Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 6

New table inserted
I just added the new table with the parties represented at national and European level, basing on the (still unofficial) results of the 2022 Italian general election. I got the data from the site of the Ministry of the Interior here, and aggregated in a table in my sandbox. Although not yet finals, I'm pretty confident that the numbers won't change too much. I assigned the MPs to the parties they belong, not to the ones they run with (for instance, #DiventeràBellissima is listed because Nello Musumeci belongs to this party, even though he was represented in the proportional list under Brothers of Italy). P1221 (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it would have been better to wait for the new parliament to take office. Anyway, just two notes on the table you entered: Aosta Valley is an electoral list, not a party, so it does not need to be listed; furthermore, it is not necessary to specify the independents of each party in the reference notes.
 * Since you have entered the first list, it is worthwhile to complete all the others as well (I had already prepared them months ago). I will also insert the regional sections of the League in a reference note. If you don't like something, say it.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that it was wrong to add the new parliamentary numbers before the new Parliament coming to force. However, I thank User:P1221 for implementing the new consensus (which I oppose) for the parties represented in Parliament. This said, I see three problems: 1) some ideologies are not accurate (not a big deal: we can fix them); 2) some parliamentary parties are missing or are in the wrong category (not a big deal: we can add or fix them); 3) I think it would be quite better to separate countrywide parties from regional-only ones (the old table, ordered by region, was quite better and we have now lost much information and a good categorisation) and to list the very few regional-only parties among regional-only parties; 4) the central-northern regional sections of the League are actually distinct parties, most or all of which, predated the formation of Lega Nord, thus they should also be listed among regional-only parties, ordered by region. --Checco (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ps: I have no time to edit the list today, but, in the process of quickly reviewing it, I clumsily reverted a few edits by User:SDC—please excuse me!


 * I think that parties that are in the national parliament should be kept in the national parliament list. That is very important in order to follow the results of the RfC and for coherence. The Lega regional sections can be kept in a footnote, as they are sections of the national party. Yakme (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Scia Della Cometa thank you very much for your updates. You are right, Aosta Valley is an electoral alliance, but I wasn't able to determine the party Franco Manes (the MP elected under this alliance) belongs. I would be glad to update it when I find a source confirming his party. I see however that you removed this line, why? I also noted you inserted the New Italian Socialist Party: who is the MP elected or this party?
 * @Checco, I understand you'd prefer to have national and regional parties in two different tables, but the outcome of the last RfC goes in the opposite direction, as also Yakme point out. I would therefore follow the consensus reached with that RfC. I note however that Scia Della Cometa made a split between nationwide and regional parties in the table of the parties represented only in Regional Councils: I can propose to show a similar split in the table of the parties represented in national and European parliaments. P1221 (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think P1221's latest proposal could be a good idea. I would add that I would order the parties in the table according to the sum of seats in the Italian + European Parliament, and not by Chember first, then Senate, then EP as is done now. If the sum of seats of two parties is equivalent, then the order Chamber, Senate, EP can be used. Yakme (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @P1221: The deputy of the NPSI is the incumbent one, Alessandro Battilocchio. I had removed Aosta Valley because it is not a party, but an electoral list of several parties. However, I discovered Franco Manes' party membership (he is a member of UV). It is possible to divide countriwide, regional and overseas parties within the table, but in this case the table cannot be longer sortable.
