Talk:Aontú

Importance for WikiProject Ireland

Reviewed and updated on quality. I do question the priority of Mid - Aontu is notable, and gets more visibility than absolute scale and power might suggest, but still, with 1 TD and 3 councillors, simply Notable (=Low prio) seems more proportionate. Checking further, Independent Ireland, for example, with 3 TDs and multiple local authority people, is rightly at Low prio. SeoR (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Add Syncretic to party position

I am sick of idiots saying that it is WP:OR for me to say it is Syncretic. Opinions on the matter? (Note: Aontu is a minor party, meaning it'll be hard to find many sources 59.102.22.11 (talk) 11:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

And some of us are sick of editors repeatedly adding what they want to an article, against WP:CONSENSUS, when all that's needed to get that consensus is to cite a reliable source. As it's you who wants to add this content, the WP:ONUS is on you to find a reliable reference that describes Aontú as syncretic. Can't do it? Then it can't happen. Have such references? Then you're good. This isn't complicated. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

And sometimes, you don't need a source. The Futurist Political Party (Italy, 1918) has no source, and was similarly insignificant. It is like saying you need a source for an open fascist microparty to be classified as far-right. 59.102.22.11 (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If you disagree so heavily on the syncretic label, all I could find on it's political position was centre-right. https://politpro.eu/en/ireland/parties 59.102.22.11 (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Where did I say I disagree? I said find a source. Again - this isn't complicated! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and drop the childish personal attacks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Which personal attacks are you referring to, exactly? 59.102.22.11 (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Read your opening line in this section. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't against you personally. Had it been anyone else doing the same thing the message wouldn't have changed. 59.102.22.11 (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

"Elections" and "Election results" sections

Is it just me or does the "elections" section seem:

• Repetitious? It contains very similar information (just in "prose" form) that we have in the "election results" section?
• Unusual? The articles for (for example) the Green Party or Labour Party or similar articles don't have separate "blow by blow" sections covering performance in every election? They have "election results" sections. And "history" sections. But not a separate/additional/quasi-redundant "elections" section?
• Overdone? The "elections" section has 11 separate sub-sections. Many of which barely contain a sentence or two.

While it may have made sense to use this format when the party was relatively new (and this section had limited content), I think we're at the point where it should be summarised and condensed a little. Perhaps consolidating and grouping these "sub-sections" by year or by election type or by jurisdiction or something. Continuing to expand it in the blow-by-blow ("every single election gets its own sub-section infinitely") seems like an issue relative to NOTDIRECTORY/NOTNEWS/etc. Absolutely delighted to hear other thoughts. Including on how to address/consolidate/summarise. Before I consider tackling this myself (over come days....) Guliolopez (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree; it is for the most part simply duplicating the same information. One "election results" section a la Labour Party (Ireland)#Electoral results or Green Party (Ireland)#Election results would suffice. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I have started to summarise and consolidate some of that text. Making changes piecemeal (so they should be easy to follow). Unless there are other thoughts (including objections or alternative proposals), I'm inclined to merge/move the remaining content into the "history" section. To sit alongside the other "history" text. Following (as much as possible) a chronological approach. Without (hopefully) overdoing the blocky "blow by blow" flow.... Guliolopez (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

OK. As another day or so has passed, and not hearing other thoughts/objections/concerns/alternatives, I've gone ahead and "merged" the text from the "elections" section (which includes some other/general "history" text) into the "history" section. For all the reasons given above. While some of it is still "blow by blow", and could perhaps be framed a bit more gracefully, it is hopefully better than having three separate sections covering "history" and "elections" and "election results". Where each partially overlaps with the other. And (perhaps worse) where each disconnects from the other in terms of context/flow. Anyway. More than happy if other editors can help with any remaining copyediting or whatever.... Guliolopez (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)