 | Italy List‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Politics: Political parties List‑class | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | List of political parties in Italy received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
RFC on Inclusion Rules for Italian Political Parties
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.
((rfc|hist|soc|pol))
Should the detailed inclusion rules for this list be deleted, and replaced by general notability guidelines?
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
The article currently has detailed inclusion lists for each sublist. The inclusion criteria for active minor parties (and therefore for the appearance of a party in the article) are found in the current list article. They are not repeated here, because the question here is whether to delete them.
The purpose of this RFC is to delete the detailed rules, in which case parties will be listed if they satisfy general notability, and so appear in a list as either a blue link or a red link. If the community votes No to deletion of the rules, thus keeping the rules, there will be subsequent discussion on specific changes to the rules. If the community votes Yes and deletes the inclusion rules, the next topic will be the organization of the list into sublists.
Please make a brief statement in the Survey along with a statement of Yes to delete the detailed inclusion rules, or No to retain the rules; if the rules are retained, we will then discuss changes to the detailed rules. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. The Thread Discussion section is for back-and-forth discussion.
Survey (III)
- Yes. The current rules are arbitrary and complex, they create problems of consistency and above all they provoke endless discussions (six months of inconclusive discussions weren't enough to have a consensual set of rules). No list of parties has rules for inclusion, the list of Italian parties is a unique case. The application of the WP:Notability principle is more than enough to prevent the list from becoming excessively long. All parties that satisfy this principle should be included in the list, as in all other lists of parties. This does not mean that all the parties in Italy should be listed, since a party satisfies the principle of notability only if it is possible to find enough sources about it.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, because it simplifies the meaning and accessibility of this list to readers and editors. It is true that there is a very large number of parties in Italy, but this list should not exclude notable parties just to prevent it becoming too long. A reader would expect this list to be the most complete repository of Italian parties that are worthy of mention on WP. The problem of having a very long list is solved, simply, by splitting the list, and there are many possible natural ways to do so. Any inclusion criterion alternative to WP:GNG or WP:ORG that this community could devise is going to be by definition original research and also cause endless discussions like the ones we already witnessed. One addition: the list should contain also parties that have blue links not linking to their stand-alone article, but having their own section in a merged article or similar. Yakme (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- No (Summoned by bot) because Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists. Mathglot (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The only rule I would apply to this list is WP:V; as long as the existence of a party can be proven with a source, it can be included IMO (per Mathglot, whether the party meets the WP:GNG is irrelevant for its inclusion in the list). Cheers, Number 57 02:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- No - WP:GNG need not necessarily apply to list of this sort. If the topic of the list is notable, everything the list entails can be included even if each item does not merit an article on it. In this light, I do not understand @Yakme:'s !vote. WP:GNG would not open the list up, it would drastically reduce it. Basically, he criteria in this list is for defining what each section means-- those definitions are useful not only to editors who would want to add something to the list, but also to readers to understand what a "Major Party" or "Minor Party" or "Local Party" even means. And by no means should these categories be simply merged together, as removing the criteria would suggest. The categories are USEFUL, and keep all this information organized and manageable. If additional political parties exist that should be on the list, but don't fit into any of the categories, perhaps a new category should be added, or if that would make this article too large, an additional article added that could usefully and manageably include them (with definitions for what belongs in the list, and without falling back on the WP:GNG). Fieari (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes Ideally- any party that exists should be listed however- because two contributers refuse to allow that- and demand there be some set of rules- lets keep it simple and just use notability as opposed to some super complicated list that exists nowhere else on WP. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- No - again, WP:GNG need not refer to list articles. I prefer a solution that is based upon retaining the existing rules, with a view to revising said rules when and where required.--Autospark (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes On deleting the rules. To replace it, I would have picked "has an article" rather than "meet's GNG" for simplicity, but "meets GNG" is a good second choice. North8000 (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- No — "List of political parties in Italy" is one of the most clearly organised and complete articles of that kind, but also one of the longest in terms of number of parties. Only a comprehensive and consistent list can be an effective guide for readers. To be clear, I do not endorse the current rules (they should be profoundly changed), but the fact that rules are needed. With no rules, the list would be infinite and never settled once for all. Rules should be simple, but also comprehensive, consistent and unambiguous. I am an inclusionist and I will never propose an article on a party for deletion, but this does not mean that we should have all the parties having an article in the list. Replacing detailed rules with general notability would be quite problematic: we really risk moving controversy and debates to dozens of talk pages and requests for deletion. There have been hundreds, possibly thousands, of parties in Italy meeting notability. All relevant active and former political parties, by any definition, are already included in the list (which is already quite long and articulate), but, as I said, an overhaul of the current rules is clearly needed. In a country with hundreds and, possibly, thousands of active and former parties, it is not arbitrary to decide than only parties achieving a minimal share of the vote or representation in elected assemblies should be listed. Otherwise, a near-infinite list would be of little help for readers trying to understand a bit about Italian politics. --Checco (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Threaded discussion (III)
@Number 57, @Mathglot: From your statements, you do not seem to me in favor of specific and detailed rules of inclusion, but simply contrary to the principle of notability. Tell me if I misunderstood.
