Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Rfc: Listing of defunct parties

Hi. I would like to ask for your opinion about the reorganization of the defunct Italian parties. These parties are currently listed by dissolution date but divided into two lists (major and minor) and therefore into two chronological orders. I propose to list them by dissolution date in a single chronological order, eliminating the distinction between major and minor parties and adding the date of foundation and dissolution next to them in brackets. I propose eventually to divide them into institutional / political eras, as in the pages on the parties of other countries, for example: "Kingdom of Italy (1845–1946)", "First Republic (1946–1994)", "Second Republic (since 1994)". Please give an opinion!--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose both proposals, especially the second one. I think it is very useful to have consistency throughout the article, thus having both current and defunct parties classified in "major", "minor", "regional", etc. categories (I do not see any problem with that, really). More important, I strongly oppose dividing parties according to political eras as some parties have encompassed those eras. --Checco (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: The second proposal (division of the parties into eras) is only eventual, but the first one is very important. We cannot compare current parties and defunct parties. The distinction between current major and minor parties makes sense: major parties are those that currently meet particularly selective criteria, while those that met with these criteria in the past are listed among the minor parties. This type of listing makes little sense for defunct parties (there are no current criteria to be respected), but it has a huge defect: the parties are not all listed by dissolution order, but are mixed according to arbitrary criteria. This creates confusion and makes it much more difficult to find a party on the list. If you are against the division into eras (solution however adopted in many similar pages), I invite you at least to evaluate a single list in order of dissolution. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: I would also like to point out that even the templates of current parties and defunct parties are organized differently, I don't see where the problem lies. A reader cares little if a defunct party had an MP or one more vote. What I think is necessary is that all national parties are listed in chronological order of dissolution. And if you want to have the exact same approach for current and dead parties, for me we can also delete the distinction between current major and minor parties, listing them according to their importance.

• I oppose the changes – it is helpful to differentiate between major and minor parties, as well as parties that were organised on a regional basis.--Autospark (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Autospark: Can you explain to me why certain listing methods (tables, dates, division into epochs, no distinction between major and minor defunct parties) are valid for the party pages of all countries except for Italy? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if I have made myself clear, but in my proposal I was referring only to national parties. The listing of regional parties remains unchanged. However I expect an answer to this question, it seems to me the minimum. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Autospark: I'm still waiting for an answer anyway... I'd like you to answer my perplexities.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I suppose that the user Autospark doesn't consider it necessary to answer my questions. I wonder why he intervened in this discussion, if he does not want to take part in a dialogue, but only to give his umpteenth support to the previous user who has expressed his opposition. Carrying out a comparison of opinions in this way seems impossible to me, with one user who does not respond and another who responds once a week, but who rollsbacks any edit that is not to his liking... this attitude blocks any attempt to improve a page that would need it.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• You are more than welcome to propose changes, but I am free to tell you that they are not improvements for me. --Checco (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: But the proposals that I did to improve this page have almost all been rejected by users that refuse to answer a question or who edit rarely and don't make counter-proposals. Indeed this page is objectively 10/15 years behind the other pages of the same type. Many of the admission criteria are not demonstrable. And above all, the defunct parties are listed without a real logical order, the distinction between major and minor deceased parties is made in a handful of pages. I understand the reasons for your opposition to the distinction of parties by epochs, but I don't understand how you can disagree with a single list of defunct parties, which would be much clearer than the current one. And I don't even understand how you can disagree with very interesting information such as the date of foundation and dissolution, present in so many pages. They seem to me to be objective improvements, which is why I don't understand this opposition. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add another consideration: It seems quite enough to me that you think this page is set up better than all the others. Given that to make even the simplest changes here you have to go through very long discussions, I try to open a comparison on certain critical issues. Don't you think there are aspects of this page to improve?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. I made some proposals above. We agreed on some changes, we do not on these. --Checco (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no one has intervened in these last discussions, this does not help to update a page that has been held unchanged for long time. I see that all the pages on the parties of other countries have been improved, this page instead is among those objectively set up worse. It is quite difficult to understand the opposition to the insertion of a table, the listing of the national defunct parties by order of dissolution and even the insertion of the dates in brackets, but if no one intervenes now I will try to propose these improvements again later. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Issues of the page

I would like to take stock of the situation, there are too many discussions pending and possibly the intervention of some users would be appreciated. I found that opening an RFC is useless. In particular there are at least 3 issues that should be resolved at this moment:

1. method of listing the defunct parties;
2. translation of party names on the page;
3. standardization of the admission criteria of this page with the template of the Italian political parties.

In reality there would also be the problem of exposing the parties on this page, which is 15 years behind all other pages of this type, but that is not a priority.

Regarding the 1st issue, I also opened an RFC, but without success. Ideally I would divide the parties into historical eras, but Checco is right when states that some parties have encompassed more eras, so the objection to this proposal is understandable. However, what I fail to understand is why the deceased parties must be categorized into "major" and "minor", mostly according to arbitrary criteria and which can only be valid for current parties. In practice we are dealing with two lists of national defunct parties, separated according to arbitrary criteria, when reading would be extremely facilitated if they were listed in a single list by dissolution date. For the current parties the distinction can make sense, it can be useful to show what are the ruling parties of the moment, but for the deceased parties what is it for? There is no apparent logical order.

With regard to the 2nd issue, the discussion also in this case has not been completed. The current situation generates forced results, such as Pound House or Courage Italy. There are 3 solutions:

• leave everything as it is;
• use only and exclusively the titles of the pages;
• use only the titles of the pages with some exceptions. For example there are pages of parties titled with the Italian name, when these parties are better known with the English name. In these cases the English name would be used (such as the Northern League).

With the last two solutions, the names of the parties would no longer be accompanied by the name translated in parentheses. Italian names should be used for red links. I would definitely prefer the third solution, but the second solution is also better than the current situation.

About the 3rd issue, the criteria of this page and those of the template have not yet been standardized. The discussion of reviewing the criteria got off to a good start, then stalled. Some improvements have been made, but they are not enough. In truth, there are some criteria that I would like to eliminate or correct in a decisive way, as they are not demonstrable or inconsistent (the criterion about the representation in 3 regional councils is not clear and it is difficult to prove; the criterion of 5% of those elected in the regional council, although better of the previous criterion, is too permissive and inconsistent: a party with 4 MPs cannot be listed on the page, a party with two regional councilors can instead be listed. Moreover, these criteria are almost never demonstrable because almost no regional council publishes a historical archive about its composition). However, I do not want to discuss these criteria now, that can be discussed even after standardization, it is not a priority. After a research that I did, to make the page more complete/accurate, I would rather introduce a final admission criterion (the election of at least one provincial councilor with his own list until 2013) and partially correct the regional threshold of 2% (the threshold is fine, but should only be applied to regional elections, such as the 0.5% threshold is applied only to national elections. The regional threshold applied to national elections causes only problems, in the past there were no regional constituencies, who undertakes to make these useless calculations?? The threshold applied only to regional elections is more reasonable, because it is immediately demonstrable). About the election of at least one provincial councilor, there are few parties that would be introduced with this criterion, but they would be more important than some parties already present on the page, so I think this criterion is very important.

@Ritchie92, Checco, Vacant0, Braganza, Nick.mon, Facquis, and Holapaco77: and anyone who edits the pages on Italian politics: I would not ping anyone, but an opinion on these three issues would really be needed in order to definitively reach a shared solution and a definitive consensus. Unfortunately, these issues will hardly find a shared solution if no one expresses themselves about it...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Here are, again, my position on the three issues:

1. method of listing the defunct parties — I would not make any change, for the reasons already stated;

2. translation of party names on the page — I would leave article names only (most are in English like "Democratic Party", some in Italian/regional language like "Lega Nord", "Liga Veneta" and "Die Freiheitlichen"), while hiding disambiguations (examples: "(Italy)", "2007", etc.) and deleting all translations altogether;

3. standardization of the admission criteria of this page with the template of the Italian political parties — my proposal ("Organisation") is above; some rules might be difficult to apply, but they are designed in order to give a broad picture of parties in Italy, including all-important regional ones in such a diverse country; if the biggest problem is the 2% regional threshold, let's discuss mainly about that, however this list will be always slightly different from the template because there are some parties which are still active, but no longer meet the rules of admission for the template. --Checco (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: Thanks for the reply, unfortunately it seems that the topic does not interest anyone so let's try to find an agreement between us. Ok for the second point, I would have adopted an intermediate solution but certainly the current situation is not sustainable. About the third point: the biggest problem is not the 2% regional threshold, if applied only to the regional elections, for me it can be maintained. The problems are the criteria that cannot be proven: the application of the regional threshold to national elections, the presence in 3 regional councils and being represented by at least 5% of those elected in a regional council. (the latter criterion also presents problems of coherence, since parties with two / three regional councilors can be listed, while parties with two / three deputies cannot be, I think you understand that). Even if I didn't want to talk about these criteria now, the removal of the presence in three regional councils would have no effect on the page. If there is no opposition, I will instead introduce the criterion of at least one provincial councilor until 2013. About the tmp: obviously there would be differences, the template contains only the parties that currently meet the criteria. The criteria should however be invisible to readers, as they are intended only for editors.

About the 1st point (method of listing the defunct parties), I honestly did not understand the opposition to the single list, is it only for the "consistency throughout the article"? Because I honestly see no advantage for the reader in dividing the defunct parties into two blocs, it seems to me far more practical to list them all in order of dissolution. Can you consider not rolling back my attempt to list the defunct parties listed in order of dissolution? There would be a marked improvement in terms of clarity....--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

What about this?

