Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Requested move at Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack#Requested move 7 November 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack#Requested move 7 November 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. -- lomrjyo 🐱 ^{(✉ • 📝)} 22:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

University of Austin

I can tell already that University of Austin will be a controversial article. Perhaps it should be deleted now and re-created once there's more than a few blog posts, but I doubt that will happen. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India

I have nominated Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Critical race theory

More eyes are needed at critical race theory, and comments on its talk page. A lot of the disputes have to do with what criticisms should be mentioned. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

"US border battle" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect US border battle. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 14#US border battle until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 64.229.90.53 (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal of Lega Nord and Lega per Salvini Premier

Hi all. I invite everyone who is interested to give insight and comments on a merge proposal of Lega Nord and Lega per Salvini Premier. The discussion is at Talk:Lega Nord#Merging Lega per Salvini Premier and Lega Nord. Thanks, Yakme (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Protests in Minneapolis regarding the trial of Derek Chauvin#Requested move 15 November 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Protests in Minneapolis regarding the trial of Derek Chauvin#Requested move 15 November 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. SkyWarrior 02:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Peer review of Cut and run

Hello! I've put the article Cut and run up for peer review back in September, and it hasn't had any takers. Considering that much of my concern is about the treatment of the political usage of the phrase, it was recommended that I reach out here in case anyone was interested in taking a look at it. The peer review is located at: Wikipedia:Peer review/Cut and run/archive1. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Tables and elections

1 version
No.	Portrait	Name (birth-death)	Term of office			Elections	Other relevant information
			Took office	Left office	Time in office
2 version
No.	Portrait	Name (birth-death)	Elections	Term of office			Other relevant information
				Took office	Left office	Time in office

Hey there, @Friendlyhistorian: and myself are having a bit of a disagreement, and would like some input. Hopefully creating consensus and standardization. The issue is the placement of elections in officeholder tables. Most list for heads of government and state (apart from the UK and US) follow one of the two tables shown above. But it would be great if there could be a consensus for a standard layout.

Personally, I support first version, as this allows for the most important information to come first, i.e. Who and when. It is also more in line with other tables of officeholders whom are not elected to office (e.g. ministers), ensuring that it is always the same information presented first regardless of office. Additionally, it prevents "no information" as being some of the first information to be presented, such as List of heads of state of Algeria or List of presidents of Benin.

I hope you guys can help. Skjoldbro (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I prefer version 1 between these, but elections can also have its own column, doesn't have to be combined with other info. Agree the most important should be to the left, and when they were in office is more important than the election, especially because a term can include multiple elections and cabinets. This isn't something I'd expect to be fully standardized though. E.g. you can combine the term in a single column, don't have to separate took and left office. Reywas92^Talk 18:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Reywas92: Sorry, that is my bad. Normally, it would have a separate column, I just collected everything as "elections" in this would also be "other information" rather than who and when. I changed it, to make it more clear. Skjoldbro (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I would beg against including birth-death in any way, and the "Took office/left office/time in office" is taking three columns to give a single datapoint, their time in office. We don't really need to say how long they were there, the Elections column handles that. As for ordering: It should go number, portrait, name, term, party, election. That's the order of importance, IMO: Who was there, when were they there, and how did they get there. --Golbez (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistency in # of 'List' and 'Office' articles, concerning US state governors & lieutenant governors.

AFAIK, we've a list article for all 50 US state governors & 45 lieutenant governors. But we don't have office articles for all 50 US state governors & 45 lieutenant governors. Is there a way to 'merge' some of those office articles into their respective list articles. Should those existing office articles be deleted or should we complete the office articles - out right creation or changing 'redirects' from the list, into articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer for each office there by default be a single page that has both information about its powers and a list of officeholders, but in a number of cases these have gotten long enough that a split is warranted. Skimming the ones that there are, Governor of Vermont could be merged with List of governors of Vermont which doesn't have much prose. Same for Governor of Texas, Governor of South Dakota, and Governor of Rhode Island. But we should not be making new articles merely for the sake of "completeness" since the list often contains that information – there doesn't need to be a single standard here. Reywas92^Talk 22:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I updated Template:Lists of lieutenant governors by U.S. state to match the governor template when there are two pages. I think every one of those that is currently two pages should be merged to one, the most obvious being Lieutenant Governor of Delaware: no need for a split here! Only California's is long enough that it doesn't seem obvious, but it's still doable. Reywas92^Talk 22:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

There's 26 articles for state governors & 30 for state lieutenant governors, at the moment. We need something done. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

First, most of the lt gov "articles" are actually lists but without "list of" in the name: it appears 8 have separate pages, five of which are short and easily merged. I fail to see why something must be done in this way when the issue is content, not articles. If you or someone else wants to write significant content about the history of a state's governorship to the extent that split pages is warranted, go for it, but there's no need to bulk-create stubs or split content away from the lists just so the numbers match. Reywas92^Talk 01:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with proper merging, but I do think each office is deserving of its own article, with a handling of powers, history, etc., that a simple list article isn't designed for. And all of these lists are too long to be part of a good article. --Golbez (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't oppose the creation of 24 state governors & 15 state lieutenant governors articles. It's alright if we have 50 'office' & 'list' articles for the state governors & 45 'office' & 'list' articles for the state lieutenant governors. After all, we do have federal counterparts: President of the United States, Vice President of the United States and List of presidents of the United States, List of vice presidents of the United States. BTW: I'm aware of the West Virginia situation. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I can do a proper merging of the stubby lieutenant governor articles; it would actually be 37 lt govs that don't have two pages and which don't need two pages because there's far less of powers and history for those. If someone wants to create substantive articles for individual gubernatorial offices that's fine, but there should not be new pages – which may have significant duplication – just for the sake of it. Reywas92^Talk 01:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

