Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

Country in infobox

I removed 'United Kingdom' in the infobox, replacing it with the more specific and equally correct 'England'. Two users, Nomoskedasticity and Nonsenseferret, have now removed any reference to a country at all, claiming that it should be 'UK or nothing'. Why? Zacwill (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Why did you remove UK? "More specific" wasn't a good reason, imo. Is it an ideological thing? (For me it isn't -- I didn't replace UK, I just left out the country until something could be agreed.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, most people would say UK when asked their country of birth/residence Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is simply to do with the geographical location of Wiltshire - it is not to do with his nationality or the guidance at WP:UKNATIONALS. Wiltshire is in England. His nationality is British (or UK), but what this concerns is his birthplace - which is, as a matter of simple and undeniable fact, within England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure -- but it's no less true that his birthplace is in the UK. Why is this such a big deal? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with either UK or England, but it's nonsensical to have neither. England is more specific, and before he became Leader his infobox said England. There is no good (that is, non-political) reason to depart from that now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

England is a political choice here. It should clearly neutrally describe the state as UK just like David Cameron and many many other articles do. --ℕ ℱ 23:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If anything, 'UK' is the political choice. England is a geographical region, whereas the United Kingdom is a political nation state. Zacwill (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Ghmyrtle. Don't see why it has to be cast as "a political choice". In fact, as I'm pretty sure Ghmyrtle had no intention to make a political choice, how exactly can this be misconstrued as a political choice? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I strongly favour having the country as UK, especially for a UK-wide politician. Wiltshire is undeniably in the UK. It's also clear that a lot of nationalistic and activist editors are seeking to remove all references to the UK from Wikipedia and replace everything with "England" and "English". AusLondonder (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's the other way round actually. Fifty years ago, it wouldn't have been remotely controversial to describe English things as English, but now everything has to be 'British'. Zacwill (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The issue may be simply a matter of choosing either "normal postal usage" for address of birth, or "nation where nation may not be a normal postal usage". More to the point, most people speak of "London, England" than speak of "London, UK" it would appear. I do know that telling someone they were born in "Glasgow, UK" might well result in an impact being felt upon your nose. There is a quite noticeable amount in pride of individual country within the UK. To that end, I suggest we use "England" (or "Scotland" or "Ireland" or "Wales" or "Man") where the person specifically refers to himself or herself as "English" (etc.) and "UK" where they evince no such national identification personally. Collect (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Collect is right. Also, per WP:UKNATIONALS, don't mess with these things. --John (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

If User:Collect is right in suggesting UK as a default, why did you undo my edit, User:John? Especially given UK was there in the first place and changed by another editor.... AusLondonder (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The best rule is "don't mess with it". See this revision. --John (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, much nice picture there too. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

But don't mess with it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking forward to the old picture. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It's up to John, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, quite. He was also born in England. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

He's the Opposition leader in the UK Parliament, so use the United Kingdom as his birth country. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Go for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, concerning this topic, there's inconsistency across the infoboxes of the UK opposition leaders, who've never been prime minister. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The inconsistency is enshrined and is well summed up in the essay I already mentioned, which specifically cautions against well-meaning attempts to enforce "consistency". Nothing good will come of it. --John (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I've no intentions of changing this infobox's birth-country entry. That'll be up to other editors here to decide. I do recommend that the United Kingdom be added to all the infoboxes of UK opposition leaders, however. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with John that trying to enforce uniformity or consistency always ends in tears. Whatever it originally said, leave it at that. If I had a preference, it would be UK per GoodDay. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Corbyn's place of birth should remain as Chippenham, Wiltshire, England, per normal use. Daicaregos (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

To be helpful I to some extent agree with both User:Collect and GoodDay (I personally use the UK not England, as my birth nation), However David Cameron's page says ... Born David William Donald Cameron ... (snip) ...Marylebone, London, United Kingdom ... surely Corbyn as the Opposition leader in the of the same UK Parliament... it should be the same. -- BOD -- 13:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

… and Winston Churchill's page has his pob as Blenheim Palace, Woodstock, Oxfordshire, England. As has been noted above, there is no standard format. Also, the notion that infoboxes of politicians in the UK Parliament should have United Kingdom in their place of birth because it is the UK Parliament is a false analogy. Firstly, the articles are about the person, not the office. Secondly, the offices of head of government in many sovereign states have eligibility criteria that include a requirement to have been born in that state. The office of UK Prime Minister is not limited to those born in the UK. Daicaregos (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

