Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Chris Collins

can this article be added to your project for expansion? Chris Collins (Erie County) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.255.212 (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama FAR

Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Gerald Ford FAR

Gerald Ford has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

categorization / activists etc.

There's a CFD for Category:Animal rights activists; the members of an animal rights project don't want the subcat for "activists"; a couple of us who have been categorizing and diffusing various people categories (Category:People by occupation" and Category:Activists) think it's important to be consistent. Thoughts from other people-categorizers welcome, since this could set precedent for other movement pages. The discussion has gotten really bogged down b/w Wikiproject:Animal rights movement folks (generally opposed) and categorizers (generally in favor). Perhaps some folks from other politics projects could raise new points, make helpful discussions & generally shed some light on this unhappily irresolved discussion. --lquilter 16:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Independent (voter)

American members of the project might want to go have a look at Independent (voter) - I have my suspicions that the article needs some attention from knowledgeable Wikipedians. Josh Parris 03:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Local non-election day elections

This week's work on the Chicago COTW has brought me to the subject of local elections that are regularly scheduled at a different time than the national Election Day. I grew up in New York where all significant elections occur on election day. However, I now live in Chicago where municipal elections are held in the spring. I believe New Orleans has a similar tradition of local elections at a time other than election day. I believe New Orleans often has Saturday local elections. My question is whether there is a list or article about out of season election scheduling. Please reply to my talk page if possible. TonyTheTiger 15:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

categorization by political belief

Hi - another biographical categorization issue. Please see CFD on American liberals and Categorization of people. --lquilter 16:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Participant

Please, let's place my flag in "Participants". Thanks.--Mahal11 18:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparative Politics

Hi! You might have noticed that Comparative politics (and Comparative Politics) redirect to Comparative government. That is not really correct, considering that the subfield of Political Science is generally known as "Comparative Politics", and that "Comparative Government" is only an application of Comparative Politics to the study of forms of government (see also Talk:Comparative government). So I'm writing an article on Comparative Politics (work in progress on my sandbox) and I would appreciate someone to review it and share some comments. Eventually I plan on copying the text on Comparative politics and making some small changes to Comparative government in order to harmonise the two articles. After that, I also plan on changing the Politics template, by substituting "Comparative government" with "Comparative politics".

I'd like to know what you think of that. Thanks for you comments! SFinamore 20:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please help

Cross post starts

On Talk:Politics of present-day nations and states I have asked a question about what articles should be linked into by these templates. This relates to a dispute on Template:Politics of Iran regaring Iran international crisis. Anyone who could help with their views would be most appreciated. AndrewRT(Talk) 16:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please respond on the above talk page and not here.

Cross post ends

List of missing topics

I have collected a list of missing topics related to politics. I have tried to check if there are any equivalent articles but Iäd appreciate if anyone of you could have a look at the list. Thank you. - Skysmith 12:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Naming standard for cabinets?

Right now, both the Fourth Balkenende cabinet and the Prodi II Cabinet articles are referenced on the main page, so I couldn't help but notice that there seems to be no standard for naming the articles for parliamentary cabinets. I have no particular opinion on the subject, but it would seem to me that hashing out a convention now, while there are still relatively few articles written in this area would be a good thing. I would say that based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers) at a minimum the standard agreed upon should include the country in parentheses at the end of the article name. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The article on Politics

Considering that this article should be the main focus of the project, it's been severely neglected. Until I added some references today, the entire thing was unsourced, mainly original research, and rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. At the moment, there are several sections on views of political power and the tripartite classification of authority that are already covered in the separate articles on those subjects; if no one disagrees, I will remove those sections (which are unsourced) and, where necessary, merge them into their relevant articles. And while we're on the subject, Left-right politics needs a major rewrite as well. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a list of Political Science entries from a Norwegian-English political science dictionary to one of my user pages. As expected, many of the corresponding English entries showed up as red links. Some of these red links are due to capitalization problems, US/UK differences, or may simply be my spelling mistakes. Anyhow it seems that this list reveals many articles missing, or redirects pages that should have been made. Could someone please correct this list by creating redirects where appropriate and fix spelling when entries deviate from standard terminology? Delete the entry if it is totally wrong. H@r@ld 10:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

New Comparative Politics article

Hello everyone! I would like someone to review the new article on Comparative Politics and share some comments with me. If you are interested, you might also want to see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Comparative Politics, Talk:Comparative government, Talk:Comparative Politics, and Talk:Comparative politics. Thank you! SFinamore 19:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

John Major FAR

John Major has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Move request - regionalism

I've requested that Regionalism (politics) be moved to Regionalism (international) to disambiguate it from regionalism within states, which badly needs an article. Kevlar67 02:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with your idea. "Regionalism (politics)" is too generic, "Regionalism (international)" would be much more precise. And then there would need to be a disambiguation page, I guess. SFinamore 18:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Royal Assent FAR

Royal Assent has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis rescheduling in the United States FAR

Cannabis rescheduling in the United States has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Court of the United States FAR

Supreme Court of the United States has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Realpolitik

Anybody care to take a look at Realpolitik? IMHO it could use a little general "improving". -- Writtenonsand 12:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

need help on anarchy

Every single editor except for me on anarchy is an anarchist. They are adding original research to the article and there's no way stop them because they all agree with each other from an anarchist POV. Please help me on this page by bringing in a third opinion, anyone!?--Urthogie 19:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Elections 2007

Is there any precedent/guidlines as to whether a party is notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia? Someone has created articles for Independent Green Voice, Nine Per Cent Growth Party and Socialist Equality Party (UK) none of which appear to have many members (indeed for IGV I've heard it's less than 5) and have never made any real impact in elections.GiollaUidir 09:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone care to look at Green politics?

The Green politics-related articles had a number of very dedicated editors years ago, but lately not much is happening there. I made some substantial changes to the Green politics article as well as to the other core topics in that area, Green movement and Green party. It's been almost two months and I've received no feedback, despite leaving messages on the talk pages of users I thought might be interested. If anyone wanted to take a look at those three articles and share some thoughts, I'd be very grateful. Fishal 12:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair FAR

Tony Blair has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mordechai Vanunu FAR

Mordechai Vanunu has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaker of the British House of Commons FAR

Speaker of the House of Commons has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Politics of" templates

Hi, can somebody please tell me if there is any criteria by which the "Politics of" templates are created? I am concerned that disparities between countries could lead to lack of neutral point of view. Thanks Andeggs 12:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Task force proposal

I have been thinking about how politics-related articles could provide clearer information on the relationship of the private to the public sector.

As I try to learn about the political process, I am stuck not only by what an instrumental role lobbies, campaign contributions, and other public investments of private-sector resources play in policy decisions worldwide, but by the immense difficulty of accessing factual, NPOV information about how these complex systems work. It seems to me that the Wikipedia has an opportunity to provide tremendous assistance here.

I'm still learning my way around the encyclopedia, so yesterday I somewhat rashly (just trying to get my thoughts down on paper, so to speak) created a task force page--I think it expresses the basic idea well enough. I feel foolish for having taken this step without coming here first, and I'm sorry for any presumption. (My thanks to the experienced editor who set me straight on the task force life cycle.)

My questions:

  • would anyone be interested in working on such a task force?
  • how can the basic concept of the task force be improved?
  • what should I do now?

Thanks,

Cyrusc 23:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea and will generate significant support. It's a service to the encyclopedia and I'm happy to participate.Benzocane 23:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I am also in support. The information on Wikipedia right now on where elected officials get their support is really sparse. There is plenty of room for improvement. --Mackabean 00:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your encouragement, Benzocane and Mackabean. I'd like to have at least two more people, but let's give it a try if no one objects. I'll see if I can drum up some more participants today. Here's the page. Cyrusc 18:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for help: Randy Weaver, Ruby Ridge

Hi. I have Randy Weaver and Ruby Ridge on my watchlist. The current Edward Lewis Brown standoff has sparked an influx of anon editors with a variety of views on Weaver et al and a tendency to see no need for sources. Worse still, those two articles had POV problems and poor sourcing to begin with: we rely way too much on a rather tabloid-ish article from Crime Library.

