Template talk:Italian political parties/Archive 2

New conditions of admission
Given that also the conditions of admission for the tmp on Historical political parties in Italy have been changed and adapted to the rules of List of political parties in Italy, I propose to change some conditions for the minor parties, that currently are too permissive. Indeed it is an exaggeration that the tmp contains unknown parties such as X Movement or Green Italy, that not even Italians know. The changes that I would propose are :
 * raising the minimum threshold to 1% (0.5% is too low)
 * raising the minimum number of MPs to 3/5 and of MEPs to 2
 * including however the parties that have elected under their logo at least one MP/MEP in the last general/european election (a party that directly elects an MP is more important than a party that has 5 MPs through a split).

Opinions?--Wololoo (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I am an outspoken inclusionist, thus over the years I designed the conditions of admission in order to include the highest reasonable number of parties. I disagree with the three proposed changes, especially the third (too it.Wiki-style and, thus, complicate for me!), while I would consider raising the minimum number of MPs to 2 and MEPs to 2 (in order to prevent one-man-show urepresentative parties). However, I would like to see which parties would be evicted from the template: no-one would feel sorry for the X Movement, but losing the Communist Refoundation Party might be a damage. I also fear an over-representation of regional parties over Italian ones in the template: I am much interested in regional politics and that is the main reason why I contribute regularly to en.Wiki and not to it.Wiki (which deems several regional parties/politicians "unencyclopedical"), but there should be a balance of Italian and regional parties. Last but not least, we should always remind that a template's goal is to allow users to navigate and explore pages—and that it is not a sort of "hall of fame". I understand the concern of consistency with List of political parties in Italy, but while the list has to have a historical perspective, the template has a different goal and all its content is current. --Checco (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * But a compromise is necessary, parties such as Green Italy and X Movement are not usefull in the tmp. Why do you disagree the threshold of 1%? It is more than reasonable. Furthermore, my third point is inclusive and not exclusive. However I have another proposal: Keeping the first point; raising the number of MPS to 3 and the number of MEPS to 2; including also the parties that have directly elected under its own logo or into a federative list at least one MP or MEP. This proposal would also include the PRC.--Wololoo (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As of now, there is an established version (on which I personally agree on), thus we do not need to change the conditions of admission anyway. I disagree with the 1% threshold because it is too low: a party, like Green Italy, which obtained, in alliance with the Greens, 0.91% of the vote (more than 250,000 votes in the event) should have a spot in an inclusive navigational template. This is just an example: we should set the rules of admission under a veil of ignorance, but examples are useful to understand the proposed changes' effects. You are right that the third point is inclusive and not exclusive, but it is also complicate. I am not convinced, but I keep an open mind both on the second and the third point. Other opinions? --Checco (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The third point is not so complicate. About the 1% threshold, do you mean "too high"? In my opinion a party with one only result under the 1% of the vote enjoys an excessive exhibition in the tmp. A threshold of 1% would be more reasonable...--Wololoo (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant "too high". Sorry. --Checco (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I support retaining the template as it is without the 1% threshold. I'd rather keep the template as inclusive as possible for extant Italian political parties.--Autospark (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * While I strongly oppose raising the 1% threshold, I keep an open mind on raising the minimum number of MPs to 2 and MEPs to 2 (in order to prevent one-man personal parties), while introducing Wololoo's "third point". --Checco (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Checco, I find your suggestions to be an acceptable compromise, including Wololoo's third point.--Autospark (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I am going to introduce the new conditions of admission, on which User:Wololoo, User:Autospark and I have agreed on (minimum number of MPs/MEPs and the so-called "third point"). I will (boldly) introduce also a condition recently introduced in List of political parties in Italy ("having elected at least one regional councillor with their own lists"). The template and the list have different goals and consequently do not need to be perfectly consistent, but I think that the more consistent they are the better. However, I continue to support, here, the different thresholds for major, medium and minor regions. --Checco (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, although sincerely I thought the first point as the most important. However, why have you added the Italian Communist Party and the National Movement for Sovereignty? I think that these parties have to be added in the List of political parties in Italy (because they are the heirs of PDCI and of The Right), but they don't respect the criteria for this template--Wololoo (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The PCI is simply the successor of the PdCI (which elected with its own list at least a regional councillor), while the MNS counts at least three regional councillors in at least three different regions (South Tyrol, Lazio, Calabria, Sicily, and possibly more). --Checco (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Wait, the criterion about "the election of at least one regional councillor" is valid for the regional parties only, if not the criterion of the 3 regional councillors has not sense! RI presented itself in two only regions and it gained seats only in Basilicata, it can'y be considered a national minor party--Wololoo (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * We can surely delete the "three regional councillors" rule right now. According to the template, regional parties are "minor parties active only in one Region" and would not change that. Reality Italy is active in more than one region. --Checco (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @ Checco: the rule about the election of one regional councillor was not agreed for the minor parties in this template--Wololoo (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You're right: we did not discuss about it (neither for regional nor for Italian parties), but it is a very useful rule and looked logical to me. However, it should not be applied only to regional parties, otherwise there would be a strange discrimination against Italian parties. Why including the Slovene Union and not the Pensioners' Party? --Checco (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Let me add that, as of now, the one-councillor rule does not concern only regional parties. We might discuss about that and, if no consensus is reached, we could simply delete it (and with that most of the parties I added today). According to the current rules, Reality Italy has to be listed among Italian parties, so please do not list is among regional parties. --Checco (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The template, with this rule together the threshold at 0.5 %, threatens to become a few crowded, however the inclusion of this rule would be another good reason to raise the national threshold to the 1%...--Wololoo (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: also We the South was not only present in Campania, however Reality Italy presented its lists only in two regions and obtaining councillors only in Basilicata, it is much more suitable as a regional party--Wololoo (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * However, personally, I would prefer to include the national parties that have elected at least one regional councillor compensating them with the raising of the threshold to 1%--Wololoo (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, fair enough. I see your points, while disagreeing especially on your latest "preference". There are two new rules on which we agree on (2 MPs/MEPs and 1 MP/MP elected with the party's own lists), there is a third on which we disagree (raising the general threshold to 1%) and a fourth that is controversial (1 councillor elected with the party's own lists). I will precautionarily rollback my introduction of the latter (and the consequential parties): we need to reach consensus first. However, Reality Italy's case is more similar to that of the Movement for Autonomies than one-region regional parties. --Checco (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * MpA can be compared to Great South (and theoretically these parties are not even alive), because they are present in the entire South Italy, RI is similiar to parties such as Noi Sud or Moderati: NS was also present in Calabria, the Moderates were also present in Emilia Romagna and Campania, nevertheless they are especially settled in Campania and Piemonte. However RI doesn't respect the criteria to be considered as national minor party--Wololoo (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Reality Italy. According to the rules, regional parties are "minor parties active only in one Region". Reality Italy is active in at least three regions if not more, thus it is not a mere regional party. It fulfills one of the "conditions of admission" and, according to "classification", it is an Italian minor party. The main difference with the Moderates is that they were active in regions other than Piedmont, while Reality Italy is active in regions other than Basilicata. This said, I do not want an edit war on such a minor issue. Moreover, also the Christian Popular Union aims at being an Italian party, but in practice it is a Sardinian one.