Organisation

Conditions of admission

In order to be part of this list, a party needs to have fulfilled at least one of the following conditions:

• having garnered more than 0.5% of the vote in a countrywide election (general/European);
• having elected at least one MP/MEP/regional councillor with its own list;
• having been represented by at least two MPs or two MEPs or in three Regional Councils;
• having scored more than 2% of the vote in a regional election (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol);
• having had the 5% of the elects in a Regional Council (Provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol);
• having garnered at least 15% in a constituency for Italians abroad in a general election;

Classification

The parties are classified as:

• Major parties: parties having scored more than 4% in a countrywide election (general/European) or having at least 30 MPs or 5 MEPs;
• Minor parties: parties that fulfil one of the other conditions;
• Regional parties: minor parties active only in one Region (Province in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol);
• Parties of the Italians abroad: parties active only among Italians abroad.
• Parliamentary groups: parliamentary groups formed by coalitions of parties and/or non-party independents.

Active major parties are those having garnred more than 4% in the latest countrywide election (general/European) or currently having at least 30 MPs or 5 MEPs.

The 2% threshold was already for regional elections, but I would actually extend it to Senate elections. Also, I would frankly leave the 5 MPs rule, as it is equally difficult to have 5 MPs and three regional councillors elected in three different Council. --Checco (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: I believe it is necessary to add the election of at least one provincial councilor with its own list at least until 2013. And the MPs must be at least five. For the reasons already mentioned, the 2% threshold in the Senate is unnecessarily complicated, it is sufficient to apply it to regional elections. Furthermore: I can agree with the distinction between major and minor parties for current parties (i.e. distinguishing those few current ruling parties from all the others), but I am strongly opposed to applying this distinction to defunct parties, as it mixes in two lists very different parties (parties that obtained 40% of the votes in the elections and parties that obtained 0.5% are also listed among the major parties, this does not make sense). Are you willing not to rollback a single list of defunct national parties? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Conditions of admission

In order to be part of this list, a party needs to have fulfilled at least one of the following conditions:

• having garnered more than 0.5% of the vote in a countrywide election (general/European);
• having elected at least one MP/MEP/Regional councillor/Provincial councillor (in the latter case until 2013) with its own list;
• having been represented at the same time by at least five MPs or two MEPs or in three Regional Councils;
• having scored more than 2% of the vote in a regional election (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol);
• having had the 5% of the elects in a Regional Council (Provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol);
• having garnered at least 15% in a constituency for Italians abroad in a general election;

Classification

The parties are classified as:

• National parties: parties active throughout the national territory or in several regions;
  • Major parties: parties having scored more than 4% in a countrywide election (general/European) or having at least 30 MPs or 5 MEPs (active parties only);
  • Minor parties: parties that fulfil one of the other conditions (active parties only);
• Regional parties: parties active only in one Region (Province in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol);
• Parties of the Italians abroad: parties active only among Italians abroad.
• Parliamentary groups: parliamentary groups formed by coalitions of parties and/or non-party independents.

Personally, I would increase the percentage of elects in a regional council to 10% and remove the criterion of representation in three regional councils (complicated and in any case useless with these criteria), but this is my consideration.

I would apply these the admission criteria both for this page, both for the template of the active parties (with the only difference that they have to respect currently these criteria) and for the template of the historical parties (in which the parties are not divided into major and minor).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I disagree with most of your latest proposals, especially "distinction between major and minor parties for defunct parties", "provincial councillor", "10% of elects in a regional council" and "removal of representation in three regional councils". Also, I still think that the 2% (or 3%) universal regional threshold is important. I could agree only on the 5 MPs rule (I guess it was my original position, but now I do not remember). --Checco (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: In this way it is impossible to find any solution: you must explain why you are contrary to the criterion of the provincial councilors. Furthermore you have to explain to me how useful it is to classify parties of 40% with parties of 0.5% among the major parties. I see a fundamental inconsistency, you would like to introduce criteria that you would not have been able to respect (for example the criterion of the 2% regional threshold in national elections: would you look for all the parties that meet this criterion?) while at the same time you want to exclude parties that are certainly more relevant than some that are listed on this page. It seems to me that you are trying to maintain the status quo, but where were the current criteria on this page decided? I honestly don't see any discussions about them. I would not want the whole page layout to be decided by a single user, making it unchangeable. But if they were not established by a community decision, why should they be unchangeable? After all, I don't think to have proposed drastic changes: I only proposed to include the parties that have elected provincial councilors (only seven) and to list all the defunct parties by order of dissolution, removing arbitrary and inconsistent distinctions. There are some criteria (5% of elects in a regional council and the representation in 3 regional councils) that I don't agree with, but I have not asked to remove them. But if the consensus on overall current criteria (of which it is not known where they were decided) fails, they should be removed or a new agreement should be found (Obviously I would like to find agreed criteria. I would also have hoped for greater participation, but this does not seem possible). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Ps. and always answering after a week does not help the exchange of views at all.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Checco For example, checking the history of the page, I found your edit about the defunct parties ([1]): these parties were previously listed in chronological order, in one only list. The list was much clearer before. This division seems to me an unilateral decision...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Checco However, if you don't reply by tomorrow, I will edit the page myself, a reply cannot come every time after a week. After all, checking the cronology, I saw that all the criteria were unilaterally established, there was no real consensus on them, so I don't think I need permissions to make any changes I think are necessary.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Some answers:

• "you must explain why you are contrary to the criterion of the provincial councilors" — I did not understand why you are proposing this, thus you may explain why, not me. However, in my view this would be a totally useless complication. I do not think that provincial elections should be tracked.
• "you have to explain to me how useful it is to classify parties of 40% with parties of 0.5% among the major parties" — I really do not understand what you are talking about. Major parties: "4% in a countrywide election (general/European) or having at least 30 MPs or 5 MEPs".
• "would you look for all the parties that meet this criterion?" (2% threshold) — I did that in the past. We can check it again. This list has always been a work-in-progress.
• "I honestly don't see any discussions about them" — The rules of this list are largely designed taking inspiration from the en.Wiki template (lots of discussions about it) and the original it.Wiki template (lots and lots of discussions about it). Of course, some things changed and now a standardisation is needed.
• "always answering after a week does not help the exchange of views at all" — Editing in Wikipedia is not a job, especially when real life is tough or during vacation times. I am sorry that few other users seem interested in the issues you have raised. Of course, everything was smoother before your arrival to en.Wiki (before that, there were few long discussions), but you should appreciate that I always answer to you. This list is not a big deal to me, but still can I oppose proposals I do not like?
• "This division seems to me an unilateral decision..." — Have you ever heard about bold edits? They are accepted as long as no-one challenges them. However, now there are other users who have supported the major/minor division, so any edit of your on that would not be consensual.
• "if you don't reply by tomorrow, I will edit the page myself, a reply cannot come every time after a week" — I will rollback any edit lacking consensus, maybe one week later, but I will always do it. Please seek consensus and, if you are not able to obtain it, leave it as it is. Why don't we pause on this? I told you that at least twice. I would like to improve the list and you would like the same, but unfortunately our ideas are someway different. Let's try to change little by little.
  --Checco (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I thus rollbacked your big unilateral edits. If you want to add parties according to the current rules (not the rules you would like to have or that I would like to have as replacement), please do it, but also please avoid big unilateral edits. Some of the things you are proposing have been challenged also by other users. One thing I appreciated: the tables were not bad: I can agree on them for major and minor parties, but only without ideologies and abbreviations. --Checco (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC) — Uhm, no: ideologies and abbreviations could be OK. In the next weeks I will check them, but I actually liked that part of your edit all the way. I am going to restore it and, as I wrote, I will possibly edit the tables in the near future. --Checco (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: If you say you oppose a rule, you must explain why. If I have proposed it, it is because I have already checked which parties to introduce (CDL, Popolari Retici, PSE-Lista Mancini, Fronte Friulano, Partito del Popolo Sardo, Lega Padana Lombardia). On the other hand, if you propose a criterion, in turn you should have evidently already verified it, and it is that it is not so on the 2% threshold (for example, with a short search I had found at least 6/7 unknown parties not included in this page). If there were no discussions before it was because you were essentially unilaterally editing some pages, the discussions started after your rollbacks, after a rollback it is normal to participate in a discussion. The division of deceased parties into majors and minors according to those criteria is inconsistent, you cannot put parties with the PDL and parties as FLI on the same level. Of course you are not obliged to participate in the discussions, but if you cannot you must also accept the edits of other users. For example, initially I did not notice that division, and I strongly oppose it, because it has never been discussed. You decided those criteria yourself, you have to accept the changes of other users as well.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You can always check for mistakes. I appreciate that.

Rules were not decided by me alone. As I told you, there were long discussions on the it.Wiki template and then the en.Wiki template. The rules of this list were largely inspired from the latter template. Those rules are now established and some of the things you are challenging have been upheld by other users recently.

One more thing you could easily do (unfortunately it was a part of that big edit) is removing translations. I have no time to do it now. Please do it, if you want, but, please, do not change rules of admission and add parties that do not fulfil the currently valid rules. --Checco (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: if you are against the inclusion of a criterion, you must give a reason, otherwise you cannot rollback. The division of the defunct parties into major and minor has not been decided anywhere, above all, nowhere has it been decided to apply these criteria (for the major parties) to the departed parties. Only one other user expressed an opinion about the list of defunct parties and then avoided answering, I don't see a real consensus on its division into two lists (the biggest problem is the heterogeneity of the list of major parties, it is misleading). If you want to divide them, the criteria must necessarily be changed, because those were designed for current parties. Frankly, putting PDL and FLI on the same plane is absurd. Furthermore with your rollback you have again moved some parties from the list of active parties to the list of defunct parties.

