Template talk:Italian political parties

Major/minor classification

There was a long discussion at Talk:List of political parties in Italy which led to new rules of classification for major/minor parties. I am going to be bold and implement that decision also here by removing the "medium" category and standardising the thresholds. --Checco (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Simplification

Wouldn't it be time to simplify the complicated inclusion and classification criteria still in place for this template? I think that inclusion criteria are still necessary in this case, but not such unnecessarily complicated criteria. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I have currently no time to think about it, but I will surely come up with a proposal sometime soon. --Checco (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Essentially, I would like to remove the difference between major and minor parties, to list all the parties with representation in the Italian parliament, in the European parliament and in regional councils, without particular rules.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It is OK to remove the difference between major and minor parties. I also agree that all parties with representation in the Italian Parliament, the European Parliament and Regional Councils could be listed, according to the current ordering. I would have three categories ("countrywide", "regional" and "overseas"). Regional parties should be listed by region. Possibly, I would add a note on parliamentary groups detached from political parties. --Checco (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I could agree to organize the template into countrywide, regional and overseas parties (including only parties that have representation). Parliamentary groups are something else, so I wouldn't include them. Furthermore, unlike the current version, I would avoid repeating for each region the regional section of a national party, such as the Lega: it is repetitive and redundant.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I would simply use the same categorization in List of political parties in Italy, therefore: parliamentary, regional-parliamentary, non-represented. Yakme (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It could be another solution, however the unrepresented parties cannot all be included in the template, they are too many: inclusion criteria would be necessary in this case.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Then stop at regional-parliamentary. A selection based on threshold criteria will always cause troubles, and is a form of WP:OR. Yakme (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The organization of the template concerning only the division between parliamentary represented/regional represented for me is ok.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I could not disagree more on replicating the bad compromise of List of political parties in Italy here. Parties are better defined and classified by their nature: countrywide, regional and overseas. I understand the issue over the regional parties forming the League, but those parties, many of which predate the League, are autonomous parties: I could agree about removing them from the template, as long as they are restored in the List. --Checco (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Checco and Yakme: In my view the priority is to remove the current rules and make this template simpler too. I could also accept to keep the current territoriality criterion, even if I would prefer the representativeness criterion (which is more objective). Anyway, the sections of the League are already included in the list of political parties in Italy and it seems to me that you have expanded that part a bit too much, there was no need to give a presentation to each section of the League, including the establishment date and the name of the predecessor parties (that no longer exist). I agree that the Venetian League and the Lombard League have an important history (indeed they pre-existed the Northern League) but the others are just regional sections, nothing more.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Parties are better defined and classified by their nature: countrywide, regional and overseas. This is a personal opinion, not an objective fact. It was decided, on Talk:List of political parties in Italy, that parties are classified based on parliament membership. I would honestly assume that the same should be reflected in this template – it would definitely be confusing if the article and the associated template had different classification rules. Furthermore, as SDC said, the current classification is objective, contrary to a separation based on ideology or "nature" (what is the "nature" of a party?). Yakme (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no reference to ideology, here, even though another template, the Template:Historical Italian political parties, is precisely organised according to the parties' ideology. It is quite objective that a party is active countrywide, regionally or overseas. I think that readers benefit from the current organisation of the template, let alone the distinction between main and minor parties that can be eliminated. --Checco (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

We should decide how to modify this template, I hope there is no need for a long discussion, I think we are all aware that the current setting of this template is obsolete.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes and obviously the simplest immediate thing is to organize it according to the associated article List of political parties in Italy. Yakme (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The current organisation of the template is not obsolete and it is arguably quite better than that of the List. I would just simplify the conditions of admission, not the structure. Also, it is important that some conditions of admission continue to exist, due to the vast number of parties active in Italy. --Checco (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I checked the templates currently used for other European countries and basically all use templates based on representation, without any difference between major and minor parties. My preference is to use a template similar to the one used by Spanish parties. P1221 (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with the Spanish template model, without number of seats in brackets.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I oppose that model, especially Chamber/Senate and figures, that are always changing (List of political parties in Italy is already out-of-date). --Checco (talk) 07:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

