Talk:Lists of political parties

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Lists Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Open Discussion

What amazes me is that the list is made in a logical way. It is divided in pages for continent sections. These pages links have been made to Lists of political parties for each country and to parties. When you go to the country pages, this can differ. I suggest to choose for a system where one index page links to country pages and to skip the links to party discriptions on the continent pages. (Wilfried Derksen)

I don't think the major/minor party distinction is useful here. The pages about the parties themselves, and perhaps US-specific pages like United States/Political Parties can talk about the relative popularity of the parties. This page looks like more of an overview of what parties exist in various nations, for linking purposes. Putting commentary here like "major/minor" makes it seem like there is some "official" difference, which there is not. --LDC

Um, actually in Canada (and, I believe) most other parliamentary democracies, there *is* a distinction between major and minor. Here you need 12 seats in the Commons to be a major. Below that, you can't ask questions during question period (along with a bunch of other things). For a while, the Progressive Conservatives lost that status here. -- PaulDrye

The U.S. is not parliamentary. Anyone may run for any seat in Congress, or for any other office; whoever is elected to that seat has equal vote and equal right to speak. There are some rules of procedure that recognize the "majority" party and "minority" party of each house, but those are purely procedural rules, not laws. Party affiliation is listed on the ballot. Ballots are controlled by the states, some of which do make ballot access easier for parties that have had recent success (for example, parties that achieved a certain percentage of the vote qualify for immediate ballot access next time while others have to petition). --LDC

When I wrote: "Please add your favourite political parties to this list." I didn't mean "add *one* party you like most" ;)

Entries where only one party from country is listed are strange. Could you add more parties from your coutry ? --Taw

Article reads "not including forums with little power like the British House of Lords" -- the British House of Lords still has significant power, IMHO. It cannot block legislation supported by the House of Commons forever, but it can delay it for quite a while. (see Parliament Acts). But still I'd agree with not listing House of Lords percentages, simply because it will make the Tories seem far more important than they really are :)

Agreed. The House of Lords does have some power but it is insignificant in comparison to the power of the House of Commons, and so listing seat totals for the House of Lords would give a misleading impression of the relative power of the parties. --Eob

Also, a lot of the countries with only one party were added by me -- I found a list of social democrat/labor parties (i.e. members of Party of European Socialists) and added them. It wasn't intentional, it was just my source.

I think it should be noted that European Parliament party groups are not quite the same thing as pan-European politicial parties. Pan-European political parties like the Party of European Socialists have national parties as their members; European Parliament party groups (like the Party of European Socialists party group) have members of the European Parliament as their members.

I think only the Party of European Socialists calls itself a "political party" -- most others, like the European Democrat Union, only call themselves "party unions". (This may change however with the adoption of the "Council Regulation on the Statute and financing of European political parties", currently being debated in the Council of the European Union.)

Nope, at least the ELDR (European Liberal Democrat and Reform party) calls itself a party as well. So ELDR is both the name of the liberal group in the European Parliament, and the name of a pan-European party with member parties from EU- as well as non-EU countries. The EPP (European People's Party, christian-democrats) is a pan-European party as well in the same way as PES and ELDR. -- Herman

Finally, in the case of the UK listing the figures for only the UK Parliament makes some parties seem smaller than they really are. Especially with those parties with a regional base (the SNP, the Plaid Cymru, the Northern Ireland parties), which are not that important in the UK Parliament but quite large in the regional legislatures (Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly, Welsh Assembly.)

I suggest adding separate sections for the three assemblies (perhaps indented under the united Kingdom) with the seat totals for the parties in those assemblies. --Eob

-- Simon J Kissane

We used to have (in some countries' listings, anyway) a distinction between active and defunct parties. Why was this eliminated? It is useful to know which parties are now, in 2002, functioning and which are of only historical interest, in my belief -- BRG.

Can someone please fix the entries for Iceland? I'm sure those circle-r registered trademark symbols aren't part of the names of any Icelandic parties, but I don't know the correct item.

(In the interests of sanity, I'm not listing all NY State's minor political parties--nobody outside NY, and few in-state, care.) Vicki Rosenzweig

The Socialist Workers Party is listed on this page as a transnational page, but the linked entry is only for the US party. Is the SWP really transnational? If so, the article should reflect that. If not, this article should reflect that.

