Talk:Change UK/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Registration approved

The Electoral Commission appears to have approved the name of "Change UK - The Independent Group". I suggest the article now be moved to that name. Bondegezou (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Their website isn't showing the change of name yet. Perhaps wait for that to happen? Headhitter (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

If the bit long winded "Change UK - The Independent Group" is their official name, I think it takes precedence over their web site. At least the article will have a clearly unique name. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Surely we prefer the common name to the official name? Looking over recent media mentions of the party, it seems that it's either Change UK or The Independent Group. When the full name is used, Change UK is used more often (The Independent, The Guardian). Ralbegen (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

That approach is consistent with the UK Conservative and Unionist Party page. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what name the reliable sources use before we change anything. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with DeFacto and others - WP titles use common name, not official name.

I think it's currently unclear whether that is "The Independent Group" or "Change UK" - over the weekend, Stephen Dorrell announced he was defecting to "Change UK", Neil Carmichael that he was defecting to "The Independent Group" - and the group's own website is still 100% branded as "The Independent Group", so I'm inclined to leave this where it is for now.

(The group also had its proposed emblem rejected by the Electoral Commission, which was a black box containing "TIG #Change", which almost seems like a further two names....) TSP (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The current common name of the organisation in the media is still The Independent Group. There is no guarantee that the UK will even enter the 2019 European elections. For now at least, the article name must stay as it is.--Autospark (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Best I can see, "Change UK" and "The Independent Group" are being used about equally much at present by RS. This may settle down, one way or the other. For now, either name would meet WP:COMMONNAME, and there's something to be said for the full "Change UK - The Independent Group" as it encompasses both. Bondegezou (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Looking over broadsheets, we have the Telegraph referring to it as Change UK (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/change-uk/ is the URL for its coverage, which /the-independent-group redirects to); The Times seems to refer to them as Change UK exclusively in recent coverage (Brexit: Show us your social media posts, Change UK tells potential MEPs, Ukip deserter could split vote as MEP ballot looms); the FT has only used "The Independent Group" recently to talk about the name change and otherwise seems to prefer Change UK; and the Guardian seems to go with Change UK (Tories hit by new defections and slump in opinion polls as party divide widens, Change UK registers as political party ahead of European elections). I'm not sure which RSes are preferring The Independent Group at this point? Ralbegen (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I saw this BBC piece and this Mirror piece using TIG, but happy to go with Ch UK if it's winning out. Bondegezou (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

That's fair enough, I hadn't seen either of those. It still seems to me as though Change UK is the common name now, but clearly it isn't everywhere. There are recent BBC articles which use Change UK now too (The life of MEPs in Brexit limbo, Change UK approved for European elections). At this point I'd support a move to Change UK. Ralbegen (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

They have finally actually changed their website to refer to themselves as Change UK - The Independent Group, and have a logo with that name; and I think Change UK is now taking over as the common name. I'd support a move to Change UK – The Independent Group and maybe one to Change UK - not sure if we should pick one name or the other or use the full combined name? I'm inclined towards the combined name. TSP (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been bold and moved to Change UK - The Independent Group. Some sources (including them) are using the full name, some sources are using Change UK on its own, a few are still using The Independent Group. Sometimes Change UK is used as shorthand in headlines with "Change UK - The Independent Group" being spelled out later in an article. With no huge clarity about common name, we might as well use the common name that coincides with the official name. The Land (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

European People's Party grouping?

Change UK have signed an electoral pact with Renew, who officially belong to the grouping, and their new MEPs sit with the EPP, so would the party affiliate to the European People's Party if elected next month? Culloty82 (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

No way to know; and, as with everything, not our concern until there are well-sourced facts to report.

What's your source for saying Renew is part of the EPP? (I'd honestly forgotten Renew existed, but if it's true their page should probably mention it.) TSP (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Europe Elects has mentioned it, but I couldn't find anything concrete. --RaviC (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Change name to: Change UK – The Independent Group

The party is officially registered as Change UK – The Independent Group with the Electoral Commission the article title should be changed to reflect the official name. Angryskies (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

See discussion going on above at Talk:The Independent Group#Registration_approved. TSP (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Angryskies I agree it should be moved, but it's arguable whether it should be Change UK or the long name. I suggest starting a move proposal. Moonraker (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Angryskies, TSP, and Moonraker, I'll start a move request with any new title up for discussion, with discussion about the party's common name and what reliable sources use, now their website calls themselves "Change UK – The Independent Group". --TedEdwards 11:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Rejected emblem is unnoteworthy, not needed

