This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
What amazes me is that the list is made in a logical way. It is divided in pages for continent sections. These pages links have been made to Lists of political parties for each country and to parties. When you go to the country pages, this can differ. I suggest to choose for a system where one index page links to country pages and to skip the links to party discriptions on the continent pages. (Wilfried Derksen)
I don't think the major/minor party distinction is useful here. The pages about the parties themselves, and perhaps US-specific pages like United States/Political Parties can talk about the relative popularity of the parties. This page looks like more of an overview of what parties exist in various nations, for linking purposes. Putting commentary here like "major/minor" makes it seem like there is some "official" difference, which there is not. -- LDC
Um, actually in Canada (and, I believe) most other parliamentary democracies, there *is* a distinction between major and minor. Here you need 12 seats in the Commons to be a major. Below that, you can't ask questions during question period (along with a bunch of other things). For a while, the Progressive Conservatives lost that status here. -- PaulDrye
The U.S. is not parliamentary. Anyone may run for any seat in Congress, or for any other office; whoever is elected to that seat has equal vote and equal right to speak. There are some rules of procedure that recognize the "majority" party and "minority" party of each house, but those are purely procedural rules, not laws. Party affiliation is listed on the ballot. Ballots are controlled by the states, some of which do make ballot access easier for parties that have had recent success (for example, parties that achieved a certain percentage of the vote qualify for immediate ballot access next time while others have to petition). --LDC
When I wrote: "Please add your favourite political parties to this list." I didn't mean "add *one* party you like most" ;)
Entries where only one party from country is listed are strange. Could you add more parties from your coutry ? -- Taw
Article reads "not including forums with little power like the British House of Lords" -- the British House of Lords still has significant power, IMHO. It cannot block legislation supported by the House of Commons forever, but it can delay it for quite a while. (see Parliament Acts). But still I'd agree with not listing House of Lords percentages, simply because it will make the Tories seem far more important than they really are :)
Also, a lot of the countries with only one party were added by me -- I found a list of social democrat/labor parties (i.e. members of Party of European Socialists) and added them. It wasn't intentional, it was just my source.
I think it should be noted that European Parliament party groups are not quite the same thing as pan-European politicial parties. Pan-European political parties like the Party of European Socialists have national parties as their members; European Parliament party groups (like the Party of European Socialists party group) have members of the European Parliament as their members.
I think only the Party of European Socialists calls itself a "political party" -- most others, like the European Democrat Union, only call themselves "party unions". (This may change however with the adoption of the "Council Regulation on the Statute and financing of European political parties", currently being debated in the Council of the European Union.)
Finally, in the case of the UK listing the figures for only the UK Parliament makes some parties seem smaller than they really are. Especially with those parties with a regional base (the SNP, the Plaid Cymru, the Northern Ireland parties), which are not that important in the UK Parliament but quite large in the regional legislatures (Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly, Welsh Assembly.)
We used to have (in some countries' listings, anyway) a distinction between active and defunct parties. Why was this eliminated? It is useful to know which parties are now, in 2002, functioning and which are of only historical interest, in my belief -- BRG.
Can someone please fix the entries for Iceland? I'm sure those circle-r registered trademark symbols aren't part of the names of any Icelandic parties, but I don't know the correct item.
(In the interests of sanity, I'm not listing all NY State's minor political parties--nobody outside NY, and few in-state, care.) Vicki Rosenzweig
The Socialist Workers Party is listed on this page as a transnational page, but the linked entry is only for the US party. Is the SWP really transnational? If so, the article should reflect that. If not, this article should reflect that.
I am wondering is this article really useful? I think we can seperate list into each article of corresponding country. It is just irrelivant to talk which party is important here in the list of political parties. If no one opposes me for some period, I will break up the article if I remember. Taku 21:43 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)
This kind of article is very useful too link articles. Maybe it should be removed one day but not now. User:Ericd
Okay. Agreed. Taku 22:13 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)
I agree with the basic idea of the list but the list must also have a useable structure which was to some extent lacking. I'm sure that any democratic nation can bring up a plethora of insignificant local, provincial or extermist parties and there are basically two ways to deal with this. Either to find a structure which can accomodate 50+ parties per country in a single list or to devide it into smaller portions. I have reworked the list to provide a structure where separate national list can be utilized.
Regarding there election results per for parties there is ample opportunity to do this in the separate entry List of election results where they can be applied uniformly. There is also need for a separate and smaller list for parties which are represented in the parlament or national assembly, this could also show their incumbent or opposition status.