However, it is undeniable that most of the templates are organized on the basis of a criterion of representation, which is also the criterion that was chosen for the list of Italian parties. I hope that we do not have to dwell too much on this discussion.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Clearly, other countries have less parties than Italy and not all political party systems are the same. We should be less provincial in ourt considerations. What about the Template:United States political parties (larger and smaller! major and third party!) and the Template:Indian political parties (national parties and state, thus regional, parties)? Those are really big countries and we should not ignore those examples and that there are indeed different models. --Checco (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

We cannot compare federal countries like India, the US, or Germany to the Italian system. Italy's number of parties is not that far away from Spain, which is also a unitary state like Italy, so the proposal of taking inspiration from the Spanish template is not a bad idea, in my opinion. What's more important is that we cannot create selection criteria by which we separate parties into major and minor – we had a long process of discussion about this and the outcome was to remove those criteria. Yakme (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I was just showing that there are more models. My proposal is to simplify the template by having looser and simpler conditions of admission and by ordering parties in three categories (countrywide, regional and overseas). I think it is a sensible proposal, that suits Italy's party system or, better, party systems (as several regions have their own party system, due to a number of regional parties). --Checco (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, introducing selection criteria is not a simplification, but rather a complication because anyone can challenge the ad-hoc criteria of admission. The obvious simplest thing is to repeat the classification used in the List of political parties in Italy, which is devoid of any possible arbitrariness, given that it is founded on a more generic criteria: representation. For the sack of brevity I would therefore only include parties represented in the national or European Parliament. If there is enough space we could include the parties represented in the regional parties. Yakme (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The Italian party system is incomparable with the US or Indian system (also extremely different from each other). The system closest to the Italian one is clearly the Spanish one, so I agree with that type of template. The division between national and regional parties would give unfair prominence to small national parties at the expense of relevant regional parties, represented in Parliament (such as the South Tyrolean People's Party).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I am glad that, despite one of you affirming the opposite, both of you agree that some form of conditions of admission is useful. I agree with including in the template the parties that are currently represented in the Italian, European or regional parliaments/councils, even though there might been countrywide parties obtaining significant results without being represented anywhere (i.e. Italexit). Surely, a political party which took part in general or EP elections in most constituencies should be included too.

This said, consistency with other templates does not amount to a real argument for ordering parties by representation and not by their nature. I am quite convinced that it would be better to divide parties in three categories: countrywide, regional and overseas. I am also quite sure that such a proposal also regarding the List would also achieve support in a larger debate (it is a pity that the ill-advised RfC on the List did not offer that solution). --Checco (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone ever thought of having zero conditions of admissions for this template, given that we cannot insert all Italian political parties. The condition of being represented in a parliamentary council in my opinion is the one that is prone to less arbitrariness and at the same time it guarantees the inclusion of all relevant Italian political parties. Regarding the classification of the parties, I don't think there is a reason to subvert the result of multiple RfCs we just had on the List talk page. Therefore I would classify them in the same manner as the List article, where the classification has been established via an extensive and thorough consensus-building procedure (multiple discussions + third opinions + arbitration + multiple RfCs). Also, I agree that consistency with other templates is not an argument, however consistency within the template and the List belonging to the same country might be an advantage for editors and readers especially. Yakme (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Yakme, Checco, and P1221: I think it's time to decide how to modify this template, it seems to me that there is sufficient consensus to adopt the Spanish model, or am I wrong?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm ok with the Spanish model, without showing the number of MPs. P1221 (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course, without the number of MPs.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I oppose the Spanish model and favour an organisation according to the scope of political parties: countrywide, regional and overseas. --Checco (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I would affirm that at this point there is sufficient consensus (three out of four users) to proceed with the Spanish model. The only alternative would be to resort to a tool for which none of you are "sympathizers", therefore, if there is nothing else to add, I will boldly modify the template in this direction in the next few days.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I am clearly on the losing side also of this argument, but I think that 3 users against one is not enough to replace a long-established consensus. --Checco (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It's surely not a strong consensus, but it's still enough consensus to edit it. If there's no news, I'll edit the template in the next few days. Of course, any new suggestions are welcome.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I have to admit that I oppose the "Spanish model", and do not believe it a suitable fit for Italian political parties – I would like to stick with the tried and tested national/regional/overseas tripartite split for this list.== Autospark (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The national/regional/overseas split goes against the consensus built through multiple RfC's in the List article, so it's not a good option. Yakme (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Yakme, Checco, P1221, and Autospark: I am aware that you will probably be against it, but in this case, the only solution is to have an RFC also on the template: currently there is not enough consensus either to keep it in its current state or to modify it.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Although secondary, the national/regional/overseas split actually exists and is in place in the current list... what about considering, as compromise, a multi-level template, similar to Template:Malaysian political parties? By keeping the same rules used in the list, it could be done by using as first level the representation (national/european level, regional level only, unrepresented, former and defunct parties), and as second level the national/regional/overseas split. P1221 (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