Just checking here before removing it. Any counter-points? -Internet is Freedom (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It's the election branding that the party wanted to use, so can be assumed to reflect the message they are hoping to communicate. It was commented on by reliable sources. I don't see why it shouldn't be included. TSP (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm a 'weak remove' here. I can see that it's part of the story, but things that don't take effect are pretty low on the importance list. Maybe keep it in until there's a permanent logo. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 23 April 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Change UK. There are good arguments for both options, but at the end of the day support for this one was stronger. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The Independent Group → ? – "Change UK – The Independent Group" or "Change UK" could be possible titles for this page, depending on what editors believe the common name is. Due to a recent name change due to becoming a political party (which has been updated on their website), it would be a good idea to discuss now. I hope sometime later to be able to find how reliable sources name the party after the news today (23 April) they're launching their European election campaign. --TedEdwards 12:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Support Change UK as the common name. I went through the broadsheets in my comment above at Talk:The Independent Group#Registration approved and found that Change UK was the most common way to refer to the party. Ralbegen (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Support Change UK, it's now the common name and what they're using, e.g. this BBC report of their European elections launch. Bondegezou (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Support Change UK, per above. Our article title should change with the changing use. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Support Change UK per WP:NAMECHANGES. Mélencron (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Slightly prefer Change UK – The Independent Group - neither name seems to be going away, "The Independent Group" and "TIG" are still being actively used by the party and by sources; I'm inclined to think using the full combined name as the article name is the best balance. (Unlike, say, The Conservative and Unionist Party, I don't think the party itself uses "Change UK" alone.) But also Support Change UK over the current name as I think it is becoming the more common short form. TSP (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Support Change UK. JDuggan101 ^{talk. | Cont.} 14:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Support. Anyone searching for [The] Independent Group will be relocated automatically to the new location and (presumably) the lead will contain something along the lines of 'the artist formerly known as'. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Sorry, but I'm not sure whether you are supporting "Change UK", "Change UK – The Independent Group", or anything else as the new name. I left the new article name open for discussion (hence the question mark). --TedEdwards 22:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Support Change UK. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Support Change UK, as "Change UK – The Independent Group" is not being used in full as the common name of anything and is very unlikely ever to be used. For those who do not wish to lose The Independent Group, there could still be a page for that, to cover the period from February to April. Moonraker (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Support Change UK as this is the name being used by the media (such as here). This is Paul (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Support Change UK - new correct name Kingsif (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment A better approach would be to keep this page as it is and start a new page for Change UK. A page on the transitional group will still be needed, and it should not lose its history. Moonraker (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

That would be a needless split. The technicalities of a group of MPs coming together and then assembling a party apparatus don't need separate articles - hence nothing for the Council for Social Democracy or the Liberal National Organisation or indeed any of the numerous co-operations of ex Ukip MEPs before creating or joining new parties. Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there's no call for a separate Independent Group article - TIG and ChUK are the same thing. The reason I said above I supported the compound name is not out of some requirement that an article exist somewhere called "The Independent Group", but because they are still using both names, and there has been no clear moment of changeover from one to the other (it was noted at their EU launch that Allen prefers TIG; Umunna favours Change UK; while Soubry prefers them all together, referring to "Change UK, the Independent Group, the Tiggers"). TSP (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

This looks like consensus to me. Can we change a.s.a.p.? Bondegezou (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: We leave move discussions open for seven days at least, to ensure anyone who wants to voice a good reason why not to move the page can do so. There is no rush, so it's fine for another week. --TedEdwards 22:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:SNOW. Bondegezou (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

But there is a chance of editors coming along and coming up with a good argument to why we shouldn't move the page. If you look at WP:MAJORITY, although it is about AfDs rather than RfMs, it does mention that consensus can change and attitudes can shift after one single comment against the majority. The two "see also" essays linked in that section are also worth a read. --TedEdwards 23:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support Change UK – The Independent Group When it comes to branding this party is a complete *****y shambles, with "Change UK", "The Independent Group" and even "Remain Alliance" all flying around [1] [2] [3]. The longer name is clearest given this mess. Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support The Independent Group – still the common name, Change UK is just the name/slogan on ballot papers (if the UK even participates in this year's European elections).--Autospark (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Change UK – The Independent Group as this is now the wording on the organisation's website. I see no logical reason for waiting to make this change. Headhitter (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Change UK – The Independent Group - actually I just moved it, before actually seeing this discussion. Apologies! Pasting my rationale from above: Some sources (including them) are using the full name, some sources are using Change UK on its own, a few are still using The Independent Group. Sometimes Change UK is used as shorthand in headlines with "Change UK - The Independent Group" being spelled out later in an article. With no huge clarity about common name, we might as well use the common name that coincides with the official name. The Land (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no objections to The Land's premature move. Bondegezou (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The Land, could you move it back, please? As you've noted, there's an ongoing discussion. You also appear to have used a hyphen instead of an endash in the name. EddieHugh (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Consensus is for "Change UK" not "Change UK - The Independent Group". I think the former is wiser as it's the common name that is now most widely associated with it (as well as being much easier to search up!). Greenleader(2) (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm also supporting Change UK and urge the move be reversed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope, don't move it back - that name was wrong, this isn't perfect but it is better. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

No-one thinks this article should be called just "The Independent Group", so it seems a bit pointless reverting to that name. All the discussion is between "Change UK" and "Change UK - The Independent Group", so it might as well be one of those while discussion continues. Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the dash, the electoral commission registration uses a hyphen, though on the group's website they state "Our full name: Change UK – Independent Group." (en dash). --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Apologies once again for the confusion! I don't see the point in moving it back to a name that as things stands seems unlikely to be the one that it will end up at, but if anyone else feels strongly about the process and wants to that's fine with me. Fwiw I don't feel strongly between Change UK - The Independent Group and Change UK The Land (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with EddieHugh, it should be moved back. The name should be as before until a consensus is achieved to change it. Remember @The Land, Bondegezou, and RichardWeiss: it is a policy-based consensus we need, not a simple majority of personal opinions, and the current discussion does not seem to have delivered one of those yet. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

What we need is a common name. And WP:BOLD well covers the initial move, there is no policy that you can't move without seeking consensus first except where the move function is disabled. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see any value in moving it back to The Independent Group, though I still think Change UK is the better name. On the naming criteria: Change UK wins out on conciseness and naturalness. The other criteria I don't think significantly favour either option. Ralbegen (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment If the article is to have the longer title it should include an em dash, not a hyphen. Headhitter (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• Spaced en dash, not em dash. Mélencron (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support Change UK as is the common name right now, all I here and read is this name being used. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Change UK per WP:COMMONNAME, it is predominant in the sources since the group adopted the new name. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Change UK. Definite common name now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Delay. The common name had been 'The Independent Group', and it's taking a while to settle. I don't think any change should be made right now. There is no hurry. A common name, or official name, will be revealed in due time. Just redirect or have a disambig for the other names, for now, to this article. --82.2.5.153 (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Support: Change UK - The Independent Group as per their logo. I really don't know what this party is called. Neither does everyone else and nor can they possible confirm on their behalf what the name of the party actually is. Is it 'Change UK' or 'The Independent Group' or 'Change UK - The Independent Group'? As others have remarked, their branding is indeed abysmal. Would happily settle on an introductory sentence stating, "often simply referred as 'Change UK'" but without confirmation of what the preferred name is I am reticent towards simply changing it to 'Change UK', especially as 'The Independent Group' is still in their logo. Stevo1000 (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support Change UK. This is the common name - TIG is used less now and is only a secondary strap line so should be moved to CUK. JLo-Watson (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2019 (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.

