Talk:Endorsements in the 2024 United Kingdom general election

WP:ENDORSE

Can I remind editors that we have to follow WP:ENDORSE? Endorsements have to be clear endorsements and have to be covered by a reliable secondary source. Endorsements people make on social media are not, in themselves, eligible. Bondegezou (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Endorsements from notable organisations have looser requirements—I'm minded to include things like the WPB endorsements on those grounds. I'll try putting them in but happy to be reverted and talk about it! Ralbegen (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

You're right, they do. Sure, happy to follow WP:ENDORSE on that. Bondegezou (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Realnoahsimpson: Hi—I'm not going to get into an edit war. There is consensus on Wikipedia, documented at WP:ENDORSE, that we should only include certain endorsements. These are endorsements from notable organisations, or endorsements from notable people that are clearly documented by secondary reliable sources. We can tell if a person or organisation is notable by whether they have a Wikipedia article. For people, we need to see a reliable secondary source, like a quality newspaper, book or academic paper. This isn't totalitarianism, it's an agreement reached by an open discussion amongst editors with different views so that we can approach inclusion consistently. Ralbegen (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I have been a constant contributor but I will never do so again Realnoahsimpson (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Party membership

Hi Bondegezou—you've removed Lynne Jones as a party member endorsing her own party. I think representatives and officials of a party would be not worth including but people who are otherwise notable and incidentally party members have been included before (like Owen Jones for Labour in the last three elections or Ken Loach in 2017). I think it makes sense to include incidental party members based on WP:ENDORSE criteria while continuing to exclude e.g. Mark Pack endorsing a Lib Dem candidate or Ann Black endorsing Labour. Ralbegen (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, I can see the logic of that. Bondegezou (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Split by nation

I keep wondering whether it would be more sensible to split the constituency endorsements by the 4 nations, England (then subdivided alphabetically), Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Good idea! Ralbegen (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone's split the seats by nation and region. I find that confusing. I'd split by nation, and then maybe subdivide England by region. But looking for Scotland between North West England and South East England feels bizarre! Bondegezou (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

That was me—just thought it might make more sense than splitting England into 20 or so sections. There's also the balance between levels of subheading and a navigable contents page: if England has an extra sub-level, then the contents will either miss it or will include constituency names for the other nations. Very happy to try alternatives, though—maybe just moving the non-England nations to the top or the bottom? Ralbegen (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Is having constituency names as headers the best approach? Would a different sort of list or table help here? Bondegezou (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is newspapers section formatted differently?

I de-tabulated the newspapers section and set it out as party separated bulleted lists, the same as every other section. An unregistered user has reverted that, without the courtesy of any explanation. Is there any reason why that one subsection should be differently formattted from the rest? Kevin McE (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It was because it was done like that in the past with all the different newspapers & magazines. Please remember the UK is notably has a very partisan newspaper market. I personally much clearer then have it bulleted. 159753 (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It was like that in the past is not really a reason. I am perfectly aware that the media is partisan, but the whole point of a list of those who have endorsed a party or candidate is to point out that individuals and organisations are also partisan. You do not explain why you prefer listing of organisations and individuals to be, by your perception, less clear. So meaningful explanation for media to be treated differently is still lacking. Kevin McE (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Jon Richardson

Quick question, would the comedian Jon Richardson be a legitimate endorsement for Labour as he was in the party's election broadcast? 159753 (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:ENDORSE, for individuals we need a secondary reliable source (like a newspaper) saying unambiguously that they have endorsed (or backed, or supported) a party. Ralbegen (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

what is the recommendation for if someone says there are voting for a specific party, would that count? Encyloedit (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

As above, you need a secondary source describing it. Bondegezou (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Levels of headings

There is no visual difference between the headings made with 4 equal signs either side and that made with 5. Thus the headings for parties, and those for categories of person among the Labour endorsements, are essentially identical. I acknowledge that the table of contents reflects a hierarchy, but this has no value if the list does not. At present, Reform UK looks like a subdivision of Labour supporters, or Labour looks as though it has no endorements, while businesspeople have 22. I suspect the only real remedy is to have a 2 column list, without subdivisions, for Labour (and any other party that might get enough mentions to justify it). Kevin McE (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)