This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Japan: Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks.JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Politics task force. WikiProject Japan to do list: Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English. Assess unassessed articles Politics: Political parties Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force.

So apparently this party just merged with the CDP, do we delete this page? do we merge it? I have no experience in this and can't refer to a previously set precedent because I have no knowledge of any.

--Hkfreedomfighter (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hkfreedomfighter: Sorry for the late response. First, the CDP and DPFP haven't merged yet, they've only agreed to. Once the parties actually merge, we will likely create to a new article for the merged party. Ezhao02 (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, the party this article is about is now officially dissolved, however 14 members of the former DPFP are actually continuing the DPFP name and branding under a new party. (see official site here, they also have a JP Wikipedia article). What do you think we should do here? New article for the new DPFP or continue with this current article? This is basically the same question as what to do with the current CDP article. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think if the party officially/legally dissolved and was re-founded then we should start a new page for it and use this for the historical party before the split. Perhaps the same for the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan page. Helper201 (talk) 08:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe there should be separate pages (as on the Japanese Wikipedia) because it seems like they are legally distinct parties. Ezhao02 (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be closed? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split, despite the similar name, logo and political ideologies, DPFP (2018) and DPFP (2020) are different entities. Ken Aeron (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is. The page for the CDP is not separated into pre- and post-merger despite the legally distinct nature of those. While this is perhaps a dubious way to support my claim, most of the current leadership and MPs are also from the pre-split party.

If this page had much greater detail than it currently has, then I think it would be more justifiable to have two separate pages, like the Japanese Wikipedia does. Notconnor (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fair to say the party is currently an "opposition" party? As far as I've heard the party has said its willing to help the LDP and Komeito on passing certain legislation. While this may not be technically be a confidence and supply agreement, it seems like this in all but name. Therefore, should we use some other descriptor for the party in this parliament rather than opposition? Helper201 (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to move their classification as "centre"/centrist from the lead to the ideology and put it in a historical context and remove it from the infobox. We have three sources for placing the party in the centre of the political spectrum or calling it centrist. All these sources are from 2018, seven years ago. It appears the only other references to the party being in the centre/centrist are self-claims by the party itself. Whereas in comparison to these three sources for centre/centrism from 2018 we have eight sources for centre-right, with all eight of them being more recent than 2018. I think due weight and WP:AGEMATTERS are appropriate here. Helper201 (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]