![]() | This template was considered for merging with Template:Brexit sidebar on 2019 September 23. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
United Kingdom in the European Union template. |
|
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about United Kingdom in the European Union. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this template. You may wish to ask factual questions about United Kingdom in the European Union at the Reference desk. |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this page:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
@ Okev1: I believe this should be included with the Leave campaigns. It was a significant component of the campaign and got a lot of news coverage. Similar to Bpoplive. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} | talk | contribs) 19:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The withdrawal section is getting quite large and clunky and I can only see it expanding as time progresses. Perhaps now is the time to split into two sections e.g. 2016 Referendum (containing build-up to, campaigns in and direct aftermath of the referendum) and Withdrawal (containing Article 50 and its activation, negotiations, new government departments and any effects of Brexit itself). Legendiii 18:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legendiii ( talk • contribs)
I've created the "Calls for a second vote" section due to the following rationale:
-- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 15:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, here is My proposal in three parts: 1/ Historic membership 2/ Brexit commitment decision 3/ Ongoing Brexit issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.51 ( talk) 22:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Part of a series of articles on the |
United Kingdom and the European Union |
---|
![]() |
Historic membership
European Parliament Elections |
Brexit commitment decision
|
Ongoing
Brexit issues
|
While it is quite clear that the UK Independence Party had reached some notability in the European Parliament election, 1999 (United Kingdom), I did not see in this template any link to any article related to the Brexit wording/branding and its genesis, nonetheless, it looks like the Brexit wording is quite old:
The Brexit word appears in Google Trends in the year 2008 during the week from November the 16th till November the 22th, in Indonesia: https://trends.google.fr/trends/explore?date=2008-01-01%202008-12-31&q=brexit,grexit
The Grexit word appears in Google Trends in the year 2007 during the week from November the 25th till December the first, in Bulgaria: https://trends.google.fr/trends/explore?date=2007-01-01 2007-12-31&q=brexit,grexit,GREXIT
The Brexit word appears in Google Trends in the year 2005 during the week from December the 18th till December the 24th, in (???): https://trends.google.fr/trends/explore?date=2005-01-01%202005-12-31&q=brexit,grexit,nexit
The Grexit word appears in Google Trends in the year 2004 during the week from February the 29th till march the sixth, in the United States: https://trends.google.fr/trends/explore?date=2004-01-01%202004-12-31&q=brexit,grexit,nexit
The Nexit word appears in Google Trends in the year 2004 in Finland, Italy, United-States: https://trends.google.fr/trends/explore?date=2004-01-01%202004-12-31&q=brexit,grexit,nexit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.100 ( talk) 10:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Should redirects be included in this template? It's big already. Clicking on something in the heading Organisations should lead to an organisation, not a person (Mike Galsworthy) for 2 of them (now reduced to Healthier IN the EU/Scientists for EU combined). Britain for Europe redirects to Opposition to Brexit in the United Kingdom, which is already linked to in its own right. If these things aren't notable enough to have an article in their own right, they're not worth including as clutter/padding in the template. EddieHugh ( talk) 19:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
calls for second votethen I'm not sure what you mean by
multiple things- I only count 2 ( Scientists for EU and Healthier IN the EU). Advice given at WP:NAV is just that – advice. I believe I've applied WP:COMMONSENSE - anyone who clicks on / searches Healthier IN the EU will be taken to the relevant section within Mike Galsworthy's's bio. Likewise anyone who clicks on / searches Scientists for EU will also be taken to the relevant section within Mike Galsworthy's bio. That seems straightforward to me.
the reader, who might click on Healthier IN the EU, end up at Mike Galsworthy, then click on Scientists for EU and reload Mike Galsworthy (this is covered by WP:SELFRED: "Avoid linking to titles that redirect straight back to the page on which the link is found").The section Mike Galsworthy#Scientists for EU and Healthier IN the EU does not contain a link for Scientists for EU. The only way the reader could do this is to:
If these things aren't notable enough to have an article in their own right, they're not worth including as clutter/padding in the templatesounds like a policy proposal to me, rather than template specific, perhaps it is something you would like to take to WP:PROPOSAL? -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 02:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
How come the calls for a second vote have it's own section, right beside membership and withdrawal? Those campaigns belong under the withdrawal section. Having them as a top-level section seems to be a way to use wikipedia as a magnifying glass for those organisations and their opinion. The section name does not even have an associated has article. Hell, even one of the organisations (InFacts) are only mentioned in ONE sentence on Hugo Dixon's article. How come it be notable enough to be in this template? I agree that this template requires refactoring, but this is the wrong way to do it.
