This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Hi everyone! The Wiki Education Foundation is creating a guide to help political science students in US and Canadian universities and colleges. I'd love to gather any feedback this community is willing to offer toward this project. You can find the draft here: User:Ryan (Wiki Ed)/Political science. We're hoping to get these out to students next term, so feedback by November 23 would be appreciated. Thanks! --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
At Talk:Discipline_and_Punish#Crime_and_Punishment_.3F, I have sought opinions regarding possible alternate translations for the title of Michel Foucault's Surveiller et punir. I encountered someone who felt it was known as Crime and Punishment rather than Discipline and Punish. Should we have a redirect at Crime and Punishment? Please comment there if you have an opinion on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
What is the standard practice for updating list articles for seats of an elective office? Do you add that persons name to the list before they have taken the office as person-elect or do you wait for them to take office? Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
According to early voting, Francois Fillon is currently likely to be the Republican nominee for the 2017 French presidential elections. His article is a mess and needs a massive tidy up. I am starting to clean it up now but any help would be appreciated. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Tags were applied to the Monarch and Royal and noble ranks pages about the ways in which the title of king is discused. There is currently duplicative information in the two articles. Please see the discussion at Talk:Monarch#Split / merge titles of king and queen--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
There are currently a number of "king" and "queen" pages, but not a uniform approach. I suggest that there be a uniform approach for handling etymology and history of the use of "king" and "queen" as a title and disambiguation, perhaps
Description | Current article | Proposed article | Comment |
---|---|---|---|
Etymology and history of King | King | King | No change for those sections* |
Etymology and history of Queen | Nothing | Queen | Create content after moving the current "Queen" page to "Queen (disambiguation). Discuss Queen regent and Queen consort at a high level |
King (title) | King (title) redirects to |
Redirect to King | Change the redirect to King. Update: I see that is Done |
Queen (title) | Queen (title) redirects to Queen, a disamb page | Queen | Keep the same direct to Queen, but change the contents |
Disambiguation of King | King (disambiguation) | King (disambiguation) | no change |
Disambiguation of Queen | Queen | Queen (disambiguation) | move Queen to Queen (disambiguation) |
Summary of actions:
This is just a proposal to get things synched up (i.e., a draft for discussion purposes).--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abortion-rights movements#RFC: parity for abortion activism. Elizium23 (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:United States Presidents and control of Congress#Requested move 23 November 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Please provide input on the RfC at the talk page of United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016. This issue has been unresolved since Summer 2016 and requires community input. -- Dane2007 talk 01:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Recently a slew of succession boxes were added to selective US presidential articles with no reasoning and no need. I removed the ones which are just dumped at the bottom of a page and have been rudely and unceremoniously reverted by a user in a way which is devoid of good faith. I think the whole need for these in the first place on these articles needs to be discussed, and this seems to be the most appropriate forum for this discussion. The most simple reason why these are so un-needed as there is a template listing all US presidential administrations in one go, also the information in the template is noting to do with adding value to the page, it is just duplication. This is an example of the duplication which I am discussing. Sport and politics (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Please stop! You do not have a broad consensus to implement any changes. Your actions are especially inappropriate because you have not included any of the editors who created these presidential articles, nor have you checked to see how the succession boxes evolved or that they did so through collaboration. No changes should be made to the status quo of any article or template until the collaborative process is finished and consensus reached. Thank you. Drdpw (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
(outdent)See bold editing. Sport and politics (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I would note that the use of both a succession box and an administrations-type navbox on the "Presidency of ..." articles follows a pattern used in similar articles about the premierships of British and Canadian Prime Ministers, for example: Premiership of Theresa May and 29th Canadian Ministry. The use of both is helpful, one assists readers to quickly navigate to the administration immediately before of after, and the other shows all administrations and by doing so facilitates navigation to any and all administrations. Drdpw (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
At first glance, I struggle to see a problem with the succession boxes. But when one considers Sport and politics's argument, I sorta understand where she's getting at. A credible argument can indeed be made that such boxes are superfluous, given the creation of the ((US Presidential Administrations)) less than a month ago (these boxes were added when the aforementioned template was yet to be created). With regard to ((US Presidential Administrations)), a discussion (now dormant somewhat) has been going about whether to redesign said template to something like this; anyone here is more than welcome to voice their view on that at Template talk:US Presidents#Proposal to redesign the Administrations template. Thank-you.--Nevé–selbert 00:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
For the record: Template ((US Presidential Administrations)) was created and placed on all (23) "Presidency of ..." articles, supplanting/replacing ((US Presidents)), pursuant to this discussion: Template talk:US Presidents#Template content simplified.
As I stated above, having both a succession box and a navbox follows a patten used in similar articles and could be useful together to readers. That said, I also understand Sport and politics point, and see it more clearly since she modified the US Presidential Administrations template to include each president's years in office. Perhaps, given that her modification brought that template into sync with a similarly-purposed template, ((SCOTUS by Chief Justice)), and thatl the various articles interconnected via that navbox, for example, Roberts Court and Warren Court, seem fine without succession boxes, perhaps there's no need for them in the presidency articles either. Drdpw (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
G'day everyone, please be advised that the George H. W. Bush article has been nominated for a community re-assessment of its compliance with the Good Article criteria. The article has been nominated for this review since March 2016, but the discussion has stagnated due to lack of participants. If a few interested parties get involved either to edit the article, or join the discussion, a consensus should hopefully be able to be established either to keep or delist the article. The review page can be found here: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/George H. W. Bush/1. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Alliance to Restore North Carolina just created 2016 North Carolina coup d'état and also added it to the template of list of coups. Reading the article, it does not appear to be about an actual traditional coup as far as I know it but a so-called "legislative coups". Being mostly unfamiliar with the matter, I'm asking here: is the event presented in the article what can be considered a coup, or not and thus the article should be renamed and rewritten? As the event appears to have been covered in reliable sources, it does appear to be notable and thus I'm hesitant to nominate it for deletion. Also, as an aside, the article creator's username is a bit worrying as it appears to imply it's related to a group. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Could we have some more editors take a look at the above recently created article and associated template. The editor who created it seems to be writing an essay on the history of socialism for which we already have articles. The 'Far-left' label can also be problematic and is more recent in use than implied. There is a merge proposal on the talk page. ----Snowded TALK 09:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Article is Fake news website.
Check out the new article on MormonWikiLeaks.
Sagecandor (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
In case anyone has input on whether the upcoming inauguration should be mentioned on the main page: Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items#United States Presidential inauguration. - Brianhe (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I invite you to the ongoing RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi all,
Following up on the message I left here last month, I just wanted to let you know that the Wiki Ed political science brochure has been published. This is a supplement to other training materials, distributed to students working on political science or law articles on Wikipedia. You can find it here: File:Editing Wikipedia articles on Political Science (Wiki Ed).pdf. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Public image of Margaret Thatcher. Comments are much welcome.--Nevé–selbert 15:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Added a question at Talk:Executive_branch_of_the_government_of_Honduras, and I would really appreciate any comments on the question I posed. With a keep consensus, I'd be more than willing to copy-edit and add references to the page as necessary. --talk2Chun(talk) (contributions) 21:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)