What would you name these merged articles? "Governor of state" or "List of governors of state". GoodDay (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I have seen the use of both styles and don't have a strong preference for one or the other. You can have an "article" on the office that also includes a list of those who held it, or a "list" of officeholders that also has prose content about what those people had the power to do and how they were elected, and the title doesn't really matter. For comparison there's the federal cabinet secretaries: United States Secretary of State is the only one that has a List of secretaries of state of the United States – it's a long list so the split may be warranted, though the article's not that long. The rest, like United States Secretary of Defense and United States Secretary of Veterans Affairs are in a way articles about the office that include a list, though the former has more prose content about the postition itself than the latter so one might define them differently. I guess I've seen this question in my own articles: List of national lakeshores and seashores of the United States vs. National recreation area! Reywas92^Talk 01:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Not certain, but I think at the start, the governor articles were all Office articles, with lists included in their content. At some point, editors gradually splintered the list out into their own separate articles, over the years. I'm not certain of the origins of the lieutenant governor articles, if they were initially Office articles or Lists articles. PS - I'd recommend naming the merged articles "Governor of state/territory" & "Lieutenant Governor of state/territory", with the lists included in them. GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Territorial governors & lieutenant governors

I should also point out. Among the 5 territorial governors, we've only got 1 office article. But among the 4 territorial lieutenant governors, we've got all 4 office articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually the four territories all have lieutenant governor lists that don't have "list of" in their names. But so what???? They do lack much content – in part because they are not actually significant offices and do not have much powers or history to them – but they could just have longer leads or other sections for that, rather than new articles that may be duplicative and force readers to read two pages rather than a more helpfully consolidated single one. Reywas92^Talk 01:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, there's a tad mix-up. We've got all 4 territorial lieutenant governor articles, but no list articles. While we've only got 1 territorial governor article (which also has a separate list article), the other 4 territorial governors have only list articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Anti-politics

Anyone interested in working with me to put together an article on this? It's currently a redirect – it was pointing to apoliticism, which was simply incorrect (it's roughly equivalent to pointing atheism to irreligion, but worse, since anti-politics can be very political). There is some academic discussion on how political apathy can lead to anti-politics, but our article doesn't cover it, so I've retargeted the page to populism, which is more directly relevant. It really needs its own article, though, since it's an important concept within political science that's been around for decades, and has been an increasingly hot topic over the last 15 years or so in the context of populism, polarization and politicisation (incidentally, that's another half-baked article I started rewriting from scratch a few months ago after it was TNTed by another editor for being unsourced codswallop – the general state of our articles on basic political theory is uniformly rubbish! I'll eventually get round to putting something together myself, but wondered if anyone would like to give me a hand to speed things up?

Some very quickly gathered sources

Clarke, Nick (2018). The good politician: folk theories, political interaction and the rise of anti-politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108641357. ISBN 9781108641357. Fawcett, Paul (2017). Anti-politics, depoliticization, and governance (First ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198748977. Angel Garcia, Jose (9 May 2017). "The political view of anti-politics". The Political Studies Association. Retrieved 20 November 2021. Rodgers, Alisdair, ed. (2013). "anti-politics". A Dictionary of Human Geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191758065. The Anti-Politics Machine - lots of cites, influential

Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 01:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

2018 Italian general election Infobox

Hi everyone, further opinions on a possible modification of the infobox of the Italian elections of 2018 would be very welcome, according to the current electoral system. Therefore I invite you to participate in the following discussion and give your opinion: Talk:2018 Italian general election/Archives/2021/December#Request for comment on Infobox to be used with the current Italian electoral system:.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

FAR for European Parliament

I have nominated European Parliament for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 04:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:American political conspiracy theories#Requested move 19 November 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:American political conspiracy theories#Requested move 19 November 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

New infobox?: Infobox political coalition

Hello! I think Wikipedia should add a new Infobox format for electoral alliances / political coalitions, essentially voting blocks of representatives that consist of two or more political parties. I am referring to cases such as Erdoğan's ruling People's Alliance, an alliance of Justice and Development Party and Nationalist Movement Party, or the newly ruling German Traffic light coalition, consisting of the SPD, FDP, and Green Party following the recent elections (and other German governing coalitions). These examples also show that this coalition format will apply to both presidential and parliamentary-style governments.

