Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Seeking collaboration to improve Election science

Hi all. I'd like to expand and improve the page Election science. I'm no stranger to overhauling pages or writing them from scratch, and normally I would just boldly do it. However, the reason that I want to rebuild this page is that I am an election scientist. That's not a conflict of interest, but I am concerned that as a practitioner I have many explicit and implicit biases that may affect the kinds of topics I include, the sources and people I choose to cite, etc., which could result in a page that does not give due weight to all the relevant topics. So, what I'm specifically asking for is this: I would like to start building out my planned overhaul in a sandbox, and I'd like at least one other person (ideally more) whom I could ping in to take a look at the page before I commit it to mainspace. I don't need these collaborators to put in time finding sources and building the page; I specifically would like to have a second (or third, or fourth) pair of eyes on whether or not whatever I write is appropriately balanced. If you would be willing to do that, please let me know at my talk page (I'm not very active any more and might not notice additions to this thread even if I am pinged; if you use my talk page, I will have a harder time accidentally losing track of you). Thanks! - Astrophobe (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Anti–People's Republic of China sentiment#Requested move 2 August 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Anti–People's Republic of China sentiment#Requested move 2 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 03:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ann Dunham

Ann Dunham has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:China's dark fleet#Requested move 10 August 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:China's dark fleet#Requested move 10 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Remsense 🌈 论 13:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Forza Italia#Requested move 7 August 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Forza Italia#Requested move 7 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Berger Action Fund request

I work at the Berger Action Fund. I have a question about a specific claim in the Berger article's introduction. I posted about this on the article Talk page but I haven't gotten any responses. Because this concerns a political topic I thought editors here might be able to provide feedback. NZ for Berger (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

New article: Freedom Cities

Hello, I've created a new article on Freedom Cities that may be of interest to this project. Feedback is welcome. Thanks! Digressivo (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:LGBTQ rights in Somaliland#Requested move 18 August 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LGBTQ rights in Somaliland#Requested move 18 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. QalasQalas (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Political positions

I'm starting a discussion on an issue that I've spotted a long time ago that should have been addressed and it's about political positions used in political parties. I'll summarise the issue and my opinion on how to address the issue. I'm open to hearing opinions of more editors, which I hope will be based on our policies and guidelines and not our personal feelings, which does not matter on Wikipedia.

Issue: Many political parties around the world use the |position= parameter in infoboxes, typically having either one or two political positions listed. In case when there's one political position present, it would look like The Left in the European Parliament (there's only "Left-wing" listed). In case when there are multiple political positions presented (in such cases, there are only two political positions), it would look like Renaissance (French political party) (there's "Centre to centre-right" listed). The issue in the latter case is the word "to", which in this case suggests that a political party spans from one position to another (in this example, from the centre to the centre-right).

My opinion: If we'd be serious in improving Wikipedia, we'd follow our policies and guidelines, particularly WP:OR and WP:V. In most cases, reliable sources only mention either one of the positions. In the example of Renaissance, cited references either describe the party as "centrist" or "centre-right". Reliable sources which describe the party as spanning from the centre to the centre-right (centre to centre-right) do not exist. Therefore, having the word "to" is original research (content is not backed up by reliable sources). There are, however, cases where this is not original research. For example, New Popular Front has a citation which mentions that the coalition has "parties from the far-left to the center-left". Therefore, such pages would not be affected with my proposal. As far as I know, there was never a discussion on this topic and instead it was implemented by someone on Wikipedia back in the 2000s. Therefore it falls under WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, as this is only present on articles under this WikiProject (Consensus can be formed via an edit that no one objects to). The issue is however, that local consensus cannot override a policy or guideline. In plain English, this means that the inclusion of "to" is a violation of the original research policy. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Is the Mona Lisa smiling? Some academic art historians say she is, others say she isn't; a range of opinions exist from smiling to not smiling. That's not original research, that's a reflection that the sources do not present a simple consensus. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I also think that in most cases "to" is original research. By the way, "centre-right" already includes both "centre" and "right", while "centre-left" includes both "centre" and "left". This said, I think that political positions should be removed altogether from political party infoboxes as they are at best confusing and, in most cases, redundant, given that ideologies are also listed. --Checco (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on the state and quality of the article Jammu Praja Parishad

There is an ongoing discussion on the state and quality of the article Jammu Praja Parishad. To editors, please join the discussion at Talk:Jammu Praja Parishad#Hindutva? EarthDude (wanna talk?) 09:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Militar Directory of Primo de Rivera#Requested move 16 August 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Militar Directory of Primo de Rivera#Requested move 16 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Minister of War (Spain)#Requested move 16 August 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Minister of War (Spain)#Requested move 16 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

RFC on the ideology of Alternative for Germany

There is an ongoing RFC on the ideology of Alternative for Germany. SickNWristed (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Venstre (Denmark)#Requested move 31 August 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Venstre (Denmark)#Requested move 31 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 05:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Killing of Leneal Frazier#Requested move 12 September 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Killing of Leneal Frazier#Requested move 12 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. QalasQalas (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Red Terror#Requested move 10 September 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Red Terror#Requested move 10 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

/* Requested move at Talk:Red Terror#Requested move 10 September 2025 */ Reply 83.110.144.143 (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for First Amendment to the United States Constitution

First Amendment to the United States Constitution has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Important Discussion on the Chenab Valley

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Chenab Valley (Jammu Division)#August 2025, with one side stating that the Chenab Valley is a legitimate geographic valley, and the other claiming that it is a communal form of Kashmiri Muslim Irredentism. To editors, please join the discussion EarthDude (wanna talk?) 05:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Succession boxes for US precedence, seniority and line of succession

Hi folks, this is long, but just trying to parse through a lot. I've been come to the opinion that succession boxes on US pages dealing with the order of precedence (former officials), Senate and House seniority (incumbent members of Congress) and the presidential line of succession (incumbent Cabinet members) are unnecessary for a few reasons and should be removed in favor of directing readers toward those four pages specifically. Pinging Upton Liptrot (talk · contribs), who has really done amazing yeoman's work of maintaining all these that would have made it nearly impossible for me to sort former officials, and Muboshgu (talk · contribs), who I know has also paid attention to these pieces in the past.

• They're extremely burdensome to maintain, requiring constant vigilance over nearly two thousand pages total for accurate chains. If one link is not updated properly, it can linger for months as misinformative to casual readers--most especially regarding the seniority pages of congressional incumbents and also the line of succession, where if someone leaves office, then it requires editors to change the ranking order number of everyone after them that can be hundreds of pages of effort. Or if the chain is broken by someone deleting the boxes from one page (which I think occurs 2-3x as I was building by sandbox pages), the flow becomes totally lost without digging into an article's history and seeing (in that moment in time) what the chain was to piece together from there.
• In being so piecemeal, the ranking of former officials in the order of precedence is fundamentally unverifiable by a reader as to whether or not the order being displayed is accurate. Compared to succession boxes based on roles, which can be more easily verified for accuracy by a causal reader seeing are either major sections of the predecessor's/successor's biography or have core pages to refer to a list. The precedence core page simply states the mechanism by which they would be ranked, but not the names themselves. In my review to build a more accurate list based on the sourced and stated precepts of ranking precedence on the page itself, I found dozens (possibly several dozen) that were out of order and sometimes quite badly.
• They're overall ancillary to the bio pages themselves, nearly trivia, compared to the succession of actual major roles held by an article's subject. They also detract a reader's attention from those more relevant boxes by being extremely visually heavy and dominating the bottom of many politician's pages.

To that end, these are essentially my thoughts on trying to find a solution.

• First, I of course think we should remove such boxes from all these pages.
• I think the four core pages could be listed on the relevant pages under the "See Also" section of related wikipedia pages, but more ambivalent on if they necessarily need to be on every page where the boxes currently are.
• I've created two user sandbox pages to sort thru the precedence guidelines specifically that I'd like to adapt in some way to the mainspace, currently thinking as collapsible tables on the core page. The first is most of the former officials (it's mistitled, I broadened the scope after starting) and the second just for former representatives (because they way I've written the tables now is too much code to have all on one page to process). I think that if we had these lists in one place to review, contextualized by the rest of the core articles themselves for why they are ordered as such, it would allow users a greater level of information as jumping off points and it could be readily scrutinized/updated for inaccuracies. Also noting that for the congressional precedence that are ranked by state admission dates, I coded hidden text for each state's order to use as my guide. Also all the reference section on the first page was used to check the exact start/end dates for members of Congress used for precedence, but were used heavily on the second.

As they're in my sandbox, I don't necessarily expect some of how these are displayed for myself would be carry on into mainspace (below).

• I use nicknames the subjects generally go by in life and just forename/surname, rather than just defaulting to the article's official title.
• I included parties mostly so there would be colors on the page and my eyes wouldn't go numbs just looking at text in tables while reviewing. But I know that precedence is largely more about the names themselves than their party identity.
• I included incumbents highlighted in yellow more as a reference of where they would rank should they leave office (other than through death) and makes it a bit easier to slot them in if/when they do. But on some level this is a bit duplicative of the seniority pages for sitting officials, though the rules of precedence do differ some from pure seniority (state admission v purely alphabetically, respectively, minus tiebreakers--so there is still some utility but perhaps as separated tables.).
• I've included a column for ages, mostly as a proxy that would allow editors a chance to review accuracy of whose deaths have slipped through the cracks of being removed (thinking of some sort of semi-regular review of everyone over 70/75/80). I think this column is helpful and worth keeping for that reason, but technically is not the purpose of a precedence list if others are more strongly against it. Without it, how long ago someone started in office could be the proxy reference for users to review missed deaths to be removed (i.e.: everyone who served in the 50s/60s/70s) but I find the wide range of ages of when people enter office could make this a larger universe and therefore more burdensome for upkeep.
• For myself, I wanted to review former territorial governors, delegates and shadow members. It does not appear that the first two have any standing in the order of precedence (the last obviously would not), so would probably not carry over.
• I do think it's worthwhile to include the struckthrough names that would otherwise appear in the order in those tables, rather than just erase those tenures. This is how the current core precedence page deals with sections that are already totally displayed because the size of their subsection is much smaller (for ex. Hillary Clinton).

– Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Those and "Response to the state of the Union address", should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Completely different subject. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Not entirely, if you're looking to delete some succession boxes. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I've seen the diligent edits to update seniority rankings and the order of precedence, but this is ultimately unnecessary to include at the foot of each of these politicians' pages and it's just busywork to keep it updated. That's a lot of nice work you did in putting together that list, but when does any normal person actually deal with or care about the order of precedence? It's something a protocol officer would observe at official events, but not anything anyone else would notice, nor is there actually much independent coverage about its usage. Even with succession boxes removed from articles, I'm not sure we should even try to keep a single mega-list maintained. — Reywas92^Talk 06:05, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I had noticed the amount of work of updating those numbers once before and wondered if it could be more automated by using templates where you'd only need to update the order of succession once and have the template do the rest. But I would support removing them entirely. UL's efforts are admirable but could probably be put to better use on other tasks. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the amount of effort you put into these sandboxes. But I'm not convinced we should do away with the succession boxes entirely. The articles would feel incomplete without them and Wikipedia is, or at least should be, a place where people can go for comprehensive coverage of a given topic. Plus it would not be consistent with how we treat precedence in other countries. Would we also do away with the succession boxes for people in the UK, for instance? So I'm sorry but I still don't see the need to make changes at this point. Upton Liptrot (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

We need a bot, to delete the "Response to the State of the Union address" sucession boxes, from all related bios. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Request for Comment at Talk:Democratic Party (United States)

There is an RfC at Talk:Democratic Party (United States)#RfC: Should "center" be added to the political position? that may be of interest to members of this project. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 11:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Edward Everett

Edward Everett has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Prague Spring

Prague Spring has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Request for Input in Discussion at Talk:Hindutva pop#Nazi music

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Hindutva pop#Nazi music. I am requesting input from interested editors. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 05:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Economics of climate change mitigation, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Hyderabad massacres

Request for input at a discussion taking place regarding a content dispute of Hyderabad massacres at Talk:Hyderabad massacres#POV and citation check. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 21:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Republican Party efforts to disrupt voting after the 2024 United States presidential election#Requested move 24 September 2025

Hello, there is a move discussion at the above link which may interest members of this project. Thank you! ASUKITE 15:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of members of the Senate of Italy, 2022–present#Requested move 26 September 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of members of the Senate of Italy, 2022–present#Requested move 26 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 20:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Hindu revolution for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hindu revolution is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu revolution until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

— EarthDude (wanna talk?) 11:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Filip Turek (racing driver)#Requested move 5 October 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Filip Turek (racing driver)#Requested move 5 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2019 Trump–Ukraine scandal#Requested move 26 September 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2019 Trump–Ukraine scandal#Requested move 26 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2020 Trump Israel–Palestine plan#Requested move 4 October 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2020 Trump Israel–Palestine plan#Requested move 4 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. WhatADrag07 (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

AI minister

Can a large language model be considered a member of a party? (regarding Rama IV Government#Cabinet) — IмSтevan ^talk 08:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I would say no, personally. An LLM is a piece of software. It can be used by an organisation, but how can it be a member of it? Loytra^✨ 13:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Election Infobox Color Bar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was to use campaign colors in non-partisan elections, especially if needed for a map legend. There was also consensus to change the template to make sure the gray separator bar between rows of candidates always shows up. -- Beland (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

---

Hello everyone I would like to as if we the Wikipedia Politics community can remove Color Bar on the election infoboxes for all nonpartison Election races for the United States. Quick explanation on nonpartisan elections, nonpartisan elections where the candidates party affiliation is not listed on the ballot in the United States, The color bars (shown on the first infobox on the bottom of the candidates pictures) we added to not add political party on the election infobox but most editers will still put political parties or will remove the color bars as a good faith edit but some veteran editors will put the color bars back on the election infoboxes. To end the madness I would like to request the we remove the color boxes to end good faith edit and to make it visually easier for people who are color blind to see the election infoboxes (shown on second infobox) thank you.

