Talk:Liberal Democrats (UK)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liberal Democrats (UK) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 180 days

Liberal Democrats (UK) was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 18, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Politics of the United Kingdom Top‑importance

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

Politics: Political parties High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force.

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.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

'Is' vs 'Are'[edit]

The Liberal Democrats are a federal party, thus, shouldn't it be: "The Liberal Democrats are...", rather than "The Liberal Democrats is..."? Touslesmemes49 (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Election Results[edit]

In the overview the text reads "and a poor performance in the 2019 general election saw Swinson lose her seat." But the link to the election page shows that the party saw a 4% swing, comparing that with the -7% of Labour or the ~1% of the Tories/SNP suggests a relatively good performance that was adversely affected by FPTP.

I'd like to change it to read" and the 2019 general election saw Swinson lose her seat." A factual statement without any judgement of the performance. Would that be OK with others? Efan78 (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this is a more neutral statement. Go for it. — Czello ^(music) 07:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agreeSpinney Hill (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lib Dem ideology may clash with labour's[edit]

In a discussion in the labour talk page it ha sbeen proposed for labour's ideology to be changed to social liberalism but due to the liberal deocrat page also has this ideology it was proposed that the liberal democrats also add social democracy as an ideology not only to avoid confusion but also due to some sources suggesting they may be taking up a more centre-left position.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/10/lib-dems-progressive-mantle-robust-opposition-labour Takis S1 (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from being an opinion piece, that article doesn't call them socdems. Also I don't think it's logical to alter this article based on what another does – we just say what the sources say. — Czello ^(music) 10:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, same as on the Labour page, we should avoid WP:RECENTISM. A socdem trend in the Lib Dems isn't new, but the two wings of the party are already detailed in the body of the article. The infobox should remain broad. — Czello ^(music) 10:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment maybe Progressivism is a better label to add. Implies a shift to the explicit left while also not tying itself to a specific economic system. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]