From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Interwiki to de:wikipedia wrong ??[edit]

The term Beisitzer does not mean the same like crossbencher. Therefore the interwiki is wrong in my opinion. --BKSlink (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I have removed three which were incorrect. In future, you can always be bold and go ahead and remove them yourself, as long as you explain why you're doing so in the edit summary. Thanks again! ninety:one 17:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


According to the HoL website, the numbers for the Crossbenches is wrong. According to its table, there are 188 Tories, 182 Crossbenchers, and 26 "Other". Clearly this article (and the Times) count the others with the Crossbenchers, but is there a valid reason for that? Do they really even sit on the crossbenches or do they sit on the Opposition Benches. -Rrius (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Anglo-Centric Article[edit]

As I was linked to this article from one about the Australian parliament, I would think this article incorrectly focuses exclusively on the British Parliament. I would try to make the edits myself, but I don't want to incorrectly edit an article I am not completely knowledgeable on. (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I recently removed the content that made very general reference to crossbenchers existing in "legislatures" as opposed to just the Lords because there was no evidence in the article to the contrary. I have now restored the multi-national lead sentence, but we really do need some information about how crossbenches work in Australia and elsewhere (if the term is used elsewhere). -Rrius (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


I want to move the Canada section to be above the Australia section.

Recently, the ISG was formed in Canada. As a senate nerd, I've been keen on following what happens to them. However, I've run into an odd problem. When I went to add them to this article, I found out that Canada already had an entry. Why? I really don't understand it. The best I can figure is this is a problem of flow. Right now it reads like this. "The UK has non-partisan crossbenchers that can provide a swing vote in the upper house. Australia has no such non-partisan crossbenchers, but, has small third parties. You know who else also has small third parties, Canada!" And while that flow is fine prior to the ISG, it NOW reads "The UK has crossbenchers. Australia has something different. Canada has crossbenchers. Also Canada is doing the australia thing". Flows very poorly.

As such I think this would work way better if Canada's entry were above Australia, and, as more countries are added, Canada's entry be kept at the dividing point between the non-partisan 'upper house swing voter' and partisan 'swing parliamentarian', or, at worst, alongside other countries where this happens.

However, I don't actually use wikipedia very much, and don't want to edit the article that radically, as, it may be in this particular order for a very good reason. As such, a bit bluntly, if someone would do this for me (someone who knows what they are doing) I would be very greatful. Nickjbor (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crossbencher. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)