Talk:History of reform of the House of Lords

message: The sectioning is a little confusing. You probably haven't finished editing which is why it goes historical and then temporal then spiritual. Mowgli++
:You are correct that I am not finished with the layout changes I propose to make. My plan is to incorporate information from the Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal sections into three thematic sections, sub-divided into dated episodes (as I have neem doing on Reform of Composition). The other sections will be Reform of Powers and (something like) reforms proposed in the twentieth century. but not implemented. At that point I will be able to delete the Lords Trmporal and Lords Spiritual sections. --Gary J 20:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gary, You are so right. The historical reforms are very different from the post 1997 debate. I must admit I'm a bit frought with the attacks the article has had, and though it was technically my fault, I was ignorant of the policy against sub pages. I hope your article isn't lumped in with the others. It is obvious the articles need to be completely stand alone which is going to be difficult. The subjects that stand as one are:
* Reforms pre 1997
* 1997 Public consutation & debate (which is the area I really do want to see documented properly)
* The Parliamentary bills.
I'm not sure about this kind of split. Any comments? Unfortunately, I still feel under pressure, so If after a coffee it still seems a good idea I'll go for it!Mike 10:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General Layout

message: This article should be renamed, probably to something like Lords reform (history) or History of Lords reform. Thryduulf 15:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Weak support The new title sounds clumsy and the old one makes perfect sense to me, as a Brit, but I suspect it has confusion for those who are unfamiliar with our legislature or the phrasology used. Narson (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: There are quite a few small sections in this article (the shortest being a single sentence). I am not sure what the exact guideline is, but I think we should be aiming for at least one full paragraph of text per section. If we can't achieve that then it is wise to merge similar sections together so that they become viable (we can always split them again later if they become too big). As a first step I am going to merge the 1963 sections together as they both relate to a single Act of Parliament. Road Wizard (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small sections 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of reform of the House of Lords. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080602123523/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1999/ukpga_19990034_en_1 to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1999/ukpga_19990034_en_1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified