Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics

GAR of Eva Perón

Eva Perón

The following discussion 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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisting per general consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

GA from 2006, it was't reassessed. Half of the article is unsourced, with 'This article needs additional citations for verification.' on top, 5 'citation needed' tags and two 'This section does not cite any sources' templates (Female Peronist Party and women's suffrage and Honours), see also unsourced sections: Juan Perón's arrest, 1946 presidential election, European tour, Vice-presidential nomination, Re-election and Spiritual Leader of the Nation; and 19 'page needed' tags. Artem.G (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Delist - Article needs a lot of work to be kept as a GA. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Delist per above. Needs significant work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

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.

Request for comment: Honorific styles, etc.

Should the infobox of those with honorific styles such as 'His/Her Excellency' include such titles? For example, Bajram Begaj's infobox includes the style 'His Excellency', as does Edi Rama's, and Michael D. Higgins' (and others, but I don't have the time nor will to look for all examples), but the infoboxes for Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Xi Jinping, etc., and other serving officials who, according to the article 'Excellency', are to be addressed with the honorific style, do not have the style. My question is thus: Should all those who are to be addressed with the honorific style have it displayed in the infobox, or is there another reason why some who are entitled to be addressed in that way have it displayed, and others do not? Compusolus (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Delete - As these are heads of state and/or governments of republics, not monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• Extend Although I get the sentiment, I do not think distinctions between republics and monarchies have any bearing here. Consistency should be the goal and whatever honorific is used in the diplomatic sphere should be included here. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 17:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. This is not the only WikiProject who deals with infoboxes that have that sort of honorific, and this is not the correct place to have that discussion. One could reasonable have the discussion at WT:INFOBOX (or a related page), but I would remind other editors of WP:CONLEVEL, which states that [c]onsensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  @GoodDay 49.237.38.3 (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Why are you pinging me? GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Keep in mind that it's frowned upon for WikiProjects to decide what can and can't go in an article, and WikiProject control of infoboxes in particular has caused major sitewide debates in the past. I also don't seen any evidence of WP:RFCBEFORE. It's generally advisable to get input on an issue and determine whether the RfC is needed before creating it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC about election article intros: links or boldface?

Should the lead sentences in articles about elections prioritize links or boldface? 09:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

With link(s) instead of boldface	With boldface instead of link(s)
A general election was held in the United Kingdom on Thursday, 12 December 2019.	The 2019 United Kingdom general election was held on Thursday, 12 December 2019.
A presidential election was held in France on 10 and 24 April 2022.	The 2022 French presidential election was held on 10 and 24 April 2022.
An election is due to take place within the Scottish National Party (SNP) to choose the party leader to succeed Nicola Sturgeon.	The 2023 Scottish National Party leadership election is due to take place to choose the leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) to succeed Nicola Sturgeon.
The October 2022 Conservative Party leadership election was triggered by Liz Truss's announcement that she would resign as Leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, amid an economic and political crisis.	The October 2022 Conservative Party leadership election was triggered by Liz Truss's announcement that she would resign as Leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, amid an economic and political crisis.

Survey II

• I believe that we should prioritize links because they serve readers better than boldface, if boldface is of any use to the reader at all. Although MOS:FIRST explicitly says that merely descriptive article titles (such as 2022 French presidential election) do not need to appear verbatim in the text, they often do at the expense of good writing and essential links because we, Wikipedians, get caught up in our own way of doing things. Particularly bad, in my opinion, is the redundancy that results from cramming the descriptive title into the lead sentence, e.g. saying that the 2024 US presidential election will be held in 2024. I do not think that boldface should ever be prioritized over a well-worded lead sentence or links to essential topics. Surtsicna (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• Use whatever language is the most natural Having articles open with (e.g.) "The 2013 Fooland presidential election was held in Fooland on 24 October 2013" is pointlessly repetitive (and taking out the repetition makes is seem oddly incomplete; "The 2013 Fooland presidential election took place on 24 October" feels like it still needs the year at the end). Given that election article titles have to follow a specific format, it does not make sense to try and shoehorn it into the opening sentence if it can be phrased more naturally. Number 57 12:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• My choice is prioritising Boldface, as we've been doing for as long as I've been on the project. PS - We also have a third option, combine the two in the lead - "The 2024 United States presidential election..." GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The third option violates MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID. Also, I don't think you are correct to say that the boldface option has always been prioritised (or at least not in the way shown above). The majority of election articles don't start with the title, although until recently they did start with the (non-title) words bolded (e.g. A presidential election was held in Fooland on 13 April 1947.). Number 57 15:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

