Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 30
 | 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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
Request for help updating an article about a politician's 2018 campaign
ResolvedOn behalf of David Trone, I've submitted a request to update his article with information about his 2018 campaign for the Democratic nomination for Maryland's 6th district. Editors here might be familiar with Trone as he set a record in 2016 for the most expensive self-funded House campaign. The details currently included in his biographical article about his 2018 campaign are minimal, and I'm seeking to add mention of his filing date, policy priorities, and notable endorsements. I'm looking for editors who have experience in editing details about campaigns to review what I've proposed and offer feedback. I invite WikiProject Politics members to review the proposed text here and update the article appropriately. Thank you. Inkian Jason (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- The edit request has been answered. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
RfC at Richard B. Spencer
There is an RfC at the Richard B. Spencer talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Please join the discussion on what sources would be adequate for what claims on this time-sensitive article. We have the problem that countless sources point in the same direction, but the usual sources for such aggregate information fail to provide it. --Nemo 07:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Political group redirect
Some additional opinions are needed at Talk:Lion_Guard#Possible_merge?. The article has not really been worked on that much except by two editors with very few comments from outside parties. There have been some WP:OWN issues raised on the talk page, thus more opinions are needed, especially from third party editors unconnected with the edits thus far. -O.R.Comms 17:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Images
Not sure if this issue has come up before on this project for consensus, but most BLP articles for politicians and other government officials have a portrait in the infobox. Many of these are standard size, (example, see left);
While some articles may have a "cropped" version of the image, (example, see right);
.jpg)
One editor at least has a preference for the cropped version and has edited several BLPs infobox portraits from standard to cropped. I don't see the benefit to zooming in on the person's face, while excluding any accoutrements from the background, such as flags, officials seals and other trappings or symbols of office, but that's just me. I'm just curious to see if this has come up before and/or what others have to say. Thanks - wolf 00:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- DNI's full portrait is shown later in the article and if others truly want to see a full portrait, they can visit the official's article. Plus, it's not what's in the background of the picture... it's who is in the picture. A close-up provides a better view for our readers. Corky 00:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- A "better view" of what? Wrinkles? Errant nose hairs? Zits trying to hide under layers of spackled-on make-up? Do you really think "our readers" are having that much difficulty seeing these people's faces? Or that they're incapable of clicking on the image to select a larger size? There is a reason officials have items such as flags and seals in the background (protocol), but conversely there is no reason to cut them out. These cropped images diminish the dignity of the BLP subject. (imho) - wolf 02:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Your examples are too big (in the case of the uncropped) and WAY too big (in the case of the cropped). Generally portrait-oriented images should be sized down a bit, as I've done here. As to cropped vs. uncropped, that's up to editors of the page, but for a lead image I'd take the uncropped. EEng 03:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- This isn't about px size (I thought that was clear... guess not) This is about cropped vs non-cropped. The sizes of the images here are irrelevant, they're just examples. - theWOLFchild 03:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Candidates order for upcoming election in Pakistan
The project members opinion is requested at Talk:NA-1 (Chitral)#Candidate order regarding how to order the candidates for 2018 election based on previous party performance or previous individual candidate performance in case of changing party affiliation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Trump administration family separation policy
There is a discussion at the Trump administration family separation policy talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Choice of infobox on articles about constituencies
Please see this discussion and follow-up RfC concerning the relative merits of {{infobox constituency}} and {{infobox settlement}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Winston Churchill - reference probems
There are a number of unresolved reference problems on Winston Churchill. Please see the thread at Talk:Winston Churchill#Sources. Your attention would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- While reference cleanup isn't the standard domain of the WP:GOCE, they may be more likely to respond than people here. From a quick glance, most of the reference information is in the article (if you read the notelist in order), it's simply not formatted correctly. (the Charmley 1995 v. 1996 probably requires accessing the source to ensure that it's simply a difference of edition). power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- It's not just formatting, it's works not being listed, or no indication of which of numerous works by an author are intended. DuncanHill (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- This is better suited to the talk page. The Soames refs, for example, it's clear to me that 587 and 588 are the same work, and 589-599 are a separate work by the same author. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- I did point people to the talk page. We shouldn't be guessing what works refs refer to. They need to be checked and fixed. DuncanHill (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- This is better suited to the talk page. The Soames refs, for example, it's clear to me that 587 and 588 are the same work, and 589-599 are a separate work by the same author. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- It's not just formatting, it's works not being listed, or no indication of which of numerous works by an author are intended. DuncanHill (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Template:Protests against Trump footer has been nominated for deletion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
RfC at Stateless nation
There is an RfC at Talk:Stateless nation#RfC on sources required for inclusion on sourcing requirements for the article. Doug Weller talk 19:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Bipartisanship info in political bios
A few editors, most prominently Sarah Dinner (talk · contribs) have been adding information about the Bipartisan Index to various political bios diff1 diff2. Is this reasonable information to include in these articles, or is it unduly promoting The Lugar Center and Georgetown's McCourt School of Public Policy? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki and Sarah Dinner: I don't think it is promotional towards the sources. I'm familiar with the Lugar Center and I think it is reliable, and the McCourt School sounds reliable. I personally think those two edits were great, as long as you don't over-rely on those sources. If you are concerned about undue weight, I would include content discussing what the subject and their supporters think about their voting records and political beliefs, as well as what their detractors think about their politics. I might also include bills they sponsored that became enacted, etc. This is all just me: I don't know what other people in the project think about this. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 22:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- I would recommend changing:
In the first session of the 115th United States Congress, Mast was ranked the 32nd most bipartisan member of the House by the Bipartisan Index, a metric published by The Lugar Center and Georgetown's McCourt School of Public Policy to assess congressional bipartisanship.