Obviously the table that I have introduced on the page is a proposal, I am available to discuss any changes. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

A little tip: also accept the contributions of other users, every little change cannot be discussed for months (such as the inclusion of seven parties, it is not a "complication"), if a change improves the page it should not be reverted. I have not removed some criteria with which I disagree because everyone's ideas must be preserved (I removed only those of the defunct major parties, but because they were designed only for current parties). And rollbacks and relative discussions should only be done when you have time to follow them, otherwise it is better to postpone them.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It is quite more simple. You cannot impose your view when other users disapprove it. Bold edits are good until they are not challenged. In your case, those edits are simply against consensus. I have already explained many times why I do not support some of your proposals. You should respect that, even when you disagree the motivations. I have reverted your latest unconsensual edits. --Checco (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: If you do not want to accept the changes of others, I too can do the same, by removing the criteria that I do not approve. And the division of defunct parties (above all based on those criteria) is not consensual. You choose whether to cooperate or make an edit war, I would like to cooperate and preserve everyone's ideas. A page setup cannot be decided by a single user, it does not exist anywhere else.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

What you are saying is far from reality. It is you who is not able to accept consensual editing. I always accept improvements from other users, that is why I always try to avoid total rollbacks (I saved from you latest edits several things: you can check). Of course, you cannot impose your rules to this list, otherwise I could bring back my bold edit of two months ago ("Organisation"... do you remember). Unfortunately, the sweeping changes you are trying to impose have been opposed also by other users (see discussion above) and one editor is thanking me all the way when rollbacking your unconsensual edits. Please think about it. We could do great things if we coopoerate. Will you ever start to accept the rules of consensual edits and the concepts of established version, bold edit and compromise? --Checco (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

So far it is you who have avoided cooperation: the criteria had been decided only by you, you rejected almost all my proposals, you deleted in a disruptive way important information (like the dates) and you listed micro-parties among the major parties. I've been looking for cooperation for three months, now it's time to improve the page. The only thing I have removed is the criteria about the defunct major parties, unilaterally decided by you. It is not possible to list micro-parties among the major parties. Obviously I am also available to divide the defunct parties into major and minor, but on the basis of serious criteria (I mean that the defunct parties, to be classified as "major parties", should have scored a minimum threshold, at least 10% of the votes, excluding those parties that scored 0.5 / 1% of the votes).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

All you are saying is false: 1) the rules of this list were result of near-infinite discussions over the it.Wiki and en.Wiki templates and have been unchallenged for years, thus they are established consensus; 2) I also made several proposals, including a big bold edit, and you opposed it; 3) I have accepted several changes (some through bold edits by you), lately including the tables; 4) your proposals are not opposed only by me, but also by other users you asked to intervene (see discussion above; I also explained why I do not like having dates and, btw, the division of defunct parties was opposed not only by me... why don't you seek consensus and edit step by step?). I will again rollback your edits done against consensus and I will continue to do so, while continuing to favour debate and accept good edits, as I have always done. --Checco (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Instead everything I wrote is true: where were the criteria for this specific page decided? Do the criteria on this page correspond to those of itwikipedia? Where was the criteria about major defunct parties decided? They were all your unilateral decisions. The only things you accepted was the conversion of the two regional councilors with 5% of the elects and the election of at least one regional councilor. But why should you have refused? These rollbacks are disruptive, with no valid justification, so I'll restore my edits, because, after all, no change needs anyone's permission (there has never been a consensus on those criteria, at least as far as this page is concerned). With regard to defunct parties, the criteria for determining the major parties have nowhere been decided. I am willing to reason about them, but please stop classifying the micro parties of 0.5 / 1% of the votes as "major parties". --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Recaping:

• I introduced a criterion on which we already agreed (regional threshold of 2%);
• I have introduced the dates of foundation and dissolution of the defunct parties, it is very useful information, present in almost all pages of this type and there is no valid reason to remove them, the opposition of a single user is not enough;
• I have introduced the parties that have had electoral merits at the provincial level (six in total), and also in this case there is no real reason to remove them, on the page there are much more irrelevant regional parties hat have never obtained any elect at any administrative level.
• I have not removed the criteria with which I disagree, because no one can think they can remove information and/or parties as they wish. There is no real consensus on these criteria, as evidenced by the fact that no user has shown interest in the subject.

I have boldly acted on only one point: the criteria about the defunct major parties. I am not necessarily opposed to the division of the defunct parties into major and minor parties, I am opposed to listing even the small parties among the major parties. Some examples: Democratic Alliance scored 1.2% in the 1994 general election and 1.8% in the 1994 European election in a joint list with PSI; FLD, after it has turned into Liberal Federalists, scored 0.02% of the vote in the 1996 general election (about 0.5% in the Sicily 1 constituency); parties like CCD and CDU individually scored just over 2% in 1999 and just over 3% in 2001 in a joint list; Democratic Left never presented an autonomous list in a national election and almost never even at the local level, the joint lists with other parties in which it presented its candidates obtained just over 3% of the votes in 2008 and 2009; FLI scored only 0.47% of the votes in 2018. These are just a few examples. Can the parties with more elects than voters be considered "major parties" from a historical point of view? Obviously not. It is acceptable to list the major parties separately from the minor ones, but the list of major parties must strictly include only large parties, otherwise the division becomes useless. These anomalies are the consequence of the application to defunct parties of criteria designed exclusively for current parties. It is absolutely legitimate to oppose the inclusion of small parties in a list dedicated to "major parties". I believe that from a historical point of view only those parties that achieved remarkable electoral results, for example at least 10% of the votes, can be considered major parties. The parties that could not even present an autonomous list in the elections or that obtained few votes in the elections must be considered minor parties...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, I will rollback your latest "omnibus" edit because it contains many things no-one agreed with you. However, I am quite interested in what you are saying, despite the fact that the real improvement I crave for is a set of general conditions of admission, separate from the classification (see my "Organisation" proposals above). I am still interested in debate (you should be happy that there is one user interested in discussing with you) and, unless we find a consensus on a comprehensive set of rules, we can proceed step by step. In this respect, provided that I do not oppose dates altogether and that I appreciate you as researcher who gets things done, I am offering you a new compromise: OK to dates as long as also for active parties. We could do that by adding a column to tables named "Years active" and within parentheses elswhere. I know it will take time, so think about it. Surely, I cannot support an inconsistent edit like the one you just explained above: there is no reason why dates should be given only for defunct parties. If you are interested, please do this first, without doing anything else, including any addition of rules and division of major/minor parties. We could later discuss on other edit proposals, including a new classification for major and minor parties. --Checco (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Only you oppose these changes, no one else, only you are doing the rollback (as I have already written, the only bold change I have made is the union of the lists of defunct parties, but because the division was based on criteria that were not agreed upon and objectively not suitable). You cannot unilaterally write the rules of a page and not accept the edits of other users. Of course, I am in favor of inserting dates for active parties. But the time to leave the page in that state has expired, if you answer every week without cooperating (ie by rolling back almost all my edits) the discussion will never end...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, I may be in favor of dividing the defunct parties into major and minor, but as long as you continue to include micro-parties among the major parties, I will have to restore the single list. Those criteria have not been decided anywhere, it is no longer the case to stall.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I am very sorry you are not willing to cooperate. I offered you a pathway to continue editing the list including much of what you proposed, but still you are continuing to ignore any cooperation. As of now, we could have a list with all the years of activity for all parties, instead we have a list that includes rules that were never agreed, inconsistent naming and so on. Unfortunately, this means you are wasting a lot of time and energy. You would spare much of them by only cooperating. I understand that you are doing that precisely because you are frustrated by your wasted work, but you should at least understand that, without cooperation, your work will always be wasted. Again, the current rules were not decided only by me and represent the established consesus: in order to edit them, you need to seek consensus. On many aspects, this has happened and on some aspects even some of your bold edits have been unopposed. There is much good in that as there is much good in cooperating, crafting compromises and finding common solutions. Unfortunately, I will again rollback the part of your edits that is not supported by consensus. As usual, I will keep the parts that are OK for both of us, as agreed in this discussion, and those resulted from your most recent researches (i.e. links, dissolved parties). I will also make a bold edit because "Years active" is much better than "Founded" and would be consistent with the rest of the list (whenever you will accept to edit it according to compromise and not just your own will). --Checco (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I rollbacked the unconsensual parts of your latest edits, but, as an umpteenth olive branch showing that I always want to cooperate, I restored all the activity dates for defunct parties, while keeping the consensual rules for admission and classification. Of course, those rules can be re-discussed, as we have been doing for months, but they cannot be changed unilaterally. Please cooperate. --Checco (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Instead it seems to me that the rules of this page have been decided only by you, also given the general lack of interest on this topic.. I am not the one who does not want to cooperate, since I have been carrying on the discussion for three months. But you can't think to keep only the rules that you have introduced and to remove at your convenience those you do not agree with, wikipedia doesn't work like that. I have not removed the rules that I do not agree with, I have not changed them, do the same if you do not have valid reasons. The founding date for active parties is ok for me, but without the indication of "present", which is useless in this case (in this regard, I was finishing work for the regional parties). I would like to point out that the maintenance of dates for dissolved parties is not a concession, but an useful information contained in almost every page of this type. I asked you only two things: accept the criteria I introduced as I accepted yours (this does not mean only consensus, it means respecting the work of others) and to re-discuss the criteria for the defunct major parties. As long as you don't want to discuss these issues, and you will persist to list micro-parties among the major parties, unfortunately I will have to roll back these edits. I have made my proposal on defunct major partiesand I have not received any response. But listing parties with an electoral weight of 0.5% among the major parties is not objectively acceptable...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, I am sorry you misunderstand the concepts of consensus, bold edit and established version. You are too often imposing changes without first achieving consensus. I am opposed to the table on regional parties and, differently from you, I think that "Years active" (with the "XXXX–present" format) would be much better than "Foundation", however I am going to accept those two things. Otherwise, there is no reason to have Italian names for clearly translatable items. Those translations were not controversial, differently from some invented ideologies you added (e.g. "civicism" and "culture's preservation"). The main reason why I preferred a simple list without tables, ideologies, etc. is that there would have been compilation problems: please let's adopt only main ideologies and never invented ones. More important, I will again rollback the edits that are clearly not supported by consensus. Specifically, you cannot change the rules of the list at your pleasure. I really do not understand why you like proceeding with impositions without discussing things first. As you can see and should have seen, by cooperating we did major improvements to the article and through compromise you obtained changes that other users and I originally opposed. Please seek consensus before doing anything else. --Checco (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