Colour

The party no longer seems to be using the dark grey we currently have set as the party colour, but also haven't obviously replaced it with anything specific. (Umunna: "It's not relevant. That is Westminster bubble speak ... Oh my god! We've dared to use three or four different colours! Listen to yourself. That's the same old Westminster way." [https://twitter.com/tpgcolson/status/1120691091215409152 I asked Chuka why TIG-Change UK is using so many colours in its branding.

His response: "It's not relevant. That is Westminster bubble speak ... Oh my god! We've dared to use three or four different colours! Listen to yourself. That's the same old Westminster way."]) The website now seems to mostly be using a darker shade of nearly-black (#222221), though also a yellow (#ffd400).

Not really sure I have a counter-proposal, just noting that the current colour no longer seems to be in use. We could switch to #222221? TSP (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd favour switching to #222221 for now. Bondegezou (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

They've clarified on Twitter "black and white are our core colours" so I'll go ahead and change it to that. (Which isn't exactly black, but is what their website uses in place of black.) TSP (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

(Their website actually now changes colour every time you visit it.) TSP (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Change UK candidate forced to step down on first day due to racist tweets

Resigned on the same day he was announced! Should we include like we do with similar incidents on the Brexit Party page or make sure it is not mentioned? Reaper7 (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It's already on the page, and has been since well before you posted this. TSP (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Missed it, seems to have added around 40 minutes before I posted the above, around 17:48, hardly 'well before,' but understand your need for exaggeration. Thanks. Reaper7 (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Given that he only stepped down at 17:27, it couldn't have been very much earlier.... (And the tweets in question had been mentioned on the page an hour and a half before that.) TSP (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Templates, colours, shortnames

Guys, all this changing and moving is messing up the {{Election box metadata}} links and there is also the "Template:The Independent Group" currently under its original name. I appreciate that the group itself hasn't done us any favours by being known as two, three, maybe even four things, could we try and settle on one name to avoid any potential duplication or deletion of data which links to election result boxes, House of Commons composition graphics, and other linked information? Many thanks. doktorb _words^deeds 11:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Move request

Please could somebody move the title from Change UK - The Independent Group to Change UK – The Independent Group. I would do it myself, but the page appears to be move protected. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be changed back to "The Independent Group" as the move discussion above has not yet been closed, and that is the status-quo until a consensus for the new name is reached. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't read that lately and at a quick glance thought the move had been sanctioned. I guess Change UK – The Independent Group would have been deleted to make way for the move if it had been official. I'm in agreement with you though that it should be moved back to The Independent Group if consensus hasn't been reached. I'll leave the request up though as it obviously needs sorting out, whatever is decided. This is Paul (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

As the editor who nominated the move discussion, I personally believe the article should be "The Independent Group" until a consensus has been reached after 7 days. Just because only one editor has shown preference for the name "The Independent Group" doesn't mean more might in the days to come. The discussion was opened only 2 days ago, so there's plenty of time for opinion to change. --TedEdwards 16:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

All these move debates, moves, and move requests are causing a confusing mess. Please can we have one central discussion please? doktorb _words^deeds 17:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: The discussion at #Requested move 23 April 2019 is the move request I started to move the page to a new title with consensus, this discussion is a technical request (apparently the page is move protected) to revert the premature move made by The Land to the original status-quo title "The Independent Group" until consensus is achieved in the above section I mentioned here. --TedEdwards 21:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

TedEdwards, as far as I can see, the move you made was (a) premature given that the RtM process had not concluded and (b) in any case was contrary to the consensus that I can see, which is for just "Change UK". Please revert your change and comply with RtM good behaviour. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I didn't move the page, that was The Land (see their edits); I started the move discussion above this section and have opposed moving this page before the discussion is complete (see here and here). --TedEdwards 00:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• @The Land: would you take a look at this please as you were the last to touch. In addition to the main title, I think some of this is just about the dash type and that shouldn't be too controversial as long as there is a redirect. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi @Xaosflux: to be honest I think any further moving until the Requested Move is actually closed and we have a consensus-based name will only add to confusion. Part of the confusion at present is because I moved this page without noticing the RM was open (because there were 2 sections of move discussion above the RM) but still I think a procedural move back to unpopular name, or hyphen-fixing, would probably just result in more confusion. The Land (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The Land moved this page prematurely by accident and has apologised for doing so repeatedly. However, given the discussion clearly favours "Change UK" or "Change UK - The Independent Group" (hyphen details aside), it seems pointless reverting back to "The Independent Group" for a few more days to then come back to "Change UK" or "Change UK - The Independent Group". Let's use some common sense. Let's leave the article as is for now and let discussion come to a consensus on the choice between "Change UK" and "Change UK - The Independent Group". If the latter is chosen, we can then worry about en or em dashes. (And if there's some late wave of editors for some other name, of course we can change to that.). Bondegezou (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a sensible plan. As I've said, I thought the discussion had been concluded and based my request on that, and the belief this was a simple manual of style error (incidentally a redirect with the endash does exist). Also it would seem pointless to move it back to the original title when the discussion obviously leans towards another titlle. This is Paul (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done (as to the immediate edit request) - as noted above there is a move discussion that needs to conclude first. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Legalised?

