![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This may be a bit UK/Ireland centric but hopefully we can get some feedback on this from other people too. It is clear that the world is, on the whole, awash with polticial parties. For Wiki, we have election box metadata tables and templates through which parties are linked, and in many cases to get the correct colour and links there must be corresponding articles.
However the United Kingdom is one of many nations in which minor (and sometimes incredibly small) political parties are formed to participate in elections. And if these are "one off" they must be of some extremely clear notability to have an article here. One very good example is the recently Prodd'd Money Reform Party who took part in one by-election for Westminster. They are clearly not a notable national political force, so the article is likely to be deleted without much comment. But then we have Forward Wales or Left List or Mebyon Kernow, which all could be argued as being too "small" for notability, too small for inclusion here.
So we need to decide on policy. We already have notability policy on so many things, I wonder if there is enough for political parties, both within the UK and worldwide. I hope we can get together to discuss this in time doktorb words deeds 17:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Greetings. I would be grateful if anyone could have a look at my list of missing topics related to politics. Thank you. - Skysmith ( talk) 12:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that there is already a Wikipedia:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada project. GreenJoe 20:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
So, what importance do peopel think an ordinary page on a political party should get? High? Or mid? Or should there be a distinction between "major" and "minor" parties (with the latter being classified as lower importance)? IdiotSavant ( talk) 11:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a member of this project (although I do have an interest in poltics and political parties), but I would like to suggest a pagemove to Wikipedia:WikiProject Political parties. That would allow the categories of this project, such as Category:A-Class Political Parties articles to be renamed to conform to naming conventions for categories and to match similar categories used by other projects (e.g. Category:A-Class Australian history articles). If the members of this project do not object, I could update all relevant pages (mostly Template:WikiProject Political Parties and a few project and category pages) in a few minutes. Thanks, – Black Falcon ( Talk) 19:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
While people are debating importance criteria, can we at least start adding parties to the project by going through national lists? Pick a country, any country, and get to it. We can rate for quality and leave importance for later. -- IdiotSavant ( talk) 13:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have begun developing a style guide for articles relating to political parties within the United Kingdom. The intention of the style guide is to try and build some consistency in the way that party articles are handled by the Politics of the United Kingdom WikiProject, but since it will be overlapping your project scope you may wish to contribute. The initial proposal for the guide can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Parties. Regards. Road Wizard ( talk) 12:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Republican Party (United States) has been selected as the monthly collaboration of the project. However, little actual collaboration is done at the article. It would be good if the proponents of the nomination could explain which are the unresolved issues at the article which would need to be improved. -- Soman ( talk) 15:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
From the discussion on assessment, it looks like there's now a new C-class of article. So we'll need to go back and reassess the low-B's / high-starts into this category. -- IdiotSavant ( talk) 02:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Somewhere, there ought to be a link to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties). -- Soman ( talk) 18:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 1937 articles are assigned to this project, of which 414, or 21.4%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 16:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The party Forward to Mars Party has been nominated for deletion. Please comment if you wish. This really should kick my bottom into gear with regards to the proposed policy on notability, if someone can poke me in the eye with a to-do stick I'd be grateful! doktorb words deeds 05:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Seen while assessing. Does someone want to look at this and nominate it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by IdiotSavant ( talk • contribs) 02:14, 8 July 2008
Right now a disambig page, but articles are needed on all of the parties mentioned there. I have a book on order which may help, The American Party Drama. Шизомби ( talk) 13:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi all! I am keen to get involved in this project, as I can help expand on South African politics... How do I join the project? Wasabigreen ( talk) 14:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I have recently nominated UK Community Issues Party for deletion. The discussion for the nom can be found here. If anyone can provide input, it would be much appreciated. Cheers. BlueVine ( talk) 00:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Please can people take a look at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (political parties)#"Ressurected" parties about how to handle refusenik parties. Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