My preference is still Boldface, for general & party election pages. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Being against a change because it is a change contributes poorly to a discussion. It also seems like you do not care much about the reader's experience. Surtsicna (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

You already know I'll accept the results of this RFC, no matter what it may be. If I'm able (and I am) to accept the RFC result of having the Federal League stats in two Major League Baseball season pages? Then I'm tolerant of any RFC result. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

This isn't an either/or discussion. See WP:BOLD and WP:BOLDAVOID. In short, we should bold part of the lede if the title can be naturally added into the lede. If it can't be, don't try to edit it into the article, and you should not bold. We don't need an RfC to decide which to use. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

What Lee said. —Kusma (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, it boils down to an either/or discussion since we cannot have links and boldface simultaneously. What is natural is also open for discussion; to me, for example, it looks obvious that the boldface sentences were written first and foremost to accommodate the bolded title, with informativeness and style taking second place, and indeed descriptive titles such as those of articles about elections never seem natural in the lead sentence to me. Do you find them natural? Surtsicna (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not something that can be changed on a project scope level RfC. It would require a site wide RfC rather than a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. As you say, there is some room for discussion as to if something is natural in wording, but you can't just fix that by making a sweeping statement that you should post links in the opening sentence to all articles in this way. The point here, is that we aren't prioritising links to articles, we are prioritising well written ledes, which should always be true. Whilst you might say "The 2023 French Presidential Elections was a political leadership vote that took place on 1 January 2023" (or similar, I'm not a political editor), and I feel that's fine. Whilst another article might have a title that is much harder to be natural in the lede sentence and should be explained, rather than inserted into the article. In the above examples, we actually have the title in the article (aside from the third one), and should have bold where it appears in the first usage. Then, when you talk about the subject (say, a general election) later, that's when you link.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not see why it should be site-wide if we are discussing something very particular, that is articles about elections, and within the existing guidelines. I agree that well-written leads should be our priority. The boldface lead examples above were written not to be good but contrived to contain the bolded article title, which we can see from the resulting circular definitions and tautology. Defining "2023 French Presidential Elections" as something happening in 2023 is hardly good writing.
Your last point is precisely the point of contention: why should links to essential topics be pushed down for the sake of boldface? How does that help our readers? I do not see why they should have to look for essential links scattered across the article. Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Because that is how Wikipedia is written. Your argument is not specific to politics articles, so you would need to change the MOS. Either the lede can be written with the title involved (and thus boldened), or it can't. There's no preference for linking terms. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

My argument is not in contravention but in agreement with the Manual of Style, specifically MOS:AVOIDBOLD, so no change to MOS is needed or sought here. MOS:AVOIDBOLD covers this quite explicitly, especially the 2011 Mississippi River floods example cited there. The question here is whether MOS:AVOIDBOLD should apply to election articles. Surtsicna (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Lee. Looking at 2022 French presidential election, it make no sense to link to Presidential elections in France in the first sentence, as much of the content about how an election is conducted is contained on the 2022 page and is linked later in the text. -

Enos733 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Neither. I think Lee does an admirable job of explaining how a false dichotomy has been set up, and how and why Politics articles should instead adhere to the site-wide MoS. Enos733 is also spot on with their comment. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• There is no suggestion that the election articles should not adhere to the site-wide MoS, Gog the Mild. Note that MOS:AVOIDBOLD addresses this and cites the example:

The 2011 Mississippi River floods in April and May were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the U.S. waterway in the past century. (2011 Mississippi River floods)

