Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

European Union

The European Union article has been thoroughly rearranged over the last week and discussion is currently ongoing at Talk:European Union about whether those changes have improved the article. It would be helpful if members of your wiki project could contribute. For reference, is the version of the article from before the recent changes. Furius (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Creating an article for the 5th World Congress of the Comintern

I have noticed there is no article regarding this particular topic. All the other Congresses have an article. It stands out that this one doesn't. I'd be interested in starting one however I really would like somebody to help me with it as I do not have enough time to do it alone. If someone is interested in helping please leave a comment on my talk page and we can discuss further details. Chefs-kiss (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Good Article Editathon event in October 2022

Hello WikiProject Politics:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in October 2022!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2022, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning autobiography by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Goldsztajn (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Should partisan designations be included for a non-partisan election?

Please comment here on this topic.-- User:Namiba 22:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits to Maajid Nawaz

This page could do with some more attention, firstly to discuss a recent issue with unsourced content being repeatedly added to the lead and also to gain consensus on changes to reflect the subject's recent interest in conspiracy theories. TWM03 (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

2023 Nigerian general election

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  As I have said, I see the 'Nigerian elections' would be a very high-level DABCONCEPT page that refers readers to the more detailed articles on elections throughout the year. The general election article would cover the national elections on 25 February (as there will clearly be crossover between the presidential and parliamentary elections). You could see it as three levels of detail: "Nigerian elections" with hardly any detail, mostly being links to the relevant articles, "Nigerian general election" being a summary of the key information on the national elections on 25 February (presidential candidates/opinion polls/results tables for all three) and then the president/Senate/House elections with the really high level of detail like results by constituency etc. Number 57 20:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  Nigerian election is an WP:OR. There are difference between general election and gubernoral. Panam2014 (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? You have constantly demonstrated absolutely zero knowledge of the contents of this page for months and yet you continue to lecture others on the topic; I beg of you, read the page. Watercheetah99 (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Your description of a prospective "Nigerian general election" page shows the exact overlap issue I have tried to communicate to you. The presidential candidates will be on the "elections" page (if something as basic as the candidates isn't on the "elections" page, it serves no purpose), opinion polls will be on the individual pages (what poll will cover all three February elections? if polls are released, they will likely be on just the presidential race and such would just be on that page), and the results tables will be on the individual pages (the "elections" pages will have results in the infobox while the full tables would definitely be in the individual pages). Nothing you bring forward will not be on a different page; the only thing that could possibly cover all three elections but might not go on the "elections" page would be a conduct incident specific to the February election but that would just go in the conduct sections of each individual page or (more likely) the subdivisional election pages. To address other examples: debates will go on individual pages (there aren't joint debates, no need to put them on a "general election" page), a broad intro summary will go on the "elections" page (any "general election" page intro summary would just be the "elections" page intro summary without a sentence or two), issues will be on individual pages (each election has different issues), primaries will go on individual pages (each election has its own primaries), and background will go on individual pages (each election has a background section based on the constituency and local context).

  Plus, in your idea, the "Nigerian elections" would be quite bizarre if it's just links. The current page would have all of the results in the infobox, short summaries for the six types of election, and links to the main pages for those elections without cluttering the page or needlessly dicing it up. If there are analyses for all 2023 election results/turnout/conduct, a short section could be added at the end with a table of the overall results like the US 2020 one. There is nothing substantial to gain from a split. Watercheetah99 (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Keep the title consistent, with the preceding Nigerian general election pages. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

BTW - I matched the infobox heading, with the article title & was reverted. What gives? GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Like I have said repeatedly over the course of months, the page template for 2015 and 2019 cannot be imposed on 2023 because 2023 has detailed pages on the individual elections. The 2019 Nigerian general election name made sense at the time as since there weren't detailed articles on the presidential, legislative, and subnational elections, they had to be included on a single page and it made some sense to name the page after the most prominent election even if the term was not 100% accurate. This is not the case on this page, there is no election where this is the primary page. Watercheetah99 (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

After the 2003 Nigerian presidential election page, there's a mix up of article titles, infobox headings & intros. Quite a mess, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's a mess and one of the projects I've had down for a few months is to clean those up. We can't change something for consistency when there is no consistency. Watercheetah99 (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Number 57: I think an RFC may be required. GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay and Number 57: I will fill an WP:ANI against Watercheetah99 for his personnal attacks describing me as a liar. Panam2014 (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Please see also Talk:2023 Nigerian general election#Name change, August 2022. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Also another RfC, Talk:2023 Nigerian general election#Page split dispute, August 2022, followed by a move request, Talk:2023 Nigerian general election#Requested move 13 September 2022. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

...and now there's a Wikipedia:Move review#2023 Nigerian general election. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Difference between despotism, dictatorship, autocracy?

