Talk:100% Redress

Party?

Should it be "100% Redress Party" or just "100% Redress".
I'd personally be in favour of "100% Redress Party" since that's what the website and news articles refer to it as. JoeMcCaff (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

RTÉ "citation used is incorrect"

Hi. In a recent series of edits, an editor has removed cited material and added unsupported editorial. Including, in at least one case, directly changing the title of one of the linked sources. In each case, up until now, the editor has not provided any explanation/justification/support of any kind. Whether in the form of an edit summary or reference or otherwise.

Today, the editor has added editorial (with unusual language, to my read at least, in which a proposal to form a political party is framed as a "threat"). And also removed cited material. With, finally at least, an EDSUMM explanation that the "[RTÉ News] citation used is incorrect". While far from infallible, given that RTÉ is generally considered to be a reliable source, a flat declaration that the source is "incorrect" needs more specific justification and explanation. Or, perhaps, an alternative/reliable/verifiable source.

(Note that the repeated removal of cited material [esp. without explanation], and the repeated addition of uncited material, are (both) indicators of what the Wikipedia community considers to disruptive editing.)

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It might be possible that the Donegal Mica Action Group is totally unrelated to 100% Redress, but also this may be an editor who is close to the subject, which could be WP:COI. It would be best if he explained his actions though, because removing sources and changing information without detailed explanation doesn't help fix the problem. Lough Swilly (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 4 December 2024

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: Close and restore to status quo ante without prejudice to a new discussion. This RM is challenging an undiscussed move two days earlier. To avoid confusion the article is returned to its longstanding location. Any future discussion will be about whether to move it from there. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

---

100% Redress Party → 100% Redress – The article title was changed earlier this week by Completely Random Guy to 100% Redress Party. However, its name on the Register of Political Parties does not include Party. We’re not required to follow the official name, but is there really an ambiguity or lack of clarity from doing so? It is more concise without it. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

Hey there, I just changed it because simply labeling it "100% Redress" is a tad vague, for example when you see it you could ask yourself what it means. Adding "Party" made it better know what it is. Ultimately I am okay with the old name, no problem. Completely Random Guy (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)