Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Party tables

Now, I have been external to the discussions here because I understand nothing about inclusion criteria. However, I care about this page being readable and good looking. So, before Scia Della Cometa starts again with their petty behaviour (just because they did not get what they wanted, they are trying to destroy all kind of progress on this article), I want to make sure that the presence of the tables (regardless of whether or not they contain one or two ideologies) is something everyone agrees upon. @Checco and Autospark: are you ok with the fact that the major and minor parties are in a table? Then we can further discuss (or not) about the number of ideologies. --Ritchie92 (talk)

@Ritchie92 These tables were created by me, but I must find that there is no consensus on keeping them in their current form. Precisely, there is no consensus on ideologies and political collocation. In the absence of an agreement, you should at least remove the ideologies from the table. If I removed them, it's because no consensus has been registered on their current form. Read the discussion above: if you don't remove the ideologies, I will have to remove them myself, until an agreement on them is reached.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

You will understand that if I waste a lot of time on a job, it annoys me that unilateral changes, without a willingness to compromise, are forced on it.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand the feeling, but this whole website is a collaborative work, so once you create something it is now not yours anymore. I think a compromise on the columns in the table can be found. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I did not mean that it is mine, I mean that if my job has to be made worse by one user, for me it is better to remove it. If the informations are not sufficient to unilaterally identify a party, they are useless. However you should have an opinion on ideologies and political collocation, since you have intervened here. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

my job has to be made worse by one user: the fact that it can be worse or better is not decided by you alone, just because the original table was made by you.

Anyway, I also disagree with this removal of the whole column, and I would restore it immediately. I don't think that the political ideology has to necessarily identify uniquely the party, and in principle there can also be two parties with the same two main ideologies: the ideology column has to be informative so that the reader knows more or less to which category each of the main parties belongs, and I think it is very important for the article. That's why I would restore it immediately. In principle I don't have a preference between one or two ideologies (I understand the argument for having two ideologies, but I don't know exactly what is the argument against them), and honestly I don't even understand why this discussion is so polarizing from both sides. What's the problem to have only one or two main ideologies? Is it such a big deal, so much to remove the ideology column altogether? --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

"If you wish, you can just remove the column of the ideologies, not the whole table": your words. And yes, for some parties it is a great problem, for example, it is not possible to put centre-right parties (NPSI), centre-left parties (PSI, PD) and left wing parties (Art. 1) on the same level, referring to them all generically as "social democrats". I tried to find various compromises, in vain. All party pages list more than one ideology, only here is a problem. Another solution would be to indicate the political spectrum of each party, but Checco had already opposed this solution (for example "center-left to left-wing"). Always the usual Checco has replaced almost all the ideologies of the regional parties with "regionalism", making that column de facto useless. Currently there isn't consensus about the ideologies, it is a fact. Until these problems are resolved, it will not be possible to restore ideologies in the tables.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes those were my words, indeed I did not revert your latest removal, but it does not mean I am not against it. The whole table removal was completely a disruptive edit.

On topic: at least on the major parties we can definitely agree on main ideologies. For the minor active parties I think that having many of them in the spectrum of "social democracy" is not the worst thing in the world, so in principle we could also find an agreement on that. Obviously for regional parties it is very hard to find a main ideology, and we do not need to do so. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The problem is the different political spectrum of these parties: NPSI is a liberal centre-right party, Art.1 is a left-wing parties: how can they be described in the same identical way? This is the most evident example. There is a basic problem. If no compromise solutions are accepted, there aren't conditions to restore them.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a list of parties, the purpose is not to describe each party fully and uniquely. So yes, in a table listing all these parties I think it's not a big deal if two different parties get in a similar group. Anyway, to me the problem here seems that a liberal centre-right party is categorized as "social-democratic", which I find very odd, but this has nothing to do with the discussion about the table and the number of ideologies. It's a problem of the NPSI only, I think. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the most evident example, but not the only one. If the insertion of ideologies generates edit wars, it is better not to isert them. I have tried to find compromise solutions, until now it has not been possible...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, it is not a matter of User:SDC and me, as also other users had their say. At the end of the day, I am also persuaded that tables should stay in the article. I still like them without ideologies, so that debate would stay where it belongs: political party talk pages. --Checco (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Update

I have updated the tables with one main ideology including also the political position, like practically all the other tables that list parties. However, I have a doubt about the number of MPs and MEPs: I am not opposed to having it for the major parties (perhaps without the composition bar, for reasons of space), but in this case it would be inconsistent not to include parties with a large parliamentary representation such as Italia Viva and Coraggio Italia. So we should choose whether to keep the number of MPs and MEPs (for example by changing the name of the section to "Parties with a parliamentary group") or to remove these numbers, for consistency. I would prefer the first hypothesis.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Criteria conflict

I see an insane amount of bits have been invested in discussing what the criteria should be. How were the current criteria arrived yet? Are those the criteria used by some reliable source, or were made up by editors here? Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool none of the current criteria are based on sources, indeed this is the only list of parties, among all lists of this type, to be set up like this. This is why I believe that this page should be rethought from top to bottom.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

As pointed out also by User:Autospark, rules are necessary because in the Italian context the number of parties is and has been virtually infinite. The rules are the result of long discussions a long time ago, both in it.Wikipedia and en.Wikipedia, both regarding the template and this list. --Checco (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

In en.wikipedia there are no discussions regarding this topic, in it.wikipedia neither (and even if there were they would have no value here) and what a user with whom you communicate externally affirms has a very relative value. Simply put, the current rules are not only original research, they are not backed up by community consensus.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I will just note here that "rules are necessary" does not amount to "these particular rules are good". We should proceed with that in mind. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you really think that you can decide which opions matter or not? And will you ever understand what established consensus means? --Checco (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you think your opinions are worth more than mine just because you came first to write the rules? Do you think that if I had written them, someone would have really challenged them (except you)? I repeat, there was disinterest, no consensus established: I asked the opinion of many users, no one, except your ally, even bothered to support the current rules. There is no consensus, it is evident.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

That is not true and you know it. I would like to make several changes and I have already accepted some compromises that are far from what I would like. There is an established consensus, now including also some of your proposals. --Checco (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Checco, please list here the discussions you speak of that established consensus. We need to evaluate them, and consider if the consensus should be reaffirmed now. Consensus can change on Wikipedia, so if there is controversy, consensus can be sought again after a few years, or in the case of highly controversial topics, even a few months. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Revision of criteria (2)

As suggested by Firefangledfeathers, I try for the umpteenth time to re-open a dialogue to find agreed rules for this page. One page rules should be established by community discussion, however this discussion never took place and most of the rules were introduced unilaterally. Very relevant parties in some regions, with an average vote percentage of 7/8% at regional level, have recently been removed from the page, this is because they don't meet any of the current criteria, which instead are extremely permissive towards unknown parties born from splits. Some examples: this page lists "parties" such as Forza Campania, Progett'Azione, Now Sicily, Popular Future, Toward North, Venetian Centre-Right, Veneto for Autonomy, etc. practically unknown even in Italy and in their own regions of belonging. These are micro-parties born from splits by small groups of regional councilors. In fact, some of these aren't even real parties. They never even showed up for elections. In practice they do not meet the Wikipedia:Notability principle, also cited in Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA, they could be perfectly eligible for deletion. Since some parties that got votes and elected representatives have been removed, I wonder why this page should be unnecessarily filled with these pseudo-parties. For this reason I want to open a discussion on the current criteria on this page, which should be approved through a Community decision. I hope not to find myself again faced with the usual answer "unfortunately, I disagree" to stop the discussion in the bud, the time has come for the criteria on this page to be approved.

It has been stated on several occasions that the page list is too long, length is caused by a series of unnecessarily permissive criteria. Criteria that are sometimes even complicated to verify. Certain criteria obviously cannot be questioned, like the election with its own list of at least one MP / MEP / regional councilor. The criteria for the classification of major parties has also already been agreed (5% of the votes, 100 MPs or 10 MEPs). The minimum threshold of 5 MPs seems reasonable to me. All other rules should be discussed.

• The Parties of Italians abroad "having been represented by at least one MP elected abroad": it is a useless rule, it should be removed.
• The 2% regional threshold in a regional election (or in a general/European election at the regional level): the 2% threshold in a regional election is already useless in itself, if a party fails to obtain representation at the local level it is not relevant. But the application of this threshold in a general / European election at the regional level is truly absurd and very difficult to verify. I find that the second part, which no one has ever undertaken to verify. I think that the second part of this criterion should definitely be removed. It seemed to me that an agreement had already been reached on its removal, but instead it was re-introduced.
• The inclusion of the parties "having been represented in 3 different Regional Councils": it is another rule that favors micro-parties born from splits. Why was it decided that a party with 3 regional councilors in three out of twenty regional councils (obviously without having elected them with their own list) is relevant at the national level? Moreover, this is another very difficult rule to prove, because most of the Italian regional councils do not have a historical archive on their composition. The website of the Italian Ministry of the Interior is also not very helpful. At least let's increase the number of regional councils in which to be represented to five. Five regional councils at least is not a random number: it is the minimum number of regional councils envisaged by the Italian Constitution to propose an abrogative referendum (art. 75) or a referendum on constitutional revision laws (art. 138).
• The inclusion of the parties "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 (most of the Italian regional councils do not have a historical archive on their composition), but it also allows the inclusion of irrelevant and unknown parties. In some cases they lived no more than a few months. In some cases, a party only needs 2 regional councilors from another party to be listed on the page. Excessively too little.
• The inclusion of the parties "having been represented by at least 2 MEPs": also in this case, 2 MEPs for a party born from a split seem to me too few, I propose to increase the threshold to 3 MEPs.

However there are instead some criteria that I would propose to add:

• The inclusion of the party in the list of political parties admitted to the benefit of 2X1000 (it is comparable to the lists of registered parties present in other countries).
• The inclusion of parties strongly rooted in a province: in the previous request for a third opinion, the criterion that provided for the inclusion of a party that had elected at least one provincial councilor was rejected. It's not a binding opinion, but since I asked for it, I accept it. So I propose to include only those parties that have had strong provincial roots, that is, those parties that have obtained 10% of the votes in a provincial election.

Furthermore, in Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA it is written: "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the near future. Red-linked entries should be accompanied by citations sufficient to show that the entry is sufficiently notable for an article to be written on it (i.e., citations showing significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject)." If we have no information about a list that elected a regional councilor 60 years ago, according to this principle the red link should be removed from the page. The same argument should be valid for the pages that possibly were deleted.

These are my proposals, with these changes we would avoid making the list of regional parties excessively long and the page would be more homogeneous. The current state of the page doesn't seem acceptable to me, too many useless parties are listed, so I still invite other users to participate in this discussion to finally find agreed rules, which should not be established by a single user.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I am happy that you have finally come to think that rules "should not be established by a single user", as you tried to do recently. As "having obtained at least 2% of the vote in a regional election (or in a general/European election at the regional level)" is a current rule of admission, it is not correct to say that "very relevant parties in some regions, with an average vote percentage of 7/8% at regional level" are not listed: if some are missing, they should be listed, under the current rules.

This said, I am going to answer to each prosposal:

1) parties of Italians abroad — I would maintain this classification rule, as it is important to distinguish such parties from "major" and "minor" parties;

2) 2% regional threshold for regional parties — I would maintain the 2% threshold, as some regions have very high thresholds and different thresholds for parties inside or outside big coalitions, however, for the sake of verifiability (Senate election results are easily available), I would change it in the following way: "having obtained at least 2% of the vote in a regional election or in a Senate election at the regional level";

3) parties with elects in 3 different Regional Councils — I would maintain the rules as it is, as a countrywide party which has representation in three regional assemblies is definitely relevant, but "5 different Regional Councils" would be a nice compromise;

4) parties with 5% of elects in a Regional Council — the rule was designed in order not to over-represent regional parties from small regions (which have more regional councillors per capita) and in order not to under-represent regional parties from big regions (which have less regional councillors per capita, however for the sake of verifiability I would change the rule in the following way: "having been represented by two elects in a Regional Council";

5) parties with 2 MEPs — when two MEPs out of 76 join one party, that party is surely relevant, but raising the theshold to 3 MEPs would be a nice compromise;

6) parties benefiting of the 2x1000 tax — it may be difficult to track parties that formerly benefited of the 2x1000 tax, however it could be a great idea to add this rule for major, minor, regional and Italians abroad parties, under the following formulation: "having benefited of the 2x1000 tax"; btw, could you tell me which parties would be added, by looking at tables since the year in which the 2x1000 tax was introduced?

7) parties having obtained 10% of the vote in a provincial election — I am not interested in any rule involving parties according to their results in provincial elections, for the reasons explained above; btw, could you tell me which parties would be added under your proposal and how would you distinguish them from civic lists (think of Popolari Retici in the Province of Sondrio, and Forza Marca and Razza Piave in the Province of Treviso)?

In a nutshell: 1) is not OK for me; on 2) and 4) I have an alternative proposal; on 6) I have a slightly alternative proposal and a question; 3) and 5) are OK for me; 7) is not OK for me, but I have a couple of questions for you, that would not probably change my mind anyway.

Especially if some of the above rules are changed, it would be quite important to have joint "Conditions of admission" and "Classification". Think about it. That would make the rules more understandable and more compatible with the sister template. Just think of this (I may be missing something):

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 obtained at least 0.5% of the vote in a countrywide (general/European) election;
• having elected at least one MP/MEP/regional councillor with its own list;
• having been represented by at least 5 MPs or 3 MEPs or in 5 Regional Councils;
• having obtained at least 2% of the vote in a regional election (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol) or in a Senate election at the regional level;
• having had at least 2 elects in one Regional Council (Provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol);
• having obtained at least 15% in a constituency for Italians abroad in a general election;
• having benefited of the 2x1000 tax.

Classification

The parties are classified as:

• Major parties — parties having obtained at least 5% of the vote in a countrywide (general/European) election or having been represented by at least 100 MPs or 10 MEPs;
• Minor parties — parties having fulfilled 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 obtained more than 5% of the vote in the latest countrywide (general/European) election or currently being represented by at least 30 MPs or 5 MEPs.

