Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 46

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

RFC on the infobox of the 2018–2022 Italian general elections

An RFC about the infobox of the two general elections in Italy, is being held. You are all invited to participate. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Regulamentul Organic

User:Buidhe has nominated Regulamentul Organic for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Constitution of the United States

If anyone watching here has not seen the ongoing debate on Talk:Constitution of the United States it could use some more input to bring these extremely drawn out discussions to a close. The question seems to center currently around who "the people" were and whether the constitution represented them. These discussions have already attracted admin attention and they are getting a little stale. They could use some expert opinions. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Li Rui (politician)#Requested move 8 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Li Rui (politician)#Requested move 8 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Material Works (contribs) 13:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC about election article intros: links or boldface?

Should the lead sentences in articles about elections prioritize links or boldface? 09:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

With link(s) instead of boldface	With boldface instead of link(s)
A general election was held in the United Kingdom on Thursday, 12 December 2019.	The 2019 United Kingdom general election was held on Thursday, 12 December 2019.
A presidential election was held in France on 10 and 24 April 2022.	The 2022 French presidential election was held on 10 and 24 April 2022.
An election is due to take place within the Scottish National Party (SNP) to choose the party leader to succeed Nicola Sturgeon.	The 2023 Scottish National Party leadership election is due to take place to choose the leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) to succeed Nicola Sturgeon.
The October 2022 Conservative Party leadership election was triggered by Liz Truss's announcement that she would resign as Leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, amid an economic and political crisis.	The October 2022 Conservative Party leadership election was triggered by Liz Truss's announcement that she would resign as Leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, amid an economic and political crisis.

Survey II

I believe that we should prioritize links because they serve readers better than boldface, if boldface is of any use to the reader at all. Although MOS:FIRST explicitly says that merely descriptive article titles (such as 2022 French presidential election) do not need to appear verbatim in the text, they often do at the expense of good writing and essential links because we, Wikipedians, get caught up in our own way of doing things. Particularly bad, in my opinion, is the redundancy that results from cramming the descriptive title into the lead sentence, e.g. saying that the 2024 US presidential election will be held in 2024. I do not think that boldface should ever be prioritized over a well-worded lead sentence or links to essential topics. Surtsicna (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Use whatever language is the most natural Having articles open with (e.g.) "The 2013 Fooland presidential election was held in Fooland on 24 October 2013" is pointlessly repetitive (and taking out the repetition makes is seem oddly incomplete; "The 2013 Fooland presidential election took place on 24 October" feels like it still needs the year at the end). Given that election article titles have to follow a specific format, it does not make sense to try and shoehorn it into the opening sentence if it can be phrased more naturally. Number 5 7 12:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
My choice is prioritising Boldface, as we've been doing for as long as I've been on the project. PS - We also have a third option, combine the two in the lead - "The 2024 United States presidential election..." GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The third option violates MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID. Also, I don't think you are correct to say that the boldface option has always been prioritised (or at least not in the way shown above). The majority of election articles don't start with the title, although until recently they did start with the (non-title) words bolded (e.g. A presidential election was held in Fooland on 13 April 1947.). Number 5 7 15:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

My preference is still Boldface, for general & party election pages. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Being against a change because it is a change contributes poorly to a discussion. It also seems like you do not care much about the reader's experience. Surtsicna (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

You already know I'll accept the results of this RFC, no matter what it may be. If I'm able (and I am) to accept the RFC result of having the Federal League stats in two Major League Baseball season pages? Then I'm tolerant of any RFC result. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

This isn't an either/or discussion. See WP:BOLD and WP:BOLDAVOID. In short, we should bold part of the lede if the title can be naturally added into the lede. If it can't be, don't try to edit it into the article, and you should not bold. We don't need an RfC to decide which to use. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

What Lee said. —Kusma (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, it boils down to an either/or discussion since we cannot have links and boldface simultaneously. What is natural is also open for discussion; to me, for example, it looks obvious that the boldface sentences were written first and foremost to accommodate the bolded title, with informativeness and style taking second place, and indeed descriptive titles such as those of articles about elections never seem natural in the lead sentence to me. Do you find them natural? Surtsicna (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not something that can be changed on a project scope level RfC. It would require a site wide RfC rather than a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. As you say, there is some room for discussion as to if something is natural in wording, but you can't just fix that by making a sweeping statement that you should post links in the opening sentence to all articles in this way. The point here, is that we aren't prioritising links to articles, we are prioritising well written ledes, which should always be true. Whilst you might say "The 2023 French Presidential Elections was a political leadership vote that took place on 1 January 2023" (or similar, I'm not a political editor), and I feel that's fine. Whilst another article might have a title that is much harder to be natural in the lede sentence and should be explained, rather than inserted into the article. In the above examples, we actually have the title in the article (aside from the third one), and should have bold where it appears in the first usage. Then, when you talk about the subject (say, a general election) later, that's when you link.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not see why it should be site-wide if we are discussing something very particular, that is articles about elections, and within the existing guidelines. I agree that well-written leads should be our priority. The boldface lead examples above were written not to be good but contrived to contain the bolded article title, which we can see from the resulting circular definitions and tautology. Defining "2023 French Presidential Elections" as something happening in 2023 is hardly good writing.
Your last point is precisely the point of contention: why should links to essential topics be pushed down for the sake of boldface? How does that help our readers? I do not see why they should have to look for essential links scattered across the article. Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Because that is how Wikipedia is written. Your argument is not specific to politics articles, so you would need to change the MOS. Either the lede can be written with the title involved (and thus boldened), or it can't. There's no preference for linking terms. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

