Template talk:Italian political parties

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Italy (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Politics / Political parties (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by Political parties task force.


The principle of this template, I think, should be to group the (historically many) political parties of Italy in the coalitions they form. Right now there is the left-wing coalition, the right-wing one, the fascist one, a list of regional and minor parties, and a list of parties no more exististing. Please don't vandalize the template just because you do not like the fascist coalition—I don't like them either, but as long as they are a coalition they should be presented together with name and symbol; the rules are the same for everybody. --Orzetto 13:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

How dare you to speak about 'my vandalism'? Template is wrong, is arbitrary. So Mussolini's party has unjustified more emphasize than others Italian parties, only because is in (anomalous) coalition form (and in spite of obtained votes). Images changes the template into an Italian ballot paper. --F. Cosoleto 16:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Not yet existing parties[edit]

here Some anon removed the Freedom and Democratic parties from the template since they don't exist, furthermore the current make up implies that the Freedom and Democratic Party consist of the entire coalitions, while this is not true, they consist of only part of the coalitions. So I'd prefer to revert this edit of user:nightstallion, which re-inforces the pre-anon version. C mon 19:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Mh. Could we insert them some other way instead? —Nightstallion (?) 18:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Like this, maybe? —Nightstallion (?) 18:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
As a compromise I could live with this. C mon 21:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
If you've got something better than my attempt, feel free to suggest it. If not, we're fine. :)Nightstallion (?) 06:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion it is wrong to put in the template not yet existing parties, whose foundation is not so much likely at the moment, especially for the Freedom Party. So, I will take away those links from the template. --Checco 14:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I would also doubt about their notability, especially for the Freedom Party article, which is merely speculation, very unlikely to be done (at least in the near future), and it might look to others' eyes as crystal ball. --Angelo 15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree with you. --Checco 17:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd still like to include them in *some* way, not necessarily as prominently as we did up to recently. Any suggestions as to what would be acceptable to you two? —Nightstallion (?) 20:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
How about in the left collumn where the names of the alliances are beneath them Democratic Party (proposed) Freedom Party (proposed). C mon 21:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I tried, but it didn't really look good. How about this one? —Nightstallion (?) 22:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't really understand why you're adding these "parties" on the template. Why didn't you discuss here about their inclusion before doing that? They might be easily considered crystal balls, and thus voted for deletion, as I noted above. --Angelo 23:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Angelo: there's no reason for including these crystal-ball parties in the template. --Checco 08:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed them. I'm sorry for Nightstallion, but how can we explain that those parties are not more than speculations? --Checco 08:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with having them in the right column (under "associated parties") with a clear line delimiting them from the existing parties and a bold headline stating "PROPOSED"? You can't make it more obvious that they're only proposed parties... Besides, they're *CONSTANTLY* being discussed in the Italian media, so a deletion claim would certainly fail, as they're clearly notable concepts; that's also why I'm STRONGLY in favour of including them. —Nightstallion (?) 12:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Nightstallion, I live in Italy and I can ensure you that Italian media speak about the Democratic Party (often saying that it won't come into life), but very rarely about the Freedom Party. I remember STRONGLY against of including them. Anyway here we are 2 in favour (you and C'mon, moderately in favour) and 2 against (me and Angelo). I think that your attempts of including PD and PdL haven't the necessary consensus for a change like this. --Checco 12:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

More... what is wrong about PROPOSED MERGER is that it seems that all the centre-left parties will merge in PD and all the centre-right parties will merge in PdL. Instead only DL, DS and tiny MRE are interested in PD in the left, while only FI and AN are interested in PdL. More, Berlusconi and Fini seem more interested in strenghtening their own parties than founding PdL. FI, AN and LN may unite themselves in a Federation of Freedoms, not more than a re-styling of the House of Freedoms. --Checco 12:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I favoured a compromise when there were only two editors (1 in favour 1 against), but in this debate between four people I tend to disagree with Checco on this, wikipedia is no crystal ball. C mon 14:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
So you agree with me, 'cos I said exactly that Wikipedia is no crystal ball and that we can't insert in the template futurible (crystall ball) parties. --Checco 15:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway we need to be clearer: who supports and who opposes the inclusion of PD and PdL in the template?

  • Oppose, because of what I wrote above. --Checco 15:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support; clearly in favour of including the PD, I'm not so supportive of including the PdL as it might never happen. The PD is very likely to happen by 2008, though. —Nightstallion (?) 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Moderately oppose wikipedia is no crystal ball, if the DP is founded we can talk on. C mon 16:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    Very funny: If the PD is founded, we don't need to talk on, we'll simply add it to the template... I suppose you meant if its foundation is confirmed for some fixed future date...? —Nightstallion (?) 16:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    About your last attempt, I want you to know that in Italy media speak about many other merges as much as they speak about PdL (very difficult to happen): the merge between SDI, NPSI and other minor parties, the merge between the left-wing of DS with SDI (sometimes even with PRC), the merge between PRC and PdCI, the merge between UDC and UDEUR (Mastella proposed it even yesterday), etc. They are only speculations and I thik we don't need to speak about them at this time. --Checco 16:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    Out of curiosity: How likely are any of them to happen? —Nightstallion (?) 19:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose both of them are crystal ball parties; in addition, keep in mind that Italian history is full of unsuccessful proposals of parties/federation/confederations/coalitions that actually outnumber the "real" ones we've had here in Italy since 1946. Then a short comment: I don't either think they should have their own article on Wikipedia: at most, a very short reference to the Freedom Party proposal on Forza Italia and National Alliance, as both UDC and Lega Nord agreed not to join it for what I know; about the Democratic Party, its content would fit good for now into Olive Tree. --Angelo 17:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry for Nightstallion, who is a friend and who worked hard on Democratic Party (Italy) and Freedom Party (Italy), but I agree with Angelo: I don't see the usefulness of these articles and for now PD is not more that the Olive Tree revisted. --Checco 17:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    Fair enough, fair enough. I'm strongly against deleting the two articles, though. —Nightstallion (?) 19:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    I don't ask you to do so and let me praise you for your balance. --Checco 19:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    Gladly; there's obviously consensus against including them, so there's no sense in me fretting about it, anyway. If and when the prospects of these two parties become more clear, I might consider reopening the discussion, but until then, I'd consider the matter closed. —Nightstallion (?) 19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

UDC: in or out?[edit]

It is true that UDC leaders are very critical with Berlusconi's leadership and that they refuse to consider themselves as part of the House of Freedoms (CdL) coalition, but, as they continue to be part of the centre-right and will contest the next local elections under the CdL banner, I would prefer to see them included in the House of Freedoms. --Checco 17:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Mh. Okay, fair enough, I reckon. —Nightstallion (?) 10:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Very good. --Checco 10:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Clean up?[edit]

The Whiteflower and the Sunflower were only electoral alliances, which lasted only during the electoral campaign. They were definitely not organized political forces, so I don't think that it is useful to insert them in the template. Anyway the template is getting bigger and bigger, maybe it needs a clean up. It is what we're discussing in it:Discussioni template:Partiti politici italiani. --Checco 16:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think clean-up is necessary or possible -- Italian politics simply is that complicated. ;)Nightstallion (?) 17:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Instead I think it is widely possible. In my opinion, there is no need to keep all of those negligible 0.1% (and even less) parties in this template. This template should include only parties with parliamentary representation; about major historical parties (like Christian Democracy, Italian Communist Party, and so on), they could easily have their own template, whereas all other political forces with no parliamentary representation should not have any template at all. --Angelo 17:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
See my proposal below... --Checco 17:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new template[edit]

The curent template is getting too much bulky (compare it with the templates about parties in other countries). The reason for this is that it includes many parties which have no real influence in Italian politics. Thus I think that the template needs a clean up.