What's the difference between the definitions of despotism, dictatorship, autocracy? Thinker78 (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Like most political terms, there's a lot of overlap and usage might differ. They're all types of authoritarianism. Dictatorship and despotism are usually defined by the formal restrictions on power (little to none), while autocracy is usually defined by the number of authoritarian rulers (just one and not a group). It's more difficult to make a distinction between dictator and despot. I've seen dictatorship to mean control over institutions and despotism to mean embodying the institutions (think Mussolini holding office in Italy versus Leopold II of Belgium being the owner of the Congo), but I couldn't tell you if that's a standard definition or not. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion to take a congressional task force

I suggest creating a task force that specializes in everything directly related to government legislative bodies, but with more emphasis to said bodies themselves. Articles within the purview would be like Congress of Guatemala, Proportional representation, 2022 French legislative elections, Nancy Pelosi. Thinker78 (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Elizabeth II for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. John (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Parishes of Europe / America

There is a Categories for Discussion which may be of interest to this project, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 12#Category:Parishes of Europe / America. It may help to engage a wider number of participants. Sionk (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Countries of the United Kingdom, 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, 17 October 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

FAR for E. T. Pollock

User:Buidhe has nominated E. T. Pollock for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice for Political integration of India

I have nominated Political integration of India for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Context for Democracy Index

Many articles about countries and governments use the EIU's Democracy Index to describe the status of democracy using one of four descriptors (full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime, and authoritarian regime). While I have no major issues with the EIU's methodology, I wonder if they might be unhelpful or even misleading without further context. Articles often take for granted that readers will understand what these descriptors mean, but they can be somewhat ambiguous. How are readers supposed to interpret "flawed" or "hybrid" if they're not familiar with the index? They have no way of knowing that it's one out of four options, let alone what aspects are being considered. Is this a cause for concern, and is there any way we can ensure that these are unambiguous when used in articles? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding Tudor Dixon

There is a request for comment at Talk:Tudor Dixon § Request for comment: sentence in lede that may interest members of this WikiProject. Please participate at the talk page. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Requesting comments: New removed section on Global goals and reports in 2022

There is a request for comment at Talk:2022 § New removed section on Global goals and reports (Result:) that may interest members of this WikiProject.

Should section "Global goals and reports" (in any shape or form) about the state of developments regarding global goals in/as of a year be excluded from article 2022?

Please participate at the talk page. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Implicit bias favouring the incumbent

A reader has emailed VRTS noting the bias implicit in placing the incumbent's image first. Google's Knowledge graph takes the first image, and only the first image. If the candidate images were merged into a single image for use on the election page that bias would be eliminated. Cabayi (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't responsible for what Google does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment

At talk:Anschluss#Request for change, there is a quick dispute about grammar that was unable to reach consensus. We're looking for a third opinion. Anyone is welcome if interested. Thanks! 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2D5E:4EB:3BAB:AC96 (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Acquittals of Tom Barrack and Matt Grimes

For your info, Tom Barrack, a Trump ally, and Matthew Grimes, Barrack's former assistant, were recently acquitted in a FARA case. There were many articles that covered Barrack's indictment, but only Barrack's bio included a mention about acquittal. I have updated all relevant articles I could find with Wikipedia search, and urge everyone to do the same if I missed a spot. Politrukki (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

French legislative election(s): plural or singular?

Further information: Talk:2022 French legislative election § Plural or singular?

Hérisson grognon (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Turkey authoritarian dictatorship

Any input would be great Talk:Turkey#Turkey authoritarian dictatorship Moxy- 15:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Turkey RFC about authoritarianism and democratic backsliding

Talk:Turkey#RFC about authoritarianism and democratic backsliding Moxy- 19:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Meloni Cabinet#Requested move 19 November 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Meloni Cabinet#Requested move 19 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Pilaz (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Paul Kruger

I have nominated Paul Kruger for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

How to get a "First Vice President" infobox parameter instead of "Vice President"?

Hellooo all.

I'm editing the page for Siad Barre and I'm trying to override the name of the "Vice President" parameter in his infobox to "First Vice President". This is because during Barre's dictatorship, the vice presidency was multiple positions: First Vice President, Second Vice President, and occasionally Third Vice President.

This is also true of current-day Peru. The Vice Presidency of Peru is two positions, the First Vice President and the Second Vice President. However, in infoboxes both are listed under the "Vice President" parameter with no distinction. For example, in Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, the First Vice President Martín Vizcarra and the Second Vice President Mercedes Aráoz are listed like that; someone could easily think one served after the other left office or something.

