing article names[edit]

A number of our articles have the latter part of their name in parentheses, such as (motion), (parliamentary) and (parliamentary procedure). I've been using "parliamentary" for no other reasons than it is shorter than "parliamentary procedure" and more descriptive than "motion", but I don't have a strong preference for any one of these. I do favor standardizing on one, as much as possible. I suggest we don't use "motion" as that is ambiguous. If there is a consensus to develop a standard, I would accept "parliamentary procedure" - although my real preference is "parliamentary practice", since that is the name of the LOC classification and is more internationally understood. (Any movement to rename the project "Parliamentary Practice"? <smile>)

Is there any interest in establishing such a standard for this project? ~ Parlirules (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the parentheticals in titles are generally necessary only when distinguishing (or in Wikipedia parlance, "disambiguating") one title from another, so first we ought to make sure that we do not have any unnecessary parentheticals. I will check the bot-produced list, although I do not know whether that is completely up to date. Second, although "parliamentary procedure" is a long phrase, that is the one I favor, admittedly because it is the one I am the most familiar with. Regardless of what the Library of Congress may say, I think "parliamentary procedure" is standard usage in the U.S. "Parliamentary practice" is so close that I don't really think the change would be necessary. "Parliamentary practice" would create the same issue for most people in the U.S. that "parliamentary procedure" apparently creates for others, and I don't think the issue is a very big one. "Parliamentary" by itself might create some confusion with articles about Parliament itself -- whichever Parliament you choose. I also am not sure that a Wikiproject can "impose" a naming guideline beyond those provided by general Wikipedia guidelines, but maybe someone who is more familiar with Wikiprojects can answer that question. Neutron (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't particularly like the use of parentheticals in titles but I don't have a better alternative, so when it is necessary to use them (to avoid conflicts with other articles that want the same name or because of ambiguity), I suggest that we (current editors) establish a naming convention for this project because: a) a standard in naming articles will help researchers find what they are looking for, and b) standards will give guidance to new editors. I am not suggesting having "rules" that must be followed; instead I would like to see established norms (based on consensus) that are easily available (listed on the project page) but that can evolve/change as later editors see fit. One of the important things that a "project" can do is to provide tools (a standard is a tool) to further the project's goals. Therefore the project guideline/standard/policy that I propose is, when a parenthetical is needed, that the preferred convention is for (parliamentary procedure) to be used, or something along those lines, and that guidelines of this type be listed on the project page. ~ Parlirules (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
About "parliamentary practice" - I didn't really expect to change to that phrase on Wikipedia, just trying to introduce a point. {I did earlier established a redirect from "parliamentary practice" to "parliamentary procedure".} Researchers will understand "parliamentary practice" as the preferred subject designation when researching in libraries (the brick and mortal version) and library catalogs. It is also used on the title page of the first two great books on parliamentary practice that existed before Robert. (Jefferson and Cushing) ~ Parlirules (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Google hits would suggest that "parliamentary procedure" is more common, although Jefferson referred to "parliamentary practice." Then of course there is always "parliamentary law." 129.174.91.116 (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme[edit]

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group[edit]

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts[edit]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:32, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Call[edit]

I found a redlink to call that I think should be to call to meeting but that is also a redlink. Does anyone have enough material on the requirements for call to meeting for us to create such an article? RJFJR (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

At least one article links to Call (parliamentary procedure), which is also red. Notice is a related concept, but that article currently has nothing on parliamentary procedure. Jonathunder (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Stubs[edit]

A large number of articles in the parliamentary procedure category are stubs, but there does not appear to be a stub sorting template specifically for these. If there were, it may help identify articles for this project to work on. Jonathunder (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

¶ I would very much like to replace the short entry on LEX PARLIAMENTARIA, the book published in 1690, with a much fuller entry. I wrote a number of articles on Lex Parliamentaria, its author, and its influence for the AIP's Parliamentary Journal. If anyone has any objections or other comments, please post them here for me. 03:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

¶ The same applies to replacing the article on Thomas Jefferson's MANUAL OF PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE, on which I wrote even more articles for the Parliamentary Journal. 03:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sussmanbern (talkcontribs)

Notice[edit]

Jonathunder, I see your comments on the project page and above about Notice. Having looked at that article (and noticing that it links to several other articles about different kinds of "notice"), I am not sure whether the parliamentary procedure concept of "Notice" should be added to that article, or a new article started. Maybe we can have some discussion. My concern is that it might get confusing if the subject of parliamentary procedure "notice" were just kind of tacked on to the subject of legal notice, which is what the article is about now.