I hope we can continue to discuss in this fashion. --Checco (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

That is a good compromise, subject to any further discussions and revisions going forwards; I would accept the "5 different Regional Councils" rather than 3 as a compromise, as the reasoning given is logical; also, raising the threshold from 2 to 3 MEPs is also acceptable. The rule of the party "having benefited from the 2x1000 tax" is a positive contribution too.--Autospark (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Checco: I have always thought so, otherwise I would not have carried on a discussion for months, asked the opinion of other users (who never intervened) and asked for a third opinion. I had limited myself to inserting a rule on this page as you had inserted others, a rule that still seems to me to be good sense. One clarification:

• Some parties with an average vote percentage of 7/8% at regional level cannot be listed, under the current rules. There are also local elections. First of all, the Christian Democrats for Freedom (CDL): this party, between 1998 and 1999, took part in the elections of all the Apulian provinces, with percentages ranging from 5% in the province of Bari to 11% in the province of Lecce. The Sardinian People's Party also achieved significant percentages in all Sardinian provinces in 2000, with its own list or in a joint list. It's not a huge problem to leave them off the list, but there are far more insignificant parties than these that should be removed, for consistency.

As regards the various points:

1) You said that you are against my first proposal, but in your counter-proposal there is no trace of representation by an MP elected abroad, maybe you didn't understand my proposal... In my view the rule "having been represented by at least one MP elected abroad" is useless.

2) As I have already stated, before proposing a rule, it must be verified. The 2% threshold a Senate election at the regional level would allow a series of irrelevant parties to be included on the page and it would be difficult to verify. I see no practical reason in this rule, furthermore a party with 2% for the Chamber of Deputies also has a broader electoral base, so I am strongly against it. Tt seemed to me that an compromise had already been reached on this point: to extend the 2% threshold (in regional elections) to all parties excluding contrywide elections.

3) Well.

4) "having been represented by two elects in a Regional Council" was the rule that was there before and in my view it is absolutely wrong, it is worse than 5% of those elected: it is because of this rule that this page is burdened by unknown parties. There are too many negative aspects of this rule, 2 regional councilors are practically irrelevant in the larger regional councils, moreover it is inconsistent with the other rules: a party with 4 deputies cannot be listed, while a party with 2/3 regional councilors can. I am not saying that we should include parties with only 4 deputies on the page, I am saying that a party with only 2 regional councilors (who have left another party) should not be on this page. If a party only meets this criterion, it means that it is irrelevant: it has not even managed to get 2% in a regional election (and many of these "parties" do not even participate in elections). On the contrary, many parties present in the area, which participate in elections and elect representatives at the local level, are excluded. It is a clear contradiction, it is a rule made specifically to favor the micro-parties born from the splits. It is certainly the worst rule of all. Even the 10% of elects is not actually a good idea: 2 regional councilors in Molise would be enough to be listed on the page. If we want to be truly consistent, and make rules balanced between them, the threshold of regional councilors for parties born from splits should not be low: I would be thinking on 5 regional councilors. This page should list only the relevant parties, not those parties born because two regional councilors have decided to leave the party with which they were elected.

5) Well.

6) It is very easy to view lists of registered parties, they are public (for example: [1]) and every year there are newspaper articles citing the amount of funding for each party. It is similar to the list of registered parties in other countries, although it is not the same and only serves to the parties to benefit from the 2x1000. My proposals are to make the criteria more stringent, but to still include those parties that are actually active. This rule would include Action, which has few representatives and has never participated in national or regional elections, but it is certainly a fairly relevant party. There is another regional party, "La Puglia in più", but I have explicitly proposed to include in this page only the red links that have a page creation perspective, and to exclude the other red links, as specified in Wikipedia: LISTCRITERIA.

7) I don't know Forza Marca and Razza Piave, I don't know if they are parties or civic lists, but as I stated above the page should only contain red links if there is a page creation perspective. Two parties that have exceeded the 10% threshold at the provincial level are CDL and Popolari Retici. It is not a big problem if this rule is not approved, but if we exclude parties that really exist and are voted on, we cannot include unknown parties with 2/3 regional councilors not participating in the elections, I hope this reasoning is clear.

I hope this discussion can be concluded within a reasonable time, so I expect you to not reply to me once a week...

Obviously, the invitation to participate in this discussion is aimed at anyone who has an idea to propose on the regulation of this page or on my proposals.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: I am waiting for your reply, please intervene here rather than move a page without consensus.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: please don't start answering again once a week, it doesn't seem fair. You edited after my ping, so you've already read my answer. Do we want to lighten this page by removing irrelevant regional parties? At the moment some real parties have been excluded from the page, there is no problem if the page is really selective, for this reason those non-existent parties with a very low regional representation should also be removed from the page. Unfortunately, no other users took part on this discussion, although it was adequately reported. Let's try to definitively end this discussion and introduce agreed criteria on this page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: I asked you not to start answering again once a week, the sole purpose of which unfortunately seems to me to block the discussion. If you don't answer, I have to assume that there is "silent consent", the discussions cannot be carried on for months, also because it is only a matter of lightening the page a little. Therefore, if you are truly interested in this topic, I invite you to answer, after four months I don't want to waste much more time on this matter.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Here are my answers:

1) The rule is useless only if there are no "Conditions of admission" at the beginning of the list, that is my main proposal.

2) A compromise would be "having obtained at least 2% of the vote in a regional election or in a Senate election at the regional level" only for regional parties. I will specify that in my proposal, adding "this rule is applied solely to regional parties active in one region".

3) Compromise reached. The new rule is supported also by User:Autospark.

4) We cannot agree on this at this moment. Unless we find a compromise, the current rule should stay.

5) Compromise reached. The new rule is supported also by User:Autospark.

6) Compromise reached, provided that all parties which benefited from the 2x1000 tax are included. The new rule is supported also by User:Autospark. I would like to see the list of the parties which should be included under the new rule (also La Puglia in più should be in the list).

7) We cannot agree on this at this moment. Also, in my view, there is no difference between Popolari Retici and Forza Marca: they are both "civic" lists.

I won't answer to some of your comments, which border intimidation.

Here is my updated proposal, whose scheme is also supported by User:Autospark, according to what we have agreed so far:

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 obtained at least 0.5% of the vote in a countrywide (general/European) election;
• having elected at least one MP/MEP/regional councillor with its own list;
• having been represented by at least 5 MPs or 3 MEPs or in 5 Regional Councils;
• having obtained at least 2% of the vote in a regional election (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol) or in a Senate election at the regional level (this rule is applied solely to regional parties active in one region);
• having had at least 5% of the elects in one Regional Council (Provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol);
• having obtained at least 15% in a constituency for Italians abroad in a general election;
• having benefited of the 2x1000 tax.

Classification

The parties are classified as:

• Major parties — parties having obtained at least 5% of the vote in a countrywide (general/European) election or having been represented by at least 100 MPs or 10 MEPs;
• Minor parties — parties having fulfilled 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 obtained more than 5% of the vote in the latest countrywide (general/European) election or currently being represented by at least 30 MPs or 5 MEPs.

Will you ever accept this simplyfing scheme? --Checco (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: the problem is that I find it essential to review points 2 and 4, they allow the inclusion of some useless parties and this is not acceptable to me if we exclude the objectively more important parties. In this list there are more regional than national parties, which means that the criteria for regional parties are too lax. I would like to solve this problem by consensus without having recourse to a third opinion again.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Also because, I repeat, the purpose of this discussion is to approve through a consensual discussion all the criteria. Claiming that if you disagree, the criteria you have established should stay is not fair. You too have said that the list is heavy: why do you want to keep such an unnecessarily long list of regional parties? Many of the listed regional parties have no relevance.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: In any case, I have a final compromise proposal on the criteria: let's include on the list those full-fledged parties that have been represented by a council group composed of at least 3 regional councilors. By this proposal I mean that those pages that do not concern full-fledged parties, but only mere council groups, should be removed from the list. So to be classified as full fledged parties, 2 requirements must be met: having participated in elections or the presence of sources that affirm that it is a party. For example you have created some pages of mere council groups describing them as parties: Forza Campania was not a party, it was a short-lived group of Forza Italia members who had left the main group. Popular Future, Venetian Center-Right, Veneto for Autonomy were not parties, but council groups. These pages add nothing interesting to the list, which must necessarily be cleaned up (no party list from other countries lists so many regional parties).

Furthermore you have proposed to include those parties having obtained at least 2% of the vote in a Senate election at the regional level (rule applied solely to regional parties active in one region): I do not see any utility in this rule, it is complicated and I do not in the least think that you intend to go and look for parties that respect this criterion. The rules should be proposed having in mind which parties would be included, not hypothetically. We had already reached a compromise on this point, I don't understand why you took a step backwards.

I would set the rules (valid for all parties) like this:

Active/defunct parties having fulfilled at least one of the following conditions: having scored at least 0.5% of the vote in a countrywide election; having scored at least 2% of the vote in a regional election; having scored at least 15% of the vote in one constituency abroad in a general election; having elected at least one MP/MEP/Regional councillor with their own lists; having been represented by at least 5 MPs, 3 MEPs or in 5 different Regional Councils; having been represented by an autonomous council group composed of at least 3 regional councilors; having been registered in the list of parties benefiting from 2‰ of income tax.

Red links without any prospect of creation (and those pages that do not concern parties but mere regional council groups) would be excluded from the list (as established in Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA). It seems like a good compromise to me, but if you don't accept it we will have to ask for a third opinion again, but I don't see why we shouldn't find agreed rules here. I want to clarify: these are not the rules I would like, but they derive from the desire to find a compromise acceptable to everyone.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, but in my view it is not "essential to review points 2 and 4". The fact that there are more "regional" than "national" parties in this list is quite simple: in Italy there are far more regional parties than countrywide parties, by the way it is the same in several countries including the United States, Canada, India, Argentina, etc. What you consider a problem is, in my view, a strength of this list.

Please remember that this discussion has always had the participation of at least another user, who has supported my proposed changes.

I strongly disagree that subjects like Forza Campania or Popular Future were not parties. They were parties by international standards! I perfectly know that in Italy journalists and even some political scientists make difference between partiti, movimenti and gruppi parlamentari, but that opinion is hardly acceptable in an international Wikipedia. We should simplify rules, not complicate them: introducing more requirements like "having participated in elections or the presence of sources that affirm that it is a party" (especially as sources may be biased by the Italian political/media context) is not a simplification.

The rule on regional parties having passed a threshold regionally in countrywide elections has long been part of the list. There are some parties, like Liga Veneta Repubblica, which were originally included in the list thanks to that rule. I still would like to have that rule.

I appreciate you when you write that the rules you are proposing "are not the rules I would like, but they derive from the desire to find a compromise acceptable to everyone". I have also made several compromises with you, thus I am happy that you finally accept how Wikipedia should be working.

Once again, I ask you to consider my proposal. It is a good summary of the current rules, plus the latest changes we agreed on. What about introducing it (a big simplification!) and the changes we agreed on and then continue to discuss on possible further changes? Here it is:

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 obtained at least 0.5% of the vote in a countrywide (general/European) election;
• having elected at least one MP/MEP/regional councillor with its own list;
• having been represented by at least 5 MPs or 3 MEPs or in 5 Regional Councils;
• having obtained at least 2% of the vote in a regional election (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol) or in a Senate election at the regional level (this rule is applied solely to regional parties active in one region);
• having had at least 5% of the elects in one Regional Council (Provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol);
• having obtained at least 15% in a constituency for Italians abroad in a general election;
• having been registered in the list of parties benefiting from 2‰ of income tax.

Classification

The parties are classified as:

• Major parties — parties having obtained at least 5% of the vote in a countrywide (general/European) election or having been represented by at least 100 MPs or 10 MEPs;
• Minor parties — parties having fulfilled 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 obtained more than 5% of the vote in the latest countrywide (general/European) election or currently being represented by at least 30 MPs or 5 MEPs.

Please think about it. As you know, I am always available for discussion. --Checco (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Ps: Rules on regional parties are not "too lax", as you said. The problem is otherwise that rules may be too strict for countrywide parties. Probably, we made a mistake when we raised one threshold to "5 MPs". A party like the European Republicans Movement should be necessarily included in this list.

@Checco: you contradict yourself, when you don't share a rule the list is too long, when you don't want to remove it then the length of the list is a good thing! Who would look for parties that exceed 2% of the votes in the Senate? You? I do not think so. International standards have nothing to do with the council groups, composed of independents or or members of other parties, the sources in wikipedia are indispensable! (Autospark often uncritically supports anything you propose) For me, the revision of those two criteria is indispensable, after the criterion on provincial councilors has been rejected. And parties that do not meet current rules cannot be included. Unfortunately, if you don't even agree with my latest attempt to compromise, I think I will have to ask again for a third opinion.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

My proposal was based on suggestions from Firefangledfeathers, both he and the two of us say the list is quite long. If length were good, there should have been no problem adding ten parties. If length is only good when a bunch of unknown parties / council groups are added, then the reasoning becomes quite inconsistent, doesn't it?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

In the past I checked for regional parties passing 2% regionally in countrywide elections. There may be mistakes and you are always great in finding them. The list should be in constant review and I am particularly grateful for the parties you have added or removed according to the consensual rules.

You have a narrow view of political parties. According to Britannica, a political party is "a group of persons organized to acquire and exercise political power. Political parties originated in their modern form in Europe and the United States in the 19th century, along with the electoral and parliamentary systems, whose development reflects the evolution of parties. The term party has since come to be applied to all organized groups seeking political power, whether by democratic elections or by revolution. [...]". According to this definition, Forza Campania and Popular Future, as well as the Tories and the Whigs at their beginnings, were parties.

As usual, I have accepted many of your proposals, while you are not even bothering to discuss my simplyfication proposal. I surely hope User:Firefangledfeathers and User:Autospark, the only two users who have shown some interest for the rules issue, will help us to reach a compromise. Some issues could already be settled, but you always want more. After a compromise is reached, there is surely the possiblity to discuss further changes, as I have always done. --Checco (talk)

@Checco: the user Firefangledfeathers intervened only to give a third opinion, while the user Autospark usually steps in to support your views. We also agreed on the application of the same rules to all parties, without special rules for regional parties (moreover, none of those listed would be excluded with the removal of the 2% threshold for the Senate). Your affirmation that "I always want more" is quite interesting, it seems that the changes to this page are your concessions, when you have introduced the rules unilaterally yourself in the past. Anyway, I don't have a "narrow view" of parties, rather you seem to me doing original research, through your own personal interpretations: if a source says it is a group, why do you have to argue that it is a party? A parliamentary group (or Council group) does not always coincide with a party, it can be made up of several parties or of independents. Otherwise this distinction would not exist. I don't know if you realize it, but you are comparing 19th century parties with Italian regional council groups, do they really seem the same to you? Furthermore, honestly, I see no simplifications in your proposal, It seems to me that the complications and the inconsistencies remained. Simplification means making simple, immediate rules and including on the page only real parties, not unknown council groups. In my view, the threshold should be 3 regional councilors for full fledged parties (which I prefer) or 5 regional councilors. As I repeat, the time has come to approve the rules of this page, and the rules should be established in one block. If we cannot agree on a point which seems to me to be very important, we will have to ask for an impartial third opinion...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

You always want more in the sense that whenever we reach a compromise on something, you want more. We should proceed step by step. Moreover, I have been begging you to consider my proposal and you do not even discuss it. --Checco (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Approval of the inclusion criteria

I ask again for a third opinion to help me to find an agreement with the Checco user on the determination of some rules for the inclusion of this page. In particular, we disagree especially on three points:

• when a political subject must be defined as a "political party" and when not (with the consequence that a subject that is not a party should be excluded from the list);
• the application of the 2% threshold in a general / European election at the regional level;
• the minimum number of regional councilors that a party must have to be included in the list.