 * @Checco: I have certainly missed some parties, but after all the list is still work in progress. Regarding ideologies, to avoid any edit wars, I would invite everyone to reason first here about them and modify them in the tables after an agreement has been found.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As of now, I am clearly on the losing side of each argument. The RfC, to which I could not participate, was basically interpreted by participants as "simplification v. complication" (and simplification won). The outcome might have been different if the RfC had offered another alternative: parties according to their representation v. parties according to their nature (countrywide and regional). I will continue to argue for the latter option. It is clearly confusing to list countrywide and regional parties in different tables and especially regional parties should be ordered by region, as each region has its party system and readers should be able to check it. This said, I appreciate that also the parties represented in Parliament have been divided into "countrywide", "regional" and "overseas". A further improvement would be to have different tables in each section, in order to add the "region" and "continent" column for "regional" and "overseas" parties. --Checco (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I myself proposed to list the parties according to their nature, but, if I am not wrong, I remember that you specifically wanted the distinction "major / minor / micro" instead of the section on countrywide parties. Maybe you've changed your mind in the meantime, but it's a bit late now for this. However there are no winning or losing sides, as you see it: after all, the current page is the result of a "complicated" compromise.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC) ps. As regards the reference region of the regional parliamentary parties, I think that a reference note is enough.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I am clearly on the losing side of each argument and I accept that. The latest compromise was quite easy to achieve as I was a lone dissenter. This said, it is never too late to correct some ill-advised changes that have been made and I will continue to propose improvements to the list (as other users did from their point of view). I hope that at some point there will be consensus on ordering the parties according to their nature and scope (countrywide, regional, overseas). In the meantime, I hope we can fix the current inconsistency: regional (or, better, regional-only parties) have the "region" column in one table, not in the other. Finally, it is unfair to list the regional parties forming the League in a note, when most of them preceded the formation of the federal party, have been among the most successful regional parties so far and are still autonomous parties on many counts: listing all the regional parties in one table would also help us to fix this problem too. --Checco (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The more I think about it, three improvements are needed, in my view:
 * 1) parties should be ordered not by parliamentary/regional representation, but according their nature (countrywide, regional, overseas);
 * 2) in the meantime, the table listing the parties represented in the Italian Parliament and the European Parliament should be divided in three (countrywide, regional, overseas), in order to add a column for regional parties ("region", consistently with the table listing the parties represented in Regional Councils) and a column for overseas parties ("constituency" or "continent");
 * 3) the regional parties which formed and predated Lega Nord should be listed as separate regional parties. --Checco (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The WP community just reached a consensus that goes against your points 1) and 2) very recently. I would not restart a discussion about the organization of the lists, honestly. Yakme (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Regarding point 1), when the decisive RfC was started, I was not able to put forward my proposal, thus I have reasons to think that users might well appreciate what I am proposing now. Regarding point 2), that was never decided and my proposal is perfectly consistent with the RfC's outcome. --Checco (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The RfC was clear: one table for the parliamentary parties, one for the regional-parliamentary parties. You are now asking for multiple tables, so you are going against the recent consensus of the RfC. Yakme (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Checco, point 1 goes against the outcome of the RfC opened on 29 April and closed on 16 July. The consensus reached with that RfC needed 3 more months to be implemented, I would refrain to changing rules once again after so little time has passed. Same for point 2; we took two months for agreeing the current format: I wouldn't change the outcome, unless a majority is willing to do so.
 * Regarding point 3, I sincerely don't see the necessity to show the regional parties forming Lega as separate parties. As of today, they are just mere regional branches of the main national party. P1221 (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I am very sorry that my points are not understood. However, even though restoring the organisation of the list by nature of the party is and will be my top priority (point 1), I think it would a quite an easy improvement to simply divide the current tables in three in order to have different columns for each type of party (option 2). The current situation is quite inconsistent: regional parties are treated inconsistently and the "region" is quite an important information to be given for them.
 * All political parties, defunct and current, are listed. There is no reason why the regional parties which were founding members of Lega Nord and are now regional parties within Lega should not be listed. After all, some of them have been the most successful regional parties in Italy. --Checco (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Checco The organization of the list is consistent: the second section does not concern the regional parties but the parties represented only in the regional councils; the last column does not concern the region in which these parties are active, but the regional council in which they are currently represented. One last thing: the only two really pre-existing sections of the Northern League were the Lombard League and the Venetian League. What need is there to lengthen a reference note so much (including also the previous names, a thing which is not done for any party)? Have you insisted so much on minimizing information on parties in the wikitable and then you write a so long chapter on the Northern League and its regional sections in a reference note? It seems too redundant to me.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. Technically the list is consistent, but practically it is inconsistent and readers do not easily find out where regional parties are active.