The infobox now uses a field labelled "legalised", but this is based on Electoral Commission registration, arguably not the same thing. We're discussing this at Talk:Brexit_Party#Legalised?. Please come and input your views! Bondegezou (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The field should be "registered", but unfortunately there isn't (currently) a |registered= field for political party infoboxes. I think it's important to separate a formal registration date for a political party from its actual foundation. (TIG was founded as essentially a parliamentary group of course, but historically many political parties were formed as parliamentary groups or parties.)--Autospark (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Racism

It seems perfectly reasonable and balanced that this article should have a separate subsection dealing with the racism issues in the party. Given the small size of the party and its brief existence, the quantity of racism allegations have been relatively significant. A fortiori given that the party explicitly established itself as an anti-racist party. Notably, the party has been criticised by a respected, establishment charity, Tell MAMA.

Please read the policy on original research synthesis; the advice at WP:CSECTION may also be relevant.

As far as I can see, none of our sources connects the Smith comments with the various controversies over MEP candidates, so it is original research to combine them in this way.

Each of these occurrences is covered by our sources and is well worthy of mention, but it is a much more appropriate presentation to deal with each in its chronological context. TSP (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

There are sources that connect Smith's comments with the comments of mep candidates. Here's one example Change UK candidate resigns over ‘Romanian pickpockets’ comments hours after campaign launch. There are others that I can also cite. So the policy on original research synthesis doesnt apply.

I've already detailed why the issues around these comments on race require their own section. Are you able to respond to the specific points I have made and give counter-arguments? (it's worth noting, both Labour and the Conservatives have separate headings on their own racist controversies, and justifiably so).

Thanks, Samir Dathi, for coming to Talk and explaining your reasoning. That one citation from The Independent is useful, but I wouldn't make too much of it in isolation. Can you provide further examples of sources linking these various items? Bondegezou (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Here are a few more from major publications:

The Natonal Change UK drop second EU election candidate in just 24 hours after racism row.

Huffington Post Second Change UK Candidate Steps Down In 24 Hours After Racist And Sexist Tweets Resurface

Evening Standard Second Change UK candidate resigns in 24 hours over offensive tweets

PR Week Flop of the Month: Change UK stutters ahead of Euro elections

Politics Home Blow for Change UK as candidate forced to quit over 'Romanian pickpockets' remark

Daily Mail Ex-Tory standing for the new pro-EU party forced to quit as candidate

London Economic https://www.thelondoneconomic. com/news/all-change-for-change-as-ali-sadjady-steps-down/24/04/ All change for Change as Ali Sadjady steps down

( Note: When manually archiving this page, it wouldn't let me save it due to the link to thelondoneconomic - so I've edited the above link to put the space in so it could be archived. Seagull123 Φ 18:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

There are plenty more. It's fair to say that virtually every publication that covered the mep racism controversy related it to Angela smith's 'funny tinge' comment. Bondegezou

OK, I'm persuaded. I think we have to handle such a section carefully, with respect to WP:BALANCE, but I support bringing these several issues together in one section. Samir Dathi (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm still concerned per WP:CSECTION. In the Labour and Conservative articles, the antisemitism and Islamophobia sections are bringing together, in a subsection, content which would otherwise all be within the same section. This is bringing together, pulled from its surrounding context, content that would otherwise be in separate sections of the article. I'm not convinced that's a more balanced presentation than leaving it in context with the events surrounding it.

Additionally, not all the criticism relates to racism - both Russo and Sadjady were also accused of misogyny, for example. Should those accusations go elsewhere in the article? Or should this section be expanded to include all criticism? Neither seems good. TSP (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, now you've persuaded me of the problems, particularly with respect to WP:CSECTION! I am thus undecided. Could we leave material in two places (Angela Smith early on, candidate problems later on), but note a link in the text? Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

TSP I don't follow the distinction you draw between the section on racism in the Labour and Conservative articles on the one hand, and Change UK on the other. There is no reason, in the case of Change Uk, that the Angela Smith comment should naturally belong in a different section to the other comments. Indeed the articles I've cited demonstrate why they probably belong in the same section.

Either way, I'm happy to adopt the compromise of Bondegezou to leave the material in two places but note a link in the text.

Re the accusations of misogyny etc, I'm happy to remove them from any section on racism.Samir Dathi (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

My point was that the Labour Party (UK) article has a history section "Opposition: Corbyn, 2015–present"; then a subsection of that that deals with antisemitism allegations during that period. Similarly, Conservative Party (UK) has a history section "Theresa May (2016–present)", and a subsection of that dealing with the Islamophobia allegations during that period. My concern was that your proposal, by contrast, would bring together in one section racism allegations made at the time of the group's foundation, with others made at the time of the European elections; which are different sections of the history. (As this is a much newer party, the history sections are much shorter in timesale.)