Alternatively, can we add First Vice President, Second Vice President, and (maybe) Third Vice President to Template:Infobox officeholder? Holidayruin (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Holidayruin You should move this request to the talk page of Template:Infobox officeholder. There is recent activity there. Thinker78 (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Thinker78: Thanks for the suggestion. I have done so here. Holidayruin (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Results Table Standardising/Templates

I propose that there should be a standardisation of results tables, or create templates based on each country. I edited multiple South Korean political parties, but didn't realise that there was a standard for it, as there is no guide. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, ValencieThunderbolt is talking about the tables on political party articles setting out the parties' election results (e.g. National Association (South_Korea)#Election results). Number 57 11:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Movement for Socialism#Requested move 8 November 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Movement for Socialism#Requested move 8 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Politics of China

I added a section to discuss Politics of China here: Near-total lack of realpolitik in the article?. Basically, the article doesn't seem to mention any of the major political forces in China, which seems like a major failure or oversight unless I'm missing something.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but more eyes would be helpful here.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

All of the Politics of (country) articles are in a terrible state. This is hardly an issue unique to that article. It doesn't seem there's much interest in fixing them either. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the perspective. :( - CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Political parties

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Political parties#Party flags in infoboxes, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. — Ætoms ^[talk] 23:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

Members of this project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Y --Thinker78 (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Redundant articles

Why do we have separate articles for town council and municipal council? Aren't they the same thing? The lead of municipal council suggests so. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The latter is a generic term covering all local authorities. In the UK 'town council' has a specific meaning, as it is a form of parish council. Number 57 16:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Since town council is tagged as needing a more worldwide perspective, wouldn't merging these articles help with that? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Join the RfC discussion on adding parameters to Template:Infobox officeholder!

Hello all! A discussion is underway at the talk page for this template. It involves adding First Vice President and Second Vice President parameters for nations that use the system such as Peru, like here. Other countries that currently use this system include Costa Rica, Honduras, and Zimbabwe. There are also those that used the system in the past, such as Somalia in the 1970s-80s.

Please read the preceding section before commenting! We are eager to build consensus. Holidayruin (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Laptop RFC

We need more input at this RFC. -- GoodDay (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Diocletian Featured article review

I have nominated Diocletian for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Issue One request

Hi there, WikiProject Politics members. I have posted a request to the Issue One Talk page that outlines a proposed update to the article's History section. I suggest retitling the section as "Formation" and simplifying some of the details about the Issue One predecessor organizations.

I have a conflict of interest as I work at Issue One, so my hope is that I can get an experienced editor to review what I've put together and then implement the changes if they seem like improvements. Any help or feedback you can provide would be appreciated! AR at Issue One (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Posting here one more time in order to bump this post. I've yet to receive any responses to my Talk page request about the History section. Again, hoping an experienced editor can provide some feedback or at least point me in the right direction for further assistance. Thank you. AR at Issue One (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

William Harper Featured article review

I have nominated William Harper (Rhodesian politician) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett

User:Buidhe has nominated Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

note re item

new item, presented today. hope you find this helpful

{{Government}}

thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Is Bolsonaro still president of Brazil, until his term expires?

One or two editors have (via their edits) suggested that Bolsonaro (by apparently having left Brazil for the USA) has ceased to be President of Brazil, roughly 24 hours before his term expires. What's the story on this? GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Reuters is reporting "Vice President Hamilton Mourao is now acting president after Bolsonaro left the country, his press office said." here. I don't know if that means that Bolsonaro is not president, but it does pretty clearly mean that according to the VP, the VP is now serving in that capacity temporarily. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 07:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Could I get a couple of eyes on a draft?

Hey there folks. It's been a decently long time since I've contributed longform writing to the encyclopedia, So I'd like some feedback on a draft I have kicking around in my userspace at User:127(point)0(point)0(point)1/Del Riley. I had been holding off in the hopes of getting a picture from the county that wasn't copyright encumbered but gotten nothing but radio silence from them so just moving forward without it. County clerks aren't generally notable but this one seems like it clears the bar, having a significant long term effect on how elections are run in the state of Oregon. Would like to make sure my instinct on that is correct and any other comments or edits that might be warranted. Thanks! --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 12:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Would seem on the face of things Riley passes WP:GNG, having been featured in a number of news articles. One thing I would strongly suggest is you provide full citations, including dates, authors (if known) and publishers/publications. Sionk (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Mind taking a look over my cite template work now? I was just impressed I got it to work at all at first, the last time I did this level of work we only had bare ref tags. But I spent some time working through the template documentation and I think I got it all correctly fleshed out, and transitioned some from cite web to cite journal and cite speech. I greatly appreciated your feedback. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 17:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a good improvement ...and I can see you've already published it. Sionk (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC about World War 2 first two sentences

There is an RFC discussing the lead sentence of the World War 2 article in its talk page. Your input is welcome! --Thinker78 (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Marxism's description as left-wing

Hello, this Wikiproject might be interested to participate in this discussion: Talk:Marxism#Discussion_of_WP:NPOV_in_first_line. Previous discussions around this label have been inconclusive, so wider participation would be appreciated. — Czello 18:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Andry Rajoelina

I have nominated Andry Rajoelina for GA reassessment here. if you want to participate then please do. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Inner German border

User:Buidhe has nominated Inner German border for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on the contents of lists of officeholders

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 a clear consensus against inclusion of any of the three types of information in lists of political officeholders. (non-admin closure) Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) ^talk 22:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia's lists of holders of political offices (presidents, governors, ministers, etc) are currently a hot mess, with people adding or removing whatever they like. Let us discuss the following:

1. Should lists of officeholders contain separate lists (e.g. tables or galleries) of living former officeholders and point out who is the most recent to die? Example here.
2. Should lists of officeholders contain separate tables for "superlatives" (youngest ever, third oldest ever, second shortest term, fourth longest term, etc)? Example here and here.
3. Should lists of officeholders contain separate tables analyzing the officeholders' other political gigs? Example here.

19:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• No to all 3. Most "living former officeholders" sections merely repeat the information already wholly present in the main table (typical example). Lists that do not contain vital dates in the main table should have them there or should not segregate the living just to point out that they are living. The "superlatives" sections are against the WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy, featuring random factoids without any context or references to sources proving their encyclopedic value. I struggle to see how listing the five youngest ever senators in the list of US senators from Wyoming could have encyclopedic value.
  If, for some reason, further career of each officeholder should be noted in a general list of officeholders, this should be done in the main table, similar to how we used to have a Prior office column in the list of US presidents. Then again, since we ended up getting rid of that column altogether, I believe it is best not to analyze the individuals' political careers in general lists. Surtsicna (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• No to all 3 - Those things (IMHO) are trivial & don't belong. Those pages are for lists of office holders & nothing more. The clue is in the name of the pages. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• No to all 3 - per WP:NOTTRIVIA, and arguments by Surtsicna and GoodDay. Strong No on the superlatives section - I've come across these on occasion; they're entirely subjective as to what is noteworthy, and usually they're somewhere between a little and a lot out of date. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• No to all 3 per above, but I would not object to a column within the main table that described notable previous positions (or prose within the table to summarize an officeholder's political career such as in List of presidents of France). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• No to all 3 in the main lists. None of this stuff belongs in the main lists, and some of it (especially the "most recent to die" stuff) is guff that doesn't belong anywhere much. Some of it, however - youngest/oldest and longest-serving officeholders particularly - may be relevant, depending on the office/context, in their own standalone lists, and I'd hate to see them get caught up in this RfC. (For an example, the mini-list of "youngest/oldest Senators from Texas" in the main list is too hyper-specific and trivial, but a standalone list of "youngest/oldest US Senators overall in history" is probably of broader interest/significance.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  I second this – my "no to all 3" is specifically in regard to separate sections in the main officeholder list articles, but officeholder superlatives and similar information may still be relevant in other places. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think Surtsicna is looking to delete pages like List of presidents of the United States by age, etc. GoodDay (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don't either, but it's good to specify intent so that an RfC decision isn't misinterpreted or misapplied later on. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed I am not looking to delete whole articles. I do not think that is something that can be decided in an RfC anyway; WP:Articles for deletion operates separately and somewhat differently. Surtsicna (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• This RFC is heavily biased to the OP viewpoint, hence the very leading tone of the questions and poor examples used, this editor removes this information en masse, in less than a minute, where some of this information could be useful for some readers. Further, as the list will continue to get longer, scanning such a table to see who is alive, calculate their ages and other information, usually provided in concise text from (ie not always in separate tables etc) would be cumbersome and unworkable for the average reader. Removal of this information with the notes this is all in the table above is disingenuous at best, if the OP feels so strongly on this improve the existing article to incorporate ALL of this extra information before removing the same.2404:4408:638C:5E00:B099:F55F:A773:FF11 (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  Why is it so important that we make it easy for people to find out which governors are alive? "Could be useful for some readers" literally anything we add to these articles would be useful for some readers, we need a better argument than that. --Golbez (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  It is not so important (especially Governors, ex Aussie PM's, they go through a few, and other more so) however the information is there, to remove it for any reason (because it fits OP's view and edit count counter??) provides nothing, incorporating can provide much of the same and must be better than bulk deletes, bulk defending the same and this blatantly biased survey. We need to argue deletion is better than what? Better than OP doing something actually constructive instead?2404:4408:638C:5E00:4D2B:42FE:7355:8C5C (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Note: the other table often provide DOB, age and sometime other information so it is not direct reseated as OP alludes to. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:4D2B:42FE:7355:8C5C (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  "To remove it for any reason provides nothing" So if I were to go through and add their spouses' birthplaces, you would argue against removing that because "to remove it for any reason provides nothing"? --Golbez (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Who is the oldest ex PM could easily be a Pub trivia question, so, if someone wanted to add locations as there was some significance in their opinion I would not argue it and DO SOMETHING ELSE. When will you remove all top goalscorers, points scorers, most appearance etc. for every team, for every year, in every country, mostly just trivial and can easily be worked out, same logic, still bad. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:F1B8:4D:6290:8EE7 (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Then why have any additional information that isn't strictly necessary? Should we remove, for example, birth and death dates? Or the section about presidential libraries? I also agree with the previous user that lists of top goal scorers for football teams would count as "useless" trivia to some, so why not remove those as well? people turn to Wikipedia for information like this, not jist for the dry, basic information like "length of term" for example. 