Talk:All for Unity

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Party name

Hi to the editors below, I took your names from the article's history, just to check something. This tweet from George Galloway [1] seems to use "All4Unity" not "Alliance 4 Unity" (I assume the numeral is the same!). I wondered if we might need to move the article? I'm wary of move wars or editing problems if it's moved without debate.

Pinging Unreal7 Narky Blert Moondragon21 Lee Vilenski

Cheers doktorb _words^deeds 20:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Their website is alliance4unity.uk, and it says Alliance for Unity. However, they changed their registered name to All For Unity on 4 February 2021 - official entry on Electoral Commission website, and we should probably go with that until Galloway changes his mind again. That's what will appear on ballot papers. Narky Blert (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Narky Blert:. I may create the election box metadata as "All 4 Unity" so that matches and if we think it's right to move the article then we can do that in time. doktorb _words^deeds 17:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So long as all moves are clean (taking the page history with them) and all redirects point to the current title, there should be no problem. Should Galloway (his party is basically a one man band) ever revive an old name, thus preventing a move, a request at WP:RM#Uncontroversial technical requests should elicit a demonstration of the necessary sleight of hand.

Just out of interest, will I always find you in the kitchen at parties? Narky Blert (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even more so during lockdown, yes. In the kitchen, just staring at the open fridge. doktorb _words^deeds 20:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes are meant to be bidirectional

@Angryskies: WP:BIDI, an editing guideline, says that "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional." That's why I removed the Political parties in Scotland navbox. It does not include All for Unity, ergo it should not be on this article. Bondegezou (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All For Unity → All for Unity – MOS:CAPS. Unreal7 (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CAPS is a disambiguation page. Can you please be more specific? — BarrelProof (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. No indication from press coverage, such as this, that the "f" is intended to be uppercase. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Roman Spinner, I can't find any primary sources either that use this in running text either. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Info box

What happened to the infobox of the party? Im trying to return it but having trouble with the website on my phone http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 10:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have returned the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 13:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs) [reply]

"British Fascist"

Is it really correct to say thaty this party is a "British Fascist" party? I am aware that members of the party have expressed far-right views at least once, and that is stated in the article as it should, but I don't consider a party fascist unless it's stated ideology is fascist. Though Galloway is a divisive figure it is ludicrous to suggest that he is a fascist. Therev are no offical positions or no official party documents that warrant calling the party itself fascist. Though by all means include relevant criticism of members.

I myself am not Scottish and have opinion with regards to the issue of Scottish Independence. I worry that the party is being described as fascist because of bias. Mikan666 (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it looks like vandalism. I suggest editors keep an eye on the page to promptly revert any repeat. Bondegezou (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that "fascist" is not a fair or accurate description. It might be arguable that it is a British Nationalist party, but primarily it existed as a single issue party. Related to this however is an edit that was made biased to far in the other direction which describes the party as "anti-nationalist" which was not supported by the source at all. I think British Unionism and Scottish Unionism sufficiently captures accurately and fairly what the party ideology is. I also note references to where the party is on a right left spectrum, I would personally think that they are right to center right looking at the 2021 manifesto but this is controversial so I think omitting any reference to the right-left spectrum is appropriate and it is not necessary to add, for example, "Right Wing" or "Far Right Wing". ControversialJellyfish (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assumed vandalism in relation to Galloway's role within the party

User:Cordyceps-Zombie has stated that Galloway's title in the party is 'Brotherly Leader and Guide'. I can't find any reference to him being the 'Brotherly Leader and Guide' and even he has used it, it doesn't seem official. The party website states that he is the 'Founder & Lead Spokesperson'. The title 'Brotherly Leader and Guide' appears to be the title of Muammar Gaddafi; so I'm assuming vandalism. If you can find a reliable reference which I can't find, like, at all, then provide it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkworld (talk • contribs) 14:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]