Talk:Lists of political parties and KIRO-FM: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Allix (talk | contribs)
29 edits
No edit summary
 
Cpk1971 (talk | contribs)
117 edits
m Updated slogan.
 
Line 1: Line 1:
:''For the former KIRO-FM at 100.7 MHz, see '''[[KKWF]]'''.''
{{WikiProject Politics}}
{{Infobox Radio station
{{todo}}
| name = KIRO-FM
| image = [[Image:KIROradio2008.gif|Logo for 97.3 KIRO]]
| city = [[Tacoma, Washington]]
| area = Greater [[Puget Sound]] area, [[Washington]]
| branding = ''News Talk 97.3 KIRO''<br>("KIRO" pronounced as a word, rhyming with "Cairo")
| slogan = "Where Seattle stays in touch."
| frequency = 97.3 [[MHz]] {{HD Radio}}<br>97.3 HD-2 for Urban AC
| airdate = 1980s
| format = News/Talk <br> (simulcast of [[KIRO (AM)|KIRO]] 710 AM)
| erp = 52,000 [[watt]]s
| haat = 729 [[meter]]s
| class = C
| facility_id = 33682
| coordinates = {{coord|47|30|14|N|121|58|29|W|}}
| callsign_meaning = See [[KIRO (AM)]] for history and reasoning
| former_callsigns = KTNT (1960-1979)<br>KNBQ (to 1988)<br>KBSG (1988-89)<br>KBSG-FM (1989-2008)
| affiliations = [[CBS Radio]]
| owner = [[Bonneville International]]
| licensee = Bonneville Holding Company
| sister_stations = [[KTTH]]<br /> [[KIRO (AM)]]
| webcast = [http://wmc1.liquidviewer.net/KIRO Listen Live]
| website = http://www.MyNorthwest.com
}}
'''KIRO-FM''' (97.3 [[FM broadcasting|FM]]) is a [[radio station]] in [[Seattle, Washington]], USA, with a [[news/talk]] format [[simulcasting]] [[KIRO (AM)|KIRO]] 710 AM. The station previously broadcast a [[classic hits]] format under the '''KBSG-FM''' callsign.


==Open Discussion==
==History==


On [[August 1]], [[2007]] KBSG was rebranded from "KBSG 97.3" to "The New B97.3" dropping the word 'oldies' from the station title.<ref name="kbsg_seapi">[http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/325949_radiobeat02.html KBSG becomes B97.3, Seattle PI]</ref>
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|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. --[[User:Lee Daniel Crocker|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. -- [[User:PaulDrye|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" ;)


Exactly one year later, on [[August 1]], [[2008]], the station's call letters were changed to KIRO-FM.<ref name="fcc-kbsgcallchange">{{cite web |url=http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/call_hist.pl?Facility_id=33682&Callsign=KIRO-FM |title=Call Sign History |accessdate=2008-08-02 |work=CDBS Public Access |publisher=[[Federal Communications Commission]]}}</ref>
Entries where only one party from country is listed are strange.
Could you add more parties from your coutry ? --[[User:Taw|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|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. --[[User:Eob|Eob]]


On [[August 12]], [[2008]] at 4:23 AM, KBSG's frequency began to simulcast sister news/talk radio station [[KIRO (AM)|KIRO]]; the final song as a classic rock station, ''[[Start Me Up]]'' by the [[Rolling Stones]], was cut off about halfway into the song as the FM station joined KIRO AM's ''[[The Wall Street Journal|Wall Street Journal This Morning]]'' in progress. <ref>[http://mynorthwest.com/?sid=77894&nid=130]</ref> <ref>[http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=106]</ref> <ref>[http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,106666.0.html#top Radio-Info: "The music died at 4:23am on 97.3"]</ref>
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.


==Shows and hosts==
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.
Station repeats [[KIRO (AM)]] full-time; see that article for details.


==Locations==
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.)