There is still much work to do on the list. Some things should stay and some things should not. Moved this off the main list:
// Mic 13:09 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)
Is there really a need for a separate list of parties for most countries? I've redirected the list of Norwegian parties to Politics of Norway. -- Egil 04:49 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)
IMHO the current split is ridiculous: now the same content is duplicated! How are we supposed to decide what goes on the main page and what goes in the linked pages!? Jpatokal 07:19, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Can the Communist Party still be considered an "international party"? In the 1930s, I'd agree. But the Comintern and Cominform are gone, the USSR is gone, and today, national communist parties are just as independent from each other as the various socialist parties or the various liberal parties - they may be linked by very loose international coordinating bodies (as are social democrats and liberals - Socialist International, Liberal International etc) but I'm not sure that we can consider them part of the same party? They share a common name and probably some common principles, but that's not the same thing. Similarly, is the Green Party really an international party (rather than a group of independent national parties that are loosely associated), and in what sense? User:rjp_uk10:45, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
We should probably start consistently linking the "List of political parties of ..." from the respective "Politics of ..." pages, otherwise there will be duplication of work. There are a bunch of those pages that diverge even now. -- Shallot 18:51, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Agreed - they should link both ways. Secretlondon 23:11, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
I completed the Index of political parties project, so now I am able to include in this list an overview of the national parties in the listed countries. The new intro explains which parties are included. - Electionworld 21:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
BELGIUM: you forgot the Belgian Union (Belgische Unie - Union belge or B.U.B.) which has a French, Dutch and English page here at Wikipedia.
helo! my name is małgorzta i come form poland i am sitting now at scho9ol, i am study in my opinion it is very interesting ingormation take my love to you :)
Should political alliances between parties (such as the Concertación or Alliance for Sweden) also be included on this page? Both Concertación and the opposition Alliance for Chile are included in the List of political parties in Chile page but not on Chile's section on this page. I have added Alliance for Sweden on the Sweden section, but do say if it is wrong to put it there. Tamino 17:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I filled this page with the parties in october last year. It helped to get a comprehensive set of articles on political parties. But to update it frequently remains very much work. Therefore I reverted the page to the version that only included links to list of parties by country. It is less work to keep the lists updated in this way. I hope you can agree. Electionworld = Wilfried ( talk 22:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a list of parties for each country is an overkill for this page. However, I am wondering if it would not be good to include the type of political party composition (Multi-party, Two-party, Dominant-party, Single-party, No-party). This classification seems to be included on the individual country pages (e.g. China and Sweden), and a partial list is provided on Two-party_system (which I think is not the best place for this listing).
Including this information would add some self-contained content to this page, instead of it serving only as an index (not that an index is not important), and I believe that it should not be that hard to update. While parties come and go, countries do not change between these systems so easily.
Any thoughts on whether this would be a good or a bad idea?
Torfason 21:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I've seen no objections to the above proposal, so unless anyone objects in the next few days, I will start to convert the page so that will look something like this:
Country | Multi party | Two party | Dominant party | Single party | No party | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Abkhazia | • | |||||
Afghanistan | • | |||||
Åland | • | |||||
Albania | • | |||||
Algeria | • | |||||
American Samoa | • | |||||
Andorra | • | |||||
Angola | • | |||||
Anguilla | • | |||||
Antigua and Barbuda | • | |||||
Argentina | • | |||||
Armenia | • | |||||
Aruba | • | |||||
Australia | • | |||||
Austria | • | |||||
Azerbaijan | • |
-- Torfason 11:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
{{ Political party list}}
I made this template 6 months ago & used it on some minor political party pages: people did figure out how to use it; now it just needs more use, lol. Cwolfsheep 20:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Why is Australia listed as a two-party system and the UK as a multi-party. There systems are pretty much identical, there either both a two-party system or both a multi-pary system.
UK does not have a multi-party system, its two-party system .
I am under the impression there are have a dominant party .