2A10:8012:B:2099:A078:81D2:51A4:C70 (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think WP:FALSECON would apply2404:4408:638C:5E00:B099:F55F:A773:FF11 (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC) First I must reject your allegations of bias and canvassing as utter rubbish. Please do explain why the examples are poor and cite some you believe to be better. What is disingenuous is the attempt to cast doubt on the validity of a discussion for presumably not going the way you want it to. Now, I have every faith that our readers can indeed do some basic math and draw whatever specialist information they need from the main table without us regurgitating that information in another form within the same article. Surtsicna (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC) First, you contacted two of the respondents above to request their participation. Re examples pick any of ones you had to defend your action on, further, it really does not matter what form it is in, your selection is biased either way. How about, instead of this method incorporate the information and then delete or even better, do some other work that improves wiki itself instead of having to resort to a constructed, biased survey to support your mass deletions?2404:4408:638C:5E00:4D2B:42FE:7355:8C5C (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC) There's nothing wrong with the RFC, so cool off. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC) A reply form a canvassed one, cool2404:4408:638C:5E00:4D2B:42FE:7355:8C5C (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC) Read up on WP:BLUDGEON, which is what you're currently doing here. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC) People are asking me question, so does not apply. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:4D2B:42FE:7355:8C5C (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC) No one else seems to have an issue with how the RfC is constructed. If you disagree with the consensus that's being formed, then provide a good reason, but don't just call "bias". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC) You are shamelessly lying. Nobody was contacted. The RfC notice has only been posted on article talk pages. I have made my pick; make yours if you disagree with mine. Otherwise move on. Surtsicna (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC) I am not lying although on 2nd look i can only find one canvass type talk message, not the 2 which I shamelessly lied about. The rfc is structured in such a way to obfuscate and omit any mention of the other information conveyed in the sections you bulk delete, it is not just a unnecessary duplicate as you seem to allude to, if we viewed your contribution history we see you; deleting page section after page section in minutes, re-reverting other users trying to place this information back onto the wiki, And defending your actions with essentially its all the same data which is demonstratively false. I know you do not like my opposition to this, however it is the truth, it is not me being aggressive, hostile or any other adjective, although I do think you are wasting good peoples time and efforts, the updates required can be mitigated with an as at note and the rest is just your intractability on this matter, I think otherwise you are a good editor and you should use those skills elsewhere to improve the many parts of wiki that need it much more urgently than this 2404:4408:638C:5E00:4D2B:42FE:7355:8C5C (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC) Provide a link to that one canvass type talk message you found or stop lying. The RfC is not about my edits but about the content of articles. The examples I provided are literally the content being discussed. Start providing specific examples of what you are saying or stop wasting everyone's time here. Surtsicna (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• No to all 3 - and I say this as the person who created much of this problem. If there's a verifiable tradition of people caring (like with US presidents) then that's fine, in a separate article, but otherwise no. Nigh-useless trivia, high upkeep costs, and in the case of 3, necessarily subjective. --Golbez (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• No to all 3 - trivial garbage. So many more important things that could be done to articles: referencing, rewriting, verifying information, etc, etc. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Generally no to all 3, however on a case-to-case basis, if there is a significant number of reliable sources discussing the secondary groupings as groupings and there is no better place to put them, then it could be considered I guess. ansh.666 19:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Generally no to all 3 as the examples shown, this is WP:TRIVIA and should not be done in the manner so described. However, I am not entirely opposed to having the sortable list function that allows some of this information to be gleaned easily from such lists, OR to have certain superlatives noted in the summary paragraph of the list itself (first, longest serving, oldest) so long as it is only a few really obvious superlatives and stuff that can be gleaned from the list itself. However, things like "Living former office holders" can be gleaned easily from such a list by having birth and death dates listed in some manner. It doesn't need a separate table. --Jayron32 18:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, if we had the birth and death dates (which I disagree with having), that could be gleaned. But why? Why is that important to know? We could just as easily have things like "Birthplaces of office holders" and include them in the table for the exact same reason. I keep seeing people say "well if you want to look it up," and I'm forced to ask why. No one seems to want to justify having this one tidbit of trivia beyond, well, that it's trivia. If you're one of the one people on earth who has an absolute need to know which governors of Florida still live, it's literally a few clicks away. We don't need to cater to every single edge case. --Golbez (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think it's at all unreasonable to have basic biographic information about officeholders in such a list. How they "rank" is trivial, but facts and basic info about the people in the list certainly has some level of relevance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  That's what the links are for. Part of the benefit of Wikipedia is we don't have to give every piece of info about someone every time they're mentioned, if someone's curious they can click. How does it help someone's understanding of the governors of Florida to know when they were born? --Golbez (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