How do you mark a template as NPOV? Heb the best ( talk) 19:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I have put some work into fully restructuring this entire template, as it was clear that it was having some structurally problems. The draft is here; you are more than welcome to edit it, if you think it needs adjustments. I have not (afaik) deleted anything, only moved things around and added stuff, thought I do think it is needed. Not all here is notable or relevant, and many important things are missing.
I plan to move it to mainspace within a week or two Heb the best ( talk) 13:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the second vote section be removed? The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 09:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
the body of reliable, published material on the subjectand it generates a WP:FALSEBALANCE. To say
I really cannot see how one can think it is equally as important as brexit.is a personal political opinion not an encyclopedic fact. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 02:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Should the second vote section be removed?The second vote section was put into the withdrawal section, the opposing POV in this RfC is that
withdrawal and a second vote should both be given equal prominence. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 02:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
it seems like the arguments are 1) it should be a subsection because a proposed vote is not as notable as withdrawal, 2) it should be its own section because the withdrawal section is really big and it is weird to put 'undoing x' under the section for 'x',is closest, but it's mainly the at-a-glance effect of this diff versus the at-a-glance effect of this diff with regards to WP:NPOV. So WP:NPOV versus WP:NPOV. I also have an issue with the timing of the change, there are 5 days of debate coming up in the Commons, a proposed TV debate on Sunday 9 December and a crucial vote on Tuesday 11 December.
I propose that the legislation section should come out from under "Debate" into its own section. I believe that Acts (and failed Bills) are important enough and self-contained enough to deserve quick access. Apparently there are at least another four bills to be brought forward (by end March!). Comments before I do that? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
A month ago, it was proposed that this template be merged with
Template:Brexit sidebar, and yesterday,
this discussion was closed with no consensus, with the closer saying Feel free to continue the discussion elsewhere
. Long into the discussion, I proposed a different solution, which was positively received. I would like to raise it again here, outside a merge/don't merge discussion.
Basically, the idea is to move the Brexit-content from the this template (UKinEU) into the Brexit sidebar (Brexit SB). This would leave UKinEU focused on the 45 year-long historic UK-EU relation, without being taken over by the WP:Recentism of Brexit, which have only been going on for 3 years. Currently, Brexit-related topics takes up half of UKinEU. Only the most high-level Brexit articles should remain in that sidebar. On the other hand, the Brexit SB would get a large expansion, and come into more widespread usage. Currently, UKinEU, and not the Brexit SB, have de-facto been the main navigation template for Brexit, with three times the amount of Brexit-links and 5-6 times the number of transclusions on Brexit articles, compared to the Brexit SB. The Brexit SB should be made the main one in the future.
I have already made drafts, showing how I envision this change. UKinEU would look like this, and BS SB would look look like this (Brexit negotiations are hidden by mistake, I am aware of that). Bear in mind that these are just drafts, and we can always deal with details therein later. The core of my proposal is a change in focus. Following the change, Brexit articles using the UKinEU template, should then be changed to use the Brexit SB instead (~60 articles, see a preliminary list here). Only high-level Brexit articles should keep the UKinEU template, because they should have both.