In the last couple of months I've been disambiguating dozens of political parties' names... You are all invited to see my work at my Contributions page. -- Againme ( talk) 05:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I've never had to resort to outside help to resolve a dispute because usually I just give up when people get really passionate about their edits and start reverting every edit. I'm not very good at resolving disputes and I didn't know what to do so I came here. There is a fight going on at Liberal Democratic Party of Russia involving mainly User:Farkas János, User:Gnomsovet, User:Miacek, and it is spreading into other articles and other language wikipedias, namely Russian. I fear it may spread to others such as Liberal Democratic Party of Pridnestrovie, lt:Rusijos liberalų demokratų partija, pl:Liberalno-Demokratyczna Partia Rosji and so on. Perhaps it is worth stating first that I am not a supporter of the LDPR; I am actually against them. The main issue for me concerns the party's ideology. The LDPR claims liberalism as part of it's platform, whether or not they adhere to common definitions of their own principles may be worth mentioning, but I think some form of liberalism should be listed in the party's platform in the infobox. This is confirmed by the party's own website here and by some of the comments on the article's talk page. I believe my opinion is in conformity with that of User:Gnomsovet, but his/her primary concern seems to be general neutrality in the article. User:Miacek has consistantly reverted all edits for days on on Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, Liberal Democratic Party of Belarus and ru:Либерально-демократическая партия России. He insists that the LDPR and the LDPB are not liberal and calls all claims otherwise "nonsense". He doesn't talk much, but he does revert a lot. His source is what appears to be an editorial from the New York Times. Considering it seems to be an opinion piece from an American newspaper, I think it is hardly as reliable a statement of the party's own position as the party's website. I don't mind that newspaper article being mentioned anymore, but I do want the party's own positions mentioned somewhere in the article. I don't know what to do. The situation is deteriorating as we speak and I need outside help as soon as possible. Farkas János ( talk) 03:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that the articles of many Western political usually do not have criticism sections, and contain little criticism in general. In contrast, many the articles of many Russian parties contain a lot of criticism. Why the discrepancy? Should I start adding criticism sections to Western parties as well? Offliner ( talk) 18:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer not to have criticism sections in any article about a party. -- Checco ( talk) 09:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Because...
In fact "criticism" sections are often unencyclopedic or unrelevant at all, often they speak about single members of the party and not the party itself, in general I think that there is no need of "criticism" sections when you write a neutral article: readers will judge. -- Checco ( talk) 13:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Political parties members are invited to help improve the Marijuana Reform Party article, which needs much attention. Along with WP Cannabis, members of WP United States and WP New York are welcome to improve the article in any way possible. Hopefully we can all work together to upgrade the article status within the next 2 weeks. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss how the article can be improved. Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 00:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm talking about the Socialist Party USA and the Young People's Socialist League. Being that i'm not a supporter of these parties, being that i'm not an American. But can any of you help in regards off finding references from un-referenced section. If you decide to help drop me a message here or on my talk page. -- TIAYN ( talk) 06:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I have (increasingly?) seen that in most infoboxes, numerous entries in the "ideology"-section is added, whilst most parties only have one official ideology. I would like to have it made more clear what is the official ideology of the given party, and what is other ideologies rather given by external reliable sources (that part as today). For instance the official ideology could be given in bold typing, or with (official) behind it. Anyone think this seems like a good idea? - GabaG ( talk) 15:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
At the moment, there is {{ Infobox political party}} and also lots of national political party infoboxes. Many of these infoboxes are hard-coded tables, with basically the same content (the only differences are usualy links to pages about that country politics). Some of these infoboxes don't work correctly when some parameters are missing. I suggest unifying all those infoboxes using {{ Infobox political party}} to something similar to User:Svick/Infobox Czech political party. Does anybody think this is a bad idea, or should I go forth with this change? Also, if there is a better place to discuss this, plase tell me where. Svick ( talk) 13:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Totally agreed. A unification or replacement of all these should be done.- Sthenel ( talk) 17:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there any action for the rest of the templates? - Sthenel ( talk) 15:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Are we talking about conversion/substitution or deletion of the rest templates. - Sthenel ( talk) 20:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
And why this process was not applied to the Greek template? - Sthenel ( talk) 20:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
{{infobox political party}}
. Eventually, it would be great if they could all be replaced, but some will require a bit more work. This is my opinion on the matter.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
22:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I was actually against this unification of infoboxes, but I acknowledge that the idea has some appeal and I see that there is a lot of consenus un it. I noticed anyway that the unified template is a little bit small as also the font is. Is it possible to have a larger template and bigger fonts on the model of almost all templates before? Thanks! -- Checco ( talk) 23:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
Infobox}}
backend and I think that for consistent appearance, all infoboxes should look similar. So, unless you gain consensus to change that template, I'm against this change.
Svick (
talk)
23:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)The infobox expects us to give the party's "ideology." My question is, when would you give "populism" as the ideology? To me, this seems silly because every party wants to please the general population, and is thus "populist." The specific instance that prompted me to ask this is this one. Offliner ( talk) 00:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Until 11 June 2009 all Belgian parties had articles with titles in English, but on that day User:Fram moved all of them to French/Flemish titles because he was convinced that item 4 of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties)#Exceptions authorized him to do so.