While full dates would almost certainly be an overkill, birth-death year ranges are traditionally considered to be such basic biographical information that they are included whenever a subject is first mentioned, even in prose. For that reason I too would not be entirely opposed to having birth and death years if we are to have them for all officeholders in a list; but neither do I care strongly enough about them to advocate for their inclusion. Surtsicna (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

in paper media, yes. That's never been the case here. Take a look at, for example, United States: Not a single piece of basic biographical information even for the most important people. Because people can click. We don't need to supply all context at all times. --Golbez (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Because that article is not about the people discussed therein. Lists of people are about the people discussed therein. The whole point of such a list is to provide a collection of basic information about a set of items in an organized manner. That's what distinguishes stand-alone lists from categories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The person I'm responding to said "even in prose." You're talking about a list, not prose. I can't have two opposite conversations at the same time. --Golbez (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

And I'm going to disagree. The purpose of a list is to list, and whatever information is necessary for an understanding of that list. Who was in office; how they got there; why they left. Nothing in that requires more biography than a name. (The never-addressed accessibility concerns notwithstanding) The lifespan of governors adds nothing to an understanding of the subject of "who was governor, how they got there, and why they left;" it adds to the understanding of the individual governor, sure, but so do a lot of things that we don't include. Knowing that a governor was elected in x year helps an understanding of the subject; knowing that the governor died when he was 67 doesn't. --Golbez (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I suppose one could argue that the name of the first spouse helps an understanding more than vital dates because we even have standalone lists of the former. I propose that we save the issue of vital dates for another thread, however, because we risk confusing other editors about the intent of this RfC. Surtsicna (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair. Outside the scope. --Golbez (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• No to all 3 A list article should not be a series of lists of the same people, recast and re-sorted according to different criteria. (It will sometimes be helpful to make the list sortable, but as discussed above we shouldn't overstuff the list just to make that workable.).No too to having further "analysis" such as a table of the total number of days for which each political party has had someone in that office. These extra lists and analyses are trivia, WP:UNDUE in lending false importance to that way of listing, parasitic, a maintenance nightmare and a waste of those precious resources, our readers' time, attention and respect. NebY (talk) 01:26, 8 December 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.

RfC going on about infoboxes of Swiss federal councilors

Hello! There is an RfC going on right now about how the infoboxes for Swiss politicians and especially members of the Swiss Federal Council should be formatted, over on Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC: guidelines on Swiss federal councilors infoboxes. Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 17:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2020–2023 United States racial unrest#Requested move 3 January 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2020–2023 United States racial unrest#Requested move 3 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Taoiseach or Taoisigh

In Irish Taoisigh is the plural of Taoiseach. In the infobox of a number of Irish politicians I noticed that in cases where a politician has been in the same ministry for two different Taoisigh it says Taoiseach and the two different Taoisigh instead of Taoisigh. I checked Liz Truss and in her own infobox it says Monarchs and not Monarch. It leads me to believe that the Irish politicians infoboxs might be wrong. This affects Simon Harris, Eamon Ryan, Helen McEntee and others I have not thought of. (Fran Bosh (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC))

IMHO, we should use 'prime minister' & 'prime ministers'. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Disagree as Taoiseach is the official English version as well, it's not just the Irish. Canterbury Tail talk 23:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

No opinion on Taoisigh or Taoiseach in this context, but would like to voice a strong disagreement with the suggestion of Prime minister & Prime ministers Xx78900 (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Why on earth would we deliberately use an incorrect title?! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

To each their own. I can't pronounce (let alone spell, without reading it first) Taoiseach or Taoisigh, because it's in the Irish language. Therefore I use "Prime Minister of Ireland" & "Prime Ministers of Ireland", in any discussion. If it's not going to be adopted into the main pages or infoboxes? so be it. PS - Thank goodness, we have the re-directs. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Consider how most of us feel about Maschuschetts, Massachewsetts, Massachusettes, however that US state is spelt. Canterbury Tail talk 16:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Good point. In future, as I am not a native speaker of French, I shall call Quebec 'Northwest Maine' instead! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Your choice. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment A quick check on Micheál Martin's page shows. for example the use of the singular "President" when listing both McAleese and D. Higgins for his time as Leader of the Opposition. I don't mind either way, but I'd like to state that there is another example of the singular being used within the context of Irish politicians and other political roles.

Xx78900 (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Example

Simon Harris TD
Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science
Incumbent
Assumed office 27 June 2020
Taoiseach	Micheál Martin Leo Varadkar
Preceded by	New office
Minister for Justice
Incumbent
Assumed office 17 December 2022
Taoiseach	Leo Varadkar
Preceded by	Heather Humphreys

This is a shortened version of the infobox. Below 27 June 2020 it should say Taoisigh. Unfortunately the infobox script does not recognise the word Taoisigh. Below 17 December 2022 the use of Taoiseach is correct as there is only one listed. (Fran Bosh (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC))

For US office holders, the singular "President" is used. See Preet Bharara. Sticking with the signular reads better IMO and doesn't necessitate switching between the singular and plural when holding multiple offices across cabinets i.e. with the Simon Harris example Cashew.wheel (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

We often use the singular where we could use the plural and vice versa, and I doubt it's worth systematically fixing either. cf Liz Taylor's spouse and Elon Musk's title, Boris Johnson's citizenship and occupation, Winston Churchill's other political affiliations and unit, Julius Caesar's notable work, Tiberius Gracchus's parent(s), Pericles's spouse(s) – it seems most names I pick have some inconsistency or technical oddity, none of them problematic. NebY (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