We should also use United Kingdom for all the Prime Ministers aswell. Of course, this is a decision to be made by others. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Why? What is the reason you think we should use UK? Daicaregos (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually for those born before the 1800 Act of Union, we'd use Great Britain. Seeing as they were Prime Minister of Great Britain, then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? we should use the respective sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, no we wouldn't. Still unanswered though. Why do you want to use UK and not England? Do you have a valid reason? Daicaregos (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Corbyn is Leader of the Opposition in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, not the Parliament of England. Note, the latter doesn't exist. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

How is that remotely relevant to how we describe his place of birth? Clue: it isn't. We are not discussing his nationality. We are discussing how best to describe the location of Wiltshire. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's in the UK, no? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course. No-one suggests that UK is wrong. It's just that using England as the country name is more precise, and therefore better. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

To Daicaregoes & Ghmyrtle. It's not up to me, as to what gets added, deleted or replaced. It's best to allow others to weigh in. PS - We can delete Wiltshire, if it's that troublesome. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: for place of birth in the infobox -- England or UK?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Question: for place of birth in the infobox -- England or UK? 18:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

¡Votes

• United Kingdom or UK -- GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• UK -- it's a mystery to me why we wouldn't give readers (some of whom might not understand the subtleties of the situation) easily-viewed information re what (sovereign) country Corbyn was born in -- and indeed what country he might someday be prime minister of. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• UK, since David Cameron's bio says that. This is Paul (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• England - more informative than UK. If you don't know that England is in UK you need to read an encyclopedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• United Kingdom which is the state. Wykx 19:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Are you sure? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I mean Sovereign states. Wykx 20:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I guess aiming also for US/UK consistency here is perhaps a little over-ambitious. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
      • What do you mean? Wykx 20:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
        • That US politician infoboxes typically have: "city, state, US". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
          • I'm fine with "city, England, U.K." since U.K. is included. Wykx 20:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
            • But, I'm not so keen. As England is at least a country. And we also have counties, of course. I also now see that {{Infobox officeholder}} doesn't even mention UK - it's all US centric. So not much point looking for any advice there! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
              • From an international perspective, sovereign states prevail. Wykx 21:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
                • So {{Infobox officeholder}} says that? I thought it just gives "{{{birth_place}}}"? with no advice at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
                  • Yes it says that. The first (and all the followings) example of Template:Infobox_officeholder/example is Lamar, Missouri, U.S.. We have even an example of London, United Kingdom for the death place.
                    • I see. But where exactly does it state that? Could you copy what it says here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
                      • I won't copy/paste here all the examples of Template:Infobox_officeholder/example please click on the link and you'll see the full list of examples. You can also go to Place of birth which states As a general rule with respect to passports, the place of birth is determined to be country that currently has sovereignty over the actual place of birth Wykx 23:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
                        • Um, no, I wasn't suggesting you should. But that's a general Wikipedia article, not advice on the use of infobox parameters? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
                          • In my opinion, examples should also be considered as best practices if they are not challenged for good reasons. Wykx 11:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• England, since David Cameron's bio says that --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  Ah, consistency at last. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, the version I viewed earlier on just before I posted said United Kingdom, so I can't help thinking it was changed to England just to support your argument. I'm going to change it back since I doubt it was done with consensus. This is Paul (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it. This is Paul (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, great. We just now need to check the infoboxes for all UK politicians, to find earliest form. And whatever the earliest one was, wins! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Whichever his official biography states Self-identification is the only reasonable position to take here. Collect (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Is that the one by Gilbert or the one by Cawthorne? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• The nearest thing to an 'official' bio that I can find is provided by MyParliament.info "..born Jeremy Bernard Corbyn on 26 May 1949 in England.." --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• UK or United Kingdom_{*Um Hillbillyholiday you changed Cameron's Wikipedia page, until 20:26 today it said UK} -- BOD -- 21:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• England. No valid basis for changing pre-existing description - and more precise. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• UK - make decisions based on what is sensible, not whatever the first to edit arbitrarily picked. If the first edit said 'the milky way', would we stick with that - it is quite accurate, no reason to change. --ℕ ℱ 23:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• But the first edit didn't say The Milky Way. I think that would have been quite rapidly corrected. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

