Talk:Unite to Remain

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

European Union Low‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Table vs List[edit]

@Onetwothreeip: The table restored in this edit is incomplete, and replaced a complete list of all 60 constituencies. While the table could contain more details, can I suggest this is worked on in draft space until it covers all 60 constituencies, and the list is kept in this article until then. --LukeSurl^{t c} 21:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

With the decision by Nigel Farage to stand aside in Conservative held seats surely we should broaden the scope of this article to 'Electoral Pacts in the 2019 General ELection rather than Unite to Remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snookerfootyfan (talk • contribs) 13:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019_United_Kingdom_general_election#Electoral_pacts_and_unilateral_decisions covers all pacts and similar at the election. I suggest we expand content there, as appropriate, while keeping this page on its own defined topic. Bondegezou (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in favour of widening the scope of this article to all pacts for the election, renaming to Electoral pacts in the 2019 United Kingdom general election, and merging in the material at 2019_United_Kingdom_general_election#Electoral_pacts_and_unilateral_decisions. The events today are substantial enough to merit more space than the 2019 GE article affords, and is related to the current content of this article. --LukeSurl^{t c} 15:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit biased to hold this full article on the Unite to Remain pact but not have the article on the unilateral decision, rather squeezing it into the GE article, I'd serious rec-commend expanding this to be a general page for all pacts from whichever side in this election; as there's clearly going to be a large number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snookerfootyfan (talk • contribs) 15:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the note above I've created a draft article stub for this topic, which may be more suited. Would be welcome for someone to look at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Electoral_Pacts_in_the_2019_United_Kingdom_General_Election — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snookerfootyfan (talk • contribs) 16:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral pacts and the like are very important, so that's why they're covered on the main article. Anything on a separate article will get much less traffic. I disagree that they're being squeezed there: they have a detailed section with 2-3 maps! Unlike other arrangements, Unite to Remain is a formal pact with its own organisation, so it warrants its own article. If you think Unite to Remain does not warrant its own article, you can suggest the article be deleted or merged. The Brexit Party decision to stand down in Conservative seats is very important and is covered on the main general election article and on The Brexit Party article, I believe. That decision is not an organisation or formal pact, so I don't see how you make it into a standalone article. We treat Unite to Remain and The Brexit Party decision differently because they are different things.

If the electoral pacts section of the main article gets too big, we can consider spinning it out, following WP:SPLIT procedures. I don't think a 'stealth' split by changing the nature of this article is the way to go about that. Bondegezou (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the size of this article (due to the table), it would be appropriate to maintain this as a stand alone article. As Bondegezou states, this is a formal pact. If the 2019_United_Kingdom_general_election#Electoral_pacts_and_unilateral_decisions section gets bigger (probably twice the size), it would qualify for a split into its own article. At the moment, at only 4 short paragraphs, it is fine as a section. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 17:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to leave the Unite to Remain article the way it is now. If the section of this article: 2019_United_Kingdom_general_election#Electoral_pacts_and_unilateral_decisions needs expanding, we can do that later. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]