I will explain my point of view on these three points:

1. I think that only the real parties should be listed among the parties, and not parliamentary sub-groups or regional council groups. In fact, on this page a multitude of regional council groups have been included which in reality are not real parties. They are all mere groups without any real organization, born from splits of other parties, usually to obtain some position of power or influence the regional government. User Checco argues that, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica definition of political party, they are parties and that I have a "narrow view". In reality, I think that sources would be needed to define them as parties, otherwise they are original research. The sources describe these subjects only as council groups, therefore their party nature is only supposed by the user Checco. In particular on this page there are two parliamentary sub-groups (L'Alternativa c'è and Italy Work in Progress) and many small regional council groups that do not correspond to any party: Sardinia is already Tomorrow, Popular Future, Venetian Centre-Right, Veneto for Autonomy, Forza Campania (the latter group made up of dissident members of Forza Italia who remained subscribed to it anyway). None of these subjects is described by the sources as a party, but as a council group. In fact, they never participated in the elections and disappeared after a short time or with the expiry of the legislature. However, this is not a list of council groups, but of political parties.
2. We agreed to apply the same rules to all parties on the list. In reality it seemed to me that we had also reached an agreement to apply the 2% threshold only in regional elections, and not also in a general / European election at the regional level; however the user Checco took a step back and would like to apply the 2% threshold in a Senate election at the regional level (applying this rule to parties active in one region only); this rule is not only unnecessarily complicated to apply and in contrast with the principle of uniformity of criteria, but it is also irrelevant: even without the application of this threshold in the Senate, no regional party would be excluded from the list.
3. The current rules are extremely permissive towards unknown regional parties born of splits. Obviously the parties that elect a regional councilor with their symbol are automatically included in the list, but the threshold of 5% of the members of a regional council is extremely low, I had initially proposed a minimum threshold of 5 regional councilors, but later I proposed a compromise of 3 councilors. A party with 4 MPs cannot be listed in the list (because the minimum threshold is 5 MPs), it makes no sense to include, in a already extremely long list of regional parties, many unknown micro-parties or worse still council groups with only 2 regional councilors. A regional party with 2 regional councilors (out of a total of 897) does not deserve to be listed more than a national party with 2 MPs. The rule that I have proposed (the inclusion of those full-fledged parties represented by a group composed of at least 3 regional councilors) seems more than reasonable to me, since it is also the same minimum threshold of MEPs to be included in the list.

On the other hand, many parties that participated in local elections with excellent results were excluded from the list, in that case for the user Checco the list was too long. When I proposed to raise the minimum threshold of regional councilors (to 3 councilors, a very low threshold), the length of the list became a "strength" of this page. We must be consistent, we cannot exclude real parties that participated in the elections and obtained local seats and include non-existent parties. I too think the list is too long, especially the list of regional parties. The list also includes too many non-encyclopedic pages that do not concern political parties. I think that minimally more restrictive rules would make the list more readable and above all more consistent (a list that does not exclude parties known and voted to include unknown "parties" voted by no one). I too think the list is too long, especially the list of regional parties. The list also includes too many non-encyclopedic pages that do not concern political parties. I think that minimally more restrictive rules would make the list more readable and above all more coherent (a list that does not exclude known and voted parties and including at the same time unknown "parties" voted by no one).

As it was not possible to find an agreement to approve these rules, I ask for a third opinion that can help us to end the discussion.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we disagree on those issues, but we agree on others. I do not understand why we should not achieve compromise step by step. By the way, I have also been proposing a new scheme for months and under that scheme it would be much easier to decide further changes. --Checco (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The changes on which we have reached an agreement can already be implemented on the page, but if I am not mistaken we had also reached an agreement on the application of the same rules to all parties and on the removal of the 2% threshold in a countrywide election at the regional level, on this point seems to me that you have changed your mind. But if there are rules on which there is disagreement, it is useful to ask for a third opinion.

I don't not see how the presence of a "scheme" can facilitate further changes, but a scheme in the form you have proposed should be invisible to readers.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Under the scheme, it would be easier to discuss further changes. The scheme should be visible to readers as current rules are visibile: all would benefit of more clarity and transparency, and we would even spare some space and avoid repetions. If you were to accept, we could replace the current rules with the scheme, including the changes on which we had alrady reached an agreement ("2% threshold in a countrywide election at the regional level" is not one of them). Of course, before doing that, we should check that its content is the same of the current rules plus the new changes. --Checco (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: In the meantime, since there is still no third opinion, I invite you to read the entire definition of "political party" provided by Britannica: "The term party has since come to be applied to all organized groups seeking political power, whether by democratic elections or by revolution." Many of the subjects you describe as parties (parliamentary sub-groups and council groups) have nothing to do with this description. Obviously excluding the revolution, as you can see, even the encyclopedia Britannica considers participation in elections as a fundamental characteristic of a political party. Definitions should be read entirely, a part of the definition is not necessarily sufficient to distinguish a subject...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Read your proposal of 12 August 2021: you yourself had removed the application of that threshold in national elections. A scheme of that type is not suitable for showing to readers ....--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:THIRD: I'd like to help but I don't have time to read through all this talk page content and I'm not sure that getting involved at that level would actually be helpful. WP:LISTCRIT is the relevant policy and it's pretty flexible. There seems to be agreement here that whatever criteria is used for the lists, it should be explained to readers. The disagreement seems to be about the details of the criteria. The areas of disagreement in the critera as, I understand them, would not be of much consequence to readers. Establishing the detail-oriented criteria does seem to go beyond what we're trying to do with an encyclopedic article. ~Kvng (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng: Thank you for joining this discussion. I believe the purpose of a page like this is to list pages of parties that may be of interest to readers. Unfortunately, on this page some rules are excessively permissive towards regional parties born of splits. Furthermore, it also lists some subjects who are not real parties as if they really were. I'll explain you the points of disagreement:

• The nature of a party: the user Checco would like to include in this page also parliamentary sub-groups and regional council groups that are not parties. He states that I have a "narrow view" and that these subjects correspond to the definition of political party provided by the Encyclopedia "Britannica". however, there is no source that describes them as parties, because they are not. They are mere groups of a few people born from splits of other parties. The encyclopedia in fact also states that "the term party has since come to be applied to all organized groups seeking political power, whether by democratic elections or by revolution." These are just unknown groups which obviously dissolve automatically with the dissolution of the assembly. In my view parliamentary sub-groups such as L'Alternativa c'è and Italy Work in Progress and above all small regional council groups such as Sardinia is already Tomorrow, Popular Future, Venetian Centre-Right, Veneto for Autonomy and Forza Campania should not be listed among the political parties. Among the parties only parties should be listed. And to define the nature of a subject there are sources, attributing on the basis of one's point of view a certain nature to a subject in contrast with the sources goes beyond the original research.
• The application of the same criteria to all the parties on the list: on this point we agreed, but the user Checco does not want to remove the application of the 2% threshold in a national election at the regional level. It is a very difficult rule to apply, while the list should have simple rules to check. Checco proposed to apply it only to regional parties, but in this case: 1) the rules would no longer be uniform; 2) the rule would still remain very complicated; 3) it would be useless, no regional party would be excluded with the removal of this complex criterion.
• the rules to be applied to regional parties born from splits: in Italy, splits are very frequent, both in the national parliament and in regional councils. Furthermore, as I have already said, at times the splits do not generate new parties but new parliamentary sub-groups or new regional council groups. Listing all the parties or pseudo parties that arise from the splits would be problematic, so we have established a minimum number of representatives for parties that have not directly elected parliamentarians or councilors. We agree on the minimum number of MPs and MEPs: at least 5 MPs and at least 3 MEPs. However, we strongly disagree on the number of regional councilors: I initially proposed a minimum threshold of 5 regional councilors, but then to find a compromise I proposed to include those parties that are represented by a group of at least 3 councilors. A threshold of 3 regional councilors (out of 897) is very low, considering that the minimum threshold of MPs and MEPs are respectively 5 (out of 945) and 3 (out of 76). The user Checco instead would like to lower the threshold further to 2 regional councilors or keep it at 5% of the representatives in the Council. The problem is that the 5% threshold is extremely low, some regional councils are composed of 20 councilors, so a party with only two councilors would also be included. It is extremely inconsistent to include parties with only two regional councilors when two MPs or two MEPs are not enough for a party to be included on this list. With this little modification, however, very few parties would be removed (and some more important ones could also be added).

I believe that with the changes I have proposed the page would be equable and less unbalanced. The criteria would still remain permissive towards the parties that born from the splits, but not as much as now. Now it is evident that it contains too many pages of regional parties or "pseudo" regional parties born from splits that do not add anything interesting, it is sufficient to read the pages I have indicated to understand their relevance...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

In the dispute about what what groups should be considered political parties, I would rely on how reliable sources label these groups. If there are no reliable sources that refer to a particular group as a political party, that group arguably should not be included on a list of political parties. ~Kvng (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I think so too...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

That is not possible. Indeed, in Italian media some parties are defined as "movements" and/or "associations" and/or solely as "groups". Unfortunately, those definitions have nothing to do with the international standards of political science. Moreover, it would be too complicate to find international third-party sources on each and every political party in Italy. Finally, there are parties, like Lotta Comunista or the Transnational Radical Party which do not participate in elections, but they are still parties. Of course, I read the Britannica article before you did. "The term party has since come to be applied to all organized groups seeking political power, whether by democratic elections or by revolution." So what?! Many political parties are stared in Italy, but they do not make into elections because they are dissolved or merged before elections are held. Again, so what?! A party is a party, whether is actually stands in elections or for some reasons opts out from them (in a historical perspective, there are also banned parties, boycotts, legal hurdles, ecc.).

Finally, please be intellectually honest. I may have forgotten some items in previous proposals, but the fact of the matter is that, if you are interested in compromise, we should find real common ground, not play tricks. --Checco (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, of course it is possible: in Italy "political movement" is also used as a synonym for "political party with a light structure"; moreover, a party is always an association, but an association is not always a party, of course. A parliamentary sub-group is a parliamentary sub-group, just as a parliamentary group is a parliamentary group and a regional council group is a regional council group. These bodies may represent a political party, but they may also not represent any party. If no source describes them as parties, but only as council groups or parliamentary sub-groups, you make a (wrong) original research. You speak of international standards, but Italy is not out of this world. Lotta comunista is a revolutionary movement, therefore it does not participate in the elections. The Transnational Radical Party is described as party, so where is the problem? It is possible that a party will not participate in any elections, but if it is described as a party in the sources there is no problem. The problem is the original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. You cannot do original research, you cannot assume that a subject is a party, despite the sources.

What tricks? I am intellectually honest, we agreed on applying the same criteria to all parties, then you took a step back with the regional threshold of 2%, wanting to apply it only to "regional parties". But in this way, as well as being complicated, it would also be useless.

@Kvng: About the other two topics, what is your opinion? For example, is it correct that on this page the threshold of regional councilors is even lower than the threshold of MPs and MEPs? In my view, this page should mainly be the list of Italian political parties, not a list of mini regional parties born from splits in regional councils.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: reliable sources do not need to be international. A local paper is usually considered WP:RELIABLE. We are free to be permissive in accepting synonyms for political party in coverage. Losing a bunch of entries because no coverage can be found would actually be beneficial to Wikipedia's mission to publish verifyable information. I have not suggested a participated in elections criteria. I see that it is implicitly a requirement in the criteria currently presented in the article. Is anyone happy with the current criteria? ~Kvng (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: I can handle one issue at a time. ~Kvng (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, no problem.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I am OK with the list's current rules, even though I would simplify their presentation (see my "Organisation" proposals above). It is clear to me that most of the subjects that the Italian media call "movements" or in different ways are actually parties by international standards. You would probably not find sources describing them as parties because they are too local to have been cited in international newspapers, but still they are parties. Parties of whatever kind which respect the rules we decide to apply to the list (I am always open to discussion and changes, see the long discussions above) should be included, whatever our personal interpretations. --Checco (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

You're ok with the current rules because they are written, in a large part, by yourself. It is not possible find any source because they are not parties, but only regional council groups.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

We need to find a consensus for inclusion criteria. Scia Della Cometa and I have expressed discomfort with the current criteria so unless a bunch of other editors show up to support the status quo, it's going to need to change.

Again, we don't need international sources, we don't need English souces, we just need reliable sources. I'm OK, in principle, including groups that sources describe as movements. We should not include groups where no coverage is available. ~Kvng (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the only thing I'm saying is that we need sources that claim that they are parties or movements. If there are only sources describing them as council groups, claiming they are political parties is an evident original research...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

What is a council group? ~Kvng (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng: A regional council group is the equivalent of the parliamentary group in a Regional council. A parliamentary group, like a regional council group, is a body of an assembly. Therefore, like parliamentary groups, regional council groups usually correspond to parties that have won seats, however there are groups that do not correspond to any party (made up of independents) or that include multiple parties. In Italy it is a praxis. The reasons for the constitution of these groups are many: first of all the council groups receive funding, moreover they have a greater weight in the assembly than the mixed group. Not always new groups (which are precisely assembly bodies) correspond to new parties. If no source describes them as parties but as mere groups, it means that they are only council groups. The examples I have cited have never been described as parties, simply as council groups (or sub-parliamentary groups). There is only one exception: Forza Campania. In some journalistic sources, this short-lived group is described as a "movement", in others as a "council group". Analyzing the sources, however, we can discover that this group was composed of dissident members of Forza Italia, but they had remained members of their party of origin. Indeed this group broke up after a few months. Among the examples cited, this is the only "borderline" situation.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's another layer of complexity and if we load it all onto the cart at once, we won't be able to move it.