I think noting in the text that the two were linked by media sources is probably the best solution. TSP (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Controversies: homophobic candidate Jacek Rostowski

Jacek Rostowski, one of the candidates for Change UK declared his hostility towards LGBT people (comments suggesting that the situation in which LGBT people are imprisoned is good and equality is somehow worse) and sabotaged same-sex unions in Poland.--86.166.156.45 (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

But do we have citations discussing this as an issue with his candidacy today? Bondegezou (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Former Polish FinMin called out in UK over ‘homophobia’ comments - PolandIn/Telewizja Polska. Change UK candidate Jan Rostowski backs down on anti-gay comments - Pink News TSP (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Notable that he's now backed down. This could be added to the candidate section. Bondegezou (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Did he back down from his views in the UK or Poland or both? Does he support same-sex marriage recognition in Poland? Or is it only in the UK where marriage equality is a reality already and homophobia is more unacceptable than in Poland, so his views would be challenged more and his career would be finished? What steps has he taken, if any, to counter his extreme homophobic views (implying that imprisonment of us, gay people is good)? Did he donate a huge sum to LGBT charities? Is he going to participate in pride events in Poland to to some extent clean the fallout of homophobia he perpetrated? Forgive me if I am sceptical about this around-election-time-change-of-heart, but this looks like classic opportunism. It is possible that he might not even homophobic and in Poland he was trying to fit in by scoring political points by demeaning LGBT people, but the history of damage he has done to the LGBT community is great and he said horrible things that we can't undo. We can only mitigate. It is quite telling that the CUK party embraced this individual. Either way, this needs to be in the controversies. If he is an actual Jew, he should know that kicking a minority has a human cost, and it costs lives. It shows poor judgement at the very least.--86.166.156.45 (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Political position

At present, Chnage UK - TIG's poltiical position is 'centre'. Is this correct as is it rather extremist, not centrist, to demand to overthrow a popular vote? Discuss. I may be wrong.

What we write on Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say. Any discussion here should be based on examining what reliable sources say. The personal interpretations of editors is not allowed: see WP:SYNTH. Bondegezou (talk) 09:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This BBC piece calls the party "broadly social democratic". Bondegezou (talk) 07:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Change UK logo BANNED from ballot slips

The Electoral Commission ruled Change UK would have to enter the elections without a logo because the one it submitted — a black square with the initials “TIG” and the hashtag “#change” — was not sufficiently recognisable and could mislead voters. Petition website change.org also expressed disapproval of the name.

This has been covered by the article (at Change_UK#Registration_as_political_party) for some time. Are you suggesting any revision to that text? Bondegezou (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Popularity

We're getting quite a few opinion polls on the new party now and I was wondering whether we should write about it. I don't see that many articles on the subject so it might require us to write at length using raw data rather than paraphrasing secondary sources. Anyone? Muthalganesan (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't write at length about raw data in the absence of secondary sources. Either we need to find some articles talking about the party's polling - and I think there have been some - or we don't mention it. Bondegezou (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

There have been good write-ups about their low polling ratings in the New Statesman, Guardian and Independent. The New Statesman is behind a paywall however. Maswimelleu (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Constitution

I haven't been involved in this page, but just to let you know, under a freedom of information request to the electoral commission, Change UK's official constitution has been released to the public and can be found here:

[4]

Included in it are the party's core beliefs and principles. Just thought you might find it useful Jopal22 (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, even though the resignations relating to the formation of the party occurred on 18 February 2019, the party was legally created on 16 January 2019 by Gavin Shuker THE INDEPENDENT GROUP (TIG) LTD - Overview (free company information from Companies House) Jopal22 (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Is the "party" legally the same as the registered company that preceded its registration? I thought he registered that company so that he could solicit donations to the Independent Group in advance of them actually starting a new political party. Using the more conventional date of 18 February is probably best even if we note the existence of the company elsewhere. In time, we may know more about the discussions that led to the creation of TIG in the months before it was announced. Maswimelleu (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, we give the SDP as forming on 2 March 1981, the date the party proper was formed, and I think this is consistent with how historians generally discuss it. The "Council for Social Democracy" had formed a few weeks earlier, in late January. This seems pretty analogous to the TIG/Change UK situation - the group coalesced in advance, but formally became a party on a given day, and it's that day we acknowledge. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• TIG Change logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Abbreviation

Some say CHUK, some stick with TIG. Some say CUK, though we're being disingenuous if we don't recognise this is done primarily by those smirking at it being a homonym to a derogatory word. Is it that important that this page lists an abbreviation at all? Change UK isn't like UKIP or the DUP, it is not primarily known by its initials. Labour Party (UK) doesn't use up lead or infobox space to tell the reader it is abbreviated to LAB, nor does Conservative Party (UK) do the same for CON. I'm going to remove the abbreviation from the lead and infobox. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Split

Has the split and the departure of 6 of them actually been confirmed yet? Are we being too hasty with edits? Bondegezou (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

BBC News are reporting it, I've cited their report in the article. Domeditrix (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Pending Changes protection

@Dlohcierekim: I'm not convinced that pending changes protection is a good fit for this article.

Wikipedia:Pending changes say it is "Intended for infrequently edited articles that are experiencing high levels of such troublesome edits from new or unregistered users"; and "Pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate".

This is an article relating to current events, with a lot of active editors, which fairly often needs to be changed to reflect changes in the situation.

I find it quite annoying that a lot of the time edits are backed up behind unapproved revisions; and even as quite an experienced editor, I find pending changes confusing - I'm not sure if I should revert them if they are bad, or if it's better to wait for a reviewer to reject them?

I'd suggest this protection level is a bad fit for this article, and should be removed. Any other opinions? TSP (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I see your point, TSP but this is a fringe party that is in today's news and will be forgotten again by the end of this week. I've been trying to do the pending changes while the story has been breaking and, while it isn't easy, it's a storm that will soon pass. I would keep the article in PCR. The next "big story" will of course be when Anna Soubry accepts Vince Cable's invitation and joins the Lib Dems. Ha! No Great Shaker (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I think "fringe" is going a bit far - this morning it was the joint fourth-largest party in the UK Parliament, it's now the seventh-largest (sixth in terms of seats actually taken). I just think it clearly doesn't fit what this type of protection is intended for - it has an average of 25 edits a day, which I don't think is by any stretch "infrequently edited" - and this sort of protection is quite annoying for the large number of experienced editors without the reviewer permission. TSP (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with TSP. This isn't the right protection level for now. Bondegezou (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Also agreed, and it has to be said that none of the edits so far has been controversial. Emeraude (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

If it is agreed that all the pending edits are constructive, then good. Please request at WP:RFPP is protection is desired. I will unprotect.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Founders?