(The candidates pictures are used as an example and are not actual election infoboxes)

First Infobox

June 7, 2022 (first round) November 8, 2022 (runoff)
Registered	2,120,515
Turnout	43.86%
Candidate Karen Bass Eric Garcetti First round 278,511 43.11% 121,930 32.27% Runoff 509,944 54.83% 222,300 54.23%   Candidate Antonio Villaraigosa James Hahn First round 136,242 33.10% 125,139 25.05% Runoff Eliminated Eliminated
Mayor before election Eric Garcetti Elected Mayor Karen Bass

Second Infobox

June 7, 2022 (first round) November 8, 2022 (runoff)
Registered	2,120,515
Turnout	43.86%
Candidate Karen Bass Eric Garcetti First round 278,511 43.11% 121,930 32.27% Runoff 509,944 54.83% 222,300 54.23%   Candidate Antonio Villaraigosa James Hahn First round 136,242 33.10% 125,139 25.05% Runoff Eliminated Eliminated
Mayor before election Eric Garcetti Elected Mayor Karen Bass

2603:8000:57F0:92E0:DD0D:B754:A364:DB4D (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

That can be useful when complementing a map underside. However, I have no issues if color bar is removed either. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello CX Zoom[he/him] I see your point on the map underside. The madness of editers put political parties or will remove the color bars as a good faith edit is overwhelming inconvenient. 2603:8000:57F0:92E0:DD0D:B754:A364:DB4D (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Why not use the campaign colour of the candidate? (signs, website, literature, etc). That's what we do in Canadian municipal elections, most of which are non partisan as well. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Earl Andrew - talk using the campaign colour is what started the madness of editers put political parties as a good faith from me looking at the edit history. 2603:8000:57F0:92E0:DD0D:B754:A364:DB4D (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, we definitely shouldn't be using four non-partisan colour bars, because at that point it's not actually informing anything (that it's a non-partisan election can be mentioned in the body). But a better approach would be to identify each candidate with the colours they use in their campaign materials. Colour-coding can be quite handy, since most election pages have results maps or polling graphs — and identifying a candidate with a certain colour can a) serve as a legend before you get to those graphics and b) ensure that all those graphics are consistent with each other. As for how to determine those colours, like Earl Andrew said, we can use their campaign materials for guidance. This is essentially what we already do for internal party contests: 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries gives each candidate their own colour instead of everyone having Democratic blue. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this. Use colours if they have them, but if not, don't use them at all. Colour bars aren't used on (e.g.) 2024 Icelandic presidential election because it's a nonpartisan election. Number 57 21:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Number 57 I believe that we should use the 2024 Icelandic presidential election infobox for nonpartison election races for the United States to end the good fath edit madness. 2603:8000:57F0:92E0:DD0D:B754:A364:DB4D (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello Kawnhr (talk) I mention this to Earl Andrew - talk by using the campaign colour is what started the madness of editers put political parties as a good faith from me looking at the edit history. 2603:8000:57F0:92E0:DD0D:B754:A364:DB4D (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the slow-rolling edit war can be mostly attributed to there not being a clearly-established consensus for how to handle non-partisan elections — so editors jump in assuming they're fixing something. If we have project agreement one way or the other, I think that will settle a lot of the disputes. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello Kawnhr (talk) Agree 100% thats the goal. 2603:8000:57F0:92E0:DD0D:B754:A364:DB4D (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll just let people know that this is most likely a sockpuppet of FYE31, who has frequently campaigned against grey coloring in nonpartisan elections in the past under different accounts. Personally, I've been against removing colors, I think it just looks bad without anything, but I can endorse the idea that Kawnhr said where it's using campaign colors/color-coding to identify them. I like that idea way more than just removing them altogether. reppop^talk 05:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello reppop^talk thank you for you comment. I do have a question is there a way to put Party Affiliate on the infobox where the Political Party would be placed as a solution for all nonpartisan election infoboxes? 2603:8000:57F0:92E0:DD0D:B754:A364:DB4D (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

We should absolutely be using colored bars in the infoboxes no matter what. Without the colored bars, any infobox with more than 3 candidates has bad formatting because the line separating the rows doesn't show up. I don't see the issue with having gray colored bars. This has been the standard on US nonpartisan election pages for years. Having a colored bar helps separate the image from the candidate's name and just generally improves the formatting. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

We could also change the code to include the separator line even when there is no color bar. Technology is not the restriction here. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} Technology is not the restriction at all. let's remove the color bars to end the good faith edits and change the code to include the separator line. I would like to call for a vote to one remove the color bars to end the good faith edits and two to change the code to include the separator line without the color bars. 66.74.82.136 (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Would also like to point out it's possible to brute force the separator in even without colours, as demonstrated on pages like 2005 Conservative Party leadership election (the trick: have a color= field but dummy out the code. the colour bar doesn't appear, but the separator still does.) Obviously, it would be ideal to fix this on a template level… but this is one more reason that technical issues shouldn't be a consideration. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I Agree with you Kawnhr Lets do the Dummy trick it the code from Kawnhr

(the trick: have a color= field but dummy out the code. the colour bar doesn't

appear, but the separator still does.) as a temporary solution until the code changes

to include the separator line without the color bars as the ideal to fix. Can we start a

consensus poll on Kawnhr idea to add the Dummy trick until the code changes to

include the separator line? I'm not sure if I can start a consensus poll because I would

be in support of Kawnhr idea and I prefer someone who would be neutral on this topic to start the

consensus poll. 24.43.177.130 (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Remove the color bar?