Major floods along the Mississippi River in April and May 2011 were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the U.S. waterway in the past century. (2011 Mississippi River floods)

So the site-wide MoS favors links, specifically saying that redundancy should be avoided. Surtsicna (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Then, the RfC makes no sense. There's no one size fits all in terms of ledes. We don't favour one way or the other. We certainly don't favour links at all, because even in that example, it's not about having links to "floods" or "Mississippi river" that it is trying to move up the page, but rather that the lede doesn't naturally fit our typical lede sentence structure. I'm not sure why you'd need an RfC to reiterate what MOS:BOLDAVOID already states. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDAVOID does not state nor imply that "the site-wide MoS favors links". The phrase about links is immediately after "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence". Attempts to quote out of context will win few converts to your preference. The MoS being crystal clear and there apparently being agreement even from you that the MoS adequately covers the situation, I hope that this nonsense is closed down rapidly. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand your outrage. We have hundreds of articles that apparently do not follow the Manual of Style. Is it really so preposterous to seek consensus to bring them in accordance with the Manual of Style before undertaking such an enormous, conspicuous task? I am not looking for a one-size-fits-all solution either, just the adherence to MOS. Surtsicna (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

you don't need an RfC to make things meet the MOS. The MOS IS the established consensus. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I should not need it, but what happens when the edits are inevitably reverted due to not having been discussed? Do I keep pressing and shouting "MOS:AVOIDBOLD"? Surtsicna (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Which MOS currently has more authority, concerning the topic of elections? "MOS:BOLD" or "MOS:AVOIDBOLD"? GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not a priority list - both work in conjuncture. See MOS:BOLDLEAD where it explains exactly what we do with the first sentence of an article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Boldface although also not sure why there should be a special rule per WP:CREEP. Boldface is the standard for 95% of articles but it's not problematic if it can't be used for a specific election because of some weirdness. That said, much as wikilinks are wonderful, I think the first sentence is one of the rare areas where just telling the reader what THIS article is about is preferred, rather than immediately booting them to another article. So keep the wikilinks but it doesn't have to be first-half-of-the-first-sentence level stuff. SnowFire (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Boldface—it would not be in accordance with Wikipedia convention to do otherwise, and in addition, it makes it immediately clear to the reader what the subject of the article is. Compusolus (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  Compusolus, Wikipedia convention is to not use boldface in cases like this. See MOS:AVOIDBOLD. Surely if the title of the article does not make it clear what the subject is, repeating it won't help either. Surtsicna (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  In which case I strike my support for boldface. Thank you for alerting me to that. Compusolus (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• No special rule, Site-wide MOS per Lee Vilenski. Write a good lead, then add links and/or bold as appropriate. CMD (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Boldface - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Links instead of boldface - it's more in spirit with the wiki principles of hypertext. Links can help readers who would otherwise be confused. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Boldface, both per style, and because the first option produces remarkably awkward wording. If someone is talking about the 2020 US presidential election, they call it something like that, not "the presidential election that was held in the United States." Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  Are you referring to the Manual of Style, Gnomingstuff? Surtsicna (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  The Manual of Style. MOS:AVOIDBOLD applies if "the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence." The "easy and natural" way to talk about the 2018 election (or whatever) is "the 2018 election." Nobody says "the election that was held in 2016." Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  Nobody is suggesting that the subject of the sentence be anything like "the election that was held in 2016". In fact, such phrases only occur in sentences in which the subject is "the 2018 election", those being circular definitions. Surtsicna (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Boldface. The issue arises in articles about many topics - it is not obvious to me that there is anything particular about election articles. Good writing is the 1st priority, boldface (where applicable) the 2nd priority, and links the 3rd priority. A link can usually be added on a second use of a term, which serves the reader well enough. Nurg (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Nurg. Do you think that the boldface option produces good writing? You can check the examples given above for reference. What I see is redundancy and phrasing obviously contrived to make room for boldface. Surtsicna (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