I am curious whether Checco acknowledges that we don't have a consensus for the current criteria and do they appreciated that we need sourcing to help establish whether a given organization belongs on the list. ~Kvng (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng: Usually his answers arrive after several days ... this is also why the discussion has been going on for months ... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng: But is it normal for a user who claims to have a say in a page to avoid confrontation in this way? I've been trying to talk to him since June, but it seems impossible to me. These rules were introduced by him unilaterally, and in my view there are several issues, for this type of rules a consensual process would have been needed. He does not want any changes to be made without his permission, then intervenes in fits and starts in discussions. It doesn't seem regular to me.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: It does seem frustrating. I'm doing what I can as a 3rd voice here. I'll stick with it a bit longer but I'm not sure we're making progress. There are other dispute resolution ideas and resources listed at WP:DISPUTE that can be brought to bear. ~Kvng (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng: What exactly do you mean? Wikipedia: Dispute resolution noticeboard or Wikipedia: Arbitration? Because now I am really tired, this matter no longer concerns only the content of the pages, but also the behavior of the user: he has unilaterally established the rules of a quite important page, he does not want it to be modified without his permission and blocks the dialogue on eventual changes.. It doesn't seem fair to me.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: Also look at WP:NORN. But really, the next step is for you to decide. I'm not interested in getting more involved in this than providing a third opinion. ~Kvng (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Speaking as a prior 3O contributor here, I share Kvng's view. This is a challenging content dispute! SDC, if you're considering DRN and Arbitration, I would strongly recommend the former and advise avoiding the latter. DRN moderation often requires responses within a given timeframe, but like 3O it's a voluntary and non-binding process. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng and Firefangledfeathers: thanks for the tips, I'm not very familiar with these procedures. @Kvng: If Checco does not take part in this discussion actively, could you still provide your third opinion (which is not binding anyway)? I refer to the nature of the parties that must be covered by sources, to the implementation of the same criteria for all parties on the page (thus avoiding unnecessary complications, such as the application of the 2% regional threshold in the Senate elections) and a minimum number of three representatives for the parties (national and regional) born from splits?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• That is, a minimum number of regional councilors for the split parties that corresponds at least to the agreed minimum number of MEPs (three).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

My comments may arrive after some days (usually 3-4) because real life might be tough or just busy. I have been discussing with User:SDC for months, devolving most of my time in Wikipedia this way, while I would prefer to contibute to articles. Yes, it has been quite frustrating, but I always accept debate and I never refrain to read and answer.

Italian politics is quite complicate mainly because there are several parties and there is no registration for them. That is why we need conditions of admission and classification. It is virtually impossible to find sources on each and every political party in Italy describing it as a "political party". This list is useful as a collection of links, so that readers my find the parties they are looking for and editors may want to improve or start articles. Over the last months User:SDC and I, as well as other users, have agreed on several changes. Lately, we agreed on some new changes that are still not part of the current set of rules.

My main proposal, which has been barely commented by User:SDC, is to have a clear set of rules and then continue to improve them through consensus. My latest proposal is the following:

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 obtained at least 0.5% of the vote in a countrywide (general/European) election;
• having elected at least one MP/MEP/regional councillor with its own list;
• having been represented by at least 5 MPs or 3 MEPs or in 5 Regional Councils;
• having obtained at least 2% of the vote in a regional election (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol) or in a Senate election at the regional level (this rule is applied solely to regional parties active in one region);
• having had at least 5% of the elects in one Regional Council (Provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol);
• having obtained at least 15% in a constituency for Italians abroad in a general election;
• having been registered in the list of parties benefiting from 2‰ of income tax.

Classification

The parties are classified as:

• Major parties — parties having obtained at least 5% of the vote in a countrywide (general/European) election or having been represented by at least 100 MPs or 10 MEPs;
• Minor parties — parties having fulfilled 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 obtained more than 5% of the vote in the latest countrywide (general/European) election or currently being represented by at least 30 MPs or 5 MEPs.

These rules, some of which are different from the current ones, should be at the start of the list, for clarity and in order to avoid repetition. On the specific rules, we should continue to discuss. I favour this new format as well as changes to the current rules. --Checco (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Checco. That's a clear statement of your proposal. I believe this answers at least one of my questions to you: Your proposal does not rely on WP:SECONDARY sourcing. It appears parties can be evaluated against the proposed criteria based on reporting in primary sources. It's a complex formula presumably of your own invention. Aside from the complexity (which may be necessary due to the complexity of the subject) it doesn't look unreasonable from here. ~Kvng (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

My proposals have been here for months. And for months I have been always available for discussion. I am a patient guy and, even though User:SDC has often tried to take advantage of my consensus-loving attitude and/and resorted to edit warring, I have always accepted to discuss with him. There has been several changes to the list since he first got here: most were good compromises, while on some issues I simply gave up my opinions for the sake of compromise. --Checco (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Checco I can understand that everyone has a personal life and it is not possible to log into Wikipedia every day, but your answer comes 8 days after your last post! And this has been going on for months. How long does it take to give an answer? 5 minutes?10 minutes maximum. How do you carry out a dialogue in this way? It doesn't seem to me that you are using your time in these discussions rather than editing and improving other pages. If a party exists, it is impossible that it doesn't exist a source that doesn't define it as a party. Indeed, it is exactly the opposite: it is much easier for the labels "party" or "movement" to be attributed to subjects that are probably not (see Forza Campania). I hope that the definitive solution can be reached in this thread, but if this is not the case, I will have to resort to other solutions (Wikipedia: Dispute resolution noticeboard for example)...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Leaving aside your personal comments and "self-victimisation", the problem is that you find quite difficult to understand what cooperation, consensus and compromise are all about. Why are you still avoiding to discuss my proposals, while accusing me of not annswering to yours in time? However, I am sincerely happy that at least you have abandoned edit warring and that you are trying to involve other users. On the latest issue, I confirm that it is quite difficult to find sources, especially academic ones, classifying each and every political party/outfit in Italy as a party. On the specific case of Forza Campania, there are several sources describing it as a "movement" (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and so on), but it is not always easy to find sources on old regional parties and this list has to be complete anyway. --Checco (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: Don't recycle terms used elsewhere ("self-victimization"). I've been trying in vain to involve other users since June, you can't deny it. Furthermore, I have already replied to your proposal, if you have not read it I invite you to go and look for it. This thread is about 3 specific issues, and at the moment we are talking about the nature of parties. How can you think that academic sources exist on unknown regional council groups? You must understand that sources are indispensable on Wikipedia, you cannot personally interpret the nature of a political subject (I was the first to say that there are sources that describe Forza Campania as a movement). If all available sources (of any nature) describe X or Y as simple regional council groups, it means that they are just regional council groups. Describing them in another way means to carry out an original research. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Checco has adequately explained his participation in this discussion. If this is not clear to you or does not work for you, please read WP:VOLUNTEER. Also, adhering to WP:FOC can, among other things, reduce the overhead in these discussions. That would be appreciated; this discussion is already unusually large.

@Scia Della Cometa: I gather the criteria Checco has proposed is too permissive for your taste as it includes regional council groups that should not be included in a list of political parties. ~Kvng (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng: Yes and not: I would like to remove regional council groups and parliamentary sub-groups from the page and make the criteria slightly more restrictive for regional parties. Why does a party with just two regional councilors (born from a split) deserve to be included on this page more than a party (also born from a split) with 2 MPs or 2 MEPs? It makes no sense to me. A regional party, born from a split, should be represented by a group composed of at least three regional councilors, otherwise the entire layout of the page is inconsistent.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Ps. I totally understand WP:VOLUNTEER and WP:FOC, indeed I would like to discuss only the rules, but after months we are almost at the starting point, in this way I am blocked in editing this page. Everyone is free to participate as they are when they want, but since he wrote the rules and he is always him who wants to have the last word about any small changes, a greater commitment in this discussion would be necessary: wanting to have the last word on page rules and occasionally participating in discussions about them seem to me to be two somewhat incompatible behaviors... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

However, I would write the rules of the page in this way (valid for all effective political parties):

"Active/defunct parties having fulfilled at least one of the following conditions: having scored at least 0.5% of the vote in a countrywide election; having scored at least 2% of the vote in a regional election; having elected at least one MP/MEP/regional councillor with their own lists; having been represented by at least 5 MPs or 3 MEPs; having been represented in at least 5 different Regional Councils; having been represented by a regional council group composed at least of 3 regional councillors; having benefited from 2‰ of the income tax."

I don't understand why the rules should be unnecessarily complicated ("2% of the vote in a Senate election") or why undue weight should be given to small split regional parties ("having had at least 5% of the elects in one Regional Council", that is just two regional councilors in many cases).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone should summarize the differences between these two proposals. It seems like they're very similar. I will do so next week unless someone else gets to it first. ~Kvng (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng: Of course, the differences are essentially two (plus the problem of the nature of parties) and they are what I also explained in my last speech:

• I would like to apply the same rules to all parties (and on this point it seemed that Checco and I agreed); so I would like to apply a 2% threshold to regional elections only (in addition to the 0.5% threshold in national elections), making the rule simple to apply. However, Checco then proposed to apply the 2% threshold at the regional level also to the Senate elections only for regional parties: I do not understand the purpose of this proposal, it is very complicated. If applied only to regional parties it would make no difference, if applied to all parties it would allow the introduction of a series of totally unknown parties (which should also be researched). I also point out that the search for parties that have exceeded the 2% threshold for the Senate in some regions is not easy.
• Checco would like to set a minimum threshold of 5% of the members of a regional assembly or 2 regional councilors for the regional split parties (many regional assemblies are made up of only 20 regional councilors). I think that a threshold of just 2 regional councilors is not acceptable, because the page would give undue weight to the parties represented in the regional councils to the at the expense of the parties represented in the Italian Parliament or in the European Parliament (indeed, on the basis of the agreement reached, the split parties must be represented by at least 5 MPs or 3 MEPs). I initially proposed a minimum threshold of 5 regional councilors for split parties, but to find a compromise I made myself available to go down to 3 regional councilors (provided, of course, that the party is clearly represented by a group of at least 3 members). A threshold of 2 regional councilors for split parties however seems unacceptable to me, they are no more important than a party with 2 MEPs or 4 MPs, this is the page on Italian political parties, not the page on mini Italian regional split parties.
• Obviously, those political subjects that are not defined by any source as a political party or movement should be excluded from the party list.

It seems to me that I have made reasonable proposals, with the aim of finding a compromise, otherwise I would have written the rules in a very different way...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree with the rules laid out by Checco, understanding that there are issues with the complexity of the rules due to the nature of Italian politics. AS for the regional parties issue, another possible (if extreme) compromise I can think of relating to regional parties would be to exclude them from this list entirely, unless said parties also have, or had, representation in the Italian national parliament and/or European Parliament, and instead just link to the specific articles about said regions (e.g. List of political parties in Aosta Valley). But that is arguably a step too far. I do agree with SDC that perhaps there is room to maneovure to perhaps streamline the proposed rules a bit further. (Incidentally, unlike SDC I personally support keeping parliamentary groups on this list, as there is sometimes can be ambiguity over what constitutes a group and party.)--Autospark (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

We are not talking here about a "general agreement", but about very specific issues. The parliamentary groups on the page are already included (there is already the "parliamentary groups" section, even if I disagree on having it on this page). I have stated that a council group (or parliamentary sub-group) cannot be passed off as a party, listing it among them. I knew that sources are essential in Wikipedia, establishing the nature of a subject in contrast to the sources is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. The solution proposed by Autospark for regional parties is decidedly extreme, there are very important regional parties that have never had representation in the Parliament. On the other hand, in order to find a compromise, I proposed very permissive rules, but simpler than the current ones: applying the 2% threshold at regional level to European / general elections is unnecessarily complicated, the rule about 5% of the members of a regional council allows the inclusion of excessively small parties (or pseudo-parties) (why should the minimum number of regional councilors be lower than that of MEPs?). The rules should be minimally consistent with each other, the parties should be included on the list based on actual sources and the list should be a bit streamlined (especially the list of regional parties). Nothing prevents from creating or implementing pages about parties in a specific region.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Has there been disagreement about those political subjects that are not defined by any source as a political party or movement should be excluded from the party list? ~Kvng (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng: Of course, Checco also reverted my edits on these pages, despite the sources. And his motivation was that the generic definition of political party provided "Britannica" is also applicable to these subjects. But the definition taken into consideration is generic, not absolute! Furthermore, the definition of the encyclopedia itself is much broader and is not entirely applicable to council groups, as I have already stated.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, I was expecting a generic stance from Autospark in favor of Checco's position, but I don't think he really knows the subjects we are discussing (these groups are not known even in Italy). Anyway, Wikipedia should be based on sources, not personal considerations.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng: however, it seems to me that both sides have expressed their opinion on how to understand the nature of a party. What is your opinion on this issue?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria for this list just has to be something editors agree on (and communicate to readers) it doesn't have to line up with an official definition of a political party. We have discussed criteria requiring a source that identifies an organization as a political party or movement. I'm not actually in favor of such a solution as inclusion is dependent on a sufficiently determined editor to come up with the sourcing and that could lead to an unbalanced list. The criteria used and proposed by Checco has the advantage that an inclusion determination can be made exclusively from election results. If we can agree on the details of the criteria, and I think we're close, there are no arguments about whether individual organizations are included or excluded. ~Kvng (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Finding sources on each and every political party describing them as "political parties", "political movements", "political associations" or "political whatever" adds complication to complication and I do not think it is really worth. Moreover, it would especially difficult to find such sources for old parties, even though there is no doubt that they were parties. As User:Kvng pointed out, it is quite easier to include parties "exclusively from election results". That is what the current rules are all about. My main proposal is to simplify the understanding of the current rules by adopting a joint scheme (my "Organisation" proposal), then we can discuss on specific changes of specific rules. By the way, it was what User:SDC and I were doing a few weeks ago: he made some proposals and we already agree on some... I really do not understand why we should not follow a logical path instead of always changing perspective.

I hope User:Kvng and other users will endorse my simplification proposal (User:Autospark already endorsed it). Under that scheme, it would be easier for everyone of us to evaluate proposed changes, including the ones User:SDC is disorderly talking about.