As I did in it:Discussioni template:Partiti politici italiani, I propose some conditions that a party needs to fulfil to be part of the template. Actually a party will need to fulfil at least one of these conditions:

  • having at least a MP or a MEP;
  • having at least two regional deputies, elected in the same Regional Council;
  • having a minister or a deputy-minister;
  • having a President of Region or a President of Province or a Mayor of a big town/city;
  • having scored more than 1% in the last general/european election at the national level;
  • having scored more than 4% in the last regional (provincial in the case of Bolzano and Trento) election.

In the new-styled template below (styled as the new proposed one in it.Wiki) I inserted the parties fulfilling at least one of the conditions above.

The Union Olive Tree (Democrats of the Left - Democracy is Freedom) - Communist Refoundation Party
Minor: Rose in the Fist (Democratic Socialists - Radicals) - Party of Italian Communists - Italy of Values - Federation of the Greens - Popular–UDEUR
Micro: European Republicans - Democratic Republicans - Italian Democratic Socialist Party - United Consumers
Regional: South Tyrolean People's Party - Trentino Tyrolean Autonomist Party - Ladin Autonomist Union - Valdotanian Renewal - Southern Democratic Party

House of
Forza Italia - National Alliance - Union of Christian and Centre Democrats - Northern League
Minor: Christian Democracy for the Autonomies - New Italian Socialist Party - Movement for Autonomy
Micro: Italian Republican Party - Liberal Reformers - Pensioners' Party - Tricolour Flame - Social Action
Regional: Sardinian Reformers - Sardinian People's Party - Sardinian Democratic Union - New Sicily - Autonomist Trentino

Others Micro: Italian Associations in South America - Middle-of-the-Road Italy - Italians in the World
Regional: Valdotanian Union - Edelweiss Aosta Valley - Autonomist Federation - Union for South Tyrol - The Libertarians - North-East Project

Complete list

I support this solution 'cos it is both short and complete. If someone wants to see very tiny and historical parties, he will go to the complete list. What do you think about it? Let the discussion begin... --Checco 17:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


The idea is good; but graphically it might be improved, and the conditions you propose are way too inclusive at my eyes (for instance, I've never heard of this "Unitalia", and I am Italian too). We're talking about a template, by the way, and there's no need to put all the Italian parties into it, but solely the main ones. To have at least a MP or a MEP is the one and only condition we should consider for a party to stay in this template. --Angelo 17:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I agree with you about the graphics. For the rest, I think that it is very important and useful to include those parties which have an important role in regional contexts: for example the Valdotanian Union (40% circa in Aosta Valley), Edelweiss (19.8%, along with Autonomist Federation), the Trentino Tyrolean Autonomist Party (9.0% in Trentino), etc. About Unitalia, it is a small party in Alto Adige but it is constantly present in the Regional Council (see it:Unitalia), anyway it has only one regional councillor, thus we can cancel it from the template. --Checco 18:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
As you noted, the parties you'd like to include are important in regional contexts. But this template is supposed to refer only to Italian political parties, and not regional political parties in Italy. If look around Wikipedia, you would see lots of templates like this, but none of them including regional parties (except of course in cases in which they have MPs at national level, such as for instance Bloc Québécois in Canada and Lega Nord and SVP in Italy itself). Anyway I would agree if you would like to create some regional templates for political parties in South Tyrol, Aosta Valley, Sardinia and Sicily (I'm just saying four regions where local/regional parties with some relevance are present in the Regional Assembly). --Angelo 18:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, but it would be strange to include PATT (only 'cos it has a MP) and not UV which is much bigger force. --Checco 19:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
But the one and only PATT MP was candidate with SVP[1]. It is a particular case, I hope you agree, even if I don't have a fitting answer to your question (we can't remove all parties whose representation does not come from the election; I wouldn't agree about removing Italy of the Middle, for instance). Anyway we might consider to have a much more reduced adaptation of this template, in my opinion. Any ideas? --Angelo 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but then let's move this template here to Template:Italian political parties (complete); I still think a template including all currently active parties is something worth having. —Nightstallion (?) 19:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you said, but many of this parties are phantomatic and not active at all. Also in Germany or in Austria there are tiny parties but they are not included in the template. Anyway your proposal can be fine, let me think about it a little bit... --Checco 19:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, all notable tiny parties are included in the Austrian template. Really, moving it to another place is no issue at all in my opinion; we should simply do it and let a simpler template take its place here. —Nightstallion (?) 16:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. Let's do it now. --Checco 18:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


I reverted C mon's last edit about the classificazion of parties by size. I think that everybody can agree that a party scoring 1-2.5% can be considered as minor not medium sized, and that a party scoring less than 1% and often never appearing on the ballot can be considered as micro not minor. If we want to add to the classification also medium, we could classify UDC, PRC and LN, parties scoring 4.5-7%, as medium sized parties. --Checco 08:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Checco reverted my edit here and [2] (so fast I was still typing this), in which I changed the size classifications. I have four reasons to do this:

  1. It is unequal that one group has no classification, so I classified them
  2. It is questionable to class parties with more than 2% of the seats both or either chamber of the Italian legislature minor, especially if they also have European representation, I think medium is a better classification
  3. Micro is not a word, and actually minor applies better, for the smallest group.
  4. major, medium, minor is an accepted classification while (non class), minor, micro is not (it for instance mixes greek and latin).

Next time if you disagree with an editors actions don't just revert him (and classify it as a minor edit) discuss it! C mon 08:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But it is you who didn't mind to discuss your edits, ignoring discussions on this talk page! So discuss before making edits without consensus. --Checco 08:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your classification because you can consider medium a party with the 2.3% of the votes and with 16 deputies out of 630 and at the same time it is unfair to confuse it with parties scoring only 0.2-0.8% and having 1 or 2 seats. --Checco 08:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My proposed classification is:

  • major: more than 10% (more than 70 deputies)
  • medium: 4-10% (21-70 deputies)
  • minor: 1-4% (5-20 deputies)
  • micro: 0-1% (1-4 deputies)
  • regional: regional minor parties

What do you think about it? C mon? Nightstallion?

