Template talk:Basic forms of government

message: It's called basic forms of government. I don't think it was meant to be a bloody master list.
It should only be there to lead to other, more in-depth templates.FourLights (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Collapse it

message: I propose adding matriarchy. There are reports of matriarchies existing over thousands of years; not all are verified, but the subject figures prominently in thealogy and in 1960s–1980s U.S. discourse, especially among women, and is discussed in anthropology, history, popular culture, and animal studies. I'll be glad to add it if there's no objection. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Matriarchy]] 

message: After coming here from WP:3O and reading the above, I agree with Prototime that the arguments for considering bureaucracy a feature of government, rather than a separate type of government, are considerably stronger. In particular, listing it under "oligarchy" is misleading, because all modern governments, whether oligarchic or not, employ a bureaucracy. I've therefore removed the addition.  Sandstein  09:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Sandstein, All governments employs administration; it is other question if the executive branch will switch to bureaucracy or not i.e. if become using their power illegally. You are mistaken. Please read the arguments what differ between bureaucracy from administration.  I will not revert you intervention, but I expect logical arguments.--Burham (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I introduced the same text as above on the template talk page, also. My simple point is a suggestion for you to recognize the difference between words administration and bureaucracy. They are not synonyms, thus if bureaucracy has pejorative meaning cannot be employed regularly by any kind of government. A government employ executive branch (i.e. administration, which by definition cannot replace or usurp legislature function). - Also this text I copy to talk of the template,  and I will continue the conversation there as you wish.--Burham (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I forgot to answer. I reverted your edit again, because I am not familiar with a reliable source that names bureaucracy as a form of government. Can you cite such a source? (Per WP:V, if an editor wants to add content, it is their responsibility to provide sources for such content.)  Sandstein  21:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: I read the previous discussions above between Burham and others, and it seems to me that the dispute is over the implication of the word "bureaucracy" over administration on its independence: ie: does a bureaucracy have the effective free reign to actually rule?  My opinion: This is a symantic issue, reagarding differences in how the word is used, an I think it is visible in the language of the discourse above.
Burham (inclusind associated ips), to put it mildly, does not appear to be a native English speaker, and so it seems to me that his understanding of English and the word "bureaucracy" is informed by formal education or language instruction.  As for the other editors (and I would include myself here), they appear to be native speakers, and their understanding of the word "bureaucracy" is informed by popular culture.
In common American English parlance, bureaucracy is associated with red tape, inneficiency, administration, and government in general, but it's not associated with agency: the word doesn't imply independence of the bureaucrat or bureaucracy: It's taken for granted that the bureaucrat or bureaucracy is constrained by the law or the legislature.  If an actual government were to rule in the form of government administrators who were independent of the law, then in common American English at least, we would call them oligarchies or oligarchs, because they're not just enforcing the law, but above the law.  To be above the law is inconsistent with the American form of governmnet, so while bureaucracy is thrown around casually at political opponents, the word oligarchy has a more damning implication and better represents what I think Burham is talking about.
This isn't a justification, but merely an observation: Burham's arguments that the constituent parts of bureaucracy: buearu and ocracy, really should imply government by and for a buearu, in my experience, that's just not how the word is used.  Rustyfence (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Fourth Opinion (December 2013)

message: We have whole Wikipedia articles dedicated to that. I will be adding it shortly. Also, if they don't exist, then what do you call them? --43?9enter ☭msg☭contribs 07:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readding Communist State 

message: I have a question/concern about when changes are made to the list.  When new forms are added to the list, we should try to make sure that the corresponding article gets this template placed in it.  Conversly, when a link is removed from this template, we should remove the template from that article, correct?  For example, I added the template to Nanny state, which has since been removed from the list, but the template remains on the Nanny state page.  Not questioning the removal of nanny state from the list, just want to make sure the template matches the articles and vice versa. --Robthepiper (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on the former but disagree on the latter. It turns out that the number of notable forms of government (and forms subsumed under others that are notable) is too large for a template that has to fit within an article, so we have to be even more selective than we would be if we applied merely the standard of notability (adjusted for the subsumed), which determines whether a form of government can have its own article. An article on a form of government should link to other forms of government, and the template supports that. So, if an article is about a form of government that does not qualify for the template, we should still have the template in that article, for the sake of readers and researchers. At the same time, if we add a form of government into the template, we could reasonably assume that it must be at least a notable form of government or subsumed within one, so there should certainly be an article covering that form of government, either at that moment or soon thereafter, either under the same name or by a pipe or redirect. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for sharing your thoughts Nick.  What you've said makes sense.  What I was torn between is whether we should have a one-to-one relationship between the template and the article or a one-to-many relationship.  I can see pros and cons with both approaches, but I don't feel strongly either way.  You seem to be for the latter, which sounds fine, as long as it's applied relatively consistenly.  In terms of the length of the list, that's a discussion I'm staying out of for now because I don't have any good insights as to how to solve it. --Robthepiper (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matching Template Changes with Corresponding Articles 

