Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Coalitions

I think this needs sorting into coalitions. I will volunteer to do this tomorrow unless anyone volunteers! Secretlondon 22:49, 23 December 2003 (UTC)

Which parties?

In response to this edit by RJFF, I have to say a couple of things. In Italy there are hundreds of parties and many of those parties have an article in en.Wikipedia (while most of them are not present in it.Wiki, in which rules are more strict). As it is practically impossible to list them all, in the present article we cathegorized parties in different sections, provided that they meet some conditions. In the case of current national political parties, we listed those parties that are represented in parliament or in regional assemblies, or that have at least participated to the last national (general or European) elections. Parties which are no longer active or parties, such as Communist Platform, which never took part to an election don't deserve any mention here. If we mention Communist Platform, we should mention at least one hundred more tiny but larger parties. That is why I will rollback RJFF's edit. I will never propose that article's deletion (I'm an inclusionist), but I don't see any reason for having it in the list.
--Checco (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the enlightenment. --RJFF (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there a list/place for the little ones that do have an article? I'm trying to help de-orphan Futurist Political Party - a small/tiny group that only lasted a year before merging - and came here hoping to list it under a 'historic/other' type. --Thanks for any insight, Elfabet (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The is no such list and, as you can see, this list is already very long... You are free to start a new "List of insignificat political parties in Italy"... I am kidding! I mean, you are free to start a new "List of very minor political parties in Italy". --Checco (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Party or parliamentary group?

I'm writing this as an answer to Maremmano, who has been repeatedly removing Federalists and Liberal Democrats (FLD) from the list on the basis that the FLD were not a party, but just a parliamentary group. I urge him to understand that it makes no difference from a political scientist's point of view as parties can well be parliamentary-only. Moreover, it is particularly useful to have the FLD in the list for the sake of completeness and readers' interest. Also, I think that definition of the FLD ("a federalist and liberal political party in Italy, which was active mainly as a parliamentary group in the Chamber of Deputies from December 1994 to May 1996") that Maremmano has been repeatedly deleting in the party's article is quite balanced and sensible. Maremmano is a valuable editor, but too often he is stuck with Italocentric or journalistic stereotypes of political science. What is worst, he often tries to impose his views without seeking consensus in talk pages. --Checco (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

From a juridical point of view there are big differences, I repeat that a party is an association, a parliamentary group is a mere parliamentary organ, they are different. I thank you for saying that I am a valuable editor, but the "journalistic stereotypes" don't concern me, I refer to legal facts. If you want to make a section for parliamentary groups it's ok, but don't insert the parliamentary groups in a section for parties, please--Maremmano (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
For your own admitance, you are a "law student". This explains your legalistic approach to issues which have nothing to do with law (and your likely young age explains the rest). I duly appreciate your insights and contributions to Wikipedia, but you need to learn some things about consensus—and political science in order to be a better user. In Italy there are no registered parties and, more generally, in Wikipedia we define a party as "an organization of people which seeks to achieve goals common to its members through the acquisition and exercise of political power". That is a broad definition and clearly includes the FLD, who eventually registered as an association under the name Federalisti Liberali. Moreover, you should know that everywhere (and most recently in Estonia) modern structured parties emerged from parliamentary parties, and that a party can be parliamentary-only also these days. --Checco (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Checco that Maremmano needs to learn to seek consensus when making significant and quite possibly controversial changes to articles, including wholesale renaming of articles with long-established article titles, which can cause much disruption on Wiki (which, after all, is a collaborative group effort and by it's nature requires consensus). Also, there needs to be no legal basis for recognition of an organisation as a political party for an organisation to be deemed a political party - in many nations there is no legal registering of parties, and historically speaking many important political parties only operated, essentially, as parliamentary groups.--Autospark (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
These speeches are personal interpretations, pratically they are original researches, but Wikipedia is based on sources. I don't know the Estonia's policy, therefore I don't comment it, but in Italy the "only parliamentary parties" don't exist. I agree to create a section "Former parliamentary groups" (groups that didn't represent just a party with at least 20 deputies or 10 senators), but the parliamentary groups can't be inserted in a section for parties--Maremmano (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Parliamentary parties exist according to political science, what Italian politicians, journalists or legal scholars (including you) say is not relevant. Please understand that this is en.Wikipedia and that we adhere to European/international standards. --Checco (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I have finally understood your error! "Parliamentary party" is only a mere alternative name of "Parliamentary group" in the english language. There are two pages:
  1. Parliamentary group : "A parliamentary group, parliamentary party, or parliamentary caucus is a group consisting of members of the same political party or electoral fusion of parties in a legislative assembly such as a parliament or a city council."
  2. Political party : "A political party is an organization of people which seeks to achieve goals common to its members through the acquisition and exercise of political power."
Also Wikipedia says that Political parties and Parliamentary parties/group are two different things. How is this page called? "List of political parties in Italy"! This page concerns only the political parties and not the parliamentary parties (best known as "Parliamentary groups"). Therefore you CAN'T enter the parliamentary parties (or groups) in a page only for political parties. I hope you have finally realized it.--Maremmano (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Your comments are a good evidence that you are not aware of the basic notions of political science. It's not a big deal: I would not know anything about commercial law, of which you might be an expert. Everyone has his skills and Wikipedia is a great place to share them. If you had the opportunity to follow a class in political science or history of political parties, you would learn that modern parties emerged as parliamentary parties and only later structured themselves outside elected assemblies. This said, a party can be easily parliamentary-only also today—and I'm not talking about "parliamentary groups" (intended as a structured party's emanation in Parliament). I hope you will finally realize that there are many things you need to learn. --Checco (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The sources say clearly that "Federalists and Liberal Democrats" was only a Parliamentary group, Checco! The original research is prohibited in Wikipedia! Where is written that Wikipedia adheres to this doctrinal theory? Nowhere!--Maremmano (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't you really understand that Italian sources, especially news sources, don't use political/politological terms correctly and that some Italian journalistic distinctions are not shared at the European/international level? --Checco (talk) 08:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
For Checco parties and parliamentary groups are the same thing. For this motive all parliamentary groups must be included in the list of parties. --Maremmano (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
They're not the same thing (and I've never said that, indeed). You're probably confusing political parties, which can be parliamentary-only (as in the case of the FLD) or, for that matter, extra-parliamentary (there are even parties which don't participate in elections), with parliamentary groups/parties. --Checco (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Following your reasoning groups and parties are the same thing. It is an original research, or we remove FLD from that section or I'll insert the other groups that are identical to FLD, for consistency--Maremmano (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
"You have wanted it" (sic), you say. No, I didn't. I repeatedly explained to you that there is a difference between political parties, which can be also parliamentary-only, and parliamentary groups per se. However, despite you're acting on the rebound and, in fact, disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, I don't disagree with your last edit. The real problem is that the links you added are far from being complete: several other groups, including the current For Italy, are not included in the list. Please add them all. --Checco (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
PS: En.Wiki is open to everyone, also to non-native speakers like you and me, but please try to improve, starting with something little: using correct hyphens!
You don't have to explain me the difference between political parties and parliamentary groups, because you haven't understood it! You take advantage of the fact that I am only one, but imposing informations without sources is VANDALISM!!! Now the page is ridiculous. Wikipedia doesn't say that political partiescan be also parliamentary-only. All the sources say that FLD was only a parliamentary group and YOU IMPOSE AN ORIGINAL RESEARCH! This edit shows that you always want to be right, also when you are clearly wrong! This conduct is not mature. If the user Autospark were honest he would admit that Wikipedia doesn't recognize the parliamentary-only parties and that parliamentary parties and political parties are two different things! --Maremmano (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sick and tired of your behaviour. It is you who don't understand what I'm saying. Simply, we hold opposite views: please respect mine, as I respect yours. You need to understand that Wikipedia is a co-operative effort. As you perfectly know, most of the times I appeased you. Please stop imposing your views and offending me. --Checco (talk) 09:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to offend anyone but you haven't reason. Is it a strong consesus the opinion of only two users for you? Then you didn't answer my questions, you don't explain why for the en.wiki the mere parliamentary groups and the political parties are th same thing, while I have shown that Wikipedia distinguishes the two concepts. Do you appeased me most of the times? It seems that I need your permission or licence to edit! The problem is that you haven't a real consensus to impose that statement on parties and if you can't prove what you say I can delete these edits. The mere consensus of only two allied users is irrilevant if the edit is wrong and it can't be demonstrated. Why refuse you my proposal to create a section for the parliamentary groups/parties?--Maremmano (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I never said that! It seems to me that the main problem here is your inadequate familiarity with political science and knowledge of English. Worse, you keep editing pages in poor English and ignoring Wikipedia standards and other users' advices (e.g. how many times do I have to ask you to use hyphens properly?). Also my English is far from perfect, but I always do my best to improve and comply with writing customs. This said, I find your proposal on a section on parliamentary groups interesting. The problem is that it would cause long discussions on each and every outfit. The FLD, the Liberals for Italy, etc. are definitely parties by European standards, Independent Left, National Cohesion, etc. are clearly technical groupings, others might be difficult to classify. OR would be around the corner. In order to have such a section, we should first agree on its rules. Secondly, we would need to make sure all parliamentary groups thus defined are included. Otherwise, we should return to the previous consensus. Ideas? --Checco (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
"Inadequate familiarity with political science".... Isn't Italy an european country? Aren't the italian standards also europen standards? Please, don't say certain things, the european standards and italian standards are the same! Can you demonstrate that they are different? I doubt it. For example, the existence of a difference between People and Territory and Federalists and Liberal Democrats is only your opinion, but really they are two parliamentary groups that include some independents and some members of political parties. My idea is to create a section in which include the parliamentary groups that weren't the projection of a political party (with at least 20 deputies or 10 senators)--Maremmano (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Political science is not very studied in Italy and Italians frequently use political terms in a peculiar way: just think of political ideologies or movimento!
This said, I'm quite interested in your proposal. Could you draw a list of all the "parliamentary groups that weren't the projection of a political party" here? Then we could discuss whether and how including it in the article. Many thanks, --Checco (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
What you said is not true, it is only a a prejudice. Party can be a generic term, but in the specific terms there are some little differences between Movement and Political party in the strict sense. In this sense, following your reasoning, the hypothetical "italian's science" would be more accurate. The section would include certainly: Independent Left (Italy), Federalists and Liberal Democrats, People and Territory, National Cohesion, "For the Third Pole" and perhaps "For the Autonomies - PSI - MAIE". In the future also For Italy. --Maremmano (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
You recent comments are an evidence of your scarce knowledge of political science. We need to comply with European/Wikipedian standards here.
The list you are proposing is too short. We would need to include all parliamentary groups, past and present, and they are many more than those you mentioned. Please do a complete research (at least since 1946) and then we can discuss. --Checco (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
You talk about things that you do not know, it is now evident. But which European standards??? A group is a group and a party is a party, in Italy and in other european countries. The list of groups is complete, please be serious! Now I'm tired, I asked you the difference beetwen PT and FLD and you didn't answer, I asked you to prove your claims and you haven't done it. You haven't any consensus (an alliance between two users isn't a consensus) and you can't prove these imaginative european standards (different from italian standards). Imposing an original research is vandalism, this discussion has now become useless, I do not need your authorization to correct errors--Maremmano (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
You should be able to discuss calmly and understand what other users are telling you (otherwise ask). The list you are proposing is far from complete: only in the 1990s there were at least twice the parliamentary groups you mentioned. You need to do a complete research and seek consensus before editing the list. --Checco (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Ps: In my previous comment, I was referring to your strange comments on "movement v. party".
I have checked but I have not found other groups. You have inserted an advice but you have not even mentioned another group. If you know other groups you have to insert them, but for me the list is complete--Maremmano (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
You should be able to do a research on the historical pages of the websites of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate by yourself, so please do it (as it is you who proposed the new sections). --Checco (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I did the research for you and I found four more groups. Hope none is missing now. --Checco (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Some proposals on the names of parties

I propose to change the names of these parties that are listed in the page:

I also propose to unify the pages Liberal Party (Italy) and Italian Liberal Party (2004) (DISCUSSION).

