Template talk:Communist parties

Very incomplete listing
"This template is mainly delimited to the listing at http://solidnet.org/redlink.html." Fair enough, but there are lots of parties missing from the template that are on the Solidnet list. Is there a reason for this? Grauniad100 (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, the template only includes parties which have wikipedia articles. Not all parties listed at solidnet have articles. --Soman (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If I get the chance I will see which are missing that have articles and add them. I added the NCP Britain which is part of the Solidnet group of parties already. Grauniad100 (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I added Swiss Party of Labour --Arepo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arepo (talk • contribs) 14:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Moved Iran into the Asia List
I had moved it, mainly because the supporters of the Tudeh Party themselves do not believe themselves to be bundled up with Middle Eastern Countries. I thought it would be alright, since Turkey is in the Europe section, rather than the middle east. Also, seeing as Iran is in Central Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.157.173 (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

UK vs Britain
I reverted this edit. In brief, if we use 'UK' then we need to include the Irish parties as well (which arguably operate in the UK). In the communist movement there was always a separation between British and Irish parties, and communists never organized themselves of the basis of the UK. --Soman (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The United Kingdom doesn't include Ireland - they are two seperate countries. Britain and the United Kingdom are one and the same however the United Kingdom is the correct and more commanly used title (within the country and Europe). Irish Communist parties would stay in Ireland and British Communist parties would be in the United Kingdom section. The Quill (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Northern Ireland is sort of part of the UK. In the communist movement, the Irish communist parties (such as CPI, WPI) organize in the entire island of Ireland whilst British communist parties never established any presence in N. Ireland. To change 'Britain' to 'UK' becomes ahistorical. --Soman (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Northern Ireland is part of the UK, there is no sort of about it. The offical name of the United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Quill (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the 'sort of' part was sort of an ironical comment. --Soman (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So we are in agreeance that it should be UK and not Britain?? The Quill (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No. If we use UK, then we need to include the Irish parties. --Soman (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How so? It only applies to Northern Ireland. It should be UK, as "Britain" is not a country, merely a region/area. --Spation (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the British Parties don't operate in Northern Ireland and the Irish Parties do it would make sense to continue to group it on this basis otherwise we will have to list the Irish ones twice since they operate in a part of the UK. --Brezhnev b20 (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)
Aside from not being on the solidnet list, is there any reason not to include the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) in the template? It is an officially recognized Canadian political party and has its own Wikipedia article. - Haunti Talk 05:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * CPC(ML) comes from a different historical tradition than the parties in this listing. This listing is intended for the parties associated with the mainstream communist tradition, grouped around the International Conferences of Communist & Workers Party, formerly the World Marxist Review and the solidnet website. --Soman (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * CPC(ML) is a splinter group from the CPC, and is included in List of communist parties, the list linked to from the title of this template. Given that the title of this template is simply "Communist Parties," isn't it POV so restrict it to a particular tendency? - Haunti Talk 15:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it would open for making the template a copy of List of communist parties. I created the templates as a navigating tool for the mainstream communist movement, i.e. ideally one party per country. Originally the template had a different name, perhaps a move might be warranted, but I don't know exactly to where. --Soman (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the issue is whether a particular party is "mainstream" or not, it should be noted that the CPC(ML) received more than twice as many votes in the last federal election than the CPC (see http://enr.elections.ca/National_e.aspx). That should merit inclusion, especially considering that ten other countries have more than one entry in the list. - Haunti Talk 18:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria are not watertight here, but I'd say that the CPC(ML) would be excluded from the list for 1) having its origins in the pro-Albanian/Bainsite tendency, 2) not being listed at solidnet.org, 3) not having contacts with other parties in the template, 4) not having been associated with World Marxist Review, 5) not participating in WFTU, WFDY, IUS, World Festivals of Youth & Students. In cases of Belgium, Spain, UK, Ireland, there are multiple parties associated with the mainstream (i.e. historically pro-USSR) communist tendency. Perhaps 'Communist Parties' isn't the best name, perhaps the disclaimer should be clarified and expanded, but I still don't think CPC(ML) fit. --Soman (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the disclaimer is the issue. To me, the issue is rather that if the template is titled "Communist Parties," it should be just that: a list of communist parties. If there's going to be some kind of key criteria beyond that (and perhaps that the party be mainstream, which seems reasonable enough), then I think that should be reflected in the title of the template, not just the disclaimer on the template page. Most people don't visit the template's page, they just see the template in articles. - Haunti Talk 20:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Haunti, so I added a couple of parties.--Againme (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of historical parties
I have decided to be bold in breaking this template's tradition and add some European communist parties of note in countries that no longer exist. I'd do that for other countries, as well, but they aren't as well-documented. I invite people who have information on this to contribute. Lockesdonkey (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Argentina
Could someone Add this communist party in Argentina? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCCE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.149.252 (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ TDL (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Informal RFC
Looking to discuss the over-use of red on some templates at Portal talk:Communism. Otr500 (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

On the inclusion of international organisations
I propose that prominent international organisations of communist parties, both current and historical, be included underneath the continents but before the related topics of the sidebar. Including but not limited to the IMCWP, WFDY and ICMLPO, as well as the Comintern and INITIATIVE. Given the composition of this sidebar mainly being Marxist–Leninist parties, these organisations should be mainly geared to that ideology, but I believe that, with the limited mention of some specifically Maoist and Trotskyist parties, some of their organisations and internationals should also be included. Here is a version of the sidebar to show what it would look like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Grettoonist/sandbox#Project_9:_Template:Communist_parties_international_organisations_section_edit

Open to any opinions on this inclusion. I would argue that while some of these organisations are already included in the standalone communism sidebar, the fact that these organisations were created to bring together parties mentioned above, it would make sense to include them in what is already a compilation of parties. @Grettoonist (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)