Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 5

Point of the situation
I asked for the formal closure of the RFC above in order to start the new one. Since the Drn has been closed, I will remove the non-consensual rules from the page, without changing the content of the list.

The next two Rfc will concern the organization of the lists (1) and the structure of the tables (2). If you have any ideas, please share them here.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Please let's avoid multiple talks unless Dispute resolution noticeboard/List of political parties in Italy is formally closed. I answered those issues there and at, through a bold edit, at Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Draft RFC 4. Many thanks, --Checco (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Checco: If you haven't noticed, the DRN is formally closed (Dispute resolution noticeboard). From now on the discussion continues here. I read your statement: it is not a duty for anyone to participate in a discussion . You are participating in this discussion of your own free will. What happened is that you established the set up and rules of this page yourself, all this while all the other lists of parties have evolved spontaneously, with the collaborative contribution of all users. Only here it was not possible, and maybe there is a reason. Only here have I seen vetoes and imposition of highly questionable rules.
 * About the Rfc, the text must exclusively concern the topic of the current Rfc, not the topic of future Rfc. Mentioning future Rfc in the main request is inappropriate.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

You both probably do not realize what you did and what you are doing. IMHO blocking progress on an article for months, and to achieve nothing in the end – it really amounts to a major disruption of Wikipedia. This DRN was probably one of the largest on WP ever in terms of statement iterations, with ten more iterations than Dispute resolution noticeboard/Mass killings under communist regimes. At least the one about mass killings was conceptually interesting and about interpretation of academic sources, with an intellectual debate. This one took 3 months just to accept and digest the basic general notability guidelines, and the remaining time discussing whether to have a table with one or two ideologies. And each of you writing huge paragraphs and chapters repeating always the same things. Forty iterations for this. It is even somehow funny that now you do not realize that the two list organization plans now appearing in Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Draft RFC 4 are almost the same! No one except a few editors will see the difference! Could you try to find an agreement between the very similar Plan A and Plan B? Or else, could you go directly to the heart of the matter (I suppose, definition of regional parties) in order to make the RfC understandable by the average WP editor? Otherwise this will be the n-th failed attempt to a resolution. Yakme (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Yakme: I am very aware of what I have done and what I am doing. I have tried and am trying to make this page similar to the others. If I hadn't moved, the page would have been locked under the control of a single user. I also realize that the DRN has been shamefully long, but as soon as I realized that the discussion was unnecessarily lengthening, I immediately asked for a Rfc. It was not me who continued to argue that we were close to an agreement (a statement that is anything but true) and to multiply the statements. What did I see? An iron defense of coercive rules decided who knows where and who knows when; a slew of vetoes (no original names, no leaders, no political position, no ideologies); the cyclic declaration "I'm fine with the current form of the list". I had proposed a Plan including lists and tables to be submitted to Rfc. Then I was asked to remove the tables. Then I was asked to remove the topic about coalitions and parliamentary groups. I accepted everything, in order for the discussion to proceed, what else should I have done? I modified my initial proposal on the structure of the list, I pointed out some flaws in the other proposal to Checco, but I only got the repetition of the same proposal. If I pretended even not to see some obvious inconsistencies in the rules and in the organization of the lists, I might not have started the Drn. Or not?
 * The Rfc above will be closed: if you believe that the current Draft is not understandable, I invite you to make proposals to improve it. Any suggestions are always welcome.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ps. Maybe the differences are not noticed because there are no examples, but there are. In Plan A the criteria of distinctions are clear (the criterion of distinction is based on representation in the institutions). In plan B we have two sections called "Main parties" and "Micro parties" which refer to "Countrywide parties", although this definition would not be deliberately mentioned in the section titles. Only after would all the regional parties be listed. And only at the bottom the Overseas parties. In practice: parties such as SVP would be listed after irrelevant countrywide parties, perhaps without even indicating the number of MPs and MEPs in the wikitable (Checco never clarified this aspect). Parties such as SVP and UV would be indiscriminately listed together with other "regional parties" without even representation in the regional council. And at the bottom of the list, parties such as MAIE and USEI, which are represented in Parliament. The proposals are not in the least similar.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, I have a different view on how and why this long dispute started and continued. I am quite convinced that most of the "Lists of political parties in a country" are not as good as this list used to be and, most of all, I think that those lists cannot be an example anyway for our list—just think that the List of political parties in Germany contains 50+ active parties, that is just a fraction of the current active political parties in Italy. This said, while I like the list in its current form and, of course, I liked it even more before some changes were introduced (from the last summer to the last RfC resulting, according to the Moderator, in "no rules"), I will always available for discussion and compromises. As I argued several times, I think we could fix the list's structure without a RfC, but just by hearing the opinions by the other three users who have extensively participated in this discussion. The main difference between Plan A and Plan B at Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Draft RFC 4 is on regional parties. I think that they should be categorised on their own because readers need to see them in the context of each regional party system. I am going to accept most of the recent changes made by User:SDC to Draft RfC 4 and, once again, I am sure we can choose among the two plans, just by asking to the other users involved. We would spare a lot of time and go to the next issue in less than a week. --Checco (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the list of Italian parties is the only good one and all the other lists are bad. If all the other lists are ok for users and readers, there is a reason. We have already discussed how to organize the list, what have we achieved? Have you answered only one of my doubts? It doesn't seem to me. The difference between the two plans does not only concern the regional parties. I think that only a well-structured RFC is currently the only solution to determine which type of list to use.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It will take longer, but it is no big deal to me. I do not understand why you are insisting on "defunct" over "former", while it was agreed that "former" was better. However, if you say "don't modify my proposal", why did you modify mine? Why is it so difficult for you to co-operate? --Checco (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't change your proposal, I just stricked the final note that it was not directly connected with the Rfc. In the DRN the only thing that was decided was the removal of the coercive rules, but the discussion concerning the organization of the list has been declared failed (and therefore also the various denominations). I am free to propose the denominations I want in my proposal. Or do you also want to decide the content of my proposal? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The RfC draft is fine. Btw, I do not deem the terms used in Plan B essential: they are just working titles with explanations. --Checco (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also in my view the Draft is fine and it is understandable. Sometimes, however, what seems understandable to those who start a Rfc, is not also understandable for other users. A user has already intervened in the RFC above, despite being set worse than the current Draft. If there is no opinion on how to improve it, I will launch the new RFC as soon as the old one is formally closed. And obviously the section titles indicated in the Draft are not necessarily binding.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Yakme Why can't I withdraw the RFC? I am also waiting for your opinion to improve the Draft. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you don't reply shortly, I will close the RFC again. We cannot postpone the new RFC indefinitely, and we must close the old one first.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to practice the art of patience, especially since it was you in the first place who was pushing for this RfC to be published. And now you don't like it anymore, and want it removed ASAP! You already formally asked for a closure of this RfC – and rightly so, but now you should wait until the RfC is closed by a third party. The RfC is not yours to withdraw, given that you are not even the OP of this RfC. Yakme (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Yakme Read the Drn better before making certain statements, please: I have not pushed to publish the Rfc in that form . I had not even initially included the note on parliamentary groups and coalitions in my Plan, I had adapted it to Checco's proposal. It was Checco who changed his mind and asked to remove that part from the Rfc, I simply agreed, consistently to my first proposal. I asked User:Robert McClenon to withdraw the Rfc so that I could launch the new one, but he didn't. I asked for the closure of this RFC in Wikipedia:Closure requests, it is true, but in the meanwhile there are already interventions in an RFC to be closed, this is not ok. Both proponents of the two options of the RFC have decided to close it, what is wrong if I am the one to close it?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that Plan A was the one originally proposed by you to be in this RfC. In this moment you and Checco informally agreed to end the RfC, but to my knowledge no explicit consent has been given by the original poster, and furthermore another editor intervened and !voted for one of the preferences. Also, a formal closure request has been filed to the Administrators. So I don't think it is appropriate that you close it yourself. See also WP:BADNAC. Yakme (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My initial plan included the organization of active parties and tables, non-coalitions and parliamentary groups. I adapted my plan later. The original poster left the discussion. WP:BADNAC states that a non-admin closure is inappropriate when there is a conflict of interest. It is true that I am an involved part, but no one can claim that there is a conflict of interest on my part. The current Rfc is a problem: it does not show the preview of the options and it is not linked to its main topic (politics), it is objectively better that it be closed as soon as possible, since the intervening users will have to repeat themselves in a new Rfc. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * These are your opinions. We do not know yet whether the OP agrees for their RfC to be withdrawn. Given that you formally asked for a third-party closure yesterday, you should be patient enough to wait for someone else to sort this out. Yakme (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural note: Although Robert McClenon's well able to close the RfC himself, and in the circumstances it would be appropriate for him to do so, he might choose to rewrite it instead of withdrawing it. There are so few comments that it would be in order for him to do so.  Robert, whatever you decide to do, there's a request at WP:CR that will need closing.—S Marshall T/C 13:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand that Robert McClenon concluded the Drn, but I can't understand why he doesn't close this Rfc, despite being asked him explicitly. This RFC is literally blocking everything. @S Marshall Modifying the RFC could also be an option, but in this case, if I'm not mistaken, a new notification would not arrive to affected users. In my opinion the only truly effective solution is to stop this Rfc and start a new one. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to consider not doing that? Wikipedia's only limiting resource is volunteer time, and RfCs use up a lot of it.  RfC is a relatively "expensive" process, in those terms.  And the number of volunteers who will choose to participate in a complicated, lengthy discussion about Italian politics might not be very high.  Whatever the problem is (and I haven't looked yet), one RfC that asks a simple, open question is the method that's most likely to resolve it.  I would be surprised if Robert McClenon has really abandoned this discussion because he's an incredibly patient man.  He's also a busy one, who volunteers to do a lot of difficult and thankless work, and I urge you to be fair to him and allow him more time.—S Marshall T/C 20:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, I've just seen how many RfCs this matter has already used up. Good Lord.—S Marshall T/C 20:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @S Marshall: I began my statement by stating that I understood Robert McClenon for having concluded the Drn: an uncommon patience was needed to continue mediating that Drn (yeah, Good Lord...), so I don't surely criticize him in the least for having given up. On the contrary, I think the Drn was useful in any case. But we cannot renounce to RFC. There are some extreme disagreements, as you have seen. We need Rfc well done, so it is necessary to stop this above as soon as possible.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If I closed it for you, would you just start another one with different choices?—S Marshall T/C 23:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Scia, try to make this process easy for other editors. It's almost impossible for fresh eyes and/or experienced editors that don't have infinite patience to help y'all gain lasting consensus here if y'all keep making this an absolute shitshow. If after months of DRN and many RfCs y'all are still so unhappy with any option I feel like y'all should just take a break from the article for a month or so and think things through before continuously litigating the same issue over and over again. It's a list. There's better things to spend your time on than spending a whole year on what to include and what not to include. Stop looking for perfection. It does not exist. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 04:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