So I'm hoping that a few experienced editors could (1) take a look at these articles and try to educate the new editors, and (2) find some good sources to use (see Ruby Ridge#Suggested reading for a starting point) and make the articles a lot less sucky. Neither of these is a small job. (I don't have the time, the energy or access to a reference library.) Also, Alex Jones is supporting the Browns, and he has a lot of dedicated fans who edit here.

Any takers? Please? CWC 05:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal for National conservatism

I think that National conservatism needs to be merged, probably with Social conservatism. Currently, the broad assertions about national conservatism in each country seem to violate WP:NOR. I've added references and more information, but I think the concept is too hard to define to merit an entry of its own. WaltonOne 15:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Eco-socialism

The article on Eco-socialism has not been assessed yet. Is this the place to get people to assess it? If not, where can I go?Aled Dilwyn Fisher 08:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fix'd. --Jonte-- 21:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

US Presidential questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 14:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

United States Presidential transition

I just discovered, to my astonishment, that there is no article, not even a stub, that deals with the United States Presidential transition. This is a hugely significant subject that has taken on increasing importance in recent decades, yet somehow it seems to have "fallen between the cracks". I ran numerous searches on "Presidential transition" and "transition team" (and other variants), and turned up scores of fleeting references in WP articles, mostly in bios of political figures who had served on one or another "Presidential transition team", all of which could be linked to the article -- if it existed. I've already added it to the "requested articles" list, but given its importance I thought a short paragraph was in order.

PS - If my to-do list wasn't already overflowing, I would write it myself. I hope somebody else will take this on. Cgingold 02:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

List of political catch phrases for deletion

You might want to chime in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political catch phrases. Circeus 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC on a content dispute in History section of the India page

Hi, This probably isn't the right place to advertise this RfC, but since we haven't had too many responses, I am posting on more distant sites. The RfC itself is posted here. Since both statements, the original poster's and mine, in response, are long, you might want to skim through them first. Any help, by way of comments, will be appreciated. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

PS What does the RfC have to do with "Politics?" Well, it does have to do with "ideology," and which competing ideologies of India's freedom struggle should be deemed worthy of mention in a compressed Wikipedia history ...

Expert editors for a content dispute involving history/ideology

Hi, I need some help on what to do next in a content dispute on the Talk:India page, where a recent RfC was concluded between two disputants, user:Rueben lys and I (user:Fowler&fowler). The dispute was about whether certain topics (in the history of the Indian independence movement) were notable for inclusion in the highly compressed history section in the FA India. The history section there has been fairly stable for over a year now, and has exactly two sentences devoted to the Indian independence movement. There is some sympathy for expanding the history section, which perhaps would allow another two to four sentences for the Indian independence movement (i.e. a total of four to six sentences). The dispute is about what other topics merit inclusion in this slightly expanded sub-section. (The statements in the RfC were both long, so you might want to skim through them first.) Here is my statement in the RfC: Statement by Fowler&fowler]] and here is Rueben lys's Statement. The RfC resulted in seven comments (not including those by user:Rueben lys himself); of these, five (see: Comment by Doldrums, Comments by John Kenney, Comments by Abecedare, Comments by Sundar, Comments by Hornplease) were supportive of my position, and two (See: Comment by Sarvagnya, and Comments by Lara bran) that were supportive of user:Rueben lys's position. user:Rueben lys now says that while I have made the case that his topics (for inclusion in the history section) do not get coverage in reliable sources, I have yet to show that they are not regarded to be notable by my sources. I am at the point in this entire process, where I'm fast losing patience and where I feel that I have made an effort to be both clear and logical; in contrast I feel user:Rueben lys has been unfocused (see his long string of comments with eight sub-sections here) and difficult to pin down. I suggested to user:Rueben lys that we consider a second RfC on WikiProject History where, hopefully, some expert editors will be able to weigh in on the evidence. Although he agreed at first, he now says that he would prefer to have the RfC on WikiProject India. Since the first RfC had already been advertised on WikiProject India, I don't see how a second one will help.

Could someone please help me with some guidelines? Wikipedia has to have some expert editors in History. How can I find them? And how and where do I have an RfC in order that the experts can weigh in; otherwise, I see a Featured Article – India – becoming the object of highly idiosyncratic edits, well-meaning though they might be. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Third Way needs some love, and a downgrade

The Third Way article currently is sorely lacking in content and any sort of specific description of what the philosophy actually is. I voiced my concerns on its discussion page, but it is probably more likely to be fixed if I post a comment here as well. I'd also like to point out that its current grade of B seems to be incredibly generous. With such little actual content, I don't see how it could possibly deserve anything better than a Start grade in its current state. Uniqueuponhim 21:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

  • 28 September 2007 - expires 3 October
Colin Riordan (via WP:PROD)
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

I have made this userbox for the project, it was a difficult job to keep the color neutral.
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Userbox}} produces this:

Emblem of the PapacyThis user is a member of WikiProject Politics.

- The Immaculate 12:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

New wikiproject

I've started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Past Political Scandals and Controversies. Come over and help if you are interested. Remember 17:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 20:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment table

I just noticed that you don't transinclude or link to your assessment table anywhere on the project page, so here it is in case anyone was wondering. The table is updated by a bot every few days based on talk page assessments. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Dutch politics proposed

I have proposed the creation of a new WikiProject related to WikiProject Politics: the WikiProject Dutch politics. If you are interested in joining such a WikiProject, you can express your interest at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Dutch Politics. AecisBrievenbus 20:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:AR1

Hello WP:Politics. If you like to create articles, might I suggest a trip over to our list of politics/law articles requested for more than a year? There's a rather lengthy backlog to be cleared in this subject area. Best, sh¤y 21:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hehe you bet me to it. I was just about to make the same suggestion (as I have done so to the wikiproject music and wikiprojecr business/economics about those topics. Maybe they can be placed on a to-do list somewhere on this wikiproject?.Cheers. Calaka (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

United Nations Parliamentary Assembly FAC

Hello, if anyone is interested in the proposed global assembly of legislators (along the lines of Europarl), you may want to check out United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, which, by the way, is up for Featured Article Candidacy. Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


Imperium needs better cites

Imperium "incorporates text from the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913." However, it has no in-line cites and apparently no other sources, although edits have been made to this article by various authors over several years. I have no expertise in this area myself. Can anyone add good cites to this article? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Neosocialism

Neosocialism at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neosocialism (19 December 2007)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Differences between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy

Differences between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy (19 December 2007)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Female heads of government

Might be that I just can't find the right title, but is there a list of all elected Female heads of government (current or historical)?- J Logan t: 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Mitt Romney RfC

There is currently a discussion regarding how much weight to give the subject's religious affiliation at Talk:Mitt Romney#Material regarding subject's religious affiliation. Any input is welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project

Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.

If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Need help with neopatrimonialism

I random-articled neopatrimonialism and tried to give it some help. Not being in the field, however, I only know what I can google. I'd appreciate it if someone could go over it and make sure I haven't said anything too out of line. Mangoe (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Square Deal

Can someone take a look at Square Deal? There seems to have been significant vandalism and deletion this month, I think the last good copy is from Jan.10, but I'm not sure. 70.55.85.35 (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Reginald Maudling

Reginald Maudling has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. One Night In Hackney303 05:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about COI

If I want to create an article on a topic that no-one has written about, but I feel I might be subject to a COI, is there anywhere I could submit a "draft page" and allow people to comment/correct/neutralise before the page go public? The article topic is related to politics - not sure if it's appropriate to post this question here or somewhere else...

--Ola pson (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

All coments are welcome! Fram (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The article, List of autonomous areas by country, is currently up for nomination as a Featured List at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of autonomous areas by country. If you have the time, please vote on the article so that it can be improved if necessarily or promoted if it deserves it. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD started on article Citizens for Social Reform

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizens for Social Reform. Cirt (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Social progressivism

Social progressivism has no references. It is a political stub. I Googled the topic but have not really found anything. Can anybody familiar with the topic help. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reduction in scope of {{Template:Forms of government}}

I thought I would let everyone know that I have initiated a debate to reduce the cumbersome size of {{Template:Forms of government}} here. Thanks, --Lmbstl (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Statewide officeholder templates