I'm not sure of that. The names of Belgian parties, similarily to the Basque National Party and differently from parties such as Herri Batasuna, are frequently translated in English, so why that exception? As anyone of you can easily notice, almost all political parties (excluding some minority parties ex item 4 and some parties whose names are referred in the original language in English media, such as Fine Gael or Forza Italia) have articles with English titles. From France to Germany, from Italy to Greece, from Sweden to Estonia, and so on, this is exactly what happens. Also American, Asian and African parties follow that general pattern, despite some exceptions, most of which should be corrected. All of you know that.
So why that Belgian exception? Belgium is definitely a multilingual country, but not in the sense that there are minority parties. The parties on which we are talking about are mainstream parties representing the two large French- and Flemish-speaking communities whose names should be translated in English: there is no reason for not doing just that and en.Wikipedia needs uniformity! Having those articles with English titles is more practical (they are more easy to understand) and respctful of Wikipedia uniformity.
I ask the editors of the project to tell here their opinion and I hope we will soon be able to amend this strange exception and return to the previous (English) titles for Belgian parties (as they were until 11 June). -- Checco ( talk) 22:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
For example, Socialistische Partij Anders could use the title listed on the Party's own website here. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Having a good deal of experience with Belgian articles, I can see exactly where the problem lies. First of all, given that we have redirects at our disposal, we shouldn't stress too much about having multiple ways to translate the name of the party, this is true for almost every political party in any language. Nonetheless, in some cases it may not be appropriate to translate the name. While CD&V seems like it should be translated, Vlaams Belang is usually not, and I think it should stay in Dutch. Also, SPA indeed seems not to make any sense when translated to English, so maybe we should choose between the Flemish Socialist Party (yes, it's not their current name) and SPA.
Also, Google counting is dubious and should be avoided if possible. I don't think websites such as monstersandcritics.com and eTaiwan News should be taken to represent (informed) English usage. We could perhaps use the BBC as a guideline; see [10] - "Flemish Christian Democrats" and [11] - "Vlaams Belang". Oreo Priest talk 15:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to seek some advice regarding the Australian Democrats page. I haven't edited wikipedia pages for some time and am a little rusty, so pls forgive if the rules have changed or I am somewhat out of place here.
I work with the Australian Democrats as part of the efforts to rebuild the party. Much has changed, much of what has happened in the last 2 decades is missing, and the page really requires a complete rewrite. There is no history post 1992, but history bits are being shoved in to the electoral success section, the policy section is severely lacking, many details are missing or wrong and when someone even less familiar with wikipedia than myself tried to update some content the inevitable undo battle began... (I had managed to block those out of my memory!)
I have suggested that the page editing be halted until we can put together some of the missing content. However, I am fearful that anything we put up will be immediately dismissed as promotional regardless of how we construct it. I seek your advice on how best to go about updating this page?
Would it be possible to downgrade the page to needing a cleanup? -- Kathoc ( talk) 11:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I am a member of the Australian Democrats. I have been working on a substantial rewrite and have been in contact with User:Kathoc by email. Afte two weeks on my Sandbox, I rolled out 'phase 1' after drawing attention it on the article talk page. I have experienced some problems with user User:Timeshift9. Within minutes of the roll out, he reverted it saying that I shouldn't pare back 40,000 char article to 17,000. I doubt he even read the changes, as he would have seen I created a new page to shorten the article instead of delete entire sections. I have left messages on his talk page and at the article page but he has not responded. I believe I advised I was working on the rewrite in good faith and gave all an opportunity to comment on the work. I wish to re-post the changes. My work as it is still sits at [ [12]] and [ [13]], while Timeshift's revert is still at Australian Democrats. I suspect I could have a revert-war conflict if I revert to my version of the article. Can I please have some moderation with Timeshift, and some advice on how to proceed? Thank you. Paul Paul Roberton ( talk) 03:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I have done a GA Reassessment of the United Malays National Organisation as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found that the article does not meet the current GA Criteria. Here is my review. This is a high level review, and the issues raised do not represent the entirety of the article. I will put the article on hold for a week pending work and notify all interested projects and editors. Once work on this initial review is accomplished I will do a more thorough review of the content. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 17:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that UKIP has been given a Mid level of importance for your project but your definition for Mid level states 'Mid Articles which are somewhat related to political parties.' as UKIP is a political party then should it not be High or Top. DanielR235 19:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining, in that case I agree that UKIP is correctly labelled I just wasn't sure before due to the descriptions. DanielR235 14:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