I removed the list of the seven founding MPs from the infobox, for a few related reasons:

• it's quite a long list, at the top of the infobox (actually taking up more space than a full list of the party's MPs would)
• several of them are no longer in the party, so it seems odd to give them more prominence than the party's actual MPs
• their importance compared to the other MPs who joined one or two days later also seems a little hazy several months on
• it could at least be argued that they aren't actually the founders of Change UK, as it had 11 members by the time it became Change UK and an official party
• other parties don't have this (e.g. Labour Party (UK) has no mention of Keir Hardie in its infobox)

JLo-Watson reverted simply with the edit comment "believe the founders should remain".

Per WP:BRD: Any opinions? TSP (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you. I don't think a list of founders is needed and the importance of the first 7 over the subsequent 4 is minimal. A list of "founders" can be given elsewhere in the article. Maswimelleu (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. See no reason for founders to be listed, nor for former members to be listed. Domeditrix (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I see the point about Keir Hardie with Labour. Therefore, agreed. JLo-Watson (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Yet another name change?

According to The Financial Times, The New Statesman and The Guardian (and probably others), the group is now calling itself Continuity Change UK. I'm not sure where best to place this in the article: given the number of name changes so far, are we reaching the point where this needs to be reflected in a discrete paragraph or table? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

This isn't an actual name for the party, just a designation to distinguish the two groups of the split. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't read the FT article as I'm not a subscriber - I think the New Statesman article is using it as a description (note lower-case c); and James Felton is primarily a comedian not a journalist so possibly not the most reliable source. Can someone quote the FT use of the term? That may be the best source for whether this is worth mentioning - I don't think it's an official new name, but it's possibly worth a mention in the paragraph about the split as a term some commentators have used. TSP (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

That is my understanding too: it's a description to differentiate those continuing in Change UK from those who have left.

The bigger question is what those who left are called. Are they going to recycle the "Independent Group"??? Bondegezou (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, the FT articles does say, "The remaining five MPs will continue as Continuity Change UK led by Anna Soubry, the former Conservative minister." This implies it is an official name. Er... maybe we wait for some more references? Bondegezou (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The Commons' webpage has updated their seat total but hasn't changed their name, and there's been no change in the name used in the group's web presence. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 07:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I would be very inclined to assume the capital-C is an anomaly and they didn't mean to imply that's an official name. "Continuity" is a bit loaded and it would be a weirdly perjorative thing for them to call themselves. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Change UK Logo 2.png (discussion)
• The Independent Group Logo.png (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Members of the European Parliament

I've changed the infobox to reflect the current number of MEPs, which is none. I know Ashworth represented the party before the European elections, but he wasn't re-elected. Other political party articles tend to reflect the current status of the number of seats they hold so this one shouldn't be different. This is Paul (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

But it's zero. Its absence communicates that as well as its presence, and just makes the infobox a bit bigger. Ralbegen (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I should've just removed it I guess. This is Paul (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

(I'm really sorry for being blunt! I didn't check your edit and assumed that you had restored the infobox parameter after someone else had removed it rather than just updating it.) Ralbegen (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries. This is Paul (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Legally, the term of the 8th parliament ends on 1 July, so the outgoing MEPs are still technically in office until then. However, that parliament's legislative work ended on 18 April, so if all other party pages have changed over to the incoming MEP figures it makes sense to do so here too. TSP (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Others have been updated. For example. the Brexit Party article is already showing its 29 MEPs, even though officially they don't start their terms of office till 1 July. This is Paul (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yet another new name (actually this time)

Change UK has applied to the Electoral Commission to change its name again. Due to threats of legal action from Change.org, they have applied to reregister as "The Independent Group for Change".

Only on Twitter at the moment (but from reputable journalists) - we probably want a better source (although they seem to do most of their work on Twitter), then will need to decide whether to move the page *again*.... TSP (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Wait until the electoral commission confirms the name change before moving this page. The Electoral Commission has in the past been reluctant to approve party names with "Independent" in the name because of the inherent contradiction. Maswimelleu (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I think those sources are good enough to update the actual article now, but I concur no rush to move the page.. who knows what they will call themselves next week (or how long the media will continue to call them Change UK... The Land (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed: cite those sources and discuss, but don't move article yet. Bondegezou (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's only change it when the EC accepts the name change doktorb _words^deeds 17:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The article should only be moved to the common name, not the official name. RS usage is more important than EC registration, surely? Ralbegen (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense: Conservative and Unionist Party redirects to Conservative Party (UK) ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It would be instructive to see if "Change UK" remains a registered descriptor of the party for ballot papers (the Tories have "Conservatives" and "The Conservative party candidate" as registered descriptors View registration - The Electoral Commission. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The change.org UK lawsuit suggests they will be pushed to drop "Change UK" entirely. As of now, I don't see any of their online branding reflecting the new name so we would be best off waiting until that happens. Maswimelleu (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The latest YouGov poll uses the abbreviation TIG or TIGFC rather than CHUK or CUK and BBC is already using the new name. It appears that the old name is already falling out of use in the media. Change UK Election Maps UK (@ElectionMapsUK) on Twitter Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Its being used on the assumption that the name change will be accepted - the acronyms ought to be updated only when this has happened. Maswimelleu (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• @TSP: Are you suggesting another move request ? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Wait until they get the registration sorted out first. This party goes through so many names and abbreviations that it will take time for anything to be settled and stick.
  Much of this party's problems with the name stem from a cart before the horse approach, announcing their party before going to the Electoral Commission (they even made a big song & dance of their visit) and having the humiliation of repeatedly having aspects of their branding rejected for registraion. In particular the Electoral Commission are very cautious about registering party names with "Independent" and not much else in them. At the moment there is no current application notice listed on the EC website View current applications so it's far from certain what they're actually going to be. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Leader of Change UK

