Talk:List of political parties in Italy

Breakaway lists
During the transition from the old organisation of the list to the current one, several contents were lost. In order to restore some of that material, I started two articles: List of political coalitions in Italy and List of parliamentary groups in Italy. In my view, the former should be expanded by adding some text and all government coalitions, which are different from electoral ones (even though, to be precise, some electoral coalitions become government coalitions too), while the second should be expanded by adding all parliamentary groups, possibly organised in tables (possible columns: name, dates, Chamber of Deputies, Senate, leaders, etc.). Contributions are welcome. -- Checco (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Political party electoral result tables
Recently, I have realised that, though both lower and upper houses are elected in the same, the tables for both are not consolidated into one. This is currently how it is:

This is how it could be:

By having this format, it simplifies things and takes less time to add information to tables. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I support the new format. I think it's a good solution to reduce the size of the pages. I'd only use bold for the election year, like in the previous tables. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm, personally, not in favour of it, but we can decide about that if/after it has been adopted :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I also think that the joint tables would be an improvement and that election years should be in bold. I would also have the leader at the end of the table, but I can live also with the leader at the beginning of the table. Good job! --Checco (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I like the idea as well, however this article doesn't show the number and percentages of votes... Would you like to add them in this article's tables? P1221 (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a proposal for the "Electoral results" section of each Italian party :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it, thank you very much for the explanation :) P1221 (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd move "position" column next to votes as I assume it refers to that. Overall great idea.
 * Will position in the government (government/ support/ opposition) be included like for other countries? Leo0502 (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The main problem is that parliamentary majority changes frequently during an Italian legislature and tables will be definitely too long and difficult to read and understand. For example, this is how the table would look like for the Italian Republican Party in the VI Legislature. I quite oppose this solution, but this is only my opinion. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's readable for me, but that's just me, although I wouldn't use fixed widths and let the table align on its own (like in where every government change is only a one line). At least recently changes of governing and supporting parties don't occur as often as they used to, so it should get easier to read. Leo0502 (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not have the election in bold, as it aesthetically looks better to only have the top of the table in bold. If possible, it would be nice to display the status, while having the years as footnotes at the end of the tables. Also, as Leo said, I'd rather not have fixed widths either too. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Revision of Nick's:

ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

For example, this would be my proposal: -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I like the latest proposal by User:Nick.mon.
 * I would only make two edits: 1) leader as last column on the right; 2) only one decimal point for percentages. --Checco (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would accept the above (Nick.mon's proposal with the revisions as suggested by Checco – particularly rounding to a single decimal point!) as a workable solution.--Autospark (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've edited tables before on SK political parties, and Number 57, who is an admin (if you didn't know) changed them so they aren't rounded to a single decimal number). In addition, so other political party pages have the leader after the election, rather than the end of the table. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This said, I still support User:Nick.mon's version with those two tweaks (leaders as last column and rounding to a single decimal point). --Checco (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that the leader column is better positioned next to the election years. Yakme (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Yakme, the leader column should be placed adjacent to the election year column.-- Autospark (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it's the same as what I proposed so... Anyway, the bugbear for me is the bold elections, as I feel it is unnecessary. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Do we have a new table chosen? Who is going to change it on all pages? Leo0502 (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll help out. After all, I am the one who first proposed it. However, it seems that there needs to be a vote on whose is chosen. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks like already boldly implemented a version of the tables, but I don't understand why he did not implement the one that is present in this discussion. We should actually decide what to do and how to proceed. Yakme (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But why do the columns have a fixed width? The tables are now bloated. Leo0502 (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well he shouldn't until the discussion has closed, which seems to be taking ages, as it seems to have stalled. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Since is not replying, should we go ahead and implement the version we were discussing in this talk page? Yakme (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Excuse me! Anyway, I think we can use also the version I proposed in this talk page which is slightly different from the one currently in use. I prefer a fixed width, but this is only my personal view. However, I’d avoid the “Government” column, as I said before. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I will say this discussion has been going on for longer than I'd like. I'll agree to yours, but I don't agree to fixed widths. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer fixed widths only because they give me a sense of "order" in the table, but if you believe they aren't necessary we can remove them, of course. It's not a big deal. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I can understand your point of view, however to me it's easier to see the info without it being spaced out, but that's my preference :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with ValenciaThunderbolt. Also according to Help:Table: Setting widths is discouraged for the most part on Wikipedia because it interferes with the ability of the browser to adjust content to suit the browser window, device size, zoom settings, user-end font size choices, and other constraints. Yakme (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I like the tables implemented by User:Nick.mon more than the one discussed above. However, I would not have fixed width. --Checco (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Shall we conclude this discussion now or keep it open till the end of the month? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@User:Nick.mon Hi, I saw that you edited the electoral result tables of some current parties following this discussion. I thought: wouldn't the system of it.wikipedia (like the one below) be better? It was not considered as solution, but it seems to me that it works.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi! Yes I think this one could be a good solution too (maybe with leader's name and position). -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. If anyone is fine with this table I can proceed myself to replace the old ones with this above. Another thing: is it really necessary keeping the table on the latest regional election? Rarely this type of table is updated, and honestly it doesn't even seem relevant to me: should not it be better remove it at all? @Autospark @Checco @Nick.mon @Yakme @ValenciaThunderbolt @Leo0502 @P1221 What do you think? Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not in favour of it, as it's better to go with something that is currently being used on English Wikipedia. Also, aesthetically it's easier to read the ones proposed by myself and others. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Of course I won't be using tables against consensus in this discussion; however, I'd like to know what you mean by "something that is currently being used on English Wikipedia": I'm not aware of any pages about any other party using this format (which I personally find very difficult to read, since it extends horizontally across the entire page).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * So far, I've seen Brazil use this style. There may be more, but I haven't been looking for it for other countries. As for the width, there isn't a consensus for a fixed width, so it won't extend across the page. It will be similar to what I first proposed. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I like the proposal put forward by User:Nick.mon on 23 January, with two modifications: 1) leader as last column on the right; 2) only one decimal point for percentages. I also disagree on removing the table with regional election results. --Checco (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Just realised the debate should've closed three months ago. As such, I think Nickmon's first proposal should be implemented. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Technically, there is no time limit for closing a thread. However, the same table should be applied to all parties (including parties that have participated in many elections such as DC and PCI), is there anyone who undertakes to apply that table to all parties that have participated in the elections?
 * With regard to regional elections are concerned, if we keep the table we should include all the results and not just the latest ones, which currently makes little sense...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know one thing: is there a prospect that this table will be implemented for all parties (existing and defunct) or is there a real risk that it will only be used for the 5/6 main current parties? It is a very considerable work to convert the existing tables with the proposed one, and the risk that there is no real will to complete the work started is really high...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I can convert the existing tables with new ones, but we have to find a good compromise first. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As I don't have that much time at the moment, I can do small and defunct small parties. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I also prefer the one proposed on 23 January by Nick.mon, as it looks now – so the leader's column on the left and two decimal points in the results percentages. Yakme (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I like Nick.mon’s proposal too, but would prefer to stick to a single decimal point.-- Autospark (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * In the case of political parties already existing in the Kinkgdom of Italy (i.e. PRI or PSI), how should the table managed? Would there be a blank space on the right until the first Senate election?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * What about the regional elections' table? is it better to open a separate thread? Personally, I would keep them only for the regional parties. In the contrary case, I think it should be complete. But in how many cases is this table present (except Germany)? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I would imagine so. Probably do something like this. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I think you're overthinking things. The tables that Nick proposed on Jan. 23 can be applied to all parties. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The two matters are different but linked, both concern election tables, but I have no problem to discuss the regional tables in another moment and in another thread. Anyway, mine was simple curiosity about the management of cases like PRI and PSI. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I see now. The only change I would make to the present tables for the reg. elec. would be to incorporate local leaders to the right of the year of election. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This may not be the thing to do, but this is what I'm saying should be implemented. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Once again, I like the proposal put forward by User:Nick.mon on 23 January, with two modifications: 1) leader as last column on the right; 2) only one decimal point for percentages (as supported also by User:Autospark). I oppose adding regional leaders: tables would become too complicate to update. --Checco (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't understand: what is the problem for which this has not been implemented yet? And why are people continuing to reply the same things over and over? I think that there is a clear consensus on Nick.mon's version, we can just start implementing it. Yakme (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I hope that the two improvements proposed by User:Autospark and I could be incorporated too. --Checco (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, the length of the discussion was over a month, which I think is the general rule of thumb that a discussion usually comes to consensus within a month? Anyway, I've been implementing Nick's first proposal on several pages. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Associate parties