I am wondering is this article really useful? I think we can seperate list into each article of corresponding country. It is just irrelivant to talk which party is important here in the list of political parties. If no one opposes me for some period, I will break up the article if I remember. Taku 21:43 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)

This kind of article is very useful too link articles. Maybe it should be removed one day but not now. User:Ericd

Please leave the list as it is. DON'T break up this article. Where else could one get such a good survey of political parties? KF 22:10 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)

Okay. Agreed. Taku 22:13 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with the basic idea of the list but the list must also have a useable structure which was to some extent lacking. I'm sure that any democratic nation can bring up a plethora of insignificant local, provincial or extermist parties and there are basically two ways to deal with this. Either to find a structure which can accomodate 50+ parties per country in a single list or to devide it into smaller portions. I have reworked the list to provide a structure where separate national list can be utilized.

Regarding there election results per for parties there is ample opportunity to do this in the separate entry List of election results where they can be applied uniformly. There is also need for a separate and smaller list for parties which are represented in the parlament or national assembly, this could also show their incumbent or opposition status.

There is still much work to do on the list. Some things should stay and some things should not. Moved this off the main list:

// Mic 13:09 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)

Is there really a need for a separate list of parties for most countries? I've redirected the list of Norwegian parties to Politics of Norway. -- Egil 04:49 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

IMHO the current split is ridiculous: now the same content is duplicated! How are we supposed to decide what goes on the main page and what goes in the linked pages!? Jpatokal 07:19, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My idea is that when parties are added for all the other countries there will not be room to have the lists as we had before - so major parties appear on the main page, and the minor parties in the linked pages. The list covering all countries (rather than Europe and English-speaking countries as before) would be far too long otherwise. Secretlondon 10:45, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

It's too long as it is - we need to split it up, probably by continent? Morwen 21:27, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

The generic names could easily be placed on a separate page. Now that you streamlined the main list, I think it would be nice to leave the page together, afterall, section editing is possible. -- User:Docu

Can the Communist Party still be considered an "international party"? In the 1930s, I'd agree. But the Comintern and Cominform are gone, the USSR is gone, and today, national communist parties are just as independent from each other as the various socialist parties or the various liberal parties - they may be linked by very loose international coordinating bodies (as are social democrats and liberals - Socialist International, Liberal International etc) but I'm not sure that we can consider them part of the same party? They share a common name and probably some common principles, but that's not the same thing. Similarly, is the Green Party really an international party (rather than a group of independent national parties that are loosely associated), and in what sense? User:rjp_uk10:45, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

We should probably start consistently linking the "List of political parties of ..." from the respective "Politics of ..." pages, otherwise there will be duplication of work. There are a bunch of those pages that diverge even now. --Shallot 18:51, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed - they should link both ways. Secretlondon 23:11, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Comprehensive list

I completed the Index of political parties project, so now I am able to include in this list an overview of the national parties in the listed countries. The new intro explains which parties are included. - Electionworld 21:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BELGIUM: you forgot the Belgian Union (Belgische Unie - Union belge or B.U.B.) which has a French, Dutch and English page here at Wikipedia.

This party was not forgotten, but is very small and does not fulfill the criteria for listing in this list.Electionworld 19:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

helo! my name is małgorzta i come form poland i am sitting now at scho9ol, i am study in my opinion it is very interesting ingormation take my love to you :)

Alliances?

Should political alliances between parties (such as the Concertación or Alliance for Sweden) also be included on this page? Both Concertación and the opposition Alliance for Chile are included in the List of political parties in Chile page but not on Chile's section on this page. I have added Alliance for Sweden on the Sweden section, but do say if it is wrong to put it there. Tamino 17:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too much work

I filled this page with the parties in october last year. It helped to get a comprehensive set of articles on political parties. But to update it frequently remains very much work. Therefore I reverted the page to the version that only included links to list of parties by country. It is less work to keep the lists updated in this way. I hope you can agree. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 22:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very sensible. Tamino 08:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information about the type of party system

I agree that a list of parties for each country is an overkill for this page. However, I am wondering if it would not be good to include the type of political party composition (Multi-party, Two-party, Dominant-party, Single-party, No-party). This classification seems to be included on the individual country pages (e.g. China and Sweden), and a partial list is provided on Two-party_system (which I think is not the best place for this listing).