- I am neither of those people, but I don't think they, or I, are arguing against the principle of notability. I, and they, are arguing against the use of the General Notability Guidelines, which are for the purpose of article creation and existence, for article content. The guiding principle for article content is not, and has never been, the WP:GNG, but rather whether or not the content is WP:UNDUE weight or not. If the topic is notable, it's just about weight after that. Fieari (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
The RFC is primarily concerned with the deletion or maintenance of detailed rules. "Yes" implies their deletion, "No" implies their maintenance. If the problem is the principle of general notability, maybe the question needs to be rethought...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. From the replies of Number 57 and Mathglot, it looks exactly like what was meant for the "Yes", i.e. any party that can be verified by sources should be on this list. Yakme (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- I can't speak for Number 57, but as for me, I responded to the Rfc question as asked, and my response was based on my reading of policy. I did not say that any party that can be verified by sources should be on this list, nor the contrary, but if there is another Rfc that asks that question and I'm randomly selected by the bot or someone pings me to it, I'm happy to respond. So Scia Della Cometa is correct; maybe the question needs to be rethought, if that was the intended question. Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, this might be a faulty RfC for addressing two separate issues in a single question: it should be split into "Should the current inclusion criteria be deleted?" and "Should the new inclusion criteria be [something]?" Yakme (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Mathglot @Yakme: I think this Rfc should be considered faulty, it actually addresses two topics at the same time, creating confusion for those users who read the question. The main purpose of this RFC was to remove the current rules and quibbles for including parties on this list (and for their removal the vote should be yes).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- I take your point, and you may well be right, but in good conscience I can only respond to the question that was actually asked, not what might have or should have been asked. If the question is worded such that editor B interprets editor A's "No" response as "actually a 'Yes' " (or vice versa), then perhaps there really is a problem with the question. Mathglot (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Mathglot: Theoretically the question is quite clear, the RFC asks users if, to list the parties on the page, they prefer detailed and specific rules for inclusion (no) or compliance with a more generic principle of notability (yes). The mistake was probably combining two topic into one RFC (detailed rules and general notability) and not listing the current rules for inclusion (to give an immediate impression of the current status).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- I take your point, and you may well be right, but in good conscience I can only respond to the question that was actually asked, not what might have or should have been asked. If the question is worded such that editor B interprets editor A's "No" response as "actually a 'Yes' " (or vice versa), then perhaps there really is a problem with the question. Mathglot (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- I can't speak for Number 57, but as for me, I responded to the Rfc question as asked, and my response was based on my reading of policy. I did not say that any party that can be verified by sources should be on this list, nor the contrary, but if there is another Rfc that asks that question and I'm randomly selected by the bot or someone pings me to it, I'm happy to respond. So Scia Della Cometa is correct; maybe the question needs to be rethought, if that was the intended question. Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@Number 57: I also think that a party does not need to have an article to be on this list, and that is why I !voted Yes. You state Lists like this do not require the existence of articles for inclusion
but this is exactly what should have made you also vote "Yes". From the question written by User:Robert McClenon: "parties will be listed if they satisfy general notability, and so appear in a list as either a blue link or a red link". Red link meaning that the article does not exist. Yakme (talk) 07:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- The RfC is confusingly worded. I voted no because I assumed GNG meant that a party would need to meet the GNG to be included. I've amended my comment above to make it clear what I mean. Thanks for the ping to flag this up. Cheers, Number 57 22:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@Fieari: I agree with your premise, and from the discussion at WP:DRN the corresponding !vote to what you stated should be "Yes". Using GNG would not restrict the entries to this list, but would include many more parties. Regarding the categorization in major, minor, etc there is no official definition of major vs minor party, so that currently that separation is the result of WP:OR. It is not important that readers understand what a "Major Party" or "Minor Party" or "Local Party" even means
if there is no such a thing as a "major" or "minor" party in Italian politics. I would go for a different separation like "parliamentary" and "non-parliamentary" which avoids discussing what is major and minor. Yakme (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Fieari: The issue is that currently on this page there are restrictive rules for the inclusion of a party, and the RFC mainly concerns their removal. I'm afraid the RFC is not clear enough, and maybe it might be my fault, since I suggested to remove the detailed rules from the question. Perhaps this Rfc should be stopped and reformulated, referring directly to the rules and without mentioning the principle of notability ....--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@Checco: I would like to know where you see the "thousands" of parties meeting notability. It is not true, don't make misinformation, please (do not confuse notability with verifiability). "we really risk moving controversy and debates to dozens of talk pages and requests for deletion": So are you saying that non-relevant parties should be hidden in order not to be proposed for deletion? I don't understand this reasoning: if a party is irrelevant, it must not be hidden, but it must be proposed for deletion, Wikipedia works like this. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- I confirm what I wrote. I am not referring only to the hundreds of parties having a Wikipedia article and not being currently mentioned in the list, but to the hundreds of parties that were formed, merged and dissolved in Italy from 1861: arguably, they could all be listed. No notable parties are currently excluded from the list (and the current rules could be tweaked in order to include more or less parties), but general notability would higly increase the list, making it inconsistent and chaotic. As a radical inclusionist, my argument is that all parties should have an article in Wikipedia, but not all of them should be listed in a list that should be a useful guide for readers. Now, despite the fact that the rules clearly need an overhaul, the list is comprehensive and consistent, meaning that all the parties with a reasonable electoral strength or presence in legislative assemblies are listed.
- The RfC is clear enough, but it could be put that way too: do you think that specific conditions of admission to this list are OK or not? --Checco (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Scia Della Cometa, Yakme, Number 57, Checco, Mathglot, Autospark, Nightenbelle, and Fieari: - I thank all of you for participating in this RFC. However, it appears from the answers that are being given that the question was worded in too simplistic a manner. "You answered the question that was asked. You may not have answered the question that we meant to ask." I am starting a new RFC below this one, and would appreciate if all of the editors who have responded to the Yes/No question above will also answer as to which choice or choices you prefer out of four. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: I think this RFC can be closed, so as not to create confusion. I draw North8000's attention to the new RFC (here below), as also took part in the previous RFC.--Scia Della Cometa(talk) 16:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
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.
New RFC on Inclusion Rules for Italian Political Parties
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It is my understanding that a lot of discussions took place before editors arrived at this RfC, with the hope that this will lead to less wasted time and more productive work. Thanks to all participants, who tried their best to reach a consensus.
My initial reading here is that participants were mostly split between two main sides: those in favor of simpler rules for adding items to this list (options A and B), and those in favor of more specific rules (option C).
Several editors !voted for B, with A as their secondary option, claiming that including any party that has a Wikipedia article (or is eligible for one) would be the fairest option, easiest to check by any editor that isn't as knowledgable on the subject, and would lead fewer disputes, while also satisfying WP:CSC. These participants also disputed that option C (or any option that would lead to an arbitrary list of rules) could be seen as a violation of WP:OR.
On the other hand, editors in favor of C or D posited that the status quo is more stable, and changing to B would lead to endless discussions and the creation of AfDs to have parties removed from the list. While we can't see into the future, participants who favor option B said that following the notability guidelines would allow editors to have at least a baseline for inclusion criteria, which could be built upon with more ease and less attrition.
It was also noted that, due to the high number of parties in Italy, options A or B would cause the list to have too many entries, giving prominence to parties that received extensive coverage by media but that aren't relevant. It was rebutted that, if the list was to become too extensive, it can always be split according to any one criteria chosen by its editors.
Considering all raised points, those in favor of options A and B (with B receiving the most !votes) have shown to be better supported by policies and guidelines, and have demonstrated that this path is likely to bring less attrition and generate fewer disputes. There is consensus for more inclusive rules for adding parties to this list, with a slight preference for B.
---(non-admin closure) Isabelle 🔔 04:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Which of A, B, C, or D (below) should become the rule for the listing of Italian political parties? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Which of the following should become the rule for the listing of Italian political parties?
- A. No rule except verifiability. Every party that exists or existed in Italy and is documented may be included in the list.
- B. Apply general notability guidelines or organizations-related notability guidelines to list items. List all parties that have (or will soon have) an article on WP.