My argument is not in contravention but in agreement with the Manual of Style, specifically MOS:AVOIDBOLD, so no change to MOS is needed or sought here. MOS:AVOIDBOLD covers this quite explicitly, especially the 2011 Mississippi River floods example cited there. The question here is whether MOS:AVOIDBOLD should apply to election articles. Surtsicna (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Lee. Looking at 2022 French presidential election, it make no sense to link to Presidential elections in France in the first sentence, as much of the content about how an election is conducted is contained on the 2022 page and is linked later in the text. -

Enos733 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Neither. I think Lee does an admirable job of explaining how a false dichotomy has been set up, and how and why Politics articles should instead adhere to the site-wide MoS. Enos733 is also spot on with their comment. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
There is no suggestion that the election articles should not adhere to the site-wide MoS, Gog the Mild. Note that MOS:AVOIDBOLD addresses this and cites the example:

The 2011 Mississippi River floods in April and May were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the U.S. waterway in the past century. (2011 Mississippi River floods)

Major floods along the Mississippi River in April and May 2011 were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the U.S. waterway in the past century. (2011 Mississippi River floods)

So the site-wide MoS favors links, specifically saying that redundancy should be avoided. Surtsicna (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Then, the RfC makes no sense. There's no one size fits all in terms of ledes. We don't favour one way or the other. We certainly don't favour links at all, because even in that example, it's not about having links to "floods" or "Mississippi river" that it is trying to move up the page, but rather that the lede doesn't naturally fit our typical lede sentence structure. I'm not sure why you'd need an RfC to reiterate what MOS:BOLDAVOID already states. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDAVOID does not state nor imply that "the site-wide MoS favors links". The phrase about links is immediately after "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence". Attempts to quote out of context will win few converts to your preference. The MoS being crystal clear and there apparently being agreement even from you that the MoS adequately covers the situation, I hope that this nonsense is closed down rapidly. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand your outrage. We have hundreds of articles that apparently do not follow the Manual of Style. Is it really so preposterous to seek consensus to bring them in accordance with the Manual of Style before undertaking such an enormous, conspicuous task? I am not looking for a one-size-fits-all solution either, just the adherence to MOS. Surtsicna (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

you don't need an RfC to make things meet the MOS. The MOS IS the established consensus. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I should not need it, but what happens when the edits are inevitably reverted due to not having been discussed? Do I keep pressing and shouting "MOS:AVOIDBOLD"? Surtsicna (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Which MOS currently has more authority, concerning the topic of elections? "MOS:BOLD" or "MOS:AVOIDBOLD"? GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not a priority list - both work in conjuncture. See MOS:BOLDLEAD where it explains exactly what we do with the first sentence of an article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Boldface although also not sure why there should be a special rule per WP:CREEP. Boldface is the standard for 95% of articles but it's not problematic if it can't be used for a specific election because of some weirdness. That said, much as wikilinks are wonderful, I think the first sentence is one of the rare areas where just telling the reader what THIS article is about is preferred, rather than immediately booting them to another article. So keep the wikilinks but it doesn't have to be first-half-of-the-first-sentence level stuff. SnowFire (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Boldface—it would not be in accordance with Wikipedia convention to do otherwise, and in addition, it makes it immediately clear to the reader what the subject of the article is. Compusolus (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Compusolus, Wikipedia convention is to not use boldface in cases like this. See MOS:AVOIDBOLD. Surely if the title of the article does not make it clear what the subject is, repeating it won't help either. Surtsicna (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
In which case I strike my support for boldface. Thank you for alerting me to that. Compusolus (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
No special rule, Site-wide MOS per Lee Vilenski. Write a good lead, then add links and/or bold as appropriate. CMD (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Boldface - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Links instead of boldface - it's more in spirit with the wiki principles of hypertext. Links can help readers who would otherwise be confused. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Boldface, both per style, and because the first option produces remarkably awkward wording. If someone is talking about the 2020 US presidential election, they call it something like that, not "the presidential election that was held in the United States." Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Are you referring to the Manual of Style, Gnomingstuff? Surtsicna (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
The Manual of Style. MOS:AVOIDBOLD applies if "the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence." The "easy and natural" way to talk about the 2018 election (or whatever) is "the 2018 election." Nobody says "the election that was held in 2016." Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting that the subject of the sentence be anything like "the election that was held in 2016". In fact, such phrases only occur in sentences in which the subject is "the 2018 election", those being circular definitions. Surtsicna (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Boldface. The issue arises in articles about many topics - it is not obvious to me that there is anything particular about election articles. Good writing is the 1st priority, boldface (where applicable) the 2nd priority, and links the 3rd priority. A link can usually be added on a second use of a term, which serves the reader well enough. Nurg (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Nurg. Do you think that the boldface option produces good writing? You can check the examples given above for reference. What I see is redundancy and phrasing obviously contrived to make room for boldface. Surtsicna (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