I feel that the US should be listed as multi-party. It is legally a multi-party system, so it should be listed as such. Obviously two parties are much more powerful than the others, but many other parties hold positions at the local and state levels. There's a note to say that there are multiple parties, but listing it as a two party system is misleading. I changed the US to a multi-party system but left the note to explain that two are dominant. I'm not completely sure on the rules here, so if I did something improper by changing it before a consensus is reached please just revert it. I also changed the US Virgin Islands to multi-party, as the article says there are three. -- SodiumBenzoate 05:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like someone switched it back to multiparty. I moved it back to two party cause unless someone can name me a non-democrat/republican (not counting independents) at national level then its two party dominated. Mikebloke 06:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The article says it is multi-party, with so many major parties no single party can gain power without a coalition. Why, then, is it listed as "dominant party"? -- SodiumBenzoate 05:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I know there was much discussion and hard work, but it seems to me that the list is too massive for an encyclopedia article.
I suggest we change the format to one divided by continent or regions, with corresponding subpages organized in the same way as this one. Comments?-- Cerejota 01:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
In case I run out time, here is an archive of the old alphabetical order. I know we can always look at the older edits, but this might be useful to copy and paste tables etc. Talk:List of political parties by United Nations geoscheme/Archive of alphabetical list.-- Cerejota 22:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I created this template to simplify the creation of the (sub)regional pages. It wikiformats the page title, and adds the {{ Party politics}} template in a short phrase. I am using it in all the pages. -- Cerejota 22:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I severly underestimated the time needed for this task, and have been able to do only two pages. However I was able to create a method and format that should speed up the process, along with some formating standard (maybe I should have started a project!!!).
This is the method (Look here for a model page):
Please be careful to not lose any countries.
Special pages in the original by country list (European Union, etc), I think should be a separate page like "Parties in supra-national entities" or some such. In the mean time I suggest we put them as a separate item on this page under a heading TBD.
Thanks!!!
-- Cerejota 00:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the list was very clear and doe't need to be divided in geoschemes. Please restore the old list and add when neede dthe geoschemes list. Electionworld Talk? 19:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Another revert, this time by an anon user, tot he page with the whole list. That page is a violation of WP:SIZE. Please do not revert without discussion. Thanks!-- Cerejota 18:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't the one who reverted it this time, but I see a unilateral action of Cerejota to destroy a well balanced list, which wasn't too big (it wasn't small either). There was no agreement to split up the list. I do not mind the additional lists, but as additions, not as replacement. This devision in geoschemes doesn't make sense. Are you going to change all the lists by country? If there is a consensus to replace these kind of lists with list by geoschemes, I will accept that, but at the moment, there is no agreement at all. Electionworld Talk? 20:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
There might be a consensus in creating these subpages, but there was iun no way any consensus to split this page many editors worked on in the past into various pages. I was not the anon user. So please contunue to make these subpages, but do not unilateral change this product of many users. Electionworld Talk? 18:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC) BTW: I just asked editors of this page to give their comment. We'll see if there is a consensus to split up the page. Electionworld Talk? 18:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
No need for haste Do not take precipitous action the very instant an article exceeds 32 KB. There is no need for haste. Discuss the overall topic structure with other editors. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information.
Certoja, as you can see now there is no consensus for splitting the 'master' list. We now have the Table of political parties by country, which is the continuation of the 'master' list. Electionworld Talk? 14:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The two anon IPs are form the Netherlands, from which User:Electionworld is, and hence they are both highly suspect as meatpuppets and/or sockpuppets because of their edit behavior, and the denials on the part of Electionworld of them being his actions. I suggest the that Electionworld refrain from this behaivior in the future: we all can discuss and come to agreement without the need for such tactics.-- Cerejota 23:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this part of the discussion is very productive. I checked out User:Nightstallion, User:Sesel and User:C mon, and none of them seems puppety. Let's drop this line of thought, ensure that anyone looking for the list can easily find both versions, and see what consensus emerges. -- Torfason 14:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Cerejota 15:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
This short skirmish has ended up creating a vast number of redirects, some of them double (although the bots seem to be fixing that), and confusion about naming schemes: List, Lists, Table, Tables, so on and so forth. And then there is the new "disambiguation page". I would like to suggest streamlining this a bit, into three pages:
All other pages would redirect to one of these three, in all cases to the one closest in name ("Lists of political parties" would redirect to "List of political parties" and so on). Note that the singular form of List would be used in all cases. I would have moved the stuff around myself, but considering the disagreement over the last few days, I would prefer a consensus decision on this, to ensure some stability. Please comment. -- Torfason 01:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