What Do You Want?
User:Scia Della Cometa, User:Checco - What do you want and why? Do you want me to withdraw the RFC? Why can't you just ignore it, and start another one? I see that both of you have requested that it be closed. Why don't you just assume that it will be closed, and start any others? I closed the DRN when it appeared that the two of you couldn't even agree on what should be in the second RFC, after I had already started the second RFC. Why are you so worried about one or two or three days to get an RFC closed when you are planning to spend the next two months on RFCs? So, no, I do not plan to close the RFC. It's your problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ixtal @Robert McClenon 1. yes, it's a bad show (but I'm not the one that want to decide the whole set up of a page, I am searching for a consensual set up) 2. the content of the new Rfc has already been decided; 3. two competing Rfc would create confusion; 4. the current Rfc does not include the main topic (politics and government) and does not preview the two options 5. it is only a list, but it is a locked page: at present, Checco will rollback any edit he does not like (can a page be unchangeable and at the same time be set in a non-consensual way?).
 * @Robert some issues of this Rfc are objective (preview of the Plans, the topic), you started it, is it so difficult to stop a Rfc? Frankly, I don't want waiting a month for the closure for a faulty Rfc since, as you stated, we are planning to spend the next months on other diffent RFCs. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:S Marshall the choices are similar to the current RFC (even if they no longer include heterogeneous topics such as coalitions and parliamentary groups). The thing that worries me the most are the technical problems of this RFC : it lacks the main topic (politics, government and law), so the potentially most interested users will not intervene; it lacks the preview of the 2 Plans. With these tecnical flaws, participation in the RFC is distorted.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You can legit just add the politics tag. I don't know what you're making such a fuss about; don't demolish the house to change a lightbulb. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 07:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ixtal that is a problem, but there is another one: the preview of the two options does not appear in the list of the opened RFCs. This is because the RFC was signed before the two options and the two options are listed in subsections. I certainly cannot change the RFC set up and the signature.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How big of an issue is that, really, Scia? — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 08:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I share Ixtal's confusion about why we're arguing. To me, the options don't look mutually exclusive.  Surely we can and should have all of the following: (1) a complete list of political parties in Italy; (2) a list of historical political parties in Italy; (3) a list of parties with seats in the Italian parliament; (4) equivalent lists of local-level political parties; and (5) a navigational list called something like list of notable Italian political parties.  Why isn't each editor working on the list that inspires them?—S Marshall T/C 07:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:S Marshall we have already discussed too much about how to organize the list, but the points of view turned out to be too different ... I would also be willing to keep this RFC and participate in it, but only if the two main issues are fixed...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Scia I think you may not understand the point of an RfC. It is not to satisfy all editors, it is to determine consensus on an issue where multiple opinions differ. We don't need the RfC to be perfect for you, we need it to be good enough to move the conversation forward (even if only marginally so). — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 08:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Provided that, in my honest opinion, a consensus could have been easily reached on the list's structure among the most involved editors in this list (notably including User:Autospark and User:Yakme) without a RfC, but that is not going to happen without a moderator, User:SDC and I agree on: 1) closing the RfC above; 2) starting a new one, according to Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Draft RFC 4. That is what we are asking and we agree on that. --Checco (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

IMHO a preview of the two options is essential: I have also seen some current relatively long requests, but if you do not want to include the complete plans, we should at least explain them in summary.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The most disruptive thing you guys could possibly do here is to insist that this RfC is closed because it's not on the exact terms that you want, and then start a series of new RfCs that are on the exact terms that you want. I've already explained to you that RfCs are very resource-intensive things and you've had a lot of them on this topic.SDC is right to say that you should stop discussing how to organize "the list".  With this many political parties, you need several lists, each with their own system of organization.—S Marshall T/C 08:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The RfC could easily be replaced with the text User:SDC and I agree on. The only user who participated in the survey could be noticed of the change. --Checco (talk) 08:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree on this, it seems to me that we are senselessly complicating things: the proponents of the two options of the RFC are me and Checco and we have already decided on a road map to follow to collect the opinion of all potentially interested users.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you act boldly, but together with me? I could replace Plan B and notify the only user who has participated in the survey, you could replace Plan A and strikethrough that users's comment. If you agree, please tell me a time for our joint bold edits. I will be available until 5:00pm CET and, later, around 8:00pm CET. --Checco (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would seriously advice against trying to remove or edit other editors' posts on this talk page without their permission, including the RfC header question. Yakme (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No-one said that, indeed. --Checco (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You just suggested striking through another editor's comment, and "boldly" changing the body of an RfC question asked by another editor against their will. This amounts to editing others' comments, see WP:TPO. Yakme (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "To strikingthrough" does not mean "to delete" or "to remove" and updating the RfC was considered a viable option by some editors above. Thus, the only solution, in your view, is to wait for the RfC's closure or failure. --Checco (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:Checco: The main problem is that the two plans will not appear in the preview if Robert's signature precedes them. This aspect is critical to the success of the RFC. Regarding the other user's comment, in the event of an RFC change, we must not strick his preference (as affirmed by Yakme): we should notify him and ask him if he intends to confirm his opinion.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not understand the "preview" issue (where is it?), but I am open to any solution. --Checco (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The preview thing is intentional. The preview of the RfC must be very short, so it cannot contain the full list of options as you wish to do. This is the reason why the OP put their signature after the first question. So I would also advice against trying to move their signature to enlarge the preview. And by the way, the preview is by no means "critical to the success of the RFC". Yakme (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Now, I see. Thanks for your explanation. I agree with you: having the whole thing in the preview is not necessary and "by no means 'critical to the success of the RfC'". And I still think we could replace the current Plans A and B with the correct one, while notifying to the only participant to the survey that the Plans were changed and ask him/her whether he/she intends to confirm or change his/her preference. --Checco (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In my view, it is about the same. Readers enter the link, read the full options and participate in the survey. --Checco (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Transparency: I have mentioned this page on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment.—S Marshall T/C 16:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Readers join a discussion more willingly if they immediately see the options proposed in the request. I don't see any problems in showing the two options entirely, but if we want to contain the dimensions of the preview, we could insert a summary of the two Plans. For example, subdivision of parties based on representation in institutions (Plan A) or based on territoriality (Plan B).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I have modified the Draft so that the options appear in the preview in a concise manner, please take a look. However, the time has come to make a decision: change the current Rfc or stop it to start a new one. Keeping this situation further in limbo would be harmful and inexplicable. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The new version is repetitive and its wording quite awkward. I prefer the previous version, but I accept also the new one. --Checco (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:Checco Why akward? It is simply structured in two parts: the first part with the direct question and the two options summarized, the second part showing the complete options. I don't see anything akward or repetitive.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. Are we really discussing and wasting time on the bloody preview of the RfC??? You really don't know what it means to drop the stick on anything! You are wasting space on WP servers to discuss this?? The preview is fine! It's not a big deal, it's not even a small deal, it's no deal at all!! Yakme (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * first of all, learn to moderate the terms. After that, all this useless waste of time was caused by the unwillingness to simply close a RFC, despite the explicit request of the proponents. All this does not make sense. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Scia you've been engaging in a back and forth with Checco over this article's inclusion criteria for over a year now. It is a massive waste of time. You do not own this page nor do you have any right to determine by yourself the consensus-building process the community must follow. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 11:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ixtal: You have no idea what you are saying, before commenting on a fact I inform myself adequately, you should do the same, otherwise avoid certain unsubstantiated comments! Until a year ago this page was controlled by a single user: he decided the inclusion rules, he decided how to organize the list, he decided if there could be a wikitable or not. Do you know who I'm referring to? Or do you speak without knowing? I have been trying to give this page a consensual set up for a year trying to involve other users. Do not make certain accusations to me! I don't want decide anything myself! --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And in any case I am more and more puzzled by this bureaucracy: it is even impossible to make a simple change to a Rfc to make it clearer....--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

RFC on Structure of Lists of Italian Political Parties
Which of the following plans for structuring the lists of Italian political parties should be used? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Please indicate in the Survey which of the plans should be adopted, with a brief statement of the reason. Please do not respond to other editors in the Survey. You may respond to other editors in the Discussion section; that is what it is for.

Plan A
Plan A provides for the division of parties into 3 categories: "Active parties", "Historical parties" and "Former/defunct parties". The active and former parties are in turn divided into three sub-categories: "Parties represented in the Italian or European Parliament", "Parties represented in regional parliaments (councils)" and "Parties without representation". The "Historical parties", on the other hand, are those Italian political groupings of the 19th century which had neither a party structure nor an official name, but which were distinguished only by their political position (for example Historical Left and Historical Right). The former or defunct parties, on the other hand, are those political parties (starting from the end of the 19th century / beginning of the 20th century) which already had an official name and a defined structure.