For me it could be a good compromise.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not see it as a compromise version as it is exactly what I am opposing. Instead of ordering the template according to "representation", I am with User:Autospark and "I would like to stick with the tried and tested national/regional/overseas tripartite split for this list". --Checco (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

It was a good compromise, since it included exactly both proposals. However, if Checco does not accept this compromise version, it is clear that there is no consensus yet for any version proposed, so let's proceed with an RFC. @Yakme, Checco, P1221, and Autospark: I invite you all to participate, the most successful proposal will be applied to the template.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

That is not true. The Malaysian model is even less "territorial" (what a ugly word) than the Spanish model. --Checco (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you didn't understand the proposal, but in this case you could ask (I assume that I understand the proposal of P1221, that should be a mixed template).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Checco, @Scia Della Cometa and whoever might be interested: my proposal (option C of the RfC below) can be seen in my sandbox. I'm not good in making templates, so consider it just an initial idea that can (and shall) be improved. P1221 (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

P1221 I understood your proposal, indeed I agree with it.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Rfc about the template structure

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.

Weak consensus for Option A, not because it was everybody's favorite option, but because it was everybody's least-hated option. There were 7 participants in this discussion; four thought the status quo (Option B) should change but they did not agree on what to replace it with. As between the remaining options, A and C, most participants believed A was better. Some editors opposed B, some opposed C, but none opposed A (though most did not pick A as first choice). On the strength of arguments (see WP:NOTVOTE), there wasn't really any agreement among editors as to whether organizing by representation or territory was better or more logical, but no one challenged the argument that A was consistent with the global consensus of multiple WP:RFCs at the related list article. So, as between these three options, there is weak consensus for A because there is a slightly stronger consensus against B and C. Of course, consensus can change, and in the future someone may propose an option that gains more widespread consensus. (non-admin closure) Levivich (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

---

What kind of structure should be applied to the Template:Italian political parties? – Relisting. Yakme (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• A: a structure based on the principle of representation, like Template:Spanish political parties (example: parties represented in the Chamber, in the Senate, in the European Parliament, in the Regional Councils);
• B: a structure based on the principle of territoriality, similar to the current version of the Template:Italian political parties (example: countrywide parties, regional parties, overseas parties);
• C: a mixed structure, including both the principle of representation and territoriality (with a drop-down structure, like this sandbox and similar to the Template:Malaysian political parties).

