Talk:Italian Liberal Party

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move as proposed. Ucucha 14:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Italian Liberal Party (historical) → Italian Liberal Party –
 * Italian Liberal Party (current) → Italian Liberal Party (2004) –
 * Per above. --Checco (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Checco (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment this speedy move request has reasoning provided, the "above" has no reasoning. 65.94.47.217 (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is that reasoning provided? Better discuss this move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support and comment. The reason provided was exactly the same as the one provided for another move proposed "above" among uncontroversial requests. Thank you for giving me the chance to explain my proposal here. The Italian Liberal Party, as the Italian Socialist Party, has been a notable Italian party for decades (the date of its foundation is not clear) until it was disbanded in 1994. New parties with identical names were launched later at some point, but they never reached the popularity of the late ones. That is why I propose that this page would be moved to Italian Liberal Party and the other one to Italian Liberal Party (2004), consistently with Italian Socialist Party (the late and big party) and Italian Socialist Party (2007) (the new and tiny one). The reasoning is so uncontroversial to me that I also propose that the move may be moved back to "uncontroversial requests" and moved immediately. --Checco (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support and comment. I think that we have a main topic and two secondary topics, and so we should structure the names as indicated in WP:DABNAME. The main topic is the old Italian Liberal Party refounded in 1943: it had at least 1.3% of the votes up to 7% at general election and it was part of many governments of the so called "pentapartito". Liberal Party (Italy, 1997) and the tiny Italian Liberal Party (2004) are definetely minor and they have never had the support of more than 0.x% of voters. Long story short: Italian liberal party (historical) -> Italian liberal party; Italian Liberal Party (current) -> Italian liberal party 2004; the disambiguation page from Italian Liberal Party to Italian Liberal Party (disambiguation). -- Juanm   (talk)  22:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Italian Liberal Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110124209/http://www.cattaneo.org/archivi/adele/iscritti.xls to http://www.cattaneo.org/archivi/adele/iscritti.xls

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Italian Liberal Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061121013656/http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9368300/Italian-Liberal-Party to http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9368300/Italian-Liberal-Party

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Party's symbol
@Nick.mon: the colors don't matter, maybe you did not notice it, but the logo that you've uploaded is wrong, it is only a symbol not faithfully redesigned (note the positioning of the words with respect to the flag auction). The previous logo had a worse quality, but it was the original one, for this reason the original logo (also with a worst image quality), however, has priority over a fake/stylized logo...--Wololoo (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right, the positioning of the words is different from the original one. However we should try to upload a file with an higher quality. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I know, the quality of these images is not excellent, the problem is that few images of this party's logo are available into the web...--Wololoo (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, maybe we could find another user which can re-create the file, identical to the original one. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The correct logo is, including "Liberali e Democratici Europei". It was used from 1979 to 1992 for four consecutive general elections. It is a custom of en.Wikipedia to include the latest symbol in the infobox, not the old one (see DC, PSI, etc.). --Checco (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@User:Nick.mon: Could you upload the correct symbol from the it.Wiki link above? Many thanks! --Checco (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The logo in the link is already in WikiCommons, so we can use it in the infobox. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @User:Nick.mon: I uploaded both symbols in Wikimedia, but I had put the previous one in the infobox only because it had a better quality (retouched by me)--Wololoo (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes you did well, but as you can see for other parties like DC, PSI and PSDI we always use the latest logo :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer the old symbol because it has a better quality, but it is not a problem for me--Wololoo (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

On this, I side with User:Nick.mon. I prefer having File:Partito Liberale Italiano.svg than File:Partito liberale italiano.png. They are practically identical, but the first one has a better quality. Alternatively, we could include in the infobox the old symbol. --Checco (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I read now this comment, File:Partito Liberale Italiano.svg and File:Partito liberale italiano.png they are not at all identical. I had already inserted in the infobox the old symbol (also loaded by me), but in this talk the current symbol was preferred. However, I invite you not to use fake symbols anymore.--Wololoo (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The only difference is the double circle and it is not big deal. Let' use File:Partito Liberale Italiano.svg ! --Checco (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The double circle is not the only difference, File:Partito Liberale Italiano.svg is a computer reconstruction of the PLI's logo quite different from the original one (I explained the differences in this same talk, here above). --Wololoo (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I really do not see the problem. Several flags and symbols in en.Wiki are "computer reconstructions". --Checco (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Consequently, I approve and cheer this edit by User:Nick.mon. --Checco (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice that you were taking about it; however, as you can see in this video, the differences between the official logo and the current one (this) are very few. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Nick.mon @Checco The problem is not the "computer reconstruction", but the bad reconstruction, the word arrangement is different, the character used for the words is different, also the colors are different (without counting the double circle)! Really, I don't want the umpteenth edit war, but don't use a false symbol, please! You had not even noticed that the symbols are different, but the differences are obvious! If the latest original has a low image quality for the infobox, then we use the first symbol, but not that stuff --Wololoo (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Nick.mon: You say "This logo is far more similar to the original one, than the previous version (which used lime green)", but it is false: the logo uploaded by me was the original one, although with a low quality of colors, the logo inserted by you is totally different, it only has a better color quality; although Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia to be considered so reliable, the fake symbols should not be used to the detriment of the original ones --Wololoo (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry but how can “your logo” be more correct if it uses a completely different color from the original one? Lime green isn’t the color of the Italian flag and red has a different shade too. However I can’t believe that there is nobody who can upload a correct version with an higher quality. Do you know anyone who can do it? -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Nick.mon I said that logo is more correct because it is identical graphically, even though I know that the colors are unfortunately faded. The logo of PLI (especially its second version) it's hard to find on the web. I do not know anyone who can load that symbol, I could try to load another one with a better quality, even if not perfect anyway (but with the correct color tone). I repeat, however, that the original should still be preferable to the image of an imitation, although the latter is of better quality..--Wololoo (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok maybe NiloGlock, who uploaded the file, could improve it inserting Wololoo's corrections. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Nick.mon: I improved the colors of the two original logos (currently the change is visible only in the infobox); now, is the symbol finally acceptable? --Wololoo (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, good job! I think we can absolutely use "your" symbol; anyway I hope that someone will upload a correct version like your one but without the white background (only for an aesthetic reason). -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Perfect! However you're right, the white background should be cut --Wololoo (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good also to me right now. --Checco (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)