Wikipedia of course has Template:Infobox political party but this is insufficient for this purpose. Special parameters exclusive to a political coalition/alliance that need to be added are: "Comprising parties" (what parties the coalition/alliance consist of) and "Period of rule" (in what years the coalition was the ruling majority). I'm not good at naming so the suggested names for these two can be changed. Holidayruin (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

If I'm understanding you correctly, an infobox with the combined seat total of the coalition government. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay We need an infobox for coalitions in general, which is lacking. The new unique infobox needs the names of the parties that make up the coalition, and if currently active how many seats in government. With combined seat total in the style of currently active political parties? Sure. e.g. SPD's colored bars show their representative count like 206/736 in the Bundestag, so the Traffic light coalition infobox could show these bars in the three parties' appropriate colors proportionally. Holidayruin (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I see. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support - the creation of such an infobox. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Traffic light coalition
Member parties	SPD, Greens, FPD
Period of rule	2021–
Bundestag seats	416 / 736
Seats by party	SPD (206) Greens (118) FDP (92)

• Oppose It's not needed, especially given how few uses it would have. {{Infobox political party}} is fine for electoral alliances as it has the affiliation parameter to list the member parties. I think the above is conflating electoral alliances with coalition governments, if all we need to add is 'period of rule' (the seat figure could go under the existing seats parameter), then just use the blank parameters in {{Infobox political party}}. See an example to the right Number 57 16:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Number 57 The affiliation parameters are not exactly the same thing as coalition governments. If you're referring to the "National affiliation" parameter, to my understanding that is intended more for very local political groups such as the Independence Party of New York that belongs to the national Alliance Party (United States). A parameter like "International affiliation" is used to belong to affiliations such as Socialist International. These are rather permanent features of the political party, and distinct from a party making a fixed-period temporary agreement to make a ruling government with a competing party. Holidayruin (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

As shown in the example to the right, the affiliation parameters do not have pre-defined title – you set it to whatever you want (I used 'Member parties' in this case). What other parameters would you need? Also, you don't have to ping me as I am watching this page. Number 57 16:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see. From there it would be helpful to create proportional colored bars for the representative count, such as a split bar of red, yellow, green for Traffic light coalition. How could this be accomplished? A formalized "Period of rule" parameter could be helpful also (or even a "Majority since" parameter). That could work. Holidayruin (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

There are lots of different bar charts that could be used, although it's a bit difficult to fit in a legend if a party has a very small proportion of the seats. I've added one above. Number 57 22:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Shortname templates

As the result of a TfD earlier this year, all the /meta/shortname, color and abbrev templates were merged into a single module. In the process, the contents of much of the shortname templates has been moved into the abbrev field in the module. An RfC on this and its potential impact has been started on the module's talkpage. Input from WikiProject members is welcome. Cheers, Number 57 20:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Barthélemy Boganda

I have nominated Barthélemy Boganda for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 05:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Mohan Shrivastava up for deletion

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Mohan Shrivastava (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Indian polititican. Question of notability. Inherent language problems. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:China COVID-19 cover-up#Requested move 8 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:China COVID-19 cover-up#Requested move 8 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. LondonIP (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Party of Labor (2nd nomination)

This AfD has been relisted at AfD twice. More participants would be appreciated to help form a consensus. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about article "Liberation theology"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Liberation theology#Missing_information_template_discussion, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Demosthenes

I have nominated Demosthenes for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 04:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Year in Ireland infobox map, from 1922 to the present

This might be more appropriate for Wikipedia:WikiProject Years. But the political nature of it (IMHO) makes it more important to bring it up here. Looking at the map of Ireland in the post-1921 Year in Ireland articles. Shouldn't Northern Ireland be excluded? GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

This is part of a much wider problem is that there has been a deliberate push to blur the lines between the Republic of Ireland and the island of Ireland and attempt to treat the latter as a country. For example Category:1923 in Ireland has subcategories of Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State, but is also in Category:1923 by country and contains several other whole-island categories. IMO the whole 'in Ireland' category tree needs deleting and the Irish Free State/ROI ones putting in the 'by country' categories, and the Northern Irish ones being just subcategories of the UK. Number 57 15:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, there quite a bit of untangling to do. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think NI necessarily needs to be removed from the map as the infobox title is wikilinked to Ireland the island. However, I agree there are problems as things stand. The list of RoI incumbents doesn't apply to NI, and there's overlap/redundancy with the "Year in Northern Ireland" articles. One option would be mass renaming the "Year in Ireland" articles to "Year in the Republic of Ireland". However, I'm not keen on this option as I think it's less useful for readers: NI history is part of Irish history, just as it's part of British history, and I think readers studying modern Irish history are very likely to be looking for/consider relevant events in NI. It also breaks consistency with pre-1922 articles on Ireland, although I'm not massively fussed about that. Therefore my preferred option is to keep the "Year in Ireland" articles largely as they are, but add "Northern Ireland" sections with {{main}} pointing to the relevant "Year in NI" article. The only thing clearly suggesting it's referring to the country is the category Number 57 points out, which is more of a bureaucratic necessity than anything else – NI's current situation doesn't neatly map onto the concept of nation states, but it needs to be included for consistency in the overall category; I don't see this as a problem because I don't believe many readers pay attention to/are aware of categories. If anyone else can think of a more elegant solution I'm also open to it. Jr8825 • Talk 17:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  We definitely need a 'new' set of 1922 to 1937 Year in the Irish Free State articles. Not sure what to name a set of 1937 to 1949 Year in... articles. We have to acknowledge the partition. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  I suppose the way I see it is the Year in Ireland articles are currently not about a sovereign state, but a delineated geographic region involved in conflict with a shared history. Perhaps this is too much of an outlier compared to other "Year in X" articles, although I don't mind it myself. The option you propose, more closely following the political history, is also an acceptable option. Regardless I think we should try to make it easier to access the "Year in NI" articles from the "Year in Ireland"/"Year in the Rest of Ireland" articles. Jr8825 • Talk 17:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The best solution would be re-name the 1922 to 1937 Year in Ireland articles as Year in Irish Free State. The 1938 to 1948 Year in Ireland articles, not sure. Re-name the 1949 to present Year in Ireland articles as Year in Republic of Ireland or Year in Ireland (country). GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Monarchy in the United Kingdom FAR