As only UDC, PRC and LN fit the medium categorization, I would prefer to see them in major, in order not to make the template too much bigger. --Checco 09:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I can live with a quadripartite classification. I still don't like the word micro, but i don't have am alternative, so this is fine. C mon 09:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Can we use small instead of minor and minor instead of micro? Anyway we need to listen to the opinions of other users, first of all Nightstallion and Angelo. --Checco 16:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's my opinion. I think Checco is right, as most of Italy's parties are "minor". The easiest categorization is between "major" and "minor", plus a number of negligible ones (call them "micro" or whatever) which often do not even have parliamentary representation. --Angelo 16:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So do you support the maintainance of the current scheme (major-minor-mico-regional) or do you propose some changes? --Checco 16:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I support keeping the current system, but if you have a better proposal of denomination change for "micro" I would support it either (even if personally I wouldn't even include them). But please, no "medium" parties. --Angelo 17:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I defenitely agree with you about medium parties, but what do you prefer between using small instead of minor, and minor instead of micro, and the current system? --Checco 17:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
"Minor" should be kept as it is, with the current meaning and all. About "Micro", I don't know, you're free to switch it to another denomination for all I care (I don't find it great, but it might be the best fitting one in the end, so I don't know). That's all. --Angelo 17:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with you: also in my opinion the best thing to do is to leave things as they are. --Checco 17:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I decided to insert the "rules" of this template on the bottom of it, so that every user notices them before making changes. Anyway we can discuss these "rules" any time we want in this talk. --Checco 17:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me as it is now. —Nightstallion (?) 22:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Change layout according to standard[edit]

Most party navigation templates have a common layout. See User:Electionworld/Parties#Europe. I suggest to adopt this layout also for this template. It wouldn't mean any change of the content, but would have consequences for the colors used. Electionworld Talk? 20:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree that consistency is a good thing and I like Electionworld's templates, there is one problem: this template has two levels of categories on the leftside: both alliance and size. I think the syntax of the nav-box template needs to be changed in order to allow two levels of group names, before we delete very useful information here. This will also benefit other templates. C mon 21:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we could manage to solve that. I will try before implementing. DO yiu have an idea how to do that without changing the nav-box-template. Electionworld Talk? 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
You would need to change the navbox template in order to do that. This is what the template would look like if we would just implement the Navbox. C mon 07:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I prefer it the way it currently is. Italian politics are sufficiently complex to warrant being a little extravagant template-wise. And it's not like it hurts anyone... —Nightstallion 15:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the new proposal, it's much more linear and much less gaudy than the current layout. --Angelo 15:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Also I prefer the current version, but I can live with the new proposal too. --Checco 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there are only few objections, I will adopt the common layout for this template. BTW: this means all available party navigation boxes share the same layout. Thanks. Electionworld Talk? 06:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


I've reverted Checco's reversion, for one main reason: this layout is what I advocated here. I think that this looks way better, is easier to maintain and is less cloggy. C mon 19:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the proposed layout by C mon looks worse and it is neither more nor less easy to maintain. Thus I call for a rollback to the previous version. --Checco 19:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The previous version was more compact and simplier to read... --Checco 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather by far the previous one. This looks pretty bad on my browser, with the second column cells apparingly being differently sized. And the center text alignment does not make the party type immediately recognizable. --Angelo 19:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Definitely. --Checco 19:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This is easier to maintain because the different subgroups are organized in different subgroups, i.e. not by breaks. The text can be centered if you feel that is necessary. C mon 19:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I prefer the original one, definitely. If we *have* to use this one, we certainly shouldn't center the parties. —Nightstallion 19:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Democratic Left[edit]

I don't agree to insert Democratic Left into the major parties. Every polls says that party is between 1% and 3% and I think it's really too much to define it as a "Major party"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by T31326 (talkcontribs) 16:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

SD has 19 deputies, 10 senators and 4 MEPs: a major party under our rules. --Checco (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

SD has 19 deputies, 10 senators and 4 MEPs not elected in its lists —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, indeed: that means that the party is a major one under our rules. Anyway, you can wait for just one week (in the general election SD will have definitely less MPs elected) to see SD removed from that row... wait! --Checco (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

New template[edit]

The last political events in Italian politics had made our template no longer up-to-date. Why? Because in the new Parliament there are two coalitions composed basically of two parties each and a fifth party. Regional parties are in coalition with the three largest parties (PdL, PD and LN) only at the local level.

That's why I tried to "reform" the template. Notice that I put SD, Greens and FT in the micro parties' category because, evn if they were part of coalitions which surpassed 1%, they have definitely less of 1% alone.

In any case, we could even change the rules of the template: inserting "medium-size parties" for UDC and IdV and uniting "minor" and "micro parties" in a bigger minor parties' category. Or we could even decide to divide parties only by their representation in Parliament, even if in this way won't reflect the real force of parties (example? MpA, Radicals and White Rose are in Parliament, but they have a smaller share of votes - see local elections). That's up to our discussion. --Checco (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My proposal[edit]

In order to be included in this template a party needs to fulfil at list one of the following conditions:

  • having at least an MP or an MEP;
  • having at least two regional deputies, elected in the same Regional Council;
  • having a President of Region or a President of Province or a Mayor of a big town/city;
  • having scored more than 1% in the last general/European election at the national level;
  • having scored more than 5% in the last regional (provincial in the case of Bolzano and Trento) election.
  • having at least an MP elected by the Italins abroad.

The parties are classified as:

  • major: parties which scored more than 5% in the last general/European election at the national level (or having at least 30 MPs);
  • minor: parties which scored between 1% and 5% in the last general/European election at the national level (or having at least 5 MPs);
  • micro: parties which scored less than 1% in the last general/European election at the national level (or having less than 5 MPs);
  • regional: minor or micro-parties active only in one Region.


Looks great! but I would be inclined to change the rules in to major, medium and minor. C mon (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

New proposal[edit]

A new proposal on the basis of what C mon proposed and what we are discussing in it.Wiki (in order to make the template less arbitrary: Regional Councils have different numbers of regional deputies and Regions have different populations). --Checco (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In order to be included in this template a party needs to fulfil at list one of the following conditions:

  • having at least an MP or an MEP;
  • having the 5% of regional deputies in a Regional Council (Provincial in the case of Bolzano and Trento);
  • having a President of Region or a President of Province or a Mayor of a city with more than 200,000 inhabitants;
  • having scored more than 0.5% in the last general/European election at the national level;
  • having scored more than 10% in the last regional election in Aosta Valley, 5% in the last provincial election of Bolzano or Trento, 5% in the last regional election in a Region with less than 1 million inhabitants and 3% in a Region with more than 1 million inhabitants.
  • having at least an MP elected by the Italians abroad.

The parties are classified as:

  • major: parties which scored more than 20% in the last general/European election at the national level (or having at least 200 MPs or 20 MEPs);
  • medium: parties which scored between 4% and 20% in the last general/European election at the national level (or having at least 30 MPs or 5 MEPs);
  • minor: parties which scored between 0.5% and 4% in the last general/European election at the national level (or having less than 30 MPs or 5 MEPs);
  • regional: minor parties active only in one Region.


I understand that this version is a little bit complicate, but I think that using percentages for regional parties is almost mandatory because it is different to have 2 regional deputies in Aosta Valley and in Lombardy. Moreover different rules about the share of vote in different contexts is also mandatory because having 3% in a region with 5-10 million inhabitants (Lombardy, Lazio, Sicily and Veneto) is very different than in a region with 120,000 inhabitants (Aosta Valley). I hope that my proposal will be understood and accepted by all of you. --Checco (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine! C mon (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that we need to see what Nightstallion thinks about it. If he likes my idea, we should insert it by today. --Checco (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks great to me, let's do it. :)Nightstallion 08:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Fine, thanks! --Checco (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer previous template, but if there's a favourable majority...--Jacvan (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you prefer the other one? --Checco (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I meant this version which is politically clearer.--Jacvan (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I asked you why... --Checco (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. Criteria are more easily verifiable, political and coalition's belonging is safeguarded and the larger visual parties' separation makes more easily consulting the template.--Jacvan (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand you point of view, but I still prefer the new template. --Checco (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Liberal Democrats[edit]

Their fate is not exactly clear. What is sure is that for now they continue to sit with PdL and there is no difference between them and the other parties forming PdL, but PRI whose leader did not join the common group. I think we should wait until things will be clearer. --Checco (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Post-election changes[edit]

So with the new election the situation of a lot of political parties has changed. I see folks have already made the most important changes (adding Civic Choice, promoting M5S and SEL), I note that the Union of the Center with 1.8% of the vote and 8 deputies no longer qualifies as "medium" so I will adjust that.

