Talk:Independence from Europe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Party Colour[edit]

I am concerned about the choice of colour applied to this new party in election/candidate boxes. See example below (taken from London (European Parliament constituency). The colour is identical, if not nigh on identical to that of the UK Independence Party, the Party from which it split. There is currently a legal dispute which remains ongoing. I think it unwise for Wikipedia to use the same/a very similar shade of purple. By all means keep it purple, there are many different shades, for instance the Christian Peoples Alliance have a different shade of purple, perhaps we could pick one somewhere in between the two shades for "An Independence from Europe".

European Election 2014: London
List Candidates Votes % ±
An Independence from Europe Patrick Burns, Marlene Daniel, Gareth Griffiths, Munpreet Bhathal, Sharon Greenfield, Eddie Yeoman, Fred Atkins, Jean Atkins N/A N/A N/A
UKIP Gerard Batten, Paul Oakley, Elizabeth Jones, Lawrence Webb, Alastair McFarlane, Andrew McNeilis, Anthony Brown, Peter Whittle N/A N/A N/A
Turnout N/A N/A N/A

Owl In The House (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm not sure any colour is needed. As far as I know, they haven't declared a colour; certainly their registration with the Electoral Commission only records the logo, which has no purple in it. Emeraude (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a sensible solution to me and yes you make a valid point about registration with the electoral commission. Either white or grey I suggest, what do you suggest? Owl In The House (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Their website is covered in purple banners. Bondegezou (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say their shade of purple on their website is softer than that of UKIP. However, there is nothing illegal about using the same colour as a exiting party for example see NF and BNP, who wear the same colour and style rosettes. Normally party colours are based on the colour of their election rosette rather than website or logo. Truenature12 (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, given the above discussion, I think it is appropriate to keep this party's colour purple but there does seem to be consensus in favour of having a better differentiated colour from UKIP. Of course whatever legal action is going on has nothing to do with Wikipedia but it would be wise to keep out of it, the best way of doing that is by not applying the same colour. I have taken the bold move of making a slight change to the colour so that the naked eye can distinguish between the two colours of the two parties. This seems to be the best solution all around, AIP gets to keep the colour purple, there's no confusion with UKIP colours and Wikipedia therefore maintains neutrality. Owl In The House (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 41 external links on Independence from Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Independence from Europe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 18:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I appreciate that I am already engaged in reviewing another of this editor's nominations but this is also a subject matter that interests me, so I'll handle this review too, unless there are any objections. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, smashing work User:Curlymanjaro. Just a few points. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "for the single-issue Referendum Party" - it might be worth specifying what that single issue was! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Borrowed wording and citation from the Referendum Party page if that's alright, I couldn't have stated its purpose better myself.
  • "He had been elected as UKIP candidate in the 2004 European Parliament election to represent the West Midlands constituency" - I think that this could benefit from a restructuring. Perhaps "As the UKIP candidate, he was elected as a representative for the West Midlands constituency in the 2004 European Parliament election"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • "had in fact registered" - we could probably go without "in fact". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • "who sought re-election in the West Midlands[14] and" - some sort of punctuation break is needed here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done? Added an extra comma.
  • "according to author William T. Daniel" - I don't think that "author" is the best term we could use here. Perhaps "political scientist"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • The fourth paragraph in "History" is a bit too lengthy, I think. Consider breaking it in two? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll do you one better, broke into three.
  • Done.
  • "damage [his] old " - the last male individual discussed in the prose was Farage, rather than Nattrass, so some confusion might ensue from the use of "his" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverted to the original quote by Goodwin, seems to read well.
  • "five constituencies, despite previously indicating it would vie for 10" - "five", then "10". Standardise to words (probably best) or numerical figures. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • "leaving the party with no official political representation." - do we have a citation for this, by any chance? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish we did. Seen as Nattrass is no longer an MEP and all their Councillors departed, it seemed like an appropriate thing to write. Would be so much easier for me if they just folded.
  • "Upon launch in 2013," - Either "Upon its launch" or "Upon launching". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • It is a shame that we have to rely so much on the party's own manifesto for its policies, rather than academic sources, but it does seem that the latter just do not exist. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed it is, I've done my best with it. Frustrating, really...

Thanks so much for picking my nominations up Midnightblueowl, starting with this one, let me know if any of the changes are insufficient. Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, fantastic job Curly. Great to see someone else putting in the time and effort to seriously improve UK political party articles. I think that this article passes all the GA criteria and will be happy to pass this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed Couldn't agree more. Well done. Emeraude (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Independence_from_Europe&oldid=1207707937"