- 1 Size of template
- 2 Portugese Intergralists and National Syndicalists weren't fascist
- 3 Marcelo Caetano
- 4 Oswald Spengler ? Why is he on the list?
- 5 Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2017
- 6 Split it
Size of template
Template:Fascism is a rather large template, though not the largest on Wikipedia. It's about 25% larger than Template:Anarchism, which is the one I modelled it after. Most of the space is taken up by the Movements group because fascism is a nationalist ideology so each national variant is unique, unlike anarchism which is much more international and thus more generic. If the template gets much larger the solution is to split off each group into its own template for use in articles in that group. Below I've included a set of templates for doing just that, though the content will have to be updated from the main template before doing so. If anyone feels the current template is too bloated please let me know. I'm going to get to work on Template:Fascism sidebar. Ecto (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Separate templates for each section
Another option, and the one that should be implemented first, is to put collapsible groups into the template itself. The template is almost large enough to require this change now. The template below has some drawbacks, such as the grey group listings which don't look very good, but they're needed to show certain bluelinks (these bluelinks could also be shown by moving them into the lists and bolding them, like is done with the current template). Ecto (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Template with collapsible groups
Portugese Intergralists and National Syndicalists weren't fascist
I removed the Portugese Intergralists and National Syndicalists from the template because they weren't fascist. The Portugese Integratlists were per that article traditionalists, decentralist, monarchist - plainly not fascist. The article on the National Syndicalists even says they opposed fascism. Mamalujo (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have left your changes alone for the present, but reverted the changes removing Salazar. He has often been described as Fascist, a relatively benevolent one of those standards, but still a Fascist.
- Varlaam (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Marcelo Caetano was an exponent of the Portuguese fascist Estado Novo (Portugal) regime. He was the leader of the fascist Mocidade Portuguesa youth organisation. He was the leader of the fascist National Union (Portugal) party. That makes him a leading fascist. -- RJFF (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- That is grossly POV. Caetano was far from being fascist as was the Estado Novo regime, which actually banned the fascist party as early as in the early stages of Salazar rule. All articles you mention do not label Caetano, nor the regime as fascist. Same applies to Franco, who was an authoritarian ruler, but not a fascist. - Darwinek (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Oswald Spengler ? Why is he on the list?
Read our article on Oswald Spengler I don't see evidence that he is a fascist or Nazi. Why is he on the list? Except for the obvious self-professed Nazis and fascists, who decides who is on this list? Inquiring minds want to know. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2017
|This edit request has been answered. Set the |
- Not done. That article's prose reads
"the OUN have been characterized by some historians as fascist."I'm not sure if that's strong enough to add to this list. CityOfSilver 18:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
This is an awfully large template. I can't imagine anyone being helped by it: it simply doesn't facilitate navigation. It is also misleading in that, at that size, it can claim to be exhaustive, but there is absolutely no way that it can be: of all the articles that we (will) have on fascist topics, just some are covered here; to add them all would render the template even huger. As one who has written to some extent on fascism in Romania (but not just), I can tell you for sure this template does not include all the topical articles for all countries, but just a completely random selection.
This brings up another point: the template is already redundant to both Template:Fascism in Romania and Template:Historical Romanian political parties (this as just a sample, for one country). at this point, it would be better to consider creating "by country" ("Fascism in France" etc.) or "by period" ("Proto-fascism"? "Neo-fascism"?) templates and split this behemoth. Those templates would also have the added benefit of dealing with some controversies that are otherwise hard to solve: in topical templates, you can include articles on national movements for which the label is disputed -- they are significant topics for "Fascism in...", but probably not as significant for "Fascism in general". As in: you can argue that Portuguese Integralism was connected to the history of fascism in Portugal, because it has a documented relationship with other Portuguese fascists; but placing it on a generic template about fascism always makes people ask "but was it really?" Dahn (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)