Template talk:Democratic Party factions

One only page for the PD factions

I think that many factions in this tmp are not encyclopedical. "Lettiani", "Veltroniani", "Bersaniani" are not official factions (and they are also stubs), are only groups of MPs loyal to one or to another party's executive. The official factions can ben considered encyclopedical, but these? In each party of the world there are loyal member to one or another leader, but in Wikipedia there should be only official factions, indeed I have not found pages such as these for the other parties. Furthermore there are present these unofficial faction but not the current official factions. I suggest to put together these faction in one page, adding the new official factions and keeping however an autonomous page only for official factions --Wololoo (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Practically, the new page would be divided into Official and Unofficial factions, the Official faction can also have an autonomous page--Wololoo (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose your proposals. We are not the ones who can decide what is official and what is not; furthermore, there are plenty of sources on "Renziani", "Veltroniani", "Lettiani", "Bersaniani", etc. Moreover, in my view, each faction should have its own article, differently from the it.Wiki custom you are likely attuned to. While opposing your proposals, I ask for your help in improving each article linked in the template, as well as starting new articles on the missing factions. You might need to understand a little bit more of the customs were are used to here in en.Wiki, but I'm very happy that another user will work on Italian politics-related articles. Up to this point, there have been just a few users working on them. As with the other talk, I would ask to User:Nick.mon and User:Autospark, the other two users active on Italian politics, to participate in this discussion. --Checco (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Renziani", "Veltroniani", "Lettiani", "Bersaniani", etc. are present in a lot of sources because they are only journalistic terms. We are not the ones who can decide what is official and what is not, but it is obvious that an official and organized faction has at least its own name. Indeed an organized faction and a simple group of followers of an party's executive are different things. I highly doubt that these groups of followers in a party might be considered encyclopedical, personally I found similar cases in Wikipedia only for two factions of the french Socialist Party. At least it would be necessary to divide the template into official and unofficial factions, renaming these pages with a title less journalistic and more appropriate for an encyclopedia, such as for example "Renzi's faction"--Wololoo (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support Checco in maintaining the factions in their existing form as separate pages with the current names.--Autospark (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Renzi's faction" is not more official than "Renziani", which is extensively used by journalists as well as politicians, including the very "Renziani". However, while I prefer "Renziani", I could live with "Renzi's faction", if that is what other users like better. More important, "Renziani" is defintely a faction of the PD, it is one the party's largest and, as such, is definitely encyclopedical. The same things can be said for other factions named after their leaders.

I don't think that a distinction between official and unofficial factions is useful, while it might be interesting to have both the current and the former factions of the PD in the template. What do y o u think? --Checco (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My personal idea is to keep in the template both present and past factions, but I think that we must separate them. For example in the template there's still the faction of Stefano Fassina, who left the party almost two years ago. About factions' name, I personally prefer "Renziani", "Bersaniani" and so on, but this is only my opinion. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that you prefer to keep these pages and with their current names, Although I think That for this type of argument is a dispersive way to collect informations. However I think that a distinction between personal and organized factions would be preferable, as well as the distinction between present and past factions. --Wololoo (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I add that a page such as Franceschiniani has no reason to exist (furthermore the faction of Franceschini is AreaDem) and 360 Association is an association, not a faction. The template should be reorganized--Wololoo (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, any distinction between "personal/unofficial" and "organised/official" factions would not be encyclopedic and quite deceptive. Also, some associations can be considered factions. It does not really matter whether politicians describe their factions as "factions", "associations" or whatsoever organisations (in fact, it does not even matter whether politicians describe their parties as "parties" or "movements"... the M5S is clearly a party, indeed!). The Franceschiniani were originally a faction within DL, a founding member of the PD; Democratic Area is led by Franceschini, but Franceschiniani is not a total overlap, at least historically. The template may be re-organised (let's include former factions, for instance!), new articles may be written and old ones may be expanded, but let's not delete articles, please. --Checco (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also call for the existing articles on party factions to be retained rather than deleted.--Autospark (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to delete these informations, but for example, the contents of pages like Bersaniani, Dalemiani, Lettiani and Veltroniani would be better in the pages of respective political figures with the redirect, also because they do not explain almost nothing, only three or four lines of informations they are more suitable as paragraph that as autonomous page! The page Renziani is more reasonable, while the page Franceschiniani is totally useless, it has to be converted as redirect. The purpose is to rationalize and make the information less dispersive, autonomous pages with 4 lines are not very useful. The structure of the tmp must be changed, at least separating current and past factions --Wololoo (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on separating current and past factions, while keeping the "ideological" classification. Those articles are not dispersive because one can find them linked in the template and in the article on the PD itself. The article on "Franceschiniani" might be expanded, but shall not be deleted. --Checco (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the current state the page Franceschiniani is useless and it must be converted as redirect--Wololoo (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus on deleting Franceschiniani (see User:Autospark's, User:Nick.mon's and my comments above). Yesterday User:Wololoo transformed the article into a redirect, today I reinstated it back and I expanded it a little. Improvements are welcome! --Checco (talk) 08:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NetworkDem

Hi! Is NetworkDem still active? In fact many member of it supported Orlando in 2017 leadership election; moreover Sandra Zampa (one of ReteDem founders) was the main organizer of Orlando's campaign. So is ReteDem still active, or most of its members are now in Orlando's faction Remake Italy? -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it is still active and has not been merged into Remake Italy. It is the future of the latter is actually quite unclear: some of its members (Orfini) supported Renzi, others (Orlando) did not. --Checco (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]