I'm making a subsection to form the consensus on remove the color bar and replace it by using Kawnhr Dummy trick it the code (the trick: have a color= field but dummy out the code. the color bar doesn't appear, but the separator still does.) as a temporary solution until the code is changed as a permanent fix. or leave the color bar. My view shall be neutral as Left guide has provided some useful sources, but I don't care whether they go in or not now. 69.75.92.194 (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support I Support the change to add the Dummy trick it the code until the code can be changed to add the permanent fix so we can stop the constant accidental disruptive edits and good faith edits. I do agree with the author lets end the madness. 2603:8000:5741:64AB:9DE3:C243:EA02:279C (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A sluggish dispute over the section title in the Woke article

Good evening. I ask all interested users to review the current situation and express their opinions. The thing is, a week ago in the Woke article, there was a simmering dispute between a user and me over the name of one of the sections, after I renamed the section due to a significant addition. Now, a week after the user and I had essentially reached a consensus after I agreed to his compromise, another user, Sangdeboeuf, has joined the discussion, effectively denying the very existence of consensus and effectively reversing that user's proposed compromise, essentially reversing the outcome of the previous discussion, since he disagrees with it and calling the disputed old version the "status quo." I reverted the version I consider the consensus version and asked the user to resolve such sensitive issues through discussions, in response to which he quoted me a number of rules, while, as it seems to me, ignoring the situation itself. Even actually putting forward the condition that he would simply return his edit if no one spoke out against his version within a few days. Considering that the one-on-one format again risks leading to a protracted dispute and conflict, I ask other users of the project to review the discussion and express their opinions. At the moment, what's important to me is not so much the outcome of the discussion in one way or another, but rather making sure that it was done through consensus, and not the sole decision of just one user, ignoring the entire previous discussion. So if during the discussion a new consensus is created or users agree with the Sangdeboeuf's opinion, I will not be against it. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: the discussion is at Talk:Woke#How to word the section header. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

UPD. Just to be clear, for the reasons described in my post in the thread itself, the dispute was effectively closed due to my recusal. I'd still be happy to hear opinions from other users outside of this thread, though. Because the very existence of such a situation over a simple section title still effectively amazes me. Thanks in advance for your feedback. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of 2005 Ram Mandir attack for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2005 Ram Mandir attack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Ram Mandir attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

— EarthDude (wanna talk?) 14:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Class president § Proposed mergers

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Class president § Proposed mergers, and more specifically the newer section named § Proposal: Rename "Class president" to a more encompassing title also including, the discussion of student government in schools. Issac I Navarro (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

FAC of political philosophy

The article Political philosophy is currently a candidate for featured article status. Reviews and other feedback are appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Political philosophy/archive1. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Online Neo-Nazis in Roblox holding Nazi flags.jpg at FFD

Link: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 October 13#File:Online Neo-Nazis in Roblox holding Nazi flags.jpg. George Ho (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:People's Assembly of Syria#Requested move 8 October 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:People's Assembly of Syria#Requested move 8 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk | contribs) 00:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft on 13-year old political commentator

Draft:Knowa De Baraso, for the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Ratnagiri Hindu Sabha for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ratnagiri Hindu Sabha is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratnagiri Hindu Sabha until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

— EarthDude (Talk) 12:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Criticism of monarchy, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Requested Move at Talk:Prayagraj#Requested move 28 October 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Prayagraj#Requested move 28 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — EarthDude (Talk) 12:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Should the title "Parliamentary republics with an executive president" be changed?

For the article, title seems too long for a Wikipedia article, perhaps change it instead into something like Executive parliamentary or Presidential parliamentary. We could potentially move the article into Semi-parliamentary system, Parliamentary system, or anything related to the types/forms of government.

(Made another post similar to this if you wanted to know that for some reason)

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I think moving it to "Presidential parliamentary republic", as you suggested, would be a great idea. The current title is really too long — EarthDude (Talk) 11:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Noted, will move the page right now. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Wait actually, I need like 1-2 more people's approval to do so as moving a page is a pretty big thing to do.

sorry for not being able to deliver the promise of the first message :(

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, no worries! No need to apologize! At the end of the day, Wikipedia has no deadline :D

Let's wait and see if a few more editors chime in and give their opinions or thoughts, or perhaps alternative name proposals. If none do, you could either BOLDLY make the name change yourself or begin a move discussion at the talk page of the article. — EarthDude (Talk) 12:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you sir :D GuesanLoyalist (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Just did the name change, check it out!

Presidential parliamentary republic GuesanLoyalist (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Cabinet crisis

An editor has requested that Cabinet crisis be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. RandFreeman (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Politely request more people at a discussion in order to reach a consensus/agreement

Talk:Presidential parliamentary republic#Perhaps change the Title?

Discussion is about changing the title. I request politely for need more people to talk and engage about the topic and as it currently seems to be basically between me and Lucky.