As you were bold on the tables on current major, minor and regional parties, as well as "Years active", I was bold enough in replacing "Foundation" with "Establishment/Est." (which is mor correct in English), implementing only one "main ideology" for current major, minor and regional parties, per consistency with most similar tables in other articles and make it less controversial and adding abbreviations also for current regional parties. They should all be uncontroversial edits, as there is plenty of consistency in other articles. --Checco (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

One more thing. On defunct parties, again and again you say that "listing parties with an electoral weight of 0.5% among the major parties is not objectively acceptable". Of course, indeed the "Major parties" category includes "defunct parties having scored at least 4% in a countrywide (general/European) election or having been represented by at least 30 MPs or 5 MEPs" (consistently with what happens for active parties). 4% of the vote, not 0.5% of the vote! It is quite a difference. If some parties are in the wrong category, let's correct that. Finally, I am open about raising that threshold, provided that it is the same for active and defunct parties in this list, as well as the template. --Checco (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I repeat: the edits on this page don't need an "authorization" or "acceptance". As you have unilaterally entered some admission criteria, I think I can too, unless there is a contrary opinion of the community. Following your reasoning, I could remove the admission criteria (and the parties) that you have introduced and which I do not agree with. If you avoid the dialogue on the categorization of major and minor defunct parties, I will have to restore the single list, for obvious reasons (a party with an electoral weight of 0.5% cannot objectively be classified as a historically major party)*. Furthermore: it is not possible to classify national parties with a single ideology, since many of them are very heterogeneous within them.

* The criteria for defunct major parties care not comparable to those for active parties, many parties with significant parliamentary representation (due to a split) have electorally insignificant relevance. I have already given some examples. An active party may be temporarily relevant following a split, but if in the elections it gets 0.5% / 1% of the votes it will not be historically remembered as a "major party", but as a "small party" (and not only historically, since this party would be moved to the smaller active parties). For this reason, those criteria were designed only for active parties and not for defunct parties. Among the defunct major parties, only the objectively large parties should be listed, with a significant electoral weight (DC, PCI, DS, FI, AN, PDL, etc.) and even the 4% threshold would be too low to distinguish them.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Practically speaking, you have just theorised edit war and disruptive editing. You continue to misundestand the concepts of consensus, bold edit and established version. The basis for any change is the established version. As you were told many times, Wikipedia:Consensus reads "In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". In this respect, you rightly challenged one bold edit of mine a few months ago (see "Organisation") and I backed down, and I have the right to challenge your bold edits. What is more interesting is that some of the things you are pushing for have been opposed also by other users in the discussion above. When a bold edit is challenged, a honest editor does not continue to do it. What you are doing is simply edit warring. So, please stop. Let's start from the established version and discuss whatever you want. As you have seen, several improvements have been made and several of your proposals are now part of the list. I do not avoid any dialogue, but I may simply have different views on some issues. So, again, there is no "single list" for defunct parties to be restored, as the established version is not a single list, as supported also by other users above. Of course, we can re-discuss the rules, but, before editing on this, there should be compromise. We could raise thresholds, but those thresholds have to be the same, in my view. If no compromise is achieved, of course the established version should stay. Finally, ideologies: adding tables with ideologies and abbreviations was a bold edit of yours. I would have personally avoided ideologies, abbreviations and leaders for various reasons I already explained, but I can live with "main ideology". You need to understand that any bold edit can be challenged. If you do not agree on the single, main ideology (as we have done in many articles), we could remove ideologies altogether. There was no prior consensus on it, as well as on anything of your bold edits. --Checco (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Instead you must understand that you cannot unilaterally decide which rules and parties to include and exclude from the page. Do you think there are no rules on this page that there are no rules that I don't agree with? If everyone always feels free to challenge the edits of other users without valid reasons, that's how it goes. It is unthinkable to categorize many parties with a single ideology. And it is not acceptable to include micro-parties among the major parties, no one has ever agreed on that. You still haven't answered to my proposal on this issue. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

However, in addition to inviting you not to remove everything that you personally do not agree (or I could do the same, but that is absolutely not how it works), I would like to point out that if you had answered me about the revision of the criteria on the major defunct parties, at this time the list would be divided into major and minor parties. The single list is only provisional, because there should be an agreement on the distinction criteria, I could have changed them myself and moved the mini-parties among the minor parties, but that would not be correct. An agreement about these criteria is necessary, and it has never been reached.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

A last consideration: you say "that some of the things you are pushing for have been opposed also by other users in the discussion above", some things? One only thing, the proposal about the unification of the defunct parties. But there was never an agreement on these criteria, I myself realized belatedly which parties had been introduced in the the list of major parties with those criteria, but it is never too late to make necessary corrections. I have provisionally unified the list only when you have blocked the dialogue. But if you want to seriously restart the dialogue on the necessary revision of the criteria about the defunct major parties, to find agreed rules, I am available to temporarily restore the previous divided list that you have made.

And the introduction of six parties that have elected representatives on the territory is not a bold edit, you shouldn't remove them without a valid reason, it is an uncooperative attitude. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I perfectly understand that I cannot unilaterally decide which rules should be applied to the list. Indeed, I refrained from my bold edit right after it was challenged. Can you say the same about yourself? User:Autospark clearly expressed that he did not "have any issues keeping with the status quo in terms of descriptions and listing" (meaning that the established version was OK with him), as well as that "it is helpful to differentiate between major and minor parties, as well as parties that were organised on a regional basis". Differently, User:Ritchie92 was positive on "sections for different historical periods" (something that is no longer proposed now) and on tables (something that I also agreed to), but he was clear enough that he supported "the subdivision into major and minor parties for each period". You have long ignored not just my opinion, but also theirs. It is difficult to discuss while edit warring. That is why I totally endorse what you wrote: "if you want to seriously restart the dialogue on the necessary revision of the criteria about the defunct major parties, to find agreed rules, I am available to temporarily restore the previous divided list that you have made"... Of course, I am always available for discussing and cooperating. As a matter of distinction between major and minor parties (both active and defunct), I could accept raising the thresholds to 5%, 50 MPs and 4 MEPs (or, more complicate but probably better, 5% of MPs and 5% of MEPs). This is just a proposal, I am definitely open to other proposals. The same principles of discussing first should be applied to the following issues.

Regarding the other bold edits of yours you are reiterating, as I already told you, I challenged the idea of having multiple ideologies in the tables and I sticked to the "main ideology" format of several other articles. This is already a compromise to me: I would like to have a simple list or a simple table with fewer information. Indeed, one can always enter the Wikilink and read just about everything about a party.

Regarding other rules including that on provincial councillors, I do not support that. It seems to me redundant, at best.

Finally, would you ever accept the very one edit that would be an improvement in my view? I still think it would be better to have a scheme like the one I proposed under "Organisation": universal "conditions of admission" and the following "classification". --Checco (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

As I have already stated several times, you cannot remove information just because you do not agree with them, without a valid reason, otherwise I too could do the same (I don't agree with the mere representation in regional councils or the representation in three regional councils, for example). I will always rollback these disruptive removals. The tables are present everywhere, and much more complete than the one on this page, wanting to remove them means wanting to make this page worse than the others, there is no reason to remove them.

Instead, I am available to discuss the defunct parties, as I have already said several times. I have not changed my mind about their division into eras, but there was no consensus required for this type of change and your reasons in that case were valid. The 5% threshold for me is quite low, but the main problem is not certain this one: I do not agree with the minimum threshold of MPs and MEPs, which allows the inclusion of electorally irrilevant parties. At least for defunct parties, the threshold of MPs/MEPs should be removed.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Finally, at the moment it is useless to discuss about a scheme of universal criteria if you continue to challenge some of them. Anyway, this type of scheme would be a thing not present on any other page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You still misunderstand how Wikipedia:Consensus work. You cannot reiterate a bold edit, adding or removing information to/from the established version, when that edit has been challenged and has not achieved consensus. You were more than welcome to rollback my "Organisation" bold edit (and, indeed, I never reiterated it, even though it is the issue that matters to me the most). Obviously, I am free to challenge your edits as well (of course, if other users were to join you and help you to form a new consensus without me, I would accept them). I have valid reasons to oppose the rules you want to unilaterally impose (provincial elections and councils have little relevance and would be an unneeded complication) or add (ideologies are redundant in this list as users can find them directly in the linked articles, however I can accept one clear "main ideology", consistently with other articles, while "main ideologies" would be quite redundant and possibly controversial, let alone the several mistakes and invented ideologies you are continuing to add). I will always rollback unconsensual edits, while I will always appreciate bold edits that are not controversial or improve the quality of the list.

Of course, we can discuss on the distinction between major and minor parties. I sincerely hope we can find a compromise. The problem is that we disagree on premises: in my view, 1) the rules should be the same for active and defunct parties, as well as for the template; 2) it is very important to track parties which had big numbers in parliament, even though they were later electorally unsuccesful. This said, we can try to raise the thresholds even more. What would happen with 10%, 100 MPs (around 10% of elects) and 8 MEPs (around 10% of elects)? Would it be an acceptable compromise?

