Talk:List of political parties in the United States

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of political parties in the United States article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 3 months

Lists Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Politics: American / Political parties Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

RFC: Possible page rewrite for consistency

Should this possibly unnecessary information be removed from this page? 2600:1702:5870:5930:6DF5:19A8:3F0F:8F5 (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

To @RiverMan18 and any other editor who comes across this discussion tread. Please refer to the original tread by the same name for more detailed context. The overall question that is trying to be answered is should this article be rewritten for consistency. Thoughts are appreciated. 2600:1702:5870:5930:6DF5:19A8:3F0F:8F5 (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For people who might be concerned that the editor did not follow the proper RFC format: The overall question is as follows:

Should this page be edited in various ways to remove possibly unnecessary information?

Some examples of this possibly unnecessary information include:

The Republicans and Democrats having 14 table columns while the other parties only have about 8. These table columns include such info as the amount of governorships each party has and how many trifectas they have. I believe that the RFC's poster wishes to truncate the Republican and Democrat entries to just include information such as Electoral College, popular vote, and Senate and House of Representatives.
Non-electoral organizations being included. These organizations, while they did function like political parties, were not political parties.
Including essentially every political party in the country. The poster of the RFC believes that the list should only include the "most notable" parties.

RiverMan18 (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad RFC (Summoned by bot): per WP:BADRFC Keep the RfC statement (and heading) neutrally worded and short. Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?". The question "Should this page be edited in various ways to remove possibly unnecessary information?" does not conform to the instructions given. Secondly I can't really see that any serious attempt at WP:RFCBEFORE has been attempted as the above discussion between two editors is brief. I don't see that there was in any dispute that couldn't have been resolved with further discussion. Ping me, if and when things change. TarnishedPath^talk 22:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath I changed the question—do you think it’s better?

For the WP:RFCBEFORE thing, I personally think that an RFC might be the best way to answer this question—the proposal which the user wishes to enact would greatly impact the page, and as such I think that doing something like seeking a third opinion would not be enough. I might be wrong here (I’m relatively new to Wikipedia)—please correct me if this is the case.

Thanks! RiverMan18 (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RiverMan18, the root problem with the RFC question is the phrase "unnecessary information". It presupposes the concussion and is thus not neutrally worded. Secondarily RFCs shouldn't be written with a statement to see elsewhere for what the question actually is. Thirdly in regards to RFCBEFORE, I saw some room for agreement between yourself and the IP. I don't see that was fully fleshed out prior to starting the RFC and if it was then you/the IP might have been able to implement what was agreed upon and then ask a much narrower RFC question on what wasn't agreed upon. TarnishedPath^talk 21:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok--thanks. I'll remove the RFC and try seeking a third opinion on the matter. (Although the IP and I do have some agreement on the proposed edits, I think that seeking a third opinion might be better due to the changes possibly greatly impacting the article). RiverMan18 (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath Thanks for letting me know about RFC’s status. I believe your right there probably is a better way to get more involvement with other editors on this discussion. The main purpose of which should be to decide whether or not the changes mentioned by me or @RiverMan18 are a good idea, and like I said before on the other thread. Let me know if there are any other ideas because I really do believe that this page could benefit from trimming out some of the unnecessary information. (and as a reminder I am an American who does keep track of this page). 2600:1702:5870:5930:0:0:0:38 (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've already got some agreement with RiverMan. Be WP:BOLD and implement what you have indication is fairly uncontroversial. TarnishedPath^talk 03:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forward party has a third state senator

https://www.abc4.com/news/politics/sen-dan-thatcher-leaves-republican-party-for-utah-forward-party/amp/ 2600:4041:3C87:A500:B4E3:3FD1:9134:2770 (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just updated it—thanks for the heads up! RiverMan18 (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]