My understanding of the issue you see is whether editors sometimes write opening sentences around the literal article title in a way that results in a poorly written sentence. Yes, that happens - it is one of WP's annoying tics. And it may be that the driver for those editors including the literal article title is a wish to boldface it. I don't think the driver is a wish to prioritise boldface over links, which is how you framed the issue. I think the wikilinking is a red herring, and even the boldfacing is a secondary issue. The problem is a slavish following of "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence" (from MOS:LEADSENTENCE) at the expense of good writing. Am I representing the issue correctly or am I misjudging it? Nurg (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nurg: If your preference is good writing, may I suggest you change your !vote from Boldface to Site-wide MOS to match others who have said this should be the main consideration? !Voting for boldface suggests this is your first preference (over good writing). Cheers, Number 5 7 12:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Nurg, you are correct. I now see that I should have framed it as MoS vs boldface but I tried to be as neutral as possible. Good writing vs boldface seemed far too biased. In any case, we are actually in agreement here. Surtsicna (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

When I want to know the best practice for articles of a specific type, I look first at the project pages for guidance, e.g. for bird species, Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Bird names and article titles gives the consensus style for the opening phrase of an article ("The house sparrow (Passer domesticus) is a passerine bird ..."). When such guidance is not provided (it usually isn't) I look to Featured articles (FAs) as exemplars. Do you think that the FAs for elections all have good lead sentences that can be used as exemplars? Nurg (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Boldface for the reasons others have brought up, specifically Gnomingstuff and Snowfire. It does seem to me that trying to avoid boldface results in some awkwardly-phrased sentences if the four examples are any indication. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 05:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- @ThadeusOfNazereth: Isn't the opposite is the case? I would say insistence on using boldface (i.e. trying to match the article title) is what leads to awkwardly-phrased openings by trying to force a certain wording into it; for example for 2009 European Parliament election in France, what is less awkward? The current opener ("European Parliament elections were held in France on Sunday 7 June 2009 to elect the 72 French Members of the European Parliament.") or trying to force the article title into the opener (which I guess would be "The 2009 European Parliament election in France was held on Sunday 7 June 2009 to elect the 72 French Members of the European Parliament.) The current opener seems more natural to me. Cheers, Number 5 7 19:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
  Honestly? This probably just comes down to preference, and barring a site-wide poll I don't think any real consensus is going to be reached. Your example there does sound better non-boldfaced, but I don't think the examples given above did. It sort of makes me question the need for a poll on this question at all - I'd be tempted to say we should let the circumstances of each individual article dictate this if that didn't always lead to more drama. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 19:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
  @ThadeusOfNazereth: Yes, I think the examples given are quite poor and probably led to some users opting for boldface, and I agree this didn't shouldn't have needed an RfC (but there is one). I've modified my !vote above to make it clear that I favour whatever the most natural wording is, rather than it being an either/or. Cheers, Number 5 7 20:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
  Please feel free to improve the "With links" sentences, Number 57. I fear that "whatever the most natural wording is" will never see us freed from the terror of sentences contrived for the sake of boldface. Surtsicna (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Links Per Number57 and Lights and freedom. --Vacant0 (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Links MOS:BOLDAVOID is a site-wide guideline, and there is not a sufficiently good enough reason to ignore/change it just for election articles. Doing so would be a massive WP:CREEP, and this RFC just seems to be a case of WP:ILIKEIT. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Links. Using boldface titles often results in worse lede sentence, as the sentence repeats itself in order to provide a link to relevant information. For example, 2014 Scottish Labour leadership election opens with The 2014 Scottish Labour Party leadership election was an internal party election to choose a new leader and deputy leader of the Scottish Labour Party, which is silly. Other times, in order to not result in a comically recursive sentence, those links are left out entirely, which might be worse (eg: 2014 British Columbia New Democratic Party leadership election provides no link to British Columbia New Democratic Party in the article body at all). The easiest way to solve the problem is to simply not require that these articles be introduced with the page title. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Boldface, I've never found a problem incorporating the article title into the lede sentence, but neither do I have a problem with introductory sentences that are slightly longer or repetitive to allow links to the key subjects. Clearly an introductory paragraph can easily have both, without causing any offence to the vast majority of the readership. Sionk (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion II