Please express your order of preference for the three proposals in the survey, with a brief explanation. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• B is the only option I can support, as it is better to have parties ordered by their scope: countrywide, regional and overseas. I object how the the RfC is presented (representation v. territoriality) and, contrarily to what is written above, there is no territoriality in the C option (paradoxically there is more territoriality in the A option): parties are ordered just by representation, without considering the different levels of government. The whole RfC is quite faulty. --Checco (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Things considered, option C meaning that available at User:P1221/sandbox is the worst of the three. It is very complicate, parties are still not divided by region (as they are in the current version) and, as a multi-level template, it looks very ugly. Thus, I strongly support option B and strongly oppose option C. --Checco (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
• C, or alternatively option A. Definitely not option B, which is the most inadequate: why should a countrywide party with at most one or two regional councilors be listed before a regional party with many more MPs and regional councilors? It would not be logical.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
• I support Option B. This makes sense to me and I would image most users too. SethWhales ^talk 16:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• Option C as compromise solution. Between the other two options, I prefer Option A, as it keeps consistency with the consensus reached for sorting the list in the article List of political parties in Italy. P1221 (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
• Option B is my preference; I see some of the merits of the "Spanish option", but would prefer to stick with national/regional/overseas model.--Autospark (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
• Option A as it reflects the main decisions of multiple RfCs at List of political parties in Italy, which set the organization of Italian parties. Alternatively, option C. I am strongly opposing option B as it is against the consensus of the List article, and we cannot have the List and the template in two completely different organizations. Also, option B gives too much weight to tiny, secondary regional parties (see the current template) w.r.t. the largest and most influential Italian parties. Also, the difference between a countrywide vs regional party is not well defined and could possibly lead to mistakes and confusion (is "regional" based on location only, or based on party purpose and stance? is Lega a countrywide party or a federation of regional parties? does "regional" mean that the party is active in one single region? what about parties that are active in only two regions? are they countrywide? or multi-regional?). Definitely better to classify parties based on representation rather than territoriality. Yakme (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
• Option A I would prefer this type of structure. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

@Checco: the presentation of the RFC makes perfect sense, since you are supporting a territoriality-based representation at the expense of representation. And if the option C is presented as a mixed system, that means that option C is a mixed system (the template of parties in Malaysia is cited just an inspiration for the structure of a mixed template, if you had not figured it out).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I think that this RfC started too early: it seems to me that not all involved users clearly understood the difference between the three options and the discussion hasn't yet hit a dead end... P1221 (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the previous discussion (started more than a month ago) had hit a dead end (I assume that Autospark was in favor of your proposal, but didn't state it explicitly). If a discussion becomes a wall to wall, like in this case, it is better to start an RFC.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, only three persons (Checco, you and me) participated in the discussion since I put forward the "Malaysian proposal"... Anyway, RfC has started and I don't like second-guessing other contributors' opinions, so let's go ahead with it. P1221 (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC has been closed

Now what? P1221 (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus for departing from the status quo. --Checco (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's restore the Rfc until there is not the consensus for one of the versions proposed.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Rfc restored. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa what is the purpose of keeping this RfC open till kingdom come? Didn't you notice that nobody has intervened for the past 4 weeks? P1221 (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I only noticed that there is no consensus on the current version, but neither is there a strong consensus on option A (four opinions against three). I would prefer to consolidate the consensus on one of the proposed options and this was the purpose of the renewal of the RFC. Do you think there is currently a consensus on any version of the template? Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

No, there isn't consensus on any version of the template. But you don't build consensus by keeping an RFC open indefinitely: consensus is not built on !votes, but on discussions. P1221 (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you want to reopen the discussion? I might agree, but my fear is a dead end argument. On the other hand, it would not be correct to simply keep the current version, as it turned out to be less popular than the other proposed version. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

