Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Politics and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49: 30 days

Welcome to the talk space of WikiProject Politics. In this area you can find discussions, notices, requests of many articles that in some way deals with the practice of politics. If you would like to discuss, place a notice about, or if you have a request about, an article within the scope of this project, please do include it here. If you have an interest in politics and would like to contribute, please add your name to the list of participants on the project page.

WikiProject Politics

Main page	+ Talk
Portal	Talk
Help	Talk
To-do list	Talk
Recognized content	Talk

Departments
Assessment	Talk
→ Requests	Talk
Collaboration	Talk
Peer review	Talk

Project organization
Article alerts	Talk
Participants	Talk
Deletion sorting
Stubs	Talk
New articles	Talk
Project banner	Talk
Project category	Talk
Unreferenced BLPs	Talk

Task forces
American politics	Talk
Gun politics	Talk
Philippine politics	Talk
Political parties	Talk

Related projects
Australian politics	Talk
Capitalism	Talk
Chinese politics	Talk
Conservatism	Talk
European Union	Talk
Libertarianism	Talk
Law	Talk
Socialism	Talk
Voting Systems	Talk
Elections and Referendums$	Talk
Indian politics	Talk
New Zealand politics
Pakistani politics
UK politics	Talk
UK Parliament constituencies
US Congress
U.S. Supreme Court Cases
U.S. Government
U.S. presidential elections

view · edit · changes

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 — $Q$ uantling (talk | contribs) 13:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose.- per Keriluamox, he explained and summarized everything well. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Just did the name change, check it out!

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (d c̄) 20:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]