Talk:Communist Party of Italy (2014)

A new article. Here is why

Following this edit by User:TizStriz, I started the present article as a separate one from Party of Italian Communists. I did it basically for one very reason: the PCdI is a very tiny party if compared to the PdCI, which controlled ministries and dozen of seats in the Italian Parliament from 1998 to 2008. Alas, I think there should be an article named "Party of Italian Communists", while it would be quite awkward for users to find the account of the PdCI's history in an article with a different and more obscure name such as "Communist Party of Italy (1998)", not to mention redirects. I hope everyone agrees with me. --Checco (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Perfectly good reasoning.--Autospark (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Checco, Autospark, TizStriz: frankly I'm not very convinced, the PCdI seems quite a new name of PDCI. Also the new statute is almost identical to the old one. The reason on the dimension isn't sufficient, it is necessary that the two parties are really different. In fact it does not seem that the PDCI is dissolved. For example the pages of "Union of the Centre" and "Union of Christian and Centre Democrats" were unified or the same reason. However I think that the principal proof is the numbering of the congress: when there is a new Congress, it will be clear whether they are the same party or not. --Maremmano (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but my argument was exactly that of ignoring those concerns and I stick to my position. In fact, we could even decide to have a joint article named "Party of Italian Communists", saying that "Since 2014 the party has been known as "Party of Italian Communists"". The PdCI/PCdI is near-dead and, in my view, it should be remembered with its most common name, "Party of Italian Communists". --Checco (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

A joint article named "Party of Italian Communists" now isn't possible, if the current name is another.It isn't urgent, but if the numbering convention will follow that of the PDCI, it will be necessary a joint article called "Communist Party of Italy (1998)". --Maremmano (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree for the reasons cited above. --Checco (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I stick on having two articles for PdCI and PCd'I (2014), for the reasons stated above. --Checco (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, User:Wololoo, who wants to transform the article into a redirect, is not respecting consensus. The PCd'I is clearly the evolution of the PdCI, but was joined by several members who had never been PdCI members and was as sort of preparation to the new PCI. The issue was settled by User:TizStriz, User:Autospark and I, with User:Maremmano's minority opinion. We can discuss about it anew, but there is an established version. --Checco (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Checco: You say the PCdI "was joined by several members who had never been PdCI members": by whom? Is there a source? It seems to me that you are confusing with the Italian Communist Party (2016). This case is similar to that of Union of Christian and Centre Democrats/Union of the Centre, but here there is not even an accession of new members. Pratically, this is an useless page, because PCdI and PdCI,(as the sources say) were exactly the same party --Wololoo (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand your arguments and, to some extent, they make great sense. However, I think that, for clarity and users' sake, it is better to have two separate articles. The comparison with the UDC/UdC case is interesting, but there is a difference: UDC and UdC had been intertwined all the time and it is not clear whether and when UdC has effectively supplanted UDC (the party's official name is still UDC, while it is more commonly referred as to UdC), while in the PdCI/PCd'I case there is a clear consequentiality. Moreover, it is quite interesting that the PCI of 2016 was founded as the evolution of the PCd'I of 2014 (similarly to what happened to the original PCI and PCd'I in 1921–1926): this historical recalling has to be reflected by Wikipedia's articles, in my view. --Checco (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Checco: UdC has clearly supplanted UDC in 2008, even though the status has not been changed. Same thing for this case, PdCI supplanted by PCd'I in 2014 and Statute unmodified. All the sources says there was only a change of name and not a new party. The historical PCd'I and PCI were the same party too, but comparing that situation with this case is absurd, the history of this Communist Party of Italy is described in six lines! For you, Checco, have not the sources any importance? Can not a party just change name? --Wololoo (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Communist Party of Italy (2014). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070802114935/http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm to http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)