I have nominated Monarchy of the United Kingdom for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

FLR notice

I have nominated List of European Union member states by political system for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 01:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion to unprotect Guy Standing (economist)

Talk:Guy Standing (economist) § Extended confirm protection too much? ––FormalDude ^talk 03:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Barthélemy Boganda

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Barthélemy Boganda/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped save this featured article from demotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy/archive1 Featured article review

User:Nutez has nominated Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Disputes at Talk:Ranked voting

There is a complicated series of disputes ongoing at Talk:Ranked voting. One editor made a very large number of (mostly quite small) edits, another editor undid all of them at once, and now there's basically a talk page section + paragraph discussing every minor edit. The magnitude of the minutiae now under dispute is far beyond my current time budget/mental bandwidth, but it concerns fundamental topics on very highly viewed and salient pages, so I hope that some watchers of this page might be interested in participating in that discussion and making sure that whatever comes out of it is verifiable. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Epaminondas Featured article review

User:Hog Farm has nominated Epaminondas for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

United States border security concerns - suggestions?

Came across this article today. It's chock full of OR, essay-like material, unsourced content, POV, etc. Tagged since 2008, with very few pageviews (thankfully). I thought about stubifying it, thought about AfDing it based on WP:TNT, but it seems like this subject would already be covered in other articles, making a redirect perhaps the most sensible approach. The thing is, I can't find an ideal redirect target. Hoping to get some thoughts here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Keep or Delete the monarch, in 'incumbent' section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus among participants that the "Monarch" should be removed from the "Incumbent" section from the specified "Year in..." articles. This is a continuation of previous RfCs to normalize the related pages (cf. this and this). The discussion here shows that having the monarch in these articles is redundant, especially to citizens of the UK, but it was also recommended that some sort of explanatory note or infobox be placed to lead readers to a page containing such information. Editors are recommended to have a post-close discussion to agree on which method would be best. (non-admin closure) Isabelle ^🔔 14:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Concerning the following series of Year articles:
post-1707 Year in Scotland
post-1707 Year in England
post-1282 Year in Wales
all Year in Northern Ireland
pre-1922 Year in Ireland.

Should we do the following for all of them. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• A) Keep the monarch
• B) Delete the monarch (with an option to add an explanatory note or infobox to refer readers to the "Year in UK" article)

Survey

• B - I've no objections to deleting the monarch from all aforementioned Year in... articles. Why? Because England took over Wales in 1282. England & Scotland unified in 1707. Great Britain & Ireland unified in 1801 & finally most of Ireland broke away from the United Kingdom in 1922. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• B - purely on the basis that it seems superfluous and repetitive, especially for years in recent history where the monarch has adopted a largely ceremonial role (e.g. 20th century onwards). I don't have a particular view on the post-conquest, pre-modern "Year in Wales" articles as the monarch seems more relevant, although it's probably better for consistency to remove it also, and technically the English monarch wasn't also the Welsh monarch until the Tudor Acts of Union. Jr8825 • Talk 17:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  No worry, we've no pre-1700 in Wales articles ;) GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  In 1396 in Wales, it rained a lot... Jr8825 • Talk 20:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• A - I don't really see the benefit of deleting the monarch from all of these articles. That information can provide some useful context to the rest of the events in the article, and at any rate, it doesn't hurt; it's low maintenance. Yes, the information is implied by the fact that the countries have been unified after the dates in question, but it's not readily available to a reader who doesn't already know that. If we are seeking consistency, the monarch details should be kept rather than deleted. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• B - Until very recently the monarch wasn't in the Incumbents section in any case, and no one (hardly anyone) minded that. All the "Year in [place]" articles state that they are for matters directly relevant to the country, and the monarch is only directly relevant to the "Year in United Kingdom" articles. At the moment, it's simply an unhelpful duplication, puzzling to many readers. To assist in understanding the relative status of the countries within the United Kingdom (which many non-UK residents have difficulty with), we can add a note like this in the incumbents section: {{For|United Kingdom incumbents|1844 in the United Kingdom#Incumbents}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb (talk • contribs) Sorry. Deb (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• A as User:AlexEng says above, this is useful information for a reader without background. Newystats (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

In what way is it more useful than the explanatory note I suggest? Surely that would be less confusing to a reader without background? Deb (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

