Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 24
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
"Nasty woman"
The article for "Nasty woman" has been nominated for deletion. Project members are invited to participate in the AfD discussion here, if interested: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nasty woman. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
List of Active Separatist Movements
Hi, I am making a request for comment on clarifying criteria for inclusion and sources for separatist movements. The discussion is on Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe#Russia and Talk:List of active separatist movements in Asia. There is also discussion at Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe#Bunch of WP:OR and Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe#Structure of entries and possibly elsewhere.
I have some understanding of sociology but I do not have enough knowledge about the region, or enough time to really improve the sources, and I can't speak Russian which is where some of the source material might be. The discussion about sources and definitions affects all the lists. I also feel that the criteria for sources/inclusion needs to be clarified across all the lists rather than just Russia. I am unclear about what should be given WP:DUE Halon8 (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Portland Women March Against Hate
ResolvedProject members are invited to participate in the AfD discussion re: Portland Women March Against Hate. I've expressed an interest in moving the article to March Against Hate, and expanding its scope to cover more than just Portland. I welcome editors to either contribute to the ongoing discussion or help expand this article's section for other cities. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Extra eyes are requested. Lots of heated editing going on here. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Grand coalition (Germany)(d:Q5595255) and de:Schwarz-rote Koalition(Black-red coalition, d:Q28794318)
Should we interwiki them? Black-red coalition includes hypothetical improbable coalition between CDU/CSU and The Left. Futhermore de:Schwarz-rote Koalition article includes Austrian political coalition. --Ticgame (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
People's Climate Mobilization
Project members are invited to help expand the People's Climate Mobilization article, or participate in the ongoing AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People's Climate Mobilization. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- See draft at Draft:People's Climate March (2017). ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Upcoming "420 collaboration"
 You are invited to participate in the upcoming which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017!The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion. WikiProject Politics participants may be particularly interested in the following categories: For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page. |
|---|
---Another Believer (Talk) 20:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
RfC on the WP:ANDOR guideline
Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Firehouse primaries / firehouse caucuses
In Virginia, we have this thing called a "firehouse primary" or "firehouse caucus" where a party will say, "Okay, we're setting aside these three firehouses for you to vote at from 3-7PM on Saturday" (rather than setting aside these twelve precincts for you to vote at from 6AM-7PM on Tuesday, like you would in a normal primary). Sometimes it's called a firehouse primary, and sometimes it's called a firehouse caucus. Either way, they're going to check your record before letting you in to vote, and turn you away if you have a history of voting in the other party's nomination processes. In a regular primary, you'd be able to get in to vote without going through a screening process, although you might have to sign a pledge to refrain from voting in the other party's primary.
It's not like a mass meeting (aka assembled caucus), because you don't sit down on bleachers in a high school auditorium with fellow party members and discuss and vote on motions, before finally casting your ballot for a candidate; you just show up during the hours when the polls are open, cast your vote, and leave.
Do we want to call this a primary or a caucus? St. claires fire (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Congressional Institute
Hello! I'm looking for editors who might be interested in helping me update the Congressional Institute article. As part of my work at Beutler Ink, I have drafted an updated and expanded article on behalf of the Institute. That draft is here, but there is more explanation about it in my Talk page note here. Due to my COI I won't edit the article directly, so I'm looking for neutral editors to review this draft. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
RfC on the political position of En Marche!
Your input would be appreciated here. Mélencron (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
RfC in Liberalism in Iran
Hello, I opened a RfC here about liberalism in Iran. Comments are appreciated. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Alt-right sidebar
Just noticed Template:Alt-right sidebar being added to several articles. Many of the articles it includes look to me to have little-to-no connection to the alt-right beyond being part of conservative ideology more broadly, and it includes several topics that are entirely unrelated, apparent original research, etc. My question for this group is whether you think it's an appropriate navigational template in general (i.e. whether it should be radically pruned, deleted, or incorporated into, say, Template:Conservatism US). My inclination is that it's not quite a big enough topic in terms of number of articles, but I also don't have a great deal of experience with this sort of navigational template. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Citation overkill proposal at WP:Citation overkill talk page
Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Citations. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
This template reads very poorly. Presumably it is meant for article talk pages like this one where fascist status is in question because of a lack of clear sources, but it is worded as though it only applies to entities that "came to power" (the template's words), even though bona fide fascists that have actually come to power are generally described as fascist in an abundance of sources. So the template is unlikely to appear on the talk pages of articles on, say, Mussolini and Franco, but the query itself is useless for everyone else as a bunch of the criteria can't actually be applied to fringe political groups and figures that never actually seized power. Does this seem pointless to anyone else, or is it just me? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Le Pen political family
FYI, Le Pen family has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Please comment at Template talk:Infobox official post
Hello all. If you find the time, please consider commenting here as to whether there should be an |acting = yes parameter for acting officials. Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 20:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
An AfD is taking place here. Comments are appreciated. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Archive 24/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Politics.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
- The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
- The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
- The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Politics, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Automated assessment of article importance
Hello everyone! I'm currently working on a project studying how to do automatic classification of article importance. As part of that project, I've done some analysis of articles within the scope of WikiProject Politics and built a model to predict article importance. Started a thread over on the assessment page with more information and a link to our predictions (as well as a few other types of articles that might need an updated importance rating). Since I hadn't seen any comments over the past week, I thought I'd get in touch in here as well, would appreciate your thoughts and comments! Regards, Nettrom (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)