 * 1. Active parties
 * 1a. Parties represented in the Italian or European Parliament
 * 1b. Parties represented only in Regional Councils
 * 1c. Non-represented parties
 * 2. Historical parties
 * 3. Former (or defunct) parties
 * 3a. Former (or defunct) parties represented in the Italian or European Parliament
 * 3b. Former (or defunct) parties represented only in Regional Councils
 * 3c. Former (or defunct) non-represented parties

Plan A does not provide for direct inclusion in the list of entities other than political parties, as stated in the title of the page. Political entities such as coalitions of parties, electoral lists and parliamentary groups will be better treated and listed in specific pages, ie "Political alliances in Italy" and "Parliamentary groups in Italy", to be indicated in the "See also" section at the bottom of the page. For example:
 * See also
 * Political alliances in Italy
 * Parliamentary groups in Italy
 * Other related links, such as the Lists of Italian parties by region

Plan B

 * 1. Active parties
 * 1a. Main parties - countrywide parties having parliamentary groups of their own in Parliament
 * 1b. Minor parties - other countrywide parties having seats in Parliament or the European Parliament
 * 1c. Micro parties - countrywide parties without parliamentary representation
 * 1d. Regional parties - parties active only in one region
 * 1e. Overseas parties - parties active in constituencies for Italians abroad
 * 2. Former parties
 * 2a. Main parties - countrywide parties having had parliamentary groups of their own in Parliament
 * 2b. Minor parties - other countrywide parties having had seats in Parliament or the European Parliament
 * 2c. Micro parties - countrywide parties without parliamentary representation
 * 2d. Regional parties - parties active only in one region
 * 2e. Overseas parties - parties active in constituencies for Italians abroad
 * 3. Coalitions of parties
 * 3a. Active coalitions of parties
 * 3b. Former coalitions of parties
 * 4. Electoral lists of parties
 * 4a. Active electoral lists of parties
 * 4b. Former electoral lists of parties
 * 5. Parliamentary groups - formed by non-party independents or coalition of political parties
 * 5a. Active parliamentary groups
 * 5b. Former parliamentary groups

Survey

 * Comment While I was the one who sketched Plan B and I also like the current subsets of the list, I will not vote for now because I hope the RfC can be split in two concurrent RfCs: the first on political parties (basically, how categorising regional parties? by themselves divided by region or divided among parliamentary and extra-parliamentary parties?) and the second on having electoral lists, coalitions and non-party parliamentary groups in the list or in separate lists. --Checco (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Waiting for Checco's response at the Drn, I make my own consideration: I also think that we should exclude coalitions and parliamentary groups from this RFC. My proposal is to close this Rfc and reopen it in a simpler way: in the preview of the Rfc the Plans A and B are not shown (I guess because they are subsections). So plans A and B must be presented in a simplified way in the Request (for example through a simple bulleted list of proposals). Furthermore, the RFC lacks a topic, the most important one: Politics, government, and law . I know, it takes a lot of patience to get to a point in the situation. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Plan A -- This seems both as the most reader-friendly option as well as the most editor-friendly option to me. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 00:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment "Plan A" is too simplistic, and could be too inclusion of very small parties, while "Plan B" is perhaps too detailed and complex for ease of editing. An ideal solution would be equidistant between the two, in the sense of having more subcategories than A, but not as many as B.--Autospark (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Plan A -- The article is called "List of political parties in Italy". Coalitions, parliamentary groups and anything else that is not a "political party" should be listed in a separate page, in my opinion. P1221 (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Plan A- the other one is overly complex, and considering its italy, would require constant maintenance. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Plan A is simpler, and simpler is needed with all the disagreements here. --Seggallion (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC) sock puppet of banned user
 * Plan A with modifications – I also think Plan A might be better, but I would actually modify it as the Plan A proposed in Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Draft RFC 4. Namely, I have no idea of what is the difference between "historical parties" and "former parties", and therefore I would at least remove the "historical" bit from Plan A. Yakme (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your proposal makes sense.
 * The description of Plan A states that The "Historical parties", on the other hand, are those Italian political groupings of the 19th century which had neither a party structure nor an official name, but which were distinguished only by their political position (for example Historical Left and Historical Right). I don't have in mind however any other historical parties apart from these two... P1221 (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Note to closer: please before closing also consider the discussion at WP:ANI. Yakme (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Query from potential closer - With the ANI thread being resolved, is there still a request or consensus for this RfC to be closed early? Or do you all want the RfC to remain open for at least the next 14/15 days until it reaches at least the 30 day mark? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there are no concerns about closing the RFC now I think and would welcome you doing so at this point as you have volunteered. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 12:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Summarizing the long discussion thus far (2nd attempt)
Let's start again. I think that Autospark's table, proposed here below, can be used as starting point for reaching a consensus. All the editors generally support this format, with the following open points: 1) How many names shall be used for each party? Just one (the name used in en:WP articles) or two (English name and the original Italian name)? 2) Shall ideologies be listed? 3) If yes, how may ideologies per party? 4) Shall the numbers of MPs and MEPs be shown? 5) Shall other columns be inserted, like for instance political positions? 6) Other suggestions? I think we can reach an agreement on these points, without resorting to an RfC (RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable and there isn't a deadline for reaching a consensus.). I invite all the willing contributors to focus on the listed points and avoid derailing the discussion into personal disputes. P1221 (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * My answers:
 * 1) I'd prefer to have two names (the one most common in English and, smaller, the original Italian name). However, if a consensus was already reached in the past, I'm ok with sticking with what came out then. I can't find the previous discussion Checco refers to, can somebody link it to me?
 * 2) and 3) I'm for listing up to 2 ideologies per party. If it is required to reach a consensus, I agree as compromise to the proposal to list just one ideology for national parties and two for regional parties.
 * 4) I am for showing the numbers of MPs and MEPs. I understand the reasons to the contrary, but I don't believe that changes happen on a daily basis, making it difficult for updates to be followed up.
 * 5) I think that more information are better, but I also think that simplicity is required for a better management of the tables. If there is consensus in adding a column to the table, I would like to have shown the political position of the party or the European affiliation.
 * 6) I haven't any other suggestions. P1221 (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your effort, but about one thing Yakme was right: by continuing this discussion, there may never be an end. Unfortunately the above discussion confirmed this. We should be aware that the time consumption would be greater by continuing this discussion than with a Rfc. In a discussion where someone finds the other lists "ugly" and someone else would like to take them as a model, it is inevitable that someone will eventually have to remain dissatisfied, because the positions are too far apart. Why continuing with this endless discussion? The RFC has so far worked well where discussions have failed miserably, it is a fact. We should choose the easiest way to reach consensus, not the most complicated...
 * Anyway, my positions are well known: two names if the page's title is English, up to 3 ideologies (strongly against one ideology or arbitrary differences between regional and nationwide parties), yes to the political position, of course yes to the number of MPs/MEPs.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your efforts to resolve the conflict. My replies:
 * Have the common English name, plus the Italian name if different from the previous one.
 * Yes, as they provide a picture of the political configuration of the Italian parliament.
 * For me, as many as necessary to get an idea of the party's political stance; I would be fine with a rule of having up to two or three ideologies per party.
 * Yes, they are necessary to show the strength of the party in the legislatures, and also to order the parties consistently inside the table.
 * I would not mind having a column for the political position (it appears in most other countries' lists), but I can also live without if many other editors are strongly against it.
 * I don't have further suggestions at the moment.
 * I hope this is the way forward, so we won't need to go through another RfC. Yakme (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * My answers:
 * 1) Have the just one name, namely the name of the WP article, whether in English or Italian or regional language.
 * 2) Ideologies should non be listed in order to avoid debate and bickering here—they will be always available for readers in the WP article.
 * 3) If ideologies are listed, I am for just one main ideology for countrywide parties and, possibly, two for regional parties (in order to have both "regionalism" and a more specific ideology).
 * 4) The numbers of the MPs and MEPs should not be shown as they vary very frequently and there would be problems of interpretation, thus frequent debate and bickering—as ideologies, those numbers will be always available for readers in the WP article.
 * 5) I am opposed to political positions are they are very deceptive, redundant (especially if ideologies are listed) and also cause of frequent debate and bickering.
 * 6) My suggestion on the way forward is to list the very few regional parties having seats in the Italian Parliament (SVP, UV, PSd'Az and few more) along with the other regional parties, so that readers have a clear idea of which parties are active only in one specific region (I like the current table on regional parties, organised by region).
 * There is clearly no need of time-consuming and plebiscitary RfCs as a consensus is easily achievable—and it has always been so: we always lacked a moderator, now we have one (User:P1221). --Checco (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Checco, but I'm not a moderator, just another active participant who likes to reach a conclusion, sooner or later. P1221 (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

,, I'm pinging you because you recently expressed your ideas in some other comments. Would you be interested in sharing your opinion in this thread, too? Thanks P1221 (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Sure!
 * 1) Prefer one name, fine with two.
 * 2) Yes
 * 3) Prefer one, fine with two. Disagreement about which to highlight should be outsourced to the party articles, where they should be more informed about which ideologies are most commonly associated with each party.
 * 4) Yes
 * 5) I can't think of other columns I'd want. I oppose political positions, but it's not a dealbreaker for me.
 * 6) No other suggestions.
 * I applaud the time spent here on developing local consensus. I think it would be unwise to hold an RfC. Please ping me if a change in my view could make the difference between consensus or deadlock so I can reconsider. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Would prefer just the name used by the individual WP articles for brevity/readability, but listing two (English and Italian) wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me.
 * 2) Yes.
 * 3) Two at maximum, as should be the case generally for these sort of listings. Otherwise we leave open the possibility that some editors will try and list every ideology they've ever heard of! Two balances brevity versus keeping the table informative enough for its function.
 * 4) Neutral, but honestly, I do think it would cause more problems that it would benefit the article (having to constantly update the article, be aware of elected politicians with dual-memberships, etc).
 * 5) I oppose political positions, for this table. I foresee a situation where parties will be listed with entires e.g. "centre to centre-right to right-wing", bloating the listing and causing editor conflict about what to include.
 * 6) No other suggestions for now. :) -- Autospark (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