- C. Keep the current rules or its structure (inclusion thresholds based on vote share and/or number of MPs). The current rule is:
having fulfilled at least one of the following conditions: having scored at least 0.5% of the vote in a countrywide (general/European) election; having elected at least one MP/MEP/regional councillor with their own lists; having been represented by at least 5 MPs, 3 MEPs or in 3 different Regional Councils; having scored at least 2% of the vote in a regional election or in a general/European election at the regional level (for regional parties); having scored at least 15% of the vote in one constituency abroad in a general election (for parties of Italian abroad).
- D. A different set of inclusion rules, in which case a future RfC on the inclusion rules will be opened.
Please identify A, B, C, or D as your first choice, in the Survey, with a brief statement. You may follow your first choice with your second choice and a third choice, so that the closer can determine what option or options have a rough consensus of acceptability.
Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. The Thread Discussion section is for back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Survey (IV)
- Option C: The current rules are quite complicate and I do not agree with some of the changes that were brought forward during 2021, but the status quo is better than some of the options offered and it is very important that the current rules' structure is retained, thus my first preference. In a subordinate position, I support option D. "List of political parties in Italy" is one of the most clearly organised and complete articles of that kind, but also one of the longest in terms of number of parties. All relevant active and former political parties, by any definition, are already included in the list. Only a comprehensive and consistent list can be an effective guide for readers. To be clear, my main argument is that specific conditions of admission, i.e. rules are needed. With no rules, the list would be indefinite, near-infinite and never settled once for all. If neither option C and D were to prevail, my support would go to option A. Indeed, the worst possible option is option B. Replacing detailed rules with general notability would be quite problematic: we really risk moving controversy and debates to dozens of talk pages and proposed deletions. There have been hundreds, possibly thousands, parties in Italy possibly meeting notability. I am an inclusionist and I will never propose an article on a party for deletion, but this does not mean that we should have all the parties having an article in the list. In a country with hundreds and, possibly, thousands of active and former parties, it is not arbitrary to decide than only parties achieving a minimal share of the vote or representation in elected assemblies should be listed. Otherwise, a near-infinite list would be of little help for readers trying to understand a bit about Italian politics. At the end of the day, verifiability would produce a chaotic, inconsistent list, while general notability would generate ultimate chaos and endless discussions. --Checco (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option A: virtually all parties that existed should be included on this list. Italian parties are a lot, but a reader would expect a "list of Italian parties" to be exhaustive and complete – and not a selection of premium parties, which have been picked with ad hoc inclusion thresholds (like with X% national rather than Y% regional or the minimum of N parliamentarians, and the rest of the current nonsense). It also appears that the current structure is mainly the original research of one editor, with small modifications done during the years via discussions with another editor. If the editors' main worry is that this list will become "too long", then the solution is to split the list (for example by having separate lists for regional parties and/or former parties) – not to remove portions of it. As an alternative, I can live with the more restrictive option B, listing all parties which have articles (which assumes that they are also verified by sources). I am strongly against option C, as I explained above; I don't have any alternative ideas to cover option D. Yakme (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC) I forgot to mention that both option A and B would comply with the common list selection criteria. Yakme (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option B: in my view it is the best choice, because it allows to include all parties that meet the principle of notability (regardless of whether they have their own article). Alternatively, option A, although this would allow for the inclusion of some potentially non-encyclopedic parties. In the list of Italian parties in it.wikipedia there are no inclusion rules, and obviously the apocalyptic scenarios presented above did not occur. Pages on encyclopedic parties should be listed on this page, instead pages on non-encyclopedic parties should be deleted, not hidden. My third preference is for option D, which I sincerely prefer to avoid: six months of discussion was useless to find a consensual set of rules. Obviously in the last place option C: the list of Italian political parties is one of the worst pages in this category, and it is also due (but not only) to the arbitrary current rules that make it incomplete and inconsistent.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option A There is no requirement for a party to have an article/be deemed notable enough for one for it to be included in a list like this. Number 57 14:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option C with a view to progressing to Option D, i.e. a revised/modified set of rules arrived at by consensus. I am reaching the stage where I think that any further revisions of the rules will most likely have to streamline matters, including possible inclusion criteria, but I realise that compromises will have to be made. I believe that some form of inclusion criteria should be decided upon and in place.--Autospark (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option B is the simplest and minimizes disputes. If the party is significant enough to warrant an article, then it can be included here.--Seggallion (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option B It's the simplest and will eliminate a new round of endless disputes. Even simpler would be: "Has an en wikipedia article" but this is close to that. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option B per Seggallion and North8000. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option C. It is perfectly fine for list articles to have inclusion criteria to keep out non-encyclopedic trivia. However, much of the point of list articles is providing a place for things that are not notable enough for their own articles. The control policy and guideline material here is WP:LISTCRITERIA, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:Notability. Yes evolving toward option D is possible, but that need not be done at this time. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option C or D (no preference of one over the other) but I expressly oppose option B in a way that I don't oppose A - Basically, I believe that requiring an article that meets the GNG is too restrictive, because you would expect a list article to cover political parties that are too minor to have an article... but I think option A could be slightly too broad. Having consensus defined rules to exclude the truly trivial and non-impactful is a fair compromise. Fieari (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- option A or B I strongly oppose breaking with existing rules to make new ones just for this page. Lists should be representative of the entirety- not what an editor finds arbitrarily worthy. Nightenbelle (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Threaded Discussion (IV)
Could editors who mentioned option D (A different set of inclusion rules
) in their preferences state more clearly what they mean by that? Option D is a sort of "None of the above" reply, so editors who pick it should provide an example of an alternative to A, B or C that they would support. On the contrary, if they don't have such alternative idea, then IMHO they should not create support (or partially support) for an undefined situation. Yakme (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Autospark what wrote on the issue. While the status quo is OK with me and I would especially like to retain the structure of the rules, I look forward to a new set of conditions of admission, via new RfC, in order to avoid inconsistency and chaos. I especially dislike option B and, differently from User:North8000, I think that it would cause endless discussions on including specific parties, arguments over the nature of parties and deletion proposals. --Checco (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. IMO "has an English Wikipedia article" is criteria that would be the simplest and lowest drama to implement. The answer could be instantly determined and would be non-debatable. And I think that it's likely that somebody will take and article to AFD to keep it off the list. "Option B" is the closest option that is one of the listed choices. If a part has an en wiki article, that's a nearly irrefutable evidence that it meets "B". The area for debate would be that a party without an article still meets the criteria. More to come. North8000 (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- @North8000: Rest assured that 99% of all slightly notable parties or party factions in Italy has already its own separate article. In the case of Italian politics, the issue would be the opposite: too many articles for non-notable organizations. Yakme (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Yakme: I'm guessing that by "non-notable" you are referring to a comparative real-world meaning, not WP:notable. If it was the latter, such would be in essence saying that those articles should be deleted.North8000 (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I meant the latter. Some parties currently listed here (see Greens Greens for example) have major WP:Notability issues. On the contrary, very notable parties like Volt Europa are not listed because they do not meet the selection parameters decided by some editors. Yakme (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Quite often, having an article is more than sufficient to be on a list. Saying that there are parties that have articles that shouldn't seems more like an argument for deletion of those articles rather than for a criteria higher than "has an article". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I meant the latter. Some parties currently listed here (see Greens Greens for example) have major WP:Notability issues. On the contrary, very notable parties like Volt Europa are not listed because they do not meet the selection parameters decided by some editors. Yakme (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Yakme: I'm guessing that by "non-notable" you are referring to a comparative real-world meaning, not WP:notable. If it was the latter, such would be in essence saying that those articles should be deleted.North8000 (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- @North8000: Rest assured that 99% of all slightly notable parties or party factions in Italy has already its own separate article. In the case of Italian politics, the issue would be the opposite: too many articles for non-notable organizations. Yakme (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- (reposted because I wasn't done yet but didn't want to refactor after Yakme's response) Thanks for the ping. IMO "has an English Wikipedia article" is the criteria that would be the simplest and lowest drama to implement. The answer could be instantly determined and would be non-debatable. And I think that it's unlikely that somebody will take and article to AFD to keep it off the list. Regarding the inclusiveness/ exclusiveness of this criteria by the numbers, I'm guessing that about 300 parties are listed in the article and that about 95% of those have articles. Persons saying that such would be too inclusive need to argue for a reduction in this number, persons saying "too restrictive" would need to argue that this number is too low. "Option B" is the closest option that is one of the listed choices. If a part has an en wiki article, that's a nearly irrefutable evidence that it meets "B". The area for debate would be that a party without an article still meets the criteria. If you make up specific criteria, you have the work/debates of creating the specific criteria, and, whenever a question arises, the work/ debates of deciding if the party meets the specialized criteria. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- The fact is that there are several notable parties with no article (we can always start them, by the way, and also stubs would be OK, in my view) and several irrelevant parties with an article (I would never ask for their deletion, but having them in the list is pointless and would only make the list inconsistent). If option B is chosen, more endless debates will follow. The reference to Greens Greens and Volt Italia is illuminating: the former is a long-time party (31 years), with few sources available, a regional base and consistent electoral results (1.2% vote in a regional election and 0.5% in a European Parliament election countrywide), while the latter is frequently listed in sources, but has had no relevant electoral results yet (0.4% and 0.3% of the vote in the only two elections to which it took part). Should not be also be aware of WP:Recentism? --Checco (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- OK, but Wikipedia is based on sources. Also, I did not say that Greens Greens should surely be removed, I just said that it has notability and/or verifiability issues, as one can see from the banners on the article Greens Greens. My point is that we should also include parties which are sufficiently covered by media, like Volt Europa, which at the moment do not meet the criteria decided by one or two editors who knows where and when. Yakme (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Volt Europa is not an Italian party, thus it should not be listed here. However, I understand your point and I take your example seriously: Volt Italia has had a lot of coverage, but it has been a residual force so far. I do not think it is a good idea to higlight parties that are beneficiaries of big coverage for any reason at the expenses of more relevant parties which have been ignored by the media and may not have an article. This happens quite frequently in Italy. That is what I mean when I say that the list should be comprehensive and consistent: only minimal conditions of admission can deliver that. --Checco (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Of course I meant Volt Italia. I am not proposing to "highlight parties", I am supporting the generalized inclusion of as many Italian parties as possible, regardless of some ad hoc criteria. Cheers, Yakme (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- My thoughts were based on "having an article" being a reasonably good solution, with a reasonable degree of inclusivity/exclusivity for a list of about it's current size, and to save the editors here a lot of debating time and complexity. So I'm assigning more weight to that last consideration than some others are. That pretty well sums up my opinion/recommendation. North8000 (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Of course I meant Volt Italia. I am not proposing to "highlight parties", I am supporting the generalized inclusion of as many Italian parties as possible, regardless of some ad hoc criteria. Cheers, Yakme (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Volt Europa is not an Italian party, thus it should not be listed here. However, I understand your point and I take your example seriously: Volt Italia has had a lot of coverage, but it has been a residual force so far. I do not think it is a good idea to higlight parties that are beneficiaries of big coverage for any reason at the expenses of more relevant parties which have been ignored by the media and may not have an article. This happens quite frequently in Italy. That is what I mean when I say that the list should be comprehensive and consistent: only minimal conditions of admission can deliver that. --Checco (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- OK, but Wikipedia is based on sources. Also, I did not say that Greens Greens should surely be removed, I just said that it has notability and/or verifiability issues, as one can see from the banners on the article Greens Greens. My point is that we should also include parties which are sufficiently covered by media, like Volt Europa, which at the moment do not meet the criteria decided by one or two editors who knows where and when. Yakme (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- The fact is that there are several notable parties with no article (we can always start them, by the way, and also stubs would be OK, in my view) and several irrelevant parties with an article (I would never ask for their deletion, but having them in the list is pointless and would only make the list inconsistent). If option B is chosen, more endless debates will follow. The reference to Greens Greens and Volt Italia is illuminating: the former is a long-time party (31 years), with few sources available, a regional base and consistent electoral results (1.2% vote in a regional election and 0.5% in a European Parliament election countrywide), while the latter is frequently listed in sources, but has had no relevant electoral results yet (0.4% and 0.3% of the vote in the only two elections to which it took part). Should not be also be aware of WP:Recentism? --Checco (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. IMO "has an English Wikipedia article" is criteria that would be the simplest and lowest drama to implement. The answer could be instantly determined and would be non-debatable. And I think that it's likely that somebody will take and article to AFD to keep it off the list. "Option B" is the closest option that is one of the listed choices. If a part has an en wiki article, that's a nearly irrefutable evidence that it meets "B". The area for debate would be that a party without an article still meets the criteria. More to come. North8000 (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Fieari: requiring an article that meets the GNG is too restrictive
