Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Green Politics/Target/Archive 1

Archive 1

Target Article of the Month – March 2017

History of the Green Party of Canada (withdrawn)

I nominate History of the Green Party of Canada. Much of it was directly cut from Green Party of Canada due to article length, and it could use some work to bring it up to snuff. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - @Me-123567-Me: I agree with your points raised above but... really? The article is over 17.5 thousand prose bytes in length! J947 00:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Might I suggest instead of oppose/support for nominations we try to keep it more polite, instead just staying why you do/don't like the idea without the oppose/support at the start? (Does that make sense?) Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Me-123567-Me and Bcharles: I've been thinking of having comments (for general comments on the nomination) and endorsements (for your preferred nomination). I'm open for other ideas as well. J947 03:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Works for me. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Green Party of California

I nominate Green Party of California - Clearly notable and needs major expansion; only 2000 prose bytes. J947 23:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• @J947: Is that really how we're going to evaluate these? By current length? I suppose there's nothing wrong with that, but I'd hope we'd improve articles that really need it, especially if they have tagged issues and have been tagged for years. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Me-123567-Me: The California green party has three issues and the Canadian green party history only has one. J947 00:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• @J947: Fair enough. I had not looked. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Green Initiative/Green Parties in Argentina

I withdraw my previous nomination and instead nominate Green Initiative, the Green Party in Argentina. It is an entire sentence. Came across it when adding {{Friendly search suggestions}} to talk pages. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Digging a little, it seems to have been active 2006-2011. I can't see anything since then. Definitely plenty to add to the one-line article, regardless of whether they are still active. Search for "argentino Iniciativa Verde", "Argentine Green Initiative" or "Iniciativa Verde Partido" is more fruitful than "Green Initiative", which is more often a common phrase. I'll put a little more in the article with the references I found. Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Here we go, it appears there is another Green party in Argentina: Greens-FEP Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Doesn't look like there is an article on that party, so we could just move the page. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Two different organizations: Iniciativa Verde founded in 2006, Foro de Ecología Política (now styled Los Verdes-FEP/Greens-FEP) founded in 2002. I can't see that they are directly related, only common interests. There's no mention of Juan Manuel Velasco or the Green Initiative on the Greens-FEP web site. A page move would be good only if we can find there was some sort of merger. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Add Los Verdes to the list of articles to be created? Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Another idea: build out article with info about Greens-FEP (Los Verdes), and info about Partido Verde, an associate member party of Globals Greens. Then move it to some catch-all name, like "Green Parties in Argentina" (styled after Green Parties in the United Kingdom) or, if you want a broader topic, "Environmental movement in Argentina" (styled after Environmental movement in Australia). Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• That's a good idea. That way when one party has enough info, a new article can be spun off. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – Now that Jacknstock has expanded it, the article is no longer in need of a major expansion. J947 19:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It still needs major expansion to include Greens-FEP and the Global Greens associate member, Partido Verde. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Lavender Greens

My second nomination for March is Lavender Greens. It's on AfD right now and has 0 sources. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - It might not survive AfD as right now there is three 'keep's, three 'delete's, and one 'redirect'. J947 19:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• @J947: AfD is NOT a vote. The decision is based on the weight of the arguments and how they apply to policy. I'm fairly certain it will be kept, but we'll know in a day or two. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Me-123567-Me: There are two arguments for deletion (WP:PROMO and not enough secondary sources) and one for keeping (WP:SSEFAR). However, I do agree that it will probably be closed as 'No consensus'. J947 20:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Changed opinion. Me-123567-Me, do you still think that? It's just been relisted and Jacknstock has noted that SSEFAR and OSE are weak arguments. I've also made my keep 'weak'. J947 02:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Me-123567-Me: There are three points in this comment I would like to make:

• a. The deletion discussion is probably going to be closed in a few hours and it certainly doesn't look like a 'Keep' or even a 'No consensus' closure; There are two 'keep's, two 'redirect's, one 'merge', and three 'delete's. It certainly does not look like a third relist will happen either.

• b. I have changed my 'keep' !vote to a 'merge' !vote, leaving only two keep advocates who are both basing a weak argument for their rationale.