After everyone has expressed their opinions, the points on which there is less consensus are the political position but above all the ideologies. Just two considerations: @Autospark, certainly everyone expresses their own legitimate preferences, but there is no political spectrum with three positions in any infobox; regarding potential disputes, currently, the only ongoing discussion about the political position of a party concerns Italexit. @Autospark @Firefangledfeathers @P1221 assuming that just one ideology would create enormous conflicts (please, let's avoid all this), I would like to discuss in practical terms what each maximum threshold on the number of ideologies entails: surely with a threshold set at three ideologies it cannot be said that there is a risk that the editors list every ideology they've ever heard of, let's be honest. However, I would like to discuss two practical cases, Valdostan Union and South Tyrolean People's Party, because I am unable to describe them effectively in two ideologies: both are regionalist parties, both are Christian democratic parties and both are essentially founded on the protection of a linguistic minority. Excluding any of these ideologies would lead to an incomplete description of these parties. In my view the real risk is to exclude fundamental ideologies for some parties, not ideologies never heard before... I would like to know your opinion on this issue.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I think a list that describes both as regionalist parties would be just fine. I do not expect, when reading lists, that I am getting the full picture. If we went with two ideologies, we'd get for UV and  for SVP. I favored first-sentence descriptors first and then infobox, in the order listed, and I skipped over political positions like "centrist". I think the extra info is fine, but I don't think the aggregate added data is worth the visual impact it will have on the table. Again, this is not a make-or-break issue for me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with what @Firefangledfeathers says. I also like the idea to show ideologies basing on first-sentence descriptors first and then infobox. P1221 (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @P1221 obviously I am open to any community decision, but we should first discuss about some possible consequences. Unfortunately, with two ideologies I foresee other eventual exhausting discussions about the order in the infobox, for this reason I prefer to clarify this problem now. Given the background, I believe that mine are concerns with a foundation. Honestly, I am not convinced on the idea of the first-sentence descriptors. And I personally think that SVP and UV should be described in the same way. For example, with two ideologies, to describe them, I would exclude Regionalism and include Minority-language interests and Christian democracy, but I already know that someone else would not agree...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Scia Della Cometa, I understand your concerns, but, as Yakme and Firefangledfeathers already said, such discussions shouldn't be covered in this page. At the end, this is just a list article. In my opinion, we just need to set up clear, objective rules for inclusion. There are already two proposals (Yakme: ; Firefangledfeathers: ): I'd add that every ideology to be inserted shall be referenced by an external source (no original researches). P1221 (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Making choices without taking into account the consequences (other very long discussions) would be too risky, in my view. The maximum number of ideologies that I have proposed is not random, I would like to know in advance how problems that I consider essential will be solved.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Wrap up
Thanks you very much for your contributions! I summarize the results here below. Everybody can comment each single point. P1221 (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) How many names shall be used for each party?: The outcome is quite a tie: the first preferences are evenly split between one and two names and almost everybody accepts the other option as compromise... It appears a (very) slight preference for showing two names. I think that to have the common English name, plus the Italian name if different from the previous one can earn the support of the majority.P1221 (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Shall ideologies be listed?: Consensus for Yes. P1221 (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) If yes, how may ideologies per party?: The majority of contributors accepts either one or up to two ideologies per party. Between these two choices, I see there is a preference to reach a compromise for up to two ideologies per party. P1221 (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, you are the ones with the most distant views about this point. Would you be able to reach and accept a compromise toward what proposed here? P1221 (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Shall the numbers of MPs and MEPs be shown?: Consensus leans toward the numbers MPs and MEPs to be shown. P1221 (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Shall other columns be inserted, like for instance political positions?: Even though many are open to show the political positions for reaching a consensus, the majority prefer not to include them. In my opinion, consensus is leaning toward not having any other additional column. P1221 (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Other suggestions?: Checco gave a suggestion, but it is not relevant to the construction of the table. I'd like to discuss it in a separate thread, while leaving this one for focusing only on how to build the table. P1221 (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Little suggestion: we could add a column for the status of the parties (countrywide, regional, overseas). It could be usefull for the parties represented only in the regional councils.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * About the ideologies, I answered above.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it is to early for a wrap-up and we could welcome other users involved in Italian politics' articles to express their views and break the ties. However, I am happy to acknowledge once again that a compromise is easy to achieve without resorting to RfCs. There is clearly a consensus on 2) having ideologies, 4) having the number of MPs and MEPs, and 5) not having other columns, especially political positions. There might be more discussion on 1) names, as first preferences are tied. On 3) the number of ideologies, I already accepted the consensus earlier proposed by User:Autospark (one ideology for countrywide parties and two ideologies for regional parties), but, at the end of the day, I agree even more with what User:Firefangledfeathers had to say about SVP and UV: "I think a list that describes both as regionalist parties would be just fine". I agree. SVP's and UV's main ideology is regionalism and there should be no need of adding anything else, especially when both parties are catch-all non-ideological parties. Most parties are easily described with just one main ideology, as it is currently the case in the articles on Italian elections and governments—more information is of course available in the parties' articles. --Checco (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Both parties are not simply regionalist, but essentially Christian democratic e founded in defence of minority-language interests. These are main ideologies, not secondary ideologies. Just regionalism means all or nothing in these cases. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I was wrong about the Valdostan Union (it is not a Christian Democratic party), but the problem remains for the SVP. @P1221 I would agree to have two ideologies with some exceptions in extraordinary cases, such as the SVP, where the main ideologies are three.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Checco, thanks for your answer but I didn't understand if you accept the compromise to list up to two ideologies per party. P1221 (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not a good compromise, in my view, thus I cannot endorse it. Frankly, I do not understand how it would be easier to pick two ideologies instead of one, when most parties are more easily defined by just one ideology and there is already consensus on these classifications in other articles and among the users involved ("national conservatism" for FdI, "social democracy" for the PD, "populism" for the M5S, "liberal conservatism" for FI", "green politics" for EV, "Christian democracy" for the UdC, "regionalism" for the SVP and UV, and so on). Picking the second ideology would be more difficult, often redundant. I fear it would fuel unnecessary debates and conflicts that. For similar reasons, I oppose the "ideology" column altogether, thus it is already a big compromise for me to accept it. Of course, a compromise can be achieved also without my consent, if I am clearly in the minority. No-one has a veto power. --Checco (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ps: If ideologies are included in the list, of course we do not need to add references, as they would be availbale in the party articles.

So what are we going to do? Do we try to close this discussion with an agreement, do we continue to discuss (in search of an unlikely compromise that will satisfy anyone) or do we proceed to the next step (Rfc)? It seems to me that the discussion has been going on for a long time. As I have already said, I would accept the compromise version proposed by P1221, provided that an exception is made on the maximum limit of ideologies in exceptional cases, such as for SVP. In this case the table would look like this:

In my opinion this remains a valid compromise, because the great majority of the parties would be listed with one or two ideologies, only in case of disagreements we would use three ideologies. The tables of the parties represented on the regional councils would be similar, with the field of the regional council instead of the seats as the only difference.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks @Scia Della Cometa, but I will keep just two ideologies in the table. Checco and you have different ideas on the compromise to be reached: you would like to have a third ideology in exceptional cases, while Checco thinks that one ideology is already a compromise for him... I'm aware that not listing a third ideology for some parties (like SVP) can cause discussions, but I foresee they will happen in any case, e.g. just for deciding if a party can be better represented by just one or two ideologies...
 * @Checco, the majority of the responders dislikes less the idea to have two ideologies rather than only one. Also, it is not mandatory to have two ideologies for each party: as Scia Della Cometa, too, recognizes, some parties can be represented by just one ideology. Considering the sensibility of this topic (and WP rules), it is mandatory to have references.
 * @Checco, @Scia Della Cometa, now it is up to you: if you both accept to have up to two ideologies, it is possible to roll out the proposed table immediately. FYI, you can see a possible outcome in my sandbox: please note that the table is partial and it doesn't list all the parties, but I built it to show a flavor of how the table will look like. P1221 (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @P1221 It is not necessary for you to draw up the table, as I had already drawn up the lists some time ago. As for ideologies, I am personally against having sources for ideologies here too, almost no list of parties has them (the sources are already in the articles of the parties). But there is one thing I can't understand: what it means "not listing a third ideology for some parties can cause discussions, but I foresee they will happen in any case, e.g. just for deciding if a party can be better represented by just one or two ideologies "? If a party has only one ideology in the info box, there will be only one ideology in the table. If there are two ideologies, then in the table there will be two ideologies accordingly. The problems concern parties that have more than two ideologies in the infobox. And I am still of the opinion that it is better to be safe than sorry, so it is essential for me to find an agreement first on which ideologies to list for each party. it would be useless to close a discussion to start another one immediately after... I have already seen too many discussions of this type, this is a diriment point.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean that Checco wrote: ... I thought such statement could be a strong issue and a source for other long discussions, but if you agree that there is consensus in defining FdI, FI, EV, UdC, SVP and UV with just one ideology, then I'm happy with this outcome and you can disregard my statement. P1221 (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @P1221 That is only a personal declaration of Checco, if all parties were easily described with only one ideology there would be no problems. But of course this is not the case. I have repeated several times that I have a hard time describing SVP with less than three ideologies. And what about the League? I'm pretty sure there will be discussions about that party as well. If we really want to create new discussions, at least let's discuss these problems now and not afterwards. It would be useless to start drawing up the list and immediately start arguing over which ideologies to include.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So my point was correct: if you think that Forza Italia needs two ideologies to be described and Checco thinks it is sufficient only one, wouldn't this lead to discussions as well?
 * Moreover, you can't agree between one or two ideologies: why do you propose to increase them to three as solution? You won't solve disagreements by disregarding the point of view of other contributors, labeling as "personal declarations".
 * This is why I'm asking both of you to reach a middle point between the two diverging positions, instead of further deepening the distance. In my opinion, the only common ground is to accept two ideologies as basis, with few general objective rules for selecting the ideologies to insert. One solution could be the following one: 1) two ideologies as maximum limit, 2) listing the first two ideologies as they appear in party's article's infobox, 3) list one ideology only if there is consensus to do so for that party. P1221 (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @P1221 it is the exact opposite: if the limit would be set to two ideologies, there would be no discussion until the second ideology. One single ideology would lead us to useless and painful diatribes on which ideologies to list first in the infoboxes, this is the last thing Wikipedia needs. His is objectively a personal declaration, because he affirmed that there is already a consensus for the first ideology on all parties, when it is exactly the opposite! I don't know if you really followed the whole discussion, but last year we already tried to put only one ideology in the table, and the result was a failure. So no, there is no consensus on this point . Why do I propose to increase the ideologies to three? I have already said it, the reasons are quite obvious: 1. multiple points of view are represented; 2. since more points of view are represented, it is much more difficult for there to be disagreements about which ideologies to indicate (it is difficult for a party to have ore than three main ideologies). My question is: do we need new discussions on the order of ideologies in the infoboxes? My humble answer is no. Especially after having already started editing the table without prior agreements on the order. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I get your point about the 3 ideologies, but please consider also the answers given above by the other contributors. Only Yakme and you are fine with having 3 or more ideologies listed, everybody else expressed their preference to have only 1 or 2 ideologies listed. At the moment, 3 ideologies are accepted by just a minority of the contributors.
 * Probably I'm not expressing myself well, but I was just stating the obvious fact that having one contributor who doesn't accept to list more than one ideology and another contributor who doesn't accept to list less than three ideologies will lead to certain fights, whichever the maximum number of ideologies will be... P1221 (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @P1221 indeed if it had been the result of a regular Rfc I would not have questioned it. But since we have continued this discussion, and since there is no overwhelming consensus on the two ideologies, I express my perplexities. Perplexities to which I have not yet received precise answers: the order of ideologies in an infobox (especially from the second ideology onwards) can be random: in that case what do you do? I don't see a common line, and there will be discussions about some parties. If we want new discussions, at least let's do them now. This is my point. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Here is why I am opposed to ideologies in this list, as well as to any feature that could be matter of debate, changes frequently and is easily found in political parties' infoboxes. The "Ideology" column would be definitely the more problematic. To put it simple: no ideologies, no discussions; more ideologies that just one, more discussions. To put it even more simple: the more ideologies, the more discussions. Debating on each and every party is not a good idea, but of course there are some parties, most of them actually, that are easily described by just one ideology. Indeed, there is little controversy on parties' main ideology in most articles where only one ideology is mentioned: 2022 Italian general election, Draghi Cabinet, etc. I would surely respect any compromise, but I cannot support it from the start if I totally disagree with it, thus I will let others to achieve the compromise on this issue and to be responsible of it. --Checco (talk) 06:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, are we really stuck on this (after a discussion of > 11,000 words and 68 kB) because of 2 vs 3 ideologies? Can't we just add the tables to the article already, according to the wrap-up of P1221, and afterwards see if there will be any problems or discussions? It seems to me like we are crossing bridges before coming to them, meanwhile blocking any kind of progress (that has been blocked for more than a year). Yakme (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with you, Yakme. There are also some RfCs, whose results have yet to be implemented.
 * I will WP:BOLDLY update the tables after the elections: anybody who would like to start earlier is welcome. P1221 (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This seems like a good path forward to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @P1221 @Firefangledfeathers @Yakme: Obviously, I have nothing against starting to draw up the tables on the basis of the elements on which a basical agreement has already been reached (double name, two ideologies, seats). However, after all this discussion, it is clear that there are some outstanding points left. For this reason, I have decided that I will start a RFC on ideologies and political positions. I hope for a larger partecipation. In the meantime we can already start editing the page, even if I foresee difficulties for some parties. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have another question: How do we list the regional section of the League?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh no. Another poor RFC is the last thing we need here, and you have been advised against it by multiple editors during the last weeks. Actually, looking at Checco's and others' statements, it looks like a (weak) consensus has been reached, i.e. 1–2 ideologies. So it appears that there is not even the need of more discussion on this, unless a material dispute appears in the near future. My feeling is that you do not want to accept the compromise of 2 ideologies instead of your original proposal of 3, and you are determined to try all means possible to reach your objective. Never mind that by doing so you keep disrupting this talk page and the development of the article itself. Yakme (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Disrupting what? Is the search for other opinions disruptive, when the consensus is so weak (even in a small circe of users)? It doesn't seem so to me. If I saw an overwhelming consesus on only two ideologies (like five out of six users) I would not question the conseus reached. Is there a clear conseus in this discussion about this point?
 * Rather than criticizing a user who seeks the opinion of other third users, answer my question above: how do we list the regional section of the League?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * it certainly can be. Your temporary topic ban and page block came about precisely because of disruptive use of dispute resolution processes (like RfCs). If I were you, I would be very cautious about replicating that behavior and very eager to demonstrate my ability to accept local consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding regional sections of the League, my opinion is: are they separate, independent parties? If yes, then you follow the consensus reached with the last RFC. If no, they might be considered just regional sections of a national party. Other parties, too, have regional sections... I wouldn't bother to list all of them. P1221 (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Scia Della Cometa I don't understand your fixation with RfCs. First of all, they are not a poll. Second, they are open discussions: if you are tired about discussions, as it appears from your comments, opening an RfC is not a good solution to avoid them... Third, even if their scope is to reach a consensus, they might end up without reaching any consensus at all (see for instance here or here).
 * Last but not least, I would consider everybody's opinions before opening an RFC. You want to open an RFC regarding ideologies and political positions. I thought there was already a consensus in not inserting political positions, or at least you didn't consider it a major concern in the past week... I don't understand why political positions shall be put again in discussion, out of the blue.
 * Said that, you are free to go ahead and opening an RFC, as you wish. P1221 (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The topic ban was not due to an incorrect use of RFC but to a more complex reason: it was mainly intended to allow other users to find an agreement before its expiration, instead, until the discussion was not reopened from me, absolutely nothing happened. If you do not understand my "fixation" with the RFC (which have allowed evident progress for this page), I do not understand the hostility towards it, which is nothing more than a request for opinions. Furthermore: why do you all keep ignoring my question above?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I answered, see above. P1221 (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't see your answer. Well, the regional section of the League are not separate independent party (instead, I think that almost all the sections are commissioned). Anyway, there are also two sections that were independent parties in the past and that have a historical importance: Lombard League and Venetian League. At least these two sections deserve a wikilink in the page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Right now, we have Lega Lombarda and Lega Veneta in the regional parties table. I think we can continue to do it that way. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But only these two sections were independent parties: the others have never been independent. Furthermore, there are not the articles about all the regional sections, therefore there would be asimmetry (like the current situation, based on the LN sections and not on the LSP sections). I think that a solution could be indicating the other sections in a reference note.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this a problem with the (a) just the proposed table, (b) just the status quo table, or (c) both. If it's not an (a) situation, can we postpone discussion until after we've resolved this on dispute? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Firefangledfeathers The status quo is only provisional, so the problem concerns only the proposed table / list (A), or rather, it concerns any list that must be compiled: when compiling a list, it is quite obvious to know which parties to include and which not. The matter must be resolved first, because these parties will be listed or not. The League has several (but not all) pages on its regional sections (currently listed as normal regional parties, although in reality they are regional sections of a national party), only two of these have a noteworthy history (because they were autonomous parties and with some importance). The options are many, but the most sensible option seems to me to indicate them as an appendix to the LSP or through a reference note. Currently the League is repeated several times both in the list and in the infobox template, but the de facto party is the same. Therefore I would avoid listing them as now, otherwise everyone would be free to create pages about the regional sections of a party and list them as autonomous parties on the page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have an informed opinion about the best way to include them. I don't see them in the status quo, so I think we can focus on one problem at a time. Incremental improvements over the status quo is more workable approach than trying to perfect before we implement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The status quo lists them all, including regional parties. Based on what has already been decided, the list must be rewritten from the ground up, so it seems normal to me to know whether to include them and how, at the time of drafting the list. Currently the Lega is an over-represented party both in the list and in the infobox . This is why I proposed to indicate them in a reference note, as "The League is a confederation made up of the following territorial divisions: Lega Lombarda, etc.".
 * However I did not understand one thing: "postpone" after what dispute? If you are referring to the RFC that I have proposed, I have seen an inexplicable crusade against it (it seems that I have proposed an absurd thing and to be avoided as much as possible), what sense would it be to start it already knowing that probably all the users of this thread will boycott it? None, unfortunately...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought were just discussing how to format the national/European parties. That's the problem I think we should focus on. What do you mean by 'infobox'? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Firefangledfeathers My mistake, I meant template, not infobox. I didn't understand what the problem of the "format the national / European parties" is, honestly. Maybe I missed a passage in the discussion, what do you mean by this format?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're referring to Template:Italian political parties, which is not really in scope here. I don't think the question of how to note Lega's constituent parties is critical to the question of how to format the national/European party table overall, which is why I suggested postponement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