My understanding of the issue you see is whether editors sometimes write opening sentences around the literal article title in a way that results in a poorly written sentence. Yes, that happens - it is one of WP's annoying tics. And it may be that the driver for those editors including the literal article title is a wish to boldface it. I don't think the driver is a wish to prioritise boldface over links, which is how you framed the issue. I think the wikilinking is a red herring, and even the boldfacing is a secondary issue. The problem is a slavish following of "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence" (from MOS:LEADSENTENCE) at the expense of good writing. Am I representing the issue correctly or am I misjudging it? Nurg (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nurg: If your preference is good writing, may I suggest you change your !vote from Boldface to Site-wide MOS to match others who have said this should be the main consideration? !Voting for boldface suggests this is your first preference (over good writing). Cheers, Number 57 12:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Nurg, you are correct. I now see that I should have framed it as MoS vs boldface but I tried to be as neutral as possible. Good writing vs boldface seemed far too biased. In any case, we are actually in agreement here. Surtsicna (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

When I want to know the best practice for articles of a specific type, I look first at the project pages for guidance, e.g. for bird species, Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Bird names and article titles gives the consensus style for the opening phrase of an article ("The house sparrow (Passer domesticus) is a passerine bird ..."). When such guidance is not provided (it usually isn't) I look to Featured articles (FAs) as exemplars. Do you think that the FAs for elections all have good lead sentences that can be used as exemplars? Nurg (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Boldface for the reasons others have brought up, specifically Gnomingstuff and Snowfire. It does seem to me that trying to avoid boldface results in some awkwardly-phrased sentences if the four examples are any indication. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 05:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
  • @ThadeusOfNazereth: Isn't the opposite is the case? I would say insistence on using boldface (i.e. trying to match the article title) is what leads to awkwardly-phrased openings by trying to force a certain wording into it; for example for 2009 European Parliament election in France, what is less awkward? The current opener ("European Parliament elections were held in France on Sunday 7 June 2009 to elect the 72 French Members of the European Parliament.") or trying to force the article title into the opener (which I guess would be "The 2009 European Parliament election in France was held on Sunday 7 June 2009 to elect the 72 French Members of the European Parliament.) The current opener seems more natural to me. Cheers, Number 57 19:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

    Honestly? This probably just comes down to preference, and barring a site-wide poll I don't think any real consensus is going to be reached. Your example there does sound better non-boldfaced, but I don't think the examples given above did. It sort of makes me question the need for a poll on this question at all - I'd be tempted to say we should let the circumstances of each individual article dictate this if that didn't always lead to more drama. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 19:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

    @ThadeusOfNazereth: Yes, I think the examples given are quite poor and probably led to some users opting for boldface, and I agree this didn't shouldn't have needed an RfC (but there is one). I've modified my !vote above to make it clear that I favour whatever the most natural wording is, rather than it being an either/or. Cheers, Number 57 20:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

    Please feel free to improve the "With links" sentences, Number 57. I fear that "whatever the most natural wording is" will never see us freed from the terror of sentences contrived for the sake of boldface. Surtsicna (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Links Per Number57 and Lights and freedom. --Vacant0 (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
• Links MOS:BOLDAVOID is a site-wide guideline, and there is not a sufficiently good enough reason to ignore/change it just for election articles. Doing so would be a massive WP:CREEP, and this RFC just seems to be a case of WP:ILIKEIT. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Links. Using boldface titles often results in worse lede sentence, as the sentence repeats itself in order to provide a link to relevant information. For example, 2014 Scottish Labour leadership election opens with The 2014 Scottish Labour Party leadership election was an internal party election to choose a new leader and deputy leader of the Scottish Labour Party, which is silly. Other times, in order to not result in a comically recursive sentence, those links are left out entirely, which might be worse (eg: 2014 British Columbia New Democratic Party leadership election provides no link to British Columbia New Democratic Party in the article body at all). The easiest way to solve the problem is to simply not require that these articles be introduced with the page title. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• Boldface, I've never found a problem incorporating the article title into the lede sentence, but neither do I have a problem with introductory sentences that are slightly longer or repetitive to allow links to the key subjects. Clearly an introductory paragraph can easily have both, without causing any offence to the vast majority of the readership. Sionk (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion II