message: We should mention it because we also mention the theoretical, and barely known about, Demarchy. So, we should including Theodemocracy. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 05:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theodemocracy 

message: The list shown is way too long. It takes up multiple pages in length. It needs to be shortened to common forms of government.--R-41 (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The list is WAY too long. It takes up too much space in articles. Shoud be shortened and simplified 

message: I just stumbled across this and there are many changes I would make. Remove either Patriarchy or Androcracy, they are both the same thing (male rulers) although Patriarchy is a better page Androcracy is the actual term for the rule of government (although matriarchy is used instead of Gynocracy). So either merge Androcracy into Patriarchy then remove Androcracy from the list or just remove one of them. Corporatism isn't a type of government. (The) Garrison state appears to actually be a book so shouldn't really be in this template. Green state is a type of democracy so should be a subsection of tha tpage. Kakistocracy doesn't have an entry, but it is locked. Confusing! Kratocracy isn't actually a type of government, it as a way of staging a coup. Kyriarchy, not sure what this is but it is not a type of government. Mediocracy is not a type of government. The page Nomocracy is crap, it seems to be some sort of term for an Islamic theocracy. Or is it an Autocracy? I'm not sure but it clearly isn't a type of government it is a sub-type of one of those other types. Noocracy is a self described 'Aristocracy' so should be merged. Panarchism is a subsection of Anarchism and not itself a type of government. Pantisocracy appears to be a type of Communism. Plantocracy is just a type of Plutocracy although that itself seems to be a type of Oligarchy. Sociocracy appears to be a type of Democracy. Squirearchy is not a type of government. Police state is not a type of government but is a type of Totalitarianism. Sultanism is a type of Monarchy. Superpower is not a type of government. Synarchism is not its own type of government. Finally, Welfare state is not a type of government. I do not know why all these redundant terms are in here. But this template is severly bloated and should probably be, at least, halved. I thought it best to come here first, as maybe there is some reason for having these excess terms here, and I didn't want to be rude by making vast changes to this template when I had not contributed to it before. Thanks.  Adam4267 (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your proposal. The list is way too long and needs to be simplified to basic common forms of government - specific variants and minor types unnecessarily fill up the list and make it confusing. I would add that the term corporatocracy is under POV dispute for a long time, plus it is a form of plutocracy which itself is a form of oligarchy at least as defined by Aristotle. I will put through your changes. I legitimize these changes with the basis that historical political theorists, including Aristotle have narrowed down the forms of government to a small list.--R-41 (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observations 

message: Everybody seems to be dissatisfied with the current list, so Here's an idea, tell me what you think.
Let's classify governments according to three properties:  Power Structure, Power source, and legal system.
:::Power Structure
*Unitary
*Federal
*Confederal
:::Power Source
*Aristocratic
**Popular
**Constitutional
*Democratic
**Direct
**Representative
*Theocratic
**Canonical
**Ecclesiastical
:::Legal System
*Republican
**Parliamentary
**Presidential
*Authoritarian
These categories are broad and may define governments, past present and future, without regard to who is in power.  It is simply a framework.  For example, you could have a government that is structurally unitary or federal or confederal, it's power is justified by virtue of the people in charge (aristocracy (if written limitations, constitutional, otherwise popular) or it could be a democracy, direct or indirect.  It's legal system could be republican or authoritarian, that is are the laws made up by the authorities at whim or are they written down and applied predictably? If they are objective/fairly enforced, then are the law enforcers selected by the people or the law makers? if people, presidential, if enforcers are selected by law makers, parliamentary.
What do you guys think?  Rustyfence (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Classification of governments 

