This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes 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.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles
This template 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
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.
Proposal to add Policies and Factions
What does everyone think of adding Policies and Factions to the template? Several parties already do that, so maybe we should add them to the infobox to make it look better and more uniform. My proposal would be so that Ideology contains only the actual ideology and variants of the party (conservatism, liberalism, socialism; conservatism liberalism; social liberalism; democratic socialism, etc.) and Policies would contain what the title is referring to, i.e. party policies that are usually put in Ideology (anti-immigration, civil libertarianism, cultural liberalism, economic liberalism, pro-Europeanism, Euroscepticism, Keynesianism, laissez-faire, non-interventionism, etc.), but that it would be better to separate them. For single issue parties, you won't see anymore Marijuana legalization in Ideology but in Policies. Maybe add Position (historical) too so that we can better reflect changes, especially radical ones, in relation to that.--Davide King (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can see value in the option for a factions parameter. I think less value in differentiating ideology and policies with two different parameters, the problem you highlight here is more an editorial issue (ie policies should just be removed from the ideology parameter). Furthermore, creating a separate policies parameter will likely overload information in the infobox (and won't really add much to the overall information in the infobox that is not already covered under the ideology parameter).--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Goldsztajn, thanks for your reply. As I wrote, I thought of that because you see how political position such as Pro-Europeanism or Euroscepticism are put in Ideology when they aren't really an ideology, but it could be argued that they may be regarded as being relevant and importat enough to be part of the Infobox. I don't know whether it would look too overloaded (I'd be curious to look at it as an example of how it would look like, for we would have to put just one or two political position like Pro-Europeanism or Europscepticism, or Anti-immigration, Cannabis legalisation, etc.) as long as it doesn't split too much text. In that case, it could be called Political position while the current Political position would be renamed to Political spectrum. Either way, while I agree this addition may necessitate of more discussion and consensus, do you think that by now Factions (or Poltical faction/s) could be added already?--Davide King (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think some modification to make clear that "political position" refers to position on the spectrum might be a good idea. Adding a "Policies" field I'm less sure on. While it's certainly one way to cut down on unnecessary arguments about ideologies (I can point you to two articles that see frequent attempts to add one or more so-called "ideologies", and I doubt they are isolated cases), I think it will just cause more arguments about what should and shouldn't be included. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says infoboxes are for key facts, not listing every policy that's in the party's latest manifesto. Will it be simple to decide which policies are key policies and are worth including in the infobox? I think if it's even being considered then a few example infoboxes using real ideologies and policies should be created and a discussion take place somewhere like the village pump. There doesn't seem to be much traffic here, and a proposal that's going to cause lots of drama across virtually every article about current (and to a lesser extent, historical) political parties from every country would ideally need lots of eyes on it. FDW777 (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FDW777, thanks for your comment. I agree about Political position which could simply be renamed Political spectrum. As I stated elsewhere, my proposal is to name that Political position where we can add things like Anti-clericalism, Anti-immigration, British unionism, Christian left, Euroscepticism, Laissez-faire, Monarchism, Pro-Europeanism, Republicanism, Two-state solution, United Ireland and others which are usually wrongly put in the Ideology parameter. I simply assumed that there would be a fight on whether to remove them, so I thought the best way would be a compromise in which they're moved to a more appropriate parameter. Of course, I agree they would need to be strongly referenced and better yet to be discussed in the main body with all references there (the Infobox should be a summary like the lead), otherwise we would simply leave the parameter blank; however, I think it would still be worthwhile to add those parameters and make those changes, even in they may initially be used only in a few party pages which can be considered key facts, as you wrote. Same thing for a Factions parameter; many parties articles have factions in the Infobox and in some case we already have a Factions referenced section in the main body which discuss that and could be considered as key facts to be included in the Infobox, as you wrote. So we might as well add already a Faction/s parameter to not make it look awkward. Either way, I'm not an expert on this and I never discussed before on the village pump, so I hope you can help me get more users' eyes on it to discuss this together and try to reach a consensus or something so as to put an end edit wars.