• c. Even if it were to survive AfD there wouldn't be much to add, as there is only one Google News result about the topic.

• Based on my points above I would thoroughly recommend changing your !vote and withdrawing this nomination. On a side note it seems that you have added your name to the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians list. (The side note is only meant as a side comment (kind of irrelevant to the discussion)). J947 05:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@J947: I will see what happens with the AfD, because if it gets deleted or re-directed, there's no point in withdrawing it. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted. Sorry, it just isn't notable yet. None of the other Green caucuses have articles, either. We need to build a decent section for them in Green Party of the United States. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Global Greens

I nominate Global Greens, painfully outdated despite being marked by the political parties task force as "High-importance." For a start, the lists of member parties and associate parties do not match the lists at GlobalGreens.org Green Federations and GlobalGreens.org Member Parties. As revealed by researching Green Initiative, articles on WP do not reflect the Green parties that currently exist or are most notable. This would be a good place to start fixing this fundamental problem. My proposal is that we work our way out from the trunk to the main limbs, and then onto the branches. Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - This also looks like a great nomination! Never hurts to start top down. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Agree although I would prefer having this as a target article once we have more participants. We should cross out the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand first as it is constantly updated by WikiProject New Zealand/politics participants like me. J947 20:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Alexander Van der Bellen/The Greens - The Green Alternative

Two other possibilities, though I am not nominating them, would be Alexander Van der Bellen - the first Green Party president worldwide and President of Austria and/or his party The Greens – The Green Alternative. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps we can rank our options then we have articles for a few months? Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Suggested order: Global Greens, Green Party of California, The Greens – The Green Alternative, Alexander Van der Bellen, and History of the Green Party of Canada? Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Me-123567-Me: Nope. We might find out articles in more need of expansion, and also please read my 'Agree' comment above. J947 02:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• @J947: I'm ok starting with New Zealand. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Me-123567-Me: Another nope. Most NZ articles are quite good (the worst we've got is a few stub-class mp articles that aren't too relevant to the WikiProject). J947 03:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Seth Kaper-Dale

I nominate Seth Kaper-Dale, Green gubernatorial candidate in New Jersey. The article was nominated for deletion, but there are a ton of news stories mentioning him. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• Early Endorse – This is not a "proper" endorsement. I'll change this on 25 Feb. J947 04:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

General comments

This section is getting increasingly long and I suggest breaking it down into sub-sections. J947 03:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Done by Jacknstock. J947 05:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I find it rather surprising that there has been no endorsements yet and I suggest that we wait until 25 Feb while we get our ideas down. Thoughts? J947 05:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Do we need to create Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Green Politics/talk to discuss the Talk page? ;-) Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jacknstock: I know you meant it as a joke but I see it as a potential idea. Thoughts? J947 04:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I was semi-serious, reality is absurd. I'd like to move some things around here. For example, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Green Politics#Target article of the month could be a section, with each month a sub-section, and each suggestion for that month as a sub-sub-section. But discussions about how to format the talk page and what's appropriate on the talk page could clog up the talk page. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jacknstock: Created :-). J947 05:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Target Article of the Week

How about a target article of the week as well? J947 02:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

A bit ambitious given how few participants we have. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Target article of the month: January 2018

The following discussion 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.

---

Starting this. Courtesy ping to Editor B, Me-123567-Me, and Jacknstock. J947 ^{(c · m)} 01:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Juliette Boulet

One-line stub; plenty of material to expand from. J947 ^{(c · m)} 01:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Voting opens 00:00 at 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• There are two reasonable interwiki links in a better state. J947 ^{(c · m)} 03:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Jacky Morael

Even worse than previous proposal in prose. J947 ^{(c · m)} 01:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Voting opens 00:00 at 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Putting my bets on this one. 4 interwiki links, 3 with more information than this. Despite all language editions lacking in references, verifiability concerns are resolving following a search. Multiple articles on people of the same party are of better quality, setting a standard. In my opinion, this makes this a close-to-perfect candidate. J947 ^{(c · m)} 01:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• I am fine with either. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2017 (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.