message: I have added Polyarchy under the democracy section.  It is surprising that the term was not already present in the infobox.--Moosh88 (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Going by the threads above, it may well have been in there once but then omitted (along with other variations) to keep the template's size from growing... 213.246.91.158 (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Polyarchy

message: Also recently added:
*Pejorative
**Bankocracy
**Bureaucracy
**Corporatocracy
Jim1138 (talk) 08:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Jim1138. Looking at earlier threads on the talkpage here, it seems the (over)growth of this template has been a problem, so I haven't included the "Pejorative" subsection in the more compact version just installed as I'm not convinced its contents count as basic forms of government. You can still add it again though (after the "Authoritarian" subsection, I'd suggest) if you feel its contents are basic. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Was added by Burham, not I. See User_talk:Jim1138#Your_info_not_in_the_lead._Why.3FCheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apologies. I guess if Burham wants to (try) add(ing) it again, s/he can. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Pejorative

message: :Any relevance to government nav? --71.160.93.144 (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Possibly, maybe under a new heading ("Theory"?). But might that invite more and more links, bloating the template..? CsDix (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Plato's five regimes]]

message: Caliphate was added to this template which I removed, but was reinstated. To me, it appears to be a theocracy. If you were to change "Islamic state" to "Christain state", "Quran" to "Bible", and "Caliph" to some Christian equivalent, most would call it a theocracy. Why is a Caliphate any different? Should it be removed from the list? I propose that Caliphate be removed from Template:Basic forms of government. Jim1138 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a theocracy - I'd like to see the arguments that it isn't. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well maybe not - I don't think that editor understands or maybe doesn't accept our policies and guidelines. I've removed it as it clearly doesn't belong. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed Caliphate again. "Caliphate" is defined in the article as an "Islamic state". For Sunni Islam, the caliph is selected by election (democracy?) for the Shia Islam, the caliph is "appointed by God". Either way, I fail to see how a Caliphate is a "Basic form of government" Jim1138 (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Is a Caliphate a theocracy

message: The new list is a great improvement but it still has a few issues. For instance constitutional monarchies belong to both monarchies and democracies, and there isn't a category for republics, which is something a lot of readers will be looking for.
So I would propose adding another category for 'Head of state' that lists Republic, Monarchy and maybe Theocracy.
I would like to rename Power Structure to Area of Government, and Power Source to Representation of Government.
This should keep the list the same lenght as it is now, but better presenting where republic and monarchy comes in and that they are only mutily exclusive with eachother not Democracy for instance.Carewolf (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposed Classification of governments 

message: Could another way to regard "basic forms" of government be by scope/extent/etc, i.e. (in no particular order) local, central/national, national unity, federal, supranational, etc, etc..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: By scope?

message: Totalitarianism involves the total authority of the state and total control over the aspects of the lives of people. Authoritarianism involves the subordination of individual freedom to the power of the state and subjection of the people to authority. Totalitarianism is a form of authoritarianism. Despotism involves the exercise of absolute authority by a despot. Autocracy refers to a form of government where one person has unlimited authority over others. A dictatorship is a form of government where absolute power is exercised by a dictator. All of these may be classified under authoritarianism to some extent, but the same does not apply under autocracy, which is too limited. Autocracy refers to one individual, whereas totalitarianism and authoritarianism do not necessarily have to exist beneath one individual, so autocracy shouldn't be representing the group of five. A dictatorship is not necessarily totalitarian, and totalitarianism can be oligarchic in nature, so totalitarianism cannot be at the top. Dustin (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Then re-do the template. Something so ambiguous as forms of government should not be characterized into mere groups when they can overlap one another. The main forms of a government are: Democracy, Autocracy and Oligarchy. Monarchy can overlap with Autocracy, or even Oligarchy. Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism can fall under anyone of those categories, including a Democracy. Whose idea was it to summarize all of this into a template? This is not black and white. StanMan87 (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authoritarianism and autocracy 

message: Be advised that I just added Chinese Legalism under monarchy for your consideration. It is, in any case, a basis of Chinese monarchy. I would also like to point out it's origination of things like the written examination, as detailed on the page, which admittedly needs more work.FourLights (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legalism 

message: I wonder why "gender superstructure" is on top, is not a little bit time-bound as in these days manosphereans and femminism is on the rise worldwide? Further I find that some some links like patrilocal residence and matrilineality have been added ad-hoc to support the "gender superstructure" bit of the template. 
Further, "patrilineal power inheritance" links to patrilineality and "matrilineal power inheritance" to matrilineality which conflates the concepts as these article have no explicit content on "power inheritance". Lappspira (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is gender on top?