What confers the status of "political party" on an organisation? I haven't found any definition for the concept on the project page. I have just read the article Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB), a South African organisation currently in the news (the leader was recently murdered). Much to my surprise I noticed that the article is included in this WikiProject. Now here's the rub: In terms of the law in South Africa, the AWB is not a political party. An organisation is only a political party if it is registered as such by the Independent Electoral Commission. The AWB has never participated in any election nor has it ever been represented on any legislative body at any level of government. What are the criteria used by this Wikiproject for including or excluding organisations/parties? Roger ( talk) 13:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Have been tagging for WP Politics as there a large number of categories that are obvious scope 'fits' that have been never tagged with a project template - and have come across this project - and on the project page there is not at first glance - where this project scope relates to the other project - has anyone any memory in this project (many projects lose older participants and as a consequence across the board project memory can be very short indeed) of where the separation occurred between the two projects in the past? I am only tagging obvious crossover categories - and will steer clear if someone here with a longer involvement here can outline the need for this project precedence against the other (is it dormant for instance without showing up as such?) - and where a possible reasonable scope/boundary assertion can be made... also it seems socialism crept in at politics project - any info on that relationship would be appreciated - cheers - I am very low usage on the weekdays - so no hurry for a response Satu Suro 05:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The article contains a lot of factual errors e.g. It claims UPC was formed in 1955. This is not correct. Please consult the article on UPC found at http://upcparty.net/upcparty/roots_adhola.htm It may also be necessary to explain the social base of UPC. Again consult http://upcparty.net/memboard/19mar10_socialbase.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.80.160 ( talk) 00:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The article contains a lot of factual errors e.g. It claims UPC was formed in 1955. This is not correct. Please consult the article on UPC found at http://upcparty.net/upcparty/roots_adhola.htm It may also be necessary to explain the social base of UPC. Again consult http://upcparty.net/memboard/19mar10_socialbase.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.80.160 ( talk) 00:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute between two editors on a large number of templates of political parties in Europe. See, for example, {{ Political parties in Slovakia}}. One editor has asserted that the EU flag should be included in all templates related to individual EU member states, while one (me) has asserted that the EU flag does not belong in templates that are related to individual members and not the EU as a whole or as an institution, unless supported by reliable sources.
Please could WikiProject members help to resolve this by adding their opinions? The discussion can be found here. Bastin 03:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Political parties articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
See Portal talk:Politics – the portal has not been properly maintained for well over a year, and will probably lose its star unless it's improved soon. Bencherlite Talk 12:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I've nominated the page List of political parties in North Korea for deletion. I thought it would be courteous to notify the relevant WikiProjects. -- Selket Talk 19:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Comments would be welcomed on the talk page of this article regarding its place in the political spectrum, as well as some eyes in general due to the recent arrival of some sockpuppeteers. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm having trouble adding the info to the vermont political party strength page. If someone could simply fix the page for me, that would be great. All the data is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.140.29 ( talk) 16:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The article Monarchist National Party has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Jeepday (
talk)
23:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Please have a look at the Controversies and criticisms section of the article Indian National Congress. The section is quite long, and I feel that it should be integrated into the rest of the article, or so WP:CRIT advises. Please comment on the talk page, and establish a consensus. I have also notified WikiProject India about this. TheMike • Wassup doc? 16:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The article National Conservative Unity Party has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JeepdaySock (AKA,
Jeepday)
16:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not a registered user, so I can't officially propose something for deletion, but I have proposed deleting American 3rd Party. There are very few results found in a Google search that match this particular party. The few that mention the party are either broken links or (in one case) outdated. That one case (a website called Darkhorse 2000) was set up to list and describe a ton of third parties, most of them by my reckoning not notable. Please see Talk:American 3rd Party for a more detailed argument. 71.184.241.68 ( talk) 22:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
As copied from the page Talk:Political party:
The "partisan style" section currently has the following subsections:
There is no actual mention at all about true multi-party systems where actual executive power is shared pretty much equally among more than two major parties. This system is actually used in at least Finland, Sweden, and Germany. It is, however, not used in either the United States or the United Kingdom which are, in effect, two-party systems (Democrats vs Republicans in the USA, Labours vs Tories in the UK), but this is not the "American and British" Wikipedia, this is the Wikipedia in the English language, and so it should cover all aspects of the world. JIP | Talk 19:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This may be a bit UK/Ireland centric but hopefully we can get some feedback on this from other people too. It is clear that the world is, on the whole, awash with polticial parties. For Wiki, we have election box metadata tables and templates through which parties are linked, and in many cases to get the correct colour and links there must be corresponding articles.