 * Not only Liga Veneta and Lega Lombarda, but several regional parties that formed Lega Nord were active before its formation and, actually, they are still active. Also the current Lega is a confederal party, differently from other parties in Italy. Its member parties should be mentioned in the tables with a row of their own, at least with the note we have some essential information on them. My preference is to list them in the tables as full-fledged parties, as they actually are.
 * Side note 1: The Centrists for Europe are no longer active and senator Casini is a non-party independent.
 * Side note 2: "minority interests" is not an ideology. --Checco (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Lega and its regional components
I don't think that writing the establishment dates of Lega's components in the footnote gives additional value to this article, (whose name, I remember, is "List of political parties", not "List of establishment dates of political parties"...). Moreover, it seems to me that most of the dates inserted in the footnote either refer to different precursor parties (for instance, the Lega Piemonte's establishment date of 1987 inserted in the sentence is actually the establishment date of the party called Moviment Autonomista Piemontèis, MAP) or are made up altogether (there aren't any source saying that Lega Vallée d'Aoste, Lega Trentino or Lega Friuli-Venezia Giulia existed before the establishment of Lega Nord in 1991). I'd therefore leave these dates out of this article: the remark Lega is a confederal party, composed of 22 territorial divisions, some of which were autonomous parties before joining Lega Nord or Lega contained in the footnote should already explain that some of these parties existed (probably under different names) before 1991. P1221 (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Lega Nord and, later, Lega have been quite different from other political parties in Italy, as they have been confederal parties. The current 22 territorial divisions of Lega are full-fledged parties with their own founding (and re-founding) documents and founding (and re-founding) members. They should be treated as parties of their own, as we already do and have done in other similar cases ("Sicilia Vera" and "South calls North", "Responsible Autonomy" and "Us with Italy", and so on). Moreover, some of the current regional parties forming Lega predated either Lega Nord and/or Lega. I see only two possible options: 1) mentioning in tables all the 22 regional parties; 2) mentioning at least those regional parties which pre-dated Lega Nord.
 * It is correct that this article is a "List of political parties", not a "List of establishment dates of political parties". We could indeed remove all establisment dates from the tables. --Checco (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We are not going to add all the regional sections of national parties like the PD or FI, so why add all the 22 regional sections of Lega? The only few notable ones are probably Lega Lombarda and Liga Veneta, plus probably a couple more, because they existed politically and independently before Lega Nord. But definitely Lega Umbra or Lega Campania are not independent parties, they are the regional chapters of the new Lega, so they are not required to appear in the table. Yakme (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not exaxtly. Lega's 22 territorial divisions are individual parties with their own founding (and re-founding) documents and founding (and re-founding) members. This said, I would accept the compromise of having in the table only the six parties which predated not only Lega Nord, but also Alleanza Nord: Liga Veneta (est. 1979), Lega Lombarda (est. 1984), Movimento Autonomista Piemontese / Piemonte Autonomista / Lega Piemonte (es. 1987), Movimento per la Toscana / Alleanza Toscana / Lega Toscana (est. 1987), Lega Emiliano-Romagnola / Lega Emilia (est. 1989) and Uniun Ligure / Lega Liguria (est. 1989). --Checco (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I had widely foreseen that a discussion of this type would be opened, for this reason I had tried to fix the matter in advance. In any case, the fact remains that the reasoning on the pre-existence with respect to Lega Nord can only be applied to Lega Lombarda and Liga Veneta, the others are de facto regional sections of a national party. The other co-founders of the Lega Nord were predecessors of the regional sections of the Lega Nord, they dissolved in it and do not have their own page. Giving excessively more space to one party than to all the others in a list of Italian parties would be redundant and cloying for any reader.