Template talk:Political parties in the Republic of Ireland

RSF
Could User:Padraig3uk please explain why he insists on removing Republican Sinn Féin from this list. While we all know that RSF is not registered with the Registrar of Political Parties at Dáil Éireann, it is equally clear that RSF does contest elections, even though the party name does not appear on the ballot paper. There has been extensive debate on the same issue and along the same lines over RSF's inclusion in the Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 results. On that page, common sense prevailed and RSF is now listed in the results, even though the organisation is not registered with the relevant electoral commission.

May I remind Padraig3uk that Wikipedia is not bound by the legal definitions of any particular state, nor is it a space for petty political squabbles between those who contest the name of Sinn Féin.--Damac 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with having RSF or any other unregistered group the problem is we would end up with a very big template if we added them all.--padraig3uk 23:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the template is for political parties in the Republic of Ireland. I don't think the template would burst if we were to include all the parties that at least stand for election, even if only occasionally.--Damac 04:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor parties
An editor has expressed concern that there is no clear inclusion or exclusion criteria for the minor parties section of this template. So perhaps we should discuss some criteria. Until this discussion is over, please do not remove any material from the template. A good place to start would be to get a list of all parties registered at Leinster House. I can't find a copy online, can anyone help? Another criterion would be parties that have contested an election, whether described as non party or not. Some groups in the list do not appear to have contested election, e.g. eirigi. Snappy (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, please do not remove sections from the established consensus version (of 4 years). I know consensus can change, but let's discuss it first. Snappy (talk) 06:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The WP:CONSENSUS is very clear that all content meets WP:V Fasach Nua (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed so. So why did you remove the Socialist Party (Ireland) then, since this is obviously and easily verifiable? Please refrain from such removal until the merits of each entry has been discussed. Snappy (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The WP:BURDEN is on the individual who added/restored the content to justify the inclusions and the exclusions, the tag should remain until the template meets WP:V Fasach Nua (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything to add to this discussion besides pointing out wikipedia guidelines and demanding that other editors provide verifiability? Any chance you might do some work yourself on the subject and go find some citations? Snappy (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that we should split "Minor parties" into "Minor parties" and "Others". Under the "Minor parties" we should list all registered, currently active political parties including those that have or have had representation at local, national or European level. This would include the Socialist Party (4 local councillors at present) and the Workers' Party (2 local councillors at present). Also included should be Fathers Rights-Responsibility Party, People Before Profit Alliance, Socialist Workers Party and Christian Solidarity Party, as they all contested the 2007 general election, and Libertas Ireland which registered as a party last year and is contesting the 2009 European elections. Note: The Fathers Rights-Responsibility Party, People Before Profit Alliance, Immigration Control Platform and Irish Socialist Network were not registered as political parties, so their candidates appeared on ballot papers in 2007 as "Non-Party". In the "Others", there should be active parties that don't, haven't yet or no longer contest elections. This would include parties like Communist Party of Ireland, éirígí, Irish Republican Socialist Party and Republican Sinn Féin. Snappy (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable, I would prefer a different wording than 'other', maybe "no label" and wikilink to the concept? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, though I'd prefer "Non Party" but either that or "No label" and linked. Also, I haven't included Immigration Control Platform and Irish Socialist Network, because although they did contest the 2007 election (as Non Party) as I cannot verify if these groups are still active. I've left Éirígí in but since they don't appear to be registered or contest elections, they could be removed. Anyone know if they are contesting the local elections? They appear to be more a political group/campaign rather than a party. Snappy (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Name
I undid the page move and reverted the page back to the last version by Larry Mafi. If any editor want to make changes, they should either now discuss them here or wait for WP:IECOLL to finish.  M I T H  10:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop using WP:IECOLL as an excuse for everytime some makes changes you don't like. There already is a Template:Political parties in Northern Ireland, so I moved this template in order to make it less confusing. Snappy (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Order of parties in the template