An explanatory note would be OK. Newystats (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Newystats:, does this mean you've switched to option B? GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, OK with removal with explanatory note. Newystats (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• B Delete the monarch(!) Inclusion gives the impression that the area has its own monarchy, like listing Donald Trump as president in 2017 in New York. If desired, put an FAQ note on the talk page saying that this article only includes items specific to the area rather than the whole United Kingdom, qv for monarchs, prime ministers, wars, treaties, Brexits etc; we do not and should not clutter up every page with reasons why this or that is out of scope, let alone dump infoboxes everywhere (see Arbcom archives).
  Alternatively, cut the Gordian knot and for full consistency with the rest of the 'pedia, given that 1963 in Texas, 2012 in London and 1947 in Kashmir are all redlinks, merge all articles under discussion into YYYY in United Kingdom. :) NebY (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

I've opened the RFC up 'here', rather then at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years, per its political nature. My major concern is that all these articles be consistent. I'm confident that nobody questions having the monarch listed in the incumbent section at the Year in Great Britain & Year in the United Kingdom articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

This survey should consider alternative solutions, such as a UK infobox on the "Year in..." articles for England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales and/or an explanatory note as suggested above. Deb (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I've no objections to the UK infobox & explanatory note idea being adopted, no matter which option (A or B) gets consensus. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that whether A or B is preferred depends on whether you give the whole picture - all the possible options, not just "include or delete". That's exactly what was wrong with the previous discussion. Deb (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

If you wish, you may add it if you think it may strengthen the B-option. My overall concern is that the "Year in constituent country" articles are consistent. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Come on folks, we'd like a tad more input. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Closure request

I've requested closure of this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2022 (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.

Well @Newystats:, @Deb:, @Jr8825:, @AlexEng: & @NebY:? I'm commencing with the deletions. I'll leave you all to come to an agreement on the write up of the recommended 'note' or 'infobox'. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Update - I've completed the deletions. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I liked Deb's suggestion of using {{for}}. Is someone else able to implement this? Jr8825 • Talk 16:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Seaction header "Predictions" for pre-election surveys in election articles

Has there been any consensus discussion over using Seaction header "Predictions" for pre-election survey section in articles about Elections. (See for example 2020 United States presidential election#Predictions). They are also known as Opinion polls, surveys etc. Venkat TL (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Philippine Democratic Socialist Party#Requested move 10 January 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Philippine Democratic Socialist Party#Requested move 10 January 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Switching political parties in the United States

There are at least four different list articles covering individuals who have switched political parties in the United States, all of which slice essentially the same information in slightly different ways:

• List of United States representatives who switched parties
• List of United States senators who switched parties
• List of party switchers in the United States
• List of American politicians who switched parties in office

I wonder if it might be worthwhile to combine them all somehow in order to, among other things, ease maintenance? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 18:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The first two articles deal with the federal level. The latter two articles deal with both the federal & state level. Perhaps, the latter two articles can be merged. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about article "Ukrainian crisis"

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ukrainian crisis#Disambiguate, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. --Heanor (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation links to Block voting

Could you help to fix the links to Block voting shown at Disambig fix list for Block voting? It would be helpful to readers if these could be made to link to the specific type, as the variations in electoral methods are a little complex (at least to me).— Rod ^talk 16:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Social equality, 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, 31 January 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Please note...

the RfC here (with additional information here), and the related AfD here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about article "Constituent state"

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Constituent state#Merger proposal, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. --Heanor (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Wesley Clark

I have nominated Wesley Clark for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

RFC on List of political parties in Italy

An RFC has been started concerning the List of political parties in Italy. You are invited to comment in the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Merging Recovered Territories into Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II

An editor has requested for Recovered Territories to be merged into Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II. Since you had some involvement with Recovered Territories or Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II, you might want to participate in the merger discussion (if you have not already done so).

Further input is requested from all interested WikiProjects to facilitate reaching consensus. Felix QW (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Brazilian Senate#Requested move 1 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Brazilian Senate#Requested move 1 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Nazism in India

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Nazism in India. Venkat TL (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Cult of personality, 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, 14 February 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Organized interference at Wikipedia by the Zemmour campaign for President of France

Multiple articles are being edited by members of a task force attached to the Eric Zemmour campaign for President of France. This is being covered by numerous outlets in the French press. Please see WP:VPM#WikiZedia: an organized influence operation at Wikipedia by the campaign of a candidate for French President. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Client state

This article suffers from an overzealous editor with complete disregard for WP:NOTNEWS--they take various newsy sources and websites as enough reason to list all kinds of countries, with the marvelously weaselish "has been described as". Editor fails to recognize that listing "client states" in the 21st century isn't like opening the history books for client states from the past. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Reorganized content on: Online Deliberation

Hi. I wanted to let you know that I made a pretty substantial update to Online deliberation. It was listed as a start-class, but I think the changes are substantial enough that it could be upgraded.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by UWCLStudentSpring2021 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Pericles

I have nominated Pericles for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Adolf Eichmann#RFC: Lead image

Interested editors are invited to participate! --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2016–2021 Iranian protests#Requested move 18 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2016–2021 Iranian protests#Requested move 18 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 05:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Raw Story Request