Including this information would add some self-contained content to this page, instead of it serving only as an index (not that an index is not important), and I believe that it should not be that hard to update. While parties come and go, countries do not change between these systems so easily.

Any thoughts on whether this would be a good or a bad idea?

Torfason 21:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen no objections to the above proposal, so unless anyone objects in the next few days, I will start to convert the page so that will look something like this:

Country	Multi party	Two party	Dominant party	No party
Abkhazia			•
Afghanistan	•
Åland	•
Albania	•
Algeria	•
American Samoa				•
Andorra	•
Angola			•
Anguilla		•
Antigua and Barbuda		•
Argentina	•
Armenia	•
Aruba	•
Australia		•
Austria	•
Azerbaijan			•

--Torfason 11:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template usable on articles

I made this template 6 months ago & used it on some minor political party pages: people did figure out how to use it; now it just needs more use, lol. Cwolfsheep 20:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this has been replaced by {{Infobox political party}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia vs UK

Why is Australia listed as a two-party system and the UK as a multi-party. There systems are pretty much identical, there either both a two-party system or both a multi-pary system.

UK does not have a multi-party system, its two-party system .

Pakistan multi-party

I am under the impression there are have a dominant party .

US two party?

I feel that the US should be listed as multi-party. It is legally a multi-party system, so it should be listed as such. Obviously two parties are much more powerful than the others, but many other parties hold positions at the local and state levels. There's a note to say that there are multiple parties, but listing it as a two party system is misleading. I changed the US to a multi-party system but left the note to explain that two are dominant. I'm not completely sure on the rules here, so if I did something improper by changing it before a consensus is reached please just revert it. I also changed the US Virgin Islands to multi-party, as the article says there are three. --SodiumBenzoate 05:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because this does not concern the legal situation but the real situation. There are no countries that are legally bipartisan. If two parties divide nearly all political posts, are the only ones that hold seats in both houses of parliament and are the only ones to stand a chance at presidential elections, you're two party. (See for instance Arend Lijphart Patterns of Democracy 1999 Yale University Press, p.77). I have reverted this edit. C mon 15:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone switched it back to multiparty. I moved it back to two party cause unless someone can name me a non-democrat/republican (not counting independents) at national level then its two party dominated. Mikebloke 06:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela

The article says it is multi-party, with so many major parties no single party can gain power without a coalition. Why, then, is it listed as "dominant party"? --SodiumBenzoate 05:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because out of the 167 seats 114 are held by Fifth Republic Movement after the 2005 elections. In the previous elections it held 91 seats. This means that this party dominates parliament. I have reverted this edit. C mon 15:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misunderstanding of what is meant by a "dominant party" in this list. Just because a party wins an overwhelming majority of seats at one (or two) elections does not make it a "dominant party", and the system would still be described as "multi-party". Such a situation also applies in the United Kingdom, where the Labour Party has won an overwhelming majority of seats since 1997 (three elections), but the system is still clearly "multi-party". A "dominant party" system is one where the ruling party can be expected to win every election, largely because other parties are denied full access to the media, are not allowed to operate freely, or are forced into subordinate coalitions. That is clearly not the case in Venezuela, and the entry should be returned to the "multi-party" category. Skinsmoke 13:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I base my definition of dominant party on external sources like Alan Ware's standard work Political Parties and Party Systems (Oxford, 1996) p.162 where he defines dominant party system as "More than one 'relevant' party but only one party controls the legislature" and Arend Lijphart Patterns of Democracy (Yale; 1999) p.67 where he gives several examples of dominant party systems: "Examples of the former are pre-1990 Italy with its dominant Christian Democratic party and the three Scandinivian countries with strong Socialist parties". They both point a numerical condition or the way power is organized within the parliament. If one party is very large compared to the other and is thus able to control the legislature it is a dominant party system. I think Venezuela fits into this category very well. C mon 14:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Venezuela doesn't fit this into this category at all well. The point about pre-1990 Italy was that the Christian Democrats had held power for 45 years. Similarly, in Scandinavia, the Socialist parties had won the overwhelming majority of elections over a period of 50 or 60 years. In Venezuela, the ruling party scored a landslide victory in a single election. That could easily be reversed at the next election (as has happened, for instance, in Canada. For it to become a dominant party system, it would have to score similar crushing victories in a series of elections over a period of time. Skinsmoke 16:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Skinsmoke on this; apart from that, none of the Scandinavian countries feature a dominant party system as of 2006, incidentally. —Nightst a llion (?) 23:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change of list format

I know there was much discussion and hard work, but it seems to me that the list is too massive for an encyclopedia article.

