Talk:List of political parties in Abkhazia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Untitled[edit]

Just for the record, Amtsakhara has always been at that title, so I changed the link here. Furthermore, it's the title that always seems to be used in English - until I read it here, I didn't even know that its English name was Signal Lights. Ambi 00:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of political parties in Abkhazia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 March 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus against moving away from the common "list of" title. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


– Removing the first two words is more concise, without losing any clarity. The very few exceptions where there exists a separate page already at target format (Political parties in Ukraine, Political parties in the United States, Political parties in Eswatini) are not affected. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, this is too broad. There is a significant loss of clarity when shifting from a List article to a non-list article. Maybe some articles are different, but in a quick spotcheck above the three I clicked were all actual lists. CMD (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some articles are definitely different (such as Russia) and those should be moved. Charles Essie (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've responded to this to a similar comment below, but as yours was the first, I thought to add here: I'm not advocating for a change in the content to any of these articles, merely to the title. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I am unsure about the argument that there will be no loss in clarity. An overwhelming majority of these articles appear to be, indeed, lists. What such merger will cause is that some articles will not be lists but rather more detailled descriptions of the party system in given country (so Political parties in Ukraine and Political parties in the United States), whereas others will be just... lists. This is not clarity at all. Brat Forelli🦊 17:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To ask what might seem like a silly question, what is the specific benefit of including List of in the title itself? I appreciate the general guidance at WP:LISTNAME, but I don't understand it as saying that it's required as a naming convention. Take List of political parties in Costa Rica (to pick one at random): if titled Political parties in Costa Rica, and the reader finds a list, I can't see a confusion on their part. Political parties is itself a generalised plural; it would be different if it were Party system of X. Others above are more descriptive and discursive, although including a list, while some that are lists have the potential to be developed with a more discursive section. Even for those destined to remain a simple list, I don't see that a shorter article title is less clear for the reader. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"List" in the title makes it clear that the article is just that: a list, and not an encyclopedic description of the subject.

For instance, if I saw an article titled "List of political parties in Serbia", I would know that it's simply going to be a long table where each row is a link to a specific Serbian party, possibly with a few brief bits of data about each one. However, if the article was titled "Political parties in Serbia", I would expect it to give a thorough textual description of Serbia's party system, its history, its current state, important individuals, key organizations, etc.

Since the articles in this RM seem to be just tables of links to parties by country, it's correct and helpful to title them as "lists". ╠╣uw [talk] 18:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: "List" for many nations might be as far as this goes for a great many nations, and is a good stoping place that covers the full topic since some smaller (fringe) parties may never even evolve to have a full article and thus since wikipedia censors if its there's redlinks in full articles it means further bias would creep into Wikipedia. CaribDigita (talk) CaribDigita (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, a shift to non-list based articles is adventurist and broad, there's nothing wrong with how these articles are organized now. The perceived "benefit" of clarity that's being brought up is trite and unclear; growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. Castroonthemoon (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of clarity, I'm not arguing that the content of any or all of the articles here should expand. Some might, and if a meaningful expansion, that's great. I'm merely arguing that those which remain simply as lists (which could be most if not all) are not less clear to the reader by being titled simply as Political parties in Ruritania. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Per all above. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per reasons listed above. CanonNi (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, WP:CONCISE doesn't matter here, if it is a list it should prefix with list. If this wouldn't be lists, that would be a valid argument though. Killarnee (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Some articles, like the List of political parties in Indonesia, already rather more detailled descriptions, than a list, and other will non-list later. What for co-existing Pol. par in... and List of pol. par. in...? DayakSibiriak (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so a list can't be detailed? Castroonthemoon (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can. And will more exect under titles Political parties in... If remain list titles, users wull create dupl pages Political parties in... only for description. Better to settle a matter now. DayakSibiriak (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Proposed rename would result in more meaningful, more encyclopedic articles that go beyond a mere list. Marokwitz (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I can envision it being possible that at some point (maybe even now) one of these pages gets so large with both a list and prose description that a split could be useful. So they'd split a List of x in y (list page) and X in y (prose page) again, and we'd be back where we started. I think there's a possible argument you can make on the individual level on which variant of the title is more appropriate even at present. Not easily fittable into unilateral decision. toobigtokale (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not seeing the issue with the current title, and the change changes the scope slightly for the articles to become more essay-like and less focussed (and the kind of thing that could be covered at the Politics of Fooland articles. Don't really understand the comment above about List of political parties in Indonesia – it looks like a pretty normal list article to me. Number 57 12:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In Indonesian Wiki nearly same contert devided into two articles: "Political parties in Indonesia" and "List of..." To me it's not best. Afraid of the same style in EnWiki. DayakSibiriak (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment just above this exchange. Division like that I'd argue is necessary if either the list or prose description is too long. toobigtokale (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I expect, we together understand in this case no big deal and problem. Can be so ans so. Just. The head "Political parties..." better covers content. And pure lists may be with no a word "list" too. DayakSibiriak (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the arguments made above, particularly precision for the naming of lists FortunateSons (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: In conjunction with the previous arguments, I agree that this makes the subject of the articles too ambiguous and broad, especially for larger countries with many active and former political parties. For smaller countries, like the European microstates, maybe. However, for the sake of clarity and consistency I wouldn't consider it. Probably a redirect at best. TheBritinator (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why can't there be an overview and list of political parties of a given region? OzzyOlly (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue there can/should be if either the prose overview or list on a single article get too long. toobigtokale (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Keep standard title format for lists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the ones I clicked are actually lists, so should stay with list in the title. Individual ones that aren't or are to no longer be lists could be raised separately. I don't think this proposal is calling for all of these articles to be converted to prose. If its a list then it should be titled as such. DankJae 17:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A lot of articles have more information than just a standard list, and for those that don't I hope it will encourage useres to add more information, such as history, ideology, important leaders, etc. Yosy (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.