Talk:Green Party of England and Wales

message: As noted at the head of this Talkpage, the result of the AfD discussion (closed 23 June 2015) for the article Wales Green Party (WGP) was to merge the content here. Tbh, not much additional material is contained in the WGP that isn't here already. I just added that the WGP contest elections in Wales (which wasn't noted here). Some of the history section could be merged too. The WGP article contains some election results. Do editors think they should be noted here? Please comment soon, either way. I intend to turn the WGP page into a redirect page (to here) in the next ten days, unless anyone objects. Daicaregos (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for letting me know. I'll await the outcome of the review before making any changes. Daicaregos (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But the gun appears to have been well and truly jumped now. 179.199.171.206 (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

text: From what I can tell, the outcome of the review is that because it does not require an admin then this should be thrashed out on here by us (I think this would be more appropriate on the talk page of the article itself) but anyway, if that is what needs to happen to resolve this, bring it on ;-) Jimmy3d0 (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Daicaregos Please could you confirm what the protocol should now be in the light of the above RE;"the outcome of the review seems to be that because this does not require an admin then this should be thrashed out on here by us" Thanks in advance Jimmy3d0 (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Deletion review was closed with an endorse (decision to merge at AfD was not overturned).  —МандичкаYO 😜 11:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wales Green Party 

message: *Ridiculous that one editor is acting as judge and jury on this decision - please refer this to adminstrators or whoever has the clout to make a rational and reasoned decision. This is editorial fascism at its worst. Btljs (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who advocated the initial change in WGP. Many, many others agreed at the time and a long debate continued. This also happened to other political pages, it wasn't only WGP. Since then my political standing has changed and I considered it may be construed as a conflict of interest if I took part in the next (this) debate. However, I feel a single moderator being "blamed" for what a majority collective decided not all that long ago is not at all correct. Basically if you want this page to exist, substantial notoriety has to be sourced. Drowz0r (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that a RfD shouldn't be closed by someone who contributed an opinion. My comment was directed at Wikimandia closing the above discussion and deciding the outcome. That is why I asked for it to be referred to Admin. The number of editors who supported or opposed is not the point; I wouldn't close this as I have been involved, so I ask for someone disinterested to close it. I await the decision from WP:ANI. Btljs (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that was nicely swept under the carpet wasn't it. Bagunceiro (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikimandia isn't the only person who can make unilateral decisions. Wales Green Party remains until someone neutral makes a decision. Btljs (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion post-deletion review

message: Someone needs to sort out the figures being given for membership numbers. The references cited are clearly not encyclopaedic. One says there were 63,000 a month ago. Another says Natalie Bennet led the party to a membership of 60,000. The current reference from the Guardian seems to me to be a short-hand approximation, but whether it is or isn't it's not a primary reference
Gordon (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need to be a primary reference. Preferably, it should be a from a secondary reliable source, which the Guardian is. As you've said, the Guardian number is probably an approximation, but that is fine as the membership number will be changing all the time. It's also a very recent number: If you look at the Labour Party membership it dates from January and the UKIP membership is a year old! Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk  17:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to add my two cents, the membership figure from the Green Party members only website is actually ~58,000. The Guardian figure is far closer to the real figure than the ~65,000 peak. Tiny beets 19:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership Numbers 

message: I don't think this should be in the ideology section. The GPEW has no jurisdiction in Scotland. The Scottish Green Party is a totally independent party. While the GPEW may have a view, it is not something they seek to enact change on by winning in elections. Helper201 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove anti-unionism from the info box 

message: Editors of this page might be interested in discussing the proposed deletion of this article.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amelia Womack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Womack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CarlDurose (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[Amelia Womack]] for deletion 

message: Why does this article describe the Green Party as a left-wing part, when a motto of this party was "Neither left, nor right, but out front"? Vorbee (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Because sources independent of the party have described it as left-wing. I note such references have been appropriately included in the infobox. The very reasonable argument, I suppose, is that you should use sources independent of the organization  Klbrain (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

text: I was interested in this as the only reference I can find to "Neither left, nor right but out in front" is the Australian Greens. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8500.12304 147.161.166.125 (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Left or right

message: The Party isn't actually called "The Green Party of England and Wales" — seems that is often used unofficially, to distinguish from the Scottish Green Party. But the Green Party's own Constitution, its website, its electoral imprint, and its registration with the Electoral Commission, use simply "The Green Party". How do others feel about renaming the article? (Presumbaly adding "(UK)" as with the UK Labour and Conservative parties, for examples, would work best.) – Kieran T (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see there might be a rationale under WP:COMMONNAME, but presumably we would have to add "(England and Wales)" because it is not the UK-wide Green Party. Bondegezou (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title — rename? 

message: Not sure if the leaders have resigned, or if they only lose their positions after a leadership election, but both have annoucned their intentions to resign in July 2021.  From Jack. 14:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leadership in July 2021 

message: wouldn't it be better to have this point to Trident (UK nuclear programme) rather than to a redirect? I understand that pointless edits are annoying, but I don't think it's worth edit warring over. NemesisAT (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP is operated by blocked user Harry the house. Several of us are reverting his edits which are repetitive attacks on the same group of articles. See his SPI case (via the link) for information. If you want to alter the Trident link, that's fine, but we cannot allow any of this vandal's edits to remain unchallenged. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trident nuclear program 

message: These two orderings of the initialism are used interchangeably in this article. Usually I might change them to consistently be LGBTQIA+, as seen in the info box and is the conventional order, however frequent use of LGBTIQA+ has made me believe there may be a reason for this rather than a simple mis-spelling. ADM.Tetanus (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBTQIA+ Vs LGBTIQA+ 

message: One of the codes for the party's colour is not working. It is defaulting to white when it should be green, as seen in the infobox. Consequently, this means all connected pages like ones for elections and opinion polls the wrong colour is being shown for the party with it appearing as white instead of green. Can someone return "party color|Green Party of England and Wales (2023)" to the colour and shade of green it previously was before it defaulted to white? I'm not sure how to do this. Helper201 (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party colour 

message: I fail to see why Caroline Lucas is listed as the party's MP in the info box. I have removed this. The fact the Greens have an MP is included further down (1/650). Kalamikid (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caroline Lucas in info box 

message: In the local representation section the map now represented data more than 5 years old. I believe it needs to be updated or deleted from the article. Localelectionsnerd (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party Representation Map