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I had widely foreseen that a discussion of this kind would start, so that I long opposed some reforms to this article. There are two facts that are consistently denied here: 1) differently from other political parties in Italy, Lega and, more recently, Lega Nord has been a confederation of individual regional parties; 2) there is no difference between Liga Veneta, Lega Lombarda, vMovimento Autonomista Piemontese / Piemonte Autonomista / Lega Piemonte, Movimento per la Toscana / Alleanza Toscana / Lega Toscana, Lega Emiliano-Romagnola / Lega Emilia and Uniun Ligure / Lega Liguria, as all six were formed not only before the formation of Lega Nord, but also Alleanza Nord. All six should have a place in a table. Arguably, all 22 territorial divisions, especially those which long formed Lega Nord, should have one too. Last but not least, also Lega Nord should have a place in a table. --Checco (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We should not give undue weight to Lega (Nord) and its regional sections, by inserting 22+ entries of Lega parties in this table. I support having Lega/Lega Nord as a single entry in the table, with a note explaining about the existence or peculiarities of its regional sections. Yakme (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It would not be an undue weight: they are individual parties, part a confederation. However, I am OK with having "Lega/Lega Nord" as a single entry in the table (both names should be shown), while sticking with my compromise: including only the 6 forebearers of Lega Nord. --Checco (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that inserting both Lega (officially Lega per Salvini Premier, LSP) and Lega Nord (LN) in a single entry, like if they were the same party, is incorrect and could be misleading. It would be like considering the current Forza Italia, established in 2013, and the old Forza Italia, established in 1994, as the same party.
 * As the two Forza Italia are inserted in the table as two different entries, I'd do the same for the two Lega (unless there is a clearer consensus on the contrary).
 * As of today, only LSP (composed by 22 regional parties) is represented in the Parliament. LN (formed by the 6 original parties Liga Veneta, Lega Lombarda, Piemont Autonomista, Uniun Ligure, Lega Emiliano-Romagnola and Alleanza Toscana) officially still exists, so I would consider it as a non-represented party.
 * My idea is to have:
 * LSP listed in the currently represented parties, with the following footnote: "LSP is a confederal party, composed of 22 territorial divisions, which were part of LN before 2020: Liga Veneta, Lega Lombarda, Lega Piemonte, Lega Vallée d'Aoste, Lega Trentino, Lega Alto Adige Südtirol, Lega Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Lega Emilia, Lega Romagna, Lega Liguria, Lega Toscana, Lega Marche, Lega Umbria, Lega Lazio, Lega Molise, Lega Campania, Lega Puglia, Lega Basilicata, Lega Calabria, Lega Sicilia and Lega Sardegna";
 * LN listed in the currently unrepresented parties, with the following footnote: "LN was established as a federation of six regional parties: Liga Veneta, Lega Lombarda, Piemont Autonomista, Uniun Ligure, Lega Emiliano-Romagnola and Alleanza Toscana. They later merged into LSP".
 * I would leave then any other historical references out of this articles: people interested in more in-depth historical analysis can refer to the articles of each party and subsections. P1221 (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Including the LN among the not represented parties could be a reasonable solution, but without further references to the party structure (already described in the LSP reference note). In the case of the LN, I would only specify in a reference note that the party is still legally existing but politically inactive, as it has been replaced by the LSP. And I would remove the last sentence in the LSP's reference note concerning the southern sections of the party: even without that detail it is already quite long.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The first problem is, indeed, that Lega Nord is still formally active, differently from Forza Italia (1994). The second problem is that also the 22 territorial divisions of Lega, especially the six founding members parties of Lega Nord, are still active. I think that at least those six should be mentioned in the table including the parties represented in Regional Councils, as in those assemblies Lega's groups are named after the regional parties. However, User:P1221's proposal would be an improvement. --Checco (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The second problem is a not-problem, for me. Today, the 22 territorial divisions of "Lega" are no more than regional branches of national LSP. They aren't anything different from regional divisions of other parties.