Okay, looks like we need to discuss just about every detail. Then: I propose to divide in the table the parties with an autonomous delegation from those represented within other parties. There are semi-non-existent parties or parties that are little more than factions within other parties (and therefore without autonomous delegation) that are listed before the SVP, this makes no sense. Not even the separation of regional and overseas parties in that table had ever been decided anywhere, for example I have never agreed with it, but in any case it was not conflicting with the outcome of the discussions. Since the division of the "autonomous" parties from the "subordinate" ones does not conflict with what has been decided so far, I ask why the separation of the regional parties was kept while that of the subordinate parties not. It seems to me like a sensible separation to me. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Your message is not very clear, but, as I saw this bold edit of yours and I agree with it, I think understood the point. Do you mean "associate parties"? If so, I am much in favour of listing them separately, also because, in most cases, their MPs are already counted among the MPs of the larger parties to which they are associated. Of course, it would be even better to have separate tables for countrywide parties, associate parties, regional parties and minor ("un-represented") parties. Each table could have different columns (in the case of "associate parties", there should be a column for the mother party). In the meantime, I hope your bold edit could be implemented again. --Checco (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I am in favour of a single list of parties, as was agreed in the RFC. I did not come forward against the separation into national and regional just because I wanted to keep a peaceful environment. But now we are starting to have too many sub-tables in the original tables that were decided in the RFC, so I intervene before someone else comes up with yet another table. Indeed I do not agree that we need a separate table for "associate parties" (what are they anyway? it's going to be extremely difficult to define them), and I would keep the current state. If there are parties that are actually party factions or semi non-existent, then the right thing to do is to remove them from the list. Yakme (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * There are too many tables because parties are both ordered by representation and nature/scope. My argument is that it is better to have only one division, according to nature/scope. The proposal of listing "associate parties" separately is definitely a big improvement, even if the current structure is kept. --Checco (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Yakme: So you don't revert edits you don't agree, to keep the a peaceful envinment, only on on the basis of their author? The parties should be listed according to their relevance in Parliament, not only there are some regional parties more relevant than other countrywide parties (just think of SVP), but there are some parties that have now reduced to mere factions of other parties (such as Article One), other entities that it is not clear whether they still exist (èViva, CpE) and other entities that are not even parties but associations (Animalist Movement, Italian Liberal Right). Many of these have no autonomy in parliament and their seats cannot be counted together with others, listing them separately just seems like common sense to me.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Checco, you cannot keep advocating for a regional-based classification in this article, after this option has been categorically rejected by the community. @Scia Della Cometa, I do not care about the editors, please assume good faith. For the SVP problem, indeed I would order parties based on their seat count, regardless of regional or not. For the èViva and CpE problem, if they do not exist, they should not appear in the table. It's surprising to me that non-existing parties appear in this table. What about having a "Coalition partners" column like in the main table of List of political parties in Spain? Yakme (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I actually also see other inconsistencies, like for example for the CpE we state "into PD group" in a note, while for IV we do not say "into Azione–Italia Viva group" in a note. So are we adding notes about the parliamentary group memberships or not? If we are, then we should do it for all parties. Yakme (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The question is: what do you want to have represented in the table? The party to whom an MP belongs, the party (or coalition) which supported his/her election, or the parliamentary group? There could be 3 different outcomes.
 * Example: Luca Pastorino. Member and founder of èViva, elected as independent (supported by the Center-Left coalition) in the Liguria-U03 FPTP constituency, part of the mixed group (+Europa subgroup) in the Chamber of Deputies. You can have him therefore associated with either èViva, +Europe or none party at all...
 * By my side, I'd like to keep consistency with these two pages, List of members of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, 2022– and List of members of the Italian Senate, 2022– P1221 (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Clearly, as I long argued, organising the list according to representation and the number of MPs creates a lot of problems of interpretation, updating, consistency and competeness. The real solution would be to go back to a simpler version, organised by nature/scope and with the parties ordered by alphabetical order in their different categories. This said, there are some MPs who are effectively members of more parties at once and the better solution would be to list associate parties separately as the their numbers are already included in the main parties' totals. That is the case of the MPs of Article One, for instance. It is not the case of Luca Pastorino, in my view, as he is a èViva member or, if you prefer, an independent member within the +E parliamentary sub-group and it is not a member of the +E party. --Checco (talk) 06:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Yakme: The small consistency issue of the wording "group" in the notes was already fixed in the edit you reverted: it is enough to remove the word group, specifying only the cases in which a party is represented within another party. Concerning a "Coalition partners" column similar to the Spanish table, I wouldn't be against it, but am I wrong or did you all want to keep this table as slim as possible?