However the United Kingdom is one of many nations in which minor (and sometimes incredibly small) political parties are formed to participate in elections. And if these are "one off" they must be of some extremely clear notability to have an article here. One very good example is the recently Prodd'd Money Reform Party who took part in one by-election for Westminster. They are clearly not a notable national political force, so the article is likely to be deleted without much comment. But then we have Forward Wales or Left List or Mebyon Kernow, which all could be argued as being too "small" for notability, too small for inclusion here.
So we need to decide on policy. We already have notability policy on so many things, I wonder if there is enough for political parties, both within the UK and worldwide. I hope we can get together to discuss this in time doktorb words deeds 17:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Greetings. I would be grateful if anyone could have a look at my list of missing topics related to politics. Thank you. - Skysmith ( talk) 12:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that there is already a Wikipedia:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada project. GreenJoe 20:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
So, what importance do peopel think an ordinary page on a political party should get? High? Or mid? Or should there be a distinction between "major" and "minor" parties (with the latter being classified as lower importance)? IdiotSavant ( talk) 11:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a member of this project (although I do have an interest in poltics and political parties), but I would like to suggest a pagemove to Wikipedia:WikiProject Political parties. That would allow the categories of this project, such as Category:A-Class Political Parties articles to be renamed to conform to naming conventions for categories and to match similar categories used by other projects (e.g. Category:A-Class Australian history articles). If the members of this project do not object, I could update all relevant pages (mostly Template:WikiProject Political Parties and a few project and category pages) in a few minutes. Thanks, – Black Falcon ( Talk) 19:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
While people are debating importance criteria, can we at least start adding parties to the project by going through national lists? Pick a country, any country, and get to it. We can rate for quality and leave importance for later. -- IdiotSavant ( talk) 13:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have begun developing a style guide for articles relating to political parties within the United Kingdom. The intention of the style guide is to try and build some consistency in the way that party articles are handled by the Politics of the United Kingdom WikiProject, but since it will be overlapping your project scope you may wish to contribute. The initial proposal for the guide can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Parties. Regards. Road Wizard ( talk) 12:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Republican Party (United States) has been selected as the monthly collaboration of the project. However, little actual collaboration is done at the article. It would be good if the proponents of the nomination could explain which are the unresolved issues at the article which would need to be improved. -- Soman ( talk) 15:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
From the discussion on assessment, it looks like there's now a new C-class of article. So we'll need to go back and reassess the low-B's / high-starts into this category. -- IdiotSavant ( talk) 02:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Somewhere, there ought to be a link to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties). -- Soman ( talk) 18:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 1937 articles are assigned to this project, of which 414, or 21.4%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 16:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The party Forward to Mars Party has been nominated for deletion. Please comment if you wish. This really should kick my bottom into gear with regards to the proposed policy on notability, if someone can poke me in the eye with a to-do stick I'd be grateful! doktorb words deeds 05:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Seen while assessing. Does someone want to look at this and nominate it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by IdiotSavant ( talk • contribs) 02:14, 8 July 2008
Right now a disambig page, but articles are needed on all of the parties mentioned there. I have a book on order which may help, The American Party Drama. Шизомби ( talk) 13:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi all! I am keen to get involved in this project, as I can help expand on South African politics... How do I join the project? Wasabigreen ( talk) 14:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I have recently nominated UK Community Issues Party for deletion. The discussion for the nom can be found here. If anyone can provide input, it would be much appreciated. Cheers. BlueVine ( talk) 00:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Please can people take a look at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (political parties)#"Ressurected" parties about how to handle refusenik parties. Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
In the last couple of months I've been disambiguating dozens of political parties' names... You are all invited to see my work at my Contributions page. -- Againme ( talk) 05:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I've never had to resort to outside help to resolve a dispute because usually I just give up when people get really passionate about their edits and start reverting every edit. I'm not very good at resolving disputes and I didn't know what to do so I came here. There is a fight going on at Liberal Democratic Party of Russia involving mainly User:Farkas János, User:Gnomsovet, User:Miacek, and it is spreading into other articles and other language wikipedias, namely Russian. I fear it may spread to others such as Liberal Democratic Party of Pridnestrovie, lt:Rusijos liberalų demokratų partija, pl:Liberalno-Demokratyczna Partia Rosji and so on. Perhaps it is worth stating first that I am not a supporter of the LDPR; I am actually against them. The main issue for me concerns the party's ideology. The