The minor parties deserve a close look, which I will not give them at this point. I bet there are several that no longer meet the criteria for even being on the list, but there are so many parties and so many criteria that I won't get around to checking, I suppose it will get easier as their pages are updated.Rafaelgr (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sections of the Northern League[edit]

I see that recently a number of sections of the Northern League have been put onto the list as regional parties. I think that this is incorrect and clutters the template, and may confuse some readers as well.

What does everyone else think? - Rafaelgr (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Lega Nord is a confederation of regional parties. I have inserted Lega Nord's "national sections" of the party because some of them, especially Liga Veneta and Lega Lombarda (whose foundation predates that of Lega Nord), are the main regional parties in some regions. It would be misleading to think that in Veneto or Lombardy (or, in this respect, Marche, Tuscany or Liguria) there are no notable regional parties when it's just the opposite. Similar cases have been treated in the same way; currently that's the case of the Greens of South Tyrol (which are a very autonomous section of the Federation of Greens) as well as of Toward North and Union for Trentino (whose members are active in Civic Choice at the national level; the second being the regional section of the party in Trentino). --Checco (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

PD or M5S?[edit]

Nick.mon posed the following question to me in my talk page, but I prefer to answer here:

Hi Checco, you are right when you said the in Italy the M5S gain more votes than PD, but with the support of Italians abroad the PD becomes the first party, and also for number of deputies the PD is the major party. What do you think? -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Nick! My opinion is that only votes by Italians living in Italy count—in fact votes by Italians abroad (and by Valdostan voters, to be correct) are not even counted for the majority premium. The PD is definitely the largest party in Parliament (due to the majority premium), but was not the most voted party in the last Italian general election. Let's see what other users have to say, but that's my point... --Checco (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, I didn't see you answer. Ok, you are right, I think that we could use the M5S as the first partiy...we are talking about people who live in Italy, not the Italians abroad. I think that we can write in this order: M5S-PD-FI -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Great! However, in a few months the European Parliament election will give us a quite new scenario... --Checco (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

For Italy: include or not include?[edit]

It is true that For Italy is a parliamentary group and is not active outside Parliament. However, I do think that it should stay in the template because it is quite useful to for readers to know that the UdC and the PpI are in close relationship in the Italian Parliament. Moreover, every parliamentary group is technically a party (please read Parliamentary group) and many parties in history have been parliamentary-only. --Checco (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

For this things you must have the consensus of other users, otherwise you can't include a parliamentary group in a template for parties. In parliament there are also other parliamentary groups like "Great autonomies and freedoms", "For the autonomies-Svp-Maie" and "North League and autonomies" but they are included in this template--Maremmano (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
For Italy has been included in the template with the consensus of all the other users who have edited it over the last months. For Italy's case is different from the others you mentioned because the UdC and the PpI will likely form joint lists in the next EP election; they are virtually federated parties. However, it's not a big deal for me to please you on this: let's leave For Italy out of the template. --Checco (talk) 08:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Hehehe, how kind! However the list Udc-PpI isn't called For Italy, therefore this case isn't different from the others--Maremmano (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Do you know how the list will be called? Do you think the list needs itw own article? --Checco (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think, it is only an UDC-PPI list [3].--Maremmano (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Good point. I totally agree with you. --Checco (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Regional sections of Lega Nord[edit]

The user Checco wants to enter invented names in the template without the consensus, the names "Lega Toscana", "Lega Liguria", "Lega Marche" etc. don't exist. If no one will act in this discussion (or if will act only one user) I will cancel the Checco's edit--Maremmano (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Several party's names are shortened in this template and I do think that the contractions you are opposing are quite acceptable. Moreover, the parties are completely recognizable (for most English speakers, there is only one Lega) and are sometimes referred to with contracted names (just a few examples on "Lega Piemont" and "Lega Emilia": 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). I really don't see the problem. --Checco (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
In this template Lega Nord is rightly written in full, but for the regional sections the word "Nord" disappears, it isn't consistent. Calling a party with a very informal name and using a journalistic language is very little serious and encyclopedic. You can't oppose in this case an established version, it is my word against your, it is so--Maremmano (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
If the discussion ends here I'll restore the original names (that are NOT long)--Maremmano (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I oppose it and, as I said, I don't really understand why you are concerned about it. --Checco (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Also if you have created a lot of pages and made a great work, it doesn't mean that you're always right. In this case you're wrong and you have not the consensus to impose your version. The pages on italian policy aren't only your. I really don't understand your obstinacy to write only Lega in the template, the template must be clear!--Maremmano (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The template was clear enough before your edit. I also do not understand your obstinacy on this and I do think that links should be shorter as possible, as long as they are clear and intelligible. I could please or appease you this issue, but I do not understand why you should be able to impose your version over a long-standing one. Thanks for your compliments, though. --Checco (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
You know what, it's not a big deal to me: I'm going to please you also on this. --Checco (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
No one will act in this discussion, so i can't have the consensus! The template wasn't clear, there are other parties that are called lega. You aren't the boss of this page, also others users can contribute to improving the page--Maremmano (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
If you please me, I thank you, but this problem could be solved before...--Maremmano (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
There are lots of ways to seek consensus and lure other editors to a talk page. I let you win this "battle", but you can't always get what you want. Please avoid sentences like "You aren't the boss" or edit summaries like "now you seek the consensus! I have written the correct names!!". You really need to learn what consensus means. Moreover, there is no rule or custom in en.Wikipedia stating that complete names of parties have to be used as articles' names (quite the contrary, in fact) and that, as such, they have to be implemented in templates. --Checco (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Ps: I appreciate that that you deleted your previous comment, but be careful with words always, not only after you got what you wanted.
I know it, but when one loses the patience it can happen...--Maremmano (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Pre-EP election overhaul[edit]

I thank Maremmano so much for his insights. I have just corrected some small things. On principle, I agree that associate parties (i.e. parties which are in stable alliance with a larger party, as the New Italian Socialist Party or Popular Construction) should be represented in the template. However I have two questions:

  1. aren't the two aforementioned parties little more than internal factions of Forza Italia?
  2. why was Great South treated differently? isn't it still active as an associate party of Forza Italia?

Many thanks to those who will dare to answer, --Checco (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems that GS was the only party dissolved into Forza Italia on December 29, 2013.([4]). Since then GS has apparently ceased all the activities, but there are remained the groups in the regional councils.--Maremmano (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
This said, I would re-introduce GS in the template. --Checco (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, the party is present in the regional elections in Piedmont--Maremmano (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Reality Italy[edit]

Reality Italy hasn't three elects in three different Regional Councils. It has a councilor elected in Basilicata. Perhaps the members of Moderates and Populars in Apulia are also members of Reality Italy, but the group in the regional council is still called "Moderati e Popolari". Therefore the party respect the requirements of the regional parties, not of the national parties--Maremmano (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

RI has regional councillors in Apulia, Campania and Basilicata, thus it is more than welcome in the template. --Checco (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
RI hasn't councillors in Campania, while in Apulia isn't clear the relation between RI and MeP --Maremmano (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
RI definitely has councillors in Basilicata, Campania and Abruzzo. Therefore it should be moved up in the template. --Checco (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Councillors in Campania? Who???--Maremmano (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Those of Autonomy South, which has been integrated into Reality Italy. --Checco (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
NO, Nappi and Sentiero, former members of Noi Sud, joined Moderates in Revolution--Maremmano (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm not sure about it, but it's not a big deal to me that RI is listed among regional parties. --Checco (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Green Italy-Greens[edit]