At least Red Dwarf had a theme tune, unlike England yet. --ℕ ℱ 00:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Lol. A little harsh though, he's 5' 10" apparently, hardly an oompah-loompah! --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• England - It is more specific. Support for adding UK is not strong enough. Why be generic? Meatsgains (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• UK / United Kingdom I strongly favour having the country (ie sovereign state) listed in the infobox. It is standard. The UK is a unitary state. Can you imagine US bios saying Born: "Houston, Texas"? Nationalism is a primary motivating factor here. Individuals born in the Soviet Union, almost without exception, list the country as Soviet Union. AusLondonder (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• England - per Martinevans123 above. Giving Corbyn's pob as 'Chippenham, Wiltshire, England' provides the reader with more information than 'Chippenham, Wiltshire, United Kingdom'.

...And less than 'Chippenham, England, United Kingdom' Wykx 11:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

... and less than 'Chippenham, England, United Kingdom, Europe, Northern Hemisphere, The Earth, etc'. 'Chippenham, Wiltshire, England' is enough - the rest redundant. Daicaregos (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• UK / United Kingdom sovereign state per AusLondonder. Rwendland (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Chippenham, England I think this says everything we need to know about birth place for an infobox. AIRcorn (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Chippenham, England as is more descriptive. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• UK. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• UK. I don't buy the idea that "Chippenham, Wiltshire, England" is more descriptive – the sovereign state is missing and that doesn't seem very descriptive to me. Why the UK should be the only country in the world not to be mentioned in an infobox is an interesting question. Some people out there still don't know that England is not a part of the UK and we shouldn't be exacerbating that. If people want to know where Wiltshire is, they can click on it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I must be one of those people who "still don't know that England is not a part of the UK". Would you care to rephrase? Daicaregos (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

UGH. That's what I get for not reading through what I type. Thanks for the heads up. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Didn't think it was what you meant ... but you never know. Daicaregos (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• United Kingdom or simply UK: There is no need to specify England IMO, and even if there were, "England, UK" is too obtuse. Please get this sorted out some time soon as this is petty and often disruptive to other editors of the article. As mentioned before, if people don't know where Wiltshire is, they are free to click on that link. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 10:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• England. As per "city, administrative region, country" stated in the parameter explanation (Template:Infobox person#Parameters). Chippenham is the city/town. Wiltshire is the administrative region (see Subdivisions of England). England is the country (the sovereign state of the UK is made up of four countries, which is weird but true). As such, it should be Chippenham, Wiltshire, England. I have added the "citizenship = United Kingdom" parameter to clarify things; it also helpfully appears under his place of birth. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 00:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed the citizenship = United Kingdom parameter, as this Rfc is still in progress. Stick around though, your idea just might take hold. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Let us imagine the audience for this article. Those who know who Corbyn is will know he is British, the rest will read the first line of the article, and discover that. There is really only any point stating his "sovereign state of birth" if it is outside the the United Kingdom. Now since we have already stated he was born in Chippenham in Wiltshire, and it is a given that it is in the United Kingdom, all we have to decide is whether or not to add "England" to Wilts. I would say not, because "Chippenham, Wilts" is enough, and the exact location of Wiltshire, for those who are ignorant of it and wish to know, is available by clicking on it. Therefore:
• Neither but if you must England and definitely not both!. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC).
  
