This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
I see it is back again. The problem is that it is too large and makes the template take up a lot of space particularly when used in conjunction with other sidebar templates or infoboxes on a page. No good reason stated for switch from earlier image. If it is considered important to use this image, it should be reduced. --Michael Goodyear✐✉15:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: because all the other's names do not include middle initials, so to keep it consistent, I'll leave it like this.L293D (☎ • ✎)00:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@L293D: It is currently inconsistent as the link to the article about Sandel is the only one that does not use the subject's common name and the article title. This is out of line with{{Communitarianism sidebar}} (in which Sandel is also included) and most otherpolitical ideology sidebars. It is also in violation ofWP:BRINT. What rationale is there for this template's uniqueness amongst other templates of the same class and for disregardingWP:REDIRECT?142.160.89.97 (talk)00:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I declined because adding middle initials was out of line with the rest of the template. However, your arguments are right and I will make the edit. Thanks.L293D (☎ • ✎)00:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
Not done for now: It appears discussion has died down with no apparent consensus for any specific changes found so I am going to close this for now until a clearer consensus can develop.cyberdog958Talk23:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on which figures should be listed in the politicians section
The large number of minor British politicians who have been added somewhat inconsistently to the "Politicians" section of the sidebar should be removed: it is self-evident that the likes of Mark Drakeford, Stephen Flynn, Mhairi Black, Richard Burgon, Patrick Harvie, Ross Greer, Ronnie Campbell, and Linda Fabiani (to name but a few!) donot rank in terms of notability along with people like Lincoln, Nehru, Cromwell, and Robespierre.--2A02:C7C:B62B:E400:F811:2D01:B39D:AE6E (talk)16:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These people should be kept. They are notable, if they weren't they wouldn't have their own Wikipedia pages. People like Mark Drakeford, Stephen Flynn and Patrick Harvie especially so, given they've held leadership positions either within a prominent political party and/or in a parliament.Helper201 (talk)19:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just BEING notable, or holding leadership in a prominent political party, doesn't warrant inclusion in THIS sidebar. A sidebar like this should only like to the MOST notable examples of the topic, or else it becomes useless. A sidebar on "American Politics" wouldn't list every single Speaker of the House.PianoDan (talk)21:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And how would one define the "most notable examples"? It’s a completely subjective matter. The American politics example is sort of comparing apples to oranges, as we have nowhere near as many examples as that would entail. The sidebar is completely readable and notthat extensive. I'd be okay as to compromising to some minor trimming but removing all the examples above I would be in firm disagreement with.Helper201 (talk)19:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do these politicians have to do with the political philosophy ofRepublicanism, which is the subject of this template? Just being political leaders doesn't make them relevant to the template. If they aren't, at minimum, plausible candidates for inclusion in the parent article, then there's no reason to put them in the template.PianoDan (talk)22:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They support the ideology of republicanism. What would be your criteria for them being "relevant to the template"? "Plausible candidates for inclusion in the parent article" is, again, highly subjective, as, again, what would that criterion be?Helper201 (talk)23:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For any sidebar, the part for inclusion has to higher than simply "they supported the topic". You might find that subjective, but any list of this nature is somewhat subjective so that alone cannot be the criticism. Sidebars are for listing the most important figures on a topic, not every figure related to the topic.
I have to agree that figures such as Lincoln, Nehru, Cromwell, and Robespierre are much more commonly identified with Republicanism than figures such as Drakeford, Flynn and Harvie. Having multiple leaders from a minor Scottish party (whose main ideology is not Republicanism) on the same par as Lincoln and Garibaldi is giving the lesser figures undue weight.
Fair points. Though I'd disagree on the point of a "minor Scottish party" (if you are referring to Harvie's Scottish Greens) as they have seven parliamentary representatives and are one of only 6 parties in the Scottish Parliament (out of many other existing Scottish political parties). In light of your point regarding the American's you mentioned, maybe it would be better to have a separate sidebar for British republicanism, so these aren't confused, as the application and subject matter is quite different. I'm fine with the removal of Mhairi Black, Richard Burgon, Ross Greer and Ronnie Campbell from this template though. However, I'm still not set on the removal of prominent leaders via Parliament or party leaders.Helper201 (talk)01:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, I'm still not set on the removal of prominent leaders via Parliament or party leaders.
Firstly, I don't think holding political office automatically makes you of the primary figures of a movement. Itcan, but not necessarily.
Secondly, people such as Harvie and Slater are primarily environmentalists, not republicans.
Thirdly, much of the bar should be how closely do reliable, secondary sources associate Republicanism with the subject? Very obviously reliable sources identify the likes of Garibaldi with Republicanism. Many of these other names would struggle.CeltBrowne (talk)03:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd point you to these in regards to Harvie and Slater:1,2,3,4,5.This one in particlar states, "Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater – Scottish Government ministers who are two of the most outspoken republican MSPs in Holyrood – announced their intentions on Tuesday."Helper201 (talk)12:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "plausibly included in the parent article" is complicated, frankly. If you were writing an article on the topic of Republicanism, would this person make sense to include in that article, either as part of the discussion, or as a cited source? If not, then they probably aren't sufficiently identified with the topic to warrant inclusion in the template.PianoDan (talk)16:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is thatJulian Baggini is more of a popular philosopher and a philosophy educator than an actual, tenured philosophy professor that has made contributions to Republican philosophy. I am also unsure to what extent figures likeSophie Grace Chappell andNigel Warburton can be placed as leading philosophers on Republicanism alongside Mill, Rousseau, Jefferson, etc.Dawkin Verbier (talk)08:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think its fine without an image. Quite different things can be meant when you say "republicanism" in a country with a monarchy compared to somewhere without one like the United States. Meanings can change over time too.Helper201 (talk)05:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, but I heard from some people that democracy is the concept while republics are the execution of said democracy.
So what if we used an image of a voting paper being put in a box as I think that's more... universal to people?
But it could still fall under the "different meanings of republicanism" category that you have suggested.
Not done: because all the other's names do not include middle initials, so to keep it consistent, I'll leave it like this.L293D (☎ • ✎)00:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: It appears discussion has died down with no apparent consensus for any specific changes found so I am going to close this for now until a clearer consensus can develop.cyberdog958Talk23:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]