Those parties don't respect the requirements to stay in this template. The list Green Italy – European Greens was a coalition, not a party, while Green Italy and Federation of the Greens they don't respect any criteria, therefore they have to been removed. This argument is also valid for the page List of political parties in Italy--Maremmano (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Either "Green ItalyGreens" or "Green Italy – European Greens" should stay in the template. --Checco (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Green Italy – European Greens is a coalition, not a party, while Green ItalyGreens is only a forcing--Maremmano (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
A forcing? What do you mean by that? By the way, it is me who wrote the criteria and I intended them to be open as possible. Most of the times your legalistic approach is useless and damages the encyclopedia's completeness. Green Italy was the standard bearer of a list which gained 0.9% in the latest nationwide election, therefore it should be included in the template in one way or another. --Checco (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Intendo dire che è una forzatura Checco, tu stabilisci i criteri e li interpreti anche come vuoi, qui tutte le modifiche hanno bisogno del tuo nulla osta e una cosa così sinceramente non succede in nessun'altra wikipedia. However, speaking in english, the only party Green Italia has not gained 0.9%, it is a fact --Maremmano (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The criteria, approved by other users too, have always been interpreted extensively. A list led y Green Italy won 0.9% of the vote in the latest nationwide election, thus Green Italy has to stay in the template either by itself or with the Federation of the Greens. Finally, let me tell you, once again, that your legalistic approach is too often disruptive, self-referential and self-serving. --Checco (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Maremmano's legalistic approach is quite out-of-scope in Wikipedia, but in this precise case it comes to my help. The list which took 0.9% in the latest EP election was named "Green Italy – European Greens" (similarly to "Democratic Party – PES") and did not include any reference in its name to the Federation of Greens. Thus, from a legal point of view, the list was linked only to Green Italy. This is not my argument, however. My argument is that this template, as it was envisioned by me and a few other users, is to be comprehensive/inclusive and its criteria should be interpreted through that goal's lens. Moreover, Italian parties very often include in their lists minor parties: we should interpret the criteria in an intelligent way, as we have always done. --Checco (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Any reference in its name to the Federation of Greens? Your affirmation is totally wrong! The major reference regards really the Federation of the Greens: the word "Verdi", central in the logo, is the same of the Federation of the Greens, moreover in the logo there is also a little smiling sun, symbol of the Federation of the Greens. Therefore the list Green Italy – European Greens is simply a common list between Green Italy and Federation of the Greens, not Green Italy that includes the Federation of the Greens. Green Italy – European Greens would respect the existing criteria, but it isn't a party. Finally, for me, the threshold of 0.5% is too low, it should be at least of 1%--Maremmano (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
You're not answering to my main argument. Do you understand that this is a navigation template and that the more parties, the better? Are you able to think throughly on issues (and, in this case, on the template's goal) instead of wasting time with technicalities? Isn't the law made for men, and not the other way around? Template's rules need to be interpreted intelligently: either solution ("Green Italy", "Green Italy – European Greens" or "Green ItalyFederation of the Greens") is OK with me. BTW the current template's rules are OK with me too. --Checco (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Ps: As this edit by User:Nick.mon shows, I'm not the only one to think that way.
Between Green Italy and Green Italy – European Greens, the second is better. But you think to be the boss of these pages, you only can approve the edits, you only decide how to apply the criteria and again you only decide to insert original researches in the pages, for me it isn't a right conduct. However an user has totally changed the template and this time I'll not modify it--Maremmano (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not the boss of anything, I'm just a user who devoted a lot of his time to en.Wikipedia, especially on Italian politics, since 2006. Instead of criticizing me all the time, you should appreciate my knowledge, my historical memory and the fact that I always engage in discussions and try to integrate other users' edits/proposals, including yours, into mainspace.
I hate total rollbacks, but this time I rollbacked the IP user's edits. He/she could well start another template with the parties represented in Parliament and their numeric strenght (such a template would need constant updating though). I do prefer the "Green ItalyFederation of the Greens" solution (two links are always better than one, for the readers' sake), but I will insert "Green Italy – European Greens" for now. Let's see whether other users, especially User:Nick.mon who inserted "Federation of the Greens" yesterday, have something to say about it. --Checco (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes i think that Green ItalyFederation of the Greens could be a good solution. Excuse me but I have another question...I don't understand why in that list parties like IdV are listen before of parties like PRC or the Greens that gained more vote than the Italy of Values. Thanks -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Checco and me argued a lot about almost everything concerning Italian politics on Wikipedia, but I think that he is not a "boss" and sometimes he accepted the edits that I had proposed, so you can quitely discuss with him and if you are right, he will understand your reasons and ideas, on Wikipedia there are no bosses :)
The PRC participated in the latest nationwide election as part of "The Other Europe", thus we either insert it next to SEL ("Left Ecology FreedomCommunist Refoundation Party") or where it is now (minor party with no MPs, but one MEP); I have no preference. In the meantime, I'm going to insert "Green ItalyFederation of the Greens" as both Nick.mon and I agree on that. --Checco (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Ps: Many thanks to Nick.mon for his kind words; in fact I always try to understand other users' reasons and I often do a bit of soul searching.

Flag: to stay or not to stay?[edit]

User:Tony1 posted the following question in my talk page.

Hi, the Italian flag (which only a small proportion of users would ever be able to distinguish as such) comes directly after the word "Italy". It appears to be simply decorative, which the style guides discourage. Is there are reason to retain it? Tony (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As the matter is of public interest, I'm going to answer here. --Checco (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Two or, better, three reasons, at least:
--Checco (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

New conditions of admission[edit]

Given that also the conditions of admission for the tmp on Historical political parties in Italy have been changed and adapted to the rules of List of political parties in Italy, I propose to change some conditions for the minor parties, that currently are too permissive. Indeed it is an exaggeration that the tmp contains unknown parties such as X Movement or Green Italy, that not even Italians know. The changes that I would propose are :

  • raising the minimum threshold to 1% (0.5% is too low)
  • raising the minimum number of MPs to 3/5 and of MEPs to 2
  • including however the parties that have elected under their logo at least one MP/MEP in the last general/european election (a party that directly elects an MP is more important than a party that has 5 MPs through a split).

