Talk:Opposition to Brexit

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 16 April 2018 by reviewer Legacypac (talk · contribs).

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Returning this to mainspace for wider exposure. Certianly notable. I don't know if there is a better name or merge target. Legacypac (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A better title is certainly needed, along the lines of Opposition to Brexit in the United Kingdom, per WP:NPOV and WP:NEO. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no objection so far, so I've gone ahead and moved it to the new title above. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time right now to add proper text for any of them right now. But there are more listed here which fit this category (with one or two exceptions).109.147.150.40 (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advert tone

Speaking as a firm supporter of Remain, this article is at present a collection of political pamphlets all thrown into a heap, with some sections consisting of pastes from small, non-notable campaign groups' Facebook pages, referenced by... their Facebook page. I don't have time to give it the shovelling out it badly needs, but will try to get to that in a few hours. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleared out the worst of the spam, but this article is going to remain a spam magnet, so eyes will be needed on it. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

Which structure is better (for the reader): putting the entities that are part of People's Vote as sub-sections in a People's Vote section, or listing each entity separately, including People's Vote? The first is better from my perspective, as it avoids repetition and makes clear that some of the groups are part of People's Vote. Reaching a consensus here instead of a ding-dong battle on the article is preferable. EddieHugh (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops: near-simultaneous posting; shall we continue the discussion in this section? EddieHugh (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about changing 'Joint campaigning' to 'Collaborations', or putting PV as a sub-section of 'Groups' with its (currently) 4 bits as sub-sub-sections of PV? EddieHugh (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I've removed my previous comment.

As they are separate groups the old structure with groups under the sub heading 'groups' makes more sense. Some repetition could be removed without altering the structure. The groups pre-date People's Vote so the new organisation is more confusing. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My thinking is that putting them under PV is a reflection of the current organisation, which is of more relevance than having the structure reflect their history. EddieHugh (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The groups have not dissolved and become one entity called People's Vote. Therefore, the structure is the same with the addition of the People's Vote collaborative campaign. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, Jonpatterns. However, several of these groups are now housed together in Millbank (so-called GCHQ) under the coordination of Chaka Umunna's GCG. Would it make sense to list them under GCG rather than under PV? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither make sense. Groups working together do not cease to have there own identity and history. Its like saying when there was a Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government their articles should have been merged to an article called 'Coalition Government' with subheadings for 'Conservatives' and 'Liberal Democrats'. Not a perfect analogy, but it illustrates the point. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. One issue that I have is that AFAIK the groups under GCG existed prior to the referendum and this page is really for stuff that happened after the referendum. So here's another suggestion: A subheading for groups that campaigned for Remain and continued to oppose Brexit, and another subheading for new groups/campaigns that popped up after the referendum. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a possibility. However, most of the groups' sections state when they are formed, so I've not sure what the advantage would be. I still think a section just called 'Groups' would be better, listing the groups with a collaboration subsection at the end. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with your suggestion, and the best should not be the enemy of the good -- so go ahead, if you think it is an improvement, and we can continue the discussion here if necessary... Opposition to Brexit is so fragmented that I believe it is helpful to impose some kind of structure. Listing collaborative groups separately does achieve that to a degree. I wonder if the collaborative groups should go first, though. They are probably more important than the splinter groups that comprise them. (For example, listing the regional groups under Britain for Europe was I thought an excellent bit of editing.) That's not to say that each of these smaller groups is completely subsumed by the collaboration. As I mentioned, it's a bit hard for me to see why the groups that make up GCG and are housed together in Millbank should not be grouped together somehow. But any kind of structure is better than none, and grouping them under PV has some logic behind it too. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other Events

I have moved the Other Events section to the end, because they seem less significant than the joint campaigning groups. I can see the sense in having Other Events directly under Marches, though, because they are both kinds of event as opposed to ongoing campaigns. Another solution would be change the order and have campaign groups first, then Marches, then Other Events. This would retain the grouping of these event sections. A disadvantage would be that the Marches have had the highest profile of all the anti-Brexit actions. If you have a good idea, please go ahead and make the edit -- and I would be grateful if you could document the change here so that it can be discussed. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists for EU and Healthier IN redirects

Currently these pages redirect to Mike Galsworthy, but personally I think that it would be better if they redirected to this page eventually. I've put a note on the talk pages requesting that new information on these campaigns be added under the subheadings here. I think I'll also put a "See also" on the Galsworthy page linking here. Any thought on this? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've cross-posted some post-referendum activities of these organizations from the Galsworthy page with the intention of reducing the perceived coatracking on that page. I'm not quite sure what the appropriate balance should be so for the time being the material is duplicated, for which I apologise. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current title too vague (March 2019)

Here's where my problem lies. I wanted to look up something about the march a few days ago, so I figured the fastest way to find the information - since I didn't know the title of the march - was to go to the main Brexit page and look for a section or link to a separate page, where all such marches and events over the last 2+ years are listed. But I'm looking, and I'm searching the page for words like, "march," "protest," "rally," "demonstration," etc. Eventually I do find a single link to the 2019 People's Vote March page, and on that page I find the link to this page, where I find the list of events I was expecting to find sooner. Once I have the current title of this article, I am able to see that it is linked 3 different times on the main Brexit page. But I don't feel like having it linked on that page actually help me find the information.

I get that the article contains more than individual protests, and has ongoing partnerships/efforts listed as well. But I feel like not including a single synonym for march - such as one of those listed above - in the title makes that title too vague to be a clear link from the main Brexit page to a sub-topic. I feel like seeing the link "Opposition to Brexit in the United Kingdom" on the Brexit page doesn't really tell the reader what the link contains, and could refer to any number of forms of opposition; from the differing "remain arguments" of some political parties to individual journalistic or celebrity opinions expressed in opposition.

So, in the interest of not offering a problem without a solution, I think the title would help lead people to this information if it read something like, "Organized Demonstrations and Campaigns in Opposition to Brexit in the United Kingdom." But I also admit that's quite wordy, so if anyone has any suggestions for conveying that information but in briefer terms, I'd appreciate the input. CleverTitania (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Possible Additions

These websites have collections of links to a number of organizations that oppose Brexit. Some might be appropriate for addition to this page. (Some definitely aren't: they are just Twitter and Facebook pages of small local groups. But some are more formal and might be appropriate.)

http://brexitdb.com/groups http://brexology.uk/ (possibly some here in the right-hand column) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.132.72 (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]