As of now, three users have supported option B (status quo) as their first choice, two option A and two option C. --Checco (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but four users out of seven preferred the option A to option B, it certainly cannot be stated that option B is the preferred one. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is not determined by the sheer number of WP:!votes, therefore none option got a strong support. When there is no consensus, usually status quo remains in place. Therefore, either somebody gives up their stand and accepts to work for reaching an agreement for a compromise solution, or shall accept that the dead end was already reached and there is no possibility to change the status quo. P1221 (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I agree with you. While I consider the status quo a good thing, I hope that those users who have been opposed to the organisation of the template according to the parties' nature and the organisation of regional parties according to their region will have second thoughts: it is the best why to represent the complexity of the Italian party system/s. --Checco (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is not over. If the status quo has not certainly found users' approval (on the contrary), it is evident that a solution must be found. And listing the countrywide parties with little relevance and zero elects before important regional parties like the SVP is not the best solution to describe the Italian party situation. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Rephrasing my previous comment for better understanding: "Therefore, either all involved contributors give up their own stand and accept to work for reaching an agreement for a compromise solution, or shall accept that the dead end was already reached and there is no possibility to change the status quo." P1221 (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with your reasoning: for the users in favor of the status quo (a minority position up to now, something to remember), it is enough to oppose agreements or compromises to maintain the current situation. This type of tactics cannot and should not find space in wikipedia. I am open to reaching agreements, but is it so also from the other part? If not, the consensus will have to be reached on one of the two initial proposals, either with the extension of the RFC or with the involvement of other users in the discussion. But keeping a version supported only by the minority of the users is not the solution. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but technically this RfC has not been closed. I think that a closure has to be requested in the appropriate place, and then it could be that an uninvolved editor will indeed close it (and then evaluate the level of consensus reached). Yakme (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The rfc can also be renewed if a certain level of consensus has not yet been reached. for this reason I am inclined to give it a second chance before closing it.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I restarted it, as it was never closed. In a couple of weeks I would request closure. Yakme (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Yakme, I would consider asking the formal closure of this RfC, because nobody else joined the conversation since this RfC was reopened. P1221 (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. Yakme (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2023 (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.

Outcome of the RFC

The RFC is closed, there has been no news in the last month and the outcome has not changed, i.e. a weak consensus for option A. At this point I would proceed to edit the template, also in line with the list of parties politicians in Italy. A discussion could be made on some simple parameters to include the most relevant extra-parliamentary parties. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's not start adding problems to problems. For now, just replacing the template to one more similar to the Spanish one should suffice. I can also do it, as you wish. Yakme (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not an addition of problems, I have only opened the hypothesis of including some extra-parliamentary parties, if there is a will. However, I think anyone is free to edit the template following the outcome of the RFC, so you can edit it too, of course. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Spanish model means listing the parties represented in the Chamber of Deputies, the Senate, the European Parliament and the Regional Councils multiple times, with the number of members in each legislative body in brackets. What was done by the two users above has nothing to do with the Spanish model and is thus contrary to the weak consensus found by User:Levivich. I am against the Spanish model and I am not even convinced that there was actually a weak consensus, let alone any consensus, on it, but we should respect what User:Levivich deliberated and play by the rules. I am thus asking User:Levivich to intervene so that the weak consensus is correctly implemented. --Checco (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that what I implemented represents the (weak) outcome of the RFC above, i.e. classifying the parties by representation, as done in the List article. Repeating the parties multiple times in the navbox has no real motivation. If you wish, we can add the number of members for each House in parentheses, this is no big deal. Yakme (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

It may not have a real motivation, but that is what the Spanish model is all about. You are not respecting the weak consensus, acknowledged by User:Levivich. Of course, I hope that a different consensus will emerge in the future, but, as of now, we should implement the Spanish model, not invent another model which was never discussed and that has nothing to do with the Spanish model and, thus, consensus. Let's play by the rules, please. --Checco (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

(responding to ping) Hi everybody. I should say first that I have no authority here of any kind, I'm not an admin, I can't enforce anything, and there is no reason that anyone has to listen to anything I have to say. If somebody had asked me to revert my close, I would have, and still would agree if that's what other editors want me to do. That said, my opinion is that the current version is different than RFC Option A, because Option A is representation-only, and the current version is representation and territory. (Option B, the old version of the template, was territory-only.) But the current version wasn't discussed in the RFC, and maybe everyone will like it better, I don't know. Levivich (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

First of all I would like to point out to Checco that I haven't modified the template yet, so I don't understand why he criticizes me for what I have not done. After that, I agree with the closing analysis of the RFC by Levivich, who is a third-party user, and his subsequent observation: the current template is much more similar to option C than to option A. The Spanish model provides for a sharp division between the parties in the Chamber, Senate, EP and regional councils. The only change I would make is the removal of the number of seats in brackets and the exclusion of the parties already listed in the field of parties in the regional councils (hence "Regional Councils only").--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

