Talk:Labour for a Republic

Orphaned references in Labour for a Republic
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Labour for a Republic's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "km": From Republicanism in the United Kingdom: Kingsley Martin, The Crown and the Establishment. London, Hutchinson. 1962 (pp. 53–54) From Ernest Thurtle: Kingsley Martin,The Crown and the Establishment. London, Hutchinson. 1962 (p.53–54) 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Corrected. TrottieTrue (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Redirect
I’ve reverted the redirect from this page to republicanism in the United Kingdom, because I think this subject is notable. Other organisations affiliated to Labour do have their own articles. In any case it would have been good practice to mention this redirect decision on the target talk page. — TrottieTrue (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If there are no independent sources about the group (as opposed to the topic of Republicanism in the United Kingdom) the independent article cannot stand. The choice is to redirect, or to have an WP:AFD discussion that will end in a redirect.   Of course, if there are independent sources with substantial coverage of the group, my change was made in error; please demonstrate such sources if you feel they exist. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I have added a couple of independent news sources which reference the group. TrottieTrue (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Auror Andrachome It would be preferable if you discussed this redirect into the main "republicanism in the UK" article here before taking such action. The issue has already been discussed before - see above, and appropriate references were added. The number of page views certainly suggests that there is a high level of interest in the article - even if that doesn’t itself confer notability, it shouldn’t be discounted entirely. The group were also referenced in Private Eye magazine in December 2019.—TrottieTrue (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * TrottieTrue You are too close to the subject to be editing this article to begin with. Your article clearly states you are a member of a similar organization, and you oppose the institution of the British monarchy. You cannot be trusted to be an impartial editor. This organization is not notable in the slightest. This information could easily be transposed onto the proper article. Sources for articles used should be secondary sources, as per the rules for notability. You are responsible for almost all of the edits to this article, mainly because you are a republican who happens to be a member of the organization. I'm questioning editor integrity here. This article has no need to exist. Auror Andrachome (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)