 * In any case, it is incorrect to list these parties among the others, their members should not be counted together with the others so the current version of the table is not ok. Whether it's a column or a subsection of the table, they should be separated from the others.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I recognize the issue, I just do not think that having another subsection in the table is a good solution. And by the way there would be two new subsections because we would need to have "national associate parties" and "regional associate parties" for consistency (otherwise it would be weird to separate national and regional for the main parties, and then putting the associate parties all in the same group). So my solution is to mimic the Spanish list, by listing the associate parties to some main party in a separate (hopefully slim) column. See proposal below. Yakme (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't object, although I would add the assembly in brackets (see above).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I had also thought about that so it's fine for me.Yakme (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's fine for me, too. P1221 (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I like the proposal above as long as the associate parties are also listed in a separate table. Those parties are indeed full-fledged ones, some of them could have been much larger than several other parties listed and some parties can be associate to another one just for a period of time. --Checco (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As above; it’s a fine compromise, if paired with the caveats suggested by Checco.-- Autospark (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is true, otherwise we lose information like leader etc on these associate parties. I would then have a separate table in the same section, and not a sub-table in the main table. Yakme (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would thus implement the new column proposed above and have a separate table in the same section. This said, I would not oppose a sub-table in the main table. And... there is also a third option: having further rows below the main party:
 * Party 1
 * Associate party 1.1
 * Associate party 1.2
 * Party 2
 * Associate party 2.1
 * Party 3
 * Associate party 3.1
 * Associate party 3.2
 * Party 4
 * Associate party 4.1
 * Associate party 4.2
 * Associate party 4.3
 * Associate party 4.4
 * And so on. The data of associate parties would be included in those of their respective main parties. --Checco (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that some parties like Article One deserve to be listed normally, but with a separate table, the extra column would no longer be needed. My proposal is as follows: a single table for the autonomous parliamentary parties, listed in descending order and without any subsections (the reference note is enough to indicate whether they are parties active in only one region or overseas) and a table for the associated parties ( the section could be entitled "associated parliamentary parties"). What do you think?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC) The division between regional parties and countrywide parties instead makes sense for the parties represented in the regional councils, since they are not listed in order of relevance: in this case I would use two tables (countrywide parties and regional parties).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I did not understand your proposal. I surely would avoid "associate parliamentary" as we have a more accurate term: "associate". --Checco (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean a list like this: User:Scia Della Cometa/sandbox. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * SDC, would it be possible for you to provide a visual demonstration of your proposal, a mock-up, so that we could fairly critique it?-- Autospark (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Autospark I showed my proposal in my sandbox (see the link above). Instead I would avoid listing the associate parties under the main parties, some boxes would become too long.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of having the "Associate parties" column in the main parties' table is (1) making evident which small party is associated to which main party, (2) be justified in using the parliamentary groups numbers for the main parties' members (in most cases). At the moment it's not clear whether the numbers shown are just for the "pure main party" members, or for main+associate party members. If we added that column (as multiple editors already agreed to) the reader will clearly understand that those are the cumulated numbers. Also, in SDC's proposal, it's not clear which party is associated to which, unless one clicks on the footnotes, while in my proposal these footnotes will not be needed. I would support a separate table for the associate parties, but I would keep the additional column in the main table – for the sake of clarity and completeness. Yakme (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Both Yakme's and SDC's proposals are valid for me, and I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I'm in favor of showing the main parties as per Yakme's proposal and the associate parties in a separate table as per SDC's proposal. P1221 (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this new version (User:Scia Della Cometa/sandbox) ok for all of you?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Good for me, thanks. (I would just use None for parties with no associates.) Yakme (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t have any objections to that model. The split tables (one for major parties, one for associated parties) is quite a good idea, actually.-- Autospark (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's good for me, thank you very much. P1221 (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, then I'd say I can proceed to edit the page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice job! Thanks! --Checco (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of political parties in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)