LDPR claims liberalism as part of it's platform, whether or not they adhere to common definitions of their own principles may be worth mentioning, but I think some form of liberalism should be listed in the party's platform in the infobox. This is confirmed by the party's own website here and by some of the comments on the article's talk page. I believe my opinion is in conformity with that of User:Gnomsovet, but his/her primary concern seems to be general neutrality in the article. User:Miacek has consistantly reverted all edits for days on on Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, Liberal Democratic Party of Belarus and ru:Либерально-демократическая партия России. He insists that the LDPR and the LDPB are not liberal and calls all claims otherwise "nonsense". He doesn't talk much, but he does revert a lot. His source is what appears to be an editorial from the New York Times. Considering it seems to be an opinion piece from an American newspaper, I think it is hardly as reliable a statement of the party's own position as the party's website. I don't mind that newspaper article being mentioned anymore, but I do want the party's own positions mentioned somewhere in the article. I don't know what to do. The situation is deteriorating as we speak and I need outside help as soon as possible. Farkas János ( talk) 03:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that the articles of many Western political usually do not have criticism sections, and contain little criticism in general. In contrast, many the articles of many Russian parties contain a lot of criticism. Why the discrepancy? Should I start adding criticism sections to Western parties as well? Offliner ( talk) 18:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer not to have criticism sections in any article about a party. -- Checco ( talk) 09:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Because...
In fact "criticism" sections are often unencyclopedic or unrelevant at all, often they speak about single members of the party and not the party itself, in general I think that there is no need of "criticism" sections when you write a neutral article: readers will judge. -- Checco ( talk) 13:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Political parties members are invited to help improve the Marijuana Reform Party article, which needs much attention. Along with WP Cannabis, members of WP United States and WP New York are welcome to improve the article in any way possible. Hopefully we can all work together to upgrade the article status within the next 2 weeks. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss how the article can be improved. Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 00:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm talking about the Socialist Party USA and the Young People's Socialist League. Being that i'm not a supporter of these parties, being that i'm not an American. But can any of you help in regards off finding references from un-referenced section. If you decide to help drop me a message here or on my talk page. -- TIAYN ( talk) 06:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I have (increasingly?) seen that in most infoboxes, numerous entries in the "ideology"-section is added, whilst most parties only have one official ideology. I would like to have it made more clear what is the official ideology of the given party, and what is other ideologies rather given by external reliable sources (that part as today). For instance the official ideology could be given in bold typing, or with (official) behind it. Anyone think this seems like a good idea? - GabaG ( talk) 15:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
At the moment, there is {{ Infobox political party}} and also lots of national political party infoboxes. Many of these infoboxes are hard-coded tables, with basically the same content (the only differences are usualy links to pages about that country politics). Some of these infoboxes don't work correctly when some parameters are missing. I suggest unifying all those infoboxes using {{ Infobox political party}} to something similar to User:Svick/Infobox Czech political party. Does anybody think this is a bad idea, or should I go forth with this change? Also, if there is a better place to discuss this, plase tell me where. Svick ( talk) 13:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Totally agreed. A unification or replacement of all these should be done.- Sthenel ( talk) 17:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there any action for the rest of the templates? - Sthenel ( talk) 15:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Are we talking about conversion/substitution or deletion of the rest templates. - Sthenel ( talk) 20:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
And why this process was not applied to the Greek template? - Sthenel ( talk) 20:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
{{infobox political party}}
. Eventually, it would be great if they could all be replaced, but some will require a bit more work. This is my opinion on the matter.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
22:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I was actually against this unification of infoboxes, but I acknowledge that the idea has some appeal and I see that there is a lot of consenus un it. I noticed anyway that the unified template is a little bit small as also the font is. Is it possible to have a larger template and bigger fonts on the model of almost all templates before? Thanks! -- Checco ( talk) 23:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
Infobox}}
backend and I think that for consistent appearance, all infoboxes should look similar. So, unless you gain consensus to change that template, I'm against this change.
Svick (
talk)
23:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)The infobox expects us to give the party's "ideology." My question is, when would you give "populism" as the ideology? To me, this seems silly because every party wants to please the general population, and is thus "populist." The specific instance that prompted me to ask this is this one. Offliner ( talk) 00:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Until 11 June 2009 all Belgian parties had articles with titles in English, but on that day User:Fram moved all of them to French/Flemish titles because he was convinced that item 4 of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties)#Exceptions authorized him to do so.