Towers: {{coord|47|30|14|N|121|58|29|W|}}, on [[Tiger Mountain]]<br />
: 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. -- [[User:Herman|Herman]]
Headquarters: {{coord|47|38|8|N|122|19|29|W|}}, [[Seattle, Washington]] on the shores of [[Lake Union]]


==References==
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.)
{{reflist}}
: 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. --[[User:Eob|Eob]]


==External links==
-- [[User:Simon J Kissane|Simon J Kissane]]
*[http://www.mynorthwest.com/ KIRO official website]
*{{FMQ|KIRO}}
*{{FML|KIRO}}
*{{FMARB|KIRO}}


{{Seattle Radio}}
----
{{Bonneville International}}
{{News/Talk Radio Stations in Washington}}


{{Washington-radio-station-stub}}
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.


[[Category:Radio stations in Seattle, Washington|IRO-FM]]
----
[[Category:News and talk radio stations]]
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.) [[User:Vicki Rosenzweig|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. [[User:TakuyaMurata|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? [[User:KF|KF]] 22:10 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)

Okay. Agreed. [[User:TakuyaMurata|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:

*[[Alaskan Independence Party]] http://www3.polarnet.com/End_of_Road/soapbox.dir/aip.dir
*[[All American Constitution Party]] http://www.america-collins.com/
*[[America First Party (2002)]] http://www.americafirstparty.org/
*[[American Heritage Party]] http://www.americanheritageparty.org/
*[[American Independent Party]] http://www.aipca.org/
*[[Americanist Party]] http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/americanist
*[[Christian Falangist Party of America]] http://www.falangist.com/
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]] http://www.hartford-hwp.com/cp-usa
*[[Constitution Action Party]] http://www2.ari.net/home/CAP
*[[DC Statehood Party|DC Statehood Green Party]] http://dcstatehood.org/
*[[Democratic Socialists of America]] http://www.dsausa.org/
*[[Expansionist Party of the United States]] http://members.aol.com/XPUS
*[[Family Values Party]] http://members.aol.com/fvparty/fvparty1/
*[[Freedom Socialist Party]] http://www.socialism.com/
*[[Fusion Party of America]] http://members.tripod.com/~fusionparty
*[[Grassroots Party of Minnesota]] http://www.visi.com/~grp
*[[Hui Kalai'aina]] http://members.xoom.com/HUIKALAIAINA
*[[Humanist Party]] http://www.humanist.org/hp
*[[Independence Party of Minnesota]] http://www.mnip.org/
*[[Independent American Party]] http://www.usiap.org/
*[[International Socialist Organization]] http://www.internationalsocialist.org/
*[[Internet Party]] http://www.internet-party.org/
*[[Ku Klux Klan Party]] http://www.kukluxklan.org/
*[[United States Labor Party|Labor Party]] http://www.labornet.org/lpa
*[[Liberty Coalition]] http://www.libertycoalition.org/index.htm
*[[Libertarian National Socialist Green Party]] http://www.nazi.org
*[[Light Party]] http://www.lightparty.com/
*[[Multi-Capitalist Party]] http://www.oicu2.com/afc
*[[National Mini Convention Political Party]] http://www.surf-ici.com/nmcpp/index.htm
*[[National Patriot Party]] http://205.232.76.174/patriot/patriot.html
*[[National Socialist White People's Party]] http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/national-socialist-white-peoples-party/
*[[New Party]] http://www.newparty.org/
*[[New Union Party]] http://www1.minn.net/~nup
*[[Pacifist Party]] http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4826
*[[Peace and Freedom Party]] http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/
*[[Populist Party|Populist Party]]
*[[Progressive Labor Party]] http://www.plp.org/
*[[Prohibition Party]] http://www.prohibitionists.org/
*[[Public Campaign]] http://www.publiccampaign.org/
*[[Puritan Party]] http://ows.net/puritan
*[[Rainbow Coalition Party]]
*[[Reform Silly Party of Florida]]
*[[Royalist Party of America]] http://members.xoom.com/purpleshirts/index.html
*[[Social Democrats]] http://www.socialdemocrats.org/
*[[Social Nationalist Party]] http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/9324
*[[Socialist Party]] http://sp-usa.org/
*[[Socialist Labor Party of America]] http://www.slp.org/
*[[Socialist Workers Party]]
*[[United States Southern Party|Southern Party]]
*[[Southern Independence Party]] http://www.southernindependentparty.com/
*[[VAMPS Against Modern Political Systems]] http://id.mind.net/~malachi/vamps
*[[Vermont Progressive Party]]
*[[We the People Party]] http://www.wtp.org/
*[[The White House Project]] http://www.thewhitehouseproject.org/
*[[Workers Party]] http://www.workersparty.org/
*[[Workers World Party]] http://www.workers.org/
*[[World Socialist Party of the United States]] http://www.worldsocialism.org/usa/