Justify your positions, please--Maremmano (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with most proposals and I will answer in the respective talk pages. --Checco (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Latest moves by one user

Hello, yesterday User:Wololoo moved the following articles:

I am not sure that a disambiguation was needed for the first two pages: only in the Italian context, coalitions are consistently referred to that way. Additionally, is Historical Far-Left the best name for the latter article? Or should we remove the hyphen (Historical Far Left)?

As a side note, I am going to add the latter to the list of former parliamentary groups. Are there othere former parliamentary groups which are not yet listed in the article? Can User:Wololoo, User:Nick.mon and User:Autospark help me to check that? --Checco (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I added 19th-century parties to the list. Even though their were active mainly at the parliamentary level, they were the parties of the time. 19th-century parties were loosely organised virtually everywhere. They were basically parliamentary parties. Hope everyone agrees.
If some parties you are aware of are still missing, please add them. Thanks and cheers, --Checco (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I personally prefer "Historical Far Left" -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind whether "Historical Far Left" or "Historical Far-Left", but adding a hyphen would make it 'fit' with a hyphen existing in the article name for Dissident Left-wing (which might need renaming to Dissident Left, to be honest). I would like Centre-left coalition and Centre-right coalition restored as article names without the redundant disambiguation.--Autospark (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind either, but I slightly prefer "Historical Far Left", especially because I support moving "Dissident Left-wing" to "Dissident Left". Finally, I also agree that we should restore the latter two article names, without the redundant "(Italy)" disambiguation. --Checco (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Checco, but do you control my every edit? However I support the move to "Dissident Left" (the choice between "Historical Far Left" or "Historical Far-Left" is indifferent to me) but... how can you think that titles such as "Centre-left coalition" and "Centre-right coalition" are correct? Not even in itwiki there are titles like "Coalizione di centro-destra" or "Coalizione di centro-sinistra". These titles are generic, Centre-left or centre-right coalitions exist also in other countries (such as in France or in Albania). A (not italian) reader doesn't search a page such as Centre-right coalition thinking necessarily at the italian policy. It is necessary to specify a thing: currently in Italy, at national level, there are not either a centre-left coalition or a centre-right coalition. Indeed: currently, at national level, Northern League/Brothers of Italy and Forza Italia aren't allied. Same speech for the PD: it is at government with other centrist parties, but for now there is no real electoral coalition. Furthermore the page about the centre-left coalition is written in a wrong way: it was not founded in 2007 and it doesn't replace "The Union", but it concerns all the centre-left italian coalitions (Olive Tree, Union, 2008 coalition, Italy. Common Good). Finally: it is unthinkable keeping the previous titles, if you don't like the disambiguation we can move these pages to "Italian Centre-right coalition" and "Italian Centre-left coalition" (correcting the second page), but the reference to Italy is indispensable!--Wololoo (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry Wololoo, Checco doesn't control your edits, the only reason is that he had all the pages concerning Italian politics in his watchlist, to prevent vandalism :) anyway I prefer:
  • Dissident Left: if there's Historical Left (not Historical Left-wing) we should have also Dissident Left;
  • Historical Far Left: as I said before, I personally prefer this name
  • I have no preferences regarding Centre-right coalition and Centre-left coalition, anyway I think that adding "(Italy)" at the end of the two names could clarify any doubts about the disambiguation. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough on User:Wololoo's bold moves: there are two users for and two against; in cases like this, we usually abide by the former established consensus, but I think that we all can live with the new names (do you agree, User:Autospark, or should we get back to the old names?). Regarding the proposed move of "Historical Far-Left" to "Historical Far Left", I think that User:Nick.mon can go ahead with it. --Checco (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
With a simple research on Internet it is possible to see that the results about "centre-left/right coalition" refer to many countries (Croatia, Portugal, Germany, Iceland etc.), therefore they are not terms "extensively used with reference to Italy", the reference to Italy is needed --Wololoo (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
As I said, it is not a big deal, but that is not the case. "Centre-right/left coalition is generically used in several countries, while in Italy it has a distinctive and unequivocal meaning. --Checco (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

More proposed moves

The following moves have been proposed:

--Checco (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I specify that the pages should be moved to Unitary Socialist Party, that is the correct translation--Wololoo (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure on "unitary", but if User:Autospark (who is a native English speaker) agrees, I will also agree. --Checco (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Unitary is a more literal translation, but it does work without sounding unwieldy. I had a look at sources on Google Books for reference. While most English sources currently available on GB seem to leave the party's name untranslated, although translations used are Unitary Socialist Party, United Socialist Party or Socialist Unity Party. I find the first two relatively interchangeable, and would be content with either. (Also note that en.wiki uses the title United Socialist Party–Socialist Consent for the Sammarinese party also named Partito Socialista Unitario in Italian.)--Autospark (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I think that also the title of the Sammarinese party should be moved. After all the most correct translation is Unitary, right?--Wololoo (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
It is the most literal translation, yes. And having looked through Google Books, I can see there is precedent for the translation Unitary Socialist Party: here, here, here and here, for example.--Autospark (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

More edits by one user

User:Wololoo was bold and modified the conditions of admission for regional parties. I have nothing against introducing the "one-elect" clause, but we should check all the results of regional elections in each region in order to see whether other parties need to be included accordingly. User:Wololoo, are you going to do that? Side notes: I restored "We Independent Veneto" because the regional councillor elected in the latest regional election was neither a member of Liga Veneta Repubblica nor of North-East Project; for the correct names of Lega Lombarda and Liga Veneta, see the websites of Regional Councils. --Checco (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ehm, I feel a bit in the spotlight, Checco, it is the second title's discussion with my user name. I have only added a rule that includes the parties that have elected at least one councilor (more important than splinter parties with two regional councilors). After all, I saw that also you have recently modified the criteria without particular discussions. However, before these changes, the threshold was of 1%, this means that now there cannot be more parties than before. About the lombard and venetian sections of LN, I would say that the name provided by the official sites ([1] and [2]) is decidedly more important than the names of the groups in the regional councils... --Wololoo (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, User:Wololoo, but you are in the spotlight, indeed: you rocked our world! Before your arrival, only three users (User:Nick.mon, User:Autospark and I) consistently contributed to the articles on Italian politics. It is no surprise that I could edit rules of admission without much debate. There was a general agreement on my edits and, instead of discussing in talk pages, we mostly "thanked" each other. Your arrival and your different perspectives opened several discussions and this is a good thing. On the issues, I do not think that regional parties having elected at least one councillor are more important than splinter parties with two regional councillors, but I accepted your edit, provided that you can add all the additional regional parties. Finally, on the Venetian and Lombard sections of Lega Nord, I really think that the most common name should be the one used in regional councils and, usually, municipal councils. --Checco (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm just going to correct and add a few things, I will not contribute here for a long time. However, making a research, I see that the most used names are LN-Lega Lombarda and LN-Liga Veneta, in the news and also for the groups in the communal councils of Milan ([3]) and Verona ([4]). Also LN-LL and LN-LV are used, but if the primary sources use LN-LV and LN-LV as names, I have no doubt about what is the official name! And about the other regional parties there aren't problems, because the previous list (with the 1% threshold) already included the parties that elected at least one regional councilor--Wololoo (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The previous list, not the current one! Please update it. And, please, stay with us in the long term! --Checco (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Italy-2nd-rep-parties.svg

A few days ago User:Lommes included File:Italy-2nd-rep-parties.svg in the article, an edit I rollbacked beacuse I felt that the graph was "not particularly clear, helpful and useful". I still think that way, especially because most party symbols are obscure for readers (by the way, I am not sure one can use those non-free symbols in a graph) and parties/coalitions are not ordered in a reasonable way (let's say, right to left) or just a kind of order.

Yesterday, User:Lommes wrote the following message to my talk page (I always like to discuss on issues related to articles in their dedicated talk pages:

Dear Checco,

instead of just reverting the inclusion of File:Italy-2nd-rep-parties.svg, could you please give feedback as to why you think it is "not particularly clear, helpful and useful", and what one could do the remedy your concerns?

It may be that you, coming from Italy, have a very particular view on this. For someone from outside Italy, the italian political landscape with its dozens of parties is extremely confusing. The graphic aims at giving at least a rough overview of the parties, when they were active, and in which coalitions they took part in elections. For someone from outside Italy this information might be a crucial first step to navigating the complex of Italian politics.