can you please stop adding problems to problems, and complicating this further? Now, did you really have to introduce also the issue of Lega Nord, or otherwise the table cannot be started? It looks like you do this on purpose to make sure that this discussion never ends! Thanks to the patience of P1221, we have a starting point to implement a consensus achieved months ago about the general structure of this article. Let's please just compile the dang table, and leave the minor problems to later discussions, can we? Yakme (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you kindly stop criticizing me on any occasion? I tell you frankly: this repeated attitude of constant criticism is starting to tire me a lot. An inappropriate intervention in response to a concrete problem, that is, how to list the regional sections of a party. Really a very constructive attitude. Do you want to start the list? But who stops you ?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to start drawing up the "dang" table, nobody will stop you. If the new list is not yet compiled, it is not because I asked how to include the sections of the League. The responsibility is not mine if you did not finalize an agreement on the tables when you could have done it without me. No one bothered to close the discussion, so I had to pick it up again myself. The facts are these. I'm not blocking anything, as far as I'm concerned you are absolutely free to start the table.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You are the one talking and talking and talking on this page, so most of the responsibility for this article being stuck on endless discussions is yours and Checco's (see actual data for proof). It's ironic that you think you are the one with a "constructive attitude" here. At the moment your "constructive" efforts lasting more than a year led to you being blocked for 3 months, and the page still in the same state as before. You could ask yourself a couple of questions. Yakme (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have never stated that my attitude is an example of constructiveness, and I am fully aware of it (I aim for the maximum result, if I get half it will still be a victory for me), but unlike you I don't rise myself to contemptuous and superiority attitudes. One thing is having a tough debate, another thing is despising the interventions of another user, like as you usually do in the latest period. So avoid bringing up that topic ban, it's useless, you have nothing to teach me (maybe the other users do, but not you), trust me. That said, let's stop with this umpteenth useless and boring bickering.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * you have nothing to teach me (maybe the other users do, but not you); at least I have never been blocked, nor did I ever block a page from being improved for >1 year with no results just to get the feeling of a victory for me. However I am not teaching you, I am loudly complaining about the status of this article after months of personal participation aimed to factual improvement, which at the moment is being further delayed by yet another "important" issue which you brought up. Hoping to finally get some silence on this page, waiting for P1221 to finalize their version of the table after the election. Yakme (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Scia Della Cometa, Yakme and Firefangledfeathers are right. This thread was opened for agreeing on the table to be used for parties represented at national and European level. We haven't yet started to talk about parties represented at regional level, unrepresented parties and former parties. To speak about regional sections of a party is off topic, therefore. As Desmond Tutu said, "there is only one way to eat an elephant: a bite at a time". So let's focus on building the table and leave everything else out for the moment.
 * What is preventing to rolling out a table for parties represented at national level and European level now (aside from the incoming elections)? The fact that Lega contains Lega Lombarda and Liga Veneta? It can be simply solved by mentioning them in a footnote. The fact that we haven't yet agreed how many ideologies to list? Well, this is due to the lack of willingness to find a compromise between you and Checco... I believe all the other contributors are open to whichever result you may agree between yourselves. Not only you are keeping your grounds, but every time you post a comment you are raising your requests (3 ideologies for few regional parties --> 3 ideologies also for some national parties --> open an RFC for having 3 ideologies for all parties --> let's do an RFC for inserting also the political positions). Why can't you try to find a compromise instead (for instance, you accept to have 1 ideology, in change Checco accepts to show the political positions)? P1221 (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @P1221 It is one thing to discuss about the topic, even with "direct" statements, but criticizing a user at every useful opportunity (even for things not related to the topic) is a decidedly inappropriate behavior. About this Yakme is not right. Anyway, thank you for answering the question I asked Firefangledfeathers, I didn't understand what he/she meant by "format the national/European party table". Answering to your proposal: yes, I could accept the proposal to have one main ideology and the political position of the party, it could be a balanced solution.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe that Checco and SDC should not be treated as special editors here, so I disagree with this additional two-sided compromise solution. The consensus among all participants was quite clear: no political position is fine, 1-2 ideologies is also fine. I don't see why we should try to change that to appease SDC or Checco. Yakme (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am absolutely not a special editor (of course), indeed I did not understand why P1221 only mentioned me and Checco. I have limited myself to saying that I agree with the proposal of P1221.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, please forget it, it was just an idea for moving on. P1221 (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree we should discuss one issue at the time. There is clearly a consensus on having ideologies and my opposition to them is not relevant as some many other users want ideologies to be part of the tables on countrywide parties. In most cases, one ideology would be quite enough (after all, broad big tent parties like the SPD have just one ideology in their infobox!), in some cases there will be two. My advice is to have only one for each party, in order to avoid disputes. --Checco (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Moving on
Hi all, now that the infamous RFC finally has been formally closed, I think we can move on and try to implement the outcome of the RFC(s), which regarding the structure of the article shows a "rough consensus for Plan A". The RFC closer also mentioned in their summary that a user (myself) proposed a small modification to Plan A, with the support of another user. So, if nobody is against it, I would go ahead and implement Plan A without the "historical parties" section, which is unclear and confusing (what is the difference between historical and former parties?). Yakme (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I see that not much progress has been made here lately. I have fought (and I have been blocked here) for the Rfc to be divided, but I admit that the final result doesn't dislike to me. Now, in addition to concluding the partial clean up of Italian parties (some Afd are still in progress), we must decide if and with which wikitable to list the parties. As no decision has been made in recent months, I will also participate in the discussion. I would invite anyone interested to present their idea of wikitable, then we could start the final RFC. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Personally, this is my proposal for the current parliamentary parties.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

In my view, the proposed table (I guess for active countrywide parties) is too complicate. I would keep the tables in their current form and I would avoid most of the infos added, as those infos are often subject of changes and they can be found updated in the articles on the political parties, as most of them have an article. Of course, several parties should be added and, as there are no rules, there is no rule against having listed political parties which have no article in Wikipedia. This said, none of the two proposals of the RfC could receive my support (I had prepared a better plan B that was never included in the RfC), while broadly accepting the decision that was taken, the most important thing to me is that all regional parties are listed among regional parties, even when they have parliamentary representation: I am sure that readers would greatly benefit from finding them all together. --Checco (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * the solution approved by the previous RFC does not provide for distinctions between national and regional parliamentary parties. Other changes may be made in the future, but this is not a priority, first a new layout must be given to the page. Could you provide your own model of table to be proposed in the RFC?
 * Ps. It is not forbidden to include parties that do not have an article, but the result of the RFC was clear: only parties that meet the general notability guidelines can be listed on the page. Pages about parties deleted or transformed into a redirect because not notable enough cannot be listed on the page. I think it is necessary to clarify this point, there are still general rules of inclusion.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My view of SDC's proposed table is that it is too complicated; I'd replace Position/"Complete political position" with "Alliance/coalition", limit ideologies to merely two at the most, and not list regional seats due to complications in keeping an up-to-date seat count.--Autospark (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I would have just one ideology per party and, while I would avoid seats altogether, I could accept having them only for a few parties, for instance those scoring more than the 3% threshold. Basically, I like the tables as they are currently in the list. That is my proposal. --Checco (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ps: I disagree with User:SDC's interpretations of the RfCs' outcomes. However, I am quite disillusioned by the process. The list will clearly be an incomplete, inconsistent, incoherent and rarely up-to-date, due to the absence of clear rules of admission. The only thing I can propose in order to contain further chaos is to have fewer tables with fewer columns. The current ones are perfectly OK, in my view. --Checco (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Autospark for his proposal. I would also like to point out that I have removed the regional seats from my proposal. @Checco could you also show your proposal for a single table for all parliamentary parties? Your proposal should be created by you (also to avoid misunderstandings). However, mine is not an interpretation of the RFC: option A provided for the inclusion of any parties as long as it exists, option B (the prevailing one in the Rfc) provided for the inclusion of parties that meet WP:GNG. No list of parties can be complete, it would be utopia...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal of, and I would also remove the Alliances/Coalitions column. Yakme (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with @Yakme. Alliances and coalitions aren't very solid in Italy and it doesn't make much sense listing all the past alliances of one single party... It could be replaced by the left–right political position (probably @Scia Della Cometa was referring to this with "Complete political position"?) P1221 (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Placing Italian parties on the left-right political spectrum is also a very non-trivial task, both because different observers might place the same party on different sides of the spectrum, and because for some parties there are not enough sources (or none at all) studying their position. Also, except for a few parties for which their position is clear, we will have plenty of discussions like "is this party centre to centre-left, centre to left-wing, or just centre left?" and similar. Ideologies, instead, are usually found in political analyses about almost any party, and having two of them for each party is a good compromise to give an approximate idea of what that party represents. Yakme (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @P1221 exactly, by "complete political position" I mean that (centre-right to right-wing etc.). Few parties do not have a definite political position, indeed almost all the other lists also show the political position of the parties.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What about European affiliation instead? This should be easier to determine. P1221 (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Theoretically I am not against adding any information in the table, any additional information is useful for the reader in this case. European affiliation could be an interesting information, even if few parties have a European affiliation. On the other hand, the coalition field may not be suitable for the current Italian situation: there are no longer well-defined coalitions as they once were (Olive Tree, The Union, Pole of Freedoms, House of Freedoms etc.), today the coalitions, as has already been said, are too fluid.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Differently, from other countries, which have very few parliamentary parties, Italy has many of them, their parliamentary numbers are often subject of changes and their ideologies are always a matter of debate here. Thus, it is not a good idea to have an excessive number of columns, as the data do not update by themselves: it is better for users and readers to find those data in the articles' infoboxes. A compromise solution would be to have a table for the main parties (those passing the 3% threshold), possibly with more data, and simpler tables for all the other parliamentary parties: the outcome would be very similar to the current configuration of the list. Very important, I would have just one name for each party, the article's name, whether in English or Italian.


 * Main parties


 * Other parliamentary parties

That is already too much to, but I could accept, as a further compromise, to add for each party its main ideology. --Checco (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You know that the proposal of distinction between main and minor parties was rejected in the previous Rfc, and therefore this cannot be a "compromise solution". I invite you to propose only one of the two tables.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The previous RfC offered two catch-all options and none of the two had my favour. I am free to propose whatever I think it is best. --Checco (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The table must meet the outcome of the previous Rfc, which excluded distinctions between main and minor parties (I also remind you that the second proposal in the previous Rfc was yours). Since this Rfc is about the layout of the table and that the parliamentary parties' section is unique, I invite you to reformulate your proposal.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , the fact that none of the options had your "favour" does not change the outcome of the latest RfC, that was a consensus for the list without major/minor party separation. I do not think it is a good idea to challenge the result of that RfC just a few months after a consensus was established. So my support goes to the proposal of (without coalitions) for the table of parliamentary parties. Yakme (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Here below my proposal, basing on what has been done for other countries and divided in accordance with the outcome of the RFC. The proposal follows Autospark's proposal, replacing the Alliance with the European affiliation and removing the establishment date (I noticed that it is not reported in most of the list for the other countries). I'm adding also a proposal for the other categories identified by the RFC outcome: For historical and former parties (categories 2, 3a, 3b and 3c), I would do just a plain list like the following one: What do you think? --P1221 (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1a. Active parties - Parties represented in the Italian or European Parliament
 * 1b. Active parties - Parties represented only in Regional Councils
 * 1c. Active parties - Non-represented parties
 * Political party 4 (Partito politico 4, 19xx - 20yy)
 * Political party 5 (Partito politico 5, 20xx - 20yy)
 * I would prefer to focus now the discussion only on the section of parliamentary parties, however my idea on regional parties is the following:


 * I would avoid the number of regional seats, for consistency with the regional parties in parliament. In my view, the year can be useful for distinguishing parties with identical names. About extra-parliamentary parties, I don't have a particular preference between a bulleted list and a table. However, I think it is very reductive to describe some parties with one or even two ideologies: I am thinking for example of the South Tyrolean People's Party or Valdostan Union, their main ideologies are at least three, describing them with only two ideologies would be difficult...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The wrongly-proposed RfC resulted in a support for the simplest option among the two available and participants did not evaluate the details, let alone the practical outcome. It is quite absurd not to differentiate parties having dozens of MPs with very minor or one-man parties and updating will not be easy. Most lists of political parties have detailed data only for a few parties. However, if it is not possible to have two separate tables for main and minor parties, my proposal for parties represented in Parliament is the following: Regarding regional parties, my proposal is the following: In both cases, I could accept having just one main ideology. --Checco (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Let me add that having the number of MPs for all the parliamentary parties will result in a mess: not only there are frequent changes of affiliation, but some MPs are members of a main party and a minor one at the same time. In a nutshell, having the number of MPs will open the way for very frequent edits and disputes. Something even worse would happen for ideologies. It is better to have most of the data in the infoboxes of the articles on the political parties. --Checco (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok, everyone has made his proposal, now we have to understand if we can find a common agreement, if we have to start a RFC and if we can reduce the number of proposals. @Checco: we were both blocked because we repeatedly asked for a change in the RFC (for example the split of coalitions, groups, etc.), but let me say that the result concerning the distinction between parties would have been the same. One of the main reasons why Plan B was not chosen was exactly the complication resulting from the distinction between "main", "minor", "micro" parties etc. (anyone who participated in the previous Rfc can deny me, if I'm wrong). It doen't seems to me that most of the lists have detailed data for a few parties: almost all the lists of the major countries have detailed tables for a significant number of parties. The problem of little parties represented within other major parties can be resolved: IMHO, it is sufficient to specify the parties (without their own official delegation in the Parliament) in a reference note. I noticed that no one has included the political position in their proposal: in my view it is relevant information, but if its exclusion from the table was useful to reach a compromise, I would agree to have a table without it. An important problem concerns the ideologies: one single ideology would be worse than nothing . From personal experience, the indication of one but also two ideologies would create exhausting discussions. Some parties can be described with only one ideology, others cannot: the South Tyrolean People's Party, for example, cannot be described with less than 3 ideologies. If we find an agreement on this point, in my opinion we will take a huge step forward.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * SDC, I agree with Checco's basic premise that we should keep most of the information on the individual en.wiki article pages about the parties, and share his preference for listing a single ideology per party (ideally the most broadly descriptive and 'generic' ideologies), while I also agree with you about the issue raised by listing regional(ist) parties. Would it be possible to consider having a rule giving regionalist parties given dispensation to list two ideologies per party, with national parties limited to listing a single ideology? Or would that be an over-complication of the rules?--Autospark (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * it seems too complicated to me: the goal should be to simplify the editing of the page (as well as to make it uniform with all the other lists), and not to find new quibbles and criteria of distinction. The table should not be filled with information, but all the other lists provide the most important information about the parties, the purpose of these lists is also to provide readers with a comparative analysis of the parties. It is an aim pursued by all the other lists, it should also be pursued by the list of Italian parties, for consistency. It does not seem to me that three ideologies weigh down the table or compromise readability. In my view, the indication of one or two ideologies would give rise to other unnecessary and exhausting discussions, and frankly I think we should find ways to avoid further discussion. If we cannot agree on this key point, I think we should start discussing how to set up the RFC and the various options to be proposed.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Autospark, in this case I agree with @Scia Della Cometa. Looking at other lists here in WP (for instance, France, Germany, Spain, United Kingdom... I checked several others, I'm not listing here all of them), I see that these lists contain up to 3 ideologies per party.
 * In my opinion, it is not required to have 3 ideologies for ALL the parties, but just to show 3 ideologies at most (some parties can be described by just 1 ideology, some others by 2, some others by 3, no one by more than 3) P1221 (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Checco, an MP belonging to two different parties seems very odd to me, even for Italian politics... Probably you are mixing up parties and political alliances (for instance, Maurizio Lupi is member of Us with Italy party, which is part of the electoral alliance Us Moderates, created just for the purpose of contesting the incoming Italian elections. In this case, if elected, Lupi shall be counted as MP for Us with Italy). Do you think about different cases otherwise? P1221 (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I could agree with User:Autospark's proposal. While I would not have ideologies in the tables, I could agree on having one main ideology for countrywide parties (as it is in the articles about Italian governments and elections) and two for regional parties (e.g. "Regionalism" and "Christian democracy" for the SVP).
 * Yes, User:P1221: dual membership is something that happens quite often with minor and regional parties: Italian Radicals and More Europe, Italian Radicals and Democratic Party, New Italian Socialist Party and Forza Italia, Pensioners' Party and Forza Italia, Sardinian Action Party and Lega, Italian Liberal Right and Lega, Responsible Autonomy and Us with Italy, Popular Liguria and Us with Italy, etc. This is just one more reason for not including the number of MPs. Of course, the main one is that those numbers vary very frequently.
 * Finally, it is interesting to once agin take a look to the lists of political parties in France, Germany, Spain, United Kingdom, etc. The listed parties are a fraction of those that are listed in this list (and many more are currently not included!) and/or just a tiny minority of them are listed in tables with detailed data. --Checco (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like we might be experiencing different realities here. Looking at the tables in the cited other countries' lists, it looks like actually most parties are inside tables with seats, multiple ideologies, positions etc., especially if one excludes defunct/historical parties; certainly not a tiny minority of them as Checco claims! Also, it looks like these lists feature a lot of parties also for other countries. I don't see such a huge disparity with Italy, honestly... Yakme (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe you overlooked my "and/or". However, the German list has 59 active parties and the French one 80 (and several of them could easily be proposed for deletion by some users here), while the Italian one has 144 (and several others are currently excluded). By the way, these lists are usually not up-to-date: that is a fate I have been trying hard to avoid here for some years now. --Checco (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Spain has more than 100 parties listed, and around 40 of them are in tables, which report the number of MPs. Still, 59 and 80 are not small fractions of those listed in Italy... I don't see Italian political landscape so much exceptional than other countries: certainly, there are a lot of small parties not represented at any level: if you compare the represented parties, though, the numbers are not so different. P1221 (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You probably did not notice that the UK list has 210 (two-hundred-and-ten) active parties listed in tables. Spain has 112 parties listed, of which 48 in extremely detailed tables. Yakme (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Those lists tend to be very inaccurate and frequently not up-to-date. The UK's list is a chaotic mess and most minor parties have fewer data or, worse, not up-to-date ones. Spain's one has fewer parties that Italy's would have and only 48 have detailed data, unfortunately with some problems of updating by the way. Those lists are not good models and Italy's one would much more complex and difficult to update. --Checco (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Checco Probably you refer to cases like Gianfranco Rotondi (Christian Revolution), Alessandro Battilocchio (New Italian Socialist Party) and Carlo Fatuzzo (Pensioners' Party (Italy)), who were elected in alliance with Forza Italia at the last elections. These MPs are part of Forza Italia parliamentary group in the Chamber of Deputies, but they are not active members of Forza Italia party (you can check their pages in Wikipedia or in other sources).
 * I agree anyway that handling similar cases is not very easy: considering this example, we might count all the MPs above in Forza Italia, listing their corresponding parties in a footnote, similar to what is done in the Infobox in Forza Italia's WP article, or consider them in separate parties, like it is done in the Infoboxes of each party's WP article.
 * The first solution is simpler for sure, but then we have some parties that are not contained in any category identified in the RFC... P1221 (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not easy, indeed. We should notes and note. It is better not to have data already and easily available in the political parties' articles. --Checco (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@P1221 to be honest, I have not paid attention to other "List of political parties in..." articles, and if I had contributed to them, I would also prefer a single ideology only to be listed, unless there were exceptions. The problem with too many articles on en.wiki, whether lists or articles on specific parties, is that they often list too many ideologies, whether relevant or not – in the worst case it feels like editors have listed every ideology they have heard of in Infoboxes. I wish to avoid that here, and whenever possible. @Checco that's basically my proposal in a nutshell; a single ideology listed for national parties, two listed for regional parties.--Autospark (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * While I would avoid ideologies altogether, I would accept that compromise solution. Thanks for pointing it out. --Checco (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Checco I see many problems raised that I cannot understand: the issue of seats also concerns the infobox of the parties, do we want to exclude the seats there too? Some minor parties are represented within major parties, it is true, but there are many solutions to solve this small issue. One solution is the one that I had already proposed and also proposed by P1221, that is a footnote. Another simple solution is to indicate it directly in the table, like this:
 * I don't see where the problem is. @Autospark You affirm that for some parties too many ideologies are listed: 3 ideologies (at most) are not too many at all, other lists come to list 6/7 ideologies for some parties. Leaving aside the fact that the proposal of one ideology for nationwide parties and two ideologies for regional parties, in my opinion, is not reasonable, but do you really want to give life to new useless discussions? Discussions like "I want show this ideology" or "No, I want show this other ideology because it is more relevant": please not, do you really want this?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Post-scriptum @Checco: regarding the French parties mentioned by you, I know that there are many pages of really minor parties, that maybe could be deleted, but it does not seem to me that you are making too easy the (slight) lightening that I am trying to carry out with the Italian parties. Sincerely  I find it hard to understand some motivations on your "keep" positions in Afd procedures, like for Future Veneto, Party for Independent Veneto and Veneto Padanian Federal Republic, just to mention those still open. After all, with regard to the French parties, it would be more difficult for me to evaluate the various sources.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, some AfDs are affected by recentism. Future Veneto is a good example: for a couple of years there were tons of articles on that party (I provided some key examples at Articles for deletion/Future Veneto) and the party attracted several MPs. --Checco (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Summarizing the long discussion thus far
By re-reading the whole discussion thus far, it appears to me that a rough consensus is forming (at least for parties represented at national or European level) around the table originally proposed by Autospark, without the column Alliance (see table below). The main open point is how many ideologies per party shall be inserted: so far I don't see a clear consensus around this and all contributors have different views. In my opinion, up to 2 could be a compromise. I'm pinging all the contributors (Autospark, Checco, Scia Della Cometa, Yakme) for sharing their ideas. P1221 (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Regarding this proposal, I could accept having just one main ideology and two for regional parties.
 * I am still quite opposed to:
 * having double names: in my view, there should be only one name for each political party, the one that is used for the corresponding article, no matter whether in English, Italian or regional language, thus just a link to "Lega", "Democratic Party", "Five Star Movement", "Forza Italia", "Brothers of Italy", "Action", "Italia Viva", "Communist Refoundation Party", etc. — this is something that was proposed either by Yakme or SDC and that easily became consensus about one year ago; I would stick with that consensus);
 * having the number of MPs and MEPs, for the reasons explained above, mainly because a) they vary frequently and b) some MPs have two affiliations.
 * Additionally, I would list the very few regional parties having seats in the Italian Parliament (SVP, UV, PSd'Az and few more) along with the other regional parties, so that readers have a clear idea of which parties are active only in one specific region (I like so much the current table on active political parties).
 * Finally, I would ping also other users who consistently edit the articles on Italian politics and political parties. --Checco (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @ Thanks for trying to reach a conclusion, however my advice is: do not put too much hope in this, because it is very likely that this discussion will never end. Anyway I support your scheme, and I support having up to two ideologies. Yakme (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion must necessarily end. I don't think it will be possible to reach a compromise in this thread, unfortunately. The best solution, in my view, is to prepare 3/4 options of tables and start a RFC. Alternatively, we can start a RFC only on the maximum number of ideologies for each party.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This option for national parties looks good to me. I would prefer one ideology and one name per party, but would gladly compromise to two if that's whats needed for local consensus to develop. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer my suggestion earlier (one ideology for national parties, two for regional) but I'd be prepared to compromise and have a blanket rule of listing two ideologies for all listed parties.--Autospark (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Scia Della Cometa, I believe it's possible to work out a solution without recurring to an RFC, I would start it only if it's strictly necessary (see also WP:RFCBEFORE). Checco, any other contributor is welcome, if you know somebody who may be interested you can ping them. P1221 (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Certainly other opinions would be useful, I do not know who might be interested in this specific topic. It would also be great to reach an agreement here and not need a RFC. But I see too many discordant positions. I would be willing to not have the political position in the table (although almost all the other lists include it), but an excessive application of limitations is not the right way to go, in my view. I strongly argue that the new layout must be user friendly, and a proposal like that of Autospark (two ideologies for regional parties and one for national parties) is too complicated and would likely cause numerous rollbacks. Even with a limit of two ideologies I foresee discussions for some parties, when instead we should find ways to avoid any other unnecessary discussion. I think it would be frustrating, after this discussion is over, to start discussing again which ideologies to put on the list and which not.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Discussions over which ideologies to show in the tables is not going to take place here, because we should just insert the first N ideologies that appear in the parties' infoboxes in their articles. So the discussion about which ideologies are the most relevant ones will happen – as it should – in the article pages, and not in this page, which should just be a summary. Yakme (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say where it will happen, I said it will happen. And honestly, opening discussions on the order of ideologies in infoboxes seems to me a disheartening thing to avoid. With up to 3 ideologies, this type of discussion would be unusual, but with two ideologies it would be almost a certainty for several parties...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Plan A