• England per Gaia Octavia Agrippa's reasoning. Would also support "citizenship = United Kingdom" parameter being added. IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Chippenham, England - It is more descriptive. I don't see why we would use anything but this option, as it is exactly his place of birth. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Comatmebro - How could leaving the country (sovereign state) out be more descriptive? Also, his birthplace is exactly the UK. AusLondonder (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It doesn't matter hugely whether England or UK is used, because the default assumption when UK is mentioned is that the reference is to England. We don't need to point it out specifically when someone comes from Metropolitan France - it is inferred from "France" - but if they come from French Guyana it is worth drawing attention to.GideonF (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe not "hugely", but yes it certainly does matter, because that is a very wrong assumption. France and its overseas territories is in no way comparable here. An encyclopedia should not have to compromise accuracy just to accommodate the supposed ignorance of its readers regarding UK geography. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is a particularly wrong assumption. If someone is referring to a part of the UK outside England they will pretty much always specify. No-one would say Glasgow, UK.GideonF (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you speaking generally, or just in the context of Wikipedia politician bio infoboxes? I think it will always depend on context. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Both.GideonF (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Chippenham, England - Personally I prefer UK but looking at a few articles it seems we go with England instead of UK so for consistency we should probably go with England here. –Davey2010^Talk 21:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Davey2010 - that isn't exactly right. Tony Blair: Scotland, UK. Gordon Brown: Scotland, UK. Iain Duncan Smith: UK. Michael Howard: UK. Many others. AusLondonder (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Concur with AusLondonder. There are many of these particular bios' that use the United Kingdom. I wish all of them were consistent. But past experiences in these areas, tells me that there'd be a massive struggle to achieve that end. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• UK or United Kingdom. The Leader of the Opposition is a national politician, not a regional politician, so it makes sense to list by his nation. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• He wasn't actually the Leader of the Opposition when he was born. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• England - we have had these arguments before on many articles particularly whith mass changing from one to the other and the consensus I believed in these matters was just leave it alone as either is correct and I understand that it has been England in this article first. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It has been consistent at UK for some months. AusLondonder (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Chippenham, Wiltshire, England, UK I'm very much of the opinion for this sort of thing that more is more. Who is this information useful to? Someone who doesn't know where Corbyn is from. If they know where Chippenham is then no more info will help them, but you need Wiltshire to distinguish the two Chippenhams. That said many readers won't know where Wiltshire is so it's worth saying it's in the UK. However, people also care which bit of the UK people are from, if you didn't know where Wiltshire was you wouldn't know which country it was in. So all four is the best answer. I shorten United Kingdom to UK in order to save some space in the infobox. SPACKlick (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• Chippenham, Wiltshire, England, U.K. the only people that care about this is nationalist editors that dislike the UK. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I tend to be of the opinion that whatever country the article stated originally is the one that should stand. I note that David Cameron's birthplace is in the United Kingdom, but Ed Miliband's is in England. We need to develop a consensus on how to present the information as the argument about the UK and her constituent countries is one oft visited. This is Paul (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The first time a country of birth was mentioned in the infobox was here in 2010 - England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been around long enough to know, we'll never get a consensus to use United Kingdom across all British bio articles infoboxes. It's likely that these things will need to be handled article-by-article. IMHO, we should use 'United Kingdom' here. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You have a good point, particularly when it comes to Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am tempted to suggest we could use UK since we're talking about a politician at UK level, but again that couldn't be applied to everyone in the Commons, Alex Salmond for example, who is a member of the UK's third largest parliamentary party, but who would regard himself as having been born in Scotland rather than the UK. This is Paul (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd have Salmond's birthplace changed to 'United Kingdom', aswell. Now that he's a member of the British Parliament. But, that's a discussion for that bio article. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Definitely agree with that. This is Paul (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

A quick head count of recent prime ministers. According to us, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were born in Scotland, United Kingdom, John Major was born in England, and Margaret Thatcher was born in United Kingdom. I haven't checked other opposition leaders, but no doubt the results would be just as divided. This is Paul (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The British prime ministers should also have the United Kingdom or Great Britain (pre/post-1800/01) included in their infoboxes aswell. Again, this would likely require an article-by-article approach. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

At the moment the votes are 8 for the united kingdom, 6 for England, voting has been open for about 4 days. How much more time is it reasonable for the voting to take place. Can we suggest a cut off date? ( sorry my pad is not letting me sign atm)

As per WP:CON, Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. At the moment, I think we have thoughts about England being more informative/specific and UK being the sovereign state. That's why I proposed a consensus which could be 'Chippenham, England, United Kingdom' Wykx 13:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Well of course you'd say that. But please don't take us for fools. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Um - was that comment of any value at all to improving the article? Collect (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are England and UK excluding one from the other? Wykx 13:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

We are possibly in danger of creating a mountain out of of a mole hill, so I agree with Wykx why not compromise with 'Chippenham, England, United Kingdom' -- BOD -- 16:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Because it's longer, and unnecessary. Either England or UK is better. The unresolved issue is which one is best, in this case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's be clear. The onus in this discussion is for those who support changing the existing use of "England" to "UK" to identify why, in terms of WP policies and guidance, that change is preferable or necessary. While !voting can help identify arguments to resolve the issue, it is not the answer in itself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The single strongest argument for listing precise political subdivisions is that the same place name may be found in multiple such divisions. Addressing a postcard to someone in "Springfield. USA" is guaranteed not to reach its destination. Several place names are found in multiple UK locations - vide "Broughton" (lots), "Richmond", and at least two "Chippenhams" in England alone. Using "UK" alone after such place names is a clear disservice to readers. Collect (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