These pages are now in the proposed position. Let's allow thinks to settle and see how people like this arrangement.-- Torfason 15:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Cerejota 15:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
If nr. 1 is true, the same goes for List of political parties by United Nations geoscheme, which gives/links to the same information. Electionworld Talk? 17:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The article lists Canada as having a two-party system. True, only the Liberals and the Tories have ever led governments, but I think that to call Canada a two-party system seriously undervalues the influence of the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois in the current political situation. Consistently since the early 1900s, at least three parties have held numerous seats in the Canadian House of Commons - I think that, by any reasonable definition, that qualifies as a multi-party system. ObeliskBJM talk 19:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - surely a 'two-party' system is one in which there is a systemic bias (or at least a systemic tendency) towards two particular parties. it can still be a multi-party set-up, even when two groups get most of the seats. Anyway, Canada has since been changed to 'multi', so that's ok. Earthlyreason ( talk) 12:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Russia should be listed as dominant party, because there is virtually no need for inter-party coalitions, and United Russia has been dominating the political system for a while now: not to mention predictions for the next election, which further entrench United Russia as a dominant party. -- The Palatine 10:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
When the dust settles from Malaysia's 2008 election, it may be that its status on this list can change from 'dominant' to 'multi' party. Please keep an eye on this. Earthlyreason ( talk) 12:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It is very nice whoever listed Slovakia as ´dominant party´ since SMER is the dominant party over there - however I would recommend to change it back, since it could make an international incident. Or at least ´not really truthful information´. Slovakia, as a member of EU is a democracy, nevertheless party SMER - SD is dominant party, it may change in next elections though. Cunikm ( talk) 22:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the ruling party or coalition should be mentioned for each country in List of political parties by country. I don't find it anywhere else in Wikipedia; List of current heads of state and government just tell names, but names tell little about the nature of the government.
For example, it could look like:
Country Country name links to list of political parties |
Type of ruling party or coalition | Ruling party or coalition | Election | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Multi party | Two party | Dominant party | Single party | ||||
Denmark | • | Liberals, Conservative People's Party, parliamentary support from Danish People's Party [1] | 2007 election |
Reference:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
(No party) could rather be noted in the ruling party box in such cases.
It might take some time before the list is reasonably complete. Besides, as with List of current heads of state and government, it will need frequent update - the election year will indicate when it might be time to do so. Still I'm sure it will be worth the effort. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 07:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
What amazes me is that the list is made in a logical way. It is divided in pages for continent sections. These pages links have been made to Lists of political parties for each country and to parties. When you go to the country pages, this can differ. I suggest to choose for a system where one index page links to country pages and to skip the links to party discriptions on the continent pages. (Wilfried Derksen)
I don't think the major/minor party distinction is useful here. The pages about the parties themselves, and perhaps US-specific pages like United States/Political Parties can talk about the relative popularity of the parties. This page looks like more of an overview of what parties exist in various nations, for linking purposes. Putting commentary here like "major/minor" makes it seem like there is some "official" difference, which there is not. -- LDC
Um, actually in Canada (and, I believe) most other parliamentary democracies, there *is* a distinction between major and minor. Here you need 12 seats in the Commons to be a major. Below that, you can't ask questions during question period (along with a bunch of other things). For a while, the Progressive Conservatives lost that status here. -- PaulDrye
The U.S. is not parliamentary. Anyone may run for any seat in Congress, or for any other office; whoever is elected to that seat has equal vote and equal right to speak. There are some rules of procedure that recognize the "majority" party and "minority" party of each house, but those are purely procedural rules, not laws. Party affiliation is listed on the ballot. Ballots are controlled by the states, some of which do make ballot access easier for parties that have had recent success (for example, parties that achieved a certain percentage of the vote qualify for immediate ballot access next time while others have to petition). --LDC
When I wrote: "Please add your favourite political parties to this list." I didn't mean "add *one* party you like most" ;)
Entries where only one party from country is listed are strange. Could you add more parties from your coutry ? -- Taw
Article reads "not including forums with little power like the British House of Lords" -- the British House of Lords still has significant power, IMHO. It cannot block legislation supported by the House of Commons forever, but it can delay it for quite a while. (see Parliament Acts). But still I'd agree with not listing House of Lords percentages, simply because it will make the Tories seem far more important than they really are :)
Also, a lot of the countries with only one party were added by me -- I found a list of social democrat/labor parties (i.e. members of Party of European Socialists) and added them. It wasn't intentional, it was just my source.