 * Plan B


 * Plan C

Since the agreement here does not seem objectively achievable, we will have to seek the opinion of other users. Can you confirm that these are the three options in place that could be proposed in a RFC? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It should not be that difficult to reach a compromise and I also would avoid a RfC. AS it has always been, it is more plausible to find a consensus among the users who are most informed on the issue. Having three plans like those above is not helpful becaue one user might like one item of one plan and another item of another plan. It is better to proceed step by step. Regarding countrywide parties, "Year of establishment" and "leader" have not been opposed by anyone, thus there is consensus on having them. The issues to be resolved are the following. 1) how many names for each party? 2) ideologies yes or no? 3) If yes, how may ideologies? 4) position yes or no? 5) MPs and MEPs yes or no? --Checco (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Checco How do you say it shouldn't be hard to compromise if you put a lot of vetoes? Agreements are not reached like this. Many of your positions are incomprehensible to me. I would like to standardize this page according to the standards of en.wikipedia, while it seems to me that you are trying to make it different from all the other lists of parties, frankly a compromise seems very far. We have discussed too much about these argument, now we have to act with concrete facts. If you prefer, we could open an RFC asking for opinions on each individual issue, rather than between various options of tables. You've listed 5 problems, so we could start a RFC on these specific points. In particular, it seems to me that you are the only one who does not want the original name of the parties (present in all lists, except the French party list) and the number of MPs / MEPs (present in any other list). The RFC could be formulated like this:
 * Should the Wikitable of current Italian parliamentary parties
 * include the original Italian name of the parties?
 * include the ideologies of the parties? If yes, how many ideologies? Up to one, up to two or up to three ideologies?
 * include the political positions of the parties?
 * include the number of parlamentarians of the parties?
 * With an Rfc set up in this way, each user would be free to express their preference on each point.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Again, other lists of political parties are so ugly, disorganised, out-of-date and, by the way, incomparable to our case that my point has always been to avoid that fate for this list.
 * Again, I have never vetoed anything and I always support real consensus, even when I am on the minority.
 * Again, per User:P1221, there is no need of a RfC, let alone multiple RfCs: we can simply find a consensus here.
 * I should no answer to false assertions, but you proposed the removal of double names and removed them in August 2021, per consensus—you might have changed your mind since then, but it is also false that I would be "the only one who does not want the original name of the parties", as User:Firefangledfeathers has just said that above, same for ideologies: "I would prefer one ideology and one name per party, but would gladly compromise to two if that's whats needed for local consensus to develop". Thus, several issues can be resolved in a few days, instead of starting RfCs. There are five issues to be resolved: 1) how many names for each party? 2) ideologies yes or no? 3) If yes, how may ideologies? 4) position yes or no? 5) MPs and MEPs yes or no?. On issue 1 there are already three users opposing two names (User:Autospark, User:Firefangledfeathers and me) and in the past also User:Yakme and you supported that position, in order to avoid awkward translations. On issue 2 there are already three users opposing more than one ideology (User:Autospark, User:Firefangledfeathers and me—User:Autospark and I would support two ideologies for regional parties, my first preference is to avoid ideologies altogether).
 * Step by step, we could proceed on the five questions, also by opening the debate to other users extensively involved in the articles on Italian politics and political parties. In a few weeks we could have a consensus, that will clearly be a compromise. --Checco (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Checco Ugly in your view, if the lists have remained like this it means that other users don't find them so unpleasant. For me one of the few ugly lists is the one on Italian parties. It's a matter of personal points of view. If your opposition to ideologies, political position and parliamentarians is not a veto, it is something similar. Discussing the issues "step by step"? Let's not fool ourselves, please... we have been discussing the same things for a year. There is no consensus here on wikitable, whether you like it or not: I do not see an alternative agreed model to the one I have proposed. We had a Rfc on the rules and one on the layout of the page, and they worked well, I don't see why we shouldn't have a Rfc on the wikitable, since we can't reach an agreement. I'm not afraid to involve other users, the only way to have a consensual wikitable remains the RFC. If anyone has suggestions on how to improve RFC, they are welcome. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * About the names, I never changed my mind. I opposed awkward translations like "HousePound" and "Courage Italy", and I still oppose them now. In my view, if the title of the page is Italian (like Forza Italia), it remains Italian. If the page title is English, it's correct to add the original party name. And even about your support for consensus when you are in the minority, it doesn't always seem like that to me, just see your attempt to question the layout of the list again...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Again regarding the names, I remind you that the original Autospark proposal included the original name of the parties. Then, I don't know if he changed his mind after reading your position, but that was his proposal. Autospark's original proposal also included two ideologies for all types of parties, so it's hard to talk about true opposition to more than one ideology.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite simple to know! Let's discuss each issue at the time and let anyone have a say for a few days. That is what a good moderator (with some expertise on the issue) should have done months ago. We can do it now. Of course, people can have a preference (in my case, for instance, no ideologies), but also accept a compromise (in my case, for instance, one ideology for countrywide parties and two for regional ones, per User:Autospark's compromise proposal). --Checco (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you tell me where is the problem with the RFC? The text of the RFC that I proposed above seems to me well balanced, because it allows users to express themselves on each issue. It also has the benefit of involving other users, which we strongly need to consolidate consensus. The same positions that we supported in the discussion we can also support them in the upcoming Rfc . Continuing to discuss here would lead to the same results as in the past: endless discussions without concrete results. The page has been on standby for too long and the situation must be unblocked.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

,, could you please stop bickering? You are here for trying to reach a conclusion together with other editors, not for fuzzing between yourselves only. You were blocked once because of this behavior, I don't like to see both of you getting something worse because you are continuing to disrupt the discussions. Thank you very much for your support. P1221 (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please stop!
 * You are totally right. I am the first one to be tired of all this. Do you think continuing this discussion will bring any results? Previous discussions show the opposite, unfortunately. What everyone should have understood is that to reach a consensus through an orderly discussion is a well-set Rfc. For this reason I ask you: do you have any suggestions about the upcoming Rfc? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Scia Della Cometa An RfC is not a guarantee to reach a consensus. Also, it doesn't prevent further discussions. I'd like to give it a second try: if it wonn't succeed and we'll get stuck, then we'll check what to do next. P1221 (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Simplification of Template:Italian political parties
I point out the opening of this discussion for the simplification of the template on political parties.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)