Opinions?--Wololoo (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I am an outspoken inclusionist, thus over the years I designed the conditions of admission in order to include the highest reasonable number of parties. I disagree with the three proposed changes, especially the third (too it.Wiki-style and, thus, complicate for me!), while I would consider raising the minimum number of MPs to 2 and MEPs to 2 (in order to prevent one-man-show urepresentative parties). However, I would like to see which parties would be evicted from the template: no-one would feel sorry for the X Movement, but losing the Communist Refoundation Party might be a damage. I also fear an over-representation of regional parties over Italian ones in the template: I am much interested in regional politics and that is the main reason why I contribute regularly to en.Wiki and not to it.Wiki (which deems several regional parties/politicians "unencyclopedical"), but there should be a balance of Italian and regional parties. Last but not least, we should always remind that a template's goal is to allow users to navigate and explore pages—and that it is not a sort of "hall of fame". I understand the concern of consistency with List of political parties in Italy, but while the list has to have a historical perspective, the template has a different goal and all its content is current. --Checco (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
But a compromise is necessary, parties such as Green Italy and X Movement are not usefull in the tmp. Why do you disagree the threshold of 1%? It is more than reasonable. Furthermore, my third point is inclusive and not exclusive. However I have another proposal: Keeping the first point; raising the number of MPS to 3 and the number of MEPS to 2; including also the parties that have directly elected under its own logo or into a federative list at least one MP or MEP. This proposal would also include the PRC.--Wololoo (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
As of now, there is an established version (on which I personally agree on), thus we do not need to change the conditions of admission anyway. I disagree with the 1% threshold because it is too low: a party, like Green Italy, which obtained, in alliance with the Greens, 0.91% of the vote (more than 250,000 votes in the event) should have a spot in an inclusive navigational template. This is just an example: we should set the rules of admission under a veil of ignorance, but examples are useful to understand the proposed changes' effects. You are right that the third point is inclusive and not exclusive, but it is also complicate. I am not convinced, but I keep an open mind both on the second and the third point. Other opinions? --Checco (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The third point is not so complicate. About the 1% threshold, do you mean "too high"? In my opinion a party with one only result under the 1% of the vote enjoys an excessive exhibition in the tmp. A threshold of 1% would be more reasonable...--Wololoo (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I meant "too high". Sorry. --Checco (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I support retaining the template as it is without the 1% threshold. I'd rather keep the template as inclusive as possible for extant Italian political parties.--Autospark (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
While I strongly oppose raising the 1% threshold, I keep an open mind on raising the minimum number of MPs to 2 and MEPs to 2 (in order to prevent one-man personal parties), while introducing Wololoo's "third point". --Checco (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Checco, I find your suggestions to be an acceptable compromise, including Wololoo's third point.--Autospark (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I am going to introduce the new conditions of admission, on which User:Wololoo, User:Autospark and I have agreed on (minimum number of MPs/MEPs and the so-called "third point"). I will (boldly) introduce also a condition recently introduced in List of political parties in Italy ("having elected at least one regional councillor with their own lists"). The template and the list have different goals and consequently do not need to be perfectly consistent, but I think that the more consistent they are the better. However, I continue to support, here, the different thresholds for major, medium and minor regions. --Checco (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, although sincerely I thought the first point as the most important. However, why have you added the Italian Communist Party and the National Movement for Sovereignty? I think that these parties have to be added in the List of political parties in Italy (because they are the heirs of PDCI and of The Right), but they don't respect the criteria for this template--Wololoo (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The PCI is simply the successor of the PdCI (which elected with its own list at least a regional councillor), while the MNS counts at least three regional councillors in at least three different regions (South Tyrol, Lazio, Calabria, Sicily, and possibly more). --Checco (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Wait, the criterion about "the election of at least one regional councillor" is valid for the regional parties only, if not the criterion of the 3 regional councillors has not sense! RI presented itself in two only regions and it gained seats only in Basilicata, it can'y be considered a national minor party--Wololoo (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
We can surely delete the "three regional councillors" rule right now. According to the template, regional parties are "minor parties active only in one Region" and would not change that. Reality Italy is active in more than one region. --Checco (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Checco: the rule about the election of one regional councillor was not agreed for the minor parties in this template--Wololoo (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
You're right: we did not discuss about it (neither for regional nor for Italian parties), but it is a very useful rule and looked logical to me. However, it should not be applied only to regional parties, otherwise there would be a strange discrimination against Italian parties. Why including the Slovene Union and not the Pensioners' Party? --Checco (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Let me add that, as of now, the one-councillor rule does not concern only regional parties. We might discuss about that and, if no consensus is reached, we could simply delete it (and with that most of the parties I added today). According to the current rules, Reality Italy has to be listed among Italian parties, so please do not list is among regional parties. --Checco (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The template, with this rule together the threshold at 0.5 %, threatens to become a few crowded, however the inclusion of this rule would be another good reason to raise the national threshold to the 1%...--Wololoo (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
PS: also We the South was not only present in Campania, however Reality Italy presented its lists only in two regions and obtaining councillors only in Basilicata, it is much more suitable as a regional party--Wololoo (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Checco: However, personally, I would prefer to include the national parties that have elected at least one regional councillor compensating them with the raising of the threshold to 1%--Wololoo (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. I see your points, while disagreeing especially on your latest "preference". There are two new rules on which we agree on (2 MPs/MEPs and 1 MP/MP elected with the party's own lists), there is a third on which we disagree (raising the general threshold to 1%) and a fourth that is controversial (1 councillor elected with the party's own lists). I will precautionarily rollback my introduction of the latter (and the consequential parties): we need to reach consensus first. However, Reality Italy's case is more similar to that of the Movement for Autonomies than one-region regional parties. --Checco (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
MpA can be compared to Great South (and theoretically these parties are not even alive), because they are present in the entire South Italy, RI is similiar to parties such as Noi Sud or Moderati: NS was also present in Calabria, the Moderates were also present in Emilia Romagna and Campania, nevertheless they are especially settled in Campania and Piemonte. However RI doesn't respect the criteria to be considered as national minor party--Wololoo (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Reality Italy. According to the rules, regional parties are "minor parties active only in one Region". Reality Italy is active in at least three regions if not more, thus it is not a mere regional party. It fulfills one of the "conditions of admission" and, according to "classification", it is an Italian minor party. The main difference with the Moderates is that they were active in regions other than Piedmont, while Reality Italy is active in regions other than Basilicata. This said, I do not want an edit war on such a minor issue. Moreover, also the Christian Popular Union aims at being an Italian party, but in practice it is a Sardinian one.
Italian Communist Party. As far as I understand, he PdCI/PCd'I/PCI has three regional councillors elected in three different regional councils: Piergiovanni Alleva (Emilia-Romagna), Salvatore Ciocca (Molise) and Fabrizio Anedda (Sardinia). Can you check? --Checco (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, the PCI has actually 3 councillors. Instead RI is represented only in Basilicata, it doesn't respect the criteria for the minor national parties. --Wololoo (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
It does not matter that RI is represented only in Basilicata, what matters here is whether a party is active only in one region or more. RI is active in more regions than just Basilicata. This is just a logical syllogism, yours is not. However, as I said, the issue is not a big deal for me. --Checco (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Regional councillors in the infobox[edit]

However if the number of regional councillors is a criterion of admission, I don't understand why the number of them is not indicated in the templates. Now these templates are incomplete, they should be integrated such as the parties of the other nations. --Wololoo (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the introduction the number of regional councillors in the infoboxes of the articles on Italian parties. It would be highly deceptive and confusing as regional concillors are disproportionately allocated in regions. According to it.Wiki data, Aosta Valley has a regional councillor every 3,628 inhabitants, while Lombardy has one every 121,990. Moreover, some parts of the country have more regions than others. Finally, the aforementioned condition of admission is not about "the number of regional councillors", but "at least three elects in three different Regional Councils": what counts is not their number, but their distribution. Just think of a party having three regional councillors and the related article mentioning this figure in its infobox: it would mean nothing unless it is specified who those regional councillors are, alas in which council/s they sit. --Checco (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The disproportionately allocation in the regions doesn't seem to me a good reason to exclude the number of councillors from the template, the section about the italian policy is the only one without the number of regional councillors in the parties tmp. The conditions concerns just the same the regional councillors, because the number of the councils in which the parties are present is connected to the same number of councillors. Furthermore in the tmp of the regional parties the total number of councillors isn't the national one but it is the regional one, so I do not see anything of "deceptive and confusing", conversely, it is an useful infomation. This is a serious deficiency compared to the parties of all other important countries!--Wololoo (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

