Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics

Should there be a standardised guideline or policy for the government type that you see on the infoboxes (Unitary parliamentary republic, federal presidential republic, federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy, etc). Almost as if an unwritten rule was formed eventually but I'm trying not to be biased in this RfC by manipulating the results. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

My opinion on this matter: Wherever you go onto any sort of country (or former country as well) and look at the type of government that it has, you can see usually a pattern on how it's described. It always (or usually) goes something like this:

1. Unitary, Confederal or Federal?
2. Presidential, Parliamentary, or Semi-Presidential?
3. Republic or monarchy?
4. Any other sort of details as well? ("under a dictatorship", "Totalitarian", "One-party", etc)

Some examples of this would be "Federal parliamentary republic", "Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy", "Federal presidential republic", and "Unitary semi-presidential republic".

My problem (and reason for starting this RfC) is that although you can see a uniformity in structure, another user on my behalf found that there aren't any sort of written policies about it so anybody of anything can just do their own thing. I would like to turn this unwritten rule into instead a written rule since I believe that it's unnecessary and should require guidelines on what and what not to do with it.

Maybe perhaps a written guideline or apart of the country infobox? More information can be found here by the way.

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

All I will add to this is that I think there should be standard guidance here, at least for extant nation-states. I like the general splitting of unity/federal and the other information on political structure. I don't have other opinions than to suggest that communist systems should likely be described differently per the discussion of Talk:Cuba. Pietrus1 (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• For starters, what infoboxes does this implicate, and which parameters? At any rate, I'm not sure we need an exhaustive list of government types. Some governments are kind of unique anyways. I just am not sure this is a problem that needs solving. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Infobox country and Infobox former country are the infobox usually affected by this decision. Might be more though if I have to say.
  • Sure, some government types are unique, but I can see that we could still fit them under the Any other sort of details as well? ("under a dictatorship", "Totalitarian", "One-party", etc) that I have listed before.

  GuesanLoyalist (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  I.e: for assembly independent countries that also operate under a presidential system, we can instead go Assembly-independent presidential republic as an addition that describes more about the type of government. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  @CaptainEek I forgot to mention government_type = was the main parameter being affected in both infoboxes. Sorry for not saying it previously. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  +1 for CaptainEek's comment. Seems like a solution in search of a problem. TarnishedPath^talk 21:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  It is a problem in that the structure of government was formed just by users copying one another in the fashion of "If they did it on one article, then I should do it on this article instead!" GuesanLoyalist (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  Another reason that I must point out is that there should be some proper regulation on what we should and should not do. Current reality is that it's a de facto rule. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

  Very unproper in my opinion. We should've done this a long time ago. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

  Template:Infobox constitution also includes the field (named “System”). Keriluamox (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

• Given this is government_type it would be simplest to stick to a technical description of the type/form of government. These are structural and usually able to be simply described. On the other hand, adjectives from item 4 like "totalitarian" and "authoritarian" describe points on a scale (or set of scales) and can happen under any form of government. Such detail is probably best left to prose. (As a smaller aside, I doubt there's a general need to include "unitary", it's essentially a default and conveys only not-a-federation.) CMD (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• Agreed - the more complex patterns are usually problematic rather than a good model to move towards. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• I don't really know which is the situation in English-speaking countries, but in Italy there is a standard distinction taught in every university between government systems and state systems. State systems are classified according to the relationship between the Public authority and its citizens. Government systems are classified according to the relationship between the constitutional bodies at the top of the State. Therefore, the classification liberal democracy / hybrid regime / authoritarian regime belongs to the first dimension (state system), and the classsification unitary / hybrid /federal too. The classification monarchy / republic and parliamentary / presidential / other belongs instead to the governmental dimension. Generally speaking I think that dividing among these dimensions it's useful and it will probably help to guarantee an uniform approach across the encyclopedia.--Friniate ✉ 13:43, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  The distinction in English is probably caught by the dichotomy Government vs Regime... So we could add another parameter |regime=, where we could add the informations about the type of state.--Friniate ✉ 14:17, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  Reminds me of what the russian wikipedia is doing (does it still violate WP:COMPARE in this case to compare different types of wikipedia and what they're doing?). I remember going onto Russia and it had something like "mixed republic under an authoritarian dictatorship" for the system of government and then below it, the state system mentioned it as "federation".

  I wouldn't oppose having it like that way, but what about having it in this order?

