Template talk:Italian political parties/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Coalitions

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)

UDC: in or out?

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)

Not yet existing parties

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)

Clean up?

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

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.

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)

Discussion

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)

Classification

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

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)

subgroups

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 87.17.157.138 (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

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

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.

Discussion

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

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.

Discussion

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

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

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

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

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 Italy–Greens" 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 Italy–Greens 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 Italy–Federation 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 Italy–Federation 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 Italy–Federation 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 Freedom–Communist 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 Italy–Federation 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?

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:

• consistency: many similar templates include flags (Template:German political parties, Template:French political parties, Template:German elections, Template:Spanish political parties, Template:French elections, Template:Spanish elections, Template:Italian elections, etc.);
• clarity: differently from you, I think that a large proportion of users are able to recognize the Italian flag, but if you are right...
• ...informativeness: more people would learn how the Italian flag looks like!

--Checco (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)