Thanks, --Lommes (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Despite practically calling me "Italian" ("coming from Italy", to be precise), User:Lommes raised interesting points. As I said, I do not like the graph, I find it "not particularly clear, helpful and useful" (let me add also confusing) and I have doubts on its very rationale (as non-free symbols are used in it), but I am much open to a discussion on the issue and, for this reason, I would like other users to express their views. Cheers, --Checco (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Active minor parties

@User:Nick.mon, User:Autospark, anyone interested: Yesterday I updated the tables containing active major and minor parties. Leaving aside the fact that those tables should be constantly updated (and that has not happened recently), I had other thoughts too. The table on active minor parties includes only "national" parties, comprising some with very few or no seats (some had parliamentary representation, but have no MPs now), while "regional" parties are correctly (in my view) listed below. The paradox is that some of those "regional" parties have seats—just think of the SVP. This said, what I would like to do is to keep the table for active major parties and have just a list for active minor parties. This would resolve the paradox—and reduce the number of updates needed. --Checco (talk) 08:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes I think it's a good idea; it's more simple and easier to keep update :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Seconded – it's a good solution for practical reasons.--Autospark (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Very good. I am going to edit the list accordingly. --Checco (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

(Talk) Section titles

As it happens, I notoriously do not like user talks (see here), while User:Wololoo does not like to be mentioned in section titles, as he recently told me in my user talk (see here). Before and after that, he/she changed two section titles of this talk: "Latest moves by Wololoo" to "Latest moves" and "More edits by Wololoo" to "More edits". That way those titles, especially the latter, were incomplete and confusing, that is why I am editing them in the following way: "Latest moves by [one user]" and "More edits by [one user]". Fair enough for the future, hope the compromise on the past is OK. "I hope you do not want to start an edit war for that too", Wololoo wrote. Uhm, I actually never started edit wars. Also in this case I was not the one to start anything. --Checco (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

A clarification that will surely affect anyone, in a Talk page that should concern political parties, but ok...--Wololoo (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The clarification was precisely about this talk page, for users' and readers' sake: they are affected by it, indeed. --Checco (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Associate parties in infoboxes

A little after the 2018 general election, through edit summaries (I guess), User:Nick.mon and I found a compromise on the notes on associate parties and/or parliamentary groups in party's articles' infoboxes. The compromise was having just a note, while I originally preferred efn notes with the notelist at the bottom of the infobox). User:Wololoo recently edited those infoboxes: see, for instance, this edit. I would prefer to go back to the previous version (this instead of that) or to re-introduce efns. It is just a techical issue, but, as there are differing options and opinions, let's have a quick debate. --Checco (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not know of a previous discussion, but I think it is better to make explicit which parties don't have an independent delegation but are included in the parliamentary groups of other parties, like in it.Wiki, it seems clearer to me.--Wololoo (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Former parties in Aosta Valley

@Checco: "Raggruppamento Regionale Vallée d'Aoste" and "Gruppo Democratico Italiano" were not parties, in the only available sources they are defined groups or lists. A political party is a group of people who come together to contest elections is true, but the definition is not A political party is any group of people who come together to contest elections. Civic lists in Italy have always existed, although in the past they were widespread especially in small municipalities. In this case "Raggruppamento Regionale Vallée d'Aoste" and "Gruppo Democratico Italiano" evidently did not have a party structure, but they were similar to civic lists. Usually civic lists are not included on this page, I honestly do not see why these two lists (without page) should be an exception...--Wololoo (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It is true that "civic lists" are usually not included or, at least, they are not when they are short-lived, but, technically, also "civic lists" are political parties. I have not seen any of the sources Wololoo mentions on the RGVdA and the GDI, but I do think that two were full-fledged parties with political, not merely administrative goals (see here). Also, their main members would have played a role in Valdostan politics also later. The RGVdA and the GDI were not linked to a political party, as most of the recent "civic lists" are, and definitely played a role electorally and politically. They would deserve articles too. --Checco (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
It's the same source I'm referring to, it doesn't say that they were political parties, but lists constituted for that regional election...--Wololoo (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
From a political scientist's point of view, there is no difference. --Checco (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
But from a practical point of view the differences are very evident. I would like to mention that on this page many civic lists are not mentioned.--Wololoo (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The concept of "civic list" is more recent. I really do not understand how we can classify RCVdA and GDI as "civic lists". The two were parties, offering substantial political views. --Checco (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Many civic lists offer substantial political views, but I would like to understand where you read that these two lists were parties, since it seems that they did not have a leader or a party structure. Otherwise I could insert many other successive civic lists that have elected regional councilors..--Wololoo (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I already explained myself. The "civic lists" you are talking about are a recent phenomenon. There is no rational reason for excluding the RGVdA and the GDI and "It seems" is frankly not an explanation. A party does not need to have a leader or a party structure to be a party: have you ever heard of parliamentary parties or collective leaderships? These are just examples. Just to let you reconsider your poisition. From the only source we have, the RGVdA and the GDI are just normal parties, albeit short-lived. --Checco (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Why translate Forza Italia here?

Why is there written "Forward Italy" in the list on this page, instead of "Forza Italia"? That's not even a good translation in my point of view. That would be "Avanti Italia" which has a whole different meaning. The stadium fans anthem "Forza ..." is something very peculiar of the Italian language, and also sometimes used in Italian in other languages (I'm sure in German for example). --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This used to be the only article in which "Lega Nord" and "Forza Italia" were translated. It was done for consistency, in order to have a list in which all the parties were listed in English, with the Italian name in brackets. As you might imagine, it was not something I wanted. I actually preferred and prefer to have only English names and, in the case of Lega Nord and Forza Italia, the Italian names, used also in English sources, consistently with their articles' names. However, "Forward Italy", taken from some sources (including Parties-and-elections.de), is an accurate translation: "Forza Italia" means specifically "Forward Italy" or "Let's go Italy". "Forward Italy" is more literal. As article names are concerned, I would rather have "Forward Italy" than "Northern League (Italy)" (the latter is more common, but too complicate with "Italy" in brackets, but there was never consensus for the moves. The two articles' names have been fixed for at least 15 years. --Checco (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Five-party v Penta-party

User:Wololoo is back, thus discussions are back too.

"Penta-party" is clearly a macaroni-English translation of pentapartito, "five-party" is definitely more correct. Just take a look to Google:

Does anyone have doubts? --Checco (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Checco The google hits have no value, the name can be discussed showing the sources, but not with the google hits. And Penta-party is not "macaroni-English translation" as you say, since Penta is not an italian word and it is used as scientific prefix! --Wololoo (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Google hits show how in most books, journals and publications "Five-party" is used instead of "Penta-party". User:Ritchie92 agrees with me and has rollbacked you many times. I am sure that other users will agree with User:Ritchie92 and I. Please stop edit warring. --Checco (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Google hits shows all articles with "five" and "party" words, Wikipedia is not based on google hits but on the sources. If an user thinks that google hits is enough as proof and penta is a macaroni translation, and another user doesn't find Pentaparty on internet, well, in my view there is a problem....--Wololoo (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
And I don't deny that "Five-party" is used by the sources too, but Penta-party/Pentaparty is absolutely correct and it has been used in this page for a long time and supported by many sources.--Wololoo (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
At this point, I am starting to have doubts on your competence with internet searches. There are only 103 hits for "pentaparty" craxi andreotti italy and most of them are associated with en.Wiki, which cannot be a source. "Pentaparty" (or "penta-party") is an awkward translation and, indeed, it is very seldom used. Most books, journals and publications use "Five-party", instead. --Checco (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Checco And I repeat again: Do you seriously think that Wikipedia can be only based on the hits of google??--Wololoo (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Surely so! Are you kidding? Google hits include books, journals, articles, other publications... --Checco (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I am not kidding, and I know that five-party (coalition) is probably a more common translation, I have already said it. The count of the hits in Google can not used as proof, the sources should also be analyzed. You and Ritchie92 have changed the name with the excuse that this name does not exist or that is a macaroni english translation, two absolutely false motivations!--Wololoo (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I think this is not a "life-or-death" situation, so let's all be reasonable. I reverted the "penta-party" simply because I looked on a dictionary translation of "pentapartito" and only found "five-party". Now if User:Wololoo shares his/her sources that prove "penta-party" is a correct and common translation I am happy. I actually would be happier (as I also hinted at in another discussion on this page) to use the Italian names when the English ones become overly complicated (see e.g. Forza Italia, Diventerà Bellissima, and also Pentapartito). Cheers --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie92 The meaning in the english language is "five-party", but the original name is particular because it contains a greek prefix (penta) that can be also used in the english language, so, between "penta-party" and "five-party", I think that it is better the first one. "Five-party coalition" is more used, but also "Pentaparty / Penta-party" is used by important english sources ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]).--Wololoo (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Regional presidents in infoboxes

The presidents of Trentino and South Tyrol are generally equated to regional presidents, while the president of T-AA/ST is much less relevant figure, according to the current autonomy statutes and the constitution. Moreover, the latter president, a much ceremonial figure, is rotatively one of the two presidents of the autonomous provinces. Additionally, in the "Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces" (please note that it is not named "Conference of Regions"), in which regions are equally represented in what is a sort of an embryo of a federal senate, there are 21 seats, including those for both presidents of the autonomous provinces.
That is why I propose to replace the "regional government" "Regional Presidents" parameter in party infoboxes with "Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces", thus including 21 seats and always having both presidents of autonomous provinces. That would be consistent with the "Electoral results" sections in each article.
@User:Angelo.romano, User:Autospark, User:Braganza, User:Facquis, User:Holapaco77, User:Impru20, User:Nick.mon, User:Nightstallion, User:RJFF, User:Ritchie92 and User:Wololoo (as frequent contributors on articles on politics of Italy) and all users interested in the issue, please have a say! --Checco (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Where are these infoboxes? --Holapaco77 (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@User:Holapaco77: In each and every article on a political party. --Checco (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I think what you refer exactly to is the parameter "Regional Presidents" which then would have 21 instead of 20 total seats. Then I wouldn't rename it as "Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces", which is not a constitutional establishment. I would either put a detailed note on each infobox attached to "Regional Presidents", or rename it in the lengthy form "Regional and Autonomous Provinces Presidents" (even though the President of South Tyrol is called Governor, but that's a detail that this generalization can neglect, I think). --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@User:Ritchie92: Yes, "Regional Presidents"! Sorry about that. However, you understood my proposal. So, do you agree in having 21 seats instead of 20 and, thus, considering the two autonomous provinces as separate entities? The name does not matter: "Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces", "Presidents of Regions and Autonomous Provinces" or "Regional and Autonomous Provinces Presidents" (ranked by my personal preference) are all OK with me. "Conference" is my preferred solution: it is not cited in the Constitution, but has a legal establishment and is the more correct. --Checco (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I would prefere to keep the Regional President, it seems to me a clearer parameter. Anyway, in case of replacement with the data you proposed, the page "Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces" should be created (and in the infobox it should be shown as "Presidents of Regions and Autonomous Provinces", "Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces" is too long).--Wololoo (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

First, let's discuss the opportunity of having a parameter including 21 seats instead of 20, then, in case this idea is supported by consensus, we will decide the parameter's name. The question is: do you support having 21 seats instead of 20 for regional presidents in the infoboxes of political parties in Italy? @User:Ritchie92: Please expain your preference. @User:Angelo.romano, User:Autospark, User:Braganza, User:Facquis, User:Holapaco77, User:Gryffindor, User:Impru20, User:Mai-Sachme, User:Nick.mon, User:Nightstallion, User:Noclador and User:RJFF: Please have a say. --Checco (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@User:Angelo.romano, User:Autospark, User:Braganza, User:Facquis, User:Holapaco77, User:Gryffindor, User:Impru20, User:Mai-Sachme, User:Nick.mon, User:Nightstallion, User:Noclador and User:RJFF: Please have a say. --Checco (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

The Constitution underlines the relevance of autonomous provinces too. Updating is not a problem, but the current situation is inaccurate (there is always a seat for both Trentino and South Tyrol in the Conference) and inconsistent with other sections of the very same articles. --Checco (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Obviously, T-AA/ST is a region, but quite a diminished one, so that the regions are much less powers than the two autonomous provinces. Article 116 of the Constitution reads that "the Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol Region is composed of the autonomous provinces of Trent and Bolzano", meaning that the meaningful elements are the provinces, not the region. On everyting, from the Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces' membership to the relations with the European Union (art. 118: " The Regions and the autonomous provinces of Trent and Bolzano take part inpreparatory decision-making process of EU legislative acts in the areas thatfall within their responsibilities"), from ESIF founds' regional operative programs to the the participation to international events (like Expo), not to mention vitually always in en.Wikipedia, the two autonomous provinces are considered separately. --Checco (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

New criterion for the minor parties

I inform that I have added a new criterion for minor parties, which seems to me to be very important, i.e. having achieved at least one seat with its own list. This criterion is also consistent with those already established for regional parties.