There's no universal rule on using singular or plural in cases like this, per NebY and Cashew.wheel. Leave as is. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, leave it as is. Spleodrach (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

International reactions to Algeria-South Africa and Algeria-South Sudan relations

I am pointing out this open discussion in case anyone is interested. 37.163.204.139 (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

GAR Notice

Shanghai 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:

year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

• 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
• 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
• FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles

Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA

All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Biology
• Physics and astronomy
• Warfare
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Literature and theatre
• Engineering and technology
• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Media
• Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O) Topic area Delisted Kept Total Reviewed Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62) Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19 Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67 Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2 Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7 Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0 Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8 Education 22 1 23 0.05 3 Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5 Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3 Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22 Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1 Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5 Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6 History 27 14 41 0.52 38 Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3 Law 11 1 12 0.09 3 Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24 Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3 Media 14 10 24 0.71 40 Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31 Music 27 8 35 0.30 55 Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2 Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24 Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9 Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8 Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44 Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39 Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11 Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23 Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31 Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536 Noting some minor differences in tallies: A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for. B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

1. 1880 Republican National Convention
2. A Vindication of the Rights of Men
3. Calvin Coolidge
4. Emma Goldman
5. Lawrence Sullivan Ross
6. Liberal Movement (Australia)
7. Louis Riel
8. Thomas Playford IV
9. Yasser Arafat

Featured article review for George F. Kennan

I have nominated George F. Kennan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Third Reich NSDAP cabinet 1925

According to the 2nd template; "Feel free to improve the article". In the past 5 days I have made 10 such improvement edits of apx 5000 bytes. My intention is to clarify the article in reference to the deletion discussion.

There are 4 sections of this article. 1. Opening text describing the theme of the article in direct reference to 22 numbers. 2. A block of the 22 numbers, containing the published references by 22 authors who published the 22 numbers, with names allotted to each number. 3. A block of the 22 names (linked to their individual articles), with images. / 4. The 22 section headings containing, my clip notes from the 22 articles of these names. Of these 4 sections, section 4 is already accessible in section 3, and therefore redundant. If I leave section 4 in the article, the clip notes may be expanded to the length of 22 articles! It is my intention to put these clip notes into section 2, for quick, basic references on 22 known individuals, using section 2 for access to fuller details. Section 4, will be used for two new (relevant to section 1) section headings. Reichskanzler' and Bundesrat.

As such, would there be any objection to deleting the 22 redundant section headings, putting the clip notes in 2 block, (what it was created for), and replacing these with the more-relevant Reichskanzler' and Bundesrat sections. If I am not allowed to do this, are there any objections/comments/discussions, to deleting the 22 sections in 4.

I believe that the/my final draft will be self evident, and hopefully acceptable to any critics of my starting draft, and final draft. Any constructive help will be appreciated. Stephen2nd (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 39th Canadian Parliament

39th Canadian Parliament has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for John Edward Brownlee

John Edward Brownlee has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Austrian People's Party

Is the party still registered as Österreichische Volkspartei, or is it registered by its new name Die Volkspartei ? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Assuming this is a query about how the article is named, the formal name is irrelevant – the question is how English-language sources name the party – if they still call it "Austrian People's Party", then the title should remain as such. Number 57 12:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay then. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Ed Stelmach

User:Buidhe has nominated Ed Stelmach for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act Featured article review

I have nominated Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Should the "Wi Spa controversy" Article Identify the Suspect by Name?

Please consider contributing to the "Should the Article Name the Suspect?" discussion at Talk:Wi Spa controversy. --Mox La Push (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Panic of 1907

User:Buidhe has nominated Panic of 1907 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

RM notice

An editor has requested for International travel requirements for German citizens to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with International travel requirements for German citizens, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Centrism, 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, 13 February 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Issue One request

Hello and happy January, WikiProject Politics members. I have posted a request to the Issue One Talk page that outlines a proposed update to the article's History section. I previously posted about this, but the message has been archived, so I am trying once again! I suggest retitling the section as "Formation" and simplifying some of the details about the Issue One predecessor organizations.

I have a conflict of interest as I work at Issue One, so my hope is that I can get an experienced editor to review what I've put together and then implement the changes if they seem like improvements. Any help or feedback you can provide would be appreciated! AR at Issue One (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Posting here as an update — I've now posted an additional request for updates to the Organization section on the Issue One Talk page. The request for updates to the History section emails outstanding. I'm hopeful that an experienced editor can make one or both of these edits, or at least provide some feedback. Thank you! ~~~~ AR at Issue One (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña

Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ministry of Foreign Affairs#Requested move 16 February 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ministry of Foreign Affairs#Requested move 16 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (politics)

Can someone start discussion for making this proposed essay into a notability guideline? ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 12:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Can we not. --Jayron32 13:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it still needs a lot of work before it's ready to be a guideline. The Idea Lab would be the venue for that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Why do we even need it? We already have WP:POLITICIAN, which seems to be an appropriate bar. Number 57 23:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