Finally, "at the moment it is useless to discuss about a scheme of universal criteria if you continue to challenge some of them. Anyway, this type of scheme would be a thing not present on any other page"... It is you who are challenging some rules (I would keep the established ones, but however I am open to discuss) and, of course, only the this list needs rules because Italy has a number of parties that is completely uncommon in most other countries, especially as parties are not registered and can change continously. --Checco (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, the concept of cooperation is not at all clear to you: because if I do not share a criterion I cannot remove it unilaterally while if you do not approve one you can remove it instead? Why do previous edits matter more? Or why is my opinion less important? Your motivation about the parties that have elected provincial councilors is simply not valid, the complications derive from certain current criteria, not from that criterion (since almost allthe parties that were to be inserted according to that criterion I have already entered them, even if you continue to remove them). Your motivation on ideologies is also invalid, all the tables on the other pages contain more than one ideology, many Italian parties cannot be classified with a single ideology. Therefore I invite you to stop continuously removing content from the page. Regarding my rollback of your scheme, there were two reasons: 1) you lowered the threshold to two MPs (by introducing this rule, all the parties that have had more than two MPs must also be listed on the page); 2) the discussion was still ongoing. Furthermore, you also rolled back my bold edit regarding the first version of the table.

Regarding the distinction between major and minor parties: it is a bit difficult not to consider a party like Brothers of Italy as a major party, I think then the following rule would be better: Defunct parties having scored at least 5% in a countrywide (general / European) election or having been represented by at least 100 MPs or 10 MEPs". I believe that these minimum thresholds of parliamentarians could justify the classification of a party among the major ones.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Autospark: if you want to help your partner, first explain in this talk page why the tables of the Italian parties should contain only one ideology, while the tables of the English, German, French, Spanish parties etc. they can contain more than one. I would be interested to know the reason.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes! "Previous edits" or, better, the established version matter/s more. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus. Again, you are simply theorising edit war. I am surprised you cannot understand the logic behind Wikipedia rules. I will answer shortly because I am quite tired of your edit warring (please note that you have been rollbacked also by another user and you continue without pause to edit unilaterally):

1) the rule on provincial councils is not consensusal (and it does not matter that you already added some parties thanks to that rule);

2) on ideologies, as User:Autospark told you in his edit summary, "we should only list a single, core ideology" and "we shouldn't overcomplicate the article by bogging it down with additional detail", details (let me add) that are better discussed at the article level, not here... this is only a navigation list (let alone the fact that you have been implementing controversial and invented ideologies);

3) any differentiation of rules of classification between major and minor parties is not acceptable to me — "5% in a countrywide (general / European) election or having been represented by at least 100 MPs or 10 MEPs", the only difference should be "latest countrywide election" for active parties and "one countrywide election" for defunct parties, please note that FdI won more than 5% in the latest countrywide election.

Finally, you were more than welcome to rollback my bold edit some months ago especially as "the discussion was still ongoing", that is same for your bold edits: the only difference is that, while I refrained from re-proposing my bold edit, you are re-proposing your bold edits all the way, without acknowledging that they have been challenged by at least two users. --Checco (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I did not understand your third statement, what classification difference between major and minor parties are you referring to? Why do you point out that Brothers of Italy got more than 5% of the votes? You did not anser if you agree with that proposal.

And again and again, I don't care if your partner cyclically intervenes to help you, if he is then unable to answer my simple question: why can't the Italian table contain more than one ideology unlike the tables of all other countries? Would you or Autospark be available to go and remove ideologies from the tables of other countries? And how can you say that the table is bogged with two ideologies instead of one?

No one has removed your changes because Wikipedia is a collaborative project, although I have always considered quite absurd to list parties like Forza Campania etc. You have expressed a non-objectively valid reason to undo my modification (there is no complication, this is only you saying), so I will restore them because you are removing them without consensus. I don't want an edit war, but if you don't accept even the simplest edits of others it's inevitable. Indeed, when you give the interpretation of Wikipedia:consesus you do not take into consideration that the rules of this page were established by you unilaterally, Wikipedia is not a competition to see who arrives first to make an edit.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

However, if you just can't accept collaboration with me on matters that seem very simple to me, maybe we should turn to Wikipedia:Third opinion...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, I invite you to read Wikipedia:Reverting and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, maybe you have never read these rules:

• "any edit can be said to reverse some of a previous edit; however, this is not the way the community interprets reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy. Wholesale reversions (complete reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version";
• "Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits. The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting. If you see a good-faith edit which you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it. Similarly, if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit—leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor";
• '"It is not appropriate to use reversion to control the content of an article through status quo stonewalling";
• " Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting";
• "Revert vandalism upon sight but revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration. It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit", "The main purpose of reversion is to undo vandalism or other disruptive edits. If you see an edit that you're sure was intended by its author to damage Wikipedia, and it does, there is no need for further consideration. Just revert it";
• "In the case of a good faith edit, a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement";
• "Whenever you believe that the author of an edit was simply misinformed, made a mistake, or did not think an edit through, go ahead and revert. If that editor (or anyone else) re-reverts, you will know it is more than that, and you should be more conservative in deciding whether to revert it again"; "Do not revert unnecessary edits (i.e., edits that neither improve nor harm the article). For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in some cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation."
• "Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favor of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing";
• "Do not revert an edit because you need more time to determine whether you agree with the edit".

No user is free to undo the edits of others at will, please learn how to use this tool properly.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I have always respected all the rules you have just copied. Just a few points: 1) I usually refrain from total rollbacks and usually keep some parts of your edits; 2) I am always open for discussion and I never escape from dialogue; 3) I always explain my opinions; 4) I never revert an edit because I need more time to determine whether I agree (that is precisely what happened with "main ideologies": I read the list carefully wheh I had time and I found so many controversial and/or invented ideologies, that I corrected the list—practically, it is you now who are continously reverting my improvements). Of course, if there are different opinions, there should be debate, cooperation and compromise. That is what I do all the time. I am patient enought. Are you? I am interested in cooperation. Are you? Finally, please read this carefully: "if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit—leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor". The list is quite different from what it was one year ago precisely because we found compromise on many issues, that is the only possible way forward: debate, cooperation and compromise. Whenever you stop with adding unconsensual rules and controversial/invented ideologies, I will come back here to discuss with you just about everything. If you prefer, we can remove ideologies altogether, as there are two concurring versions (one supported by you and one by User:Autospark and I). --Checco (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I should not discuss while you are edit warring, but I am very interested in compromise, thus I will turn a blind eye. Here is my compromise proposal: active major parties (here and in the template): "Active parties having scored at least 5% in the latest countrywide (general/European) election or being represented by at least by 100 MPs or 8 MEPs"; defunct major parties: "Defunct parties having scored at least 5% in a countrywide (general/European) election or having been represented by at least by 100 MPs or 8 MEPs". It is easier to have exact figures (100 MPs and 8 MEPs are roughly 10% of Parliament seats and 10% of European Parliament seats, respectively), but I would also accept "10% of the elects in Parliament and 10% of the elects in the European Parliament"), especially as the number of total seats has been subject to changes several times. --Checco (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This is definitely not the case, Checco: you are trying to protect a status quo stonewalling, based on rules that you unilaterally established. You do not roll back on vandalism or edits that make the page worse, and you have not even provided valid reasons. Your partner Autospark did not intervene in this discussion, nor did he answer my simple question. Unfortunately, in my view, these rollbacks are not done in good faith but to maintain a status quo that you established. In practice, you have not respected any of the points listed above. For these reasons you force me into an edit war that I don't want to do. please stop this senseless edit war.

Regarding the major parties: I would prefer round figures, so the threshold of 10 MEPs would seem more appropriate to me.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, there should not be more than one ideology listed per party in the article – it needlessly complicates a list article. I would rather not list ideologies at all than multiple. In terms of electoral representation required to count as a major party, I'd be prepared to compromise at the round figure of 10 MEPs.--Autospark (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Autospark: You still haven't answered my question: why don't you remove multiple ideologies from the party tables of other countries? Furthermore, with your rollback, you have removed parties without a valid reason and restored weird translations.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

There were no "weird translations", but weird, inappropriate, disputable and invented ideologies. And, again, rules cannot be changed (and parties addedd) at only one user's will, when others are challenging that with multiple talk messages and rollbacks. I am going to remove the rules (and the consequent parties) that were added without consensus. I would also remove ideologies as there is no consensus on having them in the first place, but I refrain from that for the sake of cooperation or, if you prefer, as an olive-tree branch. Other countries have much simplier party systems that do not make rules necessary for templates and parties with more recognisable ideologies. We cannot spend time here editing ideologies, when they have long been discussed and sourced in articles and talks (notions like "direct democracy" or "liberal socialism" are unacceptable, while "populism" and "right-wing populism" as quite common categorisations, even though I also dislike them). On the issue of major/minor parties, I can agree on: active major parties (here and in the template): "Active parties having scored at least 5% in the latest countrywide (general/European) election or being represented by at least by 100 MPs or 10 MEPs"; defunct major parties: "Defunct parties having scored at least 5% in a countrywide (general/European) election or having been represented by at least by 100 MPs or 10 MEPs". --Checco (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

It was clearly stated to leave the original name in case of non-unilateral translations. In your rush to rollback, you don't even realize you wrote "Io Stay in Calabria". You are not following any rollback rules, so I will continue to roll back my changes, as I don't need your clearance. The Nuovo PSI is described as social democratic and liberal from the sources: if you reject the double ideology, it is obvious that the ideology that summarizes them both must be inserted, the liberal socialism. which is also its official ideology,even inserted in the symbol (the NPSI is not comparable to social democratic party like PSI or Article One). Populism is not an ideology and signifies everything and nothing, the political line on which the M5S was based was the direct involvement of citizens in political decisions (even if this political line was gradually abandoned). At least there seems to be an agreement on the major parties.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