  • State system: Federal/Hybrid/Unitary
  • Government type: Presidential/Semi-presidential/Parliamentary
  • Regime: Liberal democracy/Flawed democracy/Authoritarian dictatorship/Totalitarian dictatorship

  GuesanLoyalist (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  @GuesanLoyalist Probably even better... I had in fact found a source that used "forms of state" to indicate the unitary vs federal dimension. --Friniate ✉ 09:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  There seems to be a consensus being reached, but with insufficient people to gain more opinions. Should you and I try to share more about the RfC? because I think we should GuesanLoyalist (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not very experienced in how these processes usually play out on en.wiki, I'd link this RfC from the village pump (or maybe even open another one directly proposing this solution)... I'd probably also ask again to the previous participants to this discussion (@CaptainEek@Chipmunkdavis@Keriluamox@Nikkimaria@TarnishedPath) if they agree with the 3-parameters-proposal. --Friniate ✉ 10:33, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  Seems like a decent idea as well. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  No, per above. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  @CaptainEek, Chipmunkdavis, Keriluamox, and TarnishedPath: as per WP:SILENCE, I am able to say that I can interpret your silence as a form of agreement unless you comment and still state your opposition. Looks like it's a 2 (Me and Friniate) vs 1 (Nikkimaria) agreement to disagreement ratio. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

  I forgot to ping @Pietrus1, sorry... --Friniate ✉ 17:33, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think the "regime" field and the use of any democracy index would be a problem. As to the "government type" classification, I thought that was how it was before. I do think there should be special parameters for certain types of governments. Pietrus1 (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd tentatively support a "regime type" parameter, that could describe it as authoririan or democratic or what have you. I do think that is helpful in understanding what the government is really like. Though I'm hesitant because that parameter could get argued over heavily. Maybe pegging it to some sort of democracy/freedom index would help? Although it may still be best dealt with in prose. But I oppose any sort of prescribed standardization of either government type or regime type. The answer should be based on what reliable sources say about that country. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

My view was stated above. The recent proposals have not changed it. CMD (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@CaptainEek There are a lot of democracy indexes though, which one would we choose? I'm aware that it could become really contentious, but we already include those kind of informations on a regular basis (see for example Egypt or Russia) in the government type parameter... Sorting them better in a specific parameter could maybe help at least to have less chaotic and more focused discussions... --Friniate ✉ 17:20, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis The thing is, if we don't reach a consensus, everything will remain as it is... I think that we all agree that in the government type parameter we should stick to a technical description of the government system. So, I think that we could at least agree on this first step and include this guideline somewhere (in the infobox man?). Then we will discuss wether it's better a separate parameter about the regime type, or if it's better to leave these informations to the body of the article, but I'd try at least to reach a consensus on the lowest common denominator on which we all seem to agree... --Friniate ✉ 17:32, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

So, should one coherent vote be taken for assessment? Pietrus1 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I would want to get a tally mark of who supports who, in my personal opinion. WP:STRAWPOLL might apply for this case just to see on what option people want. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Dictator of Guatemala to the article President of Guatemala has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 5 § Dictator of Guatemala until a consensus is reached. Mathguy2718 (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Polling for United States presidential elections#Requested move 7 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Government of Guangdong (disambiguation)#Requested move 16 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 23:56, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

More input (pro/con) is needed in this discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_May_5#Category:Conservative_professors. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I'm recruiting for Wikiproject Feminism, an inactive wikiproject about feminism, if anyone is interested or wants to join I'd love to see you there! Goetia [She/They/Any] (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1993 Aurora, Colorado shooting#Requested move 7 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Robloxguest3 (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:House of Representatives of the Philippines#Requested move 15 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HueMan1 (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Cosmocracy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 18 § Cosmocracy until a consensus is reached. — EarthDude (Talk) 13:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2026 Philippine Senate lockdown#Requested move 13 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Antisemitism in contemporary Austria#Requested move 28 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — EarthDude (Talk) 16:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I made a proposal at the naming conventions page, I just wanted to draw people's attention to it. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The article Joshua Stacher has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for notability concerns and for BLP primary sources for 13 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Poorly sourced WP:BLP: all the sources are by him, not about him.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello to the Wikipedia political world I have a question on the infobox color bar I was going to add a new topic but I found a archived page on archive 49 talking about the same topic I wanted to add on this talk page and there was one person who voted to in favor of remove the election color bar and using Kawnhr dummy trick that is currently being used on 2005 Conservative Party leadership election as Kawnhr indicated until the code can be changed to add the permanent fix I do support this idea. Now I would like to execute this plan but I am hesitant because removing the color bar on the election infobox have gotten heated which has has cause disruptive edit wars and I don't want to trigger one or get block. The queston is can I Kawnhr dummy trick since there was no opposition or can should there be another vote before I do Kawnhr dummy trick? I will leave a link at the bottom of the page.

Link to the archived page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/Archive_49#Election_Infobox_Color_Bar ~2026-17020-98 (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The article Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization Act of 2013 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Bill that was filibustered to death.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)