Should the order of political parties not be changed to show alphabetisation rather than size? As it stands it shows FF as the largest, but this can change depending on elections. Would it not be better to simply show them in alphabetical order? FF would remain at the start followed by FG, but Labour and Greens would have to change places (based on the Dáil Éireann seats). --MacTire02 (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think they should be in order of size. Snappy (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Then who determines the order of placement of éirígí, Letterkenny Residents Party, People Before Profit Alliance, South Kerry Independent Alliance, Workers and Unemployed Action Group, and the Workers' Party? It seems to me this is based on alphabetical listing, whereas FF, FG etc are listed according to size? i.e. hypocritical listing. In otherwords we are telling the reader that there is a difference in importance between one type of party compared to another (rather than, as an encyclopaedia should, provide the reader with the info and allow them make up their mind), and that, because Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are the largest parties in the Republic, they are more important than other political parties. --MacTire02 (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Northern Ireland and UK templates are organised by size, so it seems to be a standard. I don't understand why you see this are hypocritical, after the larger parties are usually the ones in government. The others section could be sorted by number of seats at local government level. Snappy (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because one section of Wikipedia has one thing does not mean we have to follow suit. Using the number of representatives as a means to order the parties in one part of the template, while using the alphabet in other parts of the template is just plainly inconsistant and hypocritical. Should we also rearrange counties according to population or area? How about countries and cities too? Also, how about parties with no representation on any council or elected body? Are we to remove them from the template? If not how do we organise them? How about party members? Party X may have 2 councillors and 1200 members but party Y may have 0 councillors but 50,000 members? Party Z may also have 120,000 supporters, none of which are members or representatives. Which criterium is most important in determining placement in the template? I'm not trying to be awkward or argumentative for the sake of it. I simply do not see why we don't use a neutral, static method for organising the parties - after all, the number of TDs, senators, etc. are listed beside the names of the political parties - if the reader can't see from that measure what party is the largest then that is his/her problem.
 * Party Z has 120,000 members but no representatives, don't they vote?! Well, I fundamentally disagree with the assertion that one section of wikipedia can do things one way and another can do things a different way. How is that supposed to make for readability? Wikipedia has standards and guidelines. In every general election result, the table is arranged by party in order of votes, not alphabetically, so it should be the same for this template in number of seats. Looking at more country political party templates, there is NI, UK, Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Germany, Greece and France have the parties in order of seats (largest first), which appears to me to be a very strong consensus for this method of order. Snappy (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Flags
Per ICONDECORATION and Manual_of_Style/Icons. They should be removed Gnevin (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Subnational flags is irrelevant here. Per IconDecoration that is subjective and if interpreted strictly, could there is no need for icons anywhere. Please give me an example of where an icon is permitted and is not decorative? Snappy (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant ICONDECORATION. Six_Nations_Championship and Battle_of_the_Bulge Gnevin (talk) 10:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand, how is Six Nations a good example? It mixes subnational flags, national flags and an sporting organisation flag all together, surely it would be better if there were no icons here, it would be just a list of participating countries. As for the Battle of the Bulge, a Nazi flag next to Hitler, what is the point of that?! Snappy (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not going to discuss the wiki wide application of the MOS here Gnevin (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that your are interpreting (a vague and confusing) mos to suit your own pov. Snappy (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with MOSICON you should attempt to make it less vague and confusing Gnevin (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Christian Democrats
I am inserting the Christian Democrats. There's no reason that they alone of registered parties shouldn't be on this. They haven't contested any recent elections, but neither have the Communist Party. They campaigned against the Children's referendum, so do exist, however small. --William Quill (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Aontú councillors
Need to confirm numbers after defections to Aontú https://twitter.com/Toibin1/status/1089849775548219393 Bogger (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Any thoughts on adding more parties to this template box?
I don't see any reason why parties like the IRSP or other minor parties with no elected reps aren't on this template. Especially since the template is displayed on the IRSP's article itself. I can see there was discussion about it further up the talk page in 2009 but I'll give it a week and if there's no disagreements I'll update the template with more fleshed out list. lijkel (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My own thought (as per the related inclusion criteria discussions at Talk:List of political parties in the Republic of Ireland) is that the inclusion criteria for this template is best limited to those parties which have registered to contest elections and/or have elected representation in the Republic of Ireland. The IRSP doesn't meet this criteria (not being registered to contest elections or having local/national/EU reps). Otherwise any loosely affiliated political grouping (that has never contested an election, not registered to contest any election, and has never seen a member elected to anything/anywhere) could be included in the template. Making it almost infinitely open. Guliolopez (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah no worries. Cheers for that, makes sense. lijkel (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Over at Template:Political_parties_in_the_United_Kingdom, we worked out specific inclusion criteria. You might find those interesting. Bondegezou (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Will take a look. Guliolopez (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)