Hosta

	Separation of powers was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 13, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed

This  level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics High‑importance 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 articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2

Here's a thought. Why not move large parts of this article – the ones dedicated mostly to describing the structure of individual governments – to a separate article by the name "branches of government" (or something similar).

The way things are now, the principle and theory of separated powers is overwhelmed by the detailed and lengthy accounts of each country's arms of government, which I feel misses the point. I would consider "separation of powers" primarily a political philosophy, constitutional studies, and constitutional law concept, whereas the branches of government parts seem more like their own thing, mostly in the remit of descriptive political science (specifically, comparative government).
Readers might have an easier time finding what they are looking for if we distinguish these differing focuses. There's clearly a lot of interest in institutions and branches of government as a topic in itself, so it's probably worth its own article.

I think this split would also help better maintain WP:NPOV in the separation of powers article. Another pragmatic editorial reason to have two distinct articles is that they probably call for two somehwat different types of editor/expert: the more conceptually inclined and systematic ones for the separation of powers principle, and the more taxonomically inclined and particularist ones for the listing of different institutional structures of individual governments.

I'm at the beginning stages of this idea, so I'm happy to brainstorm reasons for and against. So, my fellow editors, what say you?
—§§ LegFun §§ talk §§ 19:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a great idea. Pecopteris (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support this. All that would have to be done would be to create a new article would be to split off the "In different countries" section. I've deleted some of the original research from that but not all of it: especially the United Kingdom section, 4 10-sentence paragraphs long and entirely unsourced. It might be difficult to pass the notability guideline: there are a few good sources in there (at least 2 by my count), but they're not all directly about separation of powers, even if they talk about it. However, it could be justified by it just being a page split, and sources obviously existing. Think it can be done. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably just do it, this talk page is probably not going to get much traffic. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created Draft:Branches of government, and cleaned up the formatting a bit. It still needs a lead, and I'm not sure how it would do with new page review, so I'm not going to move it to mainspace, though. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to have received positive feedback from the both of you, and no objections. I told myself I'd observe the talk page for one month, and then perform the split – provided there were no substantiated objections to negate the presumption of WP:Consensus, naturally. The discussion seems to have come to a close organically after not quite a month. I guess now the 'branches of government' article exists, with the worthwhile sections from the second heading serving as a basis for the draft, the next step is the big one: deleting the entire second heading? So that, in effect, it will have been draftified?

Thank you also for doing a lot of necessary cleanup, Mrfoogles. I've come to realize that the explanation for the article's low quality may lie just as much in its approach – just listing a bunch of instances of the thing, rather than providing analysis and summary (for a description of this phenomenon, see essay WP:CARGO) – as it lies in off-topic material; but I balk at making sweeping deletions. The lack of sourcing for large parts is another good reason to remove them, however.

Funnily enough, even though, as you say, this talk page doesn't get much traffic, it garnered two responses within a few weeks; whereas my invitations to participate here, which I extended to WikiProject Philosophy, to WikiProject Politics and to WikiProject Law – each having ostensibly far busier talk pages – seem to have gone unacknowledged entirely.

—§§ LegFun §§ talk §§ 21:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]