Talk:The People's Charter (21st century)

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour 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.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reverted edits to change which charter this page discussed

For six years this page has been about a document created by Trade Unionists. Recent edits have changed it to refer to another document, also called "People's Charter", created by Libertarians. I have reverted the article to be about its original subject. --Kost lettle (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would appreciated if you keep your blatant political bias out of here. The organisation you refer to flopped and does not exist - it is is not the "People's Charter (21st century)". The 21st century People's Charter movement is the one the article was corrected to reflect. If you want a legacy article for your flopped trade union movement, then you need an article with a title reflecting that.

I disagree with the approach of the anonymous commenter above. We need to revolve naming conventions here on the talk page. --Duncan (talk) 07:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by 81.151.245.183

The second paragraph above is an unsigned comment left by 81.151.245.183 to explain their edit. It assumes bad faith ("your blatant political bias", etc). Together with their edit summary for their change to the main article, which reads in part "if you want to promote some flopped organisation, you need a different page title!", it seems that they are using Wikipedia to promote an organisation rather than to build an encyclopedia. This article has referred to the Trade Union charter for six years. If the current Libertarian charter organisation is notable then it should have its own article instead of overwriting this one. Kost l2 (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article

Any more information about it? The only People's Charter I've ever heard of is this one; yours seems to be a modern version. --Smaug123 (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to track down more stuff about it. This is the first page I've created and it probably needs a bit of a tidy up. Mahrooq (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm putting an 'under construction' plate at the top. Good luck! --Smaug123 (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.thepeoplescharter.org/ 91.108.38.108 (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Mahrooq (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with this article

Unfortunately, policy states that Wikipedia is not a collection of lists. Is there any way this could be rewritten so that it is not a list of endorsers, but a passage of prose, with, for example, the individual contributions of some of these unions and endorsers? --Smaug123 (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can do this Mahrooq (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks much better already! --Smaug123 (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be even more picky, and I don't know how to change this myself, but could you put a capital P and C in the page tile? Olørin (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but don't know how to do this either Mahrooq (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a function called moving. The trouble with that is, there is already an article with the proposed name. Is there a date or something to distinguish this charter from The People's Charter? --Smaug123 (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe put (19th century) after the old one and (21st century) after the new one? Mahrooq (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done! --Smaug123 (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the pic ok? Olørin (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, was trying to sort one out myself but couldn't, so thanks! Mahrooq (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's good - but you need to add and update the fair use rationale on the [1] page. --Smaug123 (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yea, I wasn't sure what to put there. I guess I just site the website??Olørin (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll show you it as an example. See [2] in a couple of minutes. --Smaug123 (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teehee, you got there first :) I updated the sections you missed. --Smaug123 (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook

I am having difficulty sharing this on facebook; the link directs to Chartism instead of the actual page. Can anyone advise? Mahrooq (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do need to make sure the brackets are included; I think the Facebook system prohibits any punctuation in links. Link to ThePeoplesCharter21Century instead - it redirects to the actual article. (here's hoping it's not speedy-deleted!) --Smaug123 (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Do you think it is in danger of being speedy-deleted? 86.11.184.201 (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was me Mahrooq (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, probably no danger - but you can never tell with these admins :) --Smaug123 (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, I was a bit worried for a minute Mahrooq (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can the section at the top please be removed?

The section at the top states that there are problems with this article relating to tone or style, and then directs to the talk page for more information. There is no further information given on the talk page. Can either the section at the top be removed, or whoever put it there please provide details in the talk section? Mahrooq (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]