Ping to all editors involved in the previous discussion: UnitedStatesian, Ssolbergj, Mardus, FOARP, John Maynard Friedman, Nyttend, P199, Legendiii, RaviC, Pigsonthewing, JFG, Bilorv, Bsherr, Headbomb. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) ( talk) 21:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I will now implement this. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) ( talk) 19:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This template was considered for merging with Template:Brexit sidebar on 2019 September 23. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
United Kingdom in the European Union template. |
|
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about United Kingdom in the European Union. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this template. You may wish to ask factual questions about United Kingdom in the European Union at the Reference desk. |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this page:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
@ Okev1: I believe this should be included with the Leave campaigns. It was a significant component of the campaign and got a lot of news coverage. Similar to Bpoplive. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} | talk | contribs) 19:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The withdrawal section is getting quite large and clunky and I can only see it expanding as time progresses. Perhaps now is the time to split into two sections e.g. 2016 Referendum (containing build-up to, campaigns in and direct aftermath of the referendum) and Withdrawal (containing Article 50 and its activation, negotiations, new government departments and any effects of Brexit itself). Legendiii 18:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legendiii ( talk • contribs)
I've created the "Calls for a second vote" section due to the following rationale:
-- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 15:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, here is My proposal in three parts: 1/ Historic membership 2/ Brexit commitment decision 3/ Ongoing Brexit issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.51 ( talk) 22:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Part of a series of articles on the |
United Kingdom and the European Union |
---|
![]() |
Historic membership
European Parliament Elections |
Brexit commitment decision
|
Ongoing
Brexit issues
|
While it is quite clear that the UK Independence Party had reached some notability in the European Parliament election, 1999 (United Kingdom), I did not see in this template any link to any article related to the Brexit wording/branding and its genesis, nonetheless, it looks like the Brexit wording is quite old:
The Brexit word appears in Google Trends in the year 2008 during the week from November the 16th till November the 22th, in Indonesia: https://trends.google.fr/trends/explore?date=2008-01-01%202008-12-31&q=brexit,grexit
The Grexit word appears in Google Trends in the year 2007 during the week from November the 25th till December the first, in Bulgaria: https://trends.google.fr/trends/explore?date=2007-01-01 2007-12-31&q=brexit,grexit,GREXIT
The Brexit word appears in Google Trends in the year 2005 during the week from December the 18th till December the 24th, in (???): https://trends.google.fr/trends/explore?date=2005-01-01%202005-12-31&q=brexit,grexit,nexit
The Grexit word appears in Google Trends in the year 2004 during the week from February the 29th till march the sixth, in the United States: https://trends.google.fr/trends/explore?date=2004-01-01%202004-12-31&q=brexit,grexit,nexit
The Nexit word appears in Google Trends in the year 2004 in Finland, Italy, United-States: https://trends.google.fr/trends/explore?date=2004-01-01%202004-12-31&q=brexit,grexit,nexit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.100 ( talk) 10:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Should redirects be included in this template? It's big already. Clicking on something in the heading Organisations should lead to an organisation, not a person (Mike Galsworthy) for 2 of them (now reduced to Healthier IN the EU/Scientists for EU combined). Britain for Europe redirects to Opposition to Brexit in the United Kingdom, which is already linked to in its own right. If these things aren't notable enough to have an article in their own right, they're not worth including as clutter/padding in the template. EddieHugh ( talk) 19:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
calls for second votethen I'm not sure what you mean by
multiple things- I only count 2 ( Scientists for EU and Healthier IN the EU). Advice given at WP:NAV is just that – advice. I believe I've applied WP:COMMONSENSE - anyone who clicks on / searches Healthier IN the EU will be taken to the relevant section within Mike Galsworthy's's bio. Likewise anyone who clicks on / searches Scientists for EU will also be taken to the relevant section within Mike Galsworthy's bio. That seems straightforward to me.
the reader, who might click on Healthier IN the EU, end up at Mike Galsworthy, then click on Scientists for EU and reload Mike Galsworthy (this is covered by WP:SELFRED: "Avoid linking to titles that redirect straight back to the page on which the link is found").The section Mike Galsworthy#Scientists for EU and Healthier IN the EU does not contain a link for Scientists for EU. The only way the reader could do this is to:
If these things aren't notable enough to have an article in their own right, they're not worth including as clutter/padding in the templatesounds like a policy proposal to me, rather than template specific, perhaps it is something you would like to take to WP:PROPOSAL? -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 02:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
How come the calls for a second vote have it's own section, right beside membership and withdrawal? Those campaigns belong under the withdrawal section. Having them as a top-level section seems to be a way to use wikipedia as a magnifying glass for those organisations and their opinion. The section name does not even have an associated has article. Hell, even one of the organisations (InFacts) are only mentioned in ONE sentence on Hugo Dixon's article. How come it be notable enough to be in this template? I agree that this template requires refactoring, but this is the wrong way to do it.