My updated proposal, which includes the things on which User:SDC and I already agreed on and also a proposed compromise on the 2% threshold for regional parties, is the following (I really find difficult to understand why it should be rejected altogether and, as said, it already counts the support of User:Autospark):

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 obtained at least 0.5% of the vote in a countrywide (general/European) election;
• having elected at least one MP/MEP/regional councillor with its own list;
• having been represented by at least 5 MPs or 3 MEPs or in 5 Regional Councils;
• having obtained at least 2% of the vote in a regional election (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol) or in a Senate election at the regional level (this rule is applied solely to regional parties active in one region);
• having had at least 5% of the elects in one Regional Council (Provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol);
• having obtained at least 15% in a constituency for Italians abroad in a general election;
• having been registered in the list of parties benefiting from 2‰ of income tax.

Classification

The parties are classified as:

• Major parties — parties having obtained at least 5% of the vote in a countrywide (general/European) election or having been represented by at least 100 MPs or 10 MEPs;
• Minor parties — parties having fulfilled 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 obtained more than 5% of the vote in the latest countrywide (general/European) election or currently being represented by at least 30 MPs or 5 MEPs.

It is just a start, but a good start, in my view. --Checco (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Kvng: sorry, but I really don't understand your reasoning. I have not proposed a criterion on the nature of parties, I have proposed to not include among the parties subjects that are not described as "parties" by the sources (that is the council groups, that Checco describes as parties), it is very different. Furthermore, I believe that you have not fully understood Checco's proposals, which do not have the slightest "the advantage that an inclusion determination can be made exclusively from election results", in reality it is exactly the opposite. He would include in the list all the parties (or council groups, which he does not distinguish from the parties) born from splits of just two regional councilors. Until we clarify these issues, we will be far from a shared solution. I don't know if you understand now what I mean.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Checco Is it quite easy to have the uncritical support of a user who approves everything you propose, right? You simply repeated your previous proposal, and I repeat my answer: the rules about the "the threshold of 2% of the vote in a Senate election at the regional level (this rule is applied solely to regional parties active in one region)" and about the "5% of the elects in one Regional Council" for me are not acceptable. I have already fully explained the reasons. And it is absolutely not true that there are no sources: if a party exists, there are sources, Wikipedia is based on sources, not on original research. What old parties are you talking about? I have only cited cases relating to the last 10 years, therefore very recent.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: I am trying to focus on the three disagreements you outlined above. The first two we should be able to resolve through standard negotiation. The third is more structural: Should the inclusion criteria include a reliance on WP:SECONDARY sources (groups reported on as political parties) or is reliance on WP:PRIMARY sources (election results) sufficient? I think we have three editors here supporting the latter and you appear to support the former. Checco and I have pointed out some specific problems with relying on reporting as a criteria. You have waived these off so it's still an unresolved issue for me. You claim that using election results is overly inclusive. It appears you want to exclude some marginal groups because including them doesn't feel right. Can we address this by incremental adjustments to the existing criteria or by including in our description of the inclusion criteria a discussion of this potential weakness? ~Kvng (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng: Checco has never supported the election results as sufficient, it is the opposite. These groups have never called themselves "parties" or "movements", so there are no primary sources either. The electoral results are not there because these groups obviously do not participate in the elections, not being parties but being just assembly bodies. That is the issue.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng: So by answering your question precisely, I fully support the parties that ran in elections and scored electoral results. The problems concern split parties and council groups. There was a misunderstanding on this point.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

We need to be able to verify that these groups exist and meet the criteria. Perhaps it is another misunderstanding but I assumed that all of Checco's inclusion criteria could be tested by consulting reliable public records. ~Kvng (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng: These groups don't meet the criteria because they are just groups (that is "assembly bodies"), the criteria explicitly state that the list includes "parties". These groups don't participate in the elections because they are not parties, they don't have a structure, they don't have a statute. Checco assumes that they are "political parties", but all sources describe them in another way. Why should we include assembly bodies (therefore "technical components" of assemblies) between real political parties?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: do you have a suggestion for a simple test that would distinguish these groups from what you consider to be actual parties? ~Kvng (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng: IMHO there are two ways: participation in elections, or a source that describes them as "parties" or "movements". --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"These groups don't participate in the elections because they are not parties, they don't have a structure, they don't have a statute." This is purely an assumption and it is not even factually correct because parliamentary/council groups all have a statute and a structure. However, this is not my point. My points are two. 1) Those outfits that User:SDC considers merely "council groups" (Forza Campania, Popular Future, etc.) were actually political parties, though short-lived. 2) It is very difficult to find a source on each and every political party currently listed in this list being described as a "political something" because some parties pre-date the internet, while it is easier to find infos on electoral results and/or there are sources in the respective article (see, for instance, Forza Campania and Popular Future). Moreover, adding a thousand sources in a list article is not a good idea, anyway. Finally, it is true that I "simply repeated [my] previous proposal", but, despite User:SDC and I have not reached an agreement on some changes to the current rules, I think that my proposal would be an improvement because rules would be more clearly presented for users' and readers' sake and it already includes some changes we have agreed on. I really do not understand why User:SDC continues to oppose it altogether, while I have long come to terms and agreed with most of his proposals. My proposal is basically a clarification of current rules, the incorporation of some changes we agreed on and a road-map that would help us to more easily consider, discuss and decide new changes. One other user already supports my proposal and my road-map. I hope other users will follow suit and that we can continue to discuss with logic (that is why we need a road-map). --Checco (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

You keep arguing that it is not possible to find sources for dated parties, but this is an invalid motivation, not only because Wikipedia is based on the sources, but above all because all the examples I have cited are recent (and the sources describe them otherwise ). What sources describe Popular Future as a political party? Furthermore, the Council groups have a regulation, not a statute.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I too was hoping for the intervention of other users, I tried to involve them several times, but unfortunately they did not show interest in the matter. You certainly can't rely on a generic support from a user with whom you seem to have a deal. It's true that you agreed some changes, but they were the least important ones. The real issues are the 3 points I have listed. Surely, with reference to the second point, it does not seem to me at all that you want to simplify the admission criteria. I still hope that a solution will been soon reached on this issues (possibly by the end of this year, this discussion is in a stalled phase for too long). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

We can try to incorporate Scia Della Cometa's criteria into Checco's. First we add a new bullet:

• Coverage as a political party (or synonym) in a reliable source.

Which of the bullet points in Checco's list do not involve participation in an election? ~Kvng (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng: There are some points that don't involve participation in an election, they are inclusion criteria about parties born of splits. On some points that do not imply the participation of a party in an election we agree:

• "having been represented by at least 5 MPs or 3 MEPs or in 5 Regional Councils."

On another point, however, we are in total disagreement, namely the criterion designed for regional parties born of splits:

• "having had at least 5% of the elects in one Regional Council (Provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol)." This percentage threshold does not set a minimum number of regional council members, so in a regional council of 20 members, 2 councilors are enough for a party (or pseudo-party) to be included on the list. As I have already pointed out, this rule is totally inconsistent with the previous rule, because paradoxically, a party needs fewer regional councilors than MPs or MEPs to be included on the list. It is a contradiction.

Of course I am in favor of coverage as a political party (or synonym) in a reliable source.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Relavant political parties emerged from splits have to stay in the list. Even if short-lived, they still might have been influent for a short period of time. In this respect, Italian parliamentary politics (just think of Popular Alternative or Italia Viva) is quite similar to regional politics. Only proportions are different.

I strongly oppose any notion of "coverage as a political party (or synonym) in a reliable source". Just pause and think thoroughly about it. Looking for sources for each an every political party will be a big deal, for some old political parties sources would be very difficult to find and the list would be overloaded by references—it would not be a simple navigation list anymore, not to mention the fact that synonyms would bring endless debates to this talk page and the inclusion in the list would become quite arbitrary. Are we willing to simplify or complicate things? Finally, also several "civic lists" are defined as "movements" in the news: are we going to add also them? Do we really want to open this Pandora's box? --Checco (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Checco You're turning the conversation around: no one said to bring the references back to this page. We have said that all subjects defined as a political party (or a synonym, therefore also movement) can be included in the page: so where is the problem? No one has ever said that parties born of splits should not be included in the pages. You keep repeating that there is the problem of finding sources for old parties, when I have only contested the presenceof a few recent subjects. Why do you try to divert the conversation with proposals that have never been made? There is no Pandora's box to open, my proposals only serve to simplify the page, on the contrary, proposals such as "2% ... in a Senate election at the regional level (... applied solely to regional parties active in one region)" instead only complicate the admission criteria.

I have not proposed anything strange, certainly nothing of what you said in your last speech.

Furthermore I wonder how you can oppose the support of a definition in a reliable source: in this way you are opposing one of the basic principles of Wikipedia.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Ps. Many civic lists are already included on this page. The problem is the opposite: the inclusion in this page of those subjects who are not defined movements or parties anywhere.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Each and every subject mentioned in this article, with the exception of coalitions and full-fledged parliamentary groups formed by multiple parties and/or non-party independents, is a political party. The problem is that there may not be sources for several parties, especially old ones. Moreover, endless debates would arise. Clear enough?

Unfortunately, we are mixing up too many issues. The basic problem is that, when someone wants everything, it is difficult to achieve anything. A step-by-step approach is the only way to proceed and there should be logic in it. I am very sorry that we cannot start by implementing the "Organisation" table I proposed (including some changes on which we already agreed on) and then, step by step, improve rules and update the list accordingly. --Checco (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: Please don't continue to take the discussion to another track. It is not true that all the subjects listed on this page are parties, I invite you to indicate a source that describes the following subjects as parties or movements: L'Alternativa c'è, Sardinia is already Tomorrow, Popular Future, Venetian Centre-Right, Veneto for Autonomy. If you can't find sources, they are evidently not political parties as you claim. And you cannot claim that they are old and it is impossible to find sources: they have all existed in the last ten years. I did not ask for anything exceptional: I only asked to respect the sources and to use consistent criteria for all parties: we cannot make readers believe that a party with two regional councilors who left another party is more important than a party with two MPs! I understand that you don't want to remove some pages you created yourself from this list, but certain pages cannot be inserted at all costs. I think I have proposed a good compromise, because personally I would remove many more pages from this list (and on the other hand, I would add others). But collaboration is needed.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

And please, "the problem is that there may not be sources for several parties" doesn't exist: the pages in this list were created based on sources, where is the problem? There is no problem, if there were no sources, there would not even be the pages of these parties.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

My intent was that the sourcing criteria be another option to qualify an organization for the list. If there's an organization that doesn't meet the other criteria but they're being reported on as a political party or somesuch by a reliable source, they could be included in the list. Does that seem like a reasonable incremental improvement to the criteria? ~Kvng (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng Uhm, not exactly, the purpose of the admission criteria of this page would be to include only the most relevant Italian political parties on the list, otherwise the other admission criteria would not be necessary. The reliable source criterion should be complementary: the subjects that meet the other criteria should be described as political parties by the sources. And this is not a great problem as Checco states, because if the pages exist, the sources also exist (otherwise they would be written on the basis of original or invented research). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

On the basis of the principle of the most relevant parties, we cannot make readers believe that a party with two regional councilors is more relevant than a party with two MPs (this is the reason for the third issue I raised).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: I don't feel we're understanding each other. I'm not sure how to resolve this. ~Kvng (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng: I try to explain the situation better: in Italy we have many parties, many of which arise from splits. Many pages of Italian parties have been created in en.wikipedia, so we need some rules to select the most relevant parties. Basically there are 3 types of admission criteria:

• Electoral results;
• Election with their own symbol of at least one MP, an MEP or a regional councilor;
• Minimum number of representatives in an Assembly: this criterion is used to select the parties born from the splits.

About the the second point there are no problems. We do not agree on some aspects of the first and third points.

Electoral results

We agree for the parties having scored at least 0.5% of the votes in a national election, 2% in a regional election or 15% in a foreign constituency.

We disagree on one point: the application of the 2% threshold at the regional level in a national election (only for regional parties). Why am I against it? Because the application of this rule only to regional parties is complicated to verify and above all useless, since no party currently included in the list depends on this rule. On the contrary, if this rule were applied to all parties (regional and national) it would be equally complex to verify and would allow the inclusion in this list of many unknown parties without their own page. For this reason I would like to make the rule as simple as possible: 0.5% of the votes in a national election, 2% in a regional election or 15% in a foreign constituency. Why complicate the criteria?

Minimum number of representatives in an Assembly

As I said, this rule is designed for parties that born from splits, so that are born after the elections. We agree on the minimum threshold of national and European parliamentarians: 5 MPs and 3 MEPs.

We do not agree on the minimum threshold of regional councilors: currently the threshold is set at 5% of a regional assembly. This threshold is too low considering that some regional assemblies are composed of only 20 regional councilors, in this way a party with only two regional councilors could be included in the list. By implication, this gives more importance to a party with only two regional councilors than a party with two parliamentarians! I initially proposed a threshold of 5 regional councilors, but subsequently, to find a compromise, I proposed a threshold of at least 3 regional councilors. However Checco also rejected this proposal, perhaps because he does not want to give up having some pages he created in this list ...

Nature of the parties

In addition to these problems, Checco would like to include in the list subjects that are not described in any source as political parties. He claims that these subjects are political parties, but it is an original research, because the sources describe them in another way ("regional council groups" or "sub-parliamentary groups", that are not "political parties"). I am referring to: L'Alternativa c'è, Sardinia is already Tomorrow, Popular Future, Venetian Centre-Right, Veneto for Autonomy. These subjects are not political parties. Not only are there no secondary sources, but there are no primary sources either. For this reason I have stated that it is not enough for a subject to meet the admission criteria, but must be also described as a political party (or synonym) by the sources.

