Talk:Democratic Party (Japan, 2016)

Taiwan Democratic Progressive Party's reaction about the name of Minshinto

Should be mentioned. Thay have the same name: 民進黨～民進党
－yhynerson1 (talk, contribs) 09:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Well,I don't think English-speakers would confuse DIP with DPP,but it can be mentioned.Bxxiaolin (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The issue is not whether it would confuse English speakers, but whether it would confuse Taiwanese voters. To be more specific, the Taiwanese party voiced opposition to the name because of the concern that the DPJ's poor reputation would somehow tarnish their own image, which let's face it is a rather silly claim. The article already notes that they use the same kanji, so I don't think anything more needs to be said about the topic. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Article title

It seems that the official English title of the new party will be simply the Democratic Party. So, what shall we call the article? Naming the article Democratic Party (Japan, 2016) seems the the default choice. However, we should also consider whether this even needs a separate article, and whether keeping the information on the existing Democratic Party of Japan article (including mention of new Japanese language name) is preferable.--Autospark (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Democratic Party (Japan) currently redirects to the DPJ article. Keeping it at the current DPJ article is not preferable in my opinion because although the English name is the same, it is a different entity with a different Japanese name. We really shouldn't worry about doing anything at all until the documents are signed and something has officially happened. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

My sense is that there should be separate articles for the DPJ and the DP, and that the latter's article should be named "Democratic Party (Japan)". I would then move the present article to "Democratic Party (Japan)", while being attentive to how things play out. --Checco (talk) 08:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That is the best course of action IMO. I agree with you both that this party definitely seems to be worthy of a separate article rather than just being a renamed DPJ.--Autospark (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, something needs to be done right away, because it's highly confusing to have the article's name be different than what's used elsewhere in the article. If it WILL be "Democratic Party (Japan)," it should be moved right away; if it turns out to be something else later, it can be moved again, then. Alternately, perhaps the whole article should be moved back to "Minshinto" until the name is officially decided upon. But regardless, one of those two should be done today. Korossyl (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I believe it should be moved back to Minshinto -- it probably should not have been moved to DIP in the first place. References to the party within the article should also be changed back to Minshinto. There still does not seem to be a fully official announcement of DP, and there DOES seem to be some grumbling within the party over its name. Korossyl (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Well to be honest, an article should never have been created until the merger was official. But since we have an article, it should be at Minshinto, as that is the only name with any degree of certainty. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Articles can be created also on upcoming events, especially scheduled elections and parties (sometimes even proposed parties have articles and I like that, whether it is supported by sources), thus this article had to be created and I am glad that someone did it. Regarding the name, I oppose the "Minshinto" (it is always better to have English names, in my view) and I would move the article to "Democratic Party (Japan)" right away. --Checco (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Democratic Party (Japan). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160916235645/http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20160916_28/ to http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20160916_28/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160328145026/http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Policy-Politics/New-opposition-party-launched-with-merger-of-DPJ-smaller-party to http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Policy-Politics/New-opposition-party-launched-with-merger-of-DPJ-smaller-party
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160315082356/http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201602240068 to http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201602240068
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160316010606/https://ishinnotoh.jp/ to https://ishinnotoh.jp/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Still exists

From what I can gather, the party still exists. It's just that the lower house caucus dissolved, the upper house one still exists. So the party itself technically still exists and hasn't dissolved. I don't want to add that though as I'm not 100%. Mkbw50, (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)