Ps. I also replaced the wording "old" for the former parties with the party's founding date, which seems much more specific to me. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I like none of the changes, but they are no big deal, thus it is fair enough. --Checco (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Conference of Regions in party infoboxes

As I argued before, Italy is composed of 20 regions or, better, 19 regions and 2 autonomous provinces. Indeed, the presidents of Trentino and South Tyrol are generally equated to regional presidents, while the president of T-AA/ST is a much less relevant figure, according to the current autonomy statutes and the Constitution, and the office is rotational between the two provincial presidents. Trentino and South Tyrol are bascially regions, except by name. Within the "Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces" (please note that it is not named "Conference of Regions"), in which regions are equally represented in what is a sort of an embryo of a federal senate, as well as the "State–Conference" (including the government) and the "Unified Conference" (including also the federation of provinces and the federation of municipalities), there are 21 seats for regions, including those of Trentino and South Tyrol. The conferences are not mentioned in the Constitution, but nevertheless they have a very important institutional role, as the Covid-19 pademic is clearly showing: most decisions have been taken by the government through consultation with the conferences.
Article 116 of the Italian Constitution reads that "the Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol Region is composed of the autonomous provinces of Trento and Bolzano", meaning that the meaningful elements are the provinces, not the region. On everyting, from membership of the Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces to the relations with the European Union (art. 118: "The Regions and the autonomous provinces of Trento and Bolzano take part in preparatory decision-making process of EU legislative acts in the areas that fall within their responsibilities"), from ESIF founds' regional operative programs to the the participation in international events (like world expositions), not to mention vitually always in en.Wikipedia, the two autonomous provinces are taken into account separately.
Thus, I am again proposing to replace the "Regional Presidents" parameter in party infoboxes with "Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces", thus including 21 seats. That would be consistent with the "Electoral results" sections in each article and, more importantly, with the material constitution.
@User:AleCapHollywood, User:Angelo.romano, User:Autospark, User:B. M. L. Peters, User:Braganza, User:Broncoviz, User:Civiltalatina, User:Eddy world, User:Facquis, User:Gryffindor, User:Holapaco77, User:Impru20, User:Mai-Sachme, User:Nick.mon, User:Nightstallion, User:Noclador, User:RJFF, User:Ritchie92, User:Scia Della Cometa, User:Vacant0 (as frequent contributors on articles on politics of Italy) and all users interested in the issue, please have a say!
--Checco (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

You can make it Braganza (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree! If "Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces" is too long, maybe we should use "Regions and Autonomous Provinces", but I like both. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Support Makes perfect sense and in fact would be more useful information, definitely support! B. M. L. Peters (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with this change. Vacant0 (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree, and I would follow the additional proposal of Nick.mon. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for answering. As a start, it seems like there is quite a consensus on my proposal. Moreover, I guess User:Autospark and User:Nightstallion have not changed their mind since we last discussed. Waiting for more opinions and the final settlement, I started the Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces article (improvements, especially to English language, are much welcome). In party infoboxes we could replace "Regional Presidents" with any of the following:

  1. Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces (in full);
  2. Conference of Regions (how the conference is frequently nicknamed);
  3. Regions and Autonomous Provinces (as proposed above).

I have a slight preference for the second option: most common name and shortest! --Checco (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I will edit articles replacing "Regional Presidents" with "Conference of Regions", for the reasons stated above. --Checco (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: I don't think that a consensus has been reached. Most people agree specifically with "Regions and Autonomous Provinces", not with your proposal. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I am a little surprised, considering that often more sweeping changes are approved with little debate and short period of time. This thread started more than 50 days ago and editors had thus a lot of time to intervene. Morevoer, I have quite a different reading of this discussion. Virtually all editors agreed on having 21 seats in infoboxes, per composition of the Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces. That is now a given and I feel free to edit articles restoring the 21 seats. On the parameter's name, only User:Nick.mon had anything to say about it and proposed two names, that were both approved by just another user.

This said, I am asking User:AleCapHollywood, User:Angelo.romano, User:Autospark, User:B. M. L. Peters, User:Braganza, User:Broncoviz, User:Civiltalatina, User:Eddy world, User:Facquis, User:Gryffindor, User:Holapaco77, User:Impru20, User:Mai-Sachme, User:Nick.mon, User:Nightstallion, User:Noclador, User:RJFF, User:Ritchie92, User:Scia Della Cometa, User:Vacant0 and anyone else interested to state their preference among the following options:

  1. Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces (in full);
  2. Conference of Regions (how it is often referred to);
  3. Regions and Autonomous Provinces.

Thanks in advance for contributing to this debate! --Checco (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

As anticipated, my preference goes to 2. Conference of Regions, per most common name and brevity (see Wikipedia:Article titles, especially "recognizability" and "conciseness"). This said, I could well accept the other two options, even though they may be too long and the third is a little bit imprecise ("Conference" is useful because it reminds readers of the institutional feature and, otherwise, the link would be mostly piped). --Checco (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
i support the long version, the last version would be very vague Braganza (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I am in favor of Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces, although perhaps a tad long, it is not overwhelming and conveys enough information for readers to understand what it means! B. M. L. Peters (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I support "Regions and Autonomous Provinces". The "Conference of Regions" is not really a constitutional body, and putting the full name there will make it look like such, which is wrong. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
"Regions and Autonomous Provinces" could be deceptive, but it is still an option I can accept. Btw, while the "Conference of Regions" (everyone calls it that way, that is why I favour this option over the long one) is not a constitutional body, it is definitely an institution. --Checco (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This discussion has lasted for more than 6 weeks. Several editors have been invited to have their say. As of now, a majority of editors prefer option 1 (Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces, in full). More specifically, that option was proposed by User:Nick.mon, agreed by User:Braganza and User:B. M. L. Peters, accepted by me. I am going to upload that option, which by the way is not my preferred one. --Checco (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The infoboxes now have an enormous gap between the regions/autonomous provinces, and the rest of their content, because we voted for the longest option... If you are happy with such a large name for this in the infobox, so be it. But I really don't see what's the problem against "Regions and Autonomous Provinces": we are listing the number of regions or autonomous provinces controlled by the party, so why does the word "conference" matter so much? It makes far more sense to include the word "autonomous provinces" (instead of "conference" – if we care about the waste of space) because otherwise one could immediately be confused by the fact that the bar is up to 21 and not to 20 (the number of regions). --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I am not happy with the long version. I preferred the shortest and most common ("Conference of Regions"), but a majority of users have spoken in favour of that version and I can accept it. Unfortunately, the version you like was not accepted, as mine. --Checco (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I personally believe that this type of infobox is not suitable for the political situation in Italy (neither the infobox of regional presidents nor that of the presidents of regions and provinces): indeed I think that this type of infobox can only be valid for coalitions and not for single political parties. However, the current aesthetic situation does not seem satisfactory to me, "Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces" is excessively long, having to choose I would prefer "Regions and Autonomous Provinces". --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Ok. Now we have a consensus. Of course, if other users agree with you two, that will change. --Checco (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

MpA and PdS

@User:SDC: There are a few problems on your latest edits, to this article and to the Template:Italian political parties, on the Movement for the Autonomies and the Party of Sicilians. First: The MpA has been a country-wide party, thus it should be still mentioned among country-wide "minor parties", so that, when it is dissolved, it will be moved to former "minor parties". Second: There are very few sources on both the MpA and its regional section PdS as of late. It is quite difficult to understand whether the party, whether as MpA or PdS, is active. It seems like Raffaele Lombardo's autonomists are now a loose group. For this reason, we should either consider both parties as "active" or both as "former". Before we find sources and compromise, let's go back to the previous version. --Checco (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Ps: Just to be clear, for what I understand, the core of the former or loosely organised PdS–MpA is affiliated to "Populars and Autonomists" while only a minority from that party (the "Movement for the New Autonomy") is allied with Lega per Salvini Premier. --Checco (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: The MPA is no longer a structured party as it once was and, above all, it is no longer active throughout southern Italy. Surely a Sicilian section called "Patito dei Siciliani" no longer exists. Instead, the MPA has changed its name to the "Movimento per la Nuova Autonomia" (it is not clear when) and is active only in Sicily (therefore from a national party it has become regional). This is why I think it is correct to list it according to its current status, that is, a party active only in Sicily. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
It is not specified in the sources that it is a minority, moreover it is the only party actually still active. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Thus, what about moving both MpA and PdS to the "former parties" section and having a new article on MpNA?
However, I am not convinced by what you said. In fact, the loose group of former Lombardo's affiliates is no longer united. Only the MpNA has joined the LpSP, while others are still affiliated to "Populars and Autonomists". --Checco (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: The Sicilian regional deputies in the "Populars and Autonomists" are members of MPNA.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
If that is the case and thus MpNA is divided in two camps, would you agree on moving both MpA and PdS to the "former parties" section and having a new article on MpNA? It would solve all of our problems. --Checco (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Why is MPNA divided into two camps? The regional deputies in the ARS are members of MPNA and have also formed an "inter-group" with the regional deputies of the League. we can move the MPA between the deceased parties, but the creation of an autonomous page for the MPNA would be very difficult: it is not even clear when it was founded / changed its name. Maybe a redirect to the last paragraph of the page could be created.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
That is what they would do in it.Wikipedia. Here it is perfectly OK to start a stub article on a subject that is definitely relevant. However, we can start with your proposal, but, as soon as we find MpNA's date of foundation, let's start a new article. --Checco (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
If there was the date of foundation, for me it is ok. However, there are currently very few elements for a standalone page. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
You are right: there are very few news on "Movimento per la Nuova Autonomia". As we said, it is a loose group. However, from a Google search, it is clear that the new name was adopted sometime in the second half of 2020. When updating the MpA and PdS articles, we should also take a look to this article on the rise and fall of the MpA. --Checco (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Reorganization of defunct parties

