Talk:2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Category:Parties that campaigned for leave/remain during the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Parties that campaigned for leave during the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 and Category:Parties that campaigned for remain during the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, which is related to this category, have been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. If the category gets deleted and a list article is desired, the current articles in each category is listed below:

Thank you. -

Great Britain[edit]

Section 6.1.1 is called Great Britain. It includes Skye, the Shetlands, Anglesey and the Isle of Sheppey. Should it be renamed? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usual convention in a wide variety of contexts is that adjacent islands are included with the mainland for summary purposes. So no, it should not. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"not legally binding"[edit]

The present text states that in the Miller case the UK Supreme Court 'confirmed' that the referendum result was not legally binding. This might be taken to imply that someone had taken the contrary view. So far as I recall, no-one ever has, and it was not a point at issue in Miller. I therefore think the present text is misleading and the statement should be deleted. (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleting unwanted data[edit]

With reference to:

2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum: Revision history - Wikipedia

Earlier this summer [2019], the referendum results table included data regarding *both* "registered voters" and the "voting age population". Why has the reference to the "voting age population" been removed? This detail is relevant to the matter which is addressed by:

Dissatisfaction with parties is a reflection of the political system as a whole

The Hansard Society: Research reveals public disengagement

How many people have visited the bowdlerised version of the page and been denied the opportunity to see important data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With reference to "not legally binding" above[edit]

With reference to:

"not legally binding" [ 19:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)]

I had obtained the impression that the UK Supreme Court had delivered the indicated 'confirmation' because the members of this illustrious pink elephant had the opportunity to participate in the discussions which the governing elite have amongst themselves. Is someone suggesting that the UK Supreme Court delivered their 'confirmation' simply because they were at a loose end and had an urge to remind people that they had arrived among the elite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 27 September 2021[edit]

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: not moved.