message: Since this box is organized in terms of "level of civilian participation" Anarchism should be place before Democracy and change it's description to "power of all" (instead of this misleading "power of none" wich concerns the negative aspects of the anarchist philosophy about "no one should rule the others" and not it's positive aspects that "everyone should participate"). What you think  and . Ogat (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine to keep it last but "power of none" doesn't make much sense—more like "sovereignty of none". Agreed that "power of all" is closer but still misleading. What basis/sourcing are we using to justify the "power of x" construction? czar 12:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

text: I changed anarchism's and the three others to consistently use "rule of ..."; it was "government of none" but that isn't really English, so it's now "rule of none". Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchism Purpose 

message: Hello. I come from the article Corporatocracy, where I removed this template, because it is not considered a basic form of government by any source in the article. Consequently, I've removed a link to the article from this template. Then I did the same with Netocracy, because there it is also clear from the article that it isn't considered a basic form of government. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed corporatocracy and netocracy 

message: I'm not sure what the criteria for inclusion is in this template, but I suggest pathocracy might be included. Daask (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Daask, I object for two reasons: (1) This is a template that links to different articles and "pathocracy" doesn't have its own article. (2) This template is called "Basic forms of government", so it should contain... basic forms of government. I don't think "pathocracy" is considered a basic form of government, in part because it doesn't even have its own article. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathocracy 

message: === This "may or may not" be a suggestion for [a reason for] a change === 
The main reason for my lack of success (in the little 'episode' recounted below) might be (in the opinion of some) ... my own ignorance. If so, then 
:[feel free to explain the reason(s) why] 
maybe my recent experience does not indicate some fault in (nor even some "room for improvement" in) this infobox^H^H^H "sidebar". (Is a "sidebar" ... kinda like an  [template] ... of a certain kind?) 
=== Background === 
I was reading an article (it was about the Falkland Islands) that included (near the top) an instance of [or is it a "transcluded copy" of?] the "" template. 
For reasons that may be outside the scope of this 'anecdote', I clicked on a hyperlink inside that "" template.  That hyperlink was displayed as "Devolved parliamentary dependency". When I clicked on that hyperlink, it took me to the article about "Devolution". 
Now, *that* article (the one about "Devolution") contained (and it still does ... the last time I checked) an instance of this "sidebar" [template] called "". 
OK, so far ... no problems. But then, ...
=== I clicked on a link to "Empire" from this "sidebar" [template] === 
The reason why I did that has been forgotten and may be irrelevant. (Am I weird? [even for a WikiPedian?] Maybe!...) 
But once that click took me to [the article about] "Empire", I did not get past the second sentence before I wanted to start clicking again. The second sentence of the article about "Empire" includes some contrasts between an "empire" and a "kingdom". 
=== Then I wanted to [find, and] click on the link to "kingdom", too! === 
No such luck. Maybe it is intentional that 
:(and if so, then [you!] readers here, may be able to enlighten me about the reasons why) 
there is no entry for "kingdom" in this template, or "", or whatever it is.  
Eventually I was able to click on a link to [the article about] "kingdom". (Sure, now! There is one in the *title* of this subsection! of this section of this "Talk:" page! I put it there myself...); 
... and, I will readily admit, that once I got to the article about "kingdom", just about the first entry there -- (not counting a hatnote, and a handy "Wiktionary" entry link, and a TOC ["Table of Contents"] and a "List") -- was an entry that said that [a "kingdom" can be] a "A type of monarchy:". 
But that was no thanks to the helpfulness (such as it is) of this template! 
=== Maybe this is not a good example === 
For one thing, if the article about empire had contained a hyperlink (via the mere addition of a pair of double square brackets [around the *word* "kingdom"] to [the wikitext for] the second sentence of that article), then I could have clicked on that, even though there is no entry for "kingdom" in this template. 
For one more thing, maybe it should have been obvious to me, that there must exist an article on Wikipedia about [the meaning of] what a "kingdom" is, since ... it is a pretty commonly used word, and well-known, and notable ... so I could have just (slapped the side of my head, like the guy in that "I could've had a V-8!" commercial, and) done a look-up of "kingdom", to find my way to that article. 
In fact, (perhaps even more a sign of my own ignorance than the foregoing), maybe it should have been obvious to me, that [a "kingdom" is, or ... it can be] a "A type of monarchy:" ... because ... it is common knowledge, to anyone who is not a cultural illiterate. 
:(The phrase "a cultural illiterate" can be seen on page 119 of [the 1958 book] Have Space Suit Will Travel by Robert A. Heinlein, if you look here:  https://books.google.com/books?id=BG3SjVi5AvAC&q=cultural+illiterate#v=snippet&q=cultural%20illiterate&f=false but it is on page 133 of my hard-cover edition, bought 'pre-owned' from the friends of the Phoenix Library years ago). 
:(It's in a paragraph that starts out "I missed my slipstick." The next sentence says, "Dad says that anyone who can't use a slide rule is a cultural illiterate and should not be allowed to vote.") 
So, perhaps I should have just looked for, and clicked on, the link to [the article about] "monarchy" from this template, once I determined (by using 'Ctrl-F' to do a search! ... for example) that this template does not seem to have an entry for "kingdom". (right?) 
=== Any comments would be welcome === 
Is the above "use case" too "quirky" or "eccentric" (or weird) to mean that a change to this template would be advisable? That could be ... 
Thanks for your patience if you got through all of this. (perhaps by SKIPPING some parts of it?) 
PS: "Keep Austin Weird" -- ! -- ... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Empire" seems to be in there as an example of "integration", that is, a nation conquering other nations and "integrating" them into itself. "Integration" is there as one of three ways multiple nations can be one whole, with the other two being "separation" and "federalism". So "empire" isn't really there as a basic form of government on its own, but more an example of something. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfamiliar with this "template", ... I tried unsuccessfully to use it a certain way 