By the way, it's nice to see someone interested in reactivating this project, thank you for that. For awhile I was the only person editing parliamentary procedure articles on any kind of a regular basis, and I didn't think I needed a "project" to coordinate with myself.  :) More recently, I have not been editing much in this area, as there really didn't seem like much to do. The amount of progress made in the fairly short period that this project was active was phenomenal, as we went from just a few parliamentary procedure articles, to the situation now where we have an article on (I believe) every motion and on many of the other parliamentary procedure concepts. I do seem to recall that at the time this became inactive, there were a few issues regarding possible mergers of articles, and these issues were never resolved. (There may be a few year-old merge tags lying around.) I will see if I can figure out what these were and add them to the list on the main project page. Neutron (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I found the article you are looking for: Previous notice. It was started by the founder of this project and the other two active members (meaning, those who actually edited more than a couple of articles, one of whom was me) later contributed to it. It was so long ago, I had forgotten about it. We can discuss the title, and of course the article itself can be improved, as it is a stub at the moment. (I am not sure how much more we need to say about it, but some expansion would be welcome.) As at least a temporary solution, I am going to link to it from the Notice article. Neutron (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I will try to be a more active member of this project where I can. I have added some further disambuation between the notice articles. I think Previous notice will benefit from some discussion of scope of notice. I am familiar with what RONR says on the subject, but not other authorities. 22:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

To mislead parliament[edit]

Hello all, I've created an article To mislead parliament, but it is a bit small and references are hard to find on google. Is this an appropriate topic for your wikiproject? --Surturz (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Parliamentary Procedure focuses on procedural rules in deliberative assemblies generally. This article would probably be a better fit for a legal or perhaps political wikiproject. Jonathunder (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Demeter's[edit]

I'm wondering what the consensus on the inclusion of Demeter's in the same manner as RONR or TSC. As a Registered Parliamentarian in Massachusetts, Demeter's is in wide use in state and municipal deliberative bodies, at least in Mass. I have a copy of Demeter's on my desk right now, and wouldn't mind going through the project to add Demeter's where appropriate. Is there a consensus on this?Achowat (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

So are you saying it is in wide use in governmental bodies, as opposed to clubs, nonprofits, etc.? It has always seemed to me that there is kind of a tension in our parliamentary procedure articles about whether the focus is on governmental or nongovernmental organizations. Of course it could be on both, but that needs to be made clearer and the distinctions explained better. In any event, do you know of any sources about the widespread use of Demeter's? That would be useful to put in the article about the book itself. However, since at least one major organization of parliamentarians requires knowledge of that book in order to take its certification exam (according to the article on Demeter's), that's probably enough to justify adding material about it to the articles on the various motions, etc. I have never actually seen the book myself; are the rules very much different from Robert's or The Standard Guide? Neutron (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I've never seen any NGO use Demeter's, most city and town councils. I've worked with City Councils in and around Boston for years, but I can't find any verifiable source on its use (I'm not giving up, though). The AIP Website also mentions working knowledge of Demeter's as a requirement for Certification. If I had to make a sweeping statement, I'd say the Demeter's is about as different from RONR and TSC than the latter two are from one another. The same general principles, just little quirks. I'll start overhauling the articles on motions (And keep researching Demeter himself and the use of his Manual of Parliamentary Law)Achowat (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at the 'test' section to see if this is to the Project's liking. Specifically the 4th paragraph of that section. Achowat (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I think what you have written is fine. Thank you for including the information on Demeter's, and I think it would be worthwhile to include material from that book in other articles as well, especially when it differs from the other parliamentary authorities. Unfortunately, reading your addition caused me to re-read the entire article, which I guess I haven't really paid attention to since I worked on it a few years ago. It has become a real mess. Parts of it are self-contradictory, parts are redundant, and I think parts of it are just plain wrong. When I get a chance, I am going to have to make some changes to it, though I may mention some of the changes on the talk page (for that article) first. Your changes are good though. Neutron (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Wonderful, I'll take my hand in adding Demeter's to the other Motion pages, perhaps this weekend during football. Achowat (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is still with us?[edit]

Hello members of Wikiproject Parliamentary Procedure. It has been a very long time since we actually did anything in a coordinated manner or, indeed, since we have had a coordinator. (Actually I am not sure whether there was ever an official Coordinator, but we did have a Founder, who unfortunately is no longer participating in Wikipedia. For the past few years I have sort of been unofficially "keeping an eye on things" and fixing up the occasional article that goes astray, but have not added any new ones.)