As on the previous two occasions, there is a clear consensus against this move, largely on the basis of WP:NCELECT and WP:CONSISTENT. The argument that the WP:CRITERIA "override" WP:NCELECT is misconceived: see WP:PGE and note that the criteria "should be seen as goals not rules". Balancing the criteria is done by consensus, and in this instance 8 out of 12 of participating editors see no sufficient reason to depart from the guidance in WP:NCELECT. (non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendumBrexit referendum – N.B. The two previous RM on this exact question(1; 2). Many of the reasons proposed against moving then ("Brexit is a tabloid and informal term" [i.e. "I don't like it"]; calls to follow a guideline as though it were law, WP:HARMLESS, "Not the official title") have obviously not aged well. The UK government uses the term ([1]). Even Britannica uses "Brexit". Additionally the existing title is clearly in breach of the usual WP:CRITERIA (which, as sitewide policy, obviously override the WP:NCELECT guideline), not only on the aspect or recognisability (WP:COMMONNAME - 5 years after the fact, "Brexit" is without doubt the term most commonly used to refer to all aspects of this), but also on conciseness and naturalness, as it is clear the current title is needlessly verbose. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Strong oppose Clearly not in line with the naming guideline for elections/referendums (WP:NCELECT) and inconsistent with virtually all other election/referendum articles (see e.g. Category:2016 referendums); WP:CONSISTENT is one of the WP:CRITERIA. Number 57 12:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As said, CRITERIA overrides NCELECT, and none of the other election/referendum articles have the issues of this one (which is that there is a far more common, natural and concise name used to refer to it), nor are they as verbose as this one (with the exception of maybe 2016 Dutch Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement referendum, but I don't know whether that one can be improved; unlike this one), so actually making this less verbose would also be consistent with other similar articles (i.e. 2016 Hungarian migrant quota referendum; not 2016 European Union migrant relocation plans Hungarian referendum). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This proposed title has already been rejected twice in previous RMs. Number 57 13:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Since I explicitly mention (and even link) those in the nomination, and give reasons why they're not helpful; the only logical conclusion is then that you haven't even read it and are opposing on principle and not on actual merits. See WP:LASTTIME, anyways. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm absolutely opposing on merits (or lack of), hence setting out above why I consider this to be a bad proposal. If I was opposing on principle I wouldn't have been able to explain why I think this is a terrible idea. Number 57 13:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Which is why, when presented with a rebuttal of your argument, you went for a WP:LASTTIME non-argument? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My personal opinion of Number 57 is that they tend to enforce their personal whims in election articles, and this is very much one of these. Glide08 (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as 2016 United Kingdom Brexit referendum. Brexit has been accepted as an academic term per RandomCanadian, but if there is a need to keep it consistent then there should be a "2016 United Kingdom" part. Glide08 (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I wouldn't be averse to keeping 2016 in the title, as is common for some event pages (e.g. 2021 Hualien train derailment) but "United Kingdom Brexit" seems a tautology. Brexit already includes the term "British" as part of its portmanteau, so there's no other country it could ever refer to.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose per Number 57 and WP:NCELECT. Brexit is actually the RESULT of the referendum, not its purpose or designation. The purpose was to hold a referendum on the UK's continued membership of the EU and so the present title is adequate as a reflection of that purpose. Use of the non-academic term Brexit would be absurd and plain wrong. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Legislative articles should use their formal name as defined in law. Compare formal Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 v common British Calendar Act of 1751 (especially given that there was also a (different) Calendar Act 1751). Precision matters.
Brexit referendum redirects here so if someone is using that shorthand form, they will arrive here. If it actually had been a constitutional referendum, it would have included the terms of disengagement rather than the "it'll be all right on the night" hand-waving that we actually got.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - as we have the 1975 United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum article. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - hang about, why so much opposition? This is fairly clearly the WP:COMMONNAME for this, and is much more WP:CONCISE than the current title, so wins out on article titling policy grounds. I don't see anything in the opposition above based in our naming policy, other than perhaps the consistency with 1975, but given there's only two articles in the set, and the other one happens not to have a concise commonly used title, there's no strong basis in that either. I suggest much of the above can be ignored, unless there's a policy argument I've missed.  — Amakuru (talk)
The set is much larger than two articles:
Number 57 15:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as this is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME. Additionally it is WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE; 'Brexit' is in the OED and in there is a note under its definition saying: "Sometimes used specifically with reference to the referendum held in the UK on 23 June 2016, in which a majority of voters favoured withdrawal from the EU". -- DeFacto (talk). 15:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You realise that's evidence against, right? That's clearly not saying that the referendum is commonly referred to as "the Brexit referendum". Just that the term Brexit, which is defined primarily by the actual act of withdrawal, is sometimes broadened to include the referendum.ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it shows that the two are used in the same context and are recognised that way, as is evidenced by the shear quantity of hits for "Brexit referendum". One six-letter word could replace, quite literally, "2016 United Kingdom European Union membership". -- DeFacto (talk). 17:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Imprecise. I'm not even convinced it's the WP:COMMONNAME either. Seems to be A LOT more search results for "EU referendum".ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But that includes a whole bunch of "EU referendum"s for each of the countries that had a referendum (see Number 57's list above) - "Brexit referendum" is unique and specific to the UK one of 2016. There are more than ten times as many "Brexit referendum"s as "UK EU referendum"s in a simple search. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The UK referendum is by far the dominant event referred to in results of "EU referendum". This is not surprising, there is relatively less comment on events in non-English speaking countries. You cannot use the excuse that some uses of "eu referendum" refer to other referendums to chuck out the vast majority that do. By using the three keyword exact search "UK EU referendum"s over a two keyword exact search "Brexit referendum" you are deliberately removing the vast majority of usage.ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – the naming convention at WP:NCELECT is easy to follow and advantageous, and I'm firmly against breaking it for an individual case. By nature referendums are technical – I prefer accuracy to brevity, as can be be seen in all the above examples (including the 1975 UK one). The "United Kingdom European Union membership referendum" was what it was, whereas "Brexit" is a convenient colloquialism that can mean different things to different people. The referendum was on the UK's membership of the EU, not on any particular definition of "Brexit". While it's perfectly fine for a journalistic source to refer to it as the Brexit referendum (or another Wiki article, where the context makes the subject clear), I don't think it's a good title for an encyclopedic article. This is why I don't think the current title is "needlessly verbose".
Secondly, responding to the inference made in the proposal that "Brexit referendum" would be easier to understand (because of its "conciseness and naturalness"), the lead sentence explains immediately that it's also referred to as the "EU referendum" and "Brexit referendum", so I don't see any need to make things clearer. Jr8825Talk 16:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.