// [[User:Mic|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]]. -- [[User:Egil|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!? [[User:Jpatokal|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. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] 10:45, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

::It's too long as it is - we need to split it up, probably by continent? [[User:Morwen|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_uk]]10:45, 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. --[[User:Shallot|Shallot]] 18:51, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed - they should link both ways. [[User:Secretlondon|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. - [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 21:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


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.[[User:Electionworld|Electionworld]] 19:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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. [[User:Tamino|Tamino]] 17:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

==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. [[User:Electionworld|Electionworld]] = [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Wilfried]] <small>([[User talk:Electionworld|talk]]</small> 22:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

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

== 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. [[List_of_political_parties_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China|China]] and [[List_of_political_parties_in_Sweden|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?

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


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:

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
|-
! !! Country !! width="70"|Multi party !! width="70"|Two party !! width="70"|Dominant party !! width="70"|Single party !! width="70"|No party
|-
! {{flagicon|Abkhazia}}
| style="text-align:left"|[[List of political parties in Abkhazia|Abkhazia]] || || || • || ||
|-
! {{flagicon|Afghanistan}}
| style="text-align:left"|[[List of political parties in Afghanistan|Afghanistan]] || • || || || ||
|-
! {{flagicon|Åland}}
| style="text-align:left"|[[List of political parties in Åland|Åland]] || • || || || ||
|-
! {{flagicon|Albania}}
| style="text-align:left"|[[List of political parties in Albania|Albania]] || • || || || ||
|-
! {{flagicon|Algeria}}
| style="text-align:left"|[[List of political parties in Algeria|Algeria]] || • || || || ||
|-
! {{flagicon|American Samoa}}
| style="text-align:left"|[[List of political parties in American Samoa|American Samoa]] || || || || || •
|-
! {{flagicon|Andorra}}
| style="text-align:left"|[[List of political parties in Andorra|Andorra]] || • || || || ||
|-
! {{flagicon|Angola}}
| style="text-align:left"|[[List of political parties in Angola|Angola]] || || || • || ||
|-
! {{flagicon|Anguilla}}
| style="text-align:left"|[[List of political parties in Anguilla|Anguilla]] || || • || || ||
|-
! {{flagicon|Antigua and Barbuda}}
| style="text-align:left"|[[List of political parties in Antigua and Barbuda|Antigua and Barbuda]] || || • || || ||
|-
! {{flagicon|Argentina}}
| style="text-align:left"|[[List of political parties in Argentina|Argentina]] || • || || || ||
|-
! {{flagicon|Armenia}}
| style="text-align:left"|[[List of political parties in Armenia|Armenia]] || • || || || ||
|-
! {{flagicon|Aruba}}
| style="text-align:left"|[[List of political parties in Aruba|Aruba]] || • || || || ||
|-
! {{flagicon|Australia}}
| style="text-align:left"|[[List of political parties in Australia|Australia]] || || • || || ||
|-
! {{flagicon|Austria}}
| style="text-align:left"|[[List of political parties in Austria|Austria]] || • || || || ||
|-
! {{flagicon|Azerbaijan}}
| style="text-align:left"|[[List of political parties in Azerbaijan|Azerbaijan]] || || || • || ||
|}

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

== Template usable on articles ==


{{Political party}}

[[Template:Political party]]

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. [[User:Cwolfsheep|Cwolfsheep]] 20:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