message: Is the above "use case" too "quirky" or "eccentric" (or weird) to mean that a change to this template would be advisable? That could be ... 
Thanks for your patience if you got through all of this. (perhaps by SKIPPING some parts of it?) 
PS: "Keep Austin Weird" -- ! -- ... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Empire" seems to be in there as an example of "integration", that is, a nation conquering other nations and "integrating" them into itself. "Integration" is there as one of three ways multiple nations can be one whole, with the other two being "separation" and "federalism". So "empire" isn't really there as a basic form of government on its own, but more an example of something. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any comments would be welcome 

message: (moving this here from User talk:Carewolf, pinging User:Carewolf. PJvanMill)talk( 13:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it is a difference of usage. The only way I have ever seen meritocracy used is as a way to select and reward talent, not as a way to run a country, but as way to run a project. As I see it meritocracy opposes nepotism, but not say democracy. Of course this could be cultural. Carewolf (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  meritocracy and technocracy 

message: Put simply this template is way too long and it could benefit from the content being initially hidden, as is (de facto) uniform for templates.DMT biscuit (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: DMT biscuit, I tend to agree - maybe we should make the individual sections (power structure/source/ideology) collapsible, and make it the default to only show the section that contains the 'current page' (the page the template is transcluded on). I think I've seen it be done that way in other "Series" templates. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 19:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made it collapsible now, but I have left the default to stay expanded to cause minimum disruption upon all the articles this is currently used on. Just add the parameter "expanded=collapsed" to the template and it will collapse the sub-sections. It will also expand to the appropriate sub-section if "expanded=text".  - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsibility 

message: If this is going to be collapsed then it should be automatically. Otherwise, it's essentially pointless.DMT biscuit (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an easy enough change to change the default, now that the table as a whole is collapsible. - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapse automatic 

message: @Geysirhead: I strongly disagree with your latest edit. The separation of powers does not belong in this template. The executive, judiciary and legislative branch are not forms of government - they are components of a government. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 21:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @PJvanMill: Before my edit, there was "integration". Well, you can remove "separation" completely or replace it with something more reasonable.--Geysirhead (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @Geysirhead I agree "integration" was a very unclear heading. I think it was intended to mean "states that are one whole" as opposed to federalism where the government consists of multiple semi-independent parts. I can't think of a really good heading, but for now I'll change it to "unitary" which I think is clearer. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 17:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of powers 

message: Hi. I added a link to List of countries by system of government under List of forms of government. CanonNi (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Included list