Hi editors, my name is Nathalie and I work for The Raw Story. I had made a small request to update the Content section over at the Raw Story page and was wondering if anyone here might be interested in taking a look. I won't make any changes myself since I am a COI editor. I really appreciate the help! Nathalie at RS (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Rump state: Republic of Salo

Rump state is a rather deficient article which attempts to maintain a list of examples of rump states. This is made difficult by it not being exactly a technical term. For the last week I have been in dispute with another editor about whether the Republic of Salo was a rump state of Italy. The discussion on the talk page has left me totally baffled (for some reason the other editor thinks I'm claiming that it was a rump state of Germany and I honestly don't understand why they think this). I'd be grateful if someone were able to take a look as the whole thing is so bizarre that I don't know what to do. Furius (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Revanchism and irredentism

The above two article differ in content and in wikiproject-tagging (this one aside)... but they cover exactly the same scope. I'm thinking simply merge them, but maybe some other rescoping exercise might also be appropriate. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikiprojectless politics article

I happened across an article Moderate Republicans (Reconstruction era), which firstly, currently lacks any Wikiproject tags (could be this one, perhaps also Wikipedia:WikiProject United States History and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject American Old West. Secondly, it looks to overlap several existing articles in scope and shades of meaning -- witness that it bold-alt-title-links(!) three other articles. Usefully distinct, or in need of being merged? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Members of the Senate of Southern Ireland#Requested move 14 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Members of the Senate of Southern Ireland#Requested move 14 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 20:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Tiridates I of Armenia

I have nominated Tiridates I of Armenia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about merger Federated state into Federation

An editor has requested for Federated state to be merged into Federation. Since you had some involvement with Federated state or Federation, you might want to participate in the merger discussion (if you have not already done so). Alvdal (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Sociocracy § Problematic edits & resolving a possible conflict of interest

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sociocracy § Problematic edits & resolving a possible conflict of interest. Peaceray (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mexican Indignados Movement#Requested move 18 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mexican Indignados Movement#Requested move 18 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Oengus I

I have nominated Óengus I for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 04:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Schutzstaffel → SS

An editor has opened a move discussion as to whether the article Schutzstaffel should be moved to SS. Your feedback would be welcome at Talk:Schutzstaffel#Requested move 28 March 2022. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

FAR for United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

I have nominated United Nations Parliamentary Assembly for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

John W. Johnston Featured article review

I have nominated John W. Johnston for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Annexation of the Jordan Valley#Requested move 23 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Annexation of the Jordan Valley#Requested move 23 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 07:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Modern Whig Party

There is a discussion at Talk:Modern Whig Party#Serious unresolved issues that may be of interest to some. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Robert Rubin request

Hi all, I'm working on behalf of the former U.S. Treasury secretary Robert Rubin to update to the biographical article about him. (Given my COI, I have not and will not directly edit the article.) In the recent past I had worked with a few different editors, but as they have been busy elsewhere lately, thought I would ask here to see if anyone would be willing to take a look at my latest request. I'd appreciate anyone who would be willing to offer feedback or even consider making the proposed change. Happy to answer any questions about the request, as well. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Accurate News and Information Act

I have nominated Accurate News and Information Act for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

"Full Communism"

FYI, the usage of Full Communism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Full Communism (album) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

How

Wiki love 41.113.188.69 (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

2016 United States presidential election in North Carolina voter turnout % citation

Hi, I've found a resource in order to add a citation to the {{cn}} next to the voter turnout percentage, unfortunately it is a very large (11 gigabytes) file. I cannot open it (most likely due to my RAM only being 16gb), and I just want someone else to verify that the amount of registered voters at that snapshot is indeed somewhere around 6,873,824 people? For past registered voter datasheets if you open them in an editor such as Sublime Text (which I use), the columns bar on the side can tell you the amount of voters/data points, i.e. for the most recent snapshot it was around 8 million. I am asking if anyone here has a beefier computer which can open this file (downloadable from here, specficially VR_Snapshot_20161108.zip, unzips to a .txt file) & verify that the voter turnout was indeed, 68.89% which would be in line with the vote count of 4,741,564 (4,741,564 div 0.6889 = 6,873,824).X-750 _{I've made a mistake, haven't I?} 06:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan has an RFC

Talk:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan 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. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Rob Stein, American political strategist

Rob Stein, an American political strategist who helped develop groups that are an essential part of the 21st century Democratic Party strategy, has died. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Article expansion and copy edit request

Greetings,

A new article Lettergate regarding international relations in between USA and Pakistan has been listed @ DyK, requesting further expansion and copy edit support.

