Talk:Republicanism in the United Kingdom

message: I propose merging Scottish republicanism and Welsh republicanism into Republicanism in the United Kingdom. I think the content in Scottish republicanism and Welsh republicanism can easily be explained in the context of the republicanism in the United Kingdom, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Republicanism in the United Kingdom. --Somerby (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A problem with this is the United Kingdom includes Northern Ireland and Irish republicanism is markedly different from Scottish or Welsh republicanism. Helper201 (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Scottish republicanism and Welsh republicanism could be merged into Scottish nationalismScottish independence and Welsh nationalism. The Welsh article was demerged on Northumber on 23 November. TSventon (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  TSventon, I am definitely against a merger in the article about nationalism. Generally speaking, I am against any mergers, since then accuracy suffer. However, if they nevertheless are merged, then the better target will be Republicanism in the United Kingdom, as this discussion for English republicanism redirect showed. --Northumber (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Irish republicanism is heavily linked to republicanism in the United Kingdom as the whole history of it is based on a republic independant from the UK. As such I would back merging all them into one if needs be, or seeing as Irish republicanism is more documented, giving a small section to it and linked to the main article. Mabuska (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

text: I agree that Scottish Republicanism is somewhat redundant and that a merge is in order. However, a merger entirely into this article would not be helpful - the largest section of Scottish Republicanism is dedicated to republicanism within the nationalist movement, which is related, but not particularly relevant to UK republicanism. The page is already organised into Republicanism within the independence movement and British republicanism sections - in my view, this lends itself very well to a two-way merge where content is merged either into Republicanism in the United Kingdom, or Scottish nationalism, depending on which article it would best serve. This would lead to a better structure of the encyclopaedia overall, as the existing Scottish Republicanism page does not describe a particular ideology or political movement, but rather multiple disparate movements which happen to have republicanism in common. Akakievich (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a challenge associated with the proposal that is mentioned by Akakievich but which needs to be enlarged on. As it stands, 'Republicanism in the United Kingdom' is essentially about 'Republicanism FOR the United Kingdom' i.e. it discusses maintaining the integrity of the UK under a different kind of constitution. 'Scottish Republicanism' on the other hand is, in its current form, clearly about dissolving the UK and creating and independent Scottish republic. This article attempts to address the idea of 'Scots who support the UK becoming a republic' but fails to find a credible current example. In short, the former article is essentially about a unionist approach whilst the latter is straightforwardly nationalist in its scope. This is not to say that a merger would be impossible, but as they stand the existing articles describe support for political outcomes that are not as similar in nature as the above discussion might suggest. The same issue would seem to apply to 'Welsh republicanism'. I cannot imagine how including Irish Nationalism in a merger would be legitimate. The article opens by stating that "Irish republicans view British rule in any part of Ireland as inherently illegitimate." Such a thing may even come under the scope of Arbcom authorizing "uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to the Troubles" so please take care. I don't understand the logic of merging part of the article into Republicanism in the United Kingdom' and part into 'Scottish Nationalism'. There is next to nothing in the existing Scottish article that would end up in the UK one - in part (I theorise) because supporting the Union in Scotland is largely synonymous with supporting the monarchy just as it seems to be in Northern Ireland).  Another way to say the same thing would be that any serious merger would require those interested in an article about 'Republicanism FOR the United Kingdom' accepting that a significant chunk of that article would now need to refer to the notion of dismantling the UK. Ben MacDui 15:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The graphical summary has an error I'm uncertain how to fix, so I'll note it here. Where it should say "May 2011" (I think, anyway), it instead says "May 201". IcePage (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It should say "May 2011". The svg file needs to be fixed. (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ralbegen, thank you for adding this graphic summary. Could you update it please, and fix the error mentioned above? TrottieTrue (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ralbegen The graphic seems to have been updated, but isn't showing correctly on the article page. I've also added some more historic poll results - I don't know if this makes a difference to the graphic summary. TrottieTrue (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is something on Wikipedia's end, I'm afraid—if you click through to see the SVG you'll see all the digits are there, it's just displaying oddly on the page. I'm reworking my graph code gradually and that might make a difference over the next couple of months! The graph on this page is based on an old version of the code I use for the graphs on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. Ralbegen (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying, I just wanted to check why it wasn't showing up correctly. I've added every relevant archive poll I can find from members of the British Polling Council, except some by Survation which have broken links on their website. TrottieTrue (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion polling graph error 

message: A section describing the process of changing the United Kingdom from a constitutional monarchy to a republic would be interesting. John Link (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process of changing from a constitutional monarchy to a republic 