However, if you were to continue to restore unsuitable ideologies, unsuitable translations and to remove parties, it would be an evident violation of all the points that I have listed above, because I have tried to collaborate on the presence of only one ideology, despite the inconsistency of your motivations (indeed you have not answered my question). The removal of content without valid reasons is contrary to the rules of wikipedia (unless there is a consensus on such removal, which in this case there is not).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

In any case I decided to replace Direct democracy with Populism for M5S as a further sign of cooperation. I haven't changed my mind, Populism is not an ideology, but by now Direct democracy is anachronostic for the M5S. Social democracy, as the main ideology of the PD, is also very unsuitable, since it is essentially a social liberal party, so I would consider changing it in the table. But if you don't even accept this compromise, the second ideology in the table, which you initially accepted, should also be restored (consistently with all the other pages, which you have never questioned).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Do not confuse what you "cleraly stated" with what was decided through consensus. You are always in a rush: I usually wait months or years before implementing sweeping changes! Just take a look to what happened with Conference of Regions... evidently, you are not very interested in genuine debate and cooperation. This said, it is OK that you edited the rule on major/minor parties (I will apply it also to the template). On the other side, it is not OK that you are continuing to add other rules and parties without consensus (read: parties which elected provincial councillors). Finally, it is quite unfortunate that you make such confusion with ideologies. Just an example: it was long discussed that "liberal socialism" is not an appliable ideology and, btw, the NPSI has nothing to do with original "liberal socialism" (despite what its members say); if you will, but I would still disagree, "social democracy" and "liberalism" merged together produce "social liberalism", not "liberal socialism". The point is exactly this: we cannot spend time here discussing about ideologies, when those have been and are to be settled in the specific articles. I will continue to retain good edits, rollback unconsensual ones and correct misinformation. --Checco (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm tired enough, of your disruptive removals, in clear contrast to the rules of rollback. Only you are opposing the inclusion of those six/seven parties, with this attitude you are practically breaking all the rules on rollback ("I do not support that. It seems to me redundant, at best" is not a valid reason, but just a personal opinion). A valid reason is always needed and you have not been able to express it (just as you and Autospark have not been able to answer on the removal of multiple ideologies from the pages on the parties of other countries). No one can remove content from the page without valid reason, and no one can take control of a page. Make sure you understand it. If you don't understand the rules on how to use rollback, read them again. If you understand them, I must assume that you are not acting in good faith.

Certainly NPSI is not a simple social democratic party (and neither would the PD actually be), liberal socialism (whose description corresponds to the ideals of the NPSI) and social liberalism are often used synonymously, so the latter would also be ok.

The translations: I had even proposed to leave the original names for all the red links, the current situation is already a compromise, the one that was proposed by User:Ritchie92. If the page does not exist, do not invent names in which the words can have multiple translations in the Italian language.

Finally, I invite you for the umpteenth to stop with disruptive removals, I have tried to cooperate in every way, if you continue with this attitude, I will see myself forced to ask for information on your persistent abuse of the rollback tool in contrast to all the rules on it.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The PD is widely recognised as a party in the European social-democratic mould, despite having some features atypical of other such parties. So I am firmly of the opinion that the party should be listed solely as that. Also, "liberal socialism" is not a synonym for "social liberalism", despite both ideologies overlapping in places.--Autospark (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I know that the PD is widely recognised as a social-democratic party outside Italy, for this reason I have not changed its main ideology, despite the fact that it is essentially a left-wing liberal party. I also know that "liberal socialism" and "social liberalism" are not really synonyms, but only similar concepts, however the NPSI is definitely not a social democratic party comparable to other left parties, being an openly liberal and anti-communist party, allied with the centre-right. However, you haven't answered my question about multiple ideologies yet.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:Autospark on PD's ideology and on "liberal socialism" being different from "social liberalism"—let me add: the former is an old philosohy which is not applicable to current parties and NPSI's main ideology is "social democracy", not "social liberalism". I guess User:Autospark answered to your questions as he wanted to answer, however, while his opinion is clear to, I also ask him to explain once again why it is better to have just one ideology. The more we spend time discussing on ideologies here the more I think we should not include ideologies in this list.

Most of the changes you proposed are now part of the list, but you can't get all that you want. I disagree with your opinion on translations (and I am sure User:Autospark agrees with me as he is a supporter of English when possible): why should you win over the established version? And, once again, let me be clear that you cannot change rules unilaterally. Just imagine if everyone does that. One thing is a bold edit, a totally different sort of thing is persitent edit warring after a bold edit has been challenged. --Checco (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

In the current version, no rules have been changed without prior agreement. I just added a rule that allows the inclusion of a limited number of parties, the previous rules were established unilaterally by you and that when they were modified, there was an agreement with you, but you cannot decide unilaterally which rules are ok and which are not, your removal makes the page worse. About the translations: three users intervened in the translation discussion, although my position was more radical, I agree with Ritchie92's comment: we only use the translation when it is direct, otherwise we use the original name. The agreement was not to translate everything, there isn't the consesus to keep non-unique translations.

However: if you insist on unilaterally removing content from the page at your convenience, I will be forced to report this behavior.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

This list has rules and, clearly, these rules have to be decided through consensus, starting from previous established rules (which, by the way, were not decided unilaterally). No user can change/add/remove rules (e.g. thresholds) and consequently add/remove parties without consensus. Bold edits are accepted as long as they are not challenged, meaning that there is implicit consensus on them. I would love to restore my "Organisation" bold edit (under which some parties would be added), but I do not do it because it was challenged. Why should you be allowed to do just that with the rule on provincial councillors? On translations, it was decided that, when a party's name is not translated in the article's name, that original language name is used here. Nothing was decided on those parties which may not have articles, but whose names are perfectly translatable (with no controversy) into English. --Checco (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

This page had rules unilaterally decided by you, not through consensus. There were more rules that I did not agree with, some have remained, others have been changed by agreement with you. "No user can change/add/remove rules": first of all they are rules that were decided by you, then, I don't agree with some admission rules, but I don't remove them because in Wikipedia valid reasons are needed to rollback/remove contents and the users must respect the work of other users, unfortunately what you are not doing, it seems. Nothing was decided on those parties which may not have articles, but whose names are perfectly translatable (with no controversy) into English: however, there are two opinions in favor of not including controversial translations against a single opinion: Examples: : "Act for Trentino" litterally means "Agisci per il Trentino", "Building democracy" can be translated into both "Costruire democrazia and "Costruendo la democrazia". Also in this case, you are making a one-sided decision.

And it is unthinkable to classify the NPSI as other left-wing parties such as PSI and Article One, especially after his split from the left-wing. Does reformism mean little? Populim means even less.

I advise you for the umpteenth time: if you are unable to accept the contributions of other users, thinking you can choose what can be inserted on the page and what not, I will have to report this behavior, please let me avoid it.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

About the "Organisation" section: it's was a very particular edit, IMHO not graphically exciting for the page, it would differentiate this page too much from others of the same type, in my opinion it would be enough to list the unique criteria under the section titles "Active parties" and "Defunct parties". But I reverted it mainly because the MPs threshold had been lowered and because there was an ongoing discussion.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

My opinion – we should require consensus for altering the rules of inclusion of this article, not individual editors acting unilaterally. This article is too important, and directly linking to too many articles, for a single editor to have the authority to alter rules on their own. I also support use of English language titles for political parties wherever possible.--Autospark (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Autospark: Answer: 1) the rules were introduced unilaterally by one user without any previous agreement, therefore there has been no real consensus on these rules; 2) in the current version, I have not modified any rules; I only removed the reference to general and European elections from the regional threshold of 2%, on which there was already a basic agreement, the other rules remained unchanged. I have kept the original names for the red links when it is not possible to make a unique translation, as per previous discussion. Rather, why do you keep not answering my question about ideologies?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It is quite a pity that you keep repeating false claims on rules being unilaterally introduced by one users and ignoring the most basic rules of Wikipedia consensus. User:Autospark may be short in his answers, but his opinion counts and mine too. Once again: you cannot change/add/remove rules at your pleasure when other users oppose that. For instance, there is no consensus on the rule on provincial councillors, as well as on changing the rule on the regional threshold. Also there is no consensus on having Italian names when English translations are not controversial: I perfectly agree with User:Autospark on the "use of English language titles for political parties wherever possible". On ideologies, there are fewer disagreements now than before, but please understand that NPSI's main ideology is "social democracy" and that, within the socialist movement, "reformism" is a synonym of "social democracy". --Checco (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I warn you for the last time, if you will remove again the parties without any valid reason, I will report this disruptive behavior. No user can unilaterally decide which parties to include and exclude from the list. You have written all the rules of this page alone, now you demand that no user can add any party without your authorization. I also disagree with some rules of this page, which were introduced without any discussion, if introduce some parties, you can't remove them without a valid reason, because your opinion is no more important than mine (especially when your opinion is simply "I disagree"), this is no longer acceptable. All the rules and parties you introduced have remained, I have only removed a Venetian coalition listed among the parties. If reformism for you is synonymous with social democracy, you should have no problem maintaining it as compromise (but it's main main ideology is not social democracy, most sources describe it as a liberal party). In the previous thread, the translation of red links in the case of multiple translations was excluded ("I Remain in Calabria" has multiple translations, its main translation is "Io rimango in Calabria", so it is controversial). And Autospark wasn't short in his answer, he didn't answer my question in the slightest. He has not explained why only this page should list one ideology, but that's just because it wants to help you, I don't see any other reasons.

