Talk:Chequers plan

Name of article

I don't think "Agreement" should be in the name of the article, of several reasons. First of all, It seems that "Chequers plan" or "Chequers deal" is much more common (se this link). Also, it is a confusing name, since while it might be an agreement within the UK government, it is a proposal/plan for how the relation should be, and this is currently being negotiated. The word "agreement" gives the expression that the negotiations are over. Heb the best (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Ping to @JLo-Watson: You might be interested in this. Heb the best (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Whether it's 'agreement; or 'plan', it's important not to formalise the name by using capitalisation. I have just changed 'Agreement' to 'agreement' throughout the article. Not a single cited source uses a capital 'A' anywhere within them, and neither 'agreement' nor 'plan' is a legally recognised name for this significant proposal by the UK prime minister, agreed over by her cabinet at the time. That said, I find find 25,000 Google News returns for "Chequers agreement" and 260,000 returns for "Chequers plan". The unfolding story is one of a plan put forward by the Prime Minister and agreed within the Conservative Cabinet, but which has rapidly unravelled following the resignation of two key Cabinet members who were leading on Brexit. Mrs May thinks its an agreement within her Cabinet, but the Conservative party as a whole clearly seem split. Time will tell. But one thing is clear: it is definitely not a formal agreement of any sort, there's no evidence cited for the public at large calling it an 'agreement', so 'Chequers plan' seems, on balance to me, the better choice for the article title. The assertion within the article establishes 'agreement' as a recognised common name is flawed, based upon the source cited. See the 2nd lede paragraph whose single sentence uses this source to wrongly claim justification for public common usage of the name 'agreement'. Whilst verifying the date of the meeting, any further conclusion is not even WP:OR; it's plain wrong. (pinging @Harfarhs: who inserted it with this edit) Either way, lower case agreement or plan please, per WP:MOS Nick Moyes (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my edit, Nick, although that may be the fault of my phrasing. I was using the Guardian article to justify "Chequers", not to justify "Agreement"/"agreement" which I had thought uncontroversial. See the standfirst of the Guardian piece, though: "Theresa May and her cabinet have reached agreement on how to approach final Brexit talks". To which part of WP:MOS do you refer? Harfarhs (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Harfarhs. I didn't misunderstand your edit, per se, though I think I did misunderstand your intent. So I think we can agree to delete the second half of that sentence, thus leaving the citation to verify the first part, as you intended. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I have now moved the page and changed the lead accordingly. I added two alternative names 'Chequers deal' and 'Chequers'. This last one includes agreement, proposal and such. Heb the best (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

JLo-Watson, I am having trouble seeing "agreement" as more common name than "deal". The articles I have read mostly uses "plan" or "deal". See also this link. Heb the best (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the name for the article should actually be the official title for the white paper. If you google "chequers plan" you find a lot of newspaper articles but if you google for "The future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union" you will find reliable official information. Of course Chequers Plan would have to redirect to the article.Tharos (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Reception

There should be a section about the reception, both within UK and in the EU. The tories are tearing themselves apart, and EU are rejecting it. Heb the best (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Article needs to set out the substance of the plan. The current article amounts to a Boris Johnson criticism footnote, blown up to cover half the space, all at the expense of any description of the plan itself.

Article needs to set out the substance of the plan.

The current article amounts to a Boris Johnson criticism footnote, blown up to cover half the space, all at the expense of any description of the plan itself.

I added some substance but it still needs some work. Tharos (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)