As mentioned in the previous discussion, the division into major and minor parties is valid only for current parties, while for defunct parties (defunct is a more appropriate term than former) the division into historical periods would be better. I proceed with the modification, if someone disagrees they are invited to explain the reason and we start a discussion about it.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I would keep the status quo ante, therefore I will rollback your edits. The division between major and minor parties is rather useful, otherwise we could have sub-sub-sections. Before doing such bold edits, I suggest to seek consensus first. --Checco (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, I am for keeping "former" instead of "defunct". Regarding start/end dates, I would personally not include them: the list would become too complicate and why having dates only for former parties and not for current ones? --Checco (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think you are helping the improvement of this page too much by opposing certain edits, the page on Italian parties is probably one of the poorest of all pages of this type: it is one of the very few pages where national parties are not listed in an expositive table, it is comparable to the party pages of Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Burundi, Congo or Rwanda.
The division between major and minor parties is rather useful for the current parties, but the division of the deceased parties by epoch is present on many pages and is much more logical: Greece, Hungary, Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Japan etc. Each epoch corresponds to a different type of party, listing the Historical Right, the Fascist Party and the PDL in the same list of major parties is wrong in my opinion. Furthermore, the term "former" (that means "ex") is nowhere used: the terms used are "defunct" (United Kingdom, Spain, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Norway, Romania, Czech Republic) or "historical" (United States, New Zealand, Russia, Netherlands, Poland, France). If almost no page uses the term "former" maybe there is a reason ... I think this page should be aligned with the others. About the dates, the list would not become too complicate, and for the current national parties the foundation date could be entered in the table.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I prefer 'defunct' with respect to 'former', it's a clearer word. What is a "former party" anyway? I also support separating the list into sections for different historical periods, and I support keeping the subdivision into major and minor parties for each period. Finally, I also support putting the current parties in a table, rather than a bulleted list. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I think we can reach a compromise on "historical" parties ("defunct" is less precise). I still think that joint lists for historical major and minor parties is better. I support the creation of a table for major parties, but not for minor ones (I edited one some time ago). --Checco (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Indeed in my opinion former party does not mean anything, but "defunct" seems to me more precise than "historical": Is a dissolved party in 2020 historical? In my opinion definitely no. Instead I think that a further distinction between major and minor defunct parties would make the table too heavy, I believe that these criteria should only be used for the current parties. @Ritchie92: what do you think about the date of foundation and dissolution of the defunct parties (see: [13])? As for tables, it doesn't make much sense to only do it for 5 parties, but maybe we should discuss it in a separate thread. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

"Former" or "historical" parties is fine. Perhaps it can be argued that "defunct" is more precise, but the other terms aren't confusing. I don't have any issues keeping with the status quo in terms of descriptions and listing.--Autospark (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Autospark: If a term is probably more precise, I see no reason not to use it... "Former" is an objectively unused term. The topic of the table should be discussed in another thread (although I don't understand the opposition to an objective improvement of the page, in line with all the others). What I want to discuss here is the listing of the defunct parties based on the historical period (in addition to the term to describe them ). The list for historical periods would be more effective than the current situation, however further splitting into larger and smaller parties would make the list too heavy. For this reason I would divide the defunct national parties into 3 sub-sections: "Kingdom of Italy" (1861-1946), "First Republic" (1946-1994) and "Second Republic" (since 1994). It makes sense to me, because parties from various eras are not mixed. @Checco: I did not even understand the opposition to the inclusion of the dates of foundation and dissolution of the parties, these are all useful information and their removal involves a worsening of the page. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Since "defunct" is more precise, I see no reason why not use it. Regarding the dates of foundation and dissolution, these could also be useful for the defunct parties by adding information and context. I also support the separation in the three subsections, but I would refer to First and Second Republic using quotation marks, because technically First and Second Republic are only journalistic/historical terms within the Italian institutional asset. A table for the major parties is definitely better than nothing, let's start from that. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ritchie92: Using the quotation marks for First and Second Republic is correct, I agree with it. I didn't understand what do you mean with "information and context" for the dates. About the tables, these are ready for all current national parties (see: [14]): the setup of these tables can be discussed, but they seemed to me a noticeable improvement to the page (because, as I repeat, the Italian page is one of the very few not to use tables for national parties). Using a table for only five parties makes few sense, especially when the table for all parties has already been made. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
My opinion on the several issues raised above:
  • The majority of us prefer "defunct", so be it. Yes, also a party dissolved in 2020 would be historic and, as such, would be mentioned in Template:Historical Italian political parties. However, as we are adopting "defunct" here, what about moving the template to "Template:Italian defunct political parties"?
  • I think that a table can be useful only for major parties. First we need to agree on that and its contents (we do not have consensus on it either, yet), then we could decide whether that format could be applicable to other sections like the one on current minor parties.
  • I oppose any further classification of defunct parties as well as the addition of start/end dates—I argued why above, but, again, the list would become too heavy and there would be some issues of consistency with the above sections. The list is already too long and complicate: I would not go farther on that road.
--Checco (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I totally agree to rename the template to "Template:Italian defunct political parties". About the dates, I honestly don't understand how some numbers can make the page to heavy, they are only useful information. "The list is already too long and complicate": the division into three lists by epoch serves exactly to simplify it, not to complicate it. Currently, the list of defunct parties is extremely "heavy" and "complicated" to read, parties from different eras are put together divided into two lists and it is not easy to find a specific party. Dividing it into three different eras (without further sub-sections) would make it much easier to read, and there would be a great advantage: all national parties would be listed in order of their date of dissolution (which, as I have already stated, should be shown). Now, however, with the distinction into major and minor parties (based on criteria that take into account the current situation and not that of the past), the parties of the various eras are mixed. So it is not true that the page would become heavier, it would be more linear. About the tables: this matter should be discussed in another thread, but in all the other pages, the tables contain all the national parties, so it would be time for the page on Italian parties to be aligned once and for all with the other pages of the same type. It makes little sense and it is inconsistent to make a table for only 5 parties. However, this is another topic.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Pound House

Sorry, I just noticed this and I could not help but comment. I don't think it is a good idea at all to translate "CasaPound" as "Pound House". Literally no one calls it like that in English. I would use the Italian name without any doubt. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: As I have already stated, I think that listing all the parties with their names translated on this page is a great forcing, this is not only valid for CasaPound, but also for parties like Forza Italia and Coraggio Italia, in these cases, it makes no sense to translate them on this page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I have no problem about replacing all party names with the Wikipedia article name and removing translations. --Checco (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Actually I had already made this proposal above and you opposed it ... However, for me we can limit ourselves to eliminating only the inaccurate, unusual or controversial translations, as for FI, CI and Casapound.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I oppose this. All or none. --Checco (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand. @Checco: do you want to have either all in Italian (i.e. Partito Democratico, Forza Italia, etc) or everything in English (i.e. Democratic Party, Go Italia or something, etc)? I find this very counter productive: we should use the names that correspond to the title of the corresponding Wikipedia page of each party. If there is no WP page for some of the parties, we can use the English name if it's immediate (e.g. Democratic Party) and the Italian one if it's not. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I think he refers to the page titles. However, there are cases in which the name is objectively difficult to translate, and other cases, such as the Northern League, in which the title of the page has been kept Italian for different reasons (such as for reasons of disambiguation). In the latter case, I would prefer to keep the current situation.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I refer to article names: "Democratic Party", "Forza Italia", "Brothers of Italy", "Italia Viva", and so on. I will always support English article names, but I would leave that matter to article talk pages. --Checco (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Revision of some criteria

Hi everyone, I would like to review some criteria on this page that make me perplexed: in my opinion, the criteria for national parties should be a little less stringent while those for regional parties should be more restrictive. I would propose some changes that I think would make the page more interesting:

The current criteria have the defect of excluding from the page known national parties and instead of including unknown regional micro-parties. In my opinion with these changes the page could benefit. It is not directly related to the proposal, but I would also consider removing the red links and the regional sections of the Northern League (the party seems overexposed compared to all the others). I have not currently opened an RFC because here I have also expressed my personal evaluations).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I oppose proposal 1 as it would not be easy to find all the parties that should be added accordingly. I support proposal 2, but I would like to know which parties would be interested by the change (only the successor of the PdCI comes to my mind). I oppose proposal 3 (I would probably lower the thresold, but, as above, it would not be easy to apply the new rule). I also oppose removing red links (the list would not be complete anyomore) and LN's sections. --Checco (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: About Coraggio Italia, if its translation is a problem, we could also leave the only titles of the pages, like the tmp, but I am quite convinced that Courage Italy has no meaning ... If a translation is controversial , what do you think about leaving only the page titles? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
About my proposals, I think it would be much better to list the new Italian Communist Party, the Animalist Party, the Workers Communist Party,the People of Family and Forza Nuova than unknown regional micro-parties like "Forza Campania", Progett'Azione, CuoriItaliani or Più Toscana. it seems to me a contradiction, this is a page on Italian parties and certain national parties are not reported while local micro-parties that have existed for a few months are listed (if they can be defined as parties) ... it doesn't seem to me that the page is more interesting. About the regional sections of Lega Nord, it seems to me an overexposure, there are pages on local sections of other parties but I do not think they are listed on any page of this type (but that's another topic). For now I have opened this discussion "to test the waters", but I don't think other users will intervene, maybe I should open an RFC.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
"Courage Italy" is the literal translation and it is OK in English, per Courage International.
I can agree on proposal 1. Would you please find all the parties that have surpassed the new threshold since 1861? --Checco (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: Courage International and Courage UK, are another kind of names. In this case it seems to me evidently inspired by Forza Italia. And in my opinion the translations of Forza Italia and Coraggio Italia on this page are forcing, it seems reasonable to remove them.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
As I wrote somewhere else, this is just your interpretation. However, I disagree about eliminating translations, at least here.
Please let me know about the other issue: are you willing to look for all the missing parties, in case the threshold is changed (per proposal 1)? If yes, I am going to support proposal 1, as well as proposal 2. --Checco (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
The criterion of regional parties should be rethought above all for one reason: the number of two regional councilors has a totally different weight from regional council to regional council: the Lombardy assembly has 80 members, that of Molise only 21, it is not the same thing ...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
That is why we have also the 2% threshold and that is why I would not change it. --Checco (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
If you disagree with removing a controversial translation, then we'll have to discuss which translation to use on the party talk page.
About parties above 0.5%, I have checked and they are few: the current parties are CasaPound, Workers Communist Party, Animalist Party, Communist Party, New Force. The former parties are Unità Popolare, Unione Socialista Indipendente, an unknown Partito nazionale pensionati, the Socialist Party (1996), Patto dei Liberaldemocratici.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
2% electoral threshold and having two regional councilors are very different criteria, a micro-split is sufficient to have two councilors. Indeed I doubt about the encyclopedic relevance of "parties" like Forza Campania, CuoriItaliani o Progett'Azione... Instead there is no an important criterion like the election of one MP or MEP, a Mayor in a capital city or a President of Province with their own list. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: Anyway, you said that you would lower the threshold for regional parties: it would be fine for me to lower the threshold to 1% as long to remomove the two councilors criterion. It is very easier to find parties that got 1% rather than those that only had two councilors, isn't it? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I guess that far more parties have passed the 0.5% threshold countrywide since 1861.
The 2-councillor provision should stay, as sometimes parties emerge as splinter groups. We decided to have 2 councillors in order to avoid merely one-man parties. Frankly, I would leave the rule on regional parties as it is, while I am open toward the other two changes. --Checco (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: I checked the elections one by one, I'm sure what I wrote. No I only mentioned Sì referendum (which was only an electoral list), the manifesto (which was not a real party) and Caccia Pesca Ambiente (which was not a party but only an association, which still exists). About the regional parties: it seems impossible to me to find all the micro parties that have had 2 regional councilors, it seems to me a criterion that is really unsuitable for the Italian situation where very small groups are formed continuously, which then do not even appear in the elections. Then it would be more reasonable to lower the threshold to 1%. It seems to me very difficult to find all the parties that respect such a lewd criterion, furthermore I think that parties like Forza Campania or Progettazione should really be removed, they have no relevance.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank for your checking! Obviously, I believe in your good faith and intellectual honesty. I now fully support proposal 1.
In the past, some users including me checked all the regional parties, which had passed the 2% threshold at the regional level (both in general and regional* elections) or had at least two regional councillors, that is how we edited the article. I am definitely opposed to removing the 2-councillor provision, while I am open on lowering the regional threshold to 1%—I am sure you would do a great job in finding all the missing parties.
Note: Meaning "provincial" for Trentino and South Tyrol. --Checco (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I had proposed to lower the threshold to 1% to balance the removal of the criterion of the two regional councilors, which is the cause of the presence on the page of really irrelevant parties. Honestly, I would have removed both criteria. But I think that for the reader it is more important to see a party that has taken a minimum of votes rather than a "party" that existed only for the change of two / three people (in reality I do not even consider them real parties).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
However, I don't doubt that the search for parties that meet these criteria has been done accurately, however, the principle of two regional councilors (such as the principle of presence in 3 regional councils for national parties) are extremely difficult to verify and have the only result of including irrelevant parties in the list. There is also a problem of balancing between regional parties and national parties: for a regional party it is enough to elect a regional councilor, while for a national party this is not enough. I think compliance with the criteria should be immediately verifiable by anyone, that's why I have asked a partial revision. Having said that, I rephrase my proposals:
  • National parties: National parties having garnered at least 0.5% in a general/European election, having elected at least one MP/MEP/regional councillor with their own lists or having been represented by at least 5 MPs or 2 MEPs.
  • Regional parties: Regiononal parties having garnered at least 1% in a regional election, having elected at least one regional councilor, one MP or MEP, a Mayor in a capital city or a President of Province with their own list. Therefore, for the national parties I would remove the presence in three regional councils but I would definitely add the election of at least one regional councilor, while for the regional parties the problem of the two councilors remains (I do not think that further lowering the electoral threshold while keeping that criterion is a good idea, as the list of regional parties is already too long). This criterion, in my view, has two problems: the inclusion of small groups that are not real parties (real parties should be distinguished from those which are merely groups in regional councils), and the specific weight of two councillors that changes council by council. This second point could anyway be solved by replacing a minimum percentage of regional councilors with respect to the total number of members of the assembly (but in this for me the threshold should not be too low).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Here is what I could accept:
  • Minor parties: "Active/former parties having garnered at least 0,5% in a general/European election, having elected at least one MP/MEP with their own lists or having been represented by at least 5 MPs, 2 MEPs or in 3 different Regional Councils.
  • Regional parties: "Active/former parties having garnered at least 2% (or 1%) in a regional election (or in a general/European election at the regional level), having elected at least one regional councillor with their own lists or having been represented by at least 2 regional councillors".
--Checco (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: I didn't understand why you don't agree with the criterion for national parties about the election of one regional councilor, it is important to balance the criteria of the regional parties: if a regional party elects one regional councilor it can be listed on the page, while if a national party electsone regional councilor it cannot be listed. So the criteria seem to me too unbalanced ... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
It would be listed as a regional party! However, sure, I can agree on that:
  • Minor parties: "Active/former parties having garnered at least 0.5% in a general/European election, having elected at least one MP/MEP/regional councillor with their own lists or having been represented by at least 5 MPs, 2 MEPs or in 3 different Regional Councils.
  • Regional parties: "Active/former regional-only parties having garnered at least 2% (or 1%) in a regional election (or in a general/European election at the regional level), having elected at least one regional councillor with their own lists or having been represented by at least 2 regional councillors". --Checco (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: there are rare exceptions of national parties that have elected regional councilors in only one or two regions (for example Alliance of the Centre) but which do not meet any of the current criteria: they are active throughout the national territory, therefore they could not be listed as regional parties.
Summarizing: we agree to lower the threshold from 1% to 0.5% and to introduce the criterion of the election of at least one regional councilor for national parties. Above you did not mention two (important) criteria for regional parties on which, however, you have already agreed: Regional parties having elected at least one MP or MEP, a Mayor in a capital city or a President of Province with their own list.
However, we don't agree on representation in the regional council; I would remove the criterion of mere representation, but if it is kept I think it should be corrected with a percentage: as I have already argued, the weight of two councillors changes so much from region to region, a split of two councillors in the Council of Lombardia is not equal to a split of two councillors in the Council of Molise. I, as a compromise, would replace the criterion for regional parties "having been represented by at least 2 regional councillors" with "having the 5% of elects in a Regional Council", that is the same criterion as the template (but I don't know if you agree with this proposal ).
@User:AleCapHollywood, User:Angelo.romano, User:Autospark, User:B. M. L. Peters, User:Braganza, User:Broncoviz, User:Civiltalatina, User:Eddy world, User:Facquis, User:Gryffindor, User:Holapaco77, User:Impru20, User:Mai-Sachme, User:Nick.mon, User:Nightstallion, User:Noclador, User:RJFF, User:Ritchie92, User:Vacant0: I copied your tags from the previous discussion, in case you are interested in expressing an opinion on these proposals.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: No one else intervened, let's try to find a compromise. Would you agree to replace the threshold of 2 councillors with 5% of the elects? It is the same criterion as the template, after all having a percentage is much more equal than a number of councilors. Perhaps the parties represented in regional governments could also be included. It is not the solution that I consider ideal, because the list would remain almost identical, but it seems to me a good compromise, the percentage of elected has a logic and is consistent with the template. If you accept I can proceed with the modification of the page. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, I would not change any rule, thus the changes we agreed on are already a compromise to me!
Generally speaking, it would be great if the same rules were applied here and to the template: let's think about it.
However, I am not convinced on your latest proposal: replacing the threshold of 2 councillors with 5% of the elects. That has one big problem: the number of members of regional councils has changed over time, so it would be quite difficult to apply the new rule to former parties. Moreover, for most regions, that would mean having a threshold of at least 3 councillors and that would be too much to me, for the good of this article.
In the meantime, please remind me whether we both agree on the following changes:
  • Minor parties: "Active/former parties having garnered at least 0.5% of the vote in a general/European election, having elected at least one MP/MEP/regional councillor with their own lists or having been represented by at least 5 MPs, 2 MEPs or in 3 different Regional Councils.
  • Regional parties: "Active/former regional-only parties having garnered at least 2% (or 1%) [what is your choice?] in a regional election (or in a general/European election at the regional level), having elected at least one regional councillor with their own lists or having been represented by at least 2 regional councillors".
Thanks, --Checco (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: I state that 3 regional councilors in the regional council of Lombardy or in ARS are very few, it is not a great problem to establish the percentages of electes according to the legislature, the total number of regional councilors can be easily obtained from the pages of the regional elections. I did not make any random proposals, with 5% no party or almost no one would be removed. The value of this criterion would be the same weight of a regional party for each region. I would invite you to think about it. Regarding the threshold of votes of regional parties, I had proposed 1% to balance a possible removal of the threshold of members in the assembly, so it can remain 2%.
I totally agree to "unify" the criteria of this page with those of the template: the template would list only those that meet the criteria currently, while this page would list all the parties that have also met them in the past. But regarding the threshold of elected, I am more in agreement with the criterion of the template... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
OK on keeping 2% of the vote for regional parties.
The 5% threshold would mean at least 3 elects for all the regions with regional councils having more than 40 seats (the majority of regional councils). However, OK, I am now convinced. I would use the same words from the template. Thus:
  • Minor parties: "Active/former parties having garnered at least 0.5% of the vote in a general/European election, having elected at least one MP/MEP/regional councillor with their own lists or having been represented by at least 5 MPs, 2 MEPs or in 3 different Regional Councils.
  • Regional parties: "Active/former regional-only parties having garnered at least 2% of the vote in a regional election (or in a general/European election at the regional level), having elected at least one regional councillor with their own lists or having been represented by 5% of elects in a Regional Council (Provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol).
Is that all this OK for you? --Checco (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: Yes, I agree. I had also proposed having elected a Mayor in a capital city or a President of Province with their own list (I think you agreed on this criterion) and having been represented in the regional government.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
At this point, I think it woul be even better to implement something like what we have in the template: "conditions of admission" and "classification". It would be easier and clerar. The same, identical rules would be implemented in both places. If necessary, we could eliminate the "medium" parties category from the template or add it also here. Would you agree on this "nuclear" option? --Checco (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: Do you intend to explicitly write "conditions of admission" on the page? Yes, that's fine by me. it is better to have only major and minor parties. Instead, I would eliminate this distinction from the departed parties: wouldn't it be better to distinguish them on the basis of the period in which they were dissolved? It is very strange to have parties that were dissolved in the 1800s and parties that were dissolved in the 2000s on the same list. In many similar pages (Germany, Greece, etc.) the defunct parties are listed according to the period, I would divide them into 3 periods: Kingdom of Italy, First Republic and Second Republic (the period from 1994 onwards).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Let's do it step by step. I am going to soon implement, through a bold edit, what I mean to say. Of course, you can rollback it soon after! Otherwise, if it is a good start for you, we can implement the other changes to the list (parties in and out) and to the template, for the sake of consistency. Then, we can discuss about periods of time. --Checco (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I will make the proposal on the defunct parties in a new thread. About the party criteria, for the moment I am proceeding to correct those on this page. I also made a table for national parties, in line with all the other pages on national parties. I have not put seats in it, since in Italy the number of seats of each party changes too often. I think a table instead of a simple list of parties looks good on the page. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
So... did you accept my bold edit? Just to make sure...
I do not like too much the idea of the table. What about having it only for major parties? --Checco (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to move the criteria to the bottom of the page? Anyway, try to check the tables, after all the page on Italian parties is the only one that doesn't have them. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I do not necessarily like tables. A table on major parties could be a compromise. Please upload that table first and, possibly, if it is simple and compact, you could even be able to convince me also on this...
I am not sure it is a good idea to move the "organisation" section at the bottom, but let's try. --Checco (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
The criteria are certainly more practical at the top, even if I'm not convinced about the aesthetic result. The tables on the parties are the ones I put on the page, they contain the essential information of each party. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I have several reservations. Let's have only the "major parties" table and find a compromise on it first. I already edited the table, but I would at least replace "Ideologies" with "Main ideology" and have only one position (as we have in many other articles, e.g. Draghi Cabinet, Next Italian general election, etc.). --Checco (talk) 10:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
A table for only 5 parties does not make much sense, in my opinion the page should be set up in a similar way to all other pages of the same type (excluding the number of seats). I believe that the tables for the national parties improve the aesthetic aspect of the page, which is currently very "poor". The tables on the other pages also do not include a single ideology, in many cases it is not possible to determine the main ideology. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the political ideologies and positions of Italian parties are much more a matter of debate than those of, for instance, Germany. I do not think that tables are necessay here, but in case I would start with a table for majort parties including name, main ideology (per Next Italian general election) and leader. --Checco (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: I have to correct the conditions of admission, there was a misunderstanding, I intended to align the criteria of this page with those of the template based on those discussed above. So, for the moment, I'm reintroducing the criteria which we have agreed above. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was bold, thus your rollback is perfectly understandable. However, all the rules I uploaded through my bold edit were perfectly compatible with what we agreed on. Anyway, that is OK. I will edit your recent edit, based on what we exactly agreed on.
Additionally, I agree that we should proceed step by step, one issue at the time. --Checco (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: But didn't we also agree on the election of a mayor in a capital city or a provincial president? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
For minor parties? That has no specific meaning to me, as "capital" cities (both regional and provincial, I do not know what you meant) can be very small and their mayors hardly relevant. Also, presidents of provinces are indirectly elected and are not particularly relevant. In order to match the template, I could accept "a Minister, or a President of Region, or a President of Province, or a Mayor of a city with more than 200,000 inhabitants", but then you should do a lot of research! Same for the other rules we changed today: lots of researches! If you want to do that, that is OK to me. --Checco (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I thought for regional parties. Until 2013 the provincial presidents were directly elected by the voters. For example DemA of De Magistris or Popolari Retici. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I would not do it only for regional parties and Popolari Retici was basically a civic list.
However, the more I think about it, the more I think that my bold edit would have solved all problems. Through conditions of admission parties are included in the article, through classification they are classified. --Checco (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: Popolari Retici was a party particularly rooted in the province of Sondrio, while this page is full of civic lists or regional groups that weren't even civic lists. Under the current criteria not even DemA can be listed, while Popolari Retici would have many more reasons to be listed than other "parties" on this page. The criteria of the template are too flexible on the number of MPs/MEPs, it would have increased the number of parties on this page out of all proportion. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I am not convinced. Let's pause a little bit. --Checco (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: The changes that I thought most important have been introduced. However, it is incorrect to say that Popolari Retici was a civic list, it was a party present in the area for years. On the other hand, many "parties" listed on this page are not real parties, but civic lists or mere regional groups. In practice, most of the regional parties. For this reason it seems strange to me to exclude from the page parties that have obtained votes and elected in the territory (including DemA) and keeping "parties" that have never obtained anything. Of course, you can reply whenever you want. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
To me, the article was OK before today's edits and it is OK now. I think it would be great to upload something like this and I have not understood why you finally rollbacked that bold edit of mine. What was wrong with that and, specifically, the "organisation" section? --Checco (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
These are our current rules simply transfered in the new format:
Organisation
Conditions of admission
In order to be part of this list, a party needs to have fulfilled at least one of the following conditions:
  • having garnered more than 0.5% of the vote in a countrywide election (general/European);
  • having elected at least one MP/MEP/regional councillor with its own list;
  • having been represented by at least five MPs or two MEPs or in three Regional Councils;
  • having scored more than 2% of the vote in a regional election (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol);
  • having had the 5% of the elects in a Regional Council (Provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol);
  • having garnered at least 15% in a constituency for Italians abroad in a general election;
Classification
The parties are classified as:
  • Major parties: parties having scored more than 4% in a countrywide election (general/European) or having at least 30 MPs or 5 MEPs;
  • Minor parties: parties that fulfil one of the other conditions;
  • Regional parties: minor parties active only in one Region (Province in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol);
  • Parties of the Italians abroad: parties active only among Italians abroad.
  • Parliamentary groups: parliamentary groups formed by coalitions of parties and/or non-party independents.
Active major parties are those having garnred more than 4% in the latest countrywide election (general/European) or currently having at least 30 MPs or 5 MEPs.
Is there anything incorrect? Could this be a viable option? Please let me know. --Checco (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: The criterion "having been represented by at least two MPs / MEPs" was not agreed and it is not suitable above all for this page, where currently the threshold is 5 MPs or 2 MEPs. Instead, the criterion "having scored more than 2% of the vote in a regional election" isn't clear, not even for the template: is it valid only for regional parties or also for national parties? Finally, I agree with the criterion "having had an Minister, or a President of Region, or a President of Province" (I didn't see it before), but I would replace "Mayor of a city with more than 200,000 inhabitants" with "Mayor of a Capital city". --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I am really sorry! I had problems with versions. I have now corrected the rules above. Please check that they are consistent with current rules. The only problem left is about "2% of the vote in a regional election", but in my reasoning it should be that a party that does that should be included in the list, but, if it is regional-only, it will be listed among regional parties. --Checco (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not really convinced about the application of the regional 2% criterion to all parties (which parties would be added?), while I agree with the other conditions. Honestly, I also agreed with the condition that you removed and that is still present for the template, even applying it for all parties (with the correction I had proposed). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
My intention, consistent with "let's pause a little bit" I wrote above, was not to propose new rule changes, but simply to re-organise the article in order to present rules in a clearer way—in Italy there are so many parties that only some conditions of admission can help to prevent an indefinite and infinite list, but readers and editors should understand them. The 2% rule is already respected because there is no countrywide party that has garnered 2% in a single region without electing one regional councillor with its own list or garnering at least 0.5% in a countrywide election: it is possible, but unlikely and it has not happened yet. I would like to first find common ground on a better explanation and presentation of the rules, then we can always discuss on new rules (the new format would help us also in this respect). Think about it. --Checco (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
In the regional elections in Calabria in 2010 the United Socialists obtained more than 3% but no seats. However, I fully agree to have the same criteria for both national and regional parties, indeed I had proposed the revision of certain criteria with this objective too. But personally I am not too convinced on the application of the 2% regional threshold to all parties. Instead the criterion on regional presidents, provincial presidents and mayors would not be totally new, because it is already present between the conditions of the template.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