I think it should be noted that European Parliament party groups are not quite the same thing as pan-European politicial parties. Pan-European political parties like the Party of European Socialists have national parties as their members; European Parliament party groups (like the Party of European Socialists party group) have members of the European Parliament as their members.
I think only the Party of European Socialists calls itself a "political party" -- most others, like the European Democrat Union, only call themselves "party unions". (This may change however with the adoption of the "Council Regulation on the Statute and financing of European political parties", currently being debated in the Council of the European Union.)
Finally, in the case of the UK listing the figures for only the UK Parliament makes some parties seem smaller than they really are. Especially with those parties with a regional base (the SNP, the Plaid Cymru, the Northern Ireland parties), which are not that important in the UK Parliament but quite large in the regional legislatures (Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly, Welsh Assembly.)
We used to have (in some countries' listings, anyway) a distinction between active and defunct parties. Why was this eliminated? It is useful to know which parties are now, in 2002, functioning and which are of only historical interest, in my belief -- BRG.
Can someone please fix the entries for Iceland? I'm sure those circle-r registered trademark symbols aren't part of the names of any Icelandic parties, but I don't know the correct item.
(In the interests of sanity, I'm not listing all NY State's minor political parties--nobody outside NY, and few in-state, care.) Vicki Rosenzweig
The Socialist Workers Party is listed on this page as a transnational page, but the linked entry is only for the US party. Is the SWP really transnational? If so, the article should reflect that. If not, this article should reflect that.
I am wondering is this article really useful? I think we can seperate list into each article of corresponding country. It is just irrelivant to talk which party is important here in the list of political parties. If no one opposes me for some period, I will break up the article if I remember. Taku 21:43 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)
This kind of article is very useful too link articles. Maybe it should be removed one day but not now. User:Ericd
Okay. Agreed. Taku 22:13 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)
I agree with the basic idea of the list but the list must also have a useable structure which was to some extent lacking. I'm sure that any democratic nation can bring up a plethora of insignificant local, provincial or extermist parties and there are basically two ways to deal with this. Either to find a structure which can accomodate 50+ parties per country in a single list or to devide it into smaller portions. I have reworked the list to provide a structure where separate national list can be utilized.
Regarding there election results per for parties there is ample opportunity to do this in the separate entry List of election results where they can be applied uniformly. There is also need for a separate and smaller list for parties which are represented in the parlament or national assembly, this could also show their incumbent or opposition status.
There is still much work to do on the list. Some things should stay and some things should not. Moved this off the main list:
// Mic 13:09 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)
Is there really a need for a separate list of parties for most countries? I've redirected the list of Norwegian parties to Politics of Norway. -- Egil 04:49 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)
IMHO the current split is ridiculous: now the same content is duplicated! How are we supposed to decide what goes on the main page and what goes in the linked pages!? Jpatokal 07:19, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Can the Communist Party still be considered an "international party"? In the 1930s, I'd agree. But the Comintern and Cominform are gone, the USSR is gone, and today, national communist parties are just as independent from each other as the various socialist parties or the various liberal parties - they may be linked by very loose international coordinating bodies (as are social democrats and liberals - Socialist International, Liberal International etc) but I'm not sure that we can consider them part of the same party? They share a common name and probably some common principles, but that's not the same thing. Similarly, is the Green Party really an international party (rather than a group of independent national parties that are loosely associated), and in what sense? User:rjp_uk10:45, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
We should probably start consistently linking the "List of political parties of ..." from the respective "Politics of ..." pages, otherwise there will be duplication of work. There are a bunch of those pages that diverge even now. -- Shallot 18:51, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Agreed - they should link both ways. Secretlondon 23:11, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
I completed the Index of political parties project, so now I am able to include in this list an overview of the national parties in the listed countries. The new intro explains which parties are included. - Electionworld 21:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
BELGIUM: you forgot the Belgian Union (Belgische Unie - Union belge or B.U.B.) which has a French, Dutch and English page here at Wikipedia.
helo! my name is małgorzta i come form poland i am sitting now at scho9ol, i am study in my opinion it is very interesting ingormation take my love to you :)
Should political alliances between parties (such as the Concertación or Alliance for Sweden) also be included on this page? Both Concertación and the opposition Alliance for Chile are included in the List of political parties in Chile page but not on Chile's section on this page. I have added Alliance for Sweden on the Sweden section, but do say if it is wrong to put it there. Tamino 17:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I filled this page with the parties in october last year. It helped to get a comprehensive set of articles on political parties. But to update it frequently remains very much work. Therefore I reverted the page to the version that only included links to list of parties by country. It is less work to keep the lists updated in this way. I hope you can agree. Electionworld = Wilfried ( talk 22:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a list of parties for each country is an overkill for this page. However, I am wondering if it would not be good to include the type of political party composition (Multi-party, Two-party, Dominant-party, Single-party, No-party). This classification seems to be included on the individual country pages (e.g. China and Sweden), and a partial list is provided on Two-party_system (which I think is not the best place for this listing).