This is an unnecessary split for an article about a party which has only existed for a few months. LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support by WP:MERGEREASONs 2 and 3. There is a substantial overlap between the subjects, and there's not that much you can write about the office. Ralbegen (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:OVERLAP. I saw this article earlier on and wondered about the logic of it. The party's only been around for five minutes, and there's not really enough information for a spin-off article. This is Paul (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support No need for a spin-off or fork at this stage in ChUKs existence, however long it may feel they've been around. doktorb _words^deeds 03:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Bondegezou (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support; see Ralbegen's response why. JDuggan101 ^{talk. | Cont.} 10:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support for exactly the same reasons given above. There doesn't seem to be any reason for a separate article. Maswimelleu (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Consensus is clear. I can't really see any content that isn't already in the main article. Shall we just redirect? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Since it's not supported by any references, I would say no. Just redirect. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Chuka leadership

Chuka Umunna proceeds Allen as leader, from his appointment as spokesman until Allen's appointment as interim interim leader. 2A00:23C4:F604:6601:4193:1097:7C2F:F74D (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Support JLo-Watson (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Chukka was not refered to as the leader by the party, and media coverage explicitly stated that there was no leader. It is accurate only to say the leadership was vacant, and that the vacancy had not been filled. Domeditrix (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Change title to: The Independent group for change.

After a lawsuit with change.org, the party has been forced into changing its name from change UK to The Independent Group For Change. Please make a change — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnculturedOzBoz (talk • contribs) 17:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a citation? I couldn't find anything. Media still referring to them as "Change UK". Bondegezou (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

There's this article from The Grauniad that discusses its application to the Electoral Commission, but there's nothing to say whether the Commission have given them the green light to do it. This is Paul (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Not gone through yet, so don't change it. Maswimelleu (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• This name change is now official with the electoral commission and the party are referring to themselves by the new name. Time to change the article name. --LukeSurl ^{t c}

I still don't see any citation for this...? Bondegezou (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

View registration - The Electoral Commission The EC authorised it yesterday. I guess this means Operation Make Change Change Again is go? :-) FLYING CHRYSALIS ^💬 18:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The BBC is using The Independent Group for Change's full moniker here Headhitter (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I think there has been a shift and it is appropriate to change to Independent Group for Change. Bondegezou (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:The Independent Group for Change/meta/shortname

I have redirected from Template:Change UK and Template:Change UK/meta/color to the now-authorised The Independent Group for Change. Thought I'd better open discussion on a short name though, as it's not yet established. Brainstorm:

• Change UK (the status quo - the "UK" may be gone but people will still call it that)
• TIG (and that, the one bit that hasn't changed, but it leaves out their Twitter handle)
• TIG for Change (About 7 results on Google)
• TIGFC (Election Maps UK on Twitter is using it as are respondents - [https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1142551992532971521 Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 26% (-7) CON: 24% (-4) BXP: 20% (+8) LDM: 18% (+5) GRN: 6% (+3) TIGFC: 1% (-1) UKIP: 1% (-2)

Via @Survation, 19-20 Jun Changes w/ 22 May.])

• TIGfC (follows capitalisation)

Thoughts? – FLYING CHRYSALIS ^💬 20:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• None. This isn't a required parameter. Leave it blank until a short name becomes established (if ever). --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Shortname is a parameter used in election results boxes, and although they did terribly, they did stand in the European elections so we'll need to choose something. I think Change UK should be used for now, as it's the most commonly used name. I shudder before such alphabet soup as 'TIGfC'. doktorb _words^deeds 01:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• I guess "Change UK" then, as this was their name in the only election they have stood in. If they do stand for any other elections under a different name (not certain) we can revisit this. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 7 July 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus at this time. There is no consensus to move the page from its current name at the time. About half of commentors are not convinced that the new official name has not sufficiently replaced Change UK as the common title by which the party is called, and this it sufficient to prevent a move for now. However it has been noted that this situation may change over the course of days/weeks/months. As such this closure should not preclude any new requests to move — even within days of this closure — if an editor wishes to contend that "The Independent Group for Change" has become more common since the early/mid July timeframe of this discussion.

In theory, we could keep a continual move discussion up, but that would spoil the article a banner for an indefinite period of time, and it will be difficult to assess the relevance of comments of opposition from 7th or 8th of July several weeks later. A fresh move discussion if/when appropriate will be more profitable. (non-admin closure)

I am aware I am not an uninvolved editor, so my (non-admin closure) is technically out of order (WP:BOLD, WP:IAR), however I am closing this contrary to my !vote and I believe the lack of consensus is clear. LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Change UK → The Independent Group for Change – Per its name change which is cited on the page. Helper201 (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Is it clear yet that this is the new common name? Most of the sources that have used the name are in the context of reporting the name change. There are still a lot of reliable sources using Change UK, even in the last few days. I think that it's too soon to think about changing the name to follow the official name. That said, we should think about moving this article if and when reliable sources change the way they refer to the group in general. Ralbegen (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. As far as I know, Change UK is more common. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. This is both the official name and the name by which they refer to themselves. They don't seem to contest elections and barely any media is written about them anymore, so I think searching for any common name beyond this may be fruitless. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for a short while Let's wait just a little bit to see what common name emerges. LukeSurl is being a little too pessimistic, I think: there is still media coverage of them and it won't take long for a new common name to be apparent. Bondegezou (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Articles since this move request began: I found three this morning, [5], [6] and [7], and they all say Change UK. This suggests (a) there's no need to move the article quite yet; and (b) there's enough media coverage to demonstrate a new common name if, as and when one emerges. Bondegezou (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support: This is the group's official name and on that count it makes sense to use it, rather than a former name. As for the argument about what is the common name, it should be noted that we title our article "UK Independence Party", not "UKIP", and the "British National Party", not "BNP", so there is certainly precedent for using the official name over that which is more commonly used. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