Thanks, Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Michigan State Capitol

I have nominated Michigan State Capitol for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 17:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Óengus I

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Óengus I/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:AutoMaidan#Requested move 14 May 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:AutoMaidan#Requested move 14 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Presidents

I noticed that talk pages about John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan all had sections discussing their alleged rapes which have now been archived or reverted. An IP address suggested that these allegations be mentioned in their respective pages. Initially - the Bush one wasn't properly sourced and that talk section was deleted. However, that address then added that section back in with a source from Newsweek, saying they updated their original weak source with a more reliable one. But, this was also deleted. I want to know why this was - since Newsweek is a reliable source as far as I can tell. Additionally, I also want to know why the ones on Kennedy and Reagan were deleted - since they used The New Yorker as a source for the former - and Slate magazine and People magazine as sources, which are reliable. 78.150.129.45 (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

There's an entire sourced article about Mimi Alford that details what Kennedy did to her. I don't think the Kennedy one especially should have been deleted from discussion and I want to know why it was deleted. 78.150.129.45 (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Recommend you not stir up any hornet's nest. Notice since you've come on line, you've been diving into potential dispute areas. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not stirring anything up, I'm just asking a question in good faith. I'm genuinely not trying to be aggressive and want to be as constructive as possible. 78.150.129.45 (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Good Party

Publicising this - Talk:Good Party#Political position - Rfc here, per WP:RFCTP. It really needs input from more editors. Please place your views on the linked talk page. Thanks. Helper201 (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The Kashmir Files lede

There is a RFC concerning the lede for a recently released film on Kashmir. Comments are welcome. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Finnish Civil War

I have nominated Finnish Civil War for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 06:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

A user has requested that the page Reverse sexism be renamed and moved to Discrimination against men. Interested users may wish to join the discussion at Talk:Reverse sexism#Requested move 17 May 2022. Thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bongbong Marcos#Requested move 19 May 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bongbong Marcos#Requested move 19 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Analysis of leaked abortion case opinion

Is it appropriate to add details on reactions to content of the leaked Dobbs opinion beyond the President and nation-wide protests? Please respond at Talk:Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization#Gertner-Reinstein opinion. -- Beland (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Coronation of the British monarch

I have nominated Coronation of the British monarch for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments requested on rename discussion for current COVID-19 public policy

Proposed rename is Living with COVID-19 → Endemic management of COVID-19, discussion at Talk:Living with COVID-19#Requested move 18 May 2022. SmolBrane (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Seeking others input on Conservatism in the United States template

There is a dispute going on the Oath Keepers Talk page whether to keep or remove from the Oath Keepers page the "Conservatism in the United States"" template. This ultimately may affect other articles on both the "Conservatism in the United States" template and the "Liberalism in the United States" template. Your input requested. Reminder of :WP:STATUSQUO, not to remove unless there is a consensus for removal.
Myotus (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Good Article reassessment

Hi there! This is a notice that I have opened an individual Good Article reassessment on the article College Republicans, which falls under the domain of this WikiProject. The review can be seen at this link (Talk:College Republicans/GA2) and any editor is welcome to help fix it up so that it can maintain GA status. Thanks! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

A new Israeli office

Is there such an office called Deputy of the Prime Minister of Israel? or is that original research. GoodDay (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The Hebrew wiki seems to offer this explanation: The Deputy Prime Minister is a symbolic title in the Israeli government, usually given to the leaders of the coalition partners' factions since 1952. The position is defined in section 5 (e) of the Basic Law: the government stipulates "a minister can be deputy prime minister". The "Deputy Prime Minister" has no statutory power, (other than a position in the cabinet and their ministerial post) so there is no limit to the number of Deputy Prime Ministers, unlike the Alternate Prime Minister, an office created in 2020, of whom there can be only one. --Chefallen (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't it best if the linked article (above) be renamed Deputy leaders of Israel or Deputy Prime Minister of Israel? The current title makes no sense & I don't know why the editor who insists on it, refuses to discuss the matter. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion on the article's Talk page.--Chefallen (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

New Zealand National Party ideology

There is currently disagreement at talk:New Zealand National Party#Party ideology over whether to label the party's ideology as “Christian right” and “Social conservatism” in the infobox. Input from experienced editors would be appreciated. — HTGS (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC notification

Members of this project, and readers of this page, might be interested in participating in the RfC here: Talk:TERF#RfC: Oxford English Dictionary. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

World Government

There is a little mess at the World government article in last couple of days, so if some experienced editors, members of this project or readers are interested to check that article and some Talk:World government arguments that would be cool. Cheers. Nubia86 (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Reviewer needed for Confederate government of Kentucky

Confederate government of Kentucky has received two "Satisfactory" notations at WP:URFA/2020A. Is anyone interested in reviewing this article to ensure that it still meets the FA criteria? If so, please read the instructions at WP:URFA/2020 and ping me or post on the URFA/2020 talk page if you have any questions. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Review Request for Minnesota political candidate article

Hello, can someone please review Draft:Don Samuels? It has been waiting for about 3 months, and has already had citation bot check run. Thank you so much! Runesandarrows (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

NPOVN notice: What sourcing is needed to establish weight to include how a BLP voted on a bill

I've opened a NPOVN discussion asking when/how information regarding how a politician voted on a particular bill should be incorporated into a BLP article. The discussion is here [1]. Springee (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Andorran prime ministers, shouldn't be numbered

I've removed the numberings from the intros & infoboxes, as well as the links to prime minister of Andorra, from related bios. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

"Politics of" and "Government of"

Many countries have an associated article for its politics and one for its government (e.g. Politics of Canada and Government of Canada). Obviously there's a lot of overlap between politics and government. Is there a consensus on what type of information should be included in each? These seem like important articles, and I'd like to work on them, but I think this needs to be clarified before they can really be improved. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Review Request for Tudor Dixon, 2022 Michigan governor candidate

