-- Emsworth 01:11, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Object for now - an excellent start, and I want to support, but there are lots of details that could and should be added, such as: (i) introduction of radio and television broadcasting of proceedings; (ii) times and dates when the House usually sits (and emergency sessions); (iii) State Opening (Black Rod, the debates on the Queen's Speech); (iv) debating tactics and procedures such as points of order and programme motions (the "guillotine"); (v) the recent modernisation of procedures (e.g. the end of the hat for points of order during votes and changes in sitting times); (vi) other (in)famous disruptions of proceedings such as Michael Heseltine wielding the mace and the absailing lesbians; (vii) recent proposals in increase security (e.g. barriers to prevent strangers throwing items into the chamber); (viii) geography of the chamber (e.g., why the chamber has rows of seats down the sides (it used to meet in a chapel); where the Clerks sit; that and why there are lines on the carpet). Also, some sections seem long enough to deserve sub-sections (particularly history). The page is also rather long already (38k), and adding this sort of detail will expand it even more: it may be worth moving the longer sections, such as history, to their own "main articles" and summarising the main articles here. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that there is a lot to be written about the House of Commons. However, I feel that one must be more selective: only the more important details need to be included. The days on which the House sits, emergency sessions, the tradition of Black Rod knocking on the door, points of order, the guillotine, modernisation of procedure, and the geography of the chamber are all important, and information on these has been added/expanded. I do not feel, however, that security arrangements and the like warrant additional discussion (but I will add Heseltine's famous mace wielding incident). Radio and television information, as well as information on debates on the Address-in-Reply to the Queen's Speech, relate to Parliament as a whole, and would fit in the Parliament article rather than this article. As to subsections, I feel that they would cause the Table of Contents to become overwhelmingly large. As to splitting information, I do not feel that it is necessary here; the present 40k size is not too large, especially for a topic that is this important. Thus, I hope that I have taken the suggestions of objections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8, and that I have addressed objections 1, 6, and 7. -- Emsworth 17:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There is indeed a lot to be written: hence my suggestion of expansion and spawning of subsidiary articles. However, I'm glad you have taken in many of my points. I still think it is worth mentioning the intrusion of the broadcast media, if only because most people will never actually visit the Houses of Parliament but may have seen or heard parts of debates being broadcast: I think television is really a House of Commons rather than a Parliament issue because (if I remember correctly) the timetable and details differ between the Houses - the Lords were televised first as a guineapig; it may also be worth mentioning new Parliamentary practices, such as "doughnutting" the speaker. My mention of debating tactics was really directed at the rather ineffective and often boisterous style of Parliamentary debate, with an atmosphere that can resemble a rather poor school or univerisity debating society (cheap points scored through points of order; ineffectual debate airing the issues but getting little done). The new proposed security arrangements are topical, given recent disruptions that were not effectively prevented by the screens in the Strangers' Gallery; I still can't see mention of Tarzan's mace wielding. In addition to the abolition of the hat, the "I spy strangers" tactic went in 1998 too. However, if you are still strongly opposed to my remaining objections then I will beg leave withdraw. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I think that I have addressed all, except the objection on present security arrangements, which I do not agree with. -- Emsworth 20:21, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks. Support now. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I think the current composition of the House should be moved to a separate article (perhaps included in another existing one). The information about the current composition is just about as relevant as any composition of the house in history, and these aren't listed either. The article does a great job of telling a general, encyclopaedic, story; this part doesn't belong in there IMO. Jeronimo 13:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The current composition section only shows at a glance what the present status of the parties is. It does not list all the Members of the House. I feel that this information is certainly relevant, and does not require a separate article. -- Emsworth 17:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Can we get a colour picture of the House? Johnleemk | Talk 13:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support-- minor objections above noted but they are all easily correctable. 172 19:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support, a little bit more polishing can be done, but overall outstanding. -- user:zanimum