If there isn't any other opposition I proceed to resolve this lack and to uniform the italian templates with those of the other countries--Wololoo (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Any other than mine? Yes, I strongly oppose your proposal (see above) and it has little to do with this talk. --Checco (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I can also open another talk, but this is one of the great lacks of the section on italian policy in enwiki. Sincerely, I don't think that the opposition of only one user can stop the conformation with the parties of other countries. Furthermore, your motivation doesn't justify the absence of the number of regional councillors. There isn't anything of deceptive or confusing, also because the templates of the regional parties concern only the relative regional councils. I do not understand yet another opposition to a perfectly sensible and reasonable proposal--Wololoo (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
@Wololoo: Could you explain what you mean by "the templates of the regional parties concern only the relative regional councils"? Which templates are you talking about? Infoboxes, as I understood above? In fact, I oppose the introduction of the aggregate number of regional councillors in the infoboxes of countrywide parties (quite deceptive and confusing, for the reasons stated above, and also not easy, due to double memberships and especially the presence of several "civic lists" whose members are often members of countrywide parties), while I favour their introduction in the infoboxes of regional parties (that is what I have always done with Valdostan, South Tyrolean, Trentino, Venetian, etc. parties). --Checco (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I will also state my opposition to inclusion of number of regional councillors in the Infobox.--Autospark (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
@Autospark: Wich is the valid reason why the italian parties templates cannot have the regional councillors while the tmps of any other important country can have them?--Wololoo (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Checco: Yes, I mean the infobox, I used the wrong term. However. this opposition to the introduction of the regional councillors is incomprehensible, the presence of the civic lists doesn't mean, because it is obvious that only members of the group of a party should be considered. The behavior of Autospark is not very fair, not answering my question, furthermore it seems that there is an uncritical support (as the intervention above) between only 2/3 users. The section on italian policy of enwiki is quite bizarre, there are many pages that cannot interest anyone, but the pages of important italian politicians are absent! Furthermore, the opposition of 2 users (and one has not even explained the reason) can prevent the integration of the pages on italian parties with the introduction of an important data, ie the number of members of legislative assemblies, such as the pages on the parties of other countries. I wanted to contribute fill these lacks, but if so I give up...--Wololoo (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wololoo: While I disagree with this proposal of yours, as well as with other things you have so far proposed and edited, I deeply respect your contribution and I think we need it. We also need your critical thinking and insights. Please, do not leave en.Wikipedia! --Checco (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Wololoo: please do reconsider, you are a valued contributor! Disagreements at times over courses of action are part of the nature of collaborative endeavours. Also, I apologise for not yet responding to your question. The reasons I object are broadly the same as Checco's, and also for practical reasons in terms of keeping articles up to date with seat counts.--Autospark (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Coming from the request for more opinions posted at WP:Politics, I believe every current party should be included in the template. There may be a lot to fit in, but this can be managed by converting it to {{Navbox with collapsible groups}} – the template could be split into those with parliamentary representation and those without, with the former expanded and the latter collapsed. Number 57 21:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: Thanks for the intervention, but now my question concerned mainly the indication of the regional councillors in the infobox. About your proposal about the template, it can be interesting, but there are many pages on italian parties and many of them are really irrelevant, it is difficult to include them all...--Wololoo (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, my bad. I have to say I agree with the logic of Checco. If regional councillor seats aren't evenly distributed by population then their inclusion in the infobox may give a false impression of party strength. Number 57 12:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I oppose the proposal for several reasons and I think that adding the data on regional councillors in the infoboxes of parties would be highly deceptive and confusing. As I argued before, regional concillors are disproportionately allocated in regions (Aosta Valley has a regional councillor every 3,628 inhabitants, while Lombardy has one every 121,990) and Italy is disproportionately sub-divided in regions (some parts of the country have more regions, with less inhabitants, than others). Secondly, there is the presence of party-sponsored "civic lists", whose members are often members of countrywide parties. Finally, I also think, per User:Autospark, that "keeping articles up to date with seat counts" would not be easy, due to the frequent changes in party affiliation. --Checco (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Number 57 and Checco: The civic lists are not a problem, because should not be counted. For the other "problem", I take as example the Germany: Berlin has a population of 3,388,000 inhabitants and its Landtag has 180 seats, Bavaria has 12,843,514 inhabitants and its Landtag has 160 seats, Saarland has 995,597 inhabitants and its Landstag 51 seats, North Rhine-Westphalia 17,865,516 inhabitants and 237 seats, Saxony 4,143,000 inhabitants and 126 seats. Pratically the seats are distributed disproportionately also in Germany. Probably the same problem for other states, it is not a feature only Italian. I point out that regional councils have legislative power, are not at all irrelevant. Are not the rules the same for all parties?--Wololoo (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The main difference is that Germany has a simple and ordered party system, while Italy has a very complex one, plenty of regional and regionalist parties, let alone the "civic lists": the inclusion of regional councillors "may give a false impression of party strength", indeed! Additionally, regional councillors elected in civic lists should be classified and counted: just think of regions like Lombardy or Veneto, where virtually all the regional councillors elected with Maroni/Zaia lists are actually Lega Nord members (for Veneto, see this); the same happens in other regions. --Checco (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
It isn't the same in all other region, the members of the civic lists are often independents. However the (national) strength of a party is given by its number of MPs, instead the number of regional councillors is a very useful information. Before your main reason looked the disproportionately distribution, now it looks the complex party system. Furthermore one of the criteria for this template and for the List of political parties in Italy concerns the presence of a party in at least 3 regional councils, how can you justify the compliance with this rule to a reader if you don't show the number of regional councillors in the infobox?? It's a countersense--Wololoo (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I answered to your latest point before. As I said, I oppose your proposal for several reasons and I do not want to repeat myself too much. However, if your proposal is accepted, regional councillors of civic lists "should be classified and counted". --Checco (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

However if you don't want to insert these data in the infobox, it can be created a specific table for each party with the seats in the regional councils (a similar solution is already adopted in the page of Communist Refoundation Party)--Wololoo (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That is an interesting idea and we should thoroughly consider it. In those templates, we could indicate the number of regional councillors for each region including also those elected in civic lists (that is my only condition) with the due sources.--Checco (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

PRC and MEPs[edit]

User:Wololoo correctly pointed out that, under the current conditions of admission, the Communist Refoundation Party (PRC) should not be included in the template, however I disagree with replacing "having at least two MPs, or two MEPs, or one MP and one MEP" with "having at least two MPs or one MEP". The rule was designed in order to avoid one-man, personal parties in the template. Nowhere in the disussion above the "two MPs or one MEP" clause was even discussed and Wololoo always supported higher thresholds. This said, the problem with the PRC is that is has long ran in joint lists named after The Other Europe (AET).

I see two solutions:

  • "having elected at least one MP or MEP with their own lists or party-sponsored lists";
  • "having at least two MPs, or two MEPs, or one MP and one MEP, or one MP/MEP and one regional councillor".