I'm not sure of that. The names of Belgian parties, similarily to the Basque National Party and differently from parties such as Herri Batasuna, are frequently translated in English, so why that exception? As anyone of you can easily notice, almost all political parties (excluding some minority parties ex item 4 and some parties whose names are referred in the original language in English media, such as Fine Gael or Forza Italia) have articles with English titles. From France to Germany, from Italy to Greece, from Sweden to Estonia, and so on, this is exactly what happens. Also American, Asian and African parties follow that general pattern, despite some exceptions, most of which should be corrected. All of you know that.
So why that Belgian exception? Belgium is definitely a multilingual country, but not in the sense that there are minority parties. The parties on which we are talking about are mainstream parties representing the two large French- and Flemish-speaking communities whose names should be translated in English: there is no reason for not doing just that and en.Wikipedia needs uniformity! Having those articles with English titles is more practical (they are more easy to understand) and respctful of Wikipedia uniformity.
I ask the editors of the project to tell here their opinion and I hope we will soon be able to amend this strange exception and return to the previous (English) titles for Belgian parties (as they were until 11 June). -- Checco ( talk) 22:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
For example, Socialistische Partij Anders could use the title listed on the Party's own website here. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Having a good deal of experience with Belgian articles, I can see exactly where the problem lies. First of all, given that we have redirects at our disposal, we shouldn't stress too much about having multiple ways to translate the name of the party, this is true for almost every political party in any language. Nonetheless, in some cases it may not be appropriate to translate the name. While CD&V seems like it should be translated, Vlaams Belang is usually not, and I think it should stay in Dutch. Also, SPA indeed seems not to make any sense when translated to English, so maybe we should choose between the Flemish Socialist Party (yes, it's not their current name) and SPA.
Also, Google counting is dubious and should be avoided if possible. I don't think websites such as monstersandcritics.com and eTaiwan News should be taken to represent (informed) English usage. We could perhaps use the BBC as a guideline; see [10] - "Flemish Christian Democrats" and [11] - "Vlaams Belang". Oreo Priest talk 15:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to seek some advice regarding the Australian Democrats page. I haven't edited wikipedia pages for some time and am a little rusty, so pls forgive if the rules have changed or I am somewhat out of place here.
I work with the Australian Democrats as part of the efforts to rebuild the party. Much has changed, much of what has happened in the last 2 decades is missing, and the page really requires a complete rewrite. There is no history post 1992, but history bits are being shoved in to the electoral success section, the policy section is severely lacking, many details are missing or wrong and when someone even less familiar with wikipedia than myself tried to update some content the inevitable undo battle began... (I had managed to block those out of my memory!)
I have suggested that the page editing be halted until we can put together some of the missing content. However, I am fearful that anything we put up will be immediately dismissed as promotional regardless of how we construct it. I seek your advice on how best to go about updating this page?
Would it be possible to downgrade the page to needing a cleanup? -- Kathoc ( talk) 11:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I am a member of the Australian Democrats. I have been working on a substantial rewrite and have been in contact with User:Kathoc by email. Afte two weeks on my Sandbox, I rolled out 'phase 1' after drawing attention it on the article talk page. I have experienced some problems with user User:Timeshift9. Within minutes of the roll out, he reverted it saying that I shouldn't pare back 40,000 char article to 17,000. I doubt he even read the changes, as he would have seen I created a new page to shorten the article instead of delete entire sections. I have left messages on his talk page and at the article page but he has not responded. I believe I advised I was working on the rewrite in good faith and gave all an opportunity to comment on the work. I wish to re-post the changes. My work as it is still sits at [ [12]] and [ [13]], while Timeshift's revert is still at Australian Democrats. I suspect I could have a revert-war conflict if I revert to my version of the article. Can I please have some moderation with Timeshift, and some advice on how to proceed? Thank you. Paul Paul Roberton ( talk) 03:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I have done a GA Reassessment of the United Malays National Organisation as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found that the article does not meet the current GA Criteria. Here is my review. This is a high level review, and the issues raised do not represent the entirety of the article. I will put the article on hold for a week pending work and notify all interested projects and editors. Once work on this initial review is accomplished I will do a more thorough review of the content. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 17:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that UKIP has been given a Mid level of importance for your project but your definition for Mid level states 'Mid Articles which are somewhat related to political parties.' as UKIP is a political party then should it not be High or Top. DanielR235 19:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining, in that case I agree that UKIP is correctly labelled I just wasn't sure before due to the descriptions. DanielR235 14:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