A discussion of this sort (about a year or more ago) was sorta held, concerning Canadian federal election pages. There's a lot of general election & party election pages out there & I'm not certain if one can actually pull off making an across the board change to their leads. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I've contacted the WikiProjects or noticeboards etc, of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, France, United States, Russia, Germany, Spain & Italy, so as to broaden the awareness of this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed move discussion - 2022 Peruvian political crisis

Hello! A move request has been made for the 2022 Peruvian political crisis article. To broaden the involvement of users, you have been invited to review the discussion and provide your thoughts. Thank you! WMrapids (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Article contribution

I urge all editors, especially those who are interested in political articles, to write and develop liberalism in India, conservatism in India, socialism in India, and Communist movements in India articles properly. These four articles are poorly written. Kindly develop these four articles properly. Thanks 2405:201:800B:6079:4825:C253:CA7D:2980 (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

There are currently over 100 biographies of living politicians that have no references. Unreferenced BLPs are a high priority issue, and any help in finding references for them is much appreciated! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Fox News reliability RfC

Participants in this WikiProject may be interested in the RFC at WP:RSN#RfC: downgrade Fox News for politics? on whether Fox News should be deprecated for politics. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Opinion Polls lists

I have recently come across a collection of list style articles that track opinion polls through an election cycle and they are formatted that each listing in a poll is an in-line EL to that particular opinion poll. Now this seems to be in the face of our policy of Wikipedia:External links . Some Examples, but not an exhaustive list;

I have only tagged the first one I cam across as having too many EL and they should be converted to citations. I would like some other input on whether this is something this group believes should continue or should these be brought into alignment with our policies? McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

From a perspective of Polling in the UK, I have looked at Polling for UK General elections as these seem to provide a significant timescale and might best inform the discussion. The practice of Listing Polling Results can first been seen (in UK) in a format that is very similar to the more recent ones as far back as 1974, where Polling results are listed in a manner showing newest first, typically in a table designating Political Party and what % was recorded for them. So we have nearly 50 years of established practice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1974_United_Kingdom_general_elections#October_general_election

In 2001 the same format continues but with the introduction of direct links to the polling companies data tables, this practice has continued for the last 22 years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

A very similar format has been used extensively in all polling carried out within the UK including but not exclusive to

Polling for Scottish Independence Referendum 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014

Polling for Scottish Elections to Holyrood (devolved Parliament) since 1999

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1999_Scottish_Parliament_election

There are many many more of these long established recording of polls using the format being discussed here

I also note that this format is used in many other Nations and regions, so don't think it is really an issue, or at least should not be, to my mind far more important is ensuring that the data is accurate Soosider3 (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

This is explicitly allowed by Wp:EL. —Kusma (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It might be preferable to format these links as inline citations. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Links as citations when in a table like these are far more accessible to the reader and easier to navigate in general than having hundreds of footnotes. I have no issues with this format. I read EL as restricting those actually in the line of a sentence, not mandatating all external links be footnoted, as this format identifies the date and publisher. Reywas92^Talk 22:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:ELYES provides a justification for this usage:

"3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail..."

Quite clearly, the pages on Polling cannot embed hundreds of excel tables of pollster disclosures, which are highly relevant to complete understanding of the topic. They must therefore be linked. The question becomes whether to make the reader access the link by first going to the relevant footnote, or directly. Common sense suggests that a direct link is preferable. RERTwiki (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Ryan Binkley, running for President of the United States

I created a quick draft for Ryan Binkley. Not sure he meets notability right now. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Collab?

Hi, I am currently working on cleaning up articles under this Category:Assembly constituencies of Andhra Pradesh. Interested users can approach me on my talk page to collaborate, and you can also view the current status of the cleanup here: User:456legend#Cleanup Drives - Current. Thank you. 456legend(talk) 07:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Coronation

Coronation has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

FAR for William Wilberforce

User:Buidhe has nominated William Wilberforce for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Mariya Gabriel

Hello everyone! It looks like Mariya Gabriel has just been tipped to become the next prime minister of her home-country, Bulgaria, likely as a compromise figure in the aftermath of this year's parliamentary election.

I wanted to add more information to the page, but I wouldn't know exactly where to place it (since I've never edited biographies of politicians before), neither if I should wait until she announces her final decision.

For this reason, any help would be greatly appreciated.

Oltrepier (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Notification of new pages

Just to notify of three new pages which you may wish to contribute to, International relations of Wales, Republicanism in the Bahamas and Republicanism in Antigua and Barbuda. Titus Gold (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

David Duke 1992 presidential campaign

Knowing this is a controversial figure, wanted to leave a note that I just approved David Duke 1992 presidential campaign through AfC. Approved based on notability alone so would appreciate anyone wanting to have a further review. CNMall41 (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:American Popular Revolutionary Alliance#Requested move 28 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:American Popular Revolutionary Alliance#Requested move 28 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Edward III of England Featured article review

I have nominated Edward III of England for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

2022 Peruvian political crisis relisting

An editor has requested for 2022 Peruvian political crisis to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with 2022 Peruvian political crisis, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). WMrapids (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Operation Gideon (2020) move discussion