"British National Party" over "BNP" is about WP:ATDAB and WP:PRECISE, which wouldn't apply in this case. "UK Independence Party" is a commonly used name, along side "UKIP", and WP:COMMONNAME allows one to pick between common names. Bondegezou (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Still mostly calling itself Change UK even on its own website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Necrothesp: Their website seems to exclusively use "The Independent Group for Change". --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• That's the title, but if you look through the pages you'll see that even now they most commonly refer to themselves as Change UK. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• With the exception of some news posts which are pre-5 July I genuinely can't see anything other than "The Independent Group for Change" anywhere on the site.--LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

There's old stuff referring to "Change UK". There's new stuff that says "The Independent Group for Change". In one new post, that's abbreviated to "The Independent Group", which takes us back to their earlier name. I concur that I'm not seeing any new stuff saying "Change UK". I think this is one of those situations where there's no rush. "The Independent Group for Change" or "The Independent Group (TIG)" will probably emerge as the new common name, although in the fevered climate of current UK politics, they may well have split, re-united with The Independents, re-split and had another sixteen name changes by the time this discussion has concluded. Bondegezou (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

And that's not even counting the possibility of them all flocking into the Lib Dems! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. At least for now, I'm inclined to suggest that until this is generally taken up in the media we should keep the title as-is. I'd suggest adding a redirect at the new title to the main article...but per some of the comments I'm inclined to take a slight wait-and-see to make sure the new name even sticks. The question of "What is the proper name for that odd group of MPs" has become a bit of a joke.75.98.19.134 (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Keeping it as Change UK reinforces the confusion between the new party and the existing Change.org, which the name change seeks to avoid. Headhitter (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Headhitter: Wikipedia editors are supposed to follow the sources; not deviate from what they say to follow an agenda that "seeks to avoid" anything. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose while there no convincing evidence that the current name isn't the common name. See WP:Official names which states about official name: they should always be considered as possibilities, but should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Change UK is not the name they started with and it's not the one they're currently using. 'Obviously' there needs to be a redirect from Change UK as it's one they used for one election. Lovingboth (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I looked at recent (post-5 Jul) news coverage. I searched for "Soubry" rather than a particular party name. Politics Home went for Independent Group for Change, while The Spectator capitalised the "The" to give The Independent Group for Change. However, the Evening Standard and The Sun are still using Change UK. The Mirror oddly just refers to Soubry as "Independent". Given The Sun is not RS, that's 2:1 for the Independent Group for Change. I plead WP:NORUSH and continue to support Change UK for now. Bondegezou (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2019 (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.

Common name: Change UK vs The Independent Group for Change

The aim of this post is to ascertain which name is being used more frequently, and whether the new official name is seeing regular use.

Add to this list any uses of Change UK:

• The Independent (16 July) mentions other name
• The Sun (19 July) does not mention other name
• London Evening Standard (19 July) does not mention other name
• Manchester Evening News (19 July) does not mention other name
• ITV News (22 July) does not mention other name
• The Express (22 July) mentions other name
• Talkradio (22 July) does not mention other name
• LBC (23 July) does not mention other name
• LabourList (27 July) does not mention other name
• The Metro (27 August) mentions other name Domeditrix (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Domeditrix (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Add to this list any uses of The Independent Group for Change:

• BBC News (19 July, 28 October, 29 October) does not mention other name
• The Telegraph (21 July) mentions other name
• Sky News (22 July) does not mention other name
• Huffington Post (27 August) mentions other name
• Press Association (1 September) does not mention other name
• Evening Standard (29 October) does not mention other name

Domeditrix (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC) Domeditrix (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

This is pointless. We can wait for the group to get an official name and logo properly registered. It does rather seem like original research. Emeraude (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

"The Independent Group for Change" is the official name and is used on the party's logos (see article). However "Change UK" still seems to be used to describe the party quite a lot. It is necessary for us editors to assess which name to use when titling this article. The move discussion in the section above is very relevant here. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

This isn't original research, it's the bare minimum in terms of evaluation of sources to determine whether the new official name is commonly in use. As previously mentioned by user:LukeSurl (and as discussed in the section immediately above this one), the turning point isn't whether a new name has officially been adopted, but whether that name is the common title. How would it be possible to determine what the common title is if looking at recent articles mentioning the party is deemed off limits? Domeditrix (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Note this BBC report using "TIGfC". Bondegezou (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

References

"Remain Alliance" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Remain Alliance. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 13 November 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Change UK → The Independent Group for Change – They'll be using this name in the election, according to the BBC. Unreal7 (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:COMMONNAME and the name it uses now. C. 22468 Talk to me 21:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The common name is still Change UK: Metro, Sky, New Statesman, the i, Huffington Post, Evening Standard... There are RSes that use Independent Group for Change, with a lot of sources using both. Ralbegen (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, but you've used NS link twice. Unreal7 (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Unreal7: Whoops, sorry. This is the Sky link I was aiming for. Ralbegen (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2019 (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.