Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Adding media commentary to BLPs of politicians
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Adding media commentary to BLPs of politicians. I have asked for guidance on how much media commentary should be added to the pages of politicians, noting that it varies widely. Please discuss there. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Same party name - split info?
I am writing about various socialist political parties in the United States and I've come across an issue. Often, political parties go inactive. However, in the case of the Socialist Party of America, the party disbanded and then reform later under the Socialist Party USA. When writing about the different parties named "Socialist Party of X state", should I split the articles into separate articles based on affiliation or include both histories on the same page?--TM 12:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Two questions: Firstly, are the state parties actually separate parties, or just branches? If the latter, are separate articles actually needed? Secondly, if they are separate parties, do they have continuous existences between the dissolution/re-establishment of the national party? If so, then you should probably call them by their current name. Number 57 14:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- The Socialist Party USA considers itself the successor to the Socialist Party of America nationally, which would seem to indicate that the same named party should be kept as one article.--TM 16:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Category:Political bosses
Category:Political bosses, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
RfC notice: transhumanist politics
There is a Request for Comment at the Talk page for transhumanist politics. The Transhumanist Party recently finished an American bus tour – should it be mentioned in the "History" section of the article? –Haptic-feedback (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Notability of political parties
Do we have a guideline of the notability of political parties? Should recognition by a sub-national body be sufficient evidence of notability?--TM 00:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- By default, WP:Notability and WP:ORG govern organizations. However, as political parties generally get at least some pro forma media coverage by virtue of their mere existence, I would discount any coverage that is given to all (especially "all including minor") political parties when assessing whether the party has received significant coverage. I would also discount "flash-in-the-pan/15-minutes-of-fame" coverage associated with a party's formation if such coverage would be given to any newly-formed party. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- I would say that any party that wins seats in a national legislature is definitely notable. Beyond that, it's probably down to WP:GNG. Number 57 15:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- In reply to the initial question, recognition doesn't guarantee significant coverage. Or in the strange case of the Danig Party of Australia, any coverage at all. Hack (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thank, I put a note on the essay Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Political parties and referenced that AFD. "Common outcomes" is currently silent on political parties. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- In reply to the initial question, recognition doesn't guarantee significant coverage. Or in the strange case of the Danig Party of Australia, any coverage at all. Hack (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- I would say that any party that wins seats in a national legislature is definitely notable. Beyond that, it's probably down to WP:GNG. Number 57 15:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
 Hello, |
Notice to participants at this page about adminship
Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Category:Deep Throat
Category:Deep Throat, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Numbering of the Speakers of the US House of Representatives
According to reliable sources, Paul Ryan is the 54th Speaker of the House & not the 62nd, which would mean that those who've served non-consecutive tenures as speaker, are only numbered once. However, there's been disagreement about this - note the numerious reverts I've had to make across the many bios of speakers, today. So, how should we number them? GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with your methodology. Number 57 09:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- The use of individual numbers for split terms is based upon the very clear practice of giving President Grover Cleveland two different numbers. It was probably the wrong decision, but it has been consistently followed for more than a century in the case of Presidents. --Gary J (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- It's apparent however, that a different numbering scheme is used for the House speakers. Note aswell, that both numbering schemes are used for state governors. Some of those number non-consectutive term governors only once, while others number their's multiple times. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- The use of individual numbers for split terms is based upon the very clear practice of giving President Grover Cleveland two different numbers. It was probably the wrong decision, but it has been consistently followed for more than a century in the case of Presidents. --Gary J (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Oregon Refuge occupation - name of the group at AFD
Please consider joining the discussion whether to morph article into a redir at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizens for Constitutional Freedom NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
"State Pension"
The usage and topic of State Pension is under discussion, see talk:State Pension -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Bernie Sanders party affiliation
There is a discussion at Talk:Vermont as to whether Vermont's Senators should be listed in the infobox as "Patrick Leahy (D); Bernie Sanders (I)" (because Sanders was elected to the Senate as an Independent) or "Bernie Sanders (D)" (because he is now a Democrat). We could probably use some help achieving consensus on this if anyone wants to weigh in. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
david scott
wrong david scott linked to wiki article dont know how to fix heres correct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Scott_(Georgia_politician) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.141.193.98 (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Which article is the link wrong on? Number 57 16:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- There are hundreds of links to David Scott but I somehow managed to find one that was wrong and fixed it: [1]. Is that the one you had in mind? Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Category:Burial sites of the Bush family has been nominated for discussion
Category:Burial sites of the Bush family, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
We need input at that article's Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Requested move notice
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:43rd Canadian federal election#Requested move 9 February 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, AusLondonder (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Bernie Sanders endorsements
Good evening. I am engaged in a dispute at List of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign endorsements, 2016. Some editors have added the names of 17 economists as Sanders endorsers. But the endorsement is not of his candidacy but his economic policies: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-01-14/sanders-says-170-experts-support-his-wall-street-plan and https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Wall-St-Letter-1.pdf. I would appreciate some assistance dealing with the partisans trying to restore the names; they have not responded to my talk page message. Thanks Syek88 (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Syek88: This notice is rather one-sided request for help, so I suggest you refresh your understanding of WP:CANVASS. Also, you appear to edit warring and not respecting WP:BRD (your comments on the talk page were less than three hours ago, so I think it's a bit premature to say they have not responded). Number 57 21:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks but perhaps the substantive issues are more important than acronyms? Syek88 (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Stump speech (politics)
Stump speech (politics) has had an expert-subject infobox on it since 2010. Could somebody from this WikiProject take a look at it, figure out why it was flagged, and remove the template (after taking any necessary steps to rectify)?
- I tried to fix it up, and added some useful citations. Rjensen (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Use of Country/Geopolitical Faction Infobox on Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic pages
An edit war over which infobox to use on the DPR and LPR pages has been ongoing for several months now. In an attempt to remedy the situation i have opened up a discussion and request for comment here Talk:Donetsk_People's_Republic#Infobox, your opinions and comments on the issue would be much appreciated.XavierGreen (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)