An editor has requested for Operation Gideon (2020) to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with Operation Gideon (2020), you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). WMrapids (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt move discussion

An editor has requested for 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). WMrapids (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Green Party (United States) attention requested

There is an ongoing dispute about the Green Party's alleged ties to Russia at Green Party (United States). Please feel free to join the discussion to main NPOV. Thank you.--User:Namiba 17:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Twitter Space with Ron DeSantis and Elon Musk merge proposal

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Twitter Space with Ron DeSantis and Elon Musk regarding a proposal to merge the article. Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:PragerU has an RFC

Talk:PragerU has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kyle Spencer#Requested move 30 May 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kyle Spencer#Requested move 30 May 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Missing article: Socio-politics

The entire concept of socio-politics or sociopolitics) is redirecting to Political sociology for lack of a better place (along with adjective redirects socio-political, sociopolitical). But the academic study of socio-politics is not the topic of socio-politics itself. There should be an actual article there. Political sociology for that matter, barely even mentions the terms. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

"Falange" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Falange has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 3 § Falange until a consensus is reached. 64.229.90.172 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

"La Falange" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect La Falange has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 3 § La Falange until a consensus is reached. 64.229.90.172 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Input requested

Hi. There is a discussion about the division of the Americas continent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 27#Category:Assassinated politicians in the Americas. Your input is welcome. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom § Treaty of Reciprocity

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom § Treaty of Reciprocity. Peaceray (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Caligula

Caligula has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Several Pirate Party branches nominated for deletion

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate Party (Ireland). There is a proposal that several Pirate Party chapter articles be deleted on the basis they never had notability beyond their initial founding. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Attalus I

I have nominated Attalus I for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Redlinked people in a listicle

If you have an opinion, please share at Talk:List_of_Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign_primary_endorsements#Redlinks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Monarchies in Europe

Monarchies in Europe has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there any interest in a WikiProject:Fascism?

I think that fascism and the subjects related to it are very important historically, and I am surprised that there's not a WikiProject for it. I think it would be useful for working on wide number of important articles. However, it would need to be heavily monitored to ensure that pro-fascist sympathies and POV don't fester. I personally don't know if I am qualified to make a new WikiProject, so I come here to ask if 1) there is any interest in such a WikiProject, and 2) if so, if anyone would be willing to create, maintain, and monitor it.

To be abundantly clear, if this came to fruition, it would not be a pro-fascist WikiProject, but rather just a WikiProject dedicated to the coverage of fascist topics on Wikipedia. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

As a general rule, I'm against ideological WikiProjects. WP:CONSERVATISM, WP:SOCIALISM, and WP:ANARCHISM presumably consider themselves to be non-partisan, but this has not been my experience with any of them. I think keeping ideologies under the purview of WikiProject Politics is much better than branching them off. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Case in point, the comments below are about a WikiProject that doesn't even exist, and it immediately turned into a discussion between editors about the POVs that they'd like to enforce in that area. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I am more interested in the libertarian/authoritarian divide. We all know examples of authoritarian regimes or fascist regimes but I am hard-pressed thinking about famous libertarian ones. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Thinker78 that there should be a WP:WikiProject Authoritarianism to cover statist and regulatory tendencies found in both the right and left, and their want or need for big government and control, including more crimes and prisons for both right and left. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

"need for big government and control, including more crimes and prisons for both right and left" Don't forget the centrists. In Greece, we had decades of persecution of leftists and anyone perceived as leftist by supposedly centrist parties, such as the Liberal Party (1910-1961) and the Centre Union (1961-1974). As one Greek historian put it, a "centrist"/"liberal" is a moderate right-winger and perpetually hostile to the left. Ask the population of prison islands such as Gyaros about what they thought of the "centrists"/"liberals" who exiled them there. Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

As you said it, "moderate right-winger", so on the right. Yes, control-centered centrists also go after the further ends of both wings as well. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The thing is that the political spectrum is not a one-dimensional line of polar opposites and everything in between. It is more a bi-dimensional plane or who knows maybe tridimensional. A one-dimensional centrist government regarding certain philosophies or policies may not be completely centrist in a plane but rather bi-dimensionally centrist-authoritarian. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

At the least it's 4D. There's individualist/tribalist, values/mores(absolutist/relativist), economic theory, anarchist/authoritarianist. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

My goodness, the Tesseract! Here comes the multidimensional scaling of politics. Things get very complicated! Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"and I am surprised that there's not a WikiProject for it." There used to be one. Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Fascism has been defunct since 2018. Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Fascism former page when it was active. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

RM Re: October surprise conspiracy theory

There is currently a discussion as to how to retitle the page October surprise conspiracy theory, which is part of this WikiProject. A prior RFC closed with a consensus to change the name of the page, but those supporting the change were roughly split between two options: 1980 October surprise theory and 1980 October surprise allegations. In a follow-up discussion, the vast majority of editors said that they would prefer either name, but a few expressed an opinion for just one or the other. As such, we are seeking wider community input. Thanks for reading!--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC which may be of interest to the members of this project can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

A discussion which may be of interest to the members of this group can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

In Oval Office, should "president's secretary" be wikified to Secretary_to_the_President_of_the_United_States#Personal_secretary_to_the_president?