I think we should be both inclusionist and careful to avoid one-man parties. We should be aware of editing the rules for the sake of one party, but I also think that we should include parties which are stable features of joint lists. --Checco (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Though I proposed a solution similiar to the party-sponsored lists, I disagree with it. "Party-sponsored list" is a too vague term, the result of AET was pushed above all by the independents and SEL, furthermore the logo of AET didn't include the pulce (small logo) of PRC, I strongly disagree the second solution (the "one regional councillor" confirms the countersense up there: where we can see that a party has a regional councillor?) also if I agree that the rules should be interpreted case by case basis. However the rule "having at least two MPs, or two MEPs, or one MP and one MEP" is written in a way that sounds strange, I think that "having at least two MPs/MEPs" would be much better and simpler--Wololoo (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we disagree. Moreover, I find difficult to understand what is the problem with "having at least two MPs, or two MEPs, or one MP and one MEP": it sounds perfect English to me. "Having at least two MPs/MEPs" would be ambiguous: what about a party with one MP and one MEP? I think that "having at least two MPs, or two MEPs, or one MP and one MEP, or one MP/MEP and one regional councillor" (there was a repetion above and I correted it) would be a sensible solution, but we could also interpret the rule on a case by case basis and, without changing the rules, include the PRC. --Checco (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
"having at least two MPs, or two MEPs, or one MP and one MEP" is perfectly understandable, but enough redundant. In Italy this rule could be written easily in a better form, I don't think it can not do the same in the english language. For example: "having two members between the national and the european parliament" has the same meaning but it is less redundant. For what concerns the rules, I am not contrary to the introduction of the parties that have elected under their logo at least one regional councillor (obviously with the indication of the regional councillors in the pages of the parties). But the interpretation to include the PRC is quite forced...--Wololoo (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Ps: Also with the rule "one MP/MEP and one regional councillor" the Prc could not be included in the tmp--Wololoo (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
See: "having two members between the national and the european parliament" is a much more obscure formulation in English. I understand what you meant, but several users would not. Finally, under the "one MP/MEP and one regional councillor" rule, the PRC 'would' be included as it has a MEP and a regional councillor. I like that proposal and the "one regional councillor elected with their own lists" too. --Checco (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't result me that PRC has regional councillors: who are they? However, it isn't correct conceiving a rule with the only intent to include a specific party in the tmp, rather, it is best to lower the threshold of MEPs to 1. Furthermore I agree to enter the parties that have elected under their logo at least one regional councillor (but in this case the pages have to been corrected, like made for PD).--Wololoo (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
On PRC's regional councillors I was disoriented by it.Wiki. You are right: the party has no regional councillors. You are also right that "it isn't correct conceiving a rule with the only intent to include a specific party in the tmp". Thus, I doubly oppose the idea of "lower[ing] the threshold of MEPs to 1". I would not make more changes of rules as of now. --Checco (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
PRC has elected one regional councillor, Unali in Sardinia, who has left the party. First consideration: Now. it's very strange to have in the tmp Green Italy that is an unknown party, that got only the 0.8 % in the last european election and that has never been represented in institutions, while the PRC in the same election has elected one Mep (in another list) and it isn't present in the tmp. Second consideration: a party with only the 0.8 % cannot occupy the second position in the tmp, the rule about the threshold must be the last and not the first one for the collocation in the tmp of the minor parties. So, considering that my previous proposal to rationalize the presence of the parties in the tmp was rejected, we make rules inclusionist but with sense: introducing the rule about the direct election under own logo of at least one regional councillor, furthermore the rule on the threshold must the last one, seeing that GI is the less important party in the tmp--Wololoo (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree on the "first consideration": what if Green Italy were part of AET and elected one MEP? I also disagree on the "second consideration": share of vote (of a party which obtained real votes) should come first, in my view, otherwise minor parties which rarely field lists but have connections with larger parties would always be "advantaged" in the template. This said, I strongly agree with "introducing the rule about the direct election under own logo of at least one regional councillor", while opposing that "the rule on the threshold must the last one". I will be bold and add the new rule on which we now agree on. As far as I understand, under the new rule two "minor" parties (Communist Refoundation Party, Pensioners' Party) and five "regional" parties (Citizens' Union for South Tyrol, Alto Adige in the Heart, Administer Trentino, Ladin Autonomist Union, Slovene Union) shall be included. I would have no problem in listing the PRC before Green Italy as the PRC was part of a larger electoral list, AET, but I will leave it to you. --Checco (talk) 07:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Ps: Despite being nominally part of the TAA region, Trentino and South Tyrol should always be considered as two regions (that is to say also in the tables that User:Wololoo added or edited in the articles of Italian largest parties): they are considered that way by the Conference of Regions (which includes both the Trentino and the South Tyrolean president), and the Italian Constitution itself.
Checco, but do you always disagree with what I say? :/ In this template the goal of the rule of threshold is clearly the admission of mini parties, so it should be the residual rule: we are talking about a party never represented in any institution which he exploited a legal loophole to present himself at the election (it would never have gathered the necessary signatures). For you, is Green Italy more important, for example, than Italian Left or UDC? Really? All the parties present in this template are more relevant than GI. In another political situation, the rule of threshold would draw properly the political situation, but here we can't admit that a micro party is listed before that other parties with a certain parliamentary relevance. Therefore I can accept to list more possible parties, but at least we make it on the basis of their effective relevance! (Answering about Trentino Alto Adige: it's true that Trento and Bolzano are two autonomous provinces similar to the regions, but the tables are based on the Regional Councils, the regional council of Trentino Alto Adige exists and includes the councils of Trento and Bolzano, therefore is more correct to indicate directly the regional council and not the provincial councils)--Wololoo (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@User:Wololoo: We discussed about this before: we have different views on several issues, but I much appreciate several of your edits and I always long for compromise. One of the reasons why I like en.Wikipedia is that users are quite pragmatic and discussions are rarely long. However, I also appreciate discussing with you. Other users might not want to be engaged in long discussions, but most of the times they agree more with me than with you.
This is a navigational template and we should not have an execessively legalistic approach on it. Whenever a general/European election looms, the template presents problems: parties rise and fall, and the most recent changes might not be reflected or might be improperly reflected by the template, or, with your words, the template might not "draw properly the political situation". In my view, Green Italy–Federation of the Greens should be listed among minor parties according to its share of vote, but I would have no problems in interpreting the rules in order to list some parties which were part of electoral alliances (UdC, SI, PRC, etc.) before it.
Finally, again, pragmatism! Trentino and South Tyrol are autonomous provinces, but are practically regional entities. There are neither regional elections (but just provincial ones) nor regional totals. As in most cases, Trentino and South Tyrol should be considered practically as regions, especially with electoral results. That is for the sake of readers! In fact, the tables, which were mostly edited by User:Nick.mon before your arrival to en.Wikipedia, featured Trentino and South Tyrol as regional entities. It is also no surprise that User:Autospark thanked me for my post scriptum above. I would ask to Nick.mon and Autospark to express their views once and for all on the issue and, if they are willing to do so, also on the other issues you raised. --Checco (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@User:Checco: That table concerns the "regional councils" and the regional council of Trentino Alto Adige exists, the electoral results are obviously only provincial, but indicating the provincial councils in the table is misleading because it concerns however the regional ones. However you are right, unfortunately I have to see that this section of enwiki is quite closed, it is too difficult to advance any proposal here. However, if other users want to express themselves also on the priority of the rules...--Wololoo (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me, Checco and Wololoo, in few words what are you discussing about? And how can I help you? :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Do you think that Trentino and South Tyrol should be treated this way or that way in tables? --Checco (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Okok, I'm sorry for Wololoo, who is doing really a great job in improving articles about Italian politics, but I prefer the previous version with two different results and seats which is more clear, even if you are right, when you say that there is only one region Trenino Alto-Adige, not two. But in my personal view, I think that the version with Trentino and South Tyrol separated results is better -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I also prefer keeping the Trentino and South Tyrol results separate.--Autospark (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)