User talk:JMF/Archives/2020/November

U.K Internal Market Article (Draft) (Assistance)
I need help with the expansion of the Internal Market article, the idea is it will eventually when the bill has passed, the article is finished and it is approved that it will act as a hub for other WP:Summary articles to branch off.

This where I need assistance, as the article is meant to reflect the U.K. Internal Market as a whole not just one part that contributes to it like the Internal Market Bill article.

I am unsure what other areas should also be included in the article to better reflect the point of the article and would like to know of you have any ideas, as I think there is more expansion and layers that can be added to the article. ChefBear01 (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the fundamental problem is to identify the UKIM as "a thing" that can be described without breaching wp:OR and WP:SYNTH. It only has measurable existence when defined as such by the Bill (potentially the Act) and possibly also if multiple reliable sources say that it has these other aspects but they are not in the legislation. I guess also you would need to say what it is not, for example which aspects have the devolved legislatures [especially Scotland] succeeded in keeping out of it. I am worried by your inclusion of clauses in the Acts of Union 1707 that you interpret as being functionally equivalent to an internal market: you will need very sound [meaning, not Government ministers or other political] sources to support that interpretation. In summary, I feel that you don't have the perspective of distance in time to describe it objectively: I know for sure that I wouldn't. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

what if I merged the United Kingdom common framework policies article into the U.K. Internal Market article to variate it more ?, do you agree and if yes, how can I best merge it to keep it’s structure intact?. ChefBear01 (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , the 'common framework policies' article is even less of a 'thing' than the internal market. It describes political policies of the current government and to be honest, I'm a little surprised that it survived AfD. In a few years time, it will moulder away forgotten. At least the 'internal market' will survive for at least as long as the Act exists. Thus, IMO anyway, any merger should be to a better IM article – but the risks of writing OR, SYNTH and/or CRYSTAL material are ever present.
 * As far as keeping structure intact is concerned, I advise you to read WP:NUKE: one of the great attributes of Wikipedia is that if a structure becomes unwieldy or unstable, it is easy to knock it down and start again. In a topic like this one, it is very likely that a structure that made sense based on first impressions will need radical change given the benefit of hindsight. Recall that the UK-EU trade agreement was going to be the "easiest deal in history", "would be agreed in an afternoon", "oven-ready deal", and now look at reality (which, tbf, was predictable by anyone whose brain was not befuddled by magical thinking).
 * As for the details, you would really need to ask someone like User:Kaihsu because I haven't been following the subject closely enough to advise, --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither have I. – Kaihsu (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Common Frameworks will form a fundamental pillar to the U.K. Internal Market and consists of primary legislation such as the agriculture bill 2019 - 2021 & fisheries bill 2019 - 2021, secondary legislation such as statutory instruments and non legislative instruments such as memorandums of understanding. :ChefBear01 (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , that still doesn't change the fact that it is a puffed-up political title (in my opinion, of course). We can't leap ahead of non-partisan analysis, otherwise we run into wp:advocacy, wp:soapbox and WP:SYNTH. Any article we publish at this early stage needs to be the absolute bare bones, the minimum needed to acknowledge that the term exists and this is what the primary source or its mouthpieces say it is. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * please see the Draft:United Kingdom internal market article to see how I would implemented the merger and please let me know your thoughts.


 * (see under areas covered by the market principles), I would also remind you that this article will not be placed into main space until the internal market Bill has passed, the article has been completed and there is consensus for it, this will ensure that all components of this article will be enacted at that time and will not be speculation.
 * I am looking for the statutory instruments and memorandums of understanding that go with those areas so that it is supported by the appropriate links citations.
 * ChefBear01 (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , please read WP:PRIMARY. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please can you elaborate on which areas you think are WP:Primary so that I can adjust the article to fix it.
 * Many thanks
 * ChefBear01 (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , "statutory instruments and memorandums of understanding" and anything similar from .gov.uk --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, statutory instruments are law, but draft statutory instruments are not. For criticism of how the current UK government is using these, see e.g.. ‘Memorandums of understanding’ and ‘arrangements’ are ‘soft’ instruments, hardly binding on the signatories. Press releases, consultation documents, white/green papers are primary sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned. – Kaihsu (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * &, I have made progress on the article, I know I am short a few citations but I need to know if there is a general Wikipedia consensus around the overall wording and structure of the article. I will find and fill in the missing citations. ChefBear01 (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

undo the undo of QWERTY (EurKEY)
EurKEY is not a standard like a standard of a country, but it is available for Mac and Windows and is preinstalled in Linux. And sorry, I didn't published it with an explaination, because I couldn't found where to put it. --Wikirofl (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , can you open a new discussion topic at talk: QWERTY, per WP:BRD. It looks to me like WP: advocacy but others may support you. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , done and thank you for the little how to!--Wikirofl (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I see that EurKey is back in the article. I won't revert again but maybe somebody else will. The same might be said of Colemak and even Dvorak, which are in the article despite very limited acceptance (but see wp:other stuff exists, so that is not a good argument but it will do me). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , ok, I get your point and I see that it is at least debatable if Eurkey has the right to be mentioned in this article. Now that I understand, that there is the function of discussing changes besides the information anybody can publish along with the changes, I wouldn't undo an undo of a change again without receiving the OK to do so in the articles talk section. --Wikirofl (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)