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for First Macron presidency + Second Macron presidency → Presidency of Emmanuel Macron

Category:French presidency has been nominated for discussion

Category:French presidency has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 11:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: requested move of Political opening of Brazil

An editor has requested that Talk:Political opening of Brazil be moved to Redemocratization in Brazil, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Mathglot (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for NATO

NATO has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Will someone please assess my draft article?

Draft:Vigilant Isles 22 is the link to clink on. StrongALPHA (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Harriet Arbuthnot

I have nominated Harriet Arbuthnot for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

constitutional democracy and draft:Constitutional Democracy

Discussion at Talk:Opinion polling for the 2023 Spanish general election § What happened to the References?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Opinion polling for the 2023 Spanish general election § What happened to the References?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Article seems to have gotten too big and is now having formatting and display issues. Someone more familiar with this typeof article probably should take a look at it and help figure out what to leave in and what to leave out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Elwood Haynes Featured article review

I have nominated Elwood Haynes for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Another discussion at Talk:Second Cold War

The matter of the {{globalize}} tag in the Second Cold War article is discussed. More inputs are welcome there. Link: Talk:Second Cold War#Remove "globalize" tag? George Ho (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Notability of Joan A. Lambert

Helo, I am very unfamiliar with the notability guidelines for politicians, (I came across this article while searching for the Alien character named Joan Lambert), and it seems to me that there doesn't seem to be almost any coverage of this person, a search for "Joan Lambert" on Google returns only results for the character and an author, while searching for "Joan A. Lambert" returns mainly results for an obituary of a different person. As such I'm not sure this person passes GNG. ★Trekker (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Input requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reasonableness

Your input at this deletion request, which I believe falls under the scope of this WikiProject, would be very much appreciated. GnocchiFan (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

An RfC of interest

An RfC of possible interest to this WikiProject can be found here.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Centre-left politics

There is a discussion at Talk:Centre-left politics#Green politics that may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Presidential Candidate

Rep. Dean Phillips has been in the news about running for president (MinnPost, New York Times, CNN, USA Today, Huffington Post). His article does not say what he stands for and more about him for potential voters! I wouldn’t even know where to begin editing as I am not experienced and I have ailments that make it difficult to type for long periods. I was hoping to enlist the help of someone interested in the 2024 election for the article. Much thanks - BekLeed (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This is speculation until he confirms that he is running, there probably will not be much coverage on his positions before then. - Indefensible (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Revolution of Dignity has an RFC

Revolution of Dignity has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ADifferentMan (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Tax protester constitutional arguments

Tax protester constitutional arguments has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Directive Principles

Directive Principles has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Heads of government versus prime ministers

See this category discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Longest reigning monarch of Denmark

There is a discussion about inclusion in the lead of the page Margrethe II of Denmark about length of her reign. The thread is Talk:Margrethe II of Denmark#Removal of notable length of reign text from lead. There is a dispute about whether Margrethe II or Christian IV is the longest reigning monarch of Denmark. Your input is appreciated. Regards, --Thinker78 (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:National identity#Requested move 12 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:National identity#Requested move 12 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Results of Australian federal elections

Hi, As many of you would know, there are articles with the results in each state and the territories of every Australian federal election since 1984. However, I've noticed that they only cover the House of Representatives and not the Senate (which has a different article with state and territory results) and they have long titles (i.e "Results of the 2022 Australian federal election in New South Wales"). Other countries with regional breakdowns of elections format the titles as the name of the election and then "in [region name]", e.g 2020 United States presidential election in California, 2019 European Parliament election in Germany, 2019 United Kingdom general election in England, etc. I was wondering whether or not Australia should do the same (i.e moving them to that format; e.g move Results of the 2022 Australian federal election in New South Wales to 2022 Australian federal election in New South Wales, etc). I aLao think that articles about federal election results in the territories should be either split into two articles about each territory (i.e split Results of the 2022 Australian federal election in territories into 2022 Australian federal election in the Australian Capital Territory and 2022 Australian federal election in the Northern Territory, etc), or at least add "the" (i.e move Results of the 2022 Australian federal election in territories to 2022 Australian federal election in the territories), although I personally prefer the former.

