Talk:Italian Communist Party (2016)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To keep Italian Communist Party (2016) separate; and no consensus on whether to merge Communist Party of Italy (2014) into Party of Italian Communists, with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but seems like both this party and the Communist Party of Italy (2014) are the same thing as the Party of Italian Communists after it changed its name in 2014 and again in 2016. Charles Essie (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The PdCI was enlarged and transformed in 2014 to become the new PCd'I in 2014, the new PCd'I was enlarged and transformed to become the new PCI in 2016. I strongly oppose the merger of the three articles for the reasons explained at Talk:Communist Party of Italy (2014). In a nutshell, I think there should be an article named "Party of Italian Communists": 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 "Italian Communist Party (1998)". The party was represented in Parliament as PdCI. --Checco (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Charles Essie, @Checco: As already explained and widely demonstrated Communist Party of Italy (2014) and Party of Italian Communists were the same party (the Italian Communist Party (2016) is actually a new party). The PdCI in 2014 only changed its name, even the statute had not been modified, but when Checco decides something it is extremely difficult to make him change his mind....--Wololoo (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I already explained my view, indeed. Having three articles is perfectly consistent with similar cases: The People of Freedom and Forza Italia (2013), Union for a Popular Movement and The Republicans (France), New Centre-Right and Popular Alternative, etc. --Checco (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Checco These are cases in which the parties dissolve and form new ones, such as PdCI/pCdI and the new PCI. The thing you do not understand is a party can even just change its name. In 2014 the PdCI only changed its name, the statute and the offices remained unchanged. Yet you should know that it is not enough to change the name to dissolve a party.... --Wololoo (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The three cases I mentioned are just identical: in all three cases the parties were primarily re-named. A name change is more notable than obscure changes in a party constitution and, for the sake of users, it is better to have separate articles. --Checco (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Checco I don't know precisely about UMP/Républicains (which, however, has a decidedly different scope from the case in question), AP is actually the new name of NCD (the statute is the same), in this case the two-page separation could be justified by the definitive change of political location of this party (from the centre-right to the centre/centre-left) but a single page would not be wrong anyway. PdL and Forza Italia are absolutely two different parties (the new FI is rather a refoundation of the 1994 party). In this case the importance of the party is minimal, the sources and the facts say that they are the same party, and above all the page of PCd'I does not add anything compared to that of the PdCI (only 7 lines that explain that the party was renamed): where is the sake of users? Honestly I don't see it...

ps. The Italian Socialist Party was renamed 4 times, would be needed 4 pages in this case? :/ --Wololoo (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree with Wololoo.--Facquis (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Facquis, at the moment I would modify the merge proposals at the top of the pages, since the PCI of 2016 is a new party. @Charles Essie, you proposed the merge of Communist Party of Italy (2014) and Party of Italian Communists into Italian Communist Party (2016), what do you think about the merge of Communist Party of Italy (2014) into Party of Italian Communists? --Wololoo (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

There is both continuity and change in the history of PdCI, PCd'I (2014) and PCI (2016).

I am glad that we now agree that the PCI (2016) is a new party. My argument is that the transition from the PdCI to the PCd'I (2014) is identical to that of the PCd'I (2014) to the PCI (2016). In both cases, splinters from the PRC joined the new party, for instance.

I thus oppose the merger of the PCd'I (2014) article with the PdCI article. Not only it would be wrong, but it would also be confusing for readers.

The PdCI lasted from 1998 to 2014 (16 years) and has broad name recognition: if ever the merger that I oppose were to take place, my suggestion would to merge PCd'I (2014) into the PdCI. In that scenario, we would at list acknowledge that the party was mostly known as PdCI and that, at the end of its history, it was re-named PCd'I (2014). Let me be clear: that would be a compromise based on the false assumption that it was just a re-naming issue.

--Checco (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I basically agree that if there is a future merger of the Party of Italian Communists and Communist Party of Italy (2014) articles, it should be named with the former title – the name under which the party was a junior member of government and the centre-left coalition.--Autospark (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Checco: The PCI (2016) is surely a new party, about PdCI and PCdI we can discuss whether to have one or two pages, but the transition from the PdCI to the PCd'I (2014) it is certainly not identical to that of the PCd'I (2014) to the PCI (2016). The PdCI in 2014 was only renamed, this is demonstrated by the facts, also the statute was the same. Obviously, in case of merge, the name should be "Party of the Italian Communists". However, also if the two pages remain separated, it is not a great problem, after all Italian Communist Party and Communist Party of Italy were the same party but they have separated pages, also if I don't really agree with this type of solution (in my view, a party should have only one page).--Wololoo (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.