to Government#Party system, which was created during the course of this discussion to handle the nuances of the term where a disambiguation page may fall short. Later discussion showed broad agreement with this solution. -- Tavix (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete to encourage article creation. This redirect is linked to a wikidata item that corresponds to a government formed in a multi-party republic that only consists of representatives of one party. This is distinct from One-party state, and isn't described in detail at the current target of Government, which would be less-than-useful for readers searching this term. signed, Rosguill talk 20:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
: Keep Two possible ways to improve are:
:* add a section to the page Government about "Single-party government" vs "Coalition government" and redirect to that section
:* edit the page Single-party government and turn the redirect into an ordinary page
: Deletion of the redirect or retargeting to One-party state are not useful.
: Taylor 49 (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
::No objection to adding relevant content at Government, but that's something that should ideally be done before the redirect is created, rather than creating a redirect that does not help our readership. signed, Rosguill talk 20:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
:::{{reply|Taylor 49|Rosguill}} I created a section at {{slink|Government#Party system}}; amend it as needed. – Scyrme (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
::::Looks good to me, thanks for putting in the work to write the section. signed, Rosguill talk 14:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Would retargeting to Dominant-party system as {{tl|R from related term}} be helpful? I understand that there's technically a distinction in that a single-party government isn't necessarily a lasting, continuous situation but a dominant-party government is a type of single-party government, and the lead section of the dominant-party system article explicitly addresses the distinction between this and a one-party state, so it may be helpful in that regard. If the redirect is simply deleted it seems like it will eventually just be recreated; someone may even mistakenly redirect it to one-party state. It may be better to retarget it to a section or article which explains the distinction now to avoid this problem. – Scyrme (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- :That seems like it would have the same issue as pointing to Single-party state; it's a similar, but distinct term. signed, Rosguill talk 20:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
:: After a quick look: Dominant-party system is less bad than One-party state, still not good. A single-party government still can be a weak government without majority. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
:::How can a single-party government not have a majority? By definition, it's the only party in government. I suppose the majority of seats could be vacant, but that's a contrived example. – Scyrme (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
:::: We have a such constallation in Sweden just now. The weak Single-party government is tolerated on borrowed time by some further parties sitting in the parliament but not participating in the government. Taylor 49 (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::I don't think a confidence and supply relationship (which is what Sweden has, unless I'm mistaken) counts as not participating in government. If I'm wrong, I suppose this raises another issue that the encyclopaedia could clarify. Perhaps redirecting to a section on "single-party government" vs "coalition government" (as you suggested) would be the most helpful solution. – Scyrme (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::: A confidence and supply agreement is not participating in government, at least not as it worked for Theresa May's government. The partner party does not hold any offices, or take part in formal decision making, unlike a coalition. It is just an agreement that it will vote with the government in a confidence vote or a budget vote, thus ensuring that the opposition cannot immediately bring down the ruling government. The partner party is perfectly free to oppose the government on any other issue. SpinningSpark 05:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Disambiguate. The term is not a clear, single topic that could ever have an article, but we can usefully point readers to what they may be looking for. Minority government (as an alternative to coalition government) immediately springs to my mind. Plus the already mentioned one-party state and dominant-party system gives us three entries. SpinningSpark 05:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Disambiguate between majority government, minority government, dominant-party system, and one-party state. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- :This implies that "single-party government" is used synonymously with these terms, but as far as I know it's not. I could see it mistakenly used to refer to a dominant-party system or one-party state but that would be an error; listing them equally alongside the actual meaning would just further the confusion - it would be less than useful. "Single-party government" is the antonym of "coalition government". Either a single-party or a coalition can constitute majority/minority governments, so "disambiguating" to majority and minority doesn't make any sense. "Minority government" is not an alternative to "coalition government"; a coalition can form a minority government. – Scyrme (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
::: I created a new redirect One-party government (democracy) pointing to the now available section Government#Party system.
::: Retarget / Redirect Single-party government to One-party government (disambiguation).
::: Disambiguate One-party government between Government#Party system, majority government, minority government, dominant-party system, and one-party state (done).
::: Taylor 49 (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
::::{{reply|Taylor 49}} One-party government the way you created it was fine at not being misleading in the ways I raised, but after Mx. Granger simplified it to conform to the usual disambiguation page format it now has exactly the problem I raised. While this could be reverted, it's likely someone else will simplify it again. The disambiguation page shouldn't have been created until this discussion was closed (and even then, only after it was agreed upon), because now this discussion exceeds the scope of a "redirect for discussion".
::::The disambiguation page that now exists is misleading and doesn't even link users to information about a "single-party government"; the same problems the original redirect had (before I added relevant information to Government, the original target). The current situation fails to disambiguate and, if anything, actually creates more ambiguity by implying synonymy and offering misleading targets. – Scyrme (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Scyrme}} Is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One-party_government&type=revision&diff=1099164890&oldid=1098338993 this] better? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
::::::It's better than it was but it still seems to have the problem that was the original redirect had; that it implies that "single-party government" is synonymous with "one-party state", at least in some contexts, which is misleading. Additionally, the new redirect pointing to the relevant information at {{slink|Government#Party stystem}}, namely "One-party government (democracy)", seems unnatural and contrived, particularly when compared to the original redirect.
::::::{{reply|Rosguill}} what do you think? – Scyrme (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Currently, I think that the paragraph at Government#Party system does a better job disambiguating the relevant concepts than the dab page, so retargeting all to there is my !vote at this point. signed, Rosguill talk 14:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
::::::::That sounds reasonable to me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
