Talk:Campaigning in the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum

Creation

I have started this article and in case anyone wonders what it purpose is about it is meant to be an article purely about the campaigning and not about the endorsements. It needs a lot of expansion but it's a start and The layout is of approval. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC))

Political parties section

Can the political party section be expanded so that every political party no matter what size or country that they are based in can be represented there I know it's scope is limited on the main article itself but on this page all parties can be featured on the table and I think it should be especially the Gibraltar parties but any party that is providing a contribution to the campaign whether it is on the remain side or leave side should be featured. (46.64.70.97 (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC))

That would be the job of Endorsements in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Also, why would we feature so heavily on Gibraltar. AFAIK, there isn't even a "campaign" in Gibraltar, since the territory is so overwhelmingly in favour of remaining in the EU. "It's very difficult to find anyone who will say they are in favour of Britain leaving the EU, but finally I do find one man. He doesn't want to be named as he says the territory is too small and he would rather his neighbours didn't know his opinions." (BBC) sums it up. Jolly Ω Janner 20:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Well that opinion alone makes Gibraltar unique within this campaign and rightfully should be included within the article and makes it very possible that the territory will return a 90%+ "remain" vote. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC))

There is no referendum campaign in Gibraltar. Endorsements from political parties, yes. Formal campaign, no. To imply that there is one without reliable sources is original research. Maybe one could mention that there isn't a campaign there, if you can prove it. I still don't know why this article exists, as it contains nothing more than the main article (see Wikipedia:Content forking). Jolly Ω Janner 22:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I suspect this article may become useful once the official campaign actually begins. In the same way that the "Endorsements…" article keeps a huge list of names from cluttering the main article, the "Campaigning in…" sections of this article may keep a collection of blow-by-blow campaign details from cluttering the main article. That said, the Scottish independence referendum didn't seem to produce a "Campaigning…" article so it may turn out that we can do without this one. Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The normal method of splitting an article is to write about it on the main article until it is too large there and then split it off as its own article. The decision to create this article prematurely is what makes no sense to me. Additionally, I can't see this article containing much encyclopedic content (although I will give it a chance and wait until the referendum campaign is over before nominating for deletion). The main reason is that what you describe above as "blow-by-blow campaign details" are not considered suitable for an encyclopedia. They belong in newspapers: see WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:Notability (events). I'm not doubting that there will be some notable information about the campaign, but I think it could comfortably fit into the main page. Jolly Ω Janner 19:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I quite agree. Creating the article before it has content is not normal practice, and wouldn't have been my choice. But as you say we might as well see if it turns out to have a function. 23 June gives us a convenient cut-off date for deciding on a deletion nomination if this article turns out to have been a mistake. In an ideal world we would be writing up the campaign after it's happened rather than recording the blow-by-blow details, so that we know with hindsight what's notable about it. However, in my experience there are large numbers of editors who simply decide to record every event they read about when an exciting political event is going on. Reverting them all would be time consuming and produce arguments, and then we would then have to go back through the deleted edits to find the sources for the things that turn out to be notable. I'm hoping it will be easier to let content accumulate here (so we can keep the main article readable) and decide what to do with it in June. Polly Tunnel (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 25 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator to make way for multiple RM. (non-admin closure) Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Campaigning in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 → Brexit campaigns – WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. Note that WP:SLANG is merely an essay, of infinitely less authority than the two policies named. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Campaigning in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. 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/20151203135002/http://www.sdlp.ie:80/issues/international-affairs/ to http://www.sdlp.ie/issues/international-affairs

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Campaigning in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. 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/20160617094046/https://www.partyof.wales/europe-1/ to https://www.partyof.wales/europe-1/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sdlp.ie/issues/international-affairs

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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Campaigning in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. 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/20160521033827/http://www.peoplebeforeprofit.ie/2016/05/lexit-why-we-need-a-left-exit-from-eu/ to http://www.peoplebeforeprofit.ie/2016/05/lexit-why-we-need-a-left-exit-from-eu

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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)