, just FYI, you have picked one of the most restrictive option, that is option C. Indeed the currently implemented option C excludes many parties which have articles. Yakme (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Fieari: Sorry, but I still can't understand your statement. Obviously I respect anyone's position, but your statement remains contradictory in my view. How does option C be less restrictive than option B? Option C specifically excludes a number of parties that would be included with option B. Can you clarify your statement? Thanks.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- User:Fieari definitely has a point. Option B is much arbitrary and, as such, it may led both to a) an inconsistent list through the inclusion of irrelevant parties at the expense of more relevant parties (options C and D are the ones making sure that all parties with minimal requirements have to be included in the list) OR b) a more restrictive list. Option B would surely led the list to arbitrariness and endless discussions, not to mention discussions in articles' talk pages and deletion proposals. If it is not possible to have reasonable, consistent and comprehensive list through specific conditions of admission (options C and D), it is better to be fully inclusionist (option A). --Checco (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand how it is possible to claim that option B is more restrictive than option C, as it is the opposite. And IMHO it is incomprehensible that a list inclusive of all known parties can be considered more arbitrary than a list with a set of rules decided on the basis of no objective criteria to exclude a series of parties from it. The consequences of option C are visible to everyone: months of pointless and inconclusive discussions. One thing that would not happen with the simple principle of notability.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Really, what Checco is stating is a wrong conjecture. (1) Fieari is not opposing B because of the possible "endless discussions", but because it is "too restrictive" – which is also a weird prediction given that as of now option B would imply that more parties are added to this list; (2) option B is obviously the one which will imply the least amount of future discussions, because it is the simplest rule. With option B there will be even fewer discussions than with option A (which I prefer nonetheless, for completeness and inclusion), because option A requires entries which do not have articles to be actively verified. Entries that have WP articles should already be verified and sourced. If not, if some of the party articles need more work with sources, or need to be deleted, this will not interfere or depend on the inclusion rule for this list. So I would not take a decision here based on the status of other articles, this can be dealt with little by little whenever it is time, and independently of the outcome of this discussion. Yakme (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I simply disagree. Only specific rules, that can be loosened as much as we want (options C and D) and that are objective, make sure that the list is comprehensive and consistent. Other options might be good on principle, but would a chaotic, irrational and inconsistent list. In democracy, no rules do not mean more freedom. In our context, no rules do not mean more inclusion, but chaos, endless discussions, arbitrariness (i.e. the exclusion of some parties at the expenses of others with no objective reason) and recentism. There have been thousands of parties in Italy and we need to find a way to select a possibly near-infinite list. --Checco (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Checco, we arrived at the Drn and this Rfc following your immovability on the modification of the most inconsistent rules of this list. The discussions were born precisely because these rules exclude several known parties. You claim that option B would include some parties at the expenses of others. Can you give some practical examples? Because until proven otherwise, it seems to me that this is happening precisely with the current rules.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- As I said also at DRN: by logic, threshold selection rules cannot make a list more comprehensive, just simply the opposite! Rules such as verifiability or notability are the opposite of
chaotic, irrational and inconsistent
; OTOH I would describe as such the current rules instead.No rules do not mean more inclusion, but chaos
nobody is proposing "no rules" at all, but simply applying general WP rules like WP:V or WP:N: do these general WP rules mean "chaos"?There have been thousands of parties in Italy
: very good! And this list of parties should possibly include all of them, otherwise it is not a "list of political parties in Italy", but a "partial list of parties in Italy". Yakme (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)- Sorry for repeating myself. Rules make sure that all parties with mininal conditions of admission (they can be loosened as much as we want) are included in the list. No rules would make the list arbitrary, less consistent and, yes, less comprehensive. As an ordered society needs laws, an ordered list need rules. All lists are partial and this list would never contain all of the thousands of parties ever established in Italy, thus it is much more important to make sure that all parties with mininal requirements are listed, otherwise the list would look more complete, but would be more partial and arbitrary. --Checco (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but I do not know of any non-WP:OR way to create minimal conditions based on numerical thresholds. So I would rather have simple, generalized rules like WP:V or WP:N or WP:ORG, and hope that the WP sense of community will be enough to make the list as complete as possible (it's a work in progress after all). Yakme (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for repeating myself. Rules make sure that all parties with mininal conditions of admission (they can be loosened as much as we want) are included in the list. No rules would make the list arbitrary, less consistent and, yes, less comprehensive. As an ordered society needs laws, an ordered list need rules. All lists are partial and this list would never contain all of the thousands of parties ever established in Italy, thus it is much more important to make sure that all parties with mininal requirements are listed, otherwise the list would look more complete, but would be more partial and arbitrary. --Checco (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- As I said also at DRN: by logic, threshold selection rules cannot make a list more comprehensive, just simply the opposite! Rules such as verifiability or notability are the opposite of
- Checco, we arrived at the Drn and this Rfc following your immovability on the modification of the most inconsistent rules of this list. The discussions were born precisely because these rules exclude several known parties. You claim that option B would include some parties at the expenses of others. Can you give some practical examples? Because until proven otherwise, it seems to me that this is happening precisely with the current rules.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I simply disagree. Only specific rules, that can be loosened as much as we want (options C and D) and that are objective, make sure that the list is comprehensive and consistent. Other options might be good on principle, but would a chaotic, irrational and inconsistent list. In democracy, no rules do not mean more freedom. In our context, no rules do not mean more inclusion, but chaos, endless discussions, arbitrariness (i.e. the exclusion of some parties at the expenses of others with no objective reason) and recentism. There have been thousands of parties in Italy and we need to find a way to select a possibly near-infinite list. --Checco (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Really, what Checco is stating is a wrong conjecture. (1) Fieari is not opposing B because of the possible "endless discussions", but because it is "too restrictive" – which is also a weird prediction given that as of now option B would imply that more parties are added to this list; (2) option B is obviously the one which will imply the least amount of future discussions, because it is the simplest rule. With option B there will be even fewer discussions than with option A (which I prefer nonetheless, for completeness and inclusion), because option A requires entries which do not have articles to be actively verified. Entries that have WP articles should already be verified and sourced. If not, if some of the party articles need more work with sources, or need to be deleted, this will not interfere or depend on the inclusion rule for this list. So I would not take a decision here based on the status of other articles, this can be dealt with little by little whenever it is time, and independently of the outcome of this discussion. Yakme (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand how it is possible to claim that option B is more restrictive than option C, as it is the opposite. And IMHO it is incomprehensible that a list inclusive of all known parties can be considered more arbitrary than a list with a set of rules decided on the basis of no objective criteria to exclude a series of parties from it. The consequences of option C are visible to everyone: months of pointless and inconclusive discussions. One thing that would not happen with the simple principle of notability.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- User:Fieari definitely has a point. Option B is much arbitrary and, as such, it may led both to a) an inconsistent list through the inclusion of irrelevant parties at the expense of more relevant parties (options C and D are the ones making sure that all parties with minimal requirements have to be included in the list) OR b) a more restrictive list. Option B would surely led the list to arbitrariness and endless discussions, not to mention discussions in articles' talk pages and deletion proposals. If it is not possible to have reasonable, consistent and comprehensive list through specific conditions of admission (options C and D), it is better to be fully inclusionist (option A). --Checco (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
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.