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

New article: Alberto Forchielli

Hello, I've created a new article on Alberto Forchielli, a biography of a living person (BLP), translated from the current, accepted Italian Wikipedia page (it:Alberto Forchielli). This new version is based on current notability and sourcing, which resolves the concerns from the 2017 deletion. Feedback is welcome. Thanks! Digressivo (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Constitution of Virginia

Constitution of Virginia has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election has an RfC

2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 1130 papal election

1130 papal election has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Douglas Bruce

Douglas Bruce has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

North Macedonia has an RfC

North Macedonia has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Outside viewpoints would be highly appreciated! Thank you. --Local hero ^talk 17:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion regarding WikiProject Listing for Donald Trump

There is a discussion over on Talk:Donald Trump regarding whether said page should be listed under the following WikiProjects: Discrimination, Freedom of Speech, and Law. Since Donald Trump is within the scope of this project, please feel free to share your thoughts on the matter. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Jack F. Matlock Jr.

Jack F. Matlock Jr. has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Democratic Socialists of America has an RfC

Democratic Socialists of America has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Goszei (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Cabinet crisis#Requested move 6 November 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cabinet crisis#Requested move 6 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Vice President-elect of the United States#Requested move 6 November 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Vice President-elect of the United States#Requested move 6 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Internationalist Struggle

The article Internationalist Struggle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced for 10 years. Tagged as Unreferenced for almost 3 years. The Spanish language article has only two sources. Fails general notability due to lack of significant coverage.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

ECP backlog: Political party colors

There is an old unanswered ECP request to update the party color of For Latvia's Development within Module:Political party/F. The article itself will need to be updated as well, as pointed out by an anonymous 2024 comment on its talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2025 Interim Constitution of Syria#Requested move 3 November 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2025 Interim Constitution of Syria#Requested move 3 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Andrei Kirilenko

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Andrei Kirilenko that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Emiya1980 (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for QAnon

QAnon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Che Guevara

Che Guevara has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Issue with Article assessments

Hi all. I noticed in reviewing the importance scale for this WikiProject that there are a number of pages listed as high importance that arguably don't fall into that category, especially given the fact that whole swaths of the political world outside of the West and India are consistently rated as low wholesale, without any real acknowledgement of their importance both nationally or regionally. For instance, neither the 162nd Virginia General Assembly, nor the 2016 United States House of Representatives elections in Idaho would be considered highly important anywhere outside the United States, or arguably even in the United States for that matter. Additionally, a number of articles about relatively insignificant political events in India are listed under (Category:High-importance politics articles (Link not listed because for some reason it doesn't appear)) as well. From what I can tell, a number of these were changes made by anonymous, potentially bot-managed accounts with shifting IP addresses that have increasingly caused problems on the website even far beyond the South-Asian political sphere. Though I recognize that it's largely subjective, and that it cannot be routinely monitored by editors due to the fast pace at which such changes are made, I feel there's a need for greater quality control when it comes to categorizing article importance, as it makes it far more difficult for editors seeking to assist in improving articles of genuine import to do so. I think this needs to be part of a larger conversation both in this WikiProject and across the community, as bot accounts are only going to increase in quantity and capacity as time goes on. I've reached out to one editor who appears to have been responsible for a fair number of such assessments in relation to United States politics, but would appreciate assistance in tackling the issue beyond that. Any input would be greatly appreciated, and I'll look forward to the discussion to come. Best, CSGinger14 (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Please be bold. I would suggest as a rough rule of thumb that country-specific politics is not going to be high-importance on a project this broad. CMD (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @CMD, I appreciate the response. Unfortunately, there's only so much I can do on my own, which is part of the reason why I posted this comment here, to ask that others assist me in cleaning up the assessments page, at least those that have been marked as high importance.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Frankly looking through this there's a massive amount of bias that's being perpetuated in the system through the importance ratings listed there. Frankly, it's also telling that Bondage pornography was among the high-importance articles, and Pornographic film a top-importance article, which if nothing else shows that no one has done a proper sweep of the classifications in a long time. With that in mind, I think this serves as support for my argument that there needs to be a concerted effort by the WikiProject at-large to review these classifications. I'd appreciate help in boosting that point, if at all possible.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@CMD I invite you to go look at my contribution history to see what kinds of articles were included in the top-importance classification for this WikiProject. Though I've now cleaned up most of that branch specifically, I'd really appreciate some help in doing broader review, as it's clear that this is being used as a platform for people's personal politics

Best - CSGinger14 (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Those edits make sense to me, individual biographies are probably of lower importance. A broad review should start by figuring out what is needed at each level, I’ve seen 10, 100, 1000, the rest suggested before. CMD (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Propose infobox political movement

I propose that we create a new {{infobox political movement}} template to support articles like America First, Antifa (United States), etc. I envision that it will have many fields similar to {{infobox political party}}, plus a field for "Methods" and minus fields for leaders and headquarters. If this moves forward, I will need a ton of help for how to create such an infobox. For example, can I simplify the work by first copying several articles/files from {{infobox political party}} and then modifying them? Thank you —Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Support; There needs to be a more appropriate range of infoboxes for articles surrounding loosely-defined political bodies, particularly movements and party factions. Maybe this template could be designed for bodies that don't cleanly fit into the 'party' or 'organisation' boxes?