Including this information would add some self-contained content to this page, instead of it serving only as an index (not that an index is not important), and I believe that it should not be that hard to update. While parties come and go, countries do not change between these systems so easily.
Any thoughts on whether this would be a good or a bad idea?
Torfason 21:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I've seen no objections to the above proposal, so unless anyone objects in the next few days, I will start to convert the page so that will look something like this:
Country | Multi party | Two party | Dominant party | Single party | No party | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Abkhazia | • | |||||
Afghanistan | • | |||||
Åland | • | |||||
Albania | • | |||||
Algeria | • | |||||
American Samoa | • | |||||
Andorra | • | |||||
Angola | • | |||||
Anguilla | • | |||||
Antigua and Barbuda | • | |||||
Argentina | • | |||||
Armenia | • | |||||
Aruba | • | |||||
Australia | • | |||||
Austria | • | |||||
Azerbaijan | • |
-- Torfason 11:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
{{ Political party list}}
I made this template 6 months ago & used it on some minor political party pages: people did figure out how to use it; now it just needs more use, lol. Cwolfsheep 20:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Why is Australia listed as a two-party system and the UK as a multi-party. There systems are pretty much identical, there either both a two-party system or both a multi-pary system.
UK does not have a multi-party system, its two-party system .
I am under the impression there are have a dominant party .
I feel that the US should be listed as multi-party. It is legally a multi-party system, so it should be listed as such. Obviously two parties are much more powerful than the others, but many other parties hold positions at the local and state levels. There's a note to say that there are multiple parties, but listing it as a two party system is misleading. I changed the US to a multi-party system but left the note to explain that two are dominant. I'm not completely sure on the rules here, so if I did something improper by changing it before a consensus is reached please just revert it. I also changed the US Virgin Islands to multi-party, as the article says there are three. -- SodiumBenzoate 05:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like someone switched it back to multiparty. I moved it back to two party cause unless someone can name me a non-democrat/republican (not counting independents) at national level then its two party dominated. Mikebloke 06:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The article says it is multi-party, with so many major parties no single party can gain power without a coalition. Why, then, is it listed as "dominant party"? -- SodiumBenzoate 05:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I know there was much discussion and hard work, but it seems to me that the list is too massive for an encyclopedia article.
I suggest we change the format to one divided by continent or regions, with corresponding subpages organized in the same way as this one. Comments?-- Cerejota 01:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
In case I run out time, here is an archive of the old alphabetical order. I know we can always look at the older edits, but this might be useful to copy and paste tables etc. Talk:List of political parties by United Nations geoscheme/Archive of alphabetical list.-- Cerejota 22:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I created this template to simplify the creation of the (sub)regional pages. It wikiformats the page title, and adds the {{ Party politics}} template in a short phrase. I am using it in all the pages. -- Cerejota 22:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I severly underestimated the time needed for this task, and have been able to do only two pages. However I was able to create a method and format that should speed up the process, along with some formating standard (maybe I should have started a project!!!).
This is the method (Look here for a model page):
Please be careful to not lose any countries.
Special pages in the original by country list (European Union, etc), I think should be a separate page like "Parties in supra-national entities" or some such. In the mean time I suggest we put them as a separate item on this page under a heading TBD.
Thanks!!!
-- Cerejota 00:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the list was very clear and doe't need to be divided in geoschemes. Please restore the old list and add when neede dthe geoschemes list. Electionworld Talk? 19:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Another revert, this time by an anon user, tot he page with the whole list. That page is a violation of WP:SIZE. Please do not revert without discussion. Thanks!-- Cerejota 18:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't the one who reverted it this time, but I see a unilateral action of Cerejota to destroy a well balanced list, which wasn't too big (it wasn't small either). There was no agreement to split up the list. I do not mind the additional lists, but as additions, not as replacement. This devision in geoschemes doesn't make sense. Are you going to change all the lists by country? If there is a consensus to replace these kind of lists with list by geoschemes, I will accept that, but at the moment, there is no agreement at all. Electionworld Talk? 20:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
There might be a consensus in creating these subpages, but there was iun no way any consensus to split this page many editors worked on in the past into various pages. I was not the anon user. So please contunue to make these subpages, but do not unilateral change this product of many users. Electionworld Talk? 18:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC) BTW: I just asked editors of this page to give their comment. We'll see if there is a consensus to split up the page. Electionworld Talk? 18:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
No need for haste Do not take precipitous action the very instant an article exceeds 32 KB. There is no need for haste. Discuss the overall topic structure with other editors. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information.
