Talk:Council of the Nations and Regions

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wales

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Northern Ireland

	Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland 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.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Merge

This article should be merged with the existing article covering the IGR in the UK (Intergovernmental relations in the United Kingdom). The existing article already has information on the previous two methods used so it makes sense for information on this new method should be incorporated there to ensure continuity and ease from being able to all necessary information in one place. ChefBear01 (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging would be a bit counterproductive. It'd be like merging the House of Commons and House of Lords articles into a single article called "Parliamentarianism in the United Kingdom". Similarly while it's ok and perhaps useful for the wider article existing, it shouldn't be used to remove the individual ones which go into more detail about the existing structure and continuing existance of the political body. Likewise it allows the wider article to not get bogged down and bloated. For the same reasons, we shouldn't remove this article. I'm happy to put a "Further:" at the top of the background section however Bejakyo (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that the HOC and Lords is a good comparison as they exist separately and are both active whereas this is meant to superseded the previous method which is why the existing article has the name it does to accommodate the changes without creating loads of unnecessary fork articles that only have a small amount of information. Other than the membership and the lead the background seems to just repeat what is already in the existing article.ChefBear01 (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really the case, the Intergovernmental relations in the United Kingdom article has essentially no information on the Council bar the officeholders on it. Going WP:NOTMERGE would recomend against merging, as both this article and Intergovernmental relations in the United Kingdom are warranting their own articles (both meeting the WP:GNG), and a strict conclusion that only allows information the Council into Intergovernmental relations in the United Kingdom would result in the intergov article being more clunky than it already is. (The article would benefit both from more prose in just about all sections, in adition to other cross-linked articles being seperated out, but that's a different topic)

The Intergovernmental relations in the United Kingdom should remain an a broader article talking about the history of relations between devolved administrations and westminster, and relations between them in general. The Council of the Nations and Regions article should remain about the existing political organ, with its brief pre-formation background (particularly in regards to the Brown Report), and be expanded as further developments occur, such as the the upcoming first meeting of the Council Bejakyo (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.

Intergovernmental relations in the United Kingdom focuses on the UK/S/W/NI relations.

There has never been a structure for the mayors. The cabinet of mayors was never set up.

I can imagine two possibilities:

Intergovernmental relations in the United Kingdom should be restructured to be primarily around the chronological sequence of structures: "Joint Ministerial Committees", the "Prime Minister and Heads of Devolved Governments Council" and the "Council of Nations and Regions"
Intergovernmental relations in the United Kingdom should be restructured to be primarily around the two parallel branches:
- the "Joint Ministerial Committees", the "Prime Minister and Heads" of "Devolved Governments Council" and the "Council of the UK"
- the "Proposed English Cabinet of Mayors" and the "Council of England"

DotCoder (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. For at least two reasons:

Ensuring "continuity and ease from being able to [sic] all necessary information in one place" is an argument that could be used to merge all sorts of articles - eg, why don't we merge the United Kingdom and Scotland articles so that readers can get all of the information on the United Kingdom in one place? Ergo, this is a very weak argument.
The Council of the Nations and Regions is not an exclusively intergovernmental body - check the dictionary definition of "intergovernmental" if you don't believe me. If there was a body set up involving just the UK prime minister and the English combined authority mayors, we would not accurately call that an intergovernmental body. England's combined authorities are not "governments".

There may be an argument for mentioning the Council of the Nations and Regions in Intergovernmental relations in the United Kingdom, especially if it ends up replacing, de facto or de jure, the Prime Minister and Heads of Devolved Governments Council (which I don't think it should, but my personal opinion is of course irrelevant here), but the two articles should definitely not be merged. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the basis that the Intergovernmental relations in the United Kingdom article is already messy and crowded, and focuses (or should) primarily on the inner workings of intergovernmental relations between the governments and not the bodies established to achieve this. Goodreg3 (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose removing population figures

The population figures that have been added to the membership table seem to have been added to make a political point about the uneven representation on the Council of the Nations and Regions of different parts of the UK.

That said, I don't even fully understand them - what does "uniquely represented" mean?

I propose removing both the "Population Represented" and "Percentage Unique Representation" figures, given that both figures are easily available elsewhere.

Alternatively, as a compromise, I propose removing the "Percentage Unique Representation" figures, along with the "Uniquely represented" figure for the UK prime minister, both of which seem quite bizarre. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume the additions were made in good faith as opposed to pov-pushing, that said I think I agree with your proposals unless there’s a better idea Bejakyo (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political groups in infobox

Having political groups in an infobox is usually a useful addition to quickly determine the political makeup of a body - usually legislative.

It it really notable to have this information in the infobox? After all it seems to imply that whoever has the largest majority controls it, which is not how it works (although granted the Council is quite new so the procedures of it may not have fully developed). It’s worth noting that the Mayoral Council also has an infobox like this. notadev (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]