Any thoughts? I've notified WikiProject Australia about this discussion too. QLDer in NSW (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Barbara Bush FAC

Barbara Bush is currently a candidate for featured article. Reviews and other feedback are appreciated. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tom Rice#Requested move 20 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tom Rice#Requested move 20 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia#Requested move 28 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia#Requested move 28 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences#Requested move 18 August 2023, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. The move request also affects the title of the North-East Project article, which is about a political party in Italy. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#2020 Venezuelan coup attempt round III

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#2020 Venezuelan coup attempt round III that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. WMrapids (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Switzerland has an RFC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Switzerland has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Brothers of Italy has an RFC

Brothers of Italy has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

RFC on adding a second "division" to Template:Infobox government

Please see the linked discussion with relevance to this WikiProject. 2861969nyc (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Request to fix inaccuracy on Steve Hilton article

Hello editors. On behalf of Steve Hilton, I am asking editors to consider correcting information in his biography pertaining to Hilton's comments on the 2020 election to better reflect the sources cited in the article. I was asked by the editor who initially reviewed the request to seek input from subject-area experts. Editors of this WikiProject might be interested in reviewing the request here. Thank you. SKflo (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

SKflo, it looks like you want to change it so that a false claim is not described as "false". This is a common misconception about Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Neutral point of view doesn't mean we have to pretend that all positions are equally valid. It means that we can't unfairly favor some ideas over others. If 99.9% of reliable sources call the election fraud claims false, then neutral point of view requires us to do so as well. Non-neutral would be favoring the 0.1% of reliable sources that give credence to the idea of Trump's election fraud claims. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien Thanks for taking a look. I'm not trying to argue here whether or not the election fraud claims were true, or how they should be described on Wikipedia. Rather, the content as written on Wikipedia should more closely resemble the source material. Wikipedia says "Hilton promoted Trump's false claims of large-scale fraud," but the source material quotes him as saying "any evidence of fraud or irregularity should be brought forward and the court should adjudicate." Hilton also said "But when it’s this close. This important with this many late changes to the rules, of course, we should investigate them thoroughly. Not just for the sake of the win but for the sake of faith in our system." There is a difference between "promoting" fraud claims and saying that claims should be investigated, and the Wikipedia article should faithfully represent the source material per Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If editors on Wikipedia prefer to describe claims of fraud "false", that's not my main concern. But I do not think it should be presented that Hilton "promoted" Trump's claims. Hilton has even gone on record refuting claims that the election was "stolen", so there's a clear record on where he stands here. While Hilton has said claims should be investigated, he never said that he supports the election fraud claims.

Any other discussion I would invite to Talk:Steve Hilton so it's all in one place for others to read. Thank you again for replying. SKflo (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Irakli Garibashvili § Should the lead image be changed?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Irakli Garibashvili § Should the lead image be changed?. Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2019–2021 Iraqi protests#Requested move 21 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2019–2021 Iraqi protests#Requested move 21 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 00:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Liberal Democratic Party (Australia)#Requested move 28 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Liberal Democratic Party (Australia)#Requested move 28 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Updating Global Strategy Group History and organization section

Hello! First, I should establish that I'm a Global Strategy Group employee and that I'm visiting this WikiProject on the firm's behalf. Our firm does polling, research, and consulting for political candidates and lawmakers, as well as corporate and nonprofit clients.

I recently proposed some updates to the GSG article's History and organization section on the article's Talk page. You can view my that post by following this link. The updates I'm seeking are pretty numerous, so I've also built a subpage within my user space that compares my proposed changes against the existing History and organization section. That's available at this link.

If someone here could review my proposal, I'd very much appreciate it. Happy to provide clarification or talk through my reasoning on specific changes, as needed.

Thank you, ES at Global Strategy Group (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Stubs, or not

This Petscan link should give you a list of all the film-related articles that are in the Wikipedia:Database reports/Long stubs page. At the moment, there are 32 in the list tagged by WP:POLITICS. Some of them might still be stubs (this happens, e.g., if there are long lists of sources). Please take a quick look at update the Wikipedia:Content assessment ratings this week. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Seeking feedback re: endorsement guideline

This comment serves as notice of a discussion that editors of this page may be interested in: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Interpretation of endorsement guideline re: EMILY's List/Laphonza Butler? 67.170.42.135 (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

What the difference?

What the difference between Dissolution, Collapse and Breakup of states/countries? Why we call Breakup of Yugoslavia but Dissolution of the Soviet Union‎? Kaiyr (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I would imagine that the "breakup" involves conflict and "dissolution" is done peacefully (like Dissolution of Czechoslovakia). Number 5 7 17:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Input requested at Zviad Gamsakhurdia

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Zviad_Gamsakhurdia#Gamsakhurdia's_alleged_chauvinism. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Premier of the Soviet Union#Merge proposal

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Premier of the Soviet Union#Merge proposal that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Userbox participants

Hello, I just wanted to let members know there is now another userbox available for those who are participating in this project, thank you.

Wikitext

userbox

where used

{{User WikiProject Politics alt}}

This user is a member of WikiProject Politics.

linked pages

- Jerium (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?