However I also agree to list all parties even in regional councils, for example with an acronym instead of full name.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

In my view, there are two possible ways forward: 1) ask User:Levivich to revert the RfC closure and re-open the debate; 2) implement the Spanish model, according to User:Levicic's RfC closure (weak consensus for option A, thus the Spanish model). In the meantime, the latest and clearly non-consensual edits to the template should be reverted. --Checco (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Levivich's closure is valid and his arguments are objective. Unfortunately, despite the one-month extension, it was not possible to obtain a broader consensus. So, at the moment, we should implement the tmp based on the Spanish model, if you want I'll take care of it myself.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at the template I created, it's based on the Spanish model (option A) with the only difference that I didn't put the seats in brackets (I think we all agree to avoid such highly variable data in this template).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The current version is one of the worst possible, given that it repeats parties multiple times, which is obviously useless and actually counter-productive (in a template that is supposed to be a summary). I am still convinced that my version does reproduce the outcome of the RfC, that is option A, namely: "a structure based on the principle of representation, like Template:Spanish political parties." Indeed, my structure is based on the principle of representation (only represented parties are shown) and is definitely like the Spanish one, although not exactly identical to it. But I do think that mentioning the "Spanish model" was meant to work as a rough example, an inspiration, not to copy the exact structure. Note also that my version makes the template sort of a mirror of the List article (which is the major reason why people !voted for option A). Yakme (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

While User:Yakme's version had nothing to do with consensus, User:SDC's version is at least consistent with User:Levivich's closure. In my view, it could be improved in two ways: 1) by having all regional parties in the fourth category; 2) by adding, among the latter, the long-established regional parties that are currently the federal components of Lega (Liga Veneta, Lega Lombarda, etc.). It is quite important that users have the opportunity to have the full picture of the parties active in Italy.

This said, as there is not a clear consensus on how to implement User:Levivich's closue, I think that we should return to the status quo ante, for now. --Checco (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Checco, your disruptive strategy to obtain what you (alone) wanted in the first place, i.e. the status quo ante, is quite evident. You should actually prefer my version to SDC's one, because at least it categorizes parties also by national/regional (which is one of your major discussion points). But you chose to generate chaos on this, in hope that your original version (the one opposed by everyone) will be put back online. In some way, it is quite amusing to see this, honestly. By the way, I oppose your proposal (1) because it is illogical and equivalent to implementing option B, and also proposal (2) because the Lega regional sections are not listed in the List article. Yakme (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the only disruptive strategy is yours: as three users (including me) have pointed out, your version is not consistent with the RfC's outcome. Option A, the one implemented by User:SDC, may not be perfect, but it is consensual and surely better than your version. By the way, 1) would still be more in line with option A than your version (the fourth category can be different from the others) and would serve readers better; 2) nowhere it was decided that this template should be completely consistent with the List and, indeed, I am proposing the same improvements here and there (also because the regional parties forming Lega was not an issue of any RfC). --Checco (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I asked whether I could implement the RFC outcome, I was told that I could, and the version I implemented is how I pictured option A in my mind when I read it and when I !voted for it. Might be debatable, but no disruption was intended, nor bad faith involved (from my side). To be even more clear: I am not against SDC changing my structure to a version that is more literally adherent to the RFC outcome. However I am free to criticize it, as I personally still find my version more readable and organized, and without repetitions (indeed, I was the one creating it). Yakme (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Yakme, @Scia Della Cometa, thank you very much for your proposed solutions. Although I like very much and prefer the one proposed by Yakme, I recognize it to be more similar to the Option C I put forward and I had in my mind. Since this option didn't attract a greater consensus than Option A, it is better to keep the solution proposed by SDC, which better reflects the weak consensus identified in the RfC. There is no reason to return to the status quo ante: doing this would disregard the outcome of the RfC. Wikipedia is a continuous WIP, the optimal solution can be achieved by building it a bit at a time. P1221 (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Yakme: In my view, the problem of your version is that reflected in the main characteristics the option C (ie "a mixed structure, including both the principle of representation and territoriality", which in any case I had supported as a possible compromise). I limited myself to copying a type of template that is not only used for Spanish parties, but also for German, Austrian, Portuguese, Romanian, Polish parties and many others. Of course, in all other cases the numbers of seats are indicated in brackets, which help to give greater meaning to the repetition of parties (I am not against including the seats in the Italian template, but we must consider that it is highly variable data). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Fine, but we are not in a court of law here, we can be flexible. Here I gather that already three users out of four are not against my version with respect to the current one. Consensus can change, especially after realizing that some implementation is not as nice as expected during the RFC case. But I'm not going to insist anymore, if we want to keep literally the outcome of the RFC then let's go with it. Yakme (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