There are no Chippenhams in Wales, Scotland or NI (as far as I know), so how does putting England rather than UK help here? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It is clear that postal subdivision should be used as a rule - in the case at hand, postal county. The point, moreover, is that "UK" is insufficient in too many cases. Collect (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

And there is a "Chippenham Park" (various names) in Monmouth, Wales <g>. To further show the likelihood that "full place name" may be useful at times. Collect (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The notion (posed above) that a reader wanting more information on Jeremy Corbyn may not know either where England is or that it is part of the United Kingdom seems more than a little far fetched. Readers are far less likely to know where Chippenham is in the UK without being told it is in England, which really is the point of the infobox being informative.Daicaregos (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, if no decision is reached on which to use (England or United Kingdom), we always have the option of using both. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

...which, as I said, is worse than either of the other two alternatives. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We shall have to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Why exactly is 'Chippenham, England, United Kingdom' worse? It satisfies the arguments of two groups of editors who are unable to agree whether england or the united kingdom is correct; it does not duplicate, contradict & it is only a tiny bit longer.-- BOD -- 16:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It is redundant. Those of us who don't care (much) whether we have England or United Kingdom don't want to see "England, United Kingdom". (What I would prefer is "Chippenham, Wiltshire".) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC).

In many Canadian & American bio infoboxes, 'Canada' & 'United States' are omitted. So seeing British bio infoboxes omit 'United Kingdom', isn't overly shocking. However, I still prefer we add the United Kingdom here, per reasons already mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

So what are the criteria for deciding if they need one? I see Sarah has one, but Donald does not. Or are you just saying "random inconsistency is fine (as long as it's not overly shocking)"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

If I had it my way, Canada, United States & United Kingdom would be added to all the Canadian (post-1867), American (post-1776) & British bios (post-1801), respectively. For the British bio infoboxes (1714-1800), we'd use Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you open an RfC and gain consensus, I guess you could have your way. Not sure where that RfC would be best placed, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Such an Rfc, would never succeed. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be great if we could adopt United Kingdom/Great Britain to all the infoboxes of the British Prime Ministers & British Leaders of the Opposition. But, I highly doubt that will ever succeed. Though there's resistence to replacing or adding to 'England' entry at this article's bio? The resistence would likely be much stronger at those infoboxes which have either 'Wales', 'Scotland' or 'Northern Ireland' / 'Ireland' (pre-1920's). GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It might be Great and maybe we could all be United. But I doubt it too. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

England Gaia's reasoning seems sound to me. Plus "England" is the more widely understood term. Edwardx (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Since the two terms mean different things, the idea that one might be more widely understood than the other is not relevant. I doubt that either is particularly well understood outside the UK anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen a good argument from anyone for leaving any part of the information out. Town, County, Country State (shortened to UK to avoid excess space in the infobox.SPACKlick (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Why not give simple and full information. So far the only argument against Chippenham, Wiltshire, England, U.K. is the word "redundant". Redundant for whom? It may not be redundant for everyone. How much does that really matter. Plus it satisfies both the reasoned arguments here for England and/or the U.K. Why does it have to be one or the other? -- BOD -- 18:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Time to meet each other half-ways. I have no problems with using both England & the UK, together. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This Rfc has been open for just about a full month now. Does anyone agree with the compromise? GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

And the result of the judges's decision is .....-- BOD -- 00:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original RfC Closure by participant

This RfC was closed with a compromise which is "Chippenham, Wiltshire, England, UK" Wykx (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Close review

Just a note to advise editors that a closure review request has been made with respect to the RfC above. Daicaregos (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I've overturned the original closure of the RfC and reclosed here as an uninvolved user. Although it was highly ill-advised for the involved participant to close it and the closure did not reflect a consensus reached at this particular RfC, the compromise may be a good proposal to start with, even as a temporary compromise while discussion continues (as it ought to). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The picture...