Hello, can someone be so kind as to review Draft:Tudor Dixon? It's about a major Republican candidate (and most likely the nominee) for the 2022 Michigan gubernatorial election. Thanks a lot! FlantasyFlan (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Democracy in Iraq

I've started a draft on democracy in Iraq and would appreciate any assistance. ––FormalDude talk 09:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment Louis X

There is an ongoing discussion about the first sentence of Louis X of France, in its talk page. Your input is appreciated. Thinker78 (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

RFC concerning Elizabeth II, orders, decorations and medals

We need input at this RFC. -- GoodDay (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Party shading templates should be made compatible with HTML5-compatible alignment markup

I started a discussion at Category talk:United States political party shading templates#Party shading templates should be made compatible with HTML5-compatible alignment markup. Political party shading templates, not just for the United States, need to allow for an alignment parameter in order to be compatible with HTML5. For now, I suggest keeping the discussion where I started it, and then we can move to the international view. However, if someone wants to move the conversation to world-view talk page, that's fine too. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC on "military objectives near civilians and Stara Krasnianka attack" in War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

There is currently an RfC on "military objectives near civilians and Stara Krasnianka attack" at Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#RfC_on_military_objectives_near_civilians_and_Stara_Krasnianka_attack. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Non-sovereign countries?

Hi all, I'm unsure about the newly created list of non-sovereign countries and have started a thread on its talk page. Perhaps its subject could be more precisely called "countries part of transnational states"? Any thoughts would be appreciated, Jr8825 • Talk 14:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It's original research that should be discouraged. There are already lots of similar lists, so perhaps it is best to merge them into one of them. Basically, there is no clear definition of country. Northern Ireland would generally not be considered a country because it is the part of the country of Ireland that remains a part of the UK. Cornwall however which is part of England may however be considered one. TFD (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Interesting that you take NI as an example of a non-country, as I (as a non-Irish Brit) have always had this impression too (presuming both communities would strongly object to the term). I was recently surprised when a Northern Irish friend told me that (within Northern Irish society & politics) it often is referred to as a (de facto) country; and I was also surprised to see that even the UK government implies this on occasion. Of course it's not hard to find sources saying that 'country' is an inappropriate term for NI, but the confusion just goes to show how the meaning of 'country' is nebulous and often used with imprecision. Jr8825 • Talk 16:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I've posted it before (and will again) over the years, but a majority of editors won't adopt it. The descriptive "constituent country", for England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, would solve some of these issues. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The descriptions of states for their subnational units, whether countries, republics, states or provinces, is always problematic. Province for example means a colony, which is why the term is no longer used in the U.S. But after the constitution that united them, they ceased to be full-fledged states, yet kept the description. TFD (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Non-sovereign countries and Category:Non-sovereign countries with multiple official languages were also created yesterday; the latter doesn't currently overlap with Category:Countries of Europe with multiple official languages (also recently created). NebY (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

President of Barbados

Would appreciate more input in this discussion, concerning the president's role. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:History of the Constitution of Chile#Requested move 5 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:History of the Constitution of Chile#Requested move 5 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 05:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Swiss Federal Constitution#Requested move 3 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Swiss Federal Constitution#Requested move 3 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Stephanie Cutter edit requests

Hi editors, I'm Christian and I work for Precision Strategies. I have a couple outstanding requests on the article Talk page that I think help organize the article a bit better and clean up some redundancy. I've been trying WikiProjects and users with no luck so far. I'd love it if someone here could help me out! I won't make any edits myself due to my conflict of interest. Thanks in advance for your consideration! PrecisionChristian (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

User wants to remove "derogatory" from the lead of Libs of TikTok

 You are invited to join this discussion!

A user on the talk page has advocated for changing "derogatory" to "critical" in description of the account's tweets. Evidence is provided of tweets mocking and belittling others based on gender/sexual orientation/race. Others disagree whether this constitutes "derogatory" material. Your input would be greatly appreciated. The discussion can be found here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Review: Andrew Jackson

I have nominated Andrew Jackson for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FinnV3 (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Giffords Center update help

Hi WikiProject Politics. I made some suggestions to update/correct the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and was wondering if a reviewer(s) from this project was able to take a look since the article is about a legal research center. I have a conflict of interest, so I can't edit the article directly myself. The requests that need review are here Talk:Giffords_Law_Center_to_Prevent_Gun_Violence#Updates_to_Improve_Article_-_June_14,_2022. Thanks.Brooklyn1576 (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Hillary Clinton

User:Buidhe has nominated Hillary Clinton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Set up of the pages about Italian regional elections

Hi everyone, there is an ongoing discussion (here) on how the pages about the Italian regional elections should be set up. Anyone interested in the matter is welcome. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

2023 Nigerian general election

There is currently a discussion at 2023 Nigerian general election regarding a dispute over the correct name of the article. The thread is Name change, August 2022. The discussion is about the topic Naming. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Watercheetah99 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

America First Policy Institute - has it been renamed, does it still exist?

See Talk:America First Policy Institute and the section on name change. Sources seem inconsistent. Our article says formed in 2017, [2] says 2021. Even the first version uses two names.[3] Doug Weller talk 14:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)