RFC on Structure of Lists of Italian Political Parties
 |
|
Which of the following plans for structuring the lists of Italian political parties should be used?
Robert McClenon (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Please indicate in the Survey which of the plans should be adopted, with a brief statement of the reason. Please do not respond to other editors in the Survey. You may respond to other editors in the Discussion section; that is what it is for.
Plan A
Plan A provides for the division of parties into 3 categories: "Active parties", "Historical parties" and "Former/defunct parties". The active and former parties are in turn divided into three sub-categories: "Parties represented in the Italian or European Parliament", "Parties represented in regional parliaments (councils)" and "Parties without representation". The "Historical parties", on the other hand, are those Italian political groupings of the 19th century which had neither a party structure nor an official name, but which were distinguished only by their political position (for example Historical Left and Historical Right). The former or defunct parties, on the other hand, are those political parties (starting from the end of the 19th century / beginning of the 20th century) which already had an official name and a defined structure.
- 1. Active parties
- 1a. Parties represented in the Italian or European Parliament
- 1b. Parties represented only in Regional Councils
- 1c. Non-represented parties
- 2. Historical parties
- 3. Former (or defunct) parties
- 3a. Former (or defunct) parties represented in the Italian or European Parliament
- 3b. Former (or defunct) parties represented only in Regional Councils
- 3c. Former (or defunct) non-represented parties
Plan A does not provide for direct inclusion in the list of entities other than political parties, as stated in the title of the page. Political entities such as coalitions of parties, electoral lists and parliamentary groups will be better treated and listed in specific pages, ie "Political alliances in Italy" and "Parliamentary groups in Italy", to be indicated in the "See also" section at the bottom of the page. For example:
- See also
- Political alliances in Italy
- Parliamentary groups in Italy
- Other related links, such as the Lists of Italian parties by region
Plan B
- 1. Active parties
- 1a. Main parties - countrywide parties having parliamentary groups of their own in Parliament
- 1b. Minor parties - other countrywide parties having seats in Parliament or the European Parliament
- 1c. Micro parties - countrywide parties without parliamentary representation
- 1d. Regional parties - parties active only in one region
- 1e. Overseas parties - parties active in constituencies for Italians abroad
- 2. Former parties
- 2a. Main parties - countrywide parties having had parliamentary groups of their own in Parliament
- 2b. Minor parties - other countrywide parties having had seats in Parliament or the European Parliament
- 2c. Micro parties - countrywide parties without parliamentary representation
- 2d. Regional parties - parties active only in one region
- 2e. Overseas parties - parties active in constituencies for Italians abroad
- 3. Coalitions of parties
- 3a. Active coalitions of parties
- 3b. Former coalitions of parties
- 4. Electoral lists of parties
- 4a. Active electoral lists of parties
- 4b. Former electoral lists of parties
- 5. Parliamentary groups - formed by non-party independents or coalition of political parties
- 5a. Active parliamentary groups
- 5b. Former parliamentary groups
Survey
- Comment While I was the one who sketched Plan B and I also like the current subsets of the list, I will not vote for now because I hope the RfC can be split in two concurrent RfCs: the first on political parties (basically, how categorising regional parties? by themselves divided by region or divided among parliamentary and extra-parliamentary parties?) and the second on having electoral lists, coalitions and non-party parliamentary groups in the list or in separate lists. --Checco (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Waiting for Checco's response at the Drn, I make my own consideration: I also think that we should exclude coalitions and parliamentary groups from this RFC. My proposal is to close this Rfc and reopen it in a simpler way: in the preview of the Rfc the Plans A and B are not shown (I guess because they are subsections). So plans A and B must be presented in a simplified way in the Request (for example through a simple bulleted list of proposals). Furthermore, the RFC lacks a topic, the most important one: Politics, government, and law (
((rfc|pol))). I know, it takes a lot of patience to get to a point in the situation. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC) - Plan A -- This seems both as the most reader-friendly option as well as the most editor-friendly option to me. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 00:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
Point of the situation
I asked for the formal closure of the RFC above in order to start the new one. Since the Drn has been closed, I will remove the non-consensual rules from the page, without changing the content of the list.
The next two Rfc will concern the organization of the lists (1) and the structure of the tables (2). If you have any ideas, please share them here.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please let's avoid multiple talks unless Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/List of political parties in Italy is formally closed. I answered those issues there and at, through a bold edit, at Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Draft RFC 4. Many thanks, --Checco (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Checco: If you haven't noticed, the DRN is formally closed (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#List of political parties in Italy). From now on the discussion continues here. I read your statement: it is not a duty for anyone to participate in a discussion. You are participating in this discussion of your own free will. What happened is that you established the set up and rules of this page yourself, all this while all the other lists of parties have evolved spontaneously, with the collaborative contribution of all users. Only here it was not possible, and maybe there is a reason. Only here have I seen vetoes and imposition of highly questionable rules.
- About the Rfc, the text must exclusively concern the topic of the current Rfc, not the topic of future Rfc. Mentioning future Rfc in the main request is inappropriate.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
You both probably do not realize what you did and what you are doing. IMHO blocking progress on an article for months, and to achieve nothing in the end – it really amounts to a major disruption of Wikipedia. This DRN was probably one of the largest on WP ever in terms of statement iterations, with ten more iterations than Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Mass killings under communist regimes. At least the one about mass killings was conceptually interesting and about interpretation of academic sources, with an intellectual debate. This one took 3 months just to accept and digest the basic general notability guidelines, and the remaining time discussing whether to have a table with one or two ideologies. And each of you writing huge paragraphs and chapters repeating always the same things. Forty iterations for this. It is even somehow funny that now you do not realize that the two list organization plans now appearing in Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Draft RFC 4 are almost the same! No one except a few editors will see the difference! Could you try to find an agreement between the very similar Plan A and Plan B? Or else, could you go directly to the heart of the matter (I suppose, definition of regional parties) in order to make the RfC understandable by the average WP editor? Otherwise this will be the n-th failed attempt to a resolution. Yakme (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Yakme: I am very aware of what I have done and what I am doing. I have tried and am trying to make this page similar to the others. If I hadn't moved, the page would have been locked under the control of a single user. I also realize that the DRN has been shamefully long, but as soon as I realized that the discussion was unnecessarily lengthening, I immediately asked for a Rfc. It was not me who continued to argue that we were close to an agreement (a statement that is anything but true) and to multiply the statements. What did I see? An iron defense of coercive rules decided who knows where and who knows when; a slew of vetoes (no original names, no leaders, no political position, no ideologies); the cyclic declaration "I'm fine with the current form of the list". I had proposed a Plan including lists and tables to be submitted to Rfc. Then I was asked to remove the tables. Then I was asked to remove the topic about coalitions and parliamentary groups. I accepted everything, in order for the discussion to proceed, what else should I have done? I modified my initial proposal on the structure of the list, I pointed out some flaws in the other proposal to Checco, but I only got the repetition of the same proposal. If I pretended even not to see some obvious inconsistencies in the rules and in the organization of the lists, I might not have started the Drn. Or not?