I hope I have clearly explained the situation. And I hope you can help find the solution.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: Respectfully, that's not the kind of help I need. This discussion is now approaching 50,000 words. We're buried deep and don't seem to be making forward progress. ~Kvng (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng: Indeed, I asked you for an opinion on these three proposals. Checco has digressed enough on these problems, which instead are very circumscribed.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the credit for the digressions is shared. The discussion would not have reached this impressive size without your contributions. I don't consider your contributions WP:DISRUPTIVE but you might want to read WP:BLUDGEON for some tips. Anyway, as I said, I don't feel like we're making progress and I'm not sure my participation here is helping. ~Kvng (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng: I had to repeat my point of view several times, and also explain Checco's to you, since it did not seem to me that you had fully understood it. But I have always tried to stay focused on these three points, Checco attributed me proposals that I have not made and raised problems that do not exist. The only certain thing is that I want to resolve these issues. It is enough for me to know if you no longer feel able to provide a third opinion on these three issues: In this case I will decide whether to ask again for a third opinion or to appeal to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard or Wikipedia:Arbitration.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: I'm not convinced you fully appreciate your contributions to the conflict. Be sure to have a look at WP:BOOMERANG before escalating dispute resolution. ~Kvng (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng: Not so, I raised some issues, but till now I have seen many digressions. I have never proposed to remove parties born of splits. I have never proposed to insert the references for each party. I asked to simplify the criteria. I asked to not give more weight to the regional councilors than to the parliamentarians (no answer is arrived). I asked to respect the sources (and I was told that there isn't intention of respecting the sources). I would like to know if you are still interested in giving your third opinion on these issues, otherwise I will try to reach a solution by other ways.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: Do you think my participation here has been helpful? I do not know much about Italian politics and it is a topic that is not of great interest to me. I thought I might be able to help arbitrate but my self-assessment at this point is that I've just enabled another trip or two around some circular discussions. ~Kvng (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng: Unfortunately we have made no progress, that's why I asked you if you still feel able to give your opinion on the matter. I tried to explain my position, but if you don't think you can give your third opinion on these points, that's no problem, I will appeal to another Wikipedia:Third opinion or to Wikipedia: Dispute resolution noticeboard. So do you confirm me that you are withdrawing from this discussion?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: I'm not going to provide any more help unless I think it is productive for me to do so. I will keep this page on my watchlist and will be available to be part of a WP:CONSENSUS. ~Kvng (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I would describe myself in similar terms. Scia Della Cometa, I would recommend against another third opinion request. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: So do I have to appeal to Wikipedia: Dispute resolution noticeboard? A solution must be found.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "have to", but if you're seeking out further dispute resolution, WP:DRN or an RfC would be better than 3O again. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Last week I was in a business trip and I had really no time for editing, let alone explaining my views on such complicate issues. However, my opinions on the three points are clear enough from months of discussions. I am very sorry for failing to answer to your request of dispute resolution (also Users Kvng, Firefangledfeathers and Robert McClenon should know that I am sincere!), even though, as you know, this discussion is not just you v. me: other users have expressed their opinions and some opinions were closer to mine. The fact that some users, like Autospark, Ritchie92 and Nick.mon, have participated less sporadically than me in this discussion, should make you think: 1) users might be repelled by the complexity and length of this discussion; 2) you should appreciate that I always answered to your messages, always... this means that I respect you and I am open to debate.

Again, I favour a step-by-step process, possibly one issue at the time. We already made a lot of progress from your initial perspective and most of your proposals are now part of the list. We reached further compromises lately, but they are not yet part of the list. I really think that discussing on too many issues at the same time brings burden to this talk page and fewer results. Again, I also would like to simplify some rules, that is why I proposed the "Organisation" table and that is why I also included our latest compromises in it. Please do not focus always on what we disagree, please accept that Wikipedia is a cooperative effort and no-one can have everything he/she wants.

Please understand that any notion of "coverage as a political party (or synonym) in a reliable source" is not a simplification, but an additional complication. Some parties are old, some others have been barely covered, but that does not mean that they were not parties. Moreover, opening discussions on several parties would not benefit us and would burden even more this discussion. Do we really need to make additional and, frankly, useless reseach on several parties? However, if you really want another example of what I am trying to say: I devoted some time and I already found sources on Popular Future being a "movement". I am sure I can do the same for other subjects, but is it really worth?

Finally, I understand that long debates may be frustrating, but still I appreciate that you have abandoned your original, obsessive edit warring for the sake of debate and compromise. Really, even though we have disagreements, I appreciate you as a really knowledgeable user. Have a nice day! --Checco (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: Of course you don't have to justify the fact that you cannot intervene in a discussion in a certain period, the personal life of each user must remain out of the discussions for obvious reasons (even if an intermittent participation in discussions has actually lasted at least since June). Where we have reached a compromise between our positions, good solutions have been found. On the three issues I raised, there was actually no specific intervention by other users, so I mentioned only you in Wikipedia:DRN, as only you had expressed an opinion (against) these proposals. The other users you mentioned may be discouraged by the long discussions, but also not interested in the matter (one user among those you mentioned has expressly stated this).

If there are any points on which there is no consensus, there should be an effort to reach a compromise, so as to give this page criteria that are not disputed. However, I agree that tackling three problems together was a mistake and that it is better to tackle the issues individually.

For this reason I will start (again) with the nature of parties: the problem you have raised is not a problem. As I repeat Wikipedia is based on sources, if there is a page about a party, it means that the sources also exist, otherwise it would be original research or invented information! Indeed, I have questioned nature only on recent political subjects (the ones I have already mentioned). If you have any sources that explicitly describe Popular Future as a party or movement, you are invited to post it here to dispel any doubts. But you cannot say that it is difficult to find sources on the political subjects I have mentioned, the other parties on the list are already covered by sources and there are no problems regarding their nature.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: I would like to clarify some points: what are the sources that effectively describe Popular Future as a party? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

As usual, it is not easy to find sources, let alone scientific ones, on old and/or short lived political parties online. However, Popular Future is described as a partito regionale here, movimento here and sigla politica here. --Checco (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: The only valid source is the second you mentioned: the first is a wiki, the third describes it as an "emanation" of the Zaia List, not as a party...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

In the meantime, one of the parties I mentioned (L'Alternativa c'è) changed its name and became a real party (confirming the fact that before November 19th it was not a party). However, I would be inclined to postpone the discussion about the nature of parties and address this topic last (at the moment I will only put a Template:Disputed on the definition of party where it is doubtful). I would start with the simplest argument, namely the application of the regional 2% threshold to national elections. Obviously if no one else expresses their opinion, these discussions will go on indefinitely ...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

DRN, or not DRN?

User:Checco, User:Scia Della Cometa - I have reopened the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case. Do the two of you want moderated discussion? If so, I will provide rules that take into account the sporadic participation of an editor, so that the case may proceed slowly. If not, I will close that dispute again. If there will be moderated discussion, then you should be aware that I will not be monitoring any discussion at this article talk page. Also, I have not read most of the lengthy discussion here, because it is very long, and I do not plan to read most of it. If we have moderated discussion, I will ask the parties to provide concise summaries. Also, any other editors are welcome to participate in moderated discussion if that is the way forward. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This time I did not find the discussion you are talking about. Please let me know. I am more than willing to participate, as usual. Of course, it is not just a matter of two users, as also others have espoused their view over the last year. Thanks, --Checco (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Checco I don't think you are really willing to attend a DRN as replies should arrive within 48 hours while you reply once a week (sometimes even leaving out the specific topic). The result would be the same as the previous Third opinion: bogged down and ended up in nothing... Probably it is not the correct solution to solve these issues... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon is offering moderated discussion with adjusted rules to allow for more sporatic participation. Scia Della Cometa you should not assume that the bogging down is due to Checco's delayed responses. The large volume of your contributions here also plays a role. ~Kvng (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng: I was wrong to raise 3 issues together, but my long arguments were even due to the fact that you had misunderstood both my proposals and those of Checco. I had to repeat the same things I don't know how many times... I don't know to what extent the rules of a DRN can be corrected, one thing is to raise the reply limit to 72 hours, another thing is to increase it to a week or more: in this second case the matter becomes quite complicated...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

DRN (again)

User:Checco, User:Scia Della Cometa - The DRN discussion is closed. This means that any DRN discussion will start over, which is not saying much because we never really started. Checco: If you are agreeable to moderated discussion, first state how frequently you can expect to participate. Since some editors do not normally take long wiki-breaks and might like to make progress at some known rate, you will have to agree to some schedule if you want to take part in moderated discussion. It appears more that your participation is simply too sporadic to support moderated discussion. In that case, the other editors have the right either to edit boldly or start a Request for Comments. I am leaving the DRN discussion closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I wanted to wait a week to see Checco's answer, but it still didn't arrive... I would have liked to participate in a DRN, but it seems to me that it is not possible if there are no other users interested in the issues I raised. However, I think it is important to correct those issues and that there are no disputed criteria on the page. Checco, that edits very sporadically and mostly in discussions, would like to give his approval to the criteria of this page (which he wrote), but if he almost never replies, the mechanism stops. I was advised against asking for another third opinion. Should I ask for another request for comments? If this attempt also fails, how can agreed criteria be established for this page? Or would it be better to remove them altogether?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Scia Della Cometa - In my opinion, a neutrally worded RFC is the best way forward at this point. If you want assistance putting together an RFC, you may ping me here again to request assistance. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yes, I would actually appreciate an assistance in setting up an RFC.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Next Step ?

User:Scia Della Cometa - What section or sections of the article are the subject of the discussion? What section of sections of the article do you want to change? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: As I stated earlier, I would to discuss 2 specific criteria and a general topic (which I would like to postpone at the end). I would like to start with the criterion concerning presence in Regional councils. Currently the criterion reads: "having been represented by at least 5% of the elects in a Regional Council" (I premise that the criterion refers only to those parties born from a split or that have elected their own representatives on the lists of other parties, and not to those parties that have autonomously won at least one seat). In my opinion this threshold is too low and in contrast with some criteria on which we agreed, that is the criterion concerning the representation by at least 5 MPs and 3 MEPs. This rule would allow several parties (born from simple splits) with only 2 regional councilors to be included in the list, in practice the page the page attributes more importance to parties with only two regional councilors rather than parties with two MEPs or two MPs. In my opinion, it is an attribution of undue weight to these parties. Indeed the regional councilors are sharply less important than the MPs and MEPs, and this page lists far too many small irrelevant regional parties, which have never participated in an election. I had initially proposed a minimum number of 5 regional councilors, but to reach a compromise I subsequently proposed a minimum number of three regional councillors, for consistency with the entire setting of the page. So my proposal would be the following: "Having been represented by a Regional council group composed at least of 3 Regional councillors". Currently the page seems to me too unbalanced in favor of small regional parties of no interest that have never participated in the elections...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Scia Della Cometa - See Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Draft RFC 1 for review. If that says what you want to say, then we copy it to this article talk page and remove the nowiki tags, and a bot will find it and list it, and it will run for 30 days. If you have questions, ask them before we activate the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yes, it seems ok to me. But must "to" (between the two options) also be pointed? Furthermore, before opening the Rfc I have another question: in the Rfc can I briefly explain my point of view for the survey or is it enough that it be explained here? I mean the fact that currently the page gives more importance to a party with two regional councilors than to a party with two MPs or MEPs. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Scia Della Cometa - I have changed the formatting. The RFC will appear immediately below this discussion. If your explanation is very short, it can go in the Survey. Otherwise it can go in the Threaded Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Good, for me it's ok. I think that even "pol" (Politics, government, and law) should be added between the topics, right? Currently the request it is a draft, do I have to copy and paste it below? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I am very sorry for showing up so late also this time. I have discussed for months, but now I am in a very busy situation with work. Hopefully, I will be more present here in the future. I am open to any sort of discussion. Sometimes I have some time that I could spend on Wikipedia, but this list and this talk need concentration!

A good thing would be to start with uploading the compromises we already reached several weeks ago. In this respect, I see _of_political_parties_in_Italy&diff=next&oldid=1057562551 this edit as a good compromise.

Secondly, I still think that my "Organisation" edit would make further changes more easy because the rules would be explained in clearer way.

Thirdly, I cannot agree on some of the latest edits by User:SDC, which are not supported by any consensus: having multiple positions is really not a good idea. Originally, I was opposed to adding ideologies (those infos, that are often matter of discussion in the parties' talk pages, can be ultimately found in those articles), then User:Autospark and I agreed on having just one ideology per party, but we have never discussed about political positions, let alone multiple positions. --Checco (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Ps: The main reason why I edited little in mainspace over the last year or so is precisely because I was too absorbed by this talk. --Checco (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: But any changes on this page need your permission? Let me understand, I didn't know I needed your permission to edit this page. And I also have to wait weeks to get this permission, I thought this was a free encyclopedia...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Your comment has nothing to with what I just wrote. What about my "Organisation" proposal? It is just a stylistic proposal, including the current rules in better fashion plus some tweaks we agreed on that have not been implemented yet, and still I cannot have it uploaded. I have been proposing it for months. --Checco (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: Instead my comment concerns what you wrote: you wrote that the political positions on this page "are not supported by any consensus". I remember a discussion about ideologies, but not about excluding political positions. Why couldn't I put them in the tables? Had there already been a contrary decision? Or should I have asked an opinion or permission first? In theory the edits would be free if they improve the pages. The political positions are present everywhere, honestly I do not know which list of parties exclude them other than the Italian one. Then, it doesn't make too much sense to discuss now how to "expose" the criteria if these criteria are still disputed.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

In any case, this point will need to be clarified in a general context.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, bold edits are OK until they are unopposed. Wikipedia:Consensus: "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". I guess I mentioned that sentence at least a dozen times. By the way, having one main ideology per party was something User:Autospark and I, and possibly other users as well had agreed on, but, as I prefer not having ideologies, let alone political positions, I am fine with your latest edit. --Checco (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: Did I insert more ideologies? I don't think. I had entered the political positions. Where was it decided not to include the political position? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

It was never decided, indeed. You made a bold edit, that bold edit was opposed, thus you did the right thing in not re-proposing it. Again, Wikipedia:Consensus: "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". --Checco (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

You said that my edits were "not supported by any consensus", as if I needed prior consensus to edit the page. However, I will open a general discussion about the topic of setting the tables.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

No, there is no need of "prior consensus", but, once again, from Wikipedia:consensus: "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". You made a bold edit, but that bold edit was not unopposed. --Checco (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC on Regional Criterion

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to change the regional criterion. I note the discussion appears to have largely moved on, and there has been wider participation in the more recent RfC. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the criterion for regional parties based on presence in Regional councils be changed from:

• "having been represented by at least 5% of the elects in a Regional Council"

to

• "Having been represented by a Regional council group composed at least of 3 Regional councillors"

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Please enter Yes or No in the Survey with a brief statement. Back-and-forth discussion may be conducted in the Threaded Discussion.