--Davide King (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are some considerable distance away from a village pump proposal, so let's not rush things. I think an example infobox or two about real parties with real information would be a good starting point, then perhaps list it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law for some wider discussion. It may be the village pump discussion isn't a necessary step depending on how that discussion goes. FDW777 (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Davide King's proposal is worth discussing. The outcome might be more complicate and there would still be parties in which two ideologies should be mentioned (typically "Liberal conservatism" and "Christian democracy" go together). Indeed, deciding a party's main ideology might be tricky. However, I support adding "factions", while I am more doubtful on "politices". I hope this discussion will continue. --Checco (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Checco, thanks for your comment! As for Policies, my proposal would now be to renamed Political position to Political spectrum and create a new parameter for Political position where positions which are usually put under Ideology would go there. I give you the example of the Libertarian Party (United States), where only Libertarianism and perhaps Classical liberalism would go under Ideology while Cultural liberalism, Economic liberalism, Fiscal conservatism, Laissez-faire and Non-interventionism would go under the new Political position parameter. Another example would be the many right-wing populist parties are full of Anti-globalisation, Anti-immigration, Euroscepticism, etc. which not only fill the Ideology parameter too much but are also wrong for the parameter as they are not really an ideology but rather a political position, hence my proposal. Of course, we may simply remove them all from the Infobox, but then we will just argue about it and I believe they can be useful when they are properly discussed and referenced in the main body and thus may require the Infobox to reflect that, too.
Another proposal I would like to see is basically an Historical parameters for Ideology, Factions, Political position and Political spectrum to reflect the parties which changed through history (again, this would need to be referenced and all, otherwise we will leave them empty; and indeed, I hope that would motivate us all to discuss it in the main body so that it can be also referenced in the Infobox as a key fact). For example, I think this would be very useful and helpful for social-democratic parties to reflect their Marxist and revolutionary origins and their evolution, etc., but for now let's simply discuss the above proposal (it makes no sense discuss an Historical parameters when there is no consensus yet for other newly-proposed parameters). Most of all of this is already reflected in many articles, but it looks sloppy and we might as well add the proper parameters for that (again, we may simply remove them for all party pages, but I think they can be helpful or useful and I idealistically hope that it will motivate us to improve the articles by adding a referenced section about it in the main body first). There are already some party articles which have a referenced section in the main body so that it could be warranted in the Infobox too, if only there was a parameter to make it look good.--Davide King (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Half) second thoughts: I fear that a "factions" parameter would replicate the problem we are having with the "ideology" parameter. What if editors would start adding each and every, not matter how tiny, faction for each and every party? We should have only main ideologies (one or two, three at most!) and only very relevant factions. And what if editors start adding faction names instead of ideologies? --Checco (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Checco, there are always going to be unhelpful edits, so I do not think that should be a reason to not improve the Infobox. We would revert them for edit warring and not adding a proper citation. As I just wrote above, we would have to discuss and properly reference them in the main body first. Ideally, nothing should be referenced in the Infobox (again, you may argue that users are going to remove and add things, but we would revert them and explain them they are in the main body and they need to first get consensus on the talk page; this happens already for the leads which contain no or little references as they are all in the main body), for everything should already be discussed and reference in the main body, hence why it should be in the Infobox in the first place as key facts.--Davide King (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template-protected edit request on 13 May 2020
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Jonesey95, how do I get consensus for this? Unfortunately, there doesn't seems to be many users here, but Goldsztajn seemed to find it useful and we already put factions in the Infobox anyway, so we might as well get the correct code for it.--Davide King (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal that we change the ideology section to ideologies
The vast majority of political parties on Wikipedia have multiple ideologies listed in their respective infobox's. Therefore, it would be more grammatically accurate for us to use the plural ideologies in the infobox, rather than the singular ideology. Helper201 (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Brigade Piron: it is working correctly. The country field makes the Politics of Belgium link (and the other two links as well) appear at the bottom of the infobox. There might be an argument that it would be a good idea to have a field that displays a more standard country field, but that's another issue. FDW777 (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg){kind=small}
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 