I have created Template:NYStatewideOfficials and Template:NYStatewideOfficials. I think all of the 50 United States should have similar templates. This is just an FYI and hope that others will follow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The horizontal line throws off the alignment of names to office. Could that be removed or fixed? --Geniac (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Front Page Paraguay Election Related Articles

One of the featured news items on the front page is about the historic change of power in Paraguay. Unfortunately, the bio of the president-elect, which is what the news item links to, is rather spartan. Even worse, his political party is a red link. Actually, there are quite a number of red links peppered through out the link trail that will lead the casual user to dead-ends, as it did for me. Sadly, I do not know enough about Paraguay to remedy this and I do not speak any of the SA languages that would allow me to contact one of the appropriate sister wikis. Is there anyone here who could help make this feature news link better? --Dragon695 (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your talk page banner

I was curious why a banner for your project has a ms-paint looking microphone on it. Am I missing something? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 05:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Wubzy apparently put it in recently, thanks for catching that. Though the 'regular' one isn't exactly all that better (a world map). How about a montage of political symbols (hammer-sickle, swastika, etc.)? +Hexagon1 (t) 03:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Trouble is that they will be interpreted as being specific to individual countries. Whilst working on some Italy articles I've been throwing some articles in the direction of you guys and have seen the problems you've been having with a logo. Might I suggest cartoons of either a soapbox, a vote going into a ballot box, or a montage of different-coloured rosettes? Not quite like inline but you get the idea. Alternatively a more generic version of this kind of image: inline (you'd obviously have to split the "reds" and "blues" 50:50 to avoid complaints but the image is familiar to most people in multi-party democracies). And whilst I'm here, the Italian parties are in a bit of a mess (reflecting reality ;-/ ) with several red links on the faction box etc, if anyone wants to have a play. FlagSteward (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
A .svg vote-going-into-ballot would probably look the best if simplified just enough so it is partway between ideograph and illustration. I think that would be a perfect image. (If that makes sense) +Hexagon1 (t) 15:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Government officials and politicians are usually well-known for making speeches. This makes microphones significant icons for that subject.
I did as much as I could to make an image as sophisticated as possible. And this is as far as I can go. The stars I've added I pressume would represent prestiege. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wubzy (talk • contribs) 03:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Without meaning offence the picture was awful, it looked as though it were made in MS Paint. A high-profile project like this needs a good looking and distinctive icon. If you'd like to make one, I strongly suggest you familiarise yourself with software like Adobe Photoshop or at the very least Paint.NET. A good rule-of-thumb: if you don't know what layers or alpha transparency is, you aren't ready to make good-looking icons. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I've found an "easy" answer - the image used to denote the politics taskforce of the Biography Project. How about inline ?? Even if it's not perfect, it's better than the current alternatives. FlagSteward (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks good! I was hoping for a hand-holding-vote-over-box in the same style as you get those garbage bin symbols - simple black stylised lines, but this works too. Stick it in! +Hexagon1 (t) 07:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Right, tis' done - appropriate to make that change today. I'm still not entirely happy with it, I'm not quite sure why - the shininess, the background? - but it's a lot better than anything there to date. So a work in progress. I've also tweaked the text into something that is closer to real English. FlagSteward (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I do some work at the graphics lab and would be happy to try and conjure up something for you. I'll take a shot at some of the suggestions; if I don't reply by Sunday just nudge me on my talkpage! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a real quick shot at an idea:. If you have any ideas shoot them at me; but I can't do hands, sorry. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Tried this real quick as well: . Am I getting anywhere? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit:That looks more like a rainbow, is there a way I could caption osmething like that? I went for a split of 40-40-20. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't slice them vertically, it should be "wedges" like a pie-chart. Maybe if you introduce a "green" slice to the left of the "yellows" it will look less like a tricolour? But looking at it I'm not sure if the "rainbow" does work at icon scale. Certainly the ballot box would seem to be in the David Cameron position at the moment, although to be honest I still prefer the original one to yours. Having the fades does make it look better than your solid colours. I'm still not sure why I'm not quite happy with the original, maybe the colours are a bit too warm or something. Certainly in the UK most ballot boxes are black. Which is a difficult colour for these purposes, as you need a black slot, so perhaps a dark grey box? And also in the UK, the cross rather than the tick is the universal sign for voting - I like the way the original simplifies things so that you don't even have a box round the cross. You're welcome to have a go at doing a hanging chad though.... :-)))) FlagSteward (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Tried to make the box darker and gave it an x-mark. Hanging chads are different but I'm trying something... §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
How about removing the background? Leaving just the ballot box and the ballot, in those dark colours? +Hexagon1 (t) 00:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Knew I forgot something. Better? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's good! +Hexagon1 (t) 05:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Have to say that I still prefer the current one - this just looks like a black and white image of a coloured box, rather than a coloured image of a black (ish) box. The lighting isn't quite right for it to look like a black box, and I'm not quite sure how to suggest an improvement - man this stuff is difficult. ;-/ Maybe if the reflection of the light was more of a point source, and the surface of the box was a bit shinier to look like metal (without looking like chrome!). And perhaps a subtle tinted background would make it look less monochrome - but with a fade that stops about 80% of the way down the image, to stop it clashing with the classification boxes that will be right underneath it? Sorry to be so fussy. ;-/ FlagSteward (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Metallic, something else to try and figure out. Working with an SVG in InkScape doesn't give all of the options of bitmap editting. Above it's where's I'm at. The background can change if you don't like the reddish color or go down further. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I preferred the last revision without the reddish tinge, how about giving the entire image a mid-high transparency so it lets the template box's colours through? Thanks for listening to our whining though, I've given you a barnstar! +Hexagon1 (t) 10:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that closer? Top left corner of the box is acting funky but I'm working on it. I gave up on the hanging chad after I broke my mouse and had to buy a new one..atleast this one is wireless. =D. Transparency is set to 66% so mid-highish. When yu said the old revision did you mean the old colors too..this one is darker. If so lemme know. Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking much higher, something like 10% opacity or even less, could we give that a shot? (I meant the new monochrome version) +Hexagon1 (t) 07:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I really didn't feel comfortable going below 15%, after that you can barely tell what it's supposed to be. I also think it might look better if I lessen the transp on the ballot itself to have it stand out a bit. What do you think? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yea, that doesn't really work. Even though you may not be able to tell what it is when on its own I'm looking at it as it appears in the template, and I thought a strong transparency may work. I'm not sure anymore. +Hexagon1 (t) 08:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the image with this one, I think it at least far better Wuzby's one, anyway... :) +Hexagon1 (t) 09:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, anyone got any ideas or is this okay for now? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it works, thanks for your help! +Hexagon1 (t) 02:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem, if you guys ever want anything different feel free to leave a note on my talkpage! Cheers, §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for opinions on whether the Technocracy , Technocracy movement and Technocracy Incorporated articles fall within the bounds of this project and as could use assessment scales to help with improving the articles?