message: I've added a few polls from this year, although with some difficulty. Savanta's January 2023 poll had figures to the decimal point, so I assumed they should be rounded up or down as appropriate. Unfortunately, this resulted in the total coming to more than 100. I left the figures as they were, as it seems to have been done elsewhere in the table. I assume that's what is done elsewhere with opinion poll tables in WP. The other trouble I had was with the table formatting. The Opdrts template was lacking the [[Wikitext]] field, and I couldn't see a way to format the cells so that the background of the Monarchy and Lead columns matched the existing cells. @Titus Gold, @Ralbegen, I can see you've both added poll results to this table so perhaps you can help - and also, please add any others from 2023 which may be missing. The graphical summary also needs updating. TrottieTrue (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Rounding meaning that numbers add up to more or less than 100 is fine. I don't understand the formatting issue you're describing; the table looks fine to me. I've updated the graph, but as there are relatively few polls covering a period of more than twenty years I don't think it needs to be updated very often! Ralbegen (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - thank you for your reply. Good to know that my rounding is fine. I think most pollsters don't publish results to the decimal point, but Savanta do, or at least on that occasion. Yes, the table looks okay, because I made the formatting changes using the source mode editor. What I'm saying is that I couldn't change the formatting issues I referred to above using the visual editor, so I just had to finish those additions in the source editing mode. The end result is the same I think, it just seems less convenient as a way of implementing the changes. Regarding the graph, thank you - I had to reload the image file itself to refresh it, but I can see the typo in 2011 has been fixed (the updated version doesn't show on the article itself). It was hard for me to notice the graph changes, but I think that's because it has five-year intervals on it. I'm sure the issue has been polling for longer - perhaps since 1969? But going back further would possibly mean referencing newspaper articles, as the polling data itself may not be available online. Perhaps it's worth looking into. TrottieTrue (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ralbegen I’m not sure why you felt it necessary to remove the royal events I added to the opinion polls table. Yes, it’s a list of polls, and not a timeline of royal events - but I think these events I added give important context to the polls. Okay, it could be argued that not all the events are as important, in which case there may be a case for removing some. However, the flurry of polls after the Harry and Meghan interview is evident. Pollsters also often seem to conduct these polls around the time of a jubilee or royal wedding. It seems odd to me that the only event listed in the table is the death of the Queen (which apparently shouldn’t be wiki-linked?). You don’t seem to have passed comment on my other additions too, merely removed what you didn’t like (admittedly, I know it’s common on Wikipedia for people to focus on what they disapprove of, rather than showing approval for the work put into any additions, which would encourage contributors). By all means, remove events you feel are unnecessary (perhaps the deaths of the Queen Mother and Prince Philip), but I think some should remain, at least until a discussion has taken place. TrottieTrue (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been lots of discussions on other UK polling articles which have resolved not to include events outside of a very limited scope (see the Talk archive of Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election in particular). I don't believe that any article has included every event that has precipitated any opinion polls. I think events that would be relevant to include in this table would be changes of monarch and any referendums or laws passed that abolish or consider abolishing the institution of the monarchy; and not weddings, jubilees or deaths of non-monarchs. During the scope of the polling table, only one event meets those criteria: the death of Elizabeth. Please consider self-reverting until you've built a consensus for your desired change in line with the BRD cycle. Ralbegen (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a look at the Talk archive you mention, and can see the need to limit the number of events added to such opinion poll tables. We should of course be discerning about adding events. The problem with your suggestion of relevant events is that these examples are rare to nonexistent, at least in the polling period being covered. Those would be important events for republicanism, but it means the table would have one event listed over thirty years. However, notability works differently for events relating to the monarchy. If an event is given a public bank holiday, I would say that it's notable. The wedding of the Sussexes and their Oprah interview less clearly meets these criteria, but both events received significant media coverage. Polling on the monarchy isn't carried out with the same level of routine frequency as political polling, so for a royalty-related event to precipitate a custom poll suggests it might be worth including. By all means, this can be discussed further. I think this Talk page would need a higher level of traffic to build a consensus on any decision. I personally think that if a royal event receives significant coverage and prompts polling to be carried out, it probably has a good basis for inclusion, but the table should be sparing with the events listed. TrottieTrue (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think adding events supports the consistent (or not) message given by the existing polling; it seems the case in other such articles with polling tables. Momentous events such as a Jubilee or Royal Wedding add context to the polls, and will be a measure of public opinion at these points in history. As there is no UK wide regular monarchy polling, polling is often in response to a Royal event, so relevant and supports the direct polling on the monarchy. I don't think adding these events detracts from the page or the information given; rather, it supports it, so I don't see the need for a reversion? Denham331 (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates to opinion polls 

message: @Titus Gold Thanks for adding the new polls. It would be good to get more information on the Republic poll. I thought it might be the same as the other, since they were both by Savanta. The sample size appears to be the same, but the results are slightly different. Hopefully we can get this confirmed soon. Savanta did a poll for CNN too recently, but this question wasn't asked. TrottieTrue (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Yes will look to add the exact date and any further polls in next few days. Titus Gold (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted that poll until we get a good source for it. Unfortunately, Savanta do not allow non-professionals to contact them via their website. They were also behind an ITV poll done recently: . I assume they've taken out "don't know" as an option, hence the relatively high figure for not supporting a monarchy. Is this source good enough to add? TrottieTrue (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New polls 

message: "More recently, in the early 21st Century, increasing dissatisfaction with the House of Windsor, especially after the 2022 passing of Elizabeth II, has led to public support for the monarchy reaching historical lows and new calls in major newspapers for its abolition."
There are no citations of what specific news papers have been calling monarchial abolition nor I have I ever seen absolutely any news papers that would be described as "major" do such a thing from the time of the queen's death to now.
Can we get a "citation needed" on this? 92.237.155.25 (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Another user removed this for remaining un-cited for a significant amount of time. notadev (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  lacking citation on the front page of the article