A discussion of this sort (about a year or more ago) was sorta held, concerning Canadian federal election pages. There's a lot of general election & party election pages out there & I'm not certain if one can actually pull off making an across the board change to their leads. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I've contacted the WikiProjects or noticeboards etc, of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, France, United States, Russia, Germany, Spain & Italy, so as to broaden the awareness of this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Information request

Hello. I am trying to find out information regarding Albert Patterson to add infobox fields. Specifically, district he represented in the Alabama State Senate, his predecessor, and his successor. If someone is interested in helping out that would be great! Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Macedonia (terminology)

User:Buidhe has nominated Macedonia (terminology) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Macedonia (terminology)

User:Buidhe has nominated Macedonia (terminology) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Macedonia (terminology)

User:Buidhe has nominated Macedonia (terminology) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC on the infobox of the 2018–2022 Italian general elections

An RFC about the infobox of the two general elections in Italy, is being held. You are all invited to participate. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Regulamentul Organic

User:Buidhe has nominated Regulamentul Organic for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Constitution of the United States

If anyone watching here has not seen the ongoing debate on Talk:Constitution of the United States it could use some more input to bring these extremely drawn out discussions to a close. The question seems to center currently around who "the people" were and whether the constitution represented them. These discussions have already attracted admin attention and they are getting a little stale. They could use some expert opinions. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Li Rui (politician)#Requested move 8 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Li Rui (politician)#Requested move 8 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. MaterialWorks (contribs) 13:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Opinion Polls lists

I have recently come across a collection of list style articles that track opinion polls through an election cycle and they are formatted that each listing in a poll is an in-line EL to that particular opinion poll. Now this seems to be in the face of our policy of Wikipedia:External links . Some Examples, but not an exhaustive list;

• Opinion polling on Scottish independence
• Opinion polling for the 2010 United Kingdom general election
• Opinion polling for the 2022 French presidential election

I have only tagged the first one I cam across as having too many EL and they should be converted to citations. I would like some other input on whether this is something this group believes should continue or should these be brought into alignment with our policies? McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

From a perspective of Polling in the UK, I have looked at Polling for UK General elections as these seem to provide a significant timescale and might best inform the discussion. The practice of Listing Polling Results can first been seen (in UK) in a format that is very similar to the more recent ones as far back as 1974, where Polling results are listed in a manner showing newest first, typically in a table designating Political Party and what % was recorded for them. So we have nearly 50 years of established practice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1974_United_Kingdom_general_elections#October_general_election

In 2001 the same format continues but with the introduction of direct links to the polling companies data tables, this practice has continued for the last 22 years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

A very similar format has been used extensively in all polling carried out within the UK including but not exclusive to

Polling for Scottish Independence Referendum 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014

Polling for Scottish Elections to Holyrood (devolved Parliament) since 1999

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1999_Scottish_Parliament_election

There are many many more of these long established recording of polls using the format being discussed here

I also note that this format is used in many other Nations and regions, so don't think it is really an issue, or at least should not be, to my mind far more important is ensuring that the data is accurate Soosider3 (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

This is explicitly allowed by Wp:EL. —Kusma (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It might be preferable to format these links as inline citations. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Links as citations when in a table like these are far more accessible to the reader and easier to navigate in general than having hundreds of footnotes. I have no issues with this format. I read EL as restricting those actually in the line of a sentence, not mandatating all external links be footnoted, as this format identifies the date and publisher. Reywas92^Talk 22:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed move discussion - 2022 Peruvian political crisis

Hello! A move request has been made for the 2022 Peruvian political crisis article. To broaden the involvement of users, you have been invited to review the discussion and provide your thoughts. Thank you! WMrapids (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Article contribution

I urge all editors, especially those who are interested in political articles, to write and develop liberalism in India, conservatism in India, socialism in India, and Communist movements in India articles properly. These four articles are poorly written. Kindly develop these four articles properly. Thanks 2405:201:800B:6079:4825:C253:CA7D:2980 (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)