Talk:List of Labour parties

Labour Parties in Brazil

Although the Brazilian Democratic Labour Party is nominally a Labour Party, ideologically speaking, there are greater parties which aligs to the "Labour principles". I'd say the more relevant ones are the Workers' Party, which helds the current presidency and was previously much more leftist, and the Brazilian Social Democratic Party. For some strange reasons, they are opposite parties, but are, in practice, very "labourish", while the Democratic Labour Party is not that relevant. --Brandizzi (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Additions and Consistancy

I added a bunch of parties based on the criteria I saw on the page already, that is, that the party only need contain the words "labour" and "party", not neccessarily in that order, nor necessarily adjacent to each other. I also noticed that some sub-national entities were listed seperately from their mother countries (such as Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man), but others weren't (such as Nova Scotia). I listed all of them seperately now. Personally I would prefer the other way, that they go together, i.e. Labour Party (New Caledonia), listed under France instead of New Caledonia, but it doesn't matter that much to me. Farkas János (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Is there any reason why Northern Ireland had been listed separately in the table? A bit odd with the separate United Kingdom row, surely. If there are no objections I think it should be included under UK, with bracketed note that it is a Northern Irish party. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ukraine

Labour Party of Ukraine is not a Labour Party since it is lead by a business oligarch and is not allied to the Labour movement nor trade unions (hence I just removed it from this list). It just took this name to win voters. Social Democratic Party of Ukraine (united) was even less shamefull in "stealing" the words Social Democraticy... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 00:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge

There is no big difference with Labour Party because it already listed every labor parties. --kwan-in (talk) 09:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Labour Party is a disambiguation page - this is an article. That's the difference. Bazonka (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Article name - where did the consensus come from?

Can anyone link me to any consensus discussion that may or may not have occurred in regards to the name of this article? The article name seems clunky and is ambiguous. What about "List of Labour political parties", to make it clear that this is a list of specific parties with a Labour/Labor trade union movement history. Separate from the content at disambiguation article Labour Party, this list article List of political parties named "Labour Party" or similar could be used as an article for what a Labour Party is, and used in the context of "the Australian Labor Party is a Labour Party that etc". Timeshift (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sardanaphalus: moved the page from List of Labour Parties to List of political parties named "Labour Party" or similar on 8 October 2014‎ with the edit summary Accuracy/clarification. I don't see that there was any discussion. I agree it is an odd name. older ≠ wiser 10:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Should it be reverted? Timeshift (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I suppose you could WP:BE BOLD, although it might be best to use a WP:RM discussion to clearly establish consensus. older ≠ wiser 10:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I struggle with listing an AfD still... WP:RM just confuses me. Could you list it on behalf of me and i'll comment? Timeshift (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for listing it. So if Labour Party is a disambiguation article, and this is a list article, what about an article that discusses "Labour Party", what a Labour Party has been and is, and what they have in common re trade unions/union movements? There's already been disputes and merge talks between disambiguation-article Labour Party and list-article List of political parties named "Labour Party" or similar (formerly List of Labour Parties). The issue is not so much not having a page describing Labour Parties, but the existing structure method of a disambig article and a list article both at conflict with each other and neither being an actual article. The Green party exists and is a good example to use for justifying a Labour party article of similar structure. Timeshift (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Timeshift9: You can start a draft at Draft:Labour party and when it's ready we can discuss moving the disambiguation page to Labour party (disambiguation) and then moving the draft into the article namespace. older ≠ wiser 18:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Why should a draft have to come first? Either Labour party deserves its own article like Green party or it doesn't. If the current Labour party article is a disambiguation article (which it is per talk page categories) then shouldn't it be moved to Labour party (disambiguation)? Timeshift (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Until there is actual content, an article is only a hypothetical possibility. older ≠ wiser 19:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. If the article subject is valid it is valid, and based on the convo it sounds like it is but. There is no reason it should be treated any differently from starting any other article - we do afterall have one disambig article and one list article, so its a new standard article technically - why should it be treated differently? Like many prior articles i've worked on it would start it as a stub with only a couple of paragraphs and add to it bit by bit over time, whilst getting views, input and contribs from other editors in the process. Nothing worse than a wikipedia article written by one person rather than collaboratively. I fail to see any rationale why a draft version must come first, why is this technically new article getting different treatment? Timeshift (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It is nothing but an idea until you or someone writes something. WP:Write the article first. older ≠ wiser 20:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't Labour Party become Labour Party (disambiguation) regardless? Timeshift (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Only if there is a primary topic article. older ≠ wiser 20:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 12 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to List of Labour Parties Consensus seems to show that this was an undiscussed move. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

---

List of political parties named "Labour Party" or similar → List of labour parties – Repair undiscussed move from 2014. The current title is unnecessarily awkward. older ≠ wiser 11:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Support - the current article name seems clunky and is ambiguous, was changed without discussion. Timeshift (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Current title is one of the worst I've seen, and also unnecessarily narrows the scope to duplicate a disambiguation page. Cf. List of green parties. Frickeg (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Addendum: Except the capitalisation should be List of labour parties. Frickeg (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Good catch. I've updated the RM. older ≠ wiser 14:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support per above.Pincrete (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support: This a "good" (i.e terrible-results) example of trying to apply the WP:DESCRIPTDIS principle incorrectly, since it fails various WP:CRITERIA like WP:CONCISE, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, which the short version does not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support but with original capitalisation. "Labour Party" is almost exclusively a proper name, there is no such thing as a labour party. Hence it should be List of Labour Parties.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.