Survey

• No I strongly disagree with this proposal because regional councils have a different number of coucillors. More populated regions have more councillors, but small regions have a disproportionate number of councillors. However, it would be more difficult for new regional parties from small regions to be mentioned in the list and I do not think this is particularly correct or equitable. Having three regional councillors out of 80 in Lombardy would be easier than having three regional councillors out of 30 in smaller regions. Finally, rules on "regional council groups" vary a lot. I understand what is behind this proposal, but I cannot support it. --Checco (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The worst thing, in my view, is the introduction of the concept of "regional council group". However, I would not support the proposal even if the sentence were "having been represented by at least three members of a regional council". --Checco (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

    Comment: Yes, a party should be represented autonomously in a regional council to be considered on this page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

    Comment: This is the very notion that I oppose. Rules on groups are very different from Council to Council. --Checco (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes The page lists parties with only two regional councilors, when parties with 4 MPS or 2 MEPs cannot be included on the list! Many regional parties listed on this page are not even known in Italy (as they are never voted on by anyone).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• No As regional councils vary quite significantly in terms of numbers of representatives that they contain, I can’t agree with this current proposal without some revisions. It’s not a bad proposal per se, and we’re closer to a solution than we were before, but it needs further work.—Autospark (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

@Autospark: How would you correct the proposal so as not to give an undue weight to the regional councillors (members of a party simply born from a split)? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Autospark: I wait for your answer, I would like to know how you would like to correct the proposal. You objected to the proposal as regional councils vary quite significantly in terms of numbers of representatives. Would you agree to support a minimum number of councilors (3) with a minimum percentage of representatives (for example 10%) to protect the smaller regional councils (such as those of Umbria, Molise and Basilicata)? Indeed, I point out that with the current criterion (5%) a party born from a split in one of the three regional councils mentioned above would only need a councilor to be included in the page. Totally in contrast to the other criteria.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

A solution could be: 2 regional councillors in councils with 20–35 members, 3 regional councillors in councils with 41–51 members, 4 regional councillors in councils with 60-80 members. It would be less equitable than having the same percentage, but much easier to detect. --Checco (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

In this way it would change almost nothing from the current situation, apart a further burdening the criteria, when instead the purpose should be the simplification of the criteria and the lightening of the list through the reduction of less relevant regional parties (or pseudo-parties in some cases). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Having fixed numbers instead of calculating percentages is quite an improvement in terms of simplification. Morevoer, now the 5% of a regional council with 20 members is 1 councillor. In my compromise proposal, I am proposing to raise that figure. It is quite a difference. --Checco (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you are well aware that your proposal would not change the current status quo of the page in any way, while my purpose would be to simplify the list and rules. Half of the page is reserved for "regional parties", many of which correspond to pages with no real information and which cannot be of any interest to the reader. Honestly, I don't even see the necessity to include parties with just two regional councilors, not even for smaller regional councils (like Molise, Umbria and Basilicata), certainly not for regional councils composed of 30 regional councilors or more. After all we are discussing about parties or groups born from "giochi di palazzo" or "palace games", most of them are unknown even in Italy and in their reference regions, their only function here seems to me to make the page heavy. Unfortunately, it seems to me that we are too far apart on too many fronts. The user Autospark, once again, intervenes but doesn't answer if I ask him a question. So I wonder what his interest is in intervening in these discussions ... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The Italian party system is a very complex one, as you know. In fact, it is the combination of 21 regional party systems plus the general one. There are several regional parties in the list not because of lax rules, but simply because there are many of them. Just compare Italy with Germany, France or the United States: you will see that in those countries very few regional/state parties are represented in regional/state legislatures. I also hope that User:Autospark will respond, but you need to understand that no-one is required to do anything in Wikipedia. You are very lucky that I always answer to your questions, but, really, users are not required to answer. You should accept that some users intervene just once upon a time and, especially when their positions are clear, some of your questions are a little redundant. You and I may be very interested in this list or even obsessed by it, but other users might have a different degree of interest and you should respect that. --Checco (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't really see why I'm lucky if a couple of users intervene to express their opposition to my edits. No one is obliged to intervene, but my questions are not redundant, perhaps it is the user who prefers not to answer: he stated that his opposition concerns the current proposal and that the agreement could be close, it is more than obvious that I ask him how he could accept the proposal. If one intervenes in a talk, he must also expect a question. If he can't give an answer to one of his statements, he probably didn't have a clear idea when he wrote it. I personally avoid intervening where I do not have clear ideas on a matter. Not even the List of political parties in Spain contains so many regional parties. But if on this page:

• a party needs fewer regional councilors than MPs or MEPs to be included on the list,
• parties that participate in elections and that have obtained many votes are excluded, while parties that have never participated in elections and that are unknown to Italian voters are included,
• political subjects of a dubious nature are included, which are probably not real parties,

it is evident that the criteria have been written in a decidedly unbalanced manner (too lassive for some unknown parties, too intransigent for other parties). It is certainly not an obsession, but after having encountered a strong hostility in editing this page which I consider inadequate when compared to other similar pages, my interest in correcting it has increased. At this point I wonder if it is better to remove the criteria as in the other pages, if no agreement can be reached even between a handful of users...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Rules are necessary because Italy has a very high number of parties and the list could be endless. I especially disagree with the first of your last three points, as regional councillors are more representative that deputies and senators: the most populated regions in Italy have more deputies and senators than regional councillors, thus it is more difficult to be elected in Regional Councils than in the Italian Parliament, not to mention the fact that virtually all regional councillors are directly elected by the voters, differently from most deputies and senators. --Checco (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

There is not only representativeness, their importance remains decisively lower than that of MPs and MEPs. The direct election of councilors, on the other hand, has nothing to do with this discussion, here we are discussing about parties. And the parties we are discussing have not elected any regional councilors. The truth is that these criteria favor small parties born from small palace splits and exclude parties that have participated in elections and directly elected their own representatives. It is a contradiction, it cannot be denied. I know that without criteria the list would become longer, but what good are criteria that are not approved by the community and also inconsistent with each other? Without current criteria at least there would be no so evident contradictions.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I have just favoured a restriction of the "regional councillors" rule. At the same time, I would favour a loosening of "MPs and MEPs" rules. I have my consistency. This said, once again, I do not understand why the current rules, not the new ones we have to agree on, cannot be presented in the list with the "Organisation" scheme, which is much clearer than the current presentation. --Checco (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think that the main problem with the criteria is their exposure, but their approval by consensus. Do you want more lax rules? I agree to approve more permissive criteria, but they must be consistent. Do you want more permissive rules? I would agree to approve criteria that are much more permissive than the current ones, both for national and local parties, as long as they are consistent with each other. Instead you have strongly opposed to including even the parties that had elected provincial councilors with their own list, you should decide if you want more permissive or more restrictive criteria.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The fact is that the current rules are OK with me. I am always open for compromise (I just offered one right above on regional councillors)... are you? What I really crave for is having the rules presented in a better way and, even though my "Organisation" scheme was liked also by other users, is still there, not in mainspace. --Checco (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Certainly the current rules are ok with you, they have been accepted if not written directly by you... You didn't offered compromise on regional councilors, you simply reformulated the rules to maintain the status quo. The inconsistencies were even more evident before I managed to make some changes to the criteria, if the rules are written in an unbalanced way it means that they should be corrected. I think I have clearly exposed the inconsistencies of the current criteria, your main concern seems to me instead regards the exposure of rules never approved through community consensus...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That is simply not true, as I have long explained in months of discussion. Please seek consensus and avoid accusations. --Checco (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Isn't it true? true? Ok, then show me how the page would have changed thanks to your proposal, I'm quite curious. And I point out that consensus was not sought even for the rules you introduced yourself.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That very last sentence is false and I spent months explaining it. Moreover, other users have approved the current rules. --Checco (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Who approved the rules for this page? Where? I have not seen any discussion on this matter. However, even if this were the case, the inconsistency of these rules is evident: if a party that gets 8% of votes at regional level in local elections is excluded and unknown parties are included, it means that the rules are unbalanced and so not well written...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat myself for the nth time. Btw, parties getting the 8% of the vote at the regional level are included in the list, as we have the following rule: "having scored at least 2% of the vote in a regional election (or in a general/European election at the regional level)". --Checco (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand if you pretend you don't understand or if you don't really understand: "a party that gets 8% of votes at regional level IN LOCAL ELECTIONS IS EXCLUDED". It would be enough to read what I write.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, why don't you indicate the precise discussion in which the rules of this page were decided? You never did.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

As I already told you, the rules are a result of a long process in it.Wiki talks, this talk and the template's talk and, anyway, the ones you have been trying to change are established consensus. By the way, it is not important how we reached to this consensus, the fact is that this consensus has been stregthened by the fact that other users, notably including User:Autospark, expressed support for the rules, which could have been changed a bit if you only were able to accept compromises. Sorry, I did not read "local elections". I am completely fine with not considering local elections, meaning provincial and municipal ones. They are not regional! Thus, any calculation would be quite arbitrary: in Italy provincial and municipal elections are not held on the same day, differently from other countries. It is absurd anyway that you are always re-proposing your views, when they have been already discussed and not accepted. User:Autospark sided with me also on provincial elections, indeed. I am sorry that your proposals do not gather sufficient or, actually, any consensus: you should accept that and try to find common ground. I offered you many comporomise solutions and most of the time you reject them. --Checco (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: 1. any decisions in it.wikipedia have no value here (you should know well); 2. in it.wikipedia there is currently no trace of these rules. Is it easy to take advantage of the fact that there is a user (with whom you may have a sort of deal) who is ready to support your every position, right? As soon as I ask a more detailed question to that user, he doesn't know what to answer. Yeah, that really means consensus. On the other hand, it is difficult to argue of established consensus when in reality there is a widespread lack of interest in the matter: that is not consensus, but it is disinterest, they are two different things. If there had been an effective consensus, other users would have intervened to defend those criteria, but this did not happen. If you had read more carefully what I had written, you would also have understood that I was also referring to parties that ran on the same day in all the provincial elections of a region, but evidently you have ignored all this. You keep saying that I refuse to compromise, when instead it is you who have clearly stated that the page must remain like this, that is, based on the rules that you have written and approved. I have shown myself willing to make the criteria more flexible or more restrictive, as long as they are consistent with each other. It seems to me that you just want to keep the status quo. Am I rejecting compromises? I don't think so.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: Anyway, even if you don't want to, a solution will have to be found. I hope you are not really serious when you say that the consensus comes from a discussion about the template in it.wikipedia, although I fear that it is so. Honestly, this justification is worth nothing. And it is quite evident that through your buddy, with whom you probably communicate externally to Wikipedia, you try to condition consensus in little participated discussions. It doesn't take long to figure it out. And this does not seem correct to me. Do you really want to reach a compromise? Prove it. You don't want to remove the pages you've created from the list, and that's clear. We agreed to simplify the rules and make them uniform for all parties, but you have denied yourself several times (wanting to apply exclusive rules for regional parties and wanting to uselessly complicate the rules on regional councilors). So my proposal is to simplify them, making them more inclusive but also more consistent with each other (that is, that they do not exclude parties that are more relevant than those they include). Briefly, the compromise I am suggesting to you is the following:

• having scored at least 0.5% of the vote in a general or European election;
• having scored at least 1% of the vote in a regional election;
• having elected at least one MP/MEP/regional councillor with their own lists;
• having been represented by at least 3 MPs or MEPs;
• having been represented by a regional council group.

No party that you want to keep at all costs would be excluded the list. The rules would be simple, immediate and valid for all parties. And above all they would be more consistent. If you really want to find a compromise you shouldn't have anything against this proposal, because it would not exclude anything you want to keep. Otherwise, make it clear that you don't want to compromise on rules that should be shared. But this second hypothesis would be a problem.

More than that I don't know what to propose. If you agree with this proposal, for me the discussion about the page rules ends here.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I will not comment your comments above, otherwise I should not even discuss with you, but I am more interested in results.

I am very happy that you are coming to terms with my "Organisation" proposal. I basically agree with your proposal too. I am not convinced by the 1% threshold in regional elections (it is too low and also Senate and European elections should be counted) and by the "regional council group" rule (rules on council groups are different from region to region and also quite arbitrary; in most regions, groups can be even formed by just one person, thus many more parties would be added). However, for the sake of compromise, I would do like 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 obtained at least 0.5% of the vote in a countrywide (general/European) election;
• having elected at least one MP/MEP/regional councillor with its own list;
• having been represented by at least 3 MPs or at least 3 MEPs;
• having obtained at least 2% of the vote in a regional election (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol) or in a Senate election at the regional level;
• having been represented by a regional council group (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol);
• having obtained at least 15% in a constituency for Italians abroad in a general election;

Classification

The parties are classified as:

• Major parties — parties having obtained at least 5% of the vote in a countrywide (general/European) election or having been represented by at least 100 MPs or 10 MEPs;
• Minor parties — parties having fulfilled 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 obtained more than 5% of the vote in the latest countrywide (general/European) election or currently being represented by at least 30 MPs or 5 MEPs.

We are close to a general compromise. Cheers! --Checco (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

We are close to compromise, but a point of disagreement remains: the regional threshold of 2% in a Senate election. I have already explained how this rule, if generally applied, would imply the inclusion of a number of unknown parties. And I have already explained how the application of this rule only to regional parties (in addition to breaking the uniformity of the rules) would be useless: no party would be included with this rule, no party would be excluded without it. I keep finding this rule complicated (in contrast to the simplification of the rules) and of no real use. I do not understand it. At this point, I think that the 1% threshold in regional election is much more useful than the 2% threshold in a Senate election.

Ps. I am aware of the reasoning on regional groups, indeed I have stated that this proposal was more inclusive.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I basically disagree on the "regional council group" rule as I would prefer a proportional rule like the current one, but I can definitely accept it as a compromise. On the regional threshold, I think that 1% is really too low and that it is important to track parties which may reach a similar threshold also in Senate elections (I have excluded elections for the Chamber of Deputies and the European Parliament for the sake of clarity and compromise). Generally speaking, rules have to be decided because they are reasonable, not just because they have a specific implication. The 2% regional threshold rule is not useless, even though it may not change anything at this point. In this respect, it is not accurate that I "don't want to remove the pages [I]'ve created from the list", really! Finally, do you like the "Organisation" scheme? --Checco (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The proposal on regional groups might seem arbitrary, but it is absolutely reasonable because it excludes contradictions that are instead present with the current rule. It is true that a rule need not necessarily have a specific implication, but it is reasonable to verify what concrete effects they have once applied. The application of the 1% threshold for regional elections would be reasonable because it would allow to add existing pages to the list (after all, the purpose of a list is to list blue links, not red links). It is an immediately verifiable criterion, because regional elections are autonomous elections and all have their own page on Wikipedia. What about the application of 2% in the Senate elections? As I have already stated, several times, it is not an immediate rule, therefore complicated to verify, because the historical archive of the elections must be consulted. What would be the advantages of this rule? No advantage, it would allow the inclusion of a series of parties that do not have a page and never will, because there are no sources. Who would go looking for all the parties that respect this complicated rule? I honestly don't think you would. So why keep the point on a rule with no benefits and one that you are probably not willing to translate into concrete facts on the page? I don't understand.