 * Let's consider as example the latest regional election in Tuscany: "Lega" presented itself simply as LSP, without ever making any reference to its regional branch (you can verify it looking at "Lega" electoral posters, the official regional posters, the symbol shown in the ballots, the name used in the official results and for the elected counselors). It's very hard to tell the difference between Lega Toscana and the national LSP in this case... Considering also that Lega Toscana is the successor of one of the 6 founding members parties of Lega Nord, looking at the example above, I consider extremely doubtful that Lega Toscana could be more prominent than, let's say, Lega Molise, deserving therefore a special mention in the list... P1221 (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can say, quite frankly, is that sucha a position is centralistic and anti-historical. Much minor parties have a spot in the list. I really do not understand how leading regional parties (I refer at least to the six founding members of Lega Nord) should not have one. --Checco (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I got your point, I am however skeptical that the 22 territorial divisions of LSP deserve so great focus. Today LSP is a federation of 22 territorial divisions, as recognized in its statute: however, the statute itself doesn't recognize them as separate, individual parties...
 * I really do not understand how leading regional parties (I refer at least to the six founding members of Lega Nord) should not have one Today, that party in Tuscany (Alleanza Toscana) doesn't exist any longer. Lega Toscana per Salvini Premier is one of the 22 territorial divisions described above, which is not recognized as an independent party. If i try to google Lega Toscana per Salvini Premier, i can't find reliable secondary sources independent of the subject with significant coverage of the topic which allow to say that Lega Toscana per Salvini Premier is something else from Lega per Salvini Premier... i can't consider therefore Lega Toscana per Salvini Premier as a leading regional party at all. P1221 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My compromise proposal is to list only the big, founding six parties in the tables. Just to take your example, Tuscan Alliance is still active, but has just changed name three or four times; by the way, it is the very same party, now part of the confederal party named Lega. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ps: LSP's statute defines it as a "confederal political movement" and "confederation". This said, the regional parties, some of which predating even the LN, were re-established separately and have their own legal identity. For instance, Lega Lombarda was re-established on 10 February 2020 in Milan by six founding members (Attilio Fontana, Paolo Grimoldi, Daniele Belotti, Stefano Borghesi, Fabrizio Cecchetti and Gianmarco Centinaio), take a look to this article from La Repubblica (it is not entirely correct, but it gives you an idea).
 * I think that's a valid compromise for us to further consider, to list the six founding parties of LN/Lega – doesn't overbalance the article with the information of all 22 sub-regional sections, but also recognise the regionalist roots of Lega and the fact that those six parties are technically still active and extent.-- Autospark (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The patch is worse than the hole: it would be redundant to list the same party twenty times in the article, it would be even stranger to list only some of its regional sections. Except for the Lega Veneta and the Lega Lombarda, unless there are sources proving otherwise, the other regional sections of the Lega were born with the birth of the Lega Nord, the other predecessor parties no longer exist.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Although not perfect, I'm keen to accept this compromise. P1221 (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I wonder why it is called a compromise: listing only some regional sections of a party is surely worse than listing them all, it would be something that readers would not understand.