- The Rfc above will be closed: if you believe that the current Draft is not understandable, I invite you to make proposals to improve it. Any suggestions are always welcome.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ps. Maybe the differences are not noticed because there are no examples, but there are. In Plan A the criteria of distinctions are clear (the criterion of distinction is based on representation in the institutions). In plan B we have two sections called "Main parties" and "Micro parties" which refer to "Countrywide parties", although this definition would not be deliberately mentioned in the section titles. Only after would all the regional parties be listed. And only at the bottom the Overseas parties. In practice: parties such as SVP would be listed after irrelevant countrywide parties, perhaps without even indicating the number of MPs and MEPs in the wikitable (Checco never clarified this aspect). Parties such as SVP and UV would be indiscriminately listed together with other "regional parties" without even representation in the regional council. And at the bottom of the list, parties such as MAIE and USEI, which are represented in Parliament. The proposals are not in the least similar.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Unsurprisingly, I have a different view on how and why this long dispute started and continued. I am quite convinced that most of the "Lists of political parties in a country" are not as good as this list used to be and, most of all, I think that those lists cannot be an example anyway for our list—just think that the List of political parties in Germany contains 50+ active parties, that is just a fraction of the current active political parties in Italy. This said, while I like the list in its current form and, of course, I liked it even more before some changes were introduced (from the last summer to the last RfC resulting, according to the Moderator, in "no rules"), I will always available for discussion and compromises. As I argued several times, I think we could fix the list's structure without a RfC, but just by hearing the opinions by the other three users who have extensively participated in this discussion. The main difference between Plan A and Plan B at Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Draft RFC 4 is on regional parties. I think that they should be categorised on their own because readers need to see them in the context of each regional party system. I am going to accept most of the recent changes made by User:SDC to Draft RfC 4 and, once again, I am sure we can choose among the two plans, just by asking to the other users involved. We would spare a lot of time and go to the next issue in less than a week. --Checco (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think the list of Italian parties is the only good one and all the other lists are bad. If all the other lists are ok for users and readers, there is a reason. We have already discussed how to organize the list, what have we achieved? Have you answered only one of my doubts? It doesn't seem to me. The difference between the two plans does not only concern the regional parties. I think that only a well-structured RFC is currently the only solution to determine which type of list to use.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- It will take longer, but it is no big deal to me. I do not understand why you are insisting on "defunct" over "former", while it was agreed that "former" was better. However, if you say "don't modify my proposal", why did you modify mine? Why is it so difficult for you to co-operate? --Checco (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't change your proposal, I just stricked the final note that it was not directly connected with the Rfc. In the DRN the only thing that was decided was the removal of the coercive rules, but the discussion concerning the organization of the list has been declared failed (and therefore also the various denominations). I am free to propose the denominations I want in my proposal. Or do you also want to decide the content of my proposal? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- The RfC draft is fine. Btw, I do not deem the terms used in Plan B essential: they are just working titles with explanations. --Checco (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Also in my view the Draft is fine and it is understandable. Sometimes, however, what seems understandable to those who start a Rfc, is not also understandable for other users. A user has already intervened in the RFC above, despite being set worse than the current Draft. If there is no opinion on how to improve it, I will launch the new RFC as soon as the old one is formally closed. And obviously the section titles indicated in the Draft are not necessarily binding.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- The RfC draft is fine. Btw, I do not deem the terms used in Plan B essential: they are just working titles with explanations. --Checco (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't change your proposal, I just stricked the final note that it was not directly connected with the Rfc. In the DRN the only thing that was decided was the removal of the coercive rules, but the discussion concerning the organization of the list has been declared failed (and therefore also the various denominations). I am free to propose the denominations I want in my proposal. Or do you also want to decide the content of my proposal? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- It will take longer, but it is no big deal to me. I do not understand why you are insisting on "defunct" over "former", while it was agreed that "former" was better. However, if you say "don't modify my proposal", why did you modify mine? Why is it so difficult for you to co-operate? --Checco (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Yakme Why can't I withdraw the RFC? I am also waiting for your opinion to improve the Draft. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- If you don't reply shortly, I will close the RFC again. We cannot postpone the new RFC indefinitely, and we must close the old one first.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- You need to practice the art of patience, especially since it was you in the first place who was pushing for this RfC to be published. And now you don't like it anymore, and want it removed ASAP! You already formally asked for a closure of this RfC – and rightly so, but now you should wait until the RfC is closed by a third party. The RfC is not yours to withdraw, given that you are not even the OP of this RfC. Yakme (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Yakme Read the Drn better before making certain statements, please: I have not pushed to publish the Rfc in that form. I had not even initially included the note on parliamentary groups and coalitions in my Plan, I had adapted it to Checco's proposal. It was Checco who changed his mind and asked to remove that part from the Rfc, I simply agreed, consistently to my first proposal. I asked User:Robert McClenon to withdraw the Rfc so that I could launch the new one, but he didn't. I asked for the closure of this RFC in Wikipedia:Closure requests, it is true, but in the meanwhile there are already interventions in an RFC to be closed, this is not ok. Both proponents of the two options of the RFC have decided to close it, what is wrong if I am the one to close it?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think that Plan A was the one originally proposed by you to be in this RfC. In this moment you and Checco informally agreed to end the RfC, but to my knowledge no explicit consent has been given by the original poster Robert McClenon, and furthermore another editor intervened and !voted for one of the preferences. Also, a formal closure request has been filed to the Administrators. So I don't think it is appropriate that you close it yourself. See also WP:BADNAC. Yakme (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- My initial plan included the organization of active parties and tables, non-coalitions and parliamentary groups. I adapted my plan later. The original poster left the discussion. WP:BADNAC states that a non-admin closure is inappropriate when there is a conflict of interest. It is true that I am an involved part, but no one can claim that there is a conflict of interest on my part. The current Rfc is a problem: it does not show the preview of the options and it is not linked to its main topic (politics), it is objectively better that it be closed as soon as possible, since the intervening users will have to repeat themselves in a new Rfc. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- These are your opinions. We do not know yet whether the OP agrees for their RfC to be withdrawn. Given that you formally asked for a third-party closure yesterday, you should be patient enough to wait for someone else to sort this out. Yakme (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Procedural note: Although Robert McClenon's well able to close the RfC himself, and in the circumstances it would be appropriate for him to do so, he might choose to rewrite it instead of withdrawing it. There are so few comments that it would be in order for him to do so. Robert, whatever you decide to do, there's a request at WP:CR that will need closing.