== 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. --[[User:SodiumBenzoate|SodiumBenzoate]] 05:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

: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. [[User:C mon|C mon]] 15:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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. [[User:Mikebloke|Mikebloke]] 06:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

== 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"? --[[User:SodiumBenzoate|SodiumBenzoate]] 05:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

::Because out of the 167 seats 114 are held by [[Fifth Republic Movement]] after the [[Venezuelan parliamentary election, 2005|2005 elections]]. In the [[Venezuelan parliamentary election, 2000|previous elections]] it held 91 seats. This means that this party dominates parliament. I have reverted this edit. [[User:C mon|C mon]] 15:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

::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. [[User:Skinsmoke|Skinsmoke]] 13:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

::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. [[User:C mon|C mon]] 14:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

::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. [[User:Skinsmoke|Skinsmoke]] 16:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with Skinsmoke on this; apart from that, none of the Scandinavian countries feature a dominant party system as of 2006, incidentally. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">llion</span>]] [[User talk:Nightstallion|''(?)'']] 23:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

== 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?--[[User:Cerejota|Cerejota]] 01:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

: Since there has been no comment, I will just [[WP:BB|be bold]] and do the edit.

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

== 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]].--[[User:Cerejota|Cerejota]] 22:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

== 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 {{tl|Party politics}} template in a short phrase. I am using it in all the pages. --[[User:Cerejota|Cerejota]] 22:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

== 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 '''[[List of political parties in Eastern Africa by country|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 {{tl|in-use}}, {{tl|Pol-party-region-intro}} and <noinclude>==List of countries==, ==References==, references tag, and ''Category:Lists of political parties by United Nations geoscheme|REGION-NAME'' (wikified of course!!!) </noinclude>.
# Save.
#Copy the table header from and existing page after the <noinclude>==List of countries==</noinclude> but before the <noinclude>==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 {{tl|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!!!

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

== 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. [[User:Electionworld|Electionworld]] <small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Electionworld|Talk?]]</font></small> 19:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

: 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 [[WP:SIZE|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. --[[User:Cerejota|Cerejota]] 09:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

== 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!--[[User:Cerejota|Cerejota]] 18:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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. [[User:Electionworld|Electionworld]] <small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Electionworld|Talk?]]</font></small> 20:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

: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 [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]], and while [[WP:CCC|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.--[[User:Cerejota|Cerejota]] 17:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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. [[User:Electionworld|Electionworld]] <small><font colr="#008822">[[User_talk:Electionworld|Talk?]]</font></small> 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. [[User:Electionworld|Electionworld]] <small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Electionworld|Talk?]]</font></small> 18:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:I think the list is fine as is. I don't see any problem with having a master list in addition to sub-pages. —[[User:Sesel|Sesel]] 19:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
::Aye, indeed. Leave this list, we can always have others in addition to it. —[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightstallion</span>]] 19:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
:::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
:::[[User:C mon|C mon]] 21:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
::::#For a complete list by country, users can go to [[Category:Lists of political parties]] or we can create [[Category:Lists of political parties by country]] to be more specific.
::::#[[WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information|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. [[User:Electionworld|Electionworld]] <small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Electionworld|Talk?]]</font></small> 05:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:::: 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.--[[User:Cerejota|Cerejota]] 23:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

: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).--[[User:Torfason|Torfason]] 14:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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. [[User:Electionworld|Electionworld]] <small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Electionworld|Talk?]]</font></small> 14:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

==Suspected Sockpuppets/Meatpuppets==
The two anon IPs are form the Netherlands, from which [[User:Electionworld]] is, and hence they are both highly suspect as [[WP:SOCK|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.--[[User:Cerejota|Cerejota]] 23:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Electionworld|Electionworld]] <small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Electionworld|Talk?]]</font></small> 07:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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. --[[User:Torfason|Torfason]] 14:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks Torfason for your reaction. I've checked the IP at [http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=84.62.25.35 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.[[User:Electionworld|Electionworld]] <small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Electionworld|Talk?]]</font></small> 14:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
:: 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.
--[[User:Cerejota|Cerejota]] 15:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