Also anyone who wouldn't mind lending an opinion on how to improve the articles, and help build some consensus as the articles in my opinion are currently from a lack of it.(Firebladed (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

I would have thought you're better off under WikiProject Sociology or WikiProject Economics to be honest.FlagSteward (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, On looking at it I think you are possibly right about being under sociology for the Technocracy movement and Technocracy Incorporated articles, and ill go have a closer look over there, though I do think they political in general terms, and some of the arguments certainly look "political" ;), but I would have thought that Technocracy disambiguation page would fall under this project as it has a direct link to it from the politics portal.
The response I got when I asked at economics project wasn't exactly friendly, though that wasn't entirely unexpected
anyway thanks for the help
(Firebladed (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
I wouldn't get too discouraged by what one person says, who seems to have a bit of an agenda - I think the other guy nailed it exactly with his description of it as "heterodox economics". At least at a fundamental level, although everything important becomes political eventually, from stopping famine in Africa to cleaning the streets at home. In the economic sphere, I guess you could say monetarism is an example of an economics concept that "crossed over" into mainstream politics. Doesn't mean it stopped being an economics thing though.
But I wouldn't get too hung up on the WikiProject thing. For one thing, most Projects are still at the stage where they're scrabbling to get their "core" articles into shape, so just don't really have time to spare on articles that many editors might perceive as peripheral. And to be honest, articles like the technocracy ones that already have an "advocate" like you don't really "need" a Project, Projects are more about creating a structure to pick up on "neglected" articles that would otherwise fall through the cracks - I'm one of the "sweepers", look at my recent edits to get some idea of what that can entail, everything from political splinter groups to long-dead cyclists and pasta shapes! Projects are also useful for gathering together people who may be useful in the "final" stages of an article, the final polishing before GA/FA. But to be honest, round here I'd guess people are just slogging away getting the core articles up to a B standard, I'm slightly surprised how quiet this Project is to be honest. FlagSteward (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I've just realised why you thought there was a politics angle, it's more obvious now that I've corrected the link in the "Systems of government" section of the portal to link directly to technocracy (bureaucratic), which is what is commonly understood by the word, a form of government run by technocrats. I guess this is sort of an example of a genericized trademark such as velcro or linoleum, most people think of the general concept, whilst not knowing about Technocracy Inc's particular version of it, which in many ways goes way beyond what most people would think of as technocracy. So you need to think separately about "technocracy" and "Technocracy", if that helps. As for some of the controversy, I've stuck my oar in over on the talk page of the main article - when things get heated, the only way forward is to go back to basics - relentlessly cite everything from reliable, third-party sources. FlagSteward (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Drug Policy

Not sure whether this should properly go under WikiProject Law or under this WikiProject. But anyway, WikiProject Drug Policy has been launched. It aims to organize and improve drug policy-related articles. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Congressional Primary results

What is the best place to find New York State Congressional District primary results for Jack Kemp (1970-1986 elections)? Is there an online source? P.S. Respond at my talk page because I don't check here very often.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article Question

I am interested in having my article, Constitution of the Roman Republic, nominated for Featured Article status. I am wondering if some of the people on this project can look at the article, and tell me if it might be close to Featured Article level. Before I have it nominated, I want to figure out if I need to make any more changes.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

How much info on embarassing associates should be in a presidential candidate's biography?

This is a request for editors who know something about politics to look at an important discussion now going on at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details. The debate concerns issues relevant to a number of very prominent Wikipedia articles touching on politics.

Some editors here think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Examples:

Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article, but, again, this will likely affect many other articles. Noroton (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

On some other pages where I've posted this, people have been responding only beneath the post, which is fine, but won't help get a consensus where it counts. So please excuse me for raising my voice, just to make sure I get the point across: Please respond at the Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details where your comments will actually affect the consensus!!! Sorry for the shoutin'. I promise not to do it again. Noroton (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Politics of Italian regions

Dear friends, I'm here to ask if someone wants to help me in writing articles about Politics of Italian regions. As of today I edited Politics of Veneto and many related articles and I started to edit articles on some other regions of Italy: Politics of Calabria, Politics of Sicily and so on. Thanks to everyone for his/her attention and help. --Checco (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC on Harvey Milk

A request for comment has been posted at Talk:Harvey Milk#REQUEST FOR COMMENT: Milk's involvement with Jim Jones/Peoples Temple. Other editor's input would be appreciated. Banjeboi 04:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

Where do I list new articles that I've tagged with your project? Here are two of them: David Stuart (diplomat) & Dennis Richardson (diplomat). The latter will be significantly expanded over the next few days (for DYK) and if anyone familiar with Australian politics wants to help, lemme know. Cheers. APK yada yada 09:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Multi merger consensus required

Could members of the project way in on this issue of merging the article on liberal terminology together. [1]. Cheers. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 06:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am not with the project, but I have been adding Bandiera Rossa to the Wikipedia, which partly falls into this project's scope. It is still stubby and so I wanted to tag it accordingly and strangely enough there are stubs for {{anarchism-stub}} or {{Liberal-stub}} but none for topics related to socialism, so I wondered, if you, who have more knowledge than me on stubs and their creation and such stuff, might tell me, if and how we could get one. --SoWhy Talk 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You'd want to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting, and give them if possible a list of articles which you think would benefit from having such a stub template. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/Archive_2&oldid=1137368495"