Alternatively, perhaps the main political party infobox could be reworked to be more applicable to groups such as factions and this new 'movement' infobox could exclusively be designed for loose groupings that don't have any formal organisational structures (e.g. Trumpism, Antifa (United States), teal independents, etc.)

I've often found that articles for both factions and moments tend to use either the organisation infobox or party infobox and that neither are particularly well-suited for this purpose, so a change is definitely needed nonetheless. Loytra^✨ 13:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support, unless someone can find a better one. The organization boxes aren't really designed for political movements, and movements are not (necessarily) political parties, so having a box independent from them would be best. --Aquillion (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don’t think this sort of topic lends itself to an infobox, which primarily includes precise facts, written as short as possible. There are many such fields for political parties (office-holders, membership, headquarters etc.), but few would make sense for a loosely-defined movement (start year, slogan, predecessor). Some fields which could make sense and have a precise content are likely to be very debatable (leader, spokesperson, affiliations). And the most relevant sorts of information are going to be a battlefield (ideology, methods, affiliation). Movements of this sort seem closer to an ideology than to a formal political party, and you’ll notice that there are no infoboxes for ideologies. Keriluamox (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose.- per Keriluamox, he explained and summarized everything well. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• comment - I just took a look at Occupy Wall Street and found they're using the {{infobox civil conflict}}. Which is OK, except then I checked the Occupy movement page and found it's doing the same thing... for the whole movement?! Seems like there isn't a good consistent standard and it might be worth the experiment to create one, or at least, something like {{infobox political party}} could perhaps be changed to something broader ("political faction" etc) to encompass political movements without electoral ambition. Hornpipe2 (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Support: I fully support this idea. However, I believe if we want to do this, we need to have it so that all possible parameters for a potential ideology infobox are included in this movement infobox. So many articles across Wikipedia, about ideologies and movements, have to make do with other infoboxes and I think that is really detrimental. As @Hornpipe2 already mentioned, the Occupy Movement article has to try and make do with the Infobox civil conflict. Another example would be Trumpism which currently uses the political party infobox to portray the movement. I am also open to Hornpipe2's idea of expanding the political party infobox to a broader political faction infobox. — EarthDude (Talk) 03:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

While we are at it, we should discuss what parameters such an infobox would include, so as to make the proposal more clear. — EarthDude (Talk) 03:46, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose- per Keriluamox. Parameters would be difficult to fill accurately. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment I will note that Black Lives Matter has an infobox while being a decentralised political movement. Koopinator (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

It uses {{infobox historical event}}, which is actually not a bad idea. Keriluamox (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira#Requested move 1 December 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira#Requested move 1 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)

Good article reassessment for Constitutional Convention (United States)

Constitutional Convention (United States) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Parliamentary procedure#Requested Move: Move to legislative procedure

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Parliamentary procedure#Requested Move: Move to legislative procedure that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Thoughts on "OpenSecrets"

I opened up a conversation on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about whether OpenSecrets should be considered a reliable source. You can access, review, and contribute to that conversation here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is "OpenSecrets" / the Center for Responsive Politics reliable?. I figure a lot of editors who contribute on political topics are familiar with this resource, which is why I'm dropping this in here. Thanks! Novellasyes (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Freedom of political communication § Requested move 5 December 2025

An editor has requested that Talk:Freedom of political communication be moved to Implied freedom of political communication, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Federal Institute for Prevention and Education in Medicine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal Institute for Prevention and Education in Medicine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including this WikiProject, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. – WikiHelper232 (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Infoboxes of US Senators & Representatives

Do we really need "Dean of the United States Senate" in the infoboxes of US Senators? and "Dean of the United States House of Representatives" in the infoboxes of US House members? GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

No, that belongs in the body but it's not an actual position or office. — Reywas92^Talk 16:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Indian National Congress (Organisation)#Requested move 11 December 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Indian National Congress (Organisation)#Requested move 11 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Fixer (person)#Requested move 1 December 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fixer (person)#Requested move 1 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Scotland and Wales elections

Hi please can I have confirmation whether 2026 Scottish Parliament election and 2026 Senedd election belong on 2026 local electoral calendar or 2026 national electoral calendar? User:Moondragon21 (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Not the latter, as Scotland & Wales are not sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed in the locals page, that Canadian provincial/territorial & Australian state elections aren't included. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

List of U.S. state representatives

List of U.S. state representatives (Alabama to Missouri) and List of U.S. state representatives (Montana to Wyoming) are both completely blank on mobile since navboxes are not shown on mobile. I tried replacing the navboxes with transcluded sections like I did at List of U.S. state senators. However, the rep lists are too big for everything to display (see the bottom of my sandbox version where the later states won't display). Thoughts? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I think we need to complain more to WMF that they are deliberately hiding content that many editors have contributed to to improve navigation. Sure, wide navboxes might not look great narrowed to fit a small vertical display, but there needs to be a solution better than "let's delete them". — Reywas92^Talk 21:34, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp#Requested move 17 December 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp#Requested move 17 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 02:42, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Charles Mathias

