Talk:New Zealand Democratic Party for Social Credit

Party metadata

This article has some associated metadata templates to display political party colors and names in election candidate and results tables.

The table below shows the content of these metadata templates, and provides links for easy access to this metadata.

New Zealand Democratic Party for Social Credit — political party metadata
Color		Shading	Shortname
	#339966	#66CC99	Democrats

liberal party?

As far as I can see the New Zealand Democratic Party takes a position in the New Zealand political spectrum similar to progressive liberal parties elsewhere. Therefore I included it in the category Liberal parties. I added a simple explanation in the introduction. Gangulf 10:13, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

After reading the policies and beliefs of the 'Democrats for Social Credit' and the 'Direct Democracy' parties, I would very much like to see the your party(NZ Democratic Party)join with the other two parties sharing the same principles and beliefs.Iron out your slight variations of policy and find a common ground in which to grow and give confidence to the people of New Zealand so that they may easier believe that there is a strong enough party with strong enough policies to lead us out of the debt system we are living with.I ,for one, are going to vote for the 'Direct Democracy party' this year.My very first vote went to Social Credit back in the 1950's--60's,and it was only when the party begun to fragment itself with other parties continually,that I gave up and voted for the 'greens party'instead.To get the required numbers and have any chance of making further inroads to get the message across,it needs 'one strong party'to lead the way,instead of taking away much needed votes from one another.These are desperate times--humble yourselves and band together for the common goal of political salvation for all NZ'ers. Sincerely,Jenny Lockett,Te Puke,BOP.

Jenny, this is not a website for the NZ Democratic Party. This is an encyclopedia article about that party. You should address your comemtns to the party itself. There is a link to the party's website at the end of the article. Ground Zero | t 22:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Do the Democrats and Social Credit really need seperate pages? They are after all the same party just with a name change? This is especially true now that the Democrats have gone back to promoting themselves with the slogan "Democrats for Social Credit". Things like a list of MP's and Leaders equally apply to both parties. Mattlore 01:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposing a merge now, three years later :) Mattlore (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree: They may be the same party, but each article is long enough on its own. Combining the two articles would make a long and unwieldy article that would then have to be broken down into more manageable pieces. The name change is a reasonable breaking point to keep the articles short. Ground Zero | t 13:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have is alot of the material overlaps and is sometimes contradictory. For instance the Democratic Party article says that it was founded in 1953, yet doesn't talk about any pre 1985 history. It does however list pre 1985 office holders and election results. The Social Credit article lists the party as "Dissolved 1985, renamed New Zealand Democratic Party" which I think is wrong, the party never dissolved - merely renamed itself. There was no merger or anything like this, it has been the same party the whole way through and therefore all the information should be in one article. If it gets too long then it should be split into articles like History of the New Zealand Democratic Party or something like that. Mattlore (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The problems of overlapping and contradictory material should be addressed - I am not knowledgeable enough about the subject matter to do this. But these issues have nothing to do with merging the articles and then dividing them up again, which does not seem to me to be worthwhile. The closest analogue I can think of is the Conservative Party of Canada (historical), which changed its name in the early 1940s to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. This was the same party under a new name, but the two articles exist and are of sufficient length that merging them would not be a good idea. Ground Zero | t 01:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree keep seperate (although there will be some overlap 1985-86) Hugo999 (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree Keep seperate as the 'social credit' article deals with the past rather than the actual going concern of the 'Democrats for...', their was/is a shift between the two, warranting that they be kept seperate? Text mdnp (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree While Democratic Party may have been the inheritor of the Social Credit Party it was substantially different - and the name change was to differentiate themselves from the historic party. We have articles for Liberal Party and United Party, and even if United MPs are categorised as Liberal MPs, the history, renaming and reformation of Liberal United assures them of a separate article. FanN | talk 06:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Democrats v Social Credit

it might be best to focus this article on the period after Social Credit renamed itslef, and push earliermaterial (e.g. election results, party presidents etc) into the article on the Social Credit party. --IdiotSavant (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, either merge the two pages together or make the two cover clear, distinct, periods. eg SCred->1985, 1985->Dems. Although it would be even better if Social Credit could cover right upto Alliance then this page was only post split but I don't really see how thats justifiable. Mattlore (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)