Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics

WikiProject Politics	(Rated Project-class)
v t e This page is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles  Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

WikiProject Politics

Main page + Talk Portal Talk Help Talk To do list Talk Recognized content Talk Departments Assessment Talk → Requests Talk Collaboration Talk Peer review Talk Project organization Article alerts Talk Participants Talk Deletion sorting Stubs Talk New articles Talk Project banner Talk Project category Talk Unreferenced BLPs Talk Task forces American politics Talk Corporatism Talk Fascism Talk Money and politics Talk Liberalism Talk Oligarchy Talk Political parties Talk Gun politics Talk Related projects Australian politics Talk Capitalism Talk Chinese politics Talk Conservatism Talk European Union Talk Libertarianism Talk Law Talk Socialism Talk Voting Systems Talk Elections and Referendums Talk Indian politics Talk New Zealand politics Pakistani politics UK politics Talk UK Parliament constituencies US Congress U.S. Supreme Court Cases U.S. Government U.S. presidential elections view · edit · changes

RFC: Succession boxes of US party nominees.

IMHO, we should delete the following succession boxes out of bios:

• presidential nominee
• vice presidential nominee
• gubernatorial nominee
• lieutenant gubernatorial nominee
• Senatorial nominee
• House nominee
• etc etc.

These are not political offices. So what say any of you? GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that is certainly a point that seems to have a basis, because you're right, those are not political offices as far as I'm aware. However, I also think noting that someone is a presidential nominee or so forth is still something that could be helpful and noteworthy on Wikipedia. But it shouldn't be listed under a political office. Perhaps a section entitled "Nomination for President" or whatever? LocalPunk (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete needless page clutter when they aren't even offices. Any detail on unsuccessful nominations is better discussed within article prose. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Not needed. ~ HAL333 03:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep They might not be political offices, but they are party "positions" (hence why it's labeled party political office), and I think their succession is still notable information. For example, neither Humphrey nor McGovern became president, but I still think many readers would want to know that McGovern followed Humphrey as Democratic nominee, and the succession box is useful for that. Sudonymous (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete — nominations are not important enough to justify using up the prize screen real estate of an infobox. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  I assume you mean succession box, which are at the bottom of those bios. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  Oops! Thanks for pointing that out. I misread it and thought we were talking about the predecessor/successor part of the infobox. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete the clutter. Having boxes for non-offices such as these is what leads to the boxes being collapsed and therefore useless. Surtsicna (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep The succession boxes mark their party positions, and often their sole claim to notability. Dimadick (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Being a nominee is not a party position, though. I also think it is very unlikely that a nominee is known solely for having been nominated. Normally only people who are already notable are nominated for such high offices. Surtsicna (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: I don't know about that. When you start looking past the major two American political parties, it starts to become an even larger part of a person's notability. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep at least presidential and gubernatorial nominee succession boxes. Though not a governmental office, being a D or R nominee for national or state chief executive is definitely a political office. Regardless of what the DNC/RNC/state committee organization flowchart might say, for the duration of the campaign, the nominee is the de facto leader of the party. His or her resume, statements and beliefs are seen as representing what the party stands for, even more so than the official platforms that nobody reads. To click through the progression "George W. Bush ... John McCain ... Mitt Romney .. Donald Trump" is just as much a history-via-biography lesson as "Bush ... Obama ... Trump ... Biden". Speaking as a reader, I do find these particular succession boxes useful. _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 04:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC) (edited 14:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC) to add "nominee" in first sentence to clarify)

It's the "nominee" boxes, I'm suggesting should be deleted. Not the "offices". GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I read your proposal. My argument is that being a major-party nominee for a chief executive post is a de facto political office. _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 14:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Planning on cut/pasting this RFC over to WP:Village Pump (proposals) for more viewership/participation. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Sudonymous, these are party positions. Some people are notable for being nominees. While being a nominee doesn't guarantee notability, that is often what people are notable for (Marquita Bradshaw). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think listing candidacies in the infobox is particularly helpful, and I think they lead to more confusion than they are worth. If a person being a nominee is a reason why a person is notable, that can be mentioned in the lead, even the lead sentence if that is why they are primarily notable. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep being the nominee of a political party is a political position, so the nomination is poorly constructed in the first place. While a nomination is not the same as an office in government, the use of succession boxes does significantly aid navigation, which is why they exist in the first place.--User:Namiba 18:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Sudonymous. This change would disrupt readability. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 02:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

List of left and far-left parties in Europe

Hi. I came across the article List of left and far-left parties in Europe, which is within the scope of this wikiproject, and it's in dire need of some attention. The main issue is that it's terribly outdated; if even prominent parties like Podemos and Syriza are missing, I can only imagine how many other newer parties are missing. Another issue is that many sources are years old, which is an issue as parties can change their ideology. I'll see what I can do myself - I already removed a nonsensical column that tried to shoehorn every party into one of the three categories "centre-left", "left-wing" or "far-left" - but I think something of a more organized effort would do wonders to get this list to an acceptable state. Lennart97 (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Is there any point to it? There are probably thousands of parties that could be included on such a list. Personally I'd suggest deleting it. Number 57 21:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I've considered that, and I really wouldn't be sad to see it go, either. But are there any convincing arguments for deletion? I do think it definitely passes WP:NLIST. As for the thousands of parties that could be included, maybe a simple inclusion criterium (for example, "must have won seats in a national parliament") would suffice. Lennart97 (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57: So are there any convincing arguments for deletion? It wasn't a rhetorical question :) Lennart97 (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I just think it's pointless, and I can't really see how it meets the NLIST criteria. Number 57 21:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move