I suggest we change the format to one divided by continent or regions, with corresponding subpages organized in the same way as this one. Comments?--Cerejota 01:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no comment, I will just be bold and do the edit.

I will organize by United Nations geoscheme.--Cerejota 21:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive of alphabetical order

In case I run out time, here is an archive of the old alphabetical order. I know we can always look at the older edits, but this might be useful to copy and paste tables etc. Talk:List of political parties by United Nations geoscheme/Archive of alphabetical list.--Cerejota 22:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pol-party-region-intro template

I created this template to simplify the creation of the (sub)regional pages. It wikiformats the page title, and adds the {{Party politics}} template in a short phrase. I am using it in all the pages. --Cerejota 22:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of time!!!

I severly underestimated the time needed for this task, and have been able to do only two pages. However I was able to create a method and format that should speed up the process, along with some formating standard (maybe I should have started a project!!!).

This is the method (Look here for a model page):

Click on a red link on the page: this would create the new page
Move to rename the page to the following format "List of political parties in REGION-NAME by country". This is to have a built in redirect from the shorter name to a more correct title.
Edit resulting page.
Put {{in-use}}, {{Pol-party-region-intro}} and ==List of countries==, ==References==, references tag, and Category:Lists of political parties by United Nations geoscheme|REGION-NAME (wikified of course!!!) .
Save.
Copy the table header from and existing page after the ==List of countries== but before the ==References==</noninclude>.
Save.
In separate tab or window open corresponding page for geoscheme region, it should have a list of the countries.
Go to the talk subpage above and edit to reveal source of coresponding table item.
Copy table item into appropiate page.
Save and put country name into summary box.
When finished with page remove {{in-use}}.
Repeat with next region.

Please be careful to not lose any countries.

Special pages in the original by country list (European Union, etc), I think should be a separate page like "Parties in supra-national entities" or some such. In the mean time I suggest we put them as a separate item on this page under a heading TBD.

Thanks!!!

--Cerejota 00:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore

I think the list was very clear and doe't need to be divided in geoschemes. Please restore the old list and add when neede dthe geoschemes list. Electionworld Talk? 19:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and your revert was very bad indeed. A number of editors have worked hard on creating the sub-pages for the regions, and this format makes the page much more usable and short. The version with all the countries violates all of the style guidelines regarding article size.

A full list, by country, is better provided by a Category, rather than a article page. Before reverting again I suggest we all consider and discuss these points, rather than reverting without discussion. --Cerejota 09:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the reversions without discussion

Another revert, this time by an anon user, tot he page with the whole list. That page is a violation of WP:SIZE. Please do not revert without discussion. Thanks!--Cerejota 18:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who reverted it this time, but I see a unilateral action of Cerejota to destroy a well balanced list, which wasn't too big (it wasn't small either). There was no agreement to split up the list. I do not mind the additional lists, but as additions, not as replacement. This devision in geoschemes doesn't make sense. Are you going to change all the lists by country? If there is a consensus to replace these kind of lists with list by geoschemes, I will accept that, but at the moment, there is no agreement at all. Electionworld Talk? 20:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I posted my proposal for 5 days before doing it, and when implemented, a few other editors built the sub-pages, not just myself. That is called consensus, and while consensus can indeed change, it doesn't change without discussion. There was tacit agreement for the split of the list when editors didn't object in a timely fashion, and when other editors engaged in editing in accordance to my propossal.

Unfortunately, the reverts that have been done by anonymous users (all from related Netherlands IPs) were without discussion, while the building of the sub-pages have been done by registered editors with discussion. I think your current reversion is not being constructive at all. I suggest you pay attention to the hard work of your fellow editors in building the subpages by UN geoscheme sub-region, and to WP:SIZE quality guidelines before your revert yet again before seeking consensus. We can discuss this further, but please do not do a blanket revert yet again.--Cerejota 17:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a consensus in creating these subpages, but there was iun no way any consensus to split this page many editors worked on in the past into various pages. I was not the anon user. So please contunue to make these subpages, but do not unilateral change this product of many users. Electionworld Talk? 18:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC) BTW: I just asked editors of this page to give their comment. We'll see if there is a consensus to split up the page. Electionworld Talk? 18:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list is fine as is. I don't see any problem with having a master list in addition to sub-pages. —Sesel 19:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, indeed. Leave this list, we can always have others in addition to it. —Nightstallion 19:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two notes