Anyway: I don't want to do that, but if you still remove content from the page in an really unjustified way I will have to report this behavior as disruptive and uncooperative. This continuous unjustified removal (removal also occurred on other pages, even of content based on academic sources) must stop. No user can take full control of a page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

And it is quite interesting how your removals are selective, you only remove some parties that meet the provincial councilors criterion, while you keep others: do you like the former more than the latter?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the rule on provincial councillors, thus please remove the additional parties. --Checco (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive removals

I ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion about a problem. I present the facts: on this page there are admission rules that parties must comply with in order to be listed. These rules were introduced in the past unilaterally by a user (Checco). I am not against the idea that the page has rules, I am against the idea of ​​a user trying to take total control over it. In fact, the user must not only give the authorization for the modification of the rules that he has introduced, but he also thinks he can unilaterally decide which rules and parties can be excluded from this page. In practice, taking advantage of the general lack of interest of other users, it seems that he wants to decide for himself which parties to include and which to exclude. Each time he replies after a week and almost never gives valid reasons. I have introduced a simple rule to include in the list those parties that have elected at least one provincial councilor: nothing strange, it is an easily demonstrable criterion and allows the introduction of some important parties. But he continually began to remove them, with justifications such as "Unfortunately I disagree", "totally useless complication" and "it does not matter that you already added some parties". Obviously it is not an unnecessary complication. I checked almost all the Italian provincial elections in the Republican age and I introduced almost all those few parties that respect this criterion (about ten), these are important parties that have elected mayors and presidents of one province (such as the Mancini List "and Popolari Retici), parties also present in the national parliament and with important leaders (such as the CDL) or which had regional ministers and achieved significant percentages throughout the region in a round of local elections (the PPS achieved about 7 / 8% in all Sardinian provinces in 2000). The user would like to remove them (except for the Venetian ones, who knows why) while keeping on the page some unknown parties that have never obtained any electoral results. The unnecessary complications instead come from the criteria that I disapprove of, but which nevertheless have remained unchanged on the page (such as representation in three regional councils, the representation in a regional council by a minimum threshold of elects or the application of the regional threshold of 2% in national elections, criteria that are often not demonstrable from sources).

Same discourse for ideologies: after having wanted at all costs to remove the second ideology from the tables (unlike all the other pages of the same type), he wants to decide which ideology should be listed univocally for each party, rejecting any form of cooperation (as in the case of NPSI, for which I proposed "Reformism" as main ideology, not being "social democracy" sufficient to describe it, essentially being a liberal and center-right party). When I asked why on the other pages this is not a problem, I got no response ...

What I ask is: is it possible that a user can unilaterally decide the rules of a page and consequently decide everything that can be admitted and not admitted within it?

It seems to me an obvious violation of many rules mentioned in Wikipedia: Reverting and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, given the easiness with which he reverts the edits of other users, discouraging the development of the pages under his strict control, particularly:

• "It is not appropriate to use reversion to control the content of an article through status quo stonewalling"
• "Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion."
• "In the case of a good faith edit, a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement" etc.

I have tried to collaborate in every way with this user, I have discussed with him for the modification of some rules that I did not agree (and many of them have remained unchanged) and I have constantly tried to integrate the my improvements with his suggestions. But the feeling is that he wants to decide every aspect of the page, which seems to me contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. I would like to know if this behavior is correct, it doesn't seem cooperative to me.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Checco The current consensual rules are the result of long discussions held not only here, but also in other talk pages, and they are the established version: "result of long discussions held not only here, but also in other talk pages"??? What discussions? And for which pages? In the past you mentioned the template and it.wikipedia, which have different rules and have nothing to do with this page. This is the page "List of political parties in Italy", and the rules on this page have not been discussed anywhere, unless you can prove otherwise. You and you alone are contesting the rule on provincial councilors, removing only the parties you may not like and not motivating your opposition. Even in your last comment it seems that the improvements I made to this page (like the tables, present on every other page) have been maintained thanks to your kind permission. But the truth is another, not only are you keeping blocked some rules that you introduced unilaterally, but above all you are also opposing the additions of other users that improve the page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, you initially accepted the table with the double ideology, only later did you begin to remove the second ideology, wanting to establish the only ideology to indicate for each party. I had already stated that it is not possible to describe some Italian parties with a single ideology and without indicating their political location. A table describing centre-right parties and centre-left parties in the same way is detrimental.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll just briefly add a third opinion; this isn't a matter of Checco versus SDC in difference of opinion; it's a matter of multi-editor consensus and SDC sometimes unilaterally editing in a way that goes against the existing consensus. We need to collaborate agree upon a consensus that we can all agree upon, including compromises, and then stick to that. As for the issue of party ideologies, my individual opinion is that they shouldn't be listed within this article as such, but going by existing consensus, although we should stick to a single, primary ideology taken from the articles on the individual political parties themselves – too much information will make the article unclear, when it is meant to merely be a list of political parties.--Autospark (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Autospark: In every talk you intervene to help Checco, I don't know if there is an underground agreement between you, but the thing seems quite strange to me. I asked you why only this page should list only one ideology, you never answered me. I asked Checco in which discussion the rules for this page were decided by consensus, I never got a precise answer. I asked Checco how the additional parties that have elected at least one provincial councilor (about ten) can weigh down the page, I did not get any valid reasons. Start answering these three questions if you really want to participate in the discussion. The rules of this page were unilaterally introduced by only one user, but, according to your point of view, it's only me acting unilaterally and do not cooperate. Cooperation also means accepting the edits of other users: in this page there are many things that I have accepted and that I do not agree with, the user who cannot accept the edits of others is another. In the current version of the page I have not changed any pre-existing rules / content without agreement, I have only made improvements and added useful information. If there is a page in which each edit must have the authorization of a user, it means that it is no longer simply a question of consensus, but of taking possession of the page itself.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: "The list is already too long" because he has unilaterally inserted quite useless, complicated and difficult to verify rules on the page, but at the same time very permissive, such as the presence in 3 regional councils (most of the regional councils in Italy do not have a historical register of their composition), the representation by at least 5% of the elects in a Regional Council (this means that any useless party born from a split with 2/3 regional councilors can be listed) and the regional threshold of 2% applied to national elections (which Checco has never verified, despite having confirmed the opposite). I have never agreed with these rules decided by him, which have allowed many unknown parties to be listed, but I have not removed them. Now he would like to unilaterally remove parties that have achieved significant electoral results. The provinces were not among the most important administrative bodies in Italy, but provincial elections were useful for measuring the electoral weight of a party. I repeat: their removal is harmful to the page, especially because it would make it too unbalanced in favor of micro-parties born of splits that have never obtained electoral results. Checco accuses me of changing the rules (decided unilaterally by him), but I am not changing any rules, I have only added one that allows the introduction of a dozen more important parties than some already listed, and he, who has already decided all the rules on this page, now would like to remove them without real reason. practically, he wants to decide for himself which parties to include and which to exclude from the page. All of this is unfair and not regular. Either all the rules are agreed by all interested users, or someone must be able to accept the contributions of other users, even if he doesn't personally agree. It's about collaboration.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC) PS. Still no answer from the other user who intervened here...

Scia Della Cometa, there is no conspiracy there. Basically, this is a list article. Listing the ideologies of the parties concerned is too much detail, and is best left to the articles on the individual parties. (I can see the reason for the inclusion of ideologies, briefly, on pages about national elections, but not list articles.) I have compromised and will accept a single, primary ideology being listed – we don't want too much detail, particularly in the case of certain political parties where editors have listed up to half-dozen ideologies in their articles' infoboxes. If you want to further disambiguate the parties with similar/same ideologies, then there is the solution of listing the (current) coalition of the party as an additional section in the current box-out, again, only for current/extant parties. Although this of course arguably fills the article with needless detail, but it is a compromise solution that works if we are to list the parties' main ideologies (again, I think it detrimental to list them on this list article, but will comprise). As for the matter of inclusion of regional political parties, I currently steer more towards inclusion based on counts of regional or provincial councillors, whether one or two councillors, based on its ease of verification. However, I haven't made my final conclusion yet, but I think inclusion criteria needs to be decided upon, and it should be as straightforward and easy to verify as possible.--Autospark (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Autospark: first of all, you continue not to answer the question I have repeatedly asked you: why the page on Italian parties could not contain more than one ideology, can the pages of the parties of other countries (including the UK) list more than one? You keep avoiding answering me. Evidently the page on Italian parties must be an exception, since there is no consensus on these tables I have removed them. However, you have stated one thing that I fully agree with: the rules should be as straightforward and easy to verify as possible. Well, currently on this page there are extremely complicated rules to check:

• having scored at least 2% of the vote in a regional election (or in a general/European election at the regional level): do you have any idea how difficult it is to verify how many parties have scored 2% on certain regions (in national elections)? Especially when the regions are divided into several constituencies? Checco had stated that he had already checked personally and that there would be no other parties to add to the list. It goes without saying that this is not the case.
• having been represented ... in 3 different Regional Councils: most of the Italian regional councils do not have a historical archive on their composition, in many cases it is incredibly difficult to establish in how many regional councils a party born from a split has been represented.
• having been represented by at least 5% of the elects in a Regional Council: this is certainly the worst rule of all, not only is it difficult to verify for the reasons described above, but it also allows the inclusion of irrelevant and unknown parties (Forza Campania, Progett'Azione etc.? In it.wikipedia they would be removed with immediate deletion. Who knows them in Italy? These "parties" don't even have encyclopedic relevance, they are just small groups of regional councilors who have given themselves a name. With this rule, parties with 2/3 regional councilors who have never presented themselves in the elections are included in the list. Meanwhile, we have removed from the list, parties such as CDL and PPS, which had a regional average of 7/8%.

