1. We generally avoid position for the infobox of the ruling parties of communist states. Left-right spectrum may not be suitable here, even if third party sources claim that (See talk pages of Chinese Communist Party & Communist Party of Cuba)
2. Titoism wasn't the ideology of the party before the Tito–Stalin split in 1948, and also started to fade out after Josip Tito's death in 1980. So, we can bracket it like Titoism (1948–1980), or add in the note like which has been done for CPSU, PCR & ruling parties of the Soviet satellite states as it just represents local variation of Marxism–Leninism anyway.
3. Socialist patriotism is covered by Titoism, so it should be removed.

Ahammed Saad (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pinning @TheUzbek and @Yue, who joined me in similar discussions at CCP, WPK & PCC articles. Ahammed Saad (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. There is no consensus on the exclusion of political position(s) from all infoboxes of ruling communist parties. Consistency is not consensus, and the exclusions I am aware of were discussed on a case-by-case basis. In this case, you would have to argue against the sources cited to convince me or anyone else involved that the entire entry should be removed.
2. To my knowledge, Titoism is not an ideology developed or advocated by the party, but rather an externally applied label to characterise Tito's policies, much like Stalinism. In this regard I would support its relegation to an explanatory note like what was done at Communist Party of the Soviet Union for Stalinism.
3. Yes.

Yue🌙 20:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are two articles and if there really was a general consensus on this issue, then it'd be known and you would not go around removing the position from multiple articles just today. I have no objection to the changes about ideology. I think it is important to mention that the party also participated in a multi-party context as well, even if briefly, such as the 1920 elections in Yugoslavia, when it was also not a ruling party. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yue@Ahammed Saad@StephenMacky1 Titoism literally just means the Yugoslav intepretation of Marxism-Leninism and its implementation in Yugoslavia. Titoism was not an ideology of the LCY: Marxism-Leninism was. But, if you want to understand the LCY's Marxism-Leninism this article is essential. So keep. For the sake of neutality one could always move the Titoism article to Ideology of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, but I don't think that would be supported. TheUzbek (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then we can just add it in a footnote in Marxism–Leninism. And what do you say about socialist patriotism?? Ahammed Saad (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, since Marxism–Leninism makes few references to Titoism or the Yugoslav variety of Marxism–Leninism, whereas the Titoism article does. TheUzbek (talk) 05:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support the removal of socialist patriotism and relegation of Titoism to an explanatory note under Marxism–Leninism. Communism and Marxism–Leninism were ideologies that the party upheld throughout its whole existence, while socialist patriotism and (other aspects of) Titoism were pecularities of said ideologies specific to different periods of the party's history, which we cannot with full certainty pinpoint (whether as separate lists or sets of parentheses) without engaging some original research or risking an oversimplified interpretation. A significant portion of the party's existence played out in a multi-party context; even then, we are yet to be presented with an academic body of work that discredits the left-right spectrum in one-party states wholesale, and then consider it on case-by-case basis (Yugoslavia was especially unique among European socialist states). –Vipz (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should think this through: the Marxism–Leninism makes none to a few references to Titoism/the Yugoslav variety of Marxism–Leninism, whereas the Titoism article is about the Yugoslav variety of Marxism–Leninism. We need to make the articles on Yugoslav Marxism accessible to our readers and send them to the most relevant topics.

Maybe, we can add Titoism | Marxism–Leninism (the link is Titoism, but its shown as Marxism–Leninism? TheUzbek (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. That type of link would be MOS:EASTEREGG. An alternative would be to place Titoism in brackets next to Marxism-Leninism. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheUzbek @StephenMacky1 I think @Vipz is right, Titoism exerted as the main form of Marxism–Leninism between 1948 and 1980, not before or after that, thus adding Titoism bracketed with ML would be misleading. Better should be either adding a footnote over ML on Titoism or completely removing Titoism (and it's component socialist patriotism) from the infobox. Ahammed Saad (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Titoism continued after 1980: Titoism is Yugoslav Marxism-Leninism. Every leading party official from 1980 onwards defended Tito's policies of decentralisation, term limits and socialist self-management so that statement is blatently wrong. Milosevic tried to break with decentralisation and failed, and people only began of abolishing socialist self-managemetn at the very end.--TheUzbek (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Titoism article don't give any limit for Titoism, just say that that it fade away after Josip Tito's death. But still, Titoist policies did not appear before Tito-Stalin split. Ahammed Saad (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that depends on who you ask. The Yugoslav's refused to accept that they were not a socialist state. The Soviets forced on them the term People's democratic state, but they interpreted it to mean a form of socialist state. The split was the breaking point TheUzbek (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahammed Saad, StephenMacky1, and Vipz: I don't know where this discussion ended, but here is the first and last paragraphs of the preamble of the 1982 LCY statute:

"Josip Broz Tito stood at the head of the Communist Party, that is, the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, for more than four decades. In that period, our Party grew into a powerful leading revolutionary, ideological and political vanguard of the working class, working people, nations, and nationalities of our country – the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

[and] "Continuing Tito's great work, the League of Communists of Yugoslavia unwaveringly fights for the realization of the revolutionary vision of our socialist and self-managing social community, in which the working class and working people become the ruling economic and political force of our society."

Titoism, as in the interpretation of Marxism−Leninism that gained hegemony under him, was still very much in vogue after his death. --TheUzbek (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Titoism did not become the key ideology before Josip Tito became the leader of the party. Thus, describing the whole party's ideology as "Titoism" would be a bad decision. Therefore, I either support adding a bracketed time limit or a footnote similar to CPSU with Titoism in the infobox. And socialist patriotism is covered withing Titoist framework. Ahammed Saad (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, what is the conclusion of this discussion? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since nothing was concluded, nothing shall be changed. – Odideum ^💬 19:27, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]