Talk:2020 in the United Kingdom

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[COVID-19 pandemic in the United States#Travel and entry restrictions|travel ban]] The anchor (#Travel and entry restrictions) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

When will it be time 2020 in wales to be published?

I recently submitted my article Draft:2020 in Wales for review. It was rejected on the grounds that it was too soon for the article to exist. However, the equivalent pages for two other countries in the UK 2020 in England and 2020 in Scotland have been created. The later of which is about the same length as the draft I submitted and the former isn't much longer. I've asked about this issue in the teahouse and they suggested I discuss it on this page.

Rail fares listing in the events

As some of you may be aware rail fares in the UK have risen again with the start of the new year. I added this to the events section on this page but it was deleted. However it has been including on the equivalent pages for multiple previous years going back to at least 2017 (probably longer). Any opinions on this situations?Llewee (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it as it doesnt appear to be notable, it probably wasnt notable in other years either, rail fares always go up at the beginning of the year as such it is hardly of note. MilborneOne (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, or where do we draw the line - fuel prices, gas prices, the price of fish and chips? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Walsh's resignation

Does someone from the Republic of Ireland resigning from a position as CEO of an international corporation really fall under the remit of this page? Llewee (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No MilborneOne (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should we keep the meaningless ordinal-number only for the incumbent parliament name?

[moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly. Why are you doing this? Why are trying to make 'one' article different from the rest? GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "trying to make 'one' article different from the rest", I'm pursuing the legitimate Wiki goal of improving the article. Please open a discussion on its talkpage if you want to argue against that being done to it. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You begin that discussion, as it's you who wants to 'change' things. IMHO, what you want to add, doesn't improve anything. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion, about my revert of this edit, started. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we should stick with the practice of using only the ordinal number of the current parliament, as seen in all the other Year in the United Kingdom articles. PS: Noting the biased naming of this discussion, btw. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: can you give a rationale, other than because similarly meaningless names appear in other articles, for not ignoring precedence and improving this article by adding meaning and significance to the name of the incumbent parliament used in this article? I'm not even sure the UK parliament is ever referred to by it's ordinal number in British sources - or can you cite some reliable ones that show that it is? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

58th links to the required article for further information on the 58th UK Parliament, which is all we need. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've often wondered about this numbering parliament thing because it's by no means consistent, as not every country-related years article contains that information. While the Ireland articles number both their lower and upper houses for each year, the Australia and New Zealand articles don't. Like the UK, however, the Irish articles just provide a number. It's probably enough to provide a link so that anyone wishing to look further can click on the article, and notice the article itself isn't titled 58th parliament of the United Kingdom, but List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election instead.

It's also worth noting here that Boris Johnson is the 55th Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, but when I recently added that to a new disambiguation page I'd created it was swiftly removed. Again, other countries do number their prime ministers so we have something else where there's no consistency. This is Paul (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: it's an unintuitive link name, taking the users to a list of MPs. We should, at least, use familiar and common terminology for the link name, which - in the case in hand - the ordinal number is not. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naming the link here as 58th suffices. If you disagree? then I recommend you open an Rfc on this matter for all the 'Year in the UK' articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on what name to give to the incumbent parliament

(non-admin closure) There is a rough, albeit weak, consensus for A, by weight of numbers and by reference to a de facto standard. Editors wishing to challenge the status of such a standard are encouraged to start a more central RfC, which would hopefully be better attended. None of the arguments presented are particularly flawed, and none have been discounted. - Ryk72 ^talk 03:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

There is a disagreement about the link label to provide for the incumbent parliament, given in the "Incumbents" section near the top of the page. Should it be labelled as:

A. Parliament – 58th?

B. Parliament – The 58th, elected December 2019?

C. Other (please offer suggestions)?

RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC). 20:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

A - as that's the standard we use for all the 'Year in the UK' articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
B - as the ordinal number is rarely, if ever used in the UK when referring to a parliament. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC) articles.[reply]
A - follow the prior norm, in lieu of any reason compelling enough to change them all or to be inconsistent. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
B - for the same reasons as DeFacto raised. Balag12 (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A - That is how it has been done in the past. There doesn't seem to be a good reason to change it. To the extent folks are curious when members of the 58th Parliament were elected, they can click on and read the article. That said that article may need to be renamed the "58th Parliament" as its composition may change as members resign, die, or are elected in by-elections.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Really don't see the point in re-listing this RFC. There was little interest in it by the community, for the entire month it was open. If anything, it should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is hardly a convincing consensus though. Interestingly, there was a very similar RfC held at Talk:Boris Johnson#RfC for Numbering Prime Ministers about the numbering of British prime ministers, where the consensus was very clear. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as it was administrator @Cunard:'s decision to relist, maybe this time there'll be more participation. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator. I relisted the RfC because there was limited participation in the RfC and I did not see a consensus. Regardless of my relist of this RfC, any editor can list this RfC at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure if they think it is ready for closure. Cunard (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're a clerk. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Northern Ireland Assembly

I've restored the entries regarding the Northern Ireland Assembly's restoration since it involved the UK government and therefore has UK-wide relevance. The gay marriage thing, however, is a Northern-Ireland only topic. This is Paul (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with restoration, as Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@This is Paul: fair point. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok cool, I've moved the Northern Ireland page into the mainspace as it was the only one not to be published, and added a couple of things. Feel free to remove anything from there you think shouldn't be duplicated. This is Paul (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Streatham stabbing

I've deleted this incident from the article and added it in to 2020 in England. Is there a case for a leaving it in the 2020 in the UK article as well, because of the wider story around the attacker and implications for UK-wide law changes? --Bcp67 (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's important enough to be in both articles. Jim Michael (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 in the UK

Do we really need this hyperlink – "COVID-19 in the UK:" before every entry? It seems excessive and unnecessary. -- Wjfox2005 (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No we dont. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the replacement of Public Health England within the remit of this page?

The event below was recently added to the August section;

Health Secretary Matt Hancock announces that Public Health England is to be "scrapped" and replaced by a new body run by Dido Harding, called the National Institute for Health Protection and it will aim to combine PHE and the NHS Test and Trace operation, in response to the coronavirus pandemic.

As health is devolved but Public health England was involved in some UK-wide management of the pandemic I'm not sure if this belongs here or in 2020 in England. Llewee (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point. This is a matter relating to England alone with no UK dimension so really should be in the 2020 in England article. That said, there are a number of other things from this article that should be moved there as well...Birtig (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although PHE is/was England only, the scope of the new NIHP is not yet clear. OK to leave keep this short item here. --Wire723 (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Alfred G. Wright portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Artist and actor Margaret Nolan (2013).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]