How do you mark a template as NPOV? Heb the best ( talk) 19:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I have put some work into fully restructuring this entire template, as it was clear that it was having some structurally problems. The draft is here; you are more than welcome to edit it, if you think it needs adjustments. I have not (afaik) deleted anything, only moved things around and added stuff, thought I do think it is needed. Not all here is notable or relevant, and many important things are missing.
I plan to move it to mainspace within a week or two Heb the best ( talk) 13:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the second vote section be removed? The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 09:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
the body of reliable, published material on the subjectand it generates a WP:FALSEBALANCE. To say
I really cannot see how one can think it is equally as important as brexit.is a personal political opinion not an encyclopedic fact. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 02:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Should the second vote section be removed?The second vote section was put into the withdrawal section, the opposing POV in this RfC is that
withdrawal and a second vote should both be given equal prominence. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 02:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
it seems like the arguments are 1) it should be a subsection because a proposed vote is not as notable as withdrawal, 2) it should be its own section because the withdrawal section is really big and it is weird to put 'undoing x' under the section for 'x',is closest, but it's mainly the at-a-glance effect of this diff versus the at-a-glance effect of this diff with regards to WP:NPOV. So WP:NPOV versus WP:NPOV. I also have an issue with the timing of the change, there are 5 days of debate coming up in the Commons, a proposed TV debate on Sunday 9 December and a crucial vote on Tuesday 11 December.
I propose that the legislation section should come out from under "Debate" into its own section. I believe that Acts (and failed Bills) are important enough and self-contained enough to deserve quick access. Apparently there are at least another four bills to be brought forward (by end March!). Comments before I do that? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
A month ago, it was proposed that this template be merged with
Template:Brexit sidebar, and yesterday,
this discussion was closed with no consensus, with the closer saying Feel free to continue the discussion elsewhere
. Long into the discussion, I proposed a different solution, which was positively received. I would like to raise it again here, outside a merge/don't merge discussion.
Basically, the idea is to move the Brexit-content from the this template (UKinEU) into the Brexit sidebar (Brexit SB). This would leave UKinEU focused on the 45 year-long historic UK-EU relation, without being taken over by the WP:Recentism of Brexit, which have only been going on for 3 years. Currently, Brexit-related topics takes up half of UKinEU. Only the most high-level Brexit articles should remain in that sidebar. On the other hand, the Brexit SB would get a large expansion, and come into more widespread usage. Currently, UKinEU, and not the Brexit SB, have de-facto been the main navigation template for Brexit, with three times the amount of Brexit-links and 5-6 times the number of transclusions on Brexit articles, compared to the Brexit SB. The Brexit SB should be made the main one in the future.
I have already made drafts, showing how I envision this change. UKinEU would look like this, and BS SB would look look like this (Brexit negotiations are hidden by mistake, I am aware of that). Bear in mind that these are just drafts, and we can always deal with details therein later. The core of my proposal is a change in focus. Following the change, Brexit articles using the UKinEU template, should then be changed to use the Brexit SB instead (~60 articles, see a preliminary list here). Only high-level Brexit articles should keep the UKinEU template, because they should have both.
Ping to all editors involved in the previous discussion: UnitedStatesian, Ssolbergj, Mardus, FOARP, John Maynard Friedman, Nyttend, P199, Legendiii, RaviC, Pigsonthewing, JFG, Bilorv, Bsherr, Headbomb. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) ( talk) 21:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I will now implement this. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) ( talk) 19:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)