The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
I'm nominating all of these for deletion as "not dictionary material" - Obviously Republican and Liberal and whatnot are, I'm just talking about specific entries (see WT:CFI#Names of specific entries). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- We need to show attestation per 'Names of specific entities', not idiomaticity. So keep all official names of parties and send to RFV; but Conservative party, which I assume is not its official name, is SoP, so delete that one.—msh210℠ 00:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Mglovesfun (talk). Also inconsistent capital letters, compared to the rest. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Parties of other countries
What should we do with the names of parties of other than English-speaking countries? They do not necessarily have the word Party (or its equivalent in other languages) in their name, and they are certainly stuff that somebody might want to look up in a dictionary. The possible inclusion of Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (CDU) might be discussed as an example. --Hekaheka 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose almost anything can be translated, including proper nouns that don't meet our criteria. I think the current WT:BP discussion (of which I forget the name) is on a similar sort of topic. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
And the accentless form Bloc Quebecois
- Also abbreviated BQ, but I suppose we keep abbreviations because of their potentially cryptic nature? Cf. Bloquiste, bloquiste. —Michael Z. 2009-08-25 14:48 z
Keep them all, I think. WT:CFI allows for the inclusion of names which are "used attributively, with a widely understood meaning." Political party names have widely understood meanings and connotations, and I think abundant attributive usages of any political party name can be found. Wiktionary is supposed to be comprehensive and these names seem to me to fall on the "include" side of the line. The definitions, of course, should be brief and unencyclopedic. -- WikiPedant 04:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept all, no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)