Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of elected and appointed female state leaders#Requested move 9 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article November 2025 United States military video controversy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/November 2025 United States military video controversy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:RAISE Act#Requested move 28 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HurricaneZeta alt (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Dear everyone

Apologies if this is a noob question, but I was wondering if historical data was also welcome as part of the project? If so, this fantastic resource has data, plus links to other databases, all about early American elections. It even includes a link to a dataset of electoral boundaries/shapes, suitable for upload to Wikimedia Commons. Thought it would be good to put on the radar! I'd also be happy to develop a dissertation project with students in Computer Science in St Andrews if anyone fancies collaborating on adding the data to Wikidata (if it isn't already there).

Here's the website: Mapping Early American Elections

drkirstyross (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Blocking of Twitter in Nigeria#Requested move 15 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

K. B. Hedgewar redirects have been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether their use and function meet the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on these redirects at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 11 § K. B. Hedgewar redirects until a consensus is reached. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:09, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

In May 2025, @CompleteAnonymity brought up a talk on Ct senator Richard Blumenthal's talk page about never using official portrait if they are over 6 years old.

Then he started edit warring over the idea, which eventually turned in his favor. Many congresspeople now have low-quality images that look pretty bad.

The main thing is-

Vote A to keep newer photos.

Vote B to always use official portraits.

If B comes out successful, I think the oldest the portrait can be is 10-15 years old. ~~PolishHamster^yeah 23:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mais qui ?#Requested move 11 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Amanda Toll#Requested move 10 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:19, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2026 National Party of Australia leadership election#Requested move 20 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration#Requested move 20 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Alongside a related discussion at Talk:Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration#Neutrality of this article is heavily biased. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration#Requested move 20 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Presidency of Richard Nixon #Proposed split which is in the scope of this WikProject. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Input from editors is welcome at Talk:Dhurandhar: The Revenge#RfC on film description in the lead sentence. — EarthDude (Talk) 16:23, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I have nominated Political history of medieval Karnataka for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria, or help improve the article. 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 regard to the article's featured status (see review instructions). Z1720 (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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)

Hello.

There is an article deletion discussion going on here that may be of interest to members of this project. David A (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pauline Hanson's One Nation#Requested move 23 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a split discussion here to discuss the creation of article March 2026 United States federal government shutdown. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value".

A lot of core politics content is now rated C-class, including a few that have unfortunately become quite relevant in recent years: authoritarianism, separation of powers and civil liberties. Signups are open now. Hope to see you there! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Twitter use by Donald Trump#Requested move 15 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:22, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:National Assembly (Nepal)#Requested move 25 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:26, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Muammar Gaddafi has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Problem of two emperors has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory)#Requested move 29 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 08:14, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Powers of the president of the United States#Requested move 8 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I've made significant changes to politics of Mozambique a couple months ago including rewording+crediting or removing previously plagiarized content, adding info about elections, describing insurgencies and foreign relations, adding more images, and adding more info on the roles and structure of different branches of government. I would appreciate if it could be assessed. Thanks. Urchincrawler (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Anti-miscegenation laws be moved to Laws against interracial relationships, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This RM impacts multiple pages.

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place over on the talk page for Saigō Takamori which is within the scope of this project. If you feel inclined to share your threads on the linked thread, please feel free to do so. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2026 (UTC)