== 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. --[[User:Torfason|Torfason]] 01:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:I agree. [[User:Electionworld|Electionworld]] <small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Electionworld|Talk?]]</font></small> 06:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
These pages are now in the proposed position. Let's allow thinks to settle and see how people like this arrangement.--[[User:Torfason|Torfason]] 15:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::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]].
--[[User:Cerejota|Cerejota]] 15:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If nr. 1 is true, the same goes for [[List of political parties by United Nations geoscheme]], which gives/links to the same information. [[User:Electionworld|Electionworld]] <small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Electionworld|Talk?]]</font></small> 17:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

: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.--[[User:Cerejota|Cerejota]] 01:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

==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. '''''[[User:ObeliskBJM|ObeliskBJM]]<sup>[[User talk:ObeliskBJM|talk]]'''''</sup> 19:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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. [[User:Earthlyreason|Earthlyreason]] ([[User talk:Earthlyreason|talk]]) 12:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

==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. --[[User:The Palatine|The Palatine]] 10:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

== 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. [[User:Earthlyreason|Earthlyreason]] ([[User talk:Earthlyreason|talk]]) 12:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

== 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. [[User:Cunikm|Cunikm]] ([[User talk:Cunikm|talk]]) 22:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:49, 12 October 2008

For the former KIRO-FM at 100.7 MHz, see KKWF.
KIRO-FM
Logo for 97.3 KIRO
Broadcast areaGreater Puget Sound area, Washington
Frequency97.3 MHz (HD Radio)
97.3 HD-2 for Urban AC
BrandingNews Talk 97.3 KIRO
("KIRO" pronounced as a word, rhyming with "Cairo")
Programming
FormatNews/Talk
(simulcast of KIRO 710 AM)
AffiliationsCBS Radio
Ownership
Owner
KTTH
KIRO (AM)
History
First air date
1980s
Former call signs
KTNT (1960-1979)
KNBQ (to 1988)
KBSG (1988-89)
KBSG-FM (1989-2008)
Call sign meaning
See KIRO (AM) for history and reasoning
Technical information
Facility ID33682
ClassC
ERP52,000 watts
HAAT729 meters
Transmitter coordinates
47°30′14″N 121°58′29″W / 47.50389°N 121.97472°W / 47.50389; -121.97472
Links
WebcastListen Live
Websitehttp://www.MyNorthwest.com

KIRO-FM (97.3 FM) is a radio station in Seattle, Washington, USA, with a news/talk format simulcasting KIRO 710 AM. The station previously broadcast a classic hits format under the KBSG-FM callsign.

History

On August 1, 2007 KBSG was rebranded from "KBSG 97.3" to "The New B97.3" dropping the word 'oldies' from the station title.[1]

Exactly one year later, on August 1, 2008, the station's call letters were changed to KIRO-FM.[2]

On August 12, 2008 at 4:23 AM, KBSG's frequency began to simulcast sister news/talk radio station KIRO; the final song as a classic rock station, Start Me Up by the Rolling Stones, was cut off about halfway into the song as the FM station joined KIRO AM's Wall Street Journal This Morning in progress. [3] [4] [5]

Shows and hosts

Station repeats KIRO (AM) full-time; see that article for details.

Locations

Towers: 47°30′14″N 121°58′29″W / 47.50389°N 121.97472°W / 47.50389; -121.97472, on Tiger Mountain
Headquarters: 47°38′8″N 122°19′29″W / 47.63556°N 122.32472°W / 47.63556; -122.32472, Seattle, Washington on the shores of Lake Union

References

  1. ^ KBSG becomes B97.3, Seattle PI
  2. ^ "Call Sign History". CDBS Public Access. Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved 2008-08-02.
  3. ^ [1]
  4. ^ [2]
  5. ^ Radio-Info: "The music died at 4:23am on 97.3"

External links

Stub icon

This article about a radio station in the U.S. state of Washington is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lists_of_political_parties&oldid=244821911"