Template talk:Historical Italian political parties

message: Why this, Checco? —Nightstallion (?) 15:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pole for Freedoms didn't exist at all (you might have confused it with the Pole of Freedoms), while "Paese Nuovo" and "Per l'Abolizione dello Scorporo" were neither coalitions nor parties, but only "liste civetta". I don't know if you understand the meaning of it... in a few words, they were false lists invented to deduct votes in order to not have problems with "scorporo". These are electoral techincalities and I can't explain myself in English... --Checco 16:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Italian Wikipedia, the :it:Polo per le Libertà was different from the :it:Polo delle Libertà, and while I know that both of those lists were liste civetta, they were still in some sense coalitions of the left/right... —Nightstallion (?) 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is another mistake of it.Wiki... About "liste civetta", I don't agree with you, indeed they were lists exactly as FI, AN, DS or LN, they had their candidates. I would prefer to ignore them, but if you want to put them in the template you need to consider them as parties not coaltions. This is only my opinion, obviously. --Checco 18:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, okay then. Regarding the civetta... We could simply make a new line for them, which I will do now. —Nightstallion (?) 18:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pole of Freedoms

message: I prefer the Navbox version for two reasons
# It is consistent with other version of parties template
# It looks better than the earlier version, instead of bolding the group-names they are beneath each other in nice boxes.  
Furthermore I don't see how this is consistent with other italian parties templates, which appears Nightstallion's only argument. C mon 18:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It takes up about twice the space, too. shrugs Fair enough, if you insist. —Nightstallion 19:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was definitely better before, I agree with Nightstallion. --Checco 23:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nav Box 

message: I had already thought of changing the section "Liberal" in "Conservative liberal" for some reasons:1)Italian Liberal Party was a conservative-liberal party.It did not participate into the centre-left governments,because it didn't like subjects like nationalization of light,taxes for Southern Italy,and because it thought that DC was conditioned by PSI (in particular),PSDI and PRI.2)Union of the Centre was the direct heir of the Italian Liberal Party,that's why it is conservative-liberal.3)The same thing is worth for Liberal Party,whose members will adhere to Forza Italia.What do you think of?  Itanesco (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. It is true that at the beginning PLI was a very conservative liberal party, but also that it included also leftists. Even after the exit of Pannella's Radicals, PLI had "left-wing" leaders such as Valerio Zanone, who supported a lib-lab alliance with PSI and who is indeed a member of the PD now. UdC was definitely centrist. Actually I would leave things as they are. --Checco (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Moreover we could move the Radical Party and PRI to the "liberal" category... --Checco (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes and no. I agree on the Radical Party before-1989, but not on PRI. The current ideology of PRI is simply liberalism. Since its foundation the party has shifted from a nerarly-socialist platform to market liberalism. However, although I am very unconfortable with having the Radical Party and PRI in the same category with The Net, I think that the current solution is the best one. --Checco (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's find a compromise:we put PRI into the Liberal section,but we let Radical Party in the Social liberal one.Ok? Itanesco (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great for me if it OK also for you. --Checco (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative liberal section 

message: Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (PML) made this edit, making the template collapsed. I understand this edit, but as I think that collapsed templates are not that useful to readers, as they collapse every time you come back to the page where the template is, I would like to come back to the previous version. No problem if other users agree with PML, but we need other's opinions as currently we are 1 against 1. It's not a big deal, obviously, but there's currently no consensus on PML's edit. --Checco (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The template, you will agree, is very long, and the pages it links are usually short, sometimes so short that the template itself is longer than the rest of the article. Also, while collapsed navboxes can be expanded with a click, those set on plain cannot be collapsed. Checco, shouldn't this get the due attention, and should you still desire a return to the previous version, you might want to request a third opinion. Let me know if this happens.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That the template is very long is not a problem, while I still think that having plain templates is better for users, to which the encyclopedia is aimed at. It's not a big deal, but I still desire a return to the previous versions and I actually don't understand how your opinion should be more important than mine. While waiting for other users's opinions, I think we should come back to the plain version. --Checco (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, let's just ask for a third opinion. If we wait for someone else to come across this page to give an opinion, it could be months before we get it.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: collapsed/plain

message: Following the revision of the current parties template, I think this template needs to be updated as well. Indeed, it is evident that this is based on the inclusion criteria of the old list of political parties in Italy. I propose a simplification of the inclusion criteria for this template and a more streamlined division between party categories. For example,  I would have only two inclusione criteria:
*the parties having elected at least one MP or MEP with their logo
*the parties having had a parliamentary group in the Chamber or in the Senate. 
I would also slightly simplify the division by ideology. What do you think about this simplification proposal? Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand with you on both counts. Ideologies could be eliminated too. --Checco (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: for me no problem to eliminate ideologies. I would add the years of activity in brackets instead, listing parties by year of dissolution. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template review