John McClaughry

Can someone help format the infobox for John McClaughry? Thriley (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2021–2023 Iranian protests#Requested move 15 February 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2021–2023 Iranian protests#Requested move 15 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 06:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Authoritarianism

There is a discussion at Talk:Authoritarianism#Misleading scope that may be of interest to this WikiProject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Handling legal changes concurrent with the 2023 Israeli judicial reform

(Cross-posting from WP:CEN)

For the past few weeks Israel has been going through a socio-political turmoil, at the core of which is a so-called "judicial reform" - a set of quasi-constitutional amendments that the government is trying to pass, which will radically alter the power balance between the judiciary and the executive branches. Surrounding this "reform" is a plethora of other proposals, some of which directly depend on the "reform" passing. The whole thing is seen by many as one big "power grab", drawing sharp criticism from across the globe, and sparking waves of protest throughout the country.

So we have one subject (the "reform") contained in, and fueling another (the "power grab"); and many criticisms that address either, or both. How and where should we make the distinction?

Opinions welcome here. François Robere (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

RFC notice

There is a request for comment at the Village Pump that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Shells-shells (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice of "2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt" being moved to "2022 Peruvian political crisis"

Hello. The 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt has recently been moved with the mention of it being a self coup attempt removed from the title. The move was made after 8 days of discussion, with only six users intervening and it being cut mid arguments. The discussion is still ongoing on whether it was the right decision, please comment if that may be of interest to you. Aréat (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Question about parliament names

Hi, I have a question about the names of parliaments on Wikipedia. Why are some parliaments' articles just called "Parliament of [Polity]" (examples), some articles are their native names or their transliterations (examples) and some are calques (examples). I noticed that because of the recent Estonian election being on {{In the news}}. I thought this might be the the most commonly recognized name of the institution, but a quick glance at the references proves otherwise (only Estonian sources use the native name, while other English sources use "Parliament of Estonia"). Is there a reason why the native name or a calque is used in that article and others? Betseg (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I would say that using the native name is generally preferable as it meets most of WP:CRITERIA; it will be recognisable to someone familiar with the subject area, it is a natural title, and clearly more precise and concise than "Parliament of Fooland". Consistency isn't really relevant here as some parliaments are commonly known by their native name in English (such as Bundestag). Cheers, Number 57 08:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Good article reassessment for European Council

European Council has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Draft talk:Assassination of Omar Menéndez

Hello.

Sorry in advance if this is not the right page to ask for it, but I would like some feedback on this draft I wrote last month, which covers the killing of a candidate for mayor in Ecuador, as well as his posthumous election. I was shocked when I first read the news, and I think it's notable enough to constitute a full article, especially since it's related to the recent rise in violence, even towards politicians, all across the country.

I've just opened a discussion on the draft's talk page: any type of advice will be greatly appreciated!

Oltrepier (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC on whether citing maps and graphs is original research

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles. Rschen7754 19:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Voting, 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, 20 March 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Information request

Hello. I am trying to find out information regarding Albert Patterson to add infobox fields. Specifically, district he represented in the Alabama State Senate, his predecessor, and his successor. If someone is interested in helping out that would be great! Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Macedonia (terminology)

User:Buidhe has nominated Macedonia (terminology) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Macedonia (terminology)

User:Buidhe has nominated Macedonia (terminology) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Macedonia (terminology)

User:Buidhe has nominated Macedonia (terminology) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment: Honorific styles, etc.

Should the infobox of those with honorific styles such as 'His/Her Excellency' include such titles? For example, Bajram Begaj's infobox includes the style 'His Excellency', as does Edi Rama's, and Michael D. Higgins' (and others, but I don't have the time nor will to look for all examples), but the infoboxes for Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Xi Jinping, etc., and other serving officials who, according to the article 'Excellency', are to be addressed with the honorific style, do not have the style. My question is thus: Should all those who are to be addressed with the honorific style have it displayed in the infobox, or is there another reason why some who are entitled to be addressed in that way have it displayed, and others do not? Compusolus (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Delete - As these are heads of state and/or governments of republics, not monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• Extend Although I get the sentiment, I do not think distinctions between republics and monarchies have any bearing here. Consistency should be the goal and whatever honorific is used in the diplomatic sphere should be included here. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 17:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. This is not the only WikiProject who deals with infoboxes that have that sort of honorific, and this is not the correct place to have that discussion. One could reasonable have the discussion at WT:INFOBOX (or a related page), but I would remind other editors of WP:CONLEVEL, which states that [c]onsensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  @GoodDay 49.237.38.3 (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Why are you pinging me? GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Keep in mind that it's frowned upon for WikiProjects to decide what can and can't go in an article, and WikiProject control of infoboxes in particular has caused major sitewide debates in the past. I also don't seen any evidence of WP:RFCBEFORE. It's generally advisable to get input on an issue and determine whether the RfC is needed before creating it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)