Certoja, as you can see now there is no consensus for splitting the 'master' list. We now have the Table of political parties by country, which is the continuation of the 'master' list. Electionworld Talk? 14:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The two anon IPs are form the Netherlands, from which User:Electionworld is, and hence they are both highly suspect as meatpuppets and/or sockpuppets because of their edit behavior, and the denials on the part of Electionworld of them being his actions. I suggest the that Electionworld refrain from this behaivior in the future: we all can discuss and come to agreement without the need for such tactics.-- Cerejota 23:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this part of the discussion is very productive. I checked out User:Nightstallion, User:Sesel and User:C mon, and none of them seems puppety. Let's drop this line of thought, ensure that anyone looking for the list can easily find both versions, and see what consensus emerges. -- Torfason 14:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Cerejota 15:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
This short skirmish has ended up creating a vast number of redirects, some of them double (although the bots seem to be fixing that), and confusion about naming schemes: List, Lists, Table, Tables, so on and so forth. And then there is the new "disambiguation page". I would like to suggest streamlining this a bit, into three pages:
All other pages would redirect to one of these three, in all cases to the one closest in name ("Lists of political parties" would redirect to "List of political parties" and so on). Note that the singular form of List would be used in all cases. I would have moved the stuff around myself, but considering the disagreement over the last few days, I would prefer a consensus decision on this, to ensure some stability. Please comment. -- Torfason 01:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
These pages are now in the proposed position. Let's allow thinks to settle and see how people like this arrangement.-- Torfason 15:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Cerejota 15:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
If nr. 1 is true, the same goes for List of political parties by United Nations geoscheme, which gives/links to the same information. Electionworld Talk? 17:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The article lists Canada as having a two-party system. True, only the Liberals and the Tories have ever led governments, but I think that to call Canada a two-party system seriously undervalues the influence of the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois in the current political situation. Consistently since the early 1900s, at least three parties have held numerous seats in the Canadian House of Commons - I think that, by any reasonable definition, that qualifies as a multi-party system. ObeliskBJM talk 19:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - surely a 'two-party' system is one in which there is a systemic bias (or at least a systemic tendency) towards two particular parties. it can still be a multi-party set-up, even when two groups get most of the seats. Anyway, Canada has since been changed to 'multi', so that's ok. Earthlyreason ( talk) 12:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Russia should be listed as dominant party, because there is virtually no need for inter-party coalitions, and United Russia has been dominating the political system for a while now: not to mention predictions for the next election, which further entrench United Russia as a dominant party. -- The Palatine 10:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
When the dust settles from Malaysia's 2008 election, it may be that its status on this list can change from 'dominant' to 'multi' party. Please keep an eye on this. Earthlyreason ( talk) 12:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It is very nice whoever listed Slovakia as ´dominant party´ since SMER is the dominant party over there - however I would recommend to change it back, since it could make an international incident. Or at least ´not really truthful information´. Slovakia, as a member of EU is a democracy, nevertheless party SMER - SD is dominant party, it may change in next elections though. Cunikm ( talk) 22:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the ruling party or coalition should be mentioned for each country in List of political parties by country. I don't find it anywhere else in Wikipedia; List of current heads of state and government just tell names, but names tell little about the nature of the government.
For example, it could look like:
Country Country name links to list of political parties |
Type of ruling party or coalition | Ruling party or coalition | Election | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Multi party | Two party | Dominant party | Single party | ||||
Denmark | • | Liberals, Conservative People's Party, parliamentary support from Danish People's Party [1] | 2007 election |
Reference:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
(No party) could rather be noted in the ruling party box in such cases.
It might take some time before the list is reasonably complete. Besides, as with List of current heads of state and government, it will need frequent update - the election year will indicate when it might be time to do so. Still I'm sure it will be worth the effort. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 07:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)