User:SDC's is closer to the new (weak) consensus that was achieved. Of course, anyone is free to criticise anything or to propose any changes. For my part, I will never stop arguing against the current consensus on this template and the List. --Checco (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

New format of the template

After the RFC was closed, there has been some discussion about which implementation of the RFC outcome would work best. One version (version 1) implements a structure that is identical to the one appearing in List of Italian political parties: its first categorization is based on representation, and there is a sub-categorization by national/regional. Another version (version 2, the current one) implements a structure that is identical to Template:Spanish political parties: it is only categorized based on representation, and it repeats parties appearing in multiple chambers of Parliament or in the EP. The question is the following: regardless of previous discussions, do you prefer version 1 or version 2 of the template? My !vote goes to version 1, as I was the one implementing it, and because I think it gives a smart structure to the template avoiding repetitions. Yakme (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I could think of a polemic answer but I prefer to avoid it. In any case, the consensus that emerged from the RFC is weak but provides for a division on the basis of the representation (this type is not used only for the Spanish parties, but also for parties from other countries). Of course, nothing prevents a stronger consensus from being found for any version, which is always desirable. Honestly, I'm really not a fan of countruwide, regional etc labels, I initially supported a double division as a compromise but I would avoid it. In any case, the current template works better if the seats are indicated, I hope no one is against my last edit (it is a variable data, but in this way the structure of the template makes more sense).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

So now you are in favour of a longer template with triple repetitions of parties listed. Weird how you !voted for option C in the RFC, and now you changed your mind. Who knows why... Anyway now the template is even larger with the addition of seats, which I would definitely avoid. Also, why are some seats in normal brackets and some in square brackets? Yakme (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

My vote in the RfC was for option C or for option A, not only for option C. I always supported the "Spanish model", even if it was not my initial idea. I don't understand your allusion. The seats in square bracket are simply parties into federation, so already included in normal brackets, like in the Spanish template.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you think about the proposal below? Parties represented in the Italian or European Parliament are grouped together, like in the article List of political parties in Italy; parties are listed in alphabetical order and without showing the seats (the template would be easier to maintain); added a section for unrepresented parties, with rules of inclusion to be defined (here could be included also some notable defunct parties). P1221 (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Excluding the Template:Political parties in France (which includes only the main parties and groups them by political position) and the Template:Political parties in India, it seems to me that almost all of the templates list the parties in order of relevance, and I think that's right. If the first Italian party is Fratelli d'Italia, it is right to list it first. If you want to avoid repetitions, a solution could be the one adopted by Template:Political parties in Australia (but keeping the order of the parties would become even more complex). I am also in favor of establishing a few simple rules for unrepresented parties, while I would keep the defunct parties in the appropriate template (again I would simplify the inclusion rules). Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The Australian one is basically my version, without the territorial division... I would definitely support it. Instead I am afraid I am against showing unrepresented parties, because that would mean inventing new admission rules (i.e. arbitrary thresholds), which likely amount to original research. Yakme (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