An editor has started an RfC asking "Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks?" at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?. Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 09:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Power (social and political), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team}

Patrick McHenry

There's a bit of a dispute over whether Patrick McHenry was "Speaker pro tempore of the US House of Representatives" or "Acting Speaker pro tempore of the US House of Representatives". More input at the discussion in question, would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Online Safety Act 2023 § Synthesis in lead

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Online Safety Act 2023 § Synthesis in lead. The discussion concerns whether information pertaining to the act's publication online (or lack thereof) should be noted as unusual. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see my thoughts on this here. [[1]] Tonyinman (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC) ("Additional clarification of issues on this page. This article page - up until 26th October related to the Online Safety Bill - draft legislation. This article was well sourced. However, on the 26th, according to sources, the Bill received royal assent, making it current law, ie an Act. Normally when this is the came the text of the Act is published on leglasation.gov.uk at the same time as royal assent. For some reason - unknown - this has not happened. Similarly, on Wikipedia articles, when the articles relates to an Act there's always an external link and/or citations to the text of the Act. In this case, there has resulted in a situaiton where an article about the Online Safety Act is actually very thinly and inadequately supported by sources, since nearly all the sources relate to the draft Bill. The sources that do relate to the Act do so only in a thin and passing manner and only repeat the Government press release announcement. This source is flawed since is does not provide any evidence of the text of the Act. This is a highly unusual situation where a potential front page Wiki article is underpinned almost entirely by a Government announcement, and no substance. I would image that this situtation would be short lived and that the text of the Act will be published shortly. Until then, however, I think it would be prudent to keep this clarification paragraph. Otherwise, the Wikipedia article would not only be inaccurate, but could lead to Wikipedia looking less than encyclopaedic and impartial if the situation turns out not to be short lived for any reason. I will reprint this on the article's talk page, please do discuss further. Thanks for your understanding. ")

Byzantine Empire Featured article review

I have nominated Byzantine Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government § Why do British politicians have such long short descriptions?

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government § Why do British politicians have such long short descriptions?. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Mamin Cabinet and its fork, Second Mamin Government

Hi, everyone, and hope you're doing well. At Talk:Mamin Cabinet#Requested move 18 October 2023, the forking of Mamin Cabinet to Second Mamin Government was contested. I thought I'd ask to knowledgeable and (possibly) interested parties: what should be done? Thanks in advanced, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

United States involvement in regime change in Latin America has an RFC

United States involvement in regime change in Latin America has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. WMrapids (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Australian monarch's infobox

There's a discussion taking place, at the Monarchy of Australia page. Input would be welcomed. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Split proposal on Stanislav Markelov

I want to split off the section of the murder of Stanislav Markelov and lesser section on Anastasia Baburova into a combined article on the murder of both. I believe having it split awkwardly between the pages is confusing and prone to them desyncing. I have a draft here Draft:Murders of Stanislav Markelov and Anastasia Baburova do you think this is warranted?Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Attalus I

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Attalus I/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Global warming controversy

An article that you have been involved in editing—Global warming controversy—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Requesting inputs

Requesting inputs to review notability @ Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association to improve the article and possibly remove the "notability template." Hamish barebones (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hirsh Singh

Hello, I have asked this question a few different times and not gotten clear answers, but I figured this would be a good place to ask do you believe that Hirsh Singh is notable enough for an article. While he has never actually won an election, he has run multiple times. I believe this makes him notable as a perennial Canidate is this agreed upon? Casper king (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Western Sahara has an RFC

Western Sahara has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. CMD (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Edward I of England#Requested move 5 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Edward I of England#Requested move 5 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Polyamorph (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for input on post-Yugoslav-breakup election article naming

We had a discussion relisted at Talk:May 1992 Yugoslavian parliamentary election#Requested move 3 November 2023 that could benefit from the input of people who have knowledge of this topic area, please check it out. --Joy (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion notification

A discussion that may interest participants in this WikiProject has been opened at Talk:Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party#Should Standing Committee members be indicated on individual Politburo articles?. Folly Mox (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Early life of Jan Smuts

Early life of Jan Smuts has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 08:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion at Guayana Esequiba

An editor has requested that Guayana Esequiba be moved to Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. --WMrapids (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Timeline of Brexit

Hi all. Timeline of Brexit has been nominated at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates for a few months now, and I think it's quite close to getting promoted, but it just needs one or two more reviews. If anyone has the time, I would welcome any comments or feedback on the nomination. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

US federal & state level parties infoboxes

For examples (state level) Republican Party of Virginia, Democratic Party of Florida & (federal level) Republican Party, Democratic Party - Why do the former have the US Senate & US House of Representatives parameters in their infoboxes & Why do the latter have the state Senates & Houses parameters in their infoboxes? GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The inclusion of these counts makes sense to me. Federal reps & senators are nominated by and members of the state based political party. Similarly, the number of state houses controlled by the party nationally is a useful measure of their relative political success. Newystats (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion for 2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis

An editor has requested that 2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis be moved to 2023 Guyana–Venezuela crisis, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.--WMrapids (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Who Made Huckabee?

Who Made Huckabee? has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 04:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dave Hall (politician)#Requested move 25 December 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dave Hall (politician)#Requested move 25 December 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – Hilst [talk] 15:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)