Template talk:Italian political parties

message: 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)
thread_title:  Major/minor classification 

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

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

text: @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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text: Done. Yakme (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rfc about the template structure  

message: *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)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: @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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Now what? P1221 (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus for departing from the status quo. --Checco (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: @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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text: Done. Yakme (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC has been closed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New format of the template 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revision of the Template of historical parties