Charles Mathias has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Request for Input at Sangh Parivar for a content dispute related to fascism

Interested editors may join at Talk:Sangh Parivar#Violation of WP:LABEL in the Lead. — EarthDude (Talk) 03:39, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Communist state#Requested move 23 December 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Communist state#Requested move 23 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:42, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Online Safety Amendment § Requested move 28 December 2025

An editor has requested that Online Safety Amendment be moved to Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Communist state#Requested move 23 December 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Communist state#Requested move 23 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 04:04, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Discussion regarding contents at Supervised injection sites

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Supervised_injection_site#Evaluations Graywalls (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Independent politicians in Australia § Requested move 31 December 2025

An editor has requested that Independent politicians in Australia be moved to Independent politician (Australia), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Move review

Hi there,

There is an ongoing move review because I am contesting a decision @Iveagh Gardens boldly made to move "Independent politicians in Ireland" to "Independent politician (Ireland)" after a requested move with no participation. You're welcome to participate in the discussion but please be civil and base your arguments on existing policies.

Thanks, Qwerty123M (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Independent politician (Ireland) § Requested move 31 December 2025

An editor has requested that Independent politician (Ireland) be moved to Independent politicians in Ireland, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Requesting help with a draft for Epistocracy

I recently started Draft:Epistocracy and am looking for some help/collaboration from others. I've got a decent lead and background for the article, as well as some critiques of epistocracy, but I'd like to especially fill out more of the theory, which is the most important part. Shredlordsupreme (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Featured article review for Oregon State Capitol

I have nominated Oregon State Capitol for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 18:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of Indian union ministries#Requested move 5 January 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Indian union ministries#Requested move 5 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — EarthDude (Talk) 12:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan

Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Proposed_United_States_acquisition_of_Greenland#Requested_move_14_January_2026

If you have an opinion, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Trumpism#Requested move 8 January 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Trumpism#Requested move 8 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Fall of the Assad regime#Requested move 16 January 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fall of the Assad regime#Requested move 16 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Gotitbro (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Oliver P. Morton

Oliver P. Morton has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Political quietism in Islam#Requested move 10 January 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Political quietism in Islam#Requested move 10 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Killing of Renee Good#Requested move 10 January 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Killing of Renee Good#Requested move 10 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 09:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Lockheed Martin shooting#Requested move 10 January 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lockheed Martin shooting#Requested move 10 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 09:31, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Gun show loophole

Gun show loophole has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Fundraising sections

In addition to predictions and polls, going forward, can we add a section on "Fundraising" to political campaign articles? Discuss. Bearian (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources on the matter, why not?

On a related matter, the German Wikipedia has a specific section for "finances" on each article about a party (see de:Wikipedia:Formatvorlage Partei). --Friniate ✉ 15:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Douglas MacArthur at FAR

I have nominated Douglas MacArthur for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2023 Guinea-Bissau coup attempt#Requested move 28 December 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Guinea-Bissau coup attempt#Requested move 28 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 10:13, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

FYI if you, like me, checked this RM to find it already closed, the closer has reverted for a few days to allow more participation, as they hadn't realized this and other WikiProjects had been alerted so recently prior to their close. --Pinchme123 (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Birth/death place discussion

There is a discussion at WT:MOSBIO § Tallinn, Soviet Union, regarding the birth and death place names of Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanians outside of infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Input on possible content fork

Hi all,

I am curious to know what other editors think of the page Political career of David Paterson. Much of the information is duplicated from David Paterson, and some of it isn't even about his political career (him being at home during 9/11, his arrest).

Would this be viewed as an unnecessary fork? I was thinking of nominating for deletion but wanted a second opinion as to whether I am perhaps overthinking it. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Aesurias. It certainly looks redundant, given that the main bio is almost entirely politics. I'd maybe start a thread on the bio talk page to discuss a merge - post a link to the thread on the 'political career' talk page too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Working on a draft, help is welcome

Draft:ICE recruitment during the second Trump administration Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@Alexandraaaacs1989: You might also want to examine the degree to which federal law enforcement officials in other agencies and capacities have been reassigned to ICE. I have heard at least anecdotal accounts through friends and colleagues of FBI and DEA agents Doing analytical work at desk jobs suddenly finding themselves assigned to work in the streets with a vest and a gun. BD2412 T 21:44, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, I'll look into this. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 14#Category:Members of the Alabama House of Representatives

There is a requested move discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 14#Category:Members of the Alabama House of Representatives that may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to weigh in on moving Category:Members of the Alabama House of Representatives to Category:Alabama state representatives so that it's consistent with Category:Alabama state senators. Woko Sapien (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Nikolai Podgorny

Nikolai Podgorny has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2026 (UTC)