However, I would consider the hypothesis of definitively standardizing the criteria of this page and the template.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I would start by having a comparable set of rules, like the one above ("Organisation"). The only problem we have with that is the 2% clause. I would make this little departure from the current rules, in order to standardise them. After all, it is OK to add to the list some small countrywide parties, like the one cited above. Then, we could start discussing a standardisation of the rules of this list and its sister template. --Checco (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: If no other users intervene it is difficult to reach a conclusion. From my point of view, the 2% regional rule must be removes. Instead, the rule of electing a regional or provincial president or a mayor of a city (if not a capital municipality, of at least 100,000 inhabitants) should be maintained. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The ratio of the "Organisation" section above is based on having general conditions of admission and then the classification of admitted parties in the different sections. I tried to offer a bold solution, but as of now I have not succeeded. Thus, I do not know how to reach a compromise right now. --Checco (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: For me the deletion of the regional 2% criterion and the introduction of the criterion of the election of a regional or provincial president or a mayor of a large city (100,000 inhabitants) would be perfectly reasonable, with these for me the discussion could end here. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I am not interested in that, while I am interested in having a "Organisation" section (like the one above) and, then, a gradual standardisation of the rules of admission and classification of this list with the ones of the sister template. --Checco (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
As I have already stated, I agree to have standard criteria for all parties, the same both in this page and in the template. The criterion of the 2% regional threshold is problematic as a general criterion, if this were removed and the criteria about regional and provincial presidents and mayors were added, I would agree to add the section with the admission criteria (at the bottom of the page).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@ User:Checco, User:Ritchie92, User:Autospark, User:Holapaco77, User:Facquis, User:Braganza, User:Vacant0, User:B. M. L. Peters, User:Nick.mon, User:Nightstallion (I pinged you because you intervened in the previous discussion): I would like to close this discussion. Do you agree to unify the admission conditions of this page with those of the template, to apply the same criteria for both national and regional parties, to remove the criterion about the regional 2% threshold and to include between the criteria the election of a regional or provincial president or a mayor in a city with more than 100,000 inhabitants? If you are interested, feel free to express your opinion, so we can close this discussion and continue the one on the reorganization of defunct parties. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It is not so easy. Standardising the list and the template is a complex process. I disagree with your proposal, while I propose once again to start with joint rules for this template, including the 2% threshold rule. My proposal is above (see "Organisation"). I hope others will support it. --Checco (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: And will you be looking for all the parties that crossed this threshold, for example, in the 90s? Furthermore, the criterion of regional / provincial presidents and mayors of big cities is already present for the template. Anyway, I strongly disagree with the 2% regional threshold for all parties, it is an useless and complex rule.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Any new rule (including the one proposed by you) would make new checks necessary (just think of mayors since 1861!). A universal 2% threshold rule is useful precisely because it would make the rules less complex and the "Organisation" section viable. --Checco (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: In 1861 there were no real parties in Italy, even the right and the left were actually "political groups". The only parties that would be added to the page with the proposed rule would be DeMa and Popolari Retici. The regional 2%, on the other hand, is not very useful and is extremely complex, just think of a possible calculation of the sum in single-member colleges in the 1990s. To add which important party? I don't see any necessary additions. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Virtually no more parties would be added, indeed. That is also why I support the 2% threshold rule. --Checco (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: Before supporting a rule, you should inform yourself better: there are many parties (almost all unknown) that exceeded the 2% threshold in the 90s and are not included in this page. If you support this rule, you should know that there are several parties to add to the page (the last example: Rinascimento). On the contrary, it is quite incomprehensible why are you defending this rule: which parties do you want to keep? I see no advantage in this rule, it only complicates things. Personally, I would like a rule that would include parties with provincial roots (such as Popolari Retici and the Mancini List), but in any case I do not consider it indispensable. If the rule of the 2% threshold is removed, which already makes the list incomplete, the rules could be definitively uniformed. However, these rules should be invisible to the reader.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I offer you a new compromise: raising the regional threshold to 3%. --Checco (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: FLD was only a parlimentary group, that included more parties. In 1995 FL was founded as its tranformation into a party, but the parliamentary group FLD remained. In the sources it is clearly written that FLD was just a group, where did you find it was a party? I have to restore the previous version, because FL and FLD nevertheless co-existed as a party and a parliamentary group, respectively.
About this matter, with the 3% threshold many parties would not be included in the list, but I keep asking you: what advantage does this rule have? Which parties would you like to add to the list via this rule? This rule would include the Rinascimento, which has only partial electoral merits in Aosta Valley.
About to the rule of provincial / regional presidents and mayors, however, I changed my mind: it is better to exclude it. Presidents and mayors in Italy are not elected thanks to a single list, but thanks to a coalition. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I perfectly know that in Italian politics, especially among the media, distinctions are made between "parliamentary groups" and parties, as well as between "movements" and parties, but these are hardly understandable by European political science standards. FLD acted as a party for about a year and its numbers were quite enough for us to mention it here. By the way, how many MPs did FL have? Was it more of a minor party or so small that it should not be mentioned here? FLD has to stay as a party per previous consensus (I was recently thanked by User:Autospark on one of my recent edits), FL can stay as long as you believe its numbers were OK.
Rules should be decided from an indepdent perspective. It does not matter to me whether the regional threshold is at 2% or 3%. What matters to me is that it has to be universal, in order to make way for the "Organisation" thing. --Checco (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: Parliamentary groups and parties they are separate legal entities, the media have nothing to do with it. A party is an association, a group is a parliamentary body. I don't think Autospark or any other foreign user knows what we're talking about. Here, however, you are supporting untrue information, in contrast with the sources and legal bases. FLD has not acted as a party, it has never presented itself in the elections just like People and Territory. On the basis of what do you claim it was a party? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
About the number of MPs of FL, I have already stated below that the distinction between major and minor defunct parties makes very little sense. But it definitely had more than 5 MPs. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree about the indepdent perspective, but I don't understand what the advantage of keeping such a rule is. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Political parties do not need to be organised though an association and there is no universal legal basis for parties (in Italy there is none, as parties are not even registered), this is just your personal view of the matter. Basic notions of political science... According to Britannica, a "political party" is "a group of persons organized to acquire and exercise political power". A party can be parliamentary-only, why not?
FLD was more of a party than merely a parliamentary body. News sources are not scientific sources. Please seek consensus.
"It definitely had more than 5 MPs" is a completely unsourced comment of yours, by the way. --Checco (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: Wikipedia too offers different definitions for parties and groups. Political party: is an organization that coordinates candidates to compete in a specific country's elections; Parliamentary group: is a group consisting of members of the same political party or electoral fusion of parties in a legislative assembly such as a parliament or a city council. This same page distinguishes between parliamentary groups and parties. You claim that FLD was a party, can you show a single source to support this thesis? The sources that I see clearly claim it was a parliamentary group. Even the page of it.wikipedia states that it was a parliamentary group. If you have any doubts, start discussing them on the Italian version of the page, but I invite you to respect the sources and not to do original research.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles cannot count as sources. I have just copied above a leading political scientist's definition for Britannica. It is difficult to find sources for old parties, however FLD was a party and was considered as such in en.Wikipedia until your edits. --Checco (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, I would like to close this discussion, which has been stalled for too long: for me we can replace the current 2% criterion with a 3% threshold valid only for regional elections.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I would support the 3% thresold rule only if it is universal, general and EP elections included. --Checco (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: I am realizing that certain rules are very difficult to respect, even the criterion about 5% of elects in one regional council does not seem to me to be fully respected (for example, it seems that the Christian Democrats for Freedom had 5 regional councilors in Lombardy, in Sicily there was a certain "Movimento Iniziativa Popolare" with 5 deputies: who verifies compliance with this threshold for parliamentary elections? Certain criteria seem unnecessarily complicated to me. With the 2% threshold many parties should be added, with the 3% threshold I don't know. And I invite you to find the sources for certain bold edits, you cannot claim that FLD was a party if the sources claim it was a parliamentary group, this goes beyond the original research. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
There are no non-Italian scientific/academic sources describing from a political scientist's point of view what FLD was and was not. There was an established consensus here. You should respect it, while seeking a new consensus. --Checco (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
The fact that it was a long established version does not mean that it was a consensual version, but rather a never corrected mistake. Where it was decided for making a parliamentary group a party? The information must find a confirmation in the sources, we cannot give a personal interpretation to them. If the sources state a certain thing, we cannot state the opposite in the text of the page. In this case, the sources would not even be needed, because in my view it is clear that it was just a group. "Non-Italian scientific/academic sources"? For a simple Italian parliamentary group it is not possible to find this type of sources. If you do not think it was a party, be consistent and propose the modification of the Italian page first. En.wikipedia and it.wikipedia are not two different encyclopedias, but two linguistic versions of the same encyclopedia, therefore the pages must contain the same statements. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Frankly, I am not particularly interested in it.Wikipedia. Its users often reject the basic features and standards of political science, especially on political ideologies. That is why I have always found more interesting and formative to cooperate with informed international editors. --Checco (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

