This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
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.
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
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 is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
WP:ENDORSE
Can I remind editors that we have to follow
WP:ENDORSE? Endorsements have to be clear endorsements and have to be covered by a reliable secondary source. Endorsements people make on social media are not, in themselves, eligible.
Bondegezou (
talk)
22:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorsements from notable organisations have looser requirements—I'm minded to include things like the WPB endorsements on those grounds. I'll try putting them in but happy to be reverted and talk about it!
Ralbegen (
talk)
13:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Realnoahsimpson: Hi—I'm not going to get into an edit war. There is consensus on Wikipedia, documented at
WP:ENDORSE, that we should only include certain endorsements. These are endorsements from notable organisations, or endorsements from notable people that are clearly documented by secondary reliable sources. We can tell if a person or organisation is notable by whether they have a Wikipedia article. For people, we need to see a reliable secondary source, like a quality newspaper, book or academic paper. This isn't totalitarianism, it's an agreement reached by an open discussion amongst editors with different views so that we can approach inclusion consistently.
Ralbegen (
talk)
18:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Bondegezou—you've removed
Lynne Jones as a party member endorsing her own party. I think representatives and officials of a party would be not worth including but people who are otherwise notable and incidentally party members have been included before (like
Owen Jones for Labour in the last three elections or
Ken Loach in 2017). I think it makes sense to include incidental party members based on
WP:ENDORSE criteria while continuing to exclude e.g.
Mark Pack endorsing a Lib Dem candidate or
Ann Black endorsing Labour.
Ralbegen (
talk)
12:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I keep wondering whether it would be more sensible to split the constituency endorsements by the 4 nations, England (then subdivided alphabetically), Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. What do others think?
Bondegezou (
talk)
10:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Someone's split the seats by nation and region. I find that confusing. I'd split by nation, and then maybe subdivide England by region. But looking for Scotland between North West England and South East England feels bizarre!
Bondegezou (
talk)
09:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That was me—just thought it might make more sense than splitting England into 20 or so sections. There's also the balance between levels of subheading and a navigable contents page: if England has an extra sub-level, then the contents will either miss it or will include constituency names for the other nations. Very happy to try alternatives, though—maybe just moving the non-England nations to the top or the bottom?
Ralbegen (
talk)
09:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I de-tabulated the newspapers section and set it out as party separated bulleted lists, the same as every other section. An unregistered user has reverted that, without the courtesy of any explanation. Is there any reason why that one subsection should be differently formattted from the rest?
Kevin McE (
talk)
20:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It was because it was done like that in the past with all the different newspapers & magazines. Please remember the UK is notably has a very partisan newspaper market. I personally much clearer then have it bulleted.
159753 (
talk)
05:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It was like that in the past is not really a reason. I am perfectly aware that the media is partisan, but the whole point of a list of those who have endorsed a party or candidate is to point out that individuals and organisations are also partisan. You do not explain why you prefer listing of organisations and individuals to be, by your perception, less clear. So meaningful explanation for media to be treated differently is still lacking.
Kevin McE (
talk)
07:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:ENDORSE, for individuals we need a secondary reliable source (like a newspaper) saying unambiguously that they have endorsed (or backed, or supported) a party.
Ralbegen (
talk)
15:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no visual difference between the headings made with 4 equal signs either side and that made with 5. Thus the headings for parties, and those for categories of person among the Labour endorsements, are essentially identical. I acknowledge that the table of contents reflects a hierarchy, but this has no value if the list does not. At present, Reform UK looks like a subdivision of Labour supporters, or Labour looks as though it has no endorements, while businesspeople have 22. I suspect the only real remedy is to have a 2 column list, without subdivisions, for Labour (and any other party that might get enough mentions to justify it).
Kevin McE (
talk)
08:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I initially reverted an edit which claimed that J. K. Rowling has endorsed the Communist Party of Britain on the grounds that her statement was not an explicit endorsement as per WP:ENDORSE. My change has since been reverted (and undone) twice without explanation so I wanted to open a thread so consensus can be reached.
TheOfficially (
talk)
11:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply