Template talk:United Kingdom in the European Union

Brexit: The Movie

@Okev1: I believe this should be included with the Leave campaigns. It was a significant component of the campaign and got a lot of news coverage. Similar to Bpoplive. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 19:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Now that there is a more appropriate section, I've re-added this link there, along with its cousin article, The European Union: In or Out. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 08:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Splitting Withdrawal Section

The withdrawal section is getting quite large and clunky and I can only see it expanding as time progresses. Perhaps now is the time to split into two sections e.g. 2016 Referendum (containing build-up to, campaigns in and direct aftermath of the referendum) and Withdrawal (containing Article 50 and its activation, negotiations, new government departments and any effects of Brexit itself). Legendiii 18:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legendiii (talk • contribs)

Creation of "Calls for a second vote" section

I've created the "Calls for a second vote" section due to the following rationale:

• to continue the process of reducing the size of the "withdrawl" section;
• to reflect the launch of the People's Vote campaign calling for a vote on the final deal, the campaign brings together several groups opposed to Brexit (to have it in the "withdrawl" section is therefore inaccurate);
• to better reflect the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill through Parliament;
• to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, it is not Wikipedia's job to state that Brexit is a fait accompli, it is one of two possible outcomes.

--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be "another vote" instead of "second vote"? As lots of people point out, the first vote was in the 1970s. EddieHugh (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if there is an issue with the structure: Adhesion, membership and withdrawal are quite large topics, while Another referendum would only be a small act in this withdrawal episode, anyway.

I assume that it would provide more clarity to say in a first half there was adhesion and membership as part of frozen history, and in the second half the withdrawal logic (in it broader meaning including withdrawal itself and the new model) with its ongoing subtopics: 2016 referendum including its campaign, article 50, disagreement and opposition (if any) including the additional expected referendum, the withdrawal negotiation, the future relationship negotiation, the transition period and once started, the future relationship itself.

I also wonder if there is no something wrong with the title: United Kingdom in the European Union. While I agree that United Kingdom was in the European Union, and that currently it still is within it for few time, this few time is only about 307 days (less than 40 weeks) which means we are closer from an United Kingdom partly or totally out of the European Union than from the article 50 date. For this reason, I would like to suggest to change the title to the United Kingdom and the European Union, or might be better, the European Union and the United Kingdom even if it is also possible to have two templates, the other one could be History of United Kingdom in the EU, the other part could also be something such as the European Union and the United Kingdom: the new model or the European Union and the United Kingdom: the new framework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.51 (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The referendum in 1975 was to join the European Community (Common Market). There has only been one vote on whether the UK stay in the European Union. There are reports today (27 May 2018) that £829,000 has been set aside to pay for the electoral watchdog's “activities relating to a European Parliamentary election in 2019”. Even if the UK come out then there will still be a transition period of probably around 2 years, that's on top of the 40 weeks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The 2nd/another vote (unlikely as it is) would almost certainly be on accepting the terms of the ongoing negotiations, rather than being a repeat of the last one, so would be different in nature, just as the 1975 one was. The template (entitled "United Kingdom in the European Union") includes the 1975 referendum, so it's not only about the period following the creation of the EU. The template already has "Post-referendum organisations"; People's Vote could be in that. Splitting off one minor (currently, at least) aspect – calls for 2nd/another vote – draws attention to it, the very opposite of NPOV and UNDUE, and thus looks like agenda-pushing.

I agree that the United Kingdom and the European Union makes more sense: it covers what the template covers (before, during and leaves space for the probable after). EddieHugh (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

And... I see that some of the links in the Calls section are just redirects to People's Vote. This makes it look even more like agenda-pushing. EddieHugh (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Anyone who feels passionately that the template should be called "United Kingdom and the European Union" go ahead.
• Anyone who feels passionately that the section "Calls for second vote" should be called "Calls for another vote" go ahead.
• Anyone who wants to create articles for the following: For our Future’s Sake (FFS) / Healthier IN / InFacts / Our Future Our Choice (OFOC) / Scientists for EU ...go ahead.
• There are nine groups who have agreed to come together under one umbrella in Millbank, People's Vote, details here. That's why the 5 named currently redirect to People's Vote.
• The template also contains People's Pledge / Labour for a Referendum / Vote Leave / Business for Britain / Conservatives for Britain / Students for Britain / Labour Leave / Leave.EU / Grassroots Out / Get Britain Out / The Freedom Association / Better Off Out / Bruges Group / Campaign for an Independent Britain so I think it's pretty balanced all in all. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The £829,000 is probably just a provision for risk: The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification (...), unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period. This would require to be accepted by the European Council; do you believe Mariano Rajoy, Emmanuel Macron, Leo Varadkar, Paolo Gentilonin, Angela Merkel, Jean-Claude Juncker, and Donald Tusk could agree to give one more day to the UK? Why would they do so? For the Nigel Farage flatteries? Or will the UK provide some argument to stay some more time? And will the MP who so passionately voted for a Brexit would accept such an extension? Anyway, I am not sure the government of the Queen has ever explained such a will. In this sense, this idea looks quite like an original research unless it is sourced or there is a secret conspiracy.

Then, you speak of the transition period of probably around 2 years, but a transition period is not an extension period. Although the British mess might be confusing. Just to say you cannot add the 305 days and the two years.

So, within 305 days (European and German time) there is a deal for an extension period, or the UK is brexited from the EU, possibly with a transition period. It might be assumed that by that time such kind of things would have been decided. Nothing decided would probably means no deal. Just remember that on december 2016, the sixth, EU Brexit chief Barnier warns UK has less than two years to agree exit (according to financial times archive: Deadline for decision is in October 2018)

Might be the template should be split in two parts History vs “uncharted waters”:current Brexit issues, talk, theories and plans for the future — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.51 (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment It doesn't seem that the information listed actually refers to a call for a second referendum, but rather advocacy for maintaining close ties to Europe through the softest Brexit option possible. Article 50 was already triggered, so if I'm not mistaken the option of remaining a full member is not on the table anymore, so pro-EU advocacy is now primarily focused on negotiating a Brexit where the UK's politics and economy would still be so closely tied to Europe de jure that they would function as a member de facto. In short, People's Vote is a call for the people to decide the Brexit deal, not a call for another vote on whether or not there will be a deal. The title should be modified to more accurately account for this. If there's any way to shorten "Calls for a vote on the Brexit deal" or "Calls for a vote on negotiations" then that would be less ambiguous and not imply that these are calls for a second referendum. Additionally, as other have pointed out, the first vote was decades ago. The Brexit referendum that led to the current situation was actually the second, and the calls for a future vote are to let Britain decide what type of Brexit it wants. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 08:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

A week ago I would probably have agreed with a change to "Calls for a vote on the Brexit deal" but then George Soros donated £400,000 to Best for Britain (a group I hadn't heard of). They are asking for two things link:

1. Do you support giving the people a vote on the Brexit deal?
2. Do you agree the people's vote should include an option to remain in the EU?

That goes further than the People's Vote. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

On the other side, speaking in Berlin Sir Alan Duncan, minister of state at the department, said voters would not be allowed to reverse the original decision to leave the EU under such a plebiscite, but would get “the choice would be between the exit deal on offer or having no deal at all”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.212 (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

My proposal in three parts: 1/ Historic membership 2/ Brexit commitment decision 3/ Ongoing Brexit issues

Hello, here is My proposal in three parts: 1/ Historic membership 2/ Brexit commitment decision 3/ Ongoing Brexit issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.51 (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Genesis and branding of the Brexit

While it is quite clear that the UK Independence Party had reached some notability in the European Parliament election, 1999 (United Kingdom), I did not see in this template any link to any article related to the Brexit wording/branding and its genesis, nonetheless, it looks like the Brexit wording is quite old:

The Brexit word appears in Google Trends in the year 2008 during the week from November the 16th till November the 22th, in Indonesia: https://trends.google.fr/trends/explore?date=2008-01-01%202008-12-31&q=brexit,grexit

The Grexit word appears in Google Trends in the year 2007 during the week from November the 25th till December the first, in Bulgaria: https://trends.google.fr/trends/explore?date=2007-01-01 2007-12-31&q=brexit,grexit,GREXIT

The Brexit word appears in Google Trends in the year 2005 during the week from December the 18th till December the 24th, in (???): https://trends.google.fr/trends/explore?date=2005-01-01%202005-12-31&q=brexit,grexit,nexit

The Grexit word appears in Google Trends in the year 2004 during the week from February the 29th till march the sixth, in the United States: https://trends.google.fr/trends/explore?date=2004-01-01%202004-12-31&q=brexit,grexit,nexit

The Nexit word appears in Google Trends in the year 2004 in Finland, Italy, United-States: https://trends.google.fr/trends/explore?date=2004-01-01%202004-12-31&q=brexit,grexit,nexit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.100 (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

If you click on the word "Withdrawl" on the template it redirects to the article on Brexit. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

As advised[1] this copies from the article Talk page Avoid POV promoting campaign for a second vote: "The article's second side panel, headed "Part of a series of articles on the United Kingdom in the European Union", ends with lists for Accession, Membership, Withdrawal, and Calls for second vote. The last of these seems to be promoting a politically one-sided POV by listing only "Organisations campaigning for a second vote". That looks out of order, as if Wikipedia is open to being used for covert political campaigning. It should be removed." Qexigator (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

On one side are the organisations for withdrawal in the "withdrawal" section on the other are the organisations campaigning for a second vote in the "calls for second vote" section. Therefore the template is neutral. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Redirects

Should redirects be included in this template? It's big already. Clicking on something in the heading Organisations should lead to an organisation, not a person (Mike Galsworthy) for 2 of them (now reduced to Healthier IN the EU/Scientists for EU combined). Britain for Europe redirects to Opposition to Brexit in the United Kingdom, which is already linked to in its own right. If these things aren't notable enough to have an article in their own right, they're not worth including as clutter/padding in the template. EddieHugh (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

And now we have multiple things going to the same place. This is directly contradicted by the advice to "Avoid repeating links to the same article within a template", given at WP:NAV. In addition to a range of other problems, this doesn't help the reader, who might click on Healthier IN the EU, end up at Mike Galsworthy, then click on Scientists for EU and reload Mike Galsworthy (this is covered by WP:SELFRED: "Avoid linking to titles that redirect straight back to the page on which the link is found"). If no rationale is presented here for including redirects, I'll remove them. EddieHugh (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Whilst you are correct about the "withdrawal" section being "cluttered" I think the "calls for second vote" section appears fine to me. If we're still talking about just calls for second vote then I'm not sure what you mean by multiple things - I only count 2 (Scientists for EU and Healthier IN the EU). Advice given at WP:NAV is just that – advice. I believe I've applied WP:COMMONSENSE - anyone who clicks on / searches Healthier IN the EU will be taken to the relevant section within Mike Galsworthy's's bio. Likewise anyone who clicks on / searches Scientists for EU will also be taken to the relevant section within Mike Galsworthy's bio. That seems straightforward to me.

I'm not sure what you mean by (my bold) the reader, who might click on Healthier IN the EU, end up at Mike Galsworthy, then click on Scientists for EU and reload Mike Galsworthy (this is covered by WP:SELFRED: "Avoid linking to titles that redirect straight back to the page on which the link is found"). The section Mike Galsworthy#Scientists for EU and Healthier IN the EU does not contain a link for Scientists for EU. The only way the reader could do this is to:

1. scroll to the bottom of the article,
2. then open the People's Vote navigation box,
3. then click on Scientists for EU.

Why would then bother doing all of that if they already landed on a section entitled "Scientists for EU and Healthier IN the EU"?

Finally, your OP remark that If these things aren't notable enough to have an article in their own right, they're not worth including as clutter/padding in the template sounds like a policy proposal to me, rather than template specific, perhaps it is something you would like to take to WP:PROPOSAL? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The second thing is your reversion to including Britain for Europe, which redirects to Opposition to Brexit in the United Kingdom, which is already in the template, meaning that Britain for Europe shouldn't be included (per WP:SELFRED). Yes, I missed that this template is not on the Mike Galsworthy page, so good point (it does mean that Scientists for EU and Healthier IN the EU shouldn't both be in the People's Vote template – I'll leave you to make that change...). I'll make a policy proposal if you make a policy proposal that advocates redirects being permitted explicitly! Seriously: the non-existence of policy means that people have to find a way forward together. I propose that Britain for Europe be removed from the template and that we adopt a wait and see approach to what else gets added to the template. If more redirects appear, we can revisit the matter. EddieHugh (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Second vote section is grossly UNDUE

How come the calls for a second vote have it's own section, right beside membership and withdrawal? Those campaigns belong under the withdrawal section. Having them as a top-level section seems to be a way to use wikipedia as a magnifying glass for those organisations and their opinion. The section name does not even have an associated has article. Hell, even one of the organisations (InFacts) are only mentioned in ONE sentence on Hugo Dixon's article. How come it be notable enough to be in this template? I agree that this template requires refactoring, but this is the wrong way to do it.

How do you mark a template as NPOV? Heb the best (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I have now moved this section down under the withdrawal section. It needs some general clean-up, I will try to improve it a bit, it needs more work. Heb the best (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft for new template

I have put some work into fully restructuring this entire template, as it was clear that it was having some structurally problems. The draft is here; you are more than welcome to edit it, if you think it needs adjustments. I have not (afaik) deleted anything, only moved things around and added stuff, thought I do think it is needed. Not all here is notable or relevant, and many important things are missing.

I plan to move it to mainspace within a week or two Heb the best (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Since there was no objections, I have now implemented this ― Heb the best (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Removal of the second vote section

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the second vote section be removed? The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• The argument supporting removal is a current a breach of WP:NPOV in favour of a second vote.

• The argument opposing removal is a breach of WP:NPOV on the basis that withdrawal and a second vote should both be given equal prominence.

Survey

• Support removal: Calls for a second vote is a part of the internal UK debate about brexit. Therefore, it should be under the withdrawal section. I really cannot see how one can think it is equally as important as brexit. One can only reasonably claim it is if it do happen and brexit is cancelled, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And even in that event, it will just mark the end of brexit, and should still be under that section. Heb the best (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is a case of WP:CRYSTAL versus WP:CRYSTAL, it is not up to Wikipedia to take sides in the debate. The media has given equal weight to the possibility of a second referendum therefore Wikipedia must do the same otherwise it not WP:PROPORTIONate to the body of reliable, published material on the subject and it generates a WP:FALSEBALANCE. To say I really cannot see how one can think it is equally as important as brexit. is a personal political opinion not an encyclopedic fact. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support removal: It is too hypothetical to be given a high level position: it can be included in the withdrawal section. Bondegezou (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support removal. As a subject, calls for a second vote aren't really on a par with the UK's membership, accession or withdrawal as a whole in terms of RS coverage, subject independence or prospective enduring notability. If a subsequent referendum takes place, it could still be suitably included in 'withdrawal'. If such a referendum takes place and the UK's withdrawal from the European Union ceases, the section could still be kept whole even if the title would need to be changed. Ralbegen (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support removal. Per arguments presented below, which Bondegezou & Ralbegen also state: it's too high a position for it in this template. (And the media have given far more attention to withdrawal than to a possible follow-up referendum; with the latter being a sub-set of coverage of the former. "I really cannot see how one can think it is equally as important as brexit" isn't "personal political opinion"; it's a logical necessity.) EddieHugh (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support removal and move to section on withdrawal. Called by bot. Personally, I support holding a second vote, but agree with others here that it shouldn't be that prominent in this template. Darx9url (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support removal and move to section on withdrawal. Calls for a second vote (successful, I hope!) are part of the Brexit sh!tstorm, not a separate and equal topic. Chuntuk (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support removal and placement into a subsection of the Withdrawal section. The withdrawal is a huge event, a story unfolding over many years, that has occurred and changed the flow of international events. While the possibility of a second votes is especially prominent in the debate over the coming days, it has not reached the prominence -- or even the permanence -- of the withdrawal yet. If a second vote were to be held, it's still possible it would stay in the withdrawal section, though that section could get renamed. Chris vLS (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support removal - as there's no plans to have another referendum on Brexit. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Non-survey comments in this section please.

• Comment: I have made a draft for a new layout/structuring of the navbox (Se it here), which I think provide a much better overview than the current structure. Feedback in any form is very welcome. It does include removal of second vote, but can be tweaked, if it is chosen to stay. I hope this RCF, once it is resolved, does not prevent the new layout from coming into use. Heb the best (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Bad question... & why ask it... but put it where it belongs: as part of Withdrawal or Brexit: Debate. Has anyone suggested removing it? It's still there in the edit that was reverted without discussion & it's still there in Heb the best's sandbox proposal. So the question doesn't need to be asked (or it's been badly expressed). And why is there a summary of POV positions in the initial RfC post? Anyway, there'd be no need for a "second vote" section if "withdrawal" wasn't happening, so "second vote" logically is a branch/sub-section of "withdrawal". Is "second vote" big enough to stand alongside the three main headings ("Accession", "Membership", "Withdrawal")? If so, it wouldn't be a sub-section of "withdrawal" or Heb the best's "debate". I don't see how it can be; there are also calls for a 'clean Brexit', calls for 'abandon Brexit', legal challenges... it's a long list. "second vote" is a bit bigger than any of these, but not close to the size of the three main headings, so it belongs under one of them. EddieHugh (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I agree there is way too much on that campaign in the template. I think it could all be boiled down two links: People's Vote and Opposition to Brexit in the United Kingdom. But for the record, the reason it is still both in the links and in my proposal, is just that they were focused elsewhere (removing it from top-level, and provide a structure which gives a better overview, respectively). I really didn't want to this to be drowned in an edit war over it, we could always take that discussion later on. Other parts of the template need some cleanup too. Heb the best (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The question is Should the second vote section be removed? The second vote section was put into the withdrawal section, the opposing POV in this RfC is that withdrawal and a second vote should both be given equal prominence. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

So it's still there... as a 'sub-section' instead of a 'section'. EddieHugh (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct it's been removed as a section. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Summoned by bot. Looking for clarification... Is the question: Should the "second vote" be handled as either 1) a subsection of the Withdrawal section or 2) as a section at the same level as the Withdrawal section? or are we also asking or 3) be removed from the template altogether? it seems like the arguments are 1) it should be a subsection because a proposed vote is not as notable as withdrawal, 2) it should be its own section because the withdrawal section is really big and it is weird to put 'undoing x' under the section for 'x', 3) it should be removed because it is handled somewhere else?... is that about right? Chris vLS (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Chrisvls: Your quote it seems like the arguments are 1) it should be a subsection because a proposed vote is not as notable as withdrawal, 2) it should be its own section because the withdrawal section is really big and it is weird to put 'undoing x' under the section for 'x', is closest, but it's mainly the at-a-glance effect of this diff versus the at-a-glance effect of this diff with regards to WP:NPOV. So WP:NPOV versus WP:NPOV. I also have an issue with the timing of the change, there are 5 days of debate coming up in the Commons, a proposed TV debate on Sunday 9 December and a crucial vote on Tuesday 11 December.