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would surely have all the regional parties forming the confederal Lega party listed, but that is what compromises are all about: leaving anyone self-satisfied. This said, to answer to another comment above, there is no doubt that six regional parties were established before 1991 and were later incorporated into Lega Nord, under different names: Liga Veneta (est. 1979), Lega Lombarda (est. 1984), Movimento Autonomista Piemontese / Piemonte Autonomista / Lega Piemonte (es. 1987), Movimento per la Toscana / Alleanza Toscana / Lega Toscana (est. 1987), Lega Emiliano-Romagnola / Lega Emilia (est. 1989) and Uniun Ligure / Lega Liguria (est. 1989). To be more precise, but on this I am lacking adequate sources, regional parties were established also in Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol and Aosta Valley before 1991 in order to be lately part of Lega Nord. --Checco (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is the statement according to which the other four parties, in addition to Lega Lombarda and Liga Veneta, still exist: it seems to me a distortion of reality, that is, an original research. @Checco: you keep repeating that all six predecessor parties of the Lega Nord are still in existence, but can this information be proved? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would find much more acceptable to list Piemont Autonomista, Uniun Ligure, Lega Emiliano-Romagnola and Alleanza Toscana among the defunct parties, while I have affirmed from the beginning that the Lega Lombarda and the Liga Veneta have a particular history, which distinguishes them from the other regional sections of LN (and that consequently they could be listed between the other parties).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Why is it so difficult to accept that those parties have just changed name? We could start new articles named "Piemont Autonomista", "Uniun Ligure", "Lega Emiliano-Romagnola" and "Alleanza Toscana" in order to consider them defunct parties, but that would not be consistent with Liga Veneta and Lega Lombarda (which simply changed less slightly name). My main point is indeed that regional parties should be listed according to their region and in each region we should mention the regional party affiliated with Lega, at least the 14 created before 2020 (as it is now in the template, so that readers would understand which regional parties are active in each region (for instance, in Aosta Valley: Lega Vallée d'Aoste, Valdostan Union, Mouv', For the Autonomy Valdostan Alliance, etc.), but what we are trying to find is a reasonable compromise. Clearly, I think that the former status quo of the List and the current status quo of the template are the best, but, again, what we are trying to find is a reasonable compromise. --Checco (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because those parties merged into a new party in 1991, that's why. While the Lega Lombarda and the Liga Veneta pre-existed the Lega Nord and have maintained their brand to this day (in the local elections, within the LN/LSP's logo), instead there is no longer a trace of Uniun Ligure, Piemont Autonomista etc. In practice, we are discussing how many times to repeat the Lega Nord within the same list, and this seems to me a surreal discussion.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, six parties were founding members of Alleanza Nord in 1989 and finally Lega Nord in 1991. Other three or four parties, formed between 1990 and 1991, joined too (on this, unfortunately I lack sources). Lega Nord and, later, Lega are confederal parties, meaning that the pre-existing parties are still active as members of the confederal party. Some of those parties changed name, others did not. It is perfectly OK to have regional parties like Liga Veneta or Sicilia Vera and their confederal parties (Lega and South Calls North) in the List. I would have all 22 regional parties forming Lega, but I am open on a compromise on the founding six. --Checco (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * South calls North and Sicilia Vera are two parallel parties, indeed both parties ran with its own list in the regional elections in Sicily. The confederal structure of the Lega Nord does not mean that the member parties are standalone parties: in practical terms, the various leagues remain regional branches of the party. The articles you propose to list together with the others refer nothing more and nothing less to the regional sections of Lega Nord (excluding Lega Lombarda and Liga Veneta, these articles limit themselves to stating that before the birth of the Lega Nord there were parties with different names that merged into it, nothing else). Following your proposal, a reader will not see different parties listed in the list, but will see the same party listed several times, that is an overexposure of one party over the others: it is not good.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the two examples are not identical. Indeed, it is Lega/Lega Nord which is exceptional in Italy's party system/s. However, readers would benefit in knowing which regional parties are active in one region (for instance, in Aosta Valley: Lega Vallée d'Aoste, Valdostan Union, Mouv', For the Autonomy Valdostan Alliance, etc.). That would be a huge step forward. As an imperfect compromise, we could add only the six original members of Alleanza/Lega Nord. I am happy that both User:Autospark and User:P1221 have favoured such a compromise and I look forward to see that little step forward. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The LN is not such an exceptional example, indeed the confederal structure of the LN does not change the fact that it is de facto only one party. I read this discussion and still don't see the consensus to repeat the LN/LSP 6 or more than 20 times within the list. Furthermore, I don't even see a real justification in listing only the regional sections of the old LN and not also those of the new Lega per Salvini Premier: a solution worse than the initial proposal cannot be definied a compromise, IMHO. A choice that readers could not understand and which could be (rightly) attributed to probable sympathies towards a party such as to want to overexpose it towards all the others is not the way forward.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

This whole discussion is based on a wrong depiction of how consensus on WP works. It's not fair to strategically make your positions more extreme just to reach a supposed "middle-point" that only benefits the original user's position. Currently, a user proposes a very extreme position and then demands that a compromise between the current state and their proposal must be allowed. It does not work like this. You do not get to propose an extreme solution and then expect that a weird compromise has to be made, otherwise any user can obtain what they want by just proposing a more and more extreme version of their wish and then settling for a "compromise" – that probably corresponds to what they wanted in the first place. A "compromise" between any two positions is not guaranteed nor required: any solution must be first of all reasonable and backed by reliable sources. Also, the solution should not go against what has been decided after years of discussions and after a very thorough consensus-building procedure (multiple RfCs, moderated discussions, third opinions, DRN, etc) – a little discussion between (the usual) two users will not overthrow the structure of this page that has been determined by the rest of the community. Yakme (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Pure and simple: differently from other parties in Italy, Lega is a confederation of parties, some of which not only pre-existed Lega (est. 2020), but also Lega Nord (est. 1991); those parties are still active (Liga Veneta, Lega Lombarda, Piemont Autonomista / Lega Piemonte, etc.) and are among the most remarkable regional parties in Italy in terms of history, electoral success and number of elected officials in their respective regions (along with the Valdostan Union, the South Tyrolean People's Party and the Sardinian Action Party). I would like to go back to the long-established previous version of the article, which ordered regional parties by region and included all the regional parties forming Lega Nord (how can this be extreme?), but I look forward to the imperfect compromise that User:Autospark and User:P1221 are keen to support. --Checco (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The only difference is that the Lega Nord/Lega is one party with a confederal structure, not a "confederation of parties", the statute itself tells of national/regional "sections" and "articulations" (not "parties"), so it is a totally different thing than what you're stating: affirming that the League is a confederation of parties different from each other between them seems a WP:Original research. And precisely because of its confederal structure, all the regional sections of this party are already included in the page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, but to consider Lega Toscana per Salvini Premier as one of the most remarkable regional parties (...) in terms of history, electoral success and number of elected official in Tuscany is almost an act of faith... It isn't something comparable with Liga Veneta or Lega Lombarda: its main electoral successes come only from the fact that Lega Toscana per Salvini Premier is part and practically indistinguishable from the national party Lega per Salvini Premier. And, more importantly, almost no valid sources ascribe Lega's successes in Tuscany to the regional branch of the party... Some examples on how the main news website called the part that contested the last regional elections in 2020:
 * La Repubblica: Lega Salvini Premier;
 * Il Corriere: Lega Salvini Premier;
 * La Nazione: simply "Lega";
 * La 7: simply "Lega";
 * Sky TG24: simply "Lega";
 * Il Sole 24 Ore: simply "Lega"
 * The sources make me feel simply that Lega Toscana per Salvini Premier is just the Tuscan regional branch of LSP, not a regional party with an independent, long history and tradition...