I'm sorry to bring this up AGAIN, but that picture is awful. I know it's not a place for opinion and a picture is a picture etc etc etc, but the colours and the murkiness is absolutely abysmal, there must SURELY be better, free alternatives by now? Literally all of the other leaders have clear, and colour corrected pictures. Could someone with photoshop skills maybe edit it and correct the colours a bit so it isn't as dire if there's still no free alternative? Thanks Nbdelboy (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

File:CorbynGJN.png

Jeremy Corbyn

To me the awfulness of the current pic is so bad, that it looks like it is done on purpose. It needs to be replaced ASAP. Anyways here is a quick and unskilled edit of creative commons pic I found on flicker.-- BOD -- 19:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

This would be a great improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the alternative here is awful. I don't love the current one, but this isn't an improvement. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

This one is a lot more natural, and without the strange photo effects.-- BOD -- 22:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree this would be an improvement. Not great, but less bad than the current one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this would be an adequate replacement albeit only temporarily. The current picture does look intentionally awful, and really should be replaced with this one for the time being. I agree it's not the best replacement, but the improvement over the current picture outweighs its negatives. Thanks for the contribution @Bodney: Nbdelboy (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree also - I will insert it as there is a good support here for that. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Govindaharihari: Nbdelboy (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem, four supports and one against in five days of open chat seems a reasonable point to change the consensus. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I also dislike the previous image and prefer the new one, but as discussed previously the Global Justice Now image appears to be a screengrab from a Channel 4 interview. I have nominated it for deletion on Commons. JMiall₰ 12:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The pic was edited and suggested in good faith, based on its Creative Commons License. I was unable to find any reference to it or Global Justice Now in this page's Archives. I am interested to know what tool you used to spot that this pic was a potential screen grab of a TV interview.-- BOD -- 14:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It is mentioned briefly in archive 1 from September. I found it was a copyvio by seeing that Global Justice Now mentioned a Channel 4 interview and then watching that video. There are lots of videos and images around of Corbyn on Flickr/Youtube etc that are tagged wrongly so it is worth being suspicious. JMiall₰ 15:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

If you look carefully at the image there are areas which are very blurred, this is typical of the poor quality image you get from a screen capture of a compressed video, that in itself would flag up that it is likely copyvio. --ℕ ℱ 22:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Could you possibly point these areas out to those of us who don't have eyes like Sherlock Holmes? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Compare the relative clarity of his right (our left) eye to the whole area around the outside of his left (our right) eye, including the end of his eyebrow. You might find Compression artifact as a description of what is going on. --ℕ ℱ 23:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, even at fully screen, it looks to me like it could be a still photo. Yes, the left side of his face is in shadow. You obviously have a trained eye. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Very trained. Sad we will prob have to go back to the awful pic. If we do I will try to contact Corbyn's office. -- BOD -- 23:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, do. He needs to get that wonky left eye looked at pronto. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

GIMP it straight using the right eye.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey!! Who're you calling a gimp?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Another option

The Weekly Bull has a shot of Jeremy Corbyn arriving at the Refugees Welcome Here demo - London 12 Sept 2015. It is sharable for non-commercial but not remixable (not sure if cropping constitutes a remix). Or we could ask them permission? Jonpatterns (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a good image. The restrictions say "remix, transform, or build upon". I would have thought that "transform" might include cropping. But there must be some general CC-license guidelines which explain these terms? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Nice image but we cant use non-free images so I have removed it, the image is not free enough to use on wikipedia as the source shows a non-commerical licence it will probably be deleted from commons soon. MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Could somebody send Jezza a selfie-stick and a £5 donation? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Email Corbyn Campaign?

The only good resolution to the awful image would be for more shareable images to become available. It's in Corbyn's best interest that a decent image of himself is made available. I tried e-mailing the Corbyn office, but got no response. Perhaps if we spam e-mail them we might get something back? I think the right e-mail is "leader@labour.org.uk". NickCT (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Get something back?? Perhaps a musical tribute? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: - I was thinking more a response with an image, but a musical tribute would be nice. NickCT (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Like others I guess, I have once again (only 2 days ago) tried emailing leader@labour.org.uk with a request, no reply so far. Will try again.-- BOD -- 22:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bodney: - Thanks mate! NickCT (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It's likely that's a rarely checked email, or used for certain things only. It would be better to use his MPs email address on the HoC website, or his constituency site, or to even try messaging his Facebook page. Hope this helps!! Nbdelboy (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Do Facebook images come with copyright statements? Maybe we'll end up emailing Mark Zuckerberg? After all, he is "Probably the best leader in the world"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)