- to
In the first session of the 115th United States Congress, Mast was ranked the 32nd most bipartisan member of the House by the Bipartisan Index, a metric designed to assess congressional bipartisanship.
- and then add the "publisher" parameter to the ref e.g.
| publisher = [[Richard Lugar#The Lugar Center|The Lugar Center]] and [[Georgetown University|Georgetown's]] [[McCourt School of Public Policy]]
. In the edit summary I would say "Tweaking quote and ref to avoid unduly promoting The Lugar Center and Georgetown's McCourt School of Public Policy." That way the publisher of the the metric (The Lugar Center and Georgetown's McCourt School of Public Policy) is contained in the ref and not in the quote. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- I would recommend changing:
Presenting some interesting findings
Hello guys. As you probably known, Romania was an Axis country during WW2. However, unlike Germany and Italy, it is not afraid to publicly honor people frowned upon, like overt antisemites and Fascists and even convicted war criminals. I spent hours today on Google Maps, ticking in the search bar the name of every single entry given by the Wiki categories "Romanian people convicted of war crimes" and "Romanian fascists", with the latter's two viable subcategories. Took me hours. Hey hey, I know this isn't related to improving an article, you don't have to shove a WP:Something in my face, okay? I just wanted to share my findings. I do believe this is something unique that wasn't done before, and I worked hard on this list. Just take a look and tell me what you think if you feel like replying. Otherwise please excuse me for the bother. (User:Torpilorul/sandbox). Torpilorul (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Discussion participation requested
Project members participation is requested here, I need neutral editors who are not coming from Pakistan to maintain NPOV as if we left this content to the mercy of editors only coming from Pakistan then this content will either be completely censored or coatracked. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Members of this group may like to examine these recent edits to this article, to determine if they are appropriate for the article's subject matter, and do not violate any of Wikipedia's editing policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Wiki Education hiring an experienced Wikipedian
Wiki Education is hiring an experienced Wikipedian for a part-time (20 hours/week) position. The focus of this position is to help new editors (students and other academics) learn to edit Wikipedia. The main focus of the position is monitoring and tracking contributions by Wiki Education program participants, answering questions, and providing feedback. We're looking for a friendly, helpful editor who like to focus on article content, but also with a deep knowledge of policies and guidelines and the ability to explain them in simple, concise ways to new editors. They will be the third member of a team of expert Wikipedians, joining Ian (Wiki Ed) and Shalor (Wiki Ed). This is a part-time, U.S. based, remote or San Francisco based position.
See our Careers page for more information. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Some of these articles in the sidebar don't relate directly to the person's article, should some of the template there be deleted? Hddty. (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Category:Advocates of the Fourteen Words
I have NO idea of the proper place to ask this, nor even a really coherent question. BUT:
Is Category:Advocates of the Fourteen Words appropriate? --Calton | Talk 00:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'd recommend WP:CFD. I avoid that area like the plague, but it seems fairly easy to construct an argument to delete it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is that WP:CFD is set up so you have to know going in what you want, be it deletion, merger, or renaming. I don't see a path for discussing a specific category in general terms -- and, again, all I have is a vague, hard-to-articulate feeling that this category is off, somehow, especially applied to BLPs. --Calton | Talk 01:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, we should delete it as it's either a BLP violation, or glorifying white nationalism. The people listed should probably all be categorized as "white nationalists" anyhow, it's hard to say this is a "defining" characteristic (and not being a defining characteristic is a reason for deletion at TFD, I believe). power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is that WP:CFD is set up so you have to know going in what you want, be it deletion, merger, or renaming. I don't see a path for discussing a specific category in general terms -- and, again, all I have is a vague, hard-to-articulate feeling that this category is off, somehow, especially applied to BLPs. --Calton | Talk 01:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: I have listed this category for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 9. Also, someone more into this sort of thing than me might want to look into the edits of new SPA account Perspex03 (talk · contribs), creator of the category and whose 213-edit contribution history is centered on Fourteen Words. --Calton | Talk 22:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Came across this user via edits Volunteer Marek just undid at Mike Cernovich. Seems to be recently prolific in adding Fourteen Words-related content to many pages and delving into other extreme positions. Haven't dived deep into the content, but first reaction is that it's concerning at minimum. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
 Hello, |