Coverage over the last few days regarding a second vote / new poll / final say:

• Front page, Observer newspaper, Sunday 2 December 2018
• Front page, Independent newspaper, Sunday 2 December 2018
• Front page, Daily Express newspaper, Monday 3 December 2018
• Front page, Independent newspaper, Tuesday 4 December 2018

Bloomberg News has also published a useful article: Confused about Brexit? Here’s what you need to know particularly the flow chart headed We Have a Deal. Now What? (below point 4. What happens if Parliament votes no?). There has also been discussion in the past about the size of the withdrawal section (diff) but is not part of the survey. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, especially for the sources. I see where you're coming from, even though I come down with a different choice. Cheers. Chris vLS (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• @The Vintage Feminist: can we close this now? Heb the best (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

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.

Brexit-related legislation section should have its own section.

I propose that the legislation section should come out from under "Debate" into its own section. I believe that Acts (and failed Bills) are important enough and self-contained enough to deserve quick access. Apparently there are at least another four bills to be brought forward (by end March!). Comments before I do that? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way of auto-collapsing the Membership and Brexit sections? The template is long already, and is often used on pages that have at least one other template/infobox, making them stretch a long way down any reader's page. As your suggestion (which I don't object to, but the difficulty would be what to include: all Brexit legislature, post-referendum only, post-Article 50 only?) indicates, this template isn't going to get smaller. EddieHugh (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't see it either. I can only suggest that you ask at template:Sidebar with collapsible lists.

As for an explicit legislation section, on second thoughts I withdraw the idea. There are other legislative acts in the "main" section of the template. The real problem, I think, is that the Brexit content has been tacked on at the end and has done a Topsy. I now think that the template should be divided as it has become too large. Comment? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have considered that too, especially since I noticed Template:Brexit_sidebar. Perhaps the right thing to do is to "merge" the Brexit content to that template, and then in some way have a reference to it in this template. Problem is, this template is used on quite a lot of pages, while the other is not, so changes have to be made to those as well. ― Heb the best (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed restructuring of this and Template:Brexit sidebar

A month ago, it was proposed that this template be merged with Template:Brexit sidebar, and yesterday, this discussion was closed with no consensus, with the closer saying Feel free to continue the discussion elsewhere. Long into the discussion, I proposed a different solution, which was positively received. I would like to raise it again here, outside a merge/don't merge discussion.

Basically, the idea is to move the Brexit-content from the this template (UKinEU) into the Brexit sidebar (Brexit SB). This would leave UKinEU focused on the 45 year-long historic UK-EU relation, without being taken over by the WP:Recentism of Brexit, which have only been going on for 3 years. Currently, Brexit-related topics takes up half of UKinEU. Only the most high-level Brexit articles should remain in that sidebar. On the other hand, the Brexit SB would get a large expansion, and come into more widespread usage. Currently, UKinEU, and not the Brexit SB, have de-facto been the main navigation template for Brexit, with three times the amount of Brexit-links and 5-6 times the number of transclusions on Brexit articles, compared to the Brexit SB. The Brexit SB should be made the main one in the future.

I have already made drafts, showing how I envision this change. UKinEU would look like this, and BS SB would look look like this (Brexit negotiations are hidden by mistake, I am aware of that). Bear in mind that these are just drafts, and we can always deal with details therein later. The core of my proposal is a change in focus. Following the change, Brexit articles using the UKinEU template, should then be changed to use the Brexit SB instead (~60 articles, see a preliminary list here). Only high-level Brexit articles should keep the UKinEU template, because they should have both.

Ping to all editors involved in the previous discussion: UnitedStatesian, Ssolbergj, Mardus, FOARP, John Maynard Friedman, Nyttend, P199, Legendiii, RaviC, Pigsonthewing, JFG, Bilorv, Bsherr, Headbomb. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support the proposal, per what I said in the TfD. Thank you for the ping. — Bilorv (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support – A reasonable path towards disentangling this mess. — JFG ^talk 08:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support, agree with this approach. Seeing that there was little objection to your drafts, you can just proceed as per WP:BOLD. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The TfD was specifically closed as no consensus. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support, though an invisible advisory in the UKinEU template (that says "this is a list of the overall summary articles, please do not add links to more detailed articles) would be wise. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, such one was already present, but can be elaborated on. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I will now implement this. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)