Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law

By way of comparison, articles on Berlin, which calls its top-level subdivisions Bezirk and its second-level subdivisions Ortsteil (which meanings do not differ substantially from Stadtbezirk and Stadtteil), uses "borough" for the former and "locality" for the latter.

This is confusing in several different ways:

• Readers may take a minute to work out that what some articles call a "borough" is the same thing other articles call a "district".
• The literal translation "city part" for Stadtteil sounds vague and doesn't really convey any scale or significance to the reader. It also sounds a bit "awkward" to my mind. The term "locality" used for Ortsteil is less awkward, but no less vague.
• The use of "quarter" for Stadtteil is wholly nonsensical as the Stadtteile themselves can be further subdivided informally into German: (Stadt)viertel / Kölsch: Veedel, which literally translates as..."(city) quarter". Berlin articles use "neighbourhood" for such further, informal subdivisions of their Ortsteile.

I would like to propose the following consistent approach for the subdivisions of German cities:

• (Stadt)bezirk or other top-level division to be rendered as borough
• Stadt-/Ortsteil or other second-level division to be rendered as district
• Viertel or other (usually informal) third-level division to be rendered as neighbourhood except in proper nouns^note (e.g. Severinsviertel → "Severin Quarter", Belgisches Viertel → "Belgian Quarter")

Subjectively, as a binative of English and German, this is what seems most intuitively comprehensible/evocative, but there are also objective reasons speaking for it:

1. The City of Cologne's official web page on its subdivisions alongside this official map of Veedel uses precisely this borough-district-neighbourhood schema while retaining "quarter" for proper nouns (example)
2. Berlin likewise officially uses "boroughs" for Bezirke and "districts and neighbourhoods" for Ortsteile and their subdivisions
3. The borough-district schema has also been used for translating Stockholm's top-level stadsdelsområden and second-level stadsdelar, the latter even being cognate with Stadtteile.

However, I didn't want to charge ahead and make these changes without first inviting comment to see if there might be any good reasons this isn't already what's used across the board. So...what do other editors think? --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 12:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The main viable options (examples linked) are:

• A: Keeping the infobox as it is currently (3x1, LAB CON LDM. format used for elections 1950-2010)
• B: Changing the infobox to a 2x2 layout and adding the SNP (format used for 2015, 2019 elections)
• C: Changing the infobox to a 3x2 layout and adding the SNP, Sinn Fein and Reform (format used for 2017 election)
• D: Changing the infobox to a 3x2 layout and adding the SNP, Reform and the Greens (excluding NI parties from the Infobox, see first box here)
• E: Changing the infobox to a 3x3 layout and adding the SNP, Sinn Fein, Reform, the Greens, Plaid, and the DUP (see earlier edits to this page)
• F: Changing the infobox to TILE (format not used for UK elections, but is used for elections e.g. in the Netherlands and Israel)

Other suggestions also welcome. CipherRephic (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• A: Left-wing
• B: Radical left-wing
• C: Far-left
• D: Left-wing to far-left
• E: Left-wing to radical left-wing
• F: Radical left-wing to far-left

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• 
  A (Current Image)
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D
• 
  E

207.96.32.81 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

A. Remain in the current article (Anti-Defamation League)

B. Become its own article, with a few sentence summary and a "main article" template left here

C. Merge into List of Wikipedia controversies, with a few sentence summary and a "main article" template left here

D. Merge into Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, with a few sentence summary and a "main article" template left here

E. Remove altogether

F. Other (specify)

G.

Chetsford (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

1. Should "Right" be placed in the infobox and should it remain in the main body?
2. Should ultraconservatism be restored to the infobox?
3. Should "ultra-Orthodox" and "ultra-religious" be restored to the main text?
4. Should the party be defined as far-right in the lead?
5. Is the wording of the page neutral?

Helper201 (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

This RfC is hopefully an attempt to solve this controversy and to provide more clarity to the longstanding 5% rule guideline surrounding election infoboxes.

The main questions to be discussed are:

• What criteria, hard or soft, should be met by parties to be included in an infobox? This includes having >5% of the popular vote, earning a parliamentary seat, media noteworthiness, etc. Along with this, are there times that a party meeting some or all of these criteria should not be included in the infobox? If so, why, and when?
• Should the 5% rule, or some approximation of it, be applied to parliamentary elections? There have been discussion held on this topic in 2021 and 2023, but no formal consensus on whether it should actually apply in some form, either weakly or strongly, to parliamentary election infoboxes has occurred.
• How should the choice between the {{Infobox election}} and {{Infobox legislative election}} templates be made? Should it be contingent on >9 parties meeting all the criteria listed above, or should it be more dependent on local conditions? There are inconsistencies between countries - and even between different elections of the same country - on the infobox style used, so it would be valuable to have this issue more formally clairfied.

AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Donald Trump: 49%
• Joe Biden: 20%
• Kennedy Jr: 20%
• Other/Undecided: 11%

Thanks! KlayCax (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)