Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiProject Politics (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
 

Reviewer needed for Confederate government of Kentucky[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Review Request for Minnesota political candidate article[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

Andorran prime ministers, shouldn't be numbered[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

"Politics of" and "Government of"[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Review Request for Tudor Dixon, 2022 Michigan governor candidate[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Draft:Democracy in Iraq[edit]

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

Request for comment Louis X[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

RFC concerning Elizabeth II, orders, decorations and medals[edit]

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

2023 Nigerian general election[edit]

Hello. There were two move discussions at Talk:2023 Nigerian general election suggesting the article should be moved to 2023 Nigerian elections. Still, both the involved parties want to retain their preferred title, and a discussion/decision is not taking place. The issue also involves content of the article. It is requested to Wikiproject Politics to look into it for wider participation. If necessary, a formal RM can also be initiated. Pinging the involved parties: @Watercheetah99, Number 57, Panam2014, and SportingFlyer:, also pinging uninvolved parties: @Paine Ellsworth and Mellohi!: —usernamekiran (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I request everybody to continue the discussion here to keep the discussion at one place. The wikiproject also has better visibility than the article talkpage. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the name: I have supported a move to "2023 Nigerian elections" as the current title indicates that there is one central election on one day (like 2018 Pakistani and 2019 British election pages); however, there are dozens of different elections in Nigeria throughout 2023 (from February to at least November) making this page more comparable to the 2020 United States elections page (especially as they are both presidential systems with a large number of disparate elections throughout the year). Also, as the component elections on the page already have unique pages, it is no longer like the 2019 Nigerian general election page where there was no separate presidential election page. In accordance with other like pages, such as the 2022 Nigerian elections, I believe 2023 Nigerian elections is more accurate. When I brought this up on the page, it was clear that the user that moved this page is not familiar with the content-outright claiming that there was no presidential election in 2023; when I requested it be moved back, opponents ghosted discussion for months so the status quo was kept.
For the content: Some editors have suggested creating a new page called "2023 Nigerian general election" alongside the change of the current "general election" page to "2023 Nigerian elections." I have been against this split proposal because it would be entirely redundant. Splitting the page would require copying half of the content (2/4 elections: the Pres and NASS elections) and pasting it into a new page called 2023 Nigerian general election. There is just no need for it, the broad overview of that content is covered here on a page that should be called 2023 Nigerian elections while the in-depth details are on the pres and NASS individual pages. If the "general election" page is a broad overview then everything there would be in the Pres and NASS sections of the "elections" page while if the "general election" page is detailed then everything there would be on the Pres and NASS individual pages. Not to come across as gatekeeping, but I have been adding Nigerian election pages for months and I assure you that there would be no point to a new page; I only mention this because the proponents of this change have shown a remarkable lack of knowledge about this page: again not knowing that there is a presidential election in 2023, continuously making comparisons to unalike pages, and directly lying about the content of this page and others.
I have no doubt that the opponents of this page will do the same thing here that they have been doing since April: making a few false and/or circular arguments before ghosting discussion so the status quo is kept. Watercheetah99 (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As I've said previously, I opposed the proposed move and would prefer the article to remain focussed on the national general election (president/parliament). I would have no problem with another article being created at 2023 Nigerian elections which covers all elections during the year, both at the national and sub-national level. Regarding the (repeated) accusations by Watercheetah, I don't understand why I have to keep re-explaining my reasons for opposing the move given that I have laid them out quite clearly several times. Number 57 21:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your case has been addressed for over four months: if the "general election" page is a broad overview then everything there would be in the Pres and NASS sections of the "elections" page while if the "general election" page is detailed then everything there would be on the Pres and NASS individual pages. This have been directly communicated on April 19, April 20, April 20 (again), April 21, June 2, June 2 (again), June 29, June 29 (again), and today - you have simply chosen to ignore it. You could have defended your argument but everytime basic questions like "what would be on a general election page that wouldn't be on the Pres and NASS sections of the elections page?" were asked, you could not even dignify the discussion with a deflection and just left because you are so much better than this. This utter contempt for everyone else is abnormal and bizarre, especially considering the fact that you've barely edited this page and clearly lack basic knowledge of its content. Watercheetah99 (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]