I am posting this here now mainly to see (1) whether anyone still has this page watch-listed (although I know many people have so many pages watch-listed that they rarely if ever actually look at their watchlist) and, (2) if so, to ask people to just leave a note here about whether they are willing and able to do some work to update our parliamentary procedure articles. This may not be the most effective way of communicating with people, and I understand there are automated ways of placing "newsletters" and other "mass" communications on editors' talk pages, but I don't know how to do any of that. If someone does, please speak up.

The main thing that really needs to be done at the present time is to update the citations to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (11th edition) and the Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (5th edition.) These new editions were released in 2011 and 2012, respectively. However, virtually all of our citations to these books are to the 10th edition of Robert's and the 4th edition of the Standard Code. In the case of Robert's I have done some reading and it appears that the structure of the book has remained virtually unchanged, and that while there have been numerous changes, there are very few (if any) major substantive changes that would affect our articles. However, it is reasonable to assume that much (if not all) of the material that we have cited to a particular page has been shifted to a different page. I do not have a copy of the 11th edition at the present time; I do have an e-book version but it turns out to have different pagination than the print version. The preface does contain a list of some of the changes from the last edition, so what I have would be useful for determining whether any of the changes are important enough to go into our articles (though I have not gotten around to doing that, and do not know when I will), but it is useless for purposes of updating the page numbers.

This situation of having outdated page references, especially to Robert's, should be addressed as soon as possible, but I cannot do it by myself. If anyone has any ideas about how to organize and accomplish this work, or would like to volunteer to do a piece of it, please post here. And of course if anyone has any other ideas about reinvigorating this project or improving the parliamentary procedure articles in other ways, please speak up, but please start another section(s) for ideas other than the updating of page citations. Neutron (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm still around, and I'd be more than happy to send out a User talk: blast to those "registered" memebers of WP:WPPP. It'd be easy enough to put a task-force together, even with just 3 or 5 editors. We're not talking about a lot of new work, just fixing page numbers and references. Achowat (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but unless there's an idea I haven't thought of, everyone doing this would need a paper copy of the 11th edition of Robert's Rules. Do you have one? I think we should deal with Robert's before we even think about The Standard Code or any of the other books. I like the "task force" name by the way -- maybe if we spelled the project Paramilitary Procedure we'd get more interest. Neutron (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I have a copy myself. I think an user talk blast (something like User:Achowat/sandbox, which I used for the Wiknic) should be able to bring us 2 or 5 more users. "Wikipedia, Newly Revised" seems like it could be a good project. Simple, easy enough, and should engage some users to try to rebuild WP:WPPA. Achowat (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

An interesting page[edit]

Here is a list of 125 changes in Robert's Rules from the 10th to the 11th edition: http://www.robertsrules.com/changes11.html. Those of us who are interested should look at these and see which ones are important enough to go into our articles. From skimming the list, I would say "very few." Please note that number 12, changing Point of Information to Request for Information, is already covered. When I read about the changes in the book last fall, I edited the article to reflect that change, but didn't actually move the page because there was already a Request for Information article about the business process. However, I am now going to move the Point of information (parliamentary procedure) to Request for information (parliamentary procedure). I do not think I made any other substantive changes as a result of the 11th edition, but maybe there are a few others that should be made. Neutron (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Chauvinism?[edit]

It strikes me that this Project is entirely US-centric, quoting texts which do not apply in other legislatures. It would be useful to retain the meme as specific to agreed forms of International Law and standards, and subclassify it on an exception basis for each specific legislature. As my authority, I am a constitutional authority in Belgium and the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.166.94 (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merger[edit]

I propose that we merge Hostage MP, a very slender article, with Vice-Chamberlain of the Household - the post held by the MP that performs this duty. Alansplodge (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I had never heard of either of these positions before, but having read the articles, your proposal sounds reasonable. I do not know whether these articles are within the scope of this project, however. We once again run up against the fact that we (U.S. and U.K.) are two countries separated by a common language, as Churchill said. This project was started on the basis of the U.S. meaning of "parliamentary procedure", which paradoxically, is not (primarily) about the procedure in Parliament. How we resolve that dichotomy and still be one encyclopedia, I'm not sure. Neutron (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)