This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Germany High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations. Once references have been added, remove the |unref= from this template. Politics: Political parties Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Top-importance). Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

​​​I think we should remove the factions section from the ideology section of the infobox, since the infobox is meant to be concise, not overly detailed. However, I'm not sure which ones to keep. I'd say that at the most, conservatism, liberal conservatism, and Christian democracy (and possibly pro-Europeanism, though I understand that editors feel that is unnecessary) should be maintained. However, should either conservatism or liberal conservatism be removed, too?

P.S. Please ping any editors you know who might be interested/involved with this. Ezhao02 (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ezhao02, I agree with the removal because they should be under a Factions parameter which I am proposing to add. Since we have a section about factions on several political parties articles, I believe they should be in the infobox, not under Ideology because that would be the wrong parameter, but under a new Factions one. Since the infobox is supposed to list key facts, factions may be important enough to be listed. Of course, there would need to be a sourced section about them, etc. Otherwise we would simply leave the parameter blank and only have one main ideology under Ideology. Any thoughts?--Davide King (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good idea. The one concern I have with having a specific "factions" section is that it could lead to overuse. Personally, I feel like ideological factions are already listed on too many political party pages. Factions should only be listed in the infobox when there is a significant divide within the party, especially an abnormal one (something like Christian rightists and Christian leftists in the same party, for example), because the infobox is intended to be a concise summary of information on the article topic. I'm worried that people will use the factions section of the infobox even more this way. Ezhao02 (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ezhao02, thanks for your comment. I agree that it should be used with parsimony, like there would need to be a section where we discuss the various factions (some party articles already do that), where they are properly referenced and for parties where there are big divides. As for your worry, I do not think that should justify us making no use of it; we would simply revert those users like we would for any other unreferenced edit. Factions need to be discussed first in the main body before they can be added to the infobox. I do not think the few parties who have a properly references section about factions should be held back because most others do not; for now, we would use the parameter only for those who are properly referenced in the main body and this should actually incentivise us to properly reference much more parties in the main body. I also propose we create a Political position parameter (with the current Political position parameter being renamed Political spectrum) so we can add political positions such as Anti-immigration and Pro-Europeanism that are often wrongly put under Ideology, where ideally we would put only 1–3 ideologies. I mean, just look at National Rally. Ideologies should be only Right-wing populism, French nationalism and national conservatism while all the rest should go in Political position. If that would be too much for the current infobox, we may create another, small infobox only for factions and political positions that we would be in an Ideology section in the main body which include ideology, political positions, factions, etc.--Davide King (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davide King: Yes, that would work for pages for major political parties in large countries, but what about parties in smaller countries? I'm worried that we wouldn't be able to patrol these changes well enough. I also feel like if a "factions" section is created, it should only be used for organized factions, not just the views of particular members. I also don't see why ideological factions couldn't just be listed under ideology. Regarding the National Rally page, I totally agree that it has too much listed in the ideology section, but I feel like we could remove all the extra information/details without putting it in a separate section of the infobox. Ezhao02 (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ezhao02, one solution may be to use it only for those who warrant it; and to avoid edit warring, rather than leave it blank, we simply do not list the parameter at all in the infobox, so that it will not be changed every time since it will not be there.--Davide King (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could try it and see if it works. However, I'd stil like to know why these ideological factions can't simply be listed in the ideology sections. Ezhao02 (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because Factions would be, exactly as you wrote, for organised factions and not just ideological factions, although Factions may also be used to list minority ideological views while Ideology would be for the majority which pretty much everyone agrees.--Davide King (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for the clarification! Ezhao02 (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think some references in the first paragraph should be merged. I tried to do it myself but couldn't figure it out on the visual editor, then tried to use the source editor but got scared and gave up. Placeholderer (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]