Talk:Frente de Todos

	Argentina portal This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentina. If you would like to participate, you can improve Frente de Todos, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Socialism

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Political parties

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force.

This article was nominated for merging with Union for the Fatherland on 15 June 2023. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Requested move 19 May 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (technical move requested at WP:RMT) (non-admin closure) Lennart97 (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frente de Todos (2019 coalition) → Frente de Todos – Right now, frente de Todos is a redirect to Frente de Todos (1996 coalition), a defunct political alliance of some minor province. This one is a national party and won a presidential election. Even if Fernandez lost in 2023 and Kirchnerism faded into obscurity, it would remain the primary topic forevermore. We should move the article there, or at the very least correct the redirect to here Cambalachero (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support move as per nom. 162 etc. (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The color should be red

The color of the left is red, not blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:1A0:F4FD:616C:97D7:2C7A:C45D (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Union for the Fatherland into Frente de Todos

No consensus. (non-admin closure) Clyde _{[trout needed]} 02:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is the exact same party, that simply changed its name. We should merge this into Frente de Todos, which is more complete, and then move it here. Cambalachero (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would possibly agree, but considering Frente de Todos, Front for Victory, and Citizens' Unity all have their own articles, I think this one should be separate as well. I don't see why this one should be treated any differently from the others. Μαρκος Δ 15:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about merging all those articles into one, then? Cambalachero (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought about that as an option, but I think it would just be too long of an article. What I suggest personally is that we should wait and see how long this coalition lasts first. If it only lasts for a year or even for just one 2-year or 4-year period, then yes it would probably make sense to merge. But if this turns out to be, for example, a decade-or-more-long alliance like the Front for Victory was, then I think it would be wrong for it to not have its own article.

Other countries have separate articles even for individual campaigns (see 2014 Recep Tayyip Erdoğan presidential campaign and Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign), so I think it is fine or even desirable to have an article for this as well if it turns out to be a multi-year electoral instrument. Μαρκος Δ 21:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Μαρκος Δ: If I may interject myself. Looking at the articles, they really aren't that long. Content can be shuffled around, but I don't think it's really as hard as you may think it is. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, no problem at all. I don't think it's hard, but I still think it will end up looking quite awkward and scuffed, what with the entire sections about previous presidencies and so on. It would be very strange to have paragraphs about a presidency that started in 2003, on an article titled after a coalition established in the 2019-2023 period. It's not like we are operating with limited space here, so I personally don't see why it would be so desirable to merge all of these articles together just for the sake of it. That being said I don't have overly strong opinions about it, so if the majority would prefer a merger of all four articles then I am fine with it. Though again, I do think the most appropriate thing would be to keep them all separate. That seems to also generally be the practice for other countries (see for example the article for this one-time coalition in Italy). Μαρκος Δ 21:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Μαρκος Δ: While it is true that Front for Victory and Unidad Ciudadana have separate articles, it is also true that those were different coalitions with different parties -- the former did not include the Renewal Front, the latter did not include the Justicialist Party in most districts. For the time being, it would appear that UP is just a rebrand of the Frente de Todos, with the same parties and political leaders participating in it. Therefore I think it makes more sense to merge both articles like it was done with Cambiemos and Juntos por el Cambio. --dainshku • talk page 19:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... would it not be best to add dates of when parties were a part of the coalition under various names? For example, like Restart Coalition. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if they will be merged (which I still oppose though), then it would be smart to do that. But still, it would be a lot of back and forth in terms of party memberships between FpV, UC, FdT, and UP. If we are merging despite this, maybe we can take some inspiration from another Italian example. This solution manages to resolve the composition issue quite nicely. Though as I mentioned above, to me it just seems ridiculously long overall and too riddled with lists and tables. Μαρκος Δ 21:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A good example to mention. The reason why I'm for a merge is that we don't know how many more coalitions with be created, like this one, in the near future. At the current trajectory, these new coalitions don't even last five years, meaning that new pages will have to be created to keep pace. It's better to merge them together as the info on each one isn't and most likely e that great, as they won't last long. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, it's a quite messy electoral approach with all these new coalitions for every electoral cycle or two, and it can make it quite hard to keep track of. But like I said in my first reply, this is exactly the reason why I think we should wait with potentially merging until we have seen if this will be a long-lasting bloc, or if it will just be renamed or otherwise reorganized again in 2-4 years. If it gets changed that soon then I agree, let's merge it, but if it lasts for anything even close to the 14 years that Frente para la Victoria lasted, then in my opinion it should keep its own article. Another reason to keep them separate is also to prevent anachronism at some point in the future; merging several names into one article could be confusing both for readers and contributors, and we could risk having users listing the wrong name for the wrong time period etc. I think it will be much easier to understand for ordinary readers if we have separate articles that mention clearly that "this coalition is a successor to X" and so on. Μαρκος Δ 22:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Against, they are two different coalitions because the need to merge them does not make sense 181.170.173.232 (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support merging these articles because of the same reasons that Μαρκος Δ and ValenciaThunderbolt said. Pomchi-Inu87 (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i would not merge them, Union for the Homeland appears to be far more federal peronist with the main leading candidate being the founder of Renewal Front Braganza (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose the merger of the articles, per above. There are numerous examples of political coalitions that are succeeded by repeat ones every few elections, a good example being Concertación, Nueva Mayoría, Progressive Convergence, Constituent Unity, New Social Pact, and Democratic Socialism in neighboring Chile, that have multiple articles. They comprise unique iterations that do encompass much of the same base, but having separate articles would be a good indicator of the historical value each coalition has. A more extreme example are the centrist and right wing parties in Korea, which essentially reform themselves each election (DPK < NPAD < DP < DUP < UDP < Uri < MDP, and so on). They capture unique movements and periods of time and it would be unfeasible to capture them all on a single article. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.