What confers the status of "political party" on an organisation? I haven't found any definition for the concept on the project page. I have just read the article Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB), a South African organisation currently in the news (the leader was recently murdered). Much to my surprise I noticed that the article is included in this WikiProject. Now here's the rub: In terms of the law in South Africa, the AWB is not a political party. An organisation is only a political party if it is registered as such by the Independent Electoral Commission. The AWB has never participated in any election nor has it ever been represented on any legislative body at any level of government. What are the criteria used by this Wikiproject for including or excluding organisations/parties? Roger ( talk) 13:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Have been tagging for WP Politics as there a large number of categories that are obvious scope 'fits' that have been never tagged with a project template - and have come across this project - and on the project page there is not at first glance - where this project scope relates to the other project - has anyone any memory in this project (many projects lose older participants and as a consequence across the board project memory can be very short indeed) of where the separation occurred between the two projects in the past? I am only tagging obvious crossover categories - and will steer clear if someone here with a longer involvement here can outline the need for this project precedence against the other (is it dormant for instance without showing up as such?) - and where a possible reasonable scope/boundary assertion can be made... also it seems socialism crept in at politics project - any info on that relationship would be appreciated - cheers - I am very low usage on the weekdays - so no hurry for a response Satu Suro 05:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The article contains a lot of factual errors e.g. It claims UPC was formed in 1955. This is not correct. Please consult the article on UPC found at http://upcparty.net/upcparty/roots_adhola.htm It may also be necessary to explain the social base of UPC. Again consult http://upcparty.net/memboard/19mar10_socialbase.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.80.160 ( talk) 00:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The article contains a lot of factual errors e.g. It claims UPC was formed in 1955. This is not correct. Please consult the article on UPC found at http://upcparty.net/upcparty/roots_adhola.htm It may also be necessary to explain the social base of UPC. Again consult http://upcparty.net/memboard/19mar10_socialbase.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.80.160 ( talk) 00:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute between two editors on a large number of templates of political parties in Europe. See, for example, {{ Political parties in Slovakia}}. One editor has asserted that the EU flag should be included in all templates related to individual EU member states, while one (me) has asserted that the EU flag does not belong in templates that are related to individual members and not the EU as a whole or as an institution, unless supported by reliable sources.
Please could WikiProject members help to resolve this by adding their opinions? The discussion can be found here. Bastin 03:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Political parties articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
See Portal talk:Politics – the portal has not been properly maintained for well over a year, and will probably lose its star unless it's improved soon. Bencherlite Talk 12:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I've nominated the page List of political parties in North Korea for deletion. I thought it would be courteous to notify the relevant WikiProjects. -- Selket Talk 19:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Comments would be welcomed on the talk page of this article regarding its place in the political spectrum, as well as some eyes in general due to the recent arrival of some sockpuppeteers. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm having trouble adding the info to the vermont political party strength page. If someone could simply fix the page for me, that would be great. All the data is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.140.29 ( talk) 16:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The article Monarchist National Party has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Jeepday (
talk)
23:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Please have a look at the Controversies and criticisms section of the article Indian National Congress. The section is quite long, and I feel that it should be integrated into the rest of the article, or so WP:CRIT advises. Please comment on the talk page, and establish a consensus. I have also notified WikiProject India about this. TheMike • Wassup doc? 16:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The article National Conservative Unity Party has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JeepdaySock (AKA,
Jeepday)
16:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not a registered user, so I can't officially propose something for deletion, but I have proposed deleting American 3rd Party. There are very few results found in a Google search that match this particular party. The few that mention the party are either broken links or (in one case) outdated. That one case (a website called Darkhorse 2000) was set up to list and describe a ton of third parties, most of them by my reckoning not notable. Please see Talk:American 3rd Party for a more detailed argument. 71.184.241.68 ( talk) 22:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
As copied from the page Talk:Political party:
The "partisan style" section currently has the following subsections:
There is no actual mention at all about true multi-party systems where actual executive power is shared pretty much equally among more than two major parties. This system is actually used in at least Finland, Sweden, and Germany. It is, however, not used in either the United States or the United Kingdom which are, in effect, two-party systems (Democrats vs Republicans in the USA, Labours vs Tories in the UK), but this is not the "American and British" Wikipedia, this is the Wikipedia in the English language, and so it should cover all aspects of the world. JIP | Talk 19:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)