We should be oriented at our readers, it is simpler for them to go from one list to the article they seek (a specific list of parties) then two go through another layer of lists of lists. Moreover offering multiple choices (per geo-scheme and for the world as a whole) offers more choice for readers.
The name is very deceptive. This is not a list of political parties by country it is a) a list of lists of political parties by country-article and b) a table of political party systems by country. I would be inclined to split the list from the table

C mon 21:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a complete list by country, users can go to or we can create to be more specific.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
An alphabetical list is best provided to our reader via a Category page, rather than a Mainspace article.
Alphabetical list containing dozens upon dozens of items are a clear violation of WP:SIZE.
Dividing by UN geoscheme, which is a neutral, verifiable, and notable way to organize geographical information, provides readers with a quick point of reference regarding the location of countries, and is more useful as a list than an alphabetical list.

User:Electionworld is being disingenuous: if he can live with two lists, he should have created them as separate lists rather than revert and move. I am reverting, because I disagree two lists are needed.

You split the original list. I edited a lot in the orginal list. I was very active in creating the table we had. Now you can see there was no consensus to split the list. Electionworld Talk? 05:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the table format, it is retained in the sub-pages by UN geoscheme, so the hard work of previous editors is both retained and expanded upon.

However, I do understand the point that this also provides other information rather than listing lists of parties, and hence are moving the alphabetical list to Table of political party systems by country, which is more appropriate for the actual information contained.--Cerejota 23:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who came up with the original table format, which Electionworld then filled in for all countries in the world. I agree with some of the above users that this new split is confusing, and would rather like to see this in one big list. What if a user does not know that Chad and Gabon are in Middle Africa? For such users, this list is of little use. I also disagree that a reference to WP:SIZE is more than a minor issue here. First, it refers to articles, not lists, and second:

No need for haste
Do not take precipitous action the very instant an article exceeds 32 KB.
There is no need for haste. Discuss the overall topic structure with other
editors. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter
articles and, if so, how best to organize them. Sometimes an article simply
needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is
no reason to remove valid and useful information.

In this case, the overall topic structure suggests a single list, in exactly the same way as List_of_countries. Note that this page (the original version) is not longer than that page in "page real estate", only in KB, which is an uncompelling reason for differential treatment. So if someone would like to see this list split up, the battle should really be taken to List_of_countries and argued there, or a good case be made for why this page should be treated differently.

I do think it is regrettable that there were no comments in the time that Cerejota gave for comments before starting his work on breaking up the list, but I nevertheless think that it is not a good enough reason to remove the original list, especially considering that the new lists don't seem to be finished for all continents, even now. There is also nothing wrong in principle with having two lists, with a link to continental/regional breakdown from the original, full, list, but I would worry that it would worry about updates only going to one list (and my bet would be that the master list would get more frequent updates).--Torfason 14:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certoja, as you can see now there is no consensus for splitting the 'master' list. We now have the Table of political parties by country, which is the continuation of the 'master' list. Electionworld Talk? 14:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected Sockpuppets/Meatpuppets

The two anon IPs are form the Netherlands, from which User:Electionworld is, and hence they are both highly suspect as meatpuppets and/or sockpuppets because of their edit behavior, and the denials on the part of Electionworld of them being his actions. I suggest the that Electionworld refrain from this behaivior in the future: we all can discuss and come to agreement without the need for such tactics.--Cerejota 23:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which 2 anon IPs. there was only one involved, 84.62.25.35, a German IP (Bochum). The one listed below that was Swedish. FYI: The Netherlands and Germany are not the same. Electionworld Talk? 07:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acording to what source? Arin Whois said "NL" as country code for both IPs! Arin whois. --Cerejota 12:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this part of the discussion is very productive. I checked out User:Nightstallion, User:Sesel and User:C mon, and none of them seems puppety. Let's drop this line of thought, ensure that anyone looking for the list can easily find both versions, and see what consensus emerges. --Torfason 14:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Torfason for your reaction. I've checked the IP at DNSSTUFF.com which brings it to Germany. The problem I have with Cerejota in the moment that he is doubting my good faith, I don't like that. It was not my anon IP, I was in good faith and we if we doubt good faith, we should have good reasons.Electionworld Talk? 14:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having cooled, I apologize if I gave you that impression. However, you appeared to violate WP:OWN, and even referred to the "Geoscheme" as if I owned it. Not very productive.