It is interesting to see how a recently-achieved consensus, albeit a weak one, is already under scrutiny. The version implemented by User:SDC is the closest possible to the Spanish model, which was selected as the most consensual option. Any departure from it means re-discussing the issue altogether. For my part, while I am not a fan of the consensual version, I also dislike the proposal above by User:P1221 and, especially, User:Yakme's version. My preference goes to something like the Template:Indian political parties or a joint template including both the Template:United States political parties and the Template:United States state and local political parties. Parties should be ordered according to their nature and scope: countrywide, regional, overseas. I would also add a fourth category, consistently to what User:SDC has proposed in Talk:List of political parties in Italy: "associate parties". --Checco (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The most certain result of the RFC was the rejection of the previous "major-minor" territorial-based classification. Therefore anything like the Indian or US templates should not be implemented. I think the Australian one proposed by SDC is a good compromise option, that reflects the outcome of the RFC. Yakme (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I also think Australian template is a good compromise. I would avoid showing the number of seats, just for making the maintenance of the template easier, but it is not a dealbreaker for me. I understand your preference for principle of territoriality, @Checco, but that option didn't get enough support. P1221 (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

As of now, the only consensual version is the Spanish model, as implemente by User:SDC, including the number of seats. As we are re-discussing the issue, I feel free to propose a more rational organisation of the template and also a one that needs less updating: ordering the party not according to territoriality, but according to nature/scope. Our consensus, which should be respected as of now, is a weak one, thus anyone can propose improvements. --Checco (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Let me point out that the consensus was reached on "a structure based on the principle of representation, like Template:Spanish political parties", not on just copying that template... In my opinion, any model that respects the principle above (and that can get enough support from the users) can be adopted. P1221 (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Checco, you are stonewalling the process by repeating always the same proposals, which clearly have already not gathered the support of the community. As P1221 is stating, you are misrepresenting the RFC question: in the RFC we did not !vote for a specific implemented version of the template, we were !voting for the main categorization to adopt. The Australian version evidently adheres to the consensus that came out of the RFC, so it is definitely a viable option as much as the Spanish one. I think SDC, who implemented the Spanish model first, would also agree on this. On top of this, the Australia version avoids repetitions, and it looks like it has some support from involved editors. For the ordering, we can order parties based on number of seats, and not show the numbers. Yakme (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. We have just achieved a consensus, albeit a weak one: let it be! As you have done, I also felt free to re-discuss the recently-achieved consensus. However, it would be better to pause a bit and leave the template as it is now, as the result of the RfC. --Checco (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The Australian version is perfectly within the consensus that was just achieved. Apparently at the moment this version has also more support than the current one so if nobody else is against it I would implement it in the next days. Yakme (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I object to the “Australian version”, as honestly, as an off-the-shelf solution I don’t find it a suitable fit for Italian political parties and the setup in that country. At least, not without alterations. Could we discuss this further, perhaps?-- Autospark (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

We do not need to copy identically any currently existing version, of course. This is also why indeed I am against the current state where we are basically copying the Spanish template, which is full of repetitions and borderline confusing. To me, the main point of the "Australian version" is that we would avoid the current repetition between Chamber, Senate and EP. If you wish, we can forget about references to other countries, and just discuss about how to remove the current repetitions in the table, while also following the RFC consensus. My proposal is to "merge" the rows of Chamber, Senate and EP into a single one, where we list "nationally-represented" or "parliamentary-represented" parties – you pick the title. Yakme (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

So what is the outcome of this? Are we keeping the current status, with 3 repetitions for each party and the showing the number of seats per each parliament? Yakme (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as long as an entirely new consensus is achieved. The current template is designed according to the result of the latest RfC. There is no need to say that I would rather prefer a template in which parties would be listed according to their nature, mainly countrywide, regional and overseas. --Checco (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally I'm fine with both the current template (used for parties of many countries) and the "Australian" model.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Revision of the Template of historical parties

Hello everyone, I would like to point out the start of this discussion for the simplification of the Template on historical parties. You are all invited to participate. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)