 * I would like to go back to the long-established previous version of the article, which ordered regional parties by region and included all the regional parties forming Lega Nord (how can this be extreme?), but I look forward to the imperfect compromise that User:Autospark and User:P1221 are keen to support. - then Yakme's comment is really spot on... P1221 (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed that's exactly what I was talking about. I am personally a bit annoyed by the repeated use of the "compromise" argument, and I actually found that also WP:COMPROMISE states that [o]ne of the most serious problems with compromise is that it motivates each party to stake out their most extreme position. In the context of Wikipedia, compromise is inappropriate, especially if it means departure from a neutral and appropriately balanced point of view. As far as I understand, some users see the proposed middle-ground compromise as somewhat forced and not really as neutral and balanced. Yakme (talk) 09:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I am quite disappointed by the centralistic attitude that is now in vogue here. It is a pity that readers are no longer able to navigate through the different regional party systems. More specifically on the regional parties forming the current Lega and, prior to that, Lega Nord, I understand that it is difficult to treat a subject that it is different from most political parties in Italy. I fear there is a basic lack of understanding and knowledge on the issue, as well as, I have to admit it, a difficulty in finding proper sources. To follow-up on the example of Lega Toscana, there is no doubt that it is the very political party formed in 1987 as "Movimento per la Toscana". I found an interesting 1992 book by Riccardo Fragassi named Leghismo, where the history of MpT/AT/LT is skteched out and it is perfectly consistent to what the party says of itself (see ). Lega Toscana is an active regional political party, that has long been the "national/regional" section of a confederal party: it is not a contradiction. In 2020 all regional parties forming Lega were re-incorporated from scratch. Unfortunately, I do not find a specific source on Lega Toscana, but please see, for instance, what happened to Lega Lombarda: ). Interestingly enough, each regional party has its founding members (these are the ones of Lega Lombarda). No matter what newspapers write, the party in Toscana has its own specific name (see and ). Cases are clearly different, but also other sister parties are listed in the article. By the way, what are we going to do, User:P1221? Are we going to create articles on "Piemont Autonomista", "Uniun Ligure", "Lega Emiliano-Romagnola" and "Alleanza Toscana" in order to consider them defunct parties and separate them from Lega Piemonte, Lega Liguria, Lega Toscana, Lega Emilia and, btw, Lega Romagna? Are we going to do something different for Liga Veneta and Lega Lombarda, which did not change their names and have been around for 40+ years, but are formally no different from the others? And what about Lega Trentino and Lega Valle d'Aosta that are currently the largest regional parties in their polities? --Checco (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * This discussion is derailing... I don't want to talk about creating/modifying different articles, but to stick to the current one and the original question: how do we list Lega and its components?
 * You are right, I lack an in-depth knowledge of Lega and my personal expierence makes me feel that (at least in Tuscany) the regional Lega is not something independent and different from national Lega. If I read Lega Toscana's article, I have the feeling that Lega Toscana alone contested the last European and general elections...
 * Anyway, Wikipedia is not built on personal feelings, but on sources. Are there reliable sources that can allow us to consider all the regional branches as real, independent regional parties? Are there clear boundaries between the national and the regional sections? P1221 (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The "national" sections of Lega Nord are now the "regional" sections of Lega. Surely, there is a difference from regions like Veneto (where the party is often referred as Liga Veneta — see how many Google hits in the News category alone), Lombardy, Trentino and Friuli and regions like Tuscany, let alone southern ones. In the North, where the regional leagues and Lega Nord were strongest, the regional identities are definitely stronger than elswhere. By the way, also the new Lega was designed as a federation or confederation of regional parties and, differently from Lega Nord's era, they are also economically autonomous (see and ). Unfortunately, it is not easy to find sources, but, really, what I am trying to explain quite alone is the reality of a peculiar political organisation, that should be treated as such. --Checco (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ps: Consistently with what I am arguing about the regional parties forming Lega (and, prior to that, Lega Nord), I oppose also this edit: Cantiere Popolare, no matter its membership of Us with Italy, is a regional party in its own right. Unfortunately, bad precedent is producing more bad outcomes.
 * Indeed, due to its "peculiar" organization, the League, unlike any other party on this page (and not only), has all its regional sections already linked on the page. And it is normal that I have removed Cantiere Popolare from the list of the parties represented in the regional councils, if it is no longer represented in the ARS, that is not a list of regional parties.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I see major differences between Cantiere Popolare and the regional components forming Lega. Cantiere Popolare has its own name, its own symbol, its own statute, all of which make it unique, unmistakable and independent from any other parties. The regional components forming Lega have Lega's symbol, Lega's name, incorporate national Lega's statute into their statutes (see here or here, for instance), making their independence from Lega rather questionable. P1221 (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither CP nor the regional parties forming Lega are independent from the countrywide party, but rather autonomous. The statutes show how both Lega Toscana and Liga Veneta were (re-)formed as autonomous political parties and would only later join Lega. More important, those statues refer to the last three years, while the two parties and the others mentioned above have a 35+ or 40+ year-long history, predating not only Lega, but also Lega Nord. --Checco (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)