It has been proposed that Clandestine press of the French Resistance be renamed to Underground media in German-occupied France. Your feedback would be welcome at this discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The rest of city councils

You guys need to add the rest of the city councils in the United States. Arek333 (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Arek333: Are you volunteering? Peaceray (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Les Nouveaux Démocrates (French party) article name

Thoughts please --- Should I call the article in English wikipedia on Les Nouveaux Démocrates Les Nouveaux Démocrates or The New Democrats or The New Democrats (France)? New Democrats are a faction of the US Democratic party. Newystats (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Seem to me it would be better to be consistent with The Republicans (France), so the latter. --Aréat (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I suspect English language sources would use The New Democrats, but perhaps this is a bit crystal. LREM is still referred to by its French name (or just its acronym) in English media, although it's a bit harder to translate. CMD (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at List of political parties in France, the only ones left untranslated are LREM and La France Insoumise, and indeed it's not a coincidence that those two are the only ones that are not easily translatable. That suggests that New Democrats is the way to go here. Also, I'd pick New Democrats (France) over The New Democrats as the latter is too ambiguous. Lennart97 (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"Served as" vs. "was"

There are discussion, regarding the choice of words "served as" vs. "was" in reference to an office holder's term of office at: Talk:Calvin Coolidge#"Served as" vs. "was" and at Talk:Donald Trump#Lead sentence proposal. Perhaps members of this project could come to a consensus on which approach is preferred. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Served as.. - Why you ask? Because each former US president, is still the #th president of the United States. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Divided region for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Divided region is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divided region until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

CMD (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

GA reassessment for Hugo Black

Hugo Black, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Grievance politics

I'm quite surprised that grievance politics is a redlink. There don't seem to be any immediate slam-dunk redirect targets; would anyone like to write a page for it or suggest a possible target? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Coincidentally, I noticed this almost simultaneously, and started to form a skeleton article offline, but then discovered it was covered. Let me go find my notes, maybe I wrote down what the other name is. Mathglot (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I tacked my standard boilerplate draft header/footer onto my notes, and pushed it out as Draft:Grievance politics. This is rougher than my usual starting point for a Draft, but I thought rather than lose what I'd done, better to save it/make it available, in case anyone wanted to look into it, and since you expressed an interest, I thought you might want to, so here it is fwiw/ I have no idea if I'll come back to this or not, so feel free to slash and burn, or whatever you like. Still looking for the existing article; even if I find it, don't worry about duplicate effort; I remember now what surprised me about it: it's a one liner, and maybe had a reference or max two, but not more. This draft lacks a definition/lead sentence, but has plenty of scaffolding, if you feel like playing with it. ttfn, Mathglot (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot, I'm unlikely to expand it personally, but maybe someone else will see this and take it up; I also added it to the requested list. Editing Rush Limbaugh led me to realize the omission, but I'm a little nervous to link to here from that talk page haha. Failing everything, I support Wikipedia:Make stubs. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Yeah, good point; I'll add him to "See also". Also I found the article I was thinking of: it's Politics of resentment. A lot more refs than I remembered; maybe that's "insurance" against Afd or something. Mathglot (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see that's a relatively recent creation by Buidhe. I'll redirect grievance politics there, and I'd suggest expanding it with some of the material from your draft. There's also a plausible case for moving the page to grievance politics we could discuss. I'm going to wikilink from Limbaugh and a few other pages, so beware of potential vandalism. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, I always try to add an abundance of RS refs to any new articles I create so that no one will think it's non-notable. I also like creating lists of sources for some reason :) (t · c) buidhe 05:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requested at Augusto Pinochet

Hello, there's a discussion going on about removing an honorific from the Infobox at Augusto Pinochet. Your feedback would be appreciated at Talk:Augusto Pinochet#Honorific in Infobox. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Attention needed at Elizabeth Warren 2020 presidential campaign

This article, particularly before my recent changes to it, struck me as under-detailed and rather unbalanced. Much of it read to me like an article focusing more on controversies of the campaign than on anything else about the campaign. C'mon, this could be an important article. Warren was the second-best performing woman ever to run for a U.S. presidential nomination, and was a one-time frontrunner in 2016. The article on the subject should be far superior than this. SecretName101 (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC on whether there was an attempted coup in the US in January 2021

I've started an RFC on a related template regarding whether the USA events of January 2021 should be listed as an attempted coup on some templates. Please comment on that page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pro-ROC camp (Hong Kong)#Requested move 16 February 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pro-ROC camp (Hong Kong)#Requested move 16 February 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Cabinet posts and committee chairmanships in infoboxes

I've started a discussion regarding the listing of cabinet posts and committee memberships in infoboxes at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#Test_cases_using_subterm_and_suboffice_fields_for_cabinet/committee_posts - comments welcome. Connormah (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of RFC: Poland as predecessor/successor in Nazi Germany infobox

Participation welcome at Talk:Nazi Germany#RFC: Poland as predecessor/successor in Nazi Germany infobox. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC CPAC stage Odal shape compared to Nazi symbol

A RfC has been opened at Talk:Conservative_Political_Action_Conference#RfC_CPAC_stage_Odal_shape. The question is, "Should the article mention that some sources noted the CPAC stage had an appearance similar to a Odal and that this symbol was used by some Nazi units?" Springee (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Slavery in ancient Greece

I have nominated Slavery in ancient Greece 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 18:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)