However, returning to the matter of the thread, this discussion on the criteria can be considered closed at the moment, there has been no participation by other users and unfortunately there are no conditions to standardize the conditions of admission. Extending opaque and difficult-to-apply criteria such as that of the% of those elected to a regional council to all parties risks creating more confusion too. The list is probably incomplete even now. Criteria such as representation in 3 regional councils or a threshold of elected representatives in a regional council are in many cases not demonstrable, as is the application of a regional threshold to national elections. The application of these complicated rules assumes that there is someone who undertakes to find the parties not listed. In my view a specific threshold should be applied for each type of election (national, regional, provincial)*; then the regional threshold could remain 2%. I will evaluate whether to open an RFC, but it seems to me that an agreement is not likely at the moment. About the FLD, if you really think that it was a party, open a discussion on it.wikipedia, in which case I am ready for dialogue. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

*Anyway, after my research, my idea was the respective application of the following thresholds: 0.5%, 2/3%, 8%, for each type of election...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I am also sorry we cannot find a compromise. As I wrote before, let's pause a little bit. We will try at another time --Checco (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: Me too, but if no one else participates, it is difficult to find agreed criteria.
About FLD: please stop with the edit war. If you believe it is a party, open a discussion on itwikipedia and I am willing not to rollback your edits until the end of the discussion. Otherwise we have to respect the sources, which are clear about it. Tina Lagostena Bassi also stated that FLD was a group, [15] do you think she didn't know if it was a group or a party?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: I read now that you are "not particularly interested in it.Wikipedia" and "its users often reject the basic features and standards of political science, especially on political ideologies": I prefer not to comment on these statements, but FLD, outside Italy, cannot be known. I don't see who the "informed international editors" can be who can express a valid opinion on this matter. A topic must be addressed where a substantial number of users informed on the matter can intervene,in this case it.wikipedia: the English and Italian pages must be coordinated, because it.wikipedia and en.wikipedia are not two different encyclopedias. If you want to discuss this matter to coordinate it.wikipedia and en.eikipedia in a proper seat that's fine for me, I'm ready to stop to rollback your edit, otherwise I'm sorry but I have to made it, because your edit contrasts the sources ... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Off topic @Autospark: maybe you rollbacked the edit on the FLD page based on your trust in the user Checco, but you two cannot act without taking into account the sources, it has already happened with the political collocation of the Lega Nord, where you even wanted to remove scientific sources in English language. As I have already stated in this thread the sources unambiguously affirm that FLD was a parliamentary group, even when the relative party (with a different name) was born, the parliamentary group kept the same name. I honestly do not understand this strong obstinacy in wanting to edit in contrast with the sources, since Wikipedia is based on sources and not on personal impressions. If even Tina Lagostena Bassi (not just any person) stated that FLD was a group, it is no coincidence. I don't see the consensus or above all the sources to list FLD as a party (and honestly I don't see the use of even keeping the parliamentary groups on this page, but that's another matter). But as I have already affirmed, if you are willing to discuss the coordination of the FLD's Italian page with the English one, I am also available.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
There are hundreds of language Wikipedias and they are often not fully coordinated because words, concepts, contexts, etc. may be different in different languages. That is particularly true when one version of Wikipedia is edited mainly by users from one country. Users may edit only on of those Wikipedias. I have not a good opinion of it.Wikipedia and I do not edit there frequently. It is important that en.Wikipedia is coordinated with international scientific terms and concepts (in this case political science), not it.Wikipedia. Also, rules can be different. Just an example: several subjects that are perfectly encyclopedic in en.Wikipedia (minor parties, regional politicians, etc.) are not in it.Wikipedia! --Checco (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: the concept of party is universal, there is no English or Italian concept. A parliamentary group/party/caucus is one thing, a political party is another thing: a parliamentary group can represent one party, it can represent more than one party or it can represent none. This is why I will propose later to give a unique definition to that subject, both in the Italian and in the English page. The definition should be univocal. End off topic.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
There might be different cultural contexts and some terms (like "movement", "liberal" or "socialist" might mean different things), but definitely in en.Wikipedia we should follow standard international/European political science, not the media, as it often happens in it.Wikipedia. Most pages are different in different Wikipedias and editors are not the same. Definitely, one Wikipedia article cannot be a source for another one, let alone for an article in another Wikipedia. --Checco (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Surely the newspaper articles are more relevant than the personal opinions of a single user, being however sources ... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
More