—S Marshall T/C 13:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- These are your opinions. We do not know yet whether the OP agrees for their RfC to be withdrawn. Given that you formally asked for a third-party closure yesterday, you should be patient enough to wait for someone else to sort this out. Yakme (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- My initial plan included the organization of active parties and tables, non-coalitions and parliamentary groups. I adapted my plan later. The original poster left the discussion. WP:BADNAC states that a non-admin closure is inappropriate when there is a conflict of interest. It is true that I am an involved part, but no one can claim that there is a conflict of interest on my part. The current Rfc is a problem: it does not show the preview of the options and it is not linked to its main topic (politics), it is objectively better that it be closed as soon as possible, since the intervening users will have to repeat themselves in a new Rfc. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think that Plan A was the one originally proposed by you to be in this RfC. In this moment you and Checco informally agreed to end the RfC, but to my knowledge no explicit consent has been given by the original poster Robert McClenon, and furthermore another editor intervened and !voted for one of the preferences. Also, a formal closure request has been filed to the Administrators. So I don't think it is appropriate that you close it yourself. See also WP:BADNAC. Yakme (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Yakme Read the Drn better before making certain statements, please: I have not pushed to publish the Rfc in that form. I had not even initially included the note on parliamentary groups and coalitions in my Plan, I had adapted it to Checco's proposal. It was Checco who changed his mind and asked to remove that part from the Rfc, I simply agreed, consistently to my first proposal. I asked User:Robert McClenon to withdraw the Rfc so that I could launch the new one, but he didn't. I asked for the closure of this RFC in Wikipedia:Closure requests, it is true, but in the meanwhile there are already interventions in an RFC to be closed, this is not ok. Both proponents of the two options of the RFC have decided to close it, what is wrong if I am the one to close it?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- You need to practice the art of patience, especially since it was you in the first place who was pushing for this RfC to be published. And now you don't like it anymore, and want it removed ASAP! You already formally asked for a closure of this RfC – and rightly so, but now you should wait until the RfC is closed by a third party. The RfC is not yours to withdraw, given that you are not even the OP of this RfC. Yakme (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I understand that Robert McClenon concluded the Drn, but I can't understand why he doesn't close this Rfc, despite being asked him explicitly. This RFC is literally blocking everything. @S Marshall Modifying the RFC could also be an option, but in this case, if I'm not mistaken, a new notification would not arrive to affected users. In my opinion the only truly effective solution is to stop this Rfc and start a new one. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Would you be willing to consider not doing that? Wikipedia's only limiting resource is volunteer time, and RfCs use up a lot of it. RfC is a relatively "expensive" process, in those terms. And the number of volunteers who will choose to participate in a complicated, lengthy discussion about Italian politics might not be very high. Whatever the problem is (and I haven't looked yet), one RfC that asks a simple, open question is the method that's most likely to resolve it. I would be surprised if Robert McClenon has really abandoned this discussion because he's an incredibly patient man. He's also a busy one, who volunteers to do a lot of difficult and thankless work, and I urge you to be fair to him and allow him more time.—S Marshall T/C 20:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oh wow, I've just seen how many RfCs this matter has already used up. Good Lord.—S Marshall T/C 20:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @S Marshall: I began my statement by stating that I understood Robert McClenon for having concluded the Drn: an uncommon patience was needed to continue mediating that Drn (yeah, Good Lord...), so I don't surely criticize him in the least for having given up. On the contrary, I think the Drn was useful in any case. But we cannot renounce to RFC. There are some extreme disagreements, as you have seen. We need Rfc well done, so it is necessary to stop this above as soon as possible.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- If I closed it for you, would you just start another one with different choices?—S Marshall T/C 23:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Scia, try to make this process easy for other editors. It's almost impossible for fresh eyes and/or experienced editors that don't have infinite patience to help y'all gain lasting consensus here if y'all keep making this an absolute shitshow. If after months of DRN and many RfCs y'all are still so unhappy with any option I feel like y'all should just take a break from the article for a month or so and think things through before continuously litigating the same issue over and over again. It's a list. There's better things to spend your time on than spending a whole year on what to include and what not to include. Stop looking for perfection. It does not exist. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 04:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- If I closed it for you, would you just start another one with different choices?—S Marshall T/C 23:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @S Marshall: I began my statement by stating that I understood Robert McClenon for having concluded the Drn: an uncommon patience was needed to continue mediating that Drn (yeah, Good Lord...), so I don't surely criticize him in the least for having given up. On the contrary, I think the Drn was useful in any case. But we cannot renounce to RFC. There are some extreme disagreements, as you have seen. We need Rfc well done, so it is necessary to stop this above as soon as possible.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oh wow, I've just seen how many RfCs this matter has already used up. Good Lord.—S Marshall T/C 20:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
What Do You Want?
User:Scia Della Cometa, User:Checco - What do you want and why? Do you want me to withdraw the RFC? Why can't you just ignore it, and start another one? I see that both of you have requested that it be closed. Why don't you just assume that it will be closed, and start any others? I closed the DRN when it appeared that the two of you couldn't even agree on what should be in the second RFC, after I had already started the second RFC. Why are you so worried about one or two or three days to get an RFC closed when you are planning to spend the next two months on RFCs? So, no, I do not plan to close the RFC. It's your problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Ixtal @Robert McClenon 1. yes, it's a bad show (but I'm not imposing the whole set up of a page) 2. the content of the new Rfc has already been decided; 3. two competing Rfc would create confusion; 4. the current Rfc does not include the main topic (politics and government) and does not preview the two options 5. it is only a list, but it is a locked page: at present, Checco will rollback any edit he does not like (can a page be unchangeable and at the same time be set in a non-consensual way?).
- @Robert some issues of this Rfc are objective (preview of the Plans, the topic), you started it, is it so difficult to stop a Rfc? Frankly, I don't want waiting a month for the closure for a fault Rfc since, as you stated, we are planning to spend the next months on other diffent RFCs. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC) --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- @User:S Marshall the choices are similar to the current RFC (even if they no longer include heterogeneous topics such as coalitions and parliamentary groups). The thing that worries me the most are the technical problems of this RFC: it lacks the main topic (politics, hovernment and low), so the potentially most interested users will not intervene; it lacks the preview of the 2 Plans. With these tecnical flaws, participation in the RFC is distorted.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)