Regarding the exposition of the rules, I think it is too early to talk about it before there are agreed rules. I am not a fan of that scheme, but I think that an agreement on the exposition of the admission criteria can be found. I see you copied the schema from the template, but that schema, in that form, is meant for editors, it is not suitable for readers. For example, the classification scheme is not needed, it would be quite redundant. Readers already know what a regional party or a Party of the Italians abroad is, they don't need a bulleted list to remind them. But this is now just an off topic. As long as there is no agreement on the rules, it doesn't make much sense to discuss how to display them on the page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry we cannot find a compromise. --Checco (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: We can't reach a compromise because you want to introduce a rule that you yourself would not be willing to make concrete on the page. Or am I wrong? I am trying to introduce agreed and simplified rules, but it seems to me that you pose an obstacle to every proposal.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

First of all, all general elections had been already checked for regional parties getting more than 2% regionally, thus there is no need to do it again. I always trying to craft compromises, also by accepting things that I do not like. Unfortunately, it seems like you are opposing my "Organisation" scheme altogether... I am a very patient person, however I also would like to see progress. Otherwise, the current rules can stay. --Checco (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: I did not say that I oppose your proposal, I stated that for me it is ok to apply it but only for the inclusion criteria (which we are discussing). As you said, the check was done for regional parties (and none of them would be excluded anyway), but these rules must apply to all parties. So it doesn't seem to me that I'm not willing to compromise, otherwise the page as far as I'm concerned would be organized differently.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, you didn't even affirmed whether, in the case of introducing that rule, you would undertake to look for the parties to include on this page and possibly create satisfactory pages on them. If you are not willing to do all this, it seems very difficult to understand your position.

As I have already stated, if you accepted the proposal I made (which does not reflect my ideas, but it is a compromise proposal) and you stopped re-launching the idea of a complicated rule (whose application probably not even you have intend to take charge), now this discussion would already be over and the admission criteria would be listed in an apposite section as you would like.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure! I have no problem with applying that rule only to regional parties. This is how it could be, if you were to agree with me:

Organisation

Conditions of admission

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

• having obtained at least 0.5% of the vote in a countrywide (general/European) election;
• having elected at least one MP/MEP/regional councillor with its own list;
• having been represented by at least 3 MPs or at least 3 MEPs;
• having obtained at least 2% of the vote in a regional election (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol) or in a Senate election at the regional level (this rule is applied solely to political parties active only in one region or autonomous province in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol);
• having been represented by a regional council group (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol);
• having obtained at least 15% in a constituency for Italians abroad in a general election;

Classification

The parties are classified as:

• Major parties — parties having obtained at least 5% of the vote in a countrywide (general/European) election or having been represented by at least 100 MPs or 10 MEPs;
• Minor parties — parties having fulfilled 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 obtained more than 5% of the vote in the latest countrywide (general/European) election or currently being represented by at least 30 MPs or 5 MEPs.

Hope we can reach a compromise now!

Btw, a big check would be necessary for regional/provincial council groups in each and every legislature in each and every region, but I know you are a great researcher.

Happy Christmas Eve! --Checco (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: Thanks for the wishes, which I reciprocate.

Unfortunately, I guess you didn't understand: from the beginning I argued that the rules must be uniformed to all parties, and you agreed with me. I strongly disagree with applying a rule only to regional parties. Applying this rule only to regional parties: 1) it would be a contradiction to the principle of uniformity of criteria 2) without sources, it would be difficult to determine which parties are regional and which parties are national (and some regional parties that have exceeded the 2% threshold at Senate elections are surely excluded from the current list). I really do not understand this defense of a complicated rule that does not bring any advantage: it seems to me that I have accepted many things that I do not agree with, I think you could give up on a rule so controversial and not supported by consensus. Regarding your "organization" proposal,, I stated that I agree to list the criteria in the style you have proposed, but not the classification of parties, which would be redundant. Those descriptions can be removed from the page, it is not necessary (the reader knows what a regional party is, it is not necessary to explain it to him).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Ps. I think the time would come to give criteria and a definitive structure to this page, so I don't understand why the agreement should be blocked by such a controversial and irrelevant rule.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Then, again, we cannot reach a further compromise at this point. Of course, the current rules are already a compromise and both of us would like to have them different. Just one example for myself: I have never been convinced by the fact that a political aprty can be included in the list only because it elected with its own list one single MP, MEP or regional councillor. But... that is what compromises are all about! --Checco (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: The advantages of including the parties that have elected an MP or a regional councilor are obvious, I challenge you to find any other list that does not include them. I want to know from you what are the advantages of including such a low regional threshold for the Senate elections! If we introduce it only for regional parties, it is almost useless and in contrast with the uniformity of the rules. If we introduce it for all parties, the damages would far outweigh the advantages (the inclusion of a series of red links that will never be created). I have accepted to keep on this page parties who have not left to find a compromise, you should explain to me the advantages of your position! If you support a rule, you should know how to explain the advantages.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Also because if we do not find a compromise now, this discussion risks never ending, the current criteria have not been entered through consensual procedure.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Ps. If you really can't give up a regional threshold in the Senate elections, at most I could accept a high threshold, like 5%, and not a low one like 2%. The threshold for regional elections, on the other hand, can remain low, because they are autonomous elections and the results are easily trackable. It is an extreme compromise proposal, because I would exclude without hesitation useless criteria that do not benefit the page in any way. I don't even think that the threshold for parties of Italian abroad is needed, but if we have to keep it, a round figure like 10% is better. If you reject this compromise too, my fear is that you want to continue this discussion indefinitely. And this discussion has quite tired me. Because this page shouldn't remain without rules agreed by the users who edit it.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Regional parties having scored more than 2% in regional elections and Senate elections at the regional level are already included in the list (and, as you know, few regional parties take part in Senate elections), while there are probably many parties having elected at least one regional councillor with their own list that are not yet mentioned in the list. Moreover, you are not even interested in classification, thus who would decide whether a party is regional or not? While being inclusive, I have long favoured stricter conditions of admission: the percentage of elects (depending on the region's population) and the 2% regional threshold are definitely stricter than the one-regional councillor rule, but I backed down because I agree that simpler rules are better. Again, also on the parties of Italians abroad, you do not even want a threshold, meaning that you want to add several parties, and, again, I favour a stricter condition of admission. The real problem is that, whenever we are close to a compromise, you raise the bar and put more issues at discussion. I do not know what to do. I have been proposing the "Organisation" scheme for months and that is just a technical presentation of the rules and I would really love to see it uploaded, that is why I am so interested in compromise. A compromise should be reasonable, by the way. --Checco (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not raising the bar, for months I have supported the uniform application of the criteria to all parties and you agreed with me on this point. So it seems to me that you are the one who changed his mind. Why do not you answer to my question? Why don't you know exactly how to answer me? To have an exchange of views it is necessary to motivate own arguments, it does not seem to me that you are doing it, at each intervention I see an attempt to block the dialogue. You better not be sure that all regional parties that meet that criterion are on the list, because I am sure that this is not the case (I checked personally some Senate election results).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You continue to do not answer my questions (what are the advantages of that rule), you don't answer my further proposals, what should I do with you? I am quite tired of reminding you that rule was introduced without any previous consensus and therefore that rule has very little value. I don't know if you really want to find a compromise (I begin to doubt it) but I would like an agreement (it would have been better if between several users). For this reason I am relaunching another proposal: a 1% threshold in the regional elections and a 3% regional threshold in the Senate elections. But all parties that do not have a page must be excluded from the list. It is also written in the general rules about the lists. Do you accept or reject this umpteenth attempt to compromise? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

How could I accept what is not an attempt to compromise, but a pejorative solution? It is easier to have the same threshold. I really do not understand why we should complicate things. I will never accept that "all parties that do not have a page must be excluded from the list", but, if you want, you can remove the red links. --Checco (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

A compromise is something that can be acceptable to people holding different views. Just to make you think, these would be the rules if I were free to edit them:

• having obtained at least 0.5% 1% of the vote in a countrywide (general/European) election;
• having elected at least one MP/MEP/regional councillor with its own list;
• having been represented by at least 3 MPs 5 MEPs or at least 3 MEPs 2 MEPs;
• having obtained at least 2% of the vote in a regional election (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol) or in a Senate election a countrywide (general/European) election at the regional level (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol) (this rule is applied solely to political parties active only in one region or autonomous province in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol);
• having been represented by a regional council group (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol) 2 regional councillors in regional councils with 20–35 members, 3 regional councillors in regional councils with 41–51 members, 4 regional councillors in regional councils with 60-80 members;
• having obtained at least 15% in a constituency for Italians abroad in a general election.

Everything I have been proposing to you has always been a compromise, far enough from what I would like. Again, my proposal is to institutionalise the current rules under the "Organisation" scheme and, then, discuss one issue at the time. The "Organisation" scheme would be very helpful because all rules of admission and classification would be clearly presented for us and anyone who might be interested in joining our discussion, but as of now finds difficult to track the situation. --Checco (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The current rules, under the "Organisation" scheme, are:

Organisation

Conditions of admission

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

• having obtained at least 0.5% of the vote in a countrywide (general/European) election;
• having elected at least one MP/MEP/regional councillor with its own list;
• having been represented by at least 5 MPs or at least 3 MEPs or in at least 5 regional councils;
• having obtained at least 2% of the vote in a regional election (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol) or in a countrywide (general/European) election at the regional level (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol) — this rule is applied solely to political parties active only in one region or autonomous province in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol);
• having been represented by 5% of the elects in a regional council (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol)
• having obtained at least 15% in a constituency for Italians abroad in a general election;

Classification

The parties are classified as:

• Major parties — parties having obtained at least 5% of the vote in a countrywide (general/European) election or having been represented by at least 100 MPs or 10 MEPs;
• Minor parties — parties having fulfilled 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 obtained more than 5% of the vote in the latest countrywide (general/European) election or currently being represented by at least 30 MPs or 5 MEPs.

Please correct the scheme if something does not reflect well the current rules. I really do not understand why we should not upload this clearer scheme, waiting for a new set of rules. How could it be controversial? Is not it clearer? --Checco (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Wait, maybe I haven't explained myself: I didn't propose to insert a rule that excludes the insertion of red links. I proposed to remove or directly not insert the red links, it would be an implicit rule. Why do I object to the scheme of rules you proposed? Because it seems useless enough to worry about how to expose rules that are not agreed and that are not uniform to all parties: if the criteria are different according to the type of party (national, regional, etc.), the section becomes useless. On the contrary, I think unapproved rules should be removed from the page, not listed in a section. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the differentiated threshold between regional and Senate elections is not a complication, but a compromise. The real complication seems to me the application of a regional threshold to the general elections: you still have to explain to me the benefits of this rule... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Checco So the dialogue stops here? Ok, but in this case I will ask if it is legitimate to keep rules on this page that have never been discussed before their introduction and that are partially imposed by a single user. I think this is the only case in which the content of a page (specifically, a list of parties) is decided and controlled by a single user, all the other lists are free to be edited, unlike this one. If the rules on a page are not supported by consensus (and the current rules certainly are not) then they should be removed.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, nothing of what you just wrote is accurate and the current rules have been endorsed by other users, notably including User:Autospark, in this very talk. This said, I am always open to dialogue. Do not confuse my patience with submissiveness. Indeed, I find difficult to understand how you can oppose my "Organisation" scheme and, as it was approved also by other users, again notably including User:Autospark, I could have uploaded it a long time ago. I would start from that and then try to fix specific points. On some of them you and I already have a full agreement or a viable compromise, but it seems to me that you are stuck with wanting everything and not accepting a more gradualist approach. --Checco (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

You stated that there are other "users" who have approved, but you only mentioned Autospark with which you probably also keep underground conversations. Your only interest seems to change the display style of the rules, simply copying it from the template, and without worrying about standardizing the rules for all parties. I repeat it for the umpteenth time, it makes no sense in worrying about how to expose rules that have not been neither approved nor standardized. You have rejected all the proposals I made to you on the regional threshold, without even trying to make real counter-proposals, submission has nothing to do with it. The bloc of the criteria of this page de facto does not have any consensus. The discussion about the approval of the criteria has been going on for six months now. If all the criteria are not approved within a short time, I probably will ask for their removal, like all the other lists of parties, maybe it wold be the fairest solution.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I would like a better presentation of the rules and I would also like several changes to the rules. My reasoning is simple: upload the "Organisation" scheme, then fix single rules step by step (we already agree on some changes). Rules are necessary, otherwise this list could be neverending. --Checco (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity going forward, I would like to see a new compromise formed, and hope that SDC can contribute towards a solution (which optimistically, isn’t far away from being reached with some focus). As things stand, I approve the ‘Organisation’ plan as a means to fine-tune agreements and discussions between editors about rules for inclusion. We do need rules to keep lists like this manageable… Hopefully a new compromise can be reached soon, and if not, the current rules should stand.—Autospark (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no sake in maintaining an admission criteria never approved in a discusion, the contents of a page cannot be included or excluded on the basis of a minority point of view. And I strongly oppose making a bulleted list of criteria that are not the same for all types of parties (moreover that scheme is merely copied from the template, it is clear that it is a scheme designed for editors and not for readers). It is useless to repeat that the introduction of that scheme would make it easier to discuss and approve the criteria, it is clear that this is not the case. It is easy to imagine that once you have obtained the desired result, you would continue to block the revision of some criteria (especially the one concerning the regional threshold).

Since I think a page cannot continue to be held hostage by a regulation that is not supported by consensus, I think I probably ask for the legitimacy of it. In it.wikipedia there are no admission criteria and the page is still easily manageable.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Once again, User:Autospark endorsed my "Organisation" scheme, thus it would be a legitimate move to include it, also as a way to make our discussion easier and more understandable by average editors. I understand you do not believe in my good faith ("it is easy to imagine that once you have obtained the desired result, you would continue to block the revision of some criteria"), but that is not really the case, as I would also like several changes to the rules. --Checco (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Once again, the support of a user with whom you have a collaboration relationship is not consensus. You will presumably to block the reaching of an agreement, as you have done in the last six months, the exposition has nothing to do with the comprehensibility of the rules, it is enough to know how to read.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

So what is your consensus? The rules have been challenged strongly only by you, while other users have supported them or, at least, the fact that, until a new consensus is formed, they should stay. Your "all or nothing" strategy does not bring results. As you know, I have been proposing for months a new presentation of the rules and also I would like to see changes to the current rules. There were also some agreements, but you refrain from uploading them because of your "all or nothing" strategy. --Checco (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Closure

I've requested closure for this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.