--Cerejota 15:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of these pages

This short skirmish has ended up creating a vast number of redirects, some of them double (although the bots seem to be fixing that), and confusion about naming schemes: List, Lists, Table, Tables, so on and so forth. And then there is the new "disambiguation page". I would like to suggest streamlining this a bit, into three pages:

List of political parties (the disambiguation page)
- List of political parties by country (the original list)
- List of political parties by United Nations geoscheme (the new list)

All other pages would redirect to one of these three, in all cases to the one closest in name ("Lists of political parties" would redirect to "List of political parties" and so on). Note that the singular form of List would be used in all cases. I would have moved the stuff around myself, but considering the disagreement over the last few days, I would prefer a consensus decision on this, to ensure some stability. Please comment. --Torfason 01:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Electionworld Talk? 06:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These pages are now in the proposed position. Let's allow thinks to settle and see how people like this arrangement.--Torfason 15:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still sustain that:

1) "List of political parties by country" is a misleading title, as it adds information on party systems that are dangerously close to WP:OR.

2) The list itself is a clear violation of WP:SIZE.

--Cerejota 15:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If nr. 1 is true, the same goes for List of political parties by United Nations geoscheme, which gives/links to the same information. Electionworld Talk? 17:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The same might be true of the content of the sub-pages. However, the page it self clearly lists political parties by un geoscheme.--Cerejota 01:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada?

The article lists Canada as having a two-party system. True, only the Liberals and the Tories have ever led governments, but I think that to call Canada a two-party system seriously undervalues the influence of the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois in the current political situation. Consistently since the early 1900s, at least three parties have held numerous seats in the Canadian House of Commons - I think that, by any reasonable definition, that qualifies as a multi-party system. ObeliskBJM^talk 19:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - surely a 'two-party' system is one in which there is a systemic bias (or at least a systemic tendency) towards two particular parties. it can still be a multi-party set-up, even when two groups get most of the seats. Anyway, Canada has since been changed to 'multi', so that's ok. Earthlyreason (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russia - dominant party

Russia should be listed as dominant party, because there is virtually no need for inter-party coalitions, and United Russia has been dominating the political system for a while now: not to mention predictions for the next election, which further entrench United Russia as a dominant party. --The Palatine 10:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia - still 'dominant party'?

When the dust settles from Malaysia's 2008 election, it may be that its status on this list can change from 'dominant' to 'multi' party. Please keep an eye on this. Earthlyreason (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakia

It is very nice whoever listed Slovakia as ´dominant party´ since SMER is the dominant party over there - however I would recommend to change it back, since it could make an international incident. Or at least ´not really truthful information´. Slovakia, as a member of EU is a democracy, nevertheless party SMER - SD is dominant party, it may change in next elections though. Cunikm (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Adding ruling party

I think the ruling party or coalition should be mentioned for each country in List of political parties by country. I don't find it anywhere else in Wikipedia; List of current heads of state and government just tell names, but names tell little about the nature of the government.

For example, it could look like:

Country Country name links to list of political parties		Type of ruling party or coalition				Ruling party or coalition	Election
Country Country name links to list of political parties		Multi party	Two party	Dominant party	Single party	Ruling party or coalition	Election
	Denmark	•				Liberals, Conservative People's Party, parliamentary support from Danish People's Party^[1]	2007 election

Reference:

^ "Færøerne sikrer Fogh nyt VKO-flertal" (in Danish). Politiken. 2007-11-14. Retrieved 2007-11-14. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

(No party) could rather be noted in the ruling party box in such cases.

It might take some time before the list is reasonably complete. Besides, as with List of current heads of state and government, it will need frequent update - the election year will indicate when it might be time to do so. Still I'm sure it will be worth the effort. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the proposed idea to the article. It's still very incomplete, but I'm sure that, in time, it will be filled, as well as updated, as new elections are carried out. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[vkoflertal-1] "Færøerne sikrer Fogh nyt VKO-flertal" (in Danish). Politiken. 2007-11-14. Retrieved 2007-11-14. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]