However it is interesting Wikipedia: LISTCRITERIA indicated by Firefangledfeathers, whom I did not know: many parties on this list don't meet the notability criteria, because the rules I have indicated are excessively permissive. I wanted to rebalance the page, but if that's not possible, I want those rules discussed. It is not acceptable to list parties such as "Forza Campania" on this page and to exclude parties that obtained a regional average of 7/8% of votes. The election of a representative is an easy criterion to verify, "the inclusion based on counts of regional or provincial councilors, whether one or two councillors", on the other hand, is extremely complex (It would also allow for the introduction of an infinity of parties). I don't know if you realize it. If the page must have restrictive criteria it is ok for me, but that they are really serious and restrictive criteria, not rules like the current ones that favor micro-parties born through splits. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Third opinion

Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

@Checco and Scia Della Cometa: could you please post summaries of your views below? Some important notes:

• This is a voluntary, non-binding process: you do not need to participate or accept the outcome
• This is a content dispute resolution process and I will not provide any opinion on conduct issues
• Please keep your viewpoint statements below to 500 words or less
• Please do not reply to each others' viewpoint statements

Thanks, Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (Checco)

This section should be named "Distruptive reiterated bold edits". Also, it is quite unusual that a third opion is asked right after another unilateral set of changes. This article is a list of political parties in a country that has so many of them that conditions of admission are necessary in order to have a reasonably organised list. The current consensual rules are the result of long discussions held not only here, but also in other talk pages, and they are the established version. Wikipedia:Consensus clearly states that "in discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit", otherwise edit war would reign. User:SDC has been pushing for changes to this article for many months. Most of the changes he has proposed so far, through discussion or, more frequently, bold edits, have been accepted by other users (most of the times including me) and are now incorporated in the article. When there is a disagreement and/or a bold edit is challenged (in our case, User:SDC's bold edits have been challenged by at least two users, most recently by User:Autospark and me), consensus should be seeked before proceeding, let alone reiterating bold edits that have been challenged. I have never refrained from discussion and I have always tried to evaluate User:SDC's proposals/edits with intellectual honesty. The article changed a lot since he started to be involved, and mostly for good. I also would like to make some sweeping changes to the rules (see my "Organisation" proposal above), but, after my bold edit was challenged, I refrained from re-proposing it. I agree that "the rules of a page cannot be decided unilaterally by one user, but they must be the result of a collaborative process" and that is exactly why I did not go on with my bold edit and why there should not be a new rule on provincial councillors unless consensus is formed around it. On ideologies, I was against listing in the article: I hope User:SDC will stick to our compromise to have just one main ideology for each party and that there should be no discussion on ideologies here, that should be decided in the parties' respective articles and talk pages. --Checco (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (Scia Della Cometa)

I think that the rules of a page cannot be decided unilaterally by one user, but they must be the result of a collaborative process. As I am not removing content / rules although I disagree with them, (in Wikipedia the spirit of collaboration is fundamental), I wouldn't even want my contributions removed by the will of a single user who has established unilaterally the previous rules of this page. The existing rules (which, however, have never been established through a community decision) have not been modified without agreement. I have simply introduced a criterion (the election of at least one provincial councilor) that allows the inclusion on this page of further fairly important parties, which have also obtained significant electoral results (certainly much more important than many parties already listed). The parties introduced thanks to this additional criterion are not many, their unjustified removal constitutes damage to the page. Rollbacks should only be used to revert evident vandalism or obvious deterioration, not for a sensible and reasonable addition of content. Furthermore, the party table it should not be ambiguous but explanatory (as for the tables of the other pages of this type), it cannot put left-wing parties (PSI, Art. 1 etc.) and center-right parties (NPSI) on the same level, indicating the same single ideology for both without further specifications. Also in this case, the ambiguity is harmful to the page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Questions from Firefangledfeathers

I do not have enough information to provide a third opinion. I am going to restate my understanding of two content questions I see in the viewpoints statements above:

1. Should election of a provincial councilor (prior to 2013) be an inclusion criteria for?
2. Should more than one main ideology be listed for each party?

Can both parties please explain below their position on each question and reasons for their position? There is little reasoning provided in the discussions above for support/opposition on each question. I want to reiterate: in my capacity as a third opinion volunteer, I can not provide an opinion on the conduct issues at hand, though I will provide recommendations of possible avenues for conduct dispute resolution. It would be helpful if your answers below could leave out all conduct matters (reversion, consensus, disruption, unilateral rule-making, BRD, edit warring, etc.) Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Please note that I have now struck Question 2 and removed the blank areas below for answering and providing reasoning. While I was drafting my above comment, Autospark provided their opinion on Question 2, meaning that question no longer requires a third opinion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Answers from Scia Della Cometa

• Question 1: I noticed that on this page (in particular thanks to the criterion of 5% of the elects in the Regional Council) some totally unknown and irrelevant parties are included, while some parties, certainly more important than some of the parties listed, were excluded because they did not meet the pre-existing criteria. So the pre-existing criteria (not established through discussion) were unbalanced and a further rule was needed to rebalance them. After doing a fairly thorough research, I noticed that the parties excluded from this page had elected at least one provincial councilor with their own list. It is not a foregone conclusion, indeed the other parties added thanks to this criterion are few, about ten. And these are not irrelevant parties: Popolari Retici had elected mayors and the president of the province of Sondrio with significant percentages of votes; Mancini List elected the mayor of Cosenza and achieved good results in the province; the Sardinian People's Party was represented in the regional council of Sardinia, in the regional government and obtained an average of 7/8% of the votes throughout Sardinia in the provincial elections of 2000; the Christian Democrats for Freedom had important national leaders such as Roberto Formigoni and Raffaele Fitto, this party was represented by 3 parliamentarians and perhaps by 5 regional councilors in Lombardy, they obtained important electoral results especially in Puglia, such as 7% in the province of Foggia in 1998, 7% in the province of Taranto, 9% in the province of Brindisi and 10% in the province of Lecce in 1999. These are some examples, but they are all parties that stood in the elections, took votes and got representatives. Therefore they are not irrelevant like some parties born from local splits, that have never participated in the elections, already listed on this page. The presence of the parties having elected at least one provincial councilor on the page does not make it worse, but it makes it more complete. On the contrary, their removal makes the page incomplete and unbalanced. The parties that have had representation in local councils are also listed in the List of political parties in the United Kingdom; always on the page about the UK parties (and in the party pages of any other country) more than one ideology and political collacation are listed in the tables. I don't see why this page alone should be a problem.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Answers from Checco

• Question 1: The list is already too long. I see that rules are already too complicate and that is not easy to check if they are correctly applied. I do not think that adding a new condition of admission on parties having elected at least one provincial councillor with their own list is worthful. Italy counts more than 100 provinces and, until 2013, provincial elections were held at least every five years in each province (though, some provinces were incorporated more recently than others). The provincial institution is not particularly relevant in the Italian political system and, since 2013, most provincial poweres were given to regions and direct election was eliminated. I really do not think that provincial electoral results should be relevant for this article and that, while User:SDC is very good as researcher and I am sure he has already done it for good, checking all provincial election results is too complicate. Moreover, the parties that would be added are not particularly relevant and, in some case, they could be arguably included under the current conditions of admission. Parallels with other countries are tricky: take the United Kingtom, which has far less parties than Italy and which has no regional elections, with the exception of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I understand that our third opinioner is not interested in conduct matters, however it should be clear to User:SDC that he cannot continue to change the rule without waiting for the third opinion. --Checco (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on List of political parties in Italy and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

My opinion is that the proposed "provincial councillor" rule should not be included. Both participants in this discussion agree that the list is too long, and both have expressed that existing rules are too complicated. My view is that additional rules are unlikely to assuage those issues. I encourage all editors of this page to review WP:LISTCRITERIA, and consider the ways in which this list article's criteria and level of verification could more closely match the guideline. Both participants had points related to the importance/relevance of the parties that would be newly included; these arguments are difficult to judge. Disputes of this nature are usually settled by arguments based on WP:DUE and an analysis of quantity/quality of coverage by reliable sources. Judging the relative merits of parties without this analysis is challenging, but I was more persuaded by Checco's points about the non-prominence of province-level politics. I am mostly unpersuaded by arguments based on consistency with other country's articles, for reasons which are well-described at WP:OTHERCONTENT. If someone were to show that the excluded parties have much more in-depth coverage in reliable, secondary sources than included parties, that would be persuasive reasoning for inclusion (or tweaking the inclusion criteria). Further avenues for content dispute resolution include: continued civil discussion here soliciting additional opinions at WP:ITALY or other centralized discussion venues or posting at WP:DRN This dispute continues to be significantly, and at times predominantly, focused on conduct over content. I encourage both parties to review WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, the first step of which is polite discussion at a user talk page. Please consider the extent to which accusations of misconduct are necessary at this article talk page. Thank you for seeking out a third opinion. I have this article and talk page watchlisted, and I am happy to answer any clarification or follow-up questions about my opinion on this matter. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: As I have already illustrated above there are rules (unfortunately never discussed) that are complicated and allow the inclusion of objectively non-encyclopedic parties like Forza Campania (indeed I am considering asking for deletion for it, for example). If, as I unfortunately imagine, it will not possible to find an agreement with the counterpart (which intervenes on average on the talk page every five/seven days, making the discussion really difficult), do you think that WP: DRN is the best solution to find a solution on rules?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I would recommend making a proposal and seeking "agreement with the counterpart" first, and we'll see what happens. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I try, but now I have little hope in a collaborative dialogue, just see Autospark that has not answered me for the umpteenth time...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)