 * Italian Communist Party. As far as I understand, he PdCI/PCd'I/PCI has three regional councillors elected in three different regional councils: Piergiovanni Alleva (Emilia-Romagna), Salvatore Ciocca (Molise) and Fabrizio Anedda (Sardinia). Can you check? --Checco (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right, the PCI has actually 3 councillors. Instead RI is represented only in Basilicata, it doesn't respect the criteria for the minor national parties. --Wololoo (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It does not matter that RI is represented only in Basilicata, what matters here is whether a party is active only in one region or more. RI is active in more regions than just Basilicata. This is just a logical syllogism, yours is not. However, as I said, the issue is not a big deal for me. --Checco (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Regional councillors in the infobox
However if the number of regional councillors is a criterion of admission, I don't understand why the number of them is not indicated in the templates. Now these templates are incomplete, they should be integrated such as the parties of the other nations. --Wololoo (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose the introduction the number of regional councillors in the infoboxes of the articles on Italian parties. It would be highly deceptive and confusing as regional concillors are disproportionately allocated in regions. According to it.Wiki data, Aosta Valley has a regional councillor every 3,628 inhabitants, while Lombardy has one every 121,990. Moreover, some parts of the country have more regions than others. Finally, the aforementioned condition of admission is not about "the number of regional councillors", but "at least three elects in three different Regional Councils": what counts is not their number, but their distribution. Just think of a party having three regional councillors and the related article mentioning this figure in its infobox: it would mean nothing unless it is specified who those regional councillors are, alas in which council/s they sit. --Checco (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The disproportionately allocation in the regions doesn't seem to me a good reason to exclude the number of councillors from the template, the section about the italian policy is the only one without the number of regional councillors in the parties tmp. The conditions concerns just the same the regional councillors, because the number of the councils in which the parties are present is connected to the same number of councillors. Furthermore in the tmp of the regional parties the total number of councillors isn't the national one but it is the regional one, so I do not see anything of "deceptive and confusing", conversely, it is an useful infomation. This is a serious deficiency compared to the parties of all other important countries!--Wololoo (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

If there isn't any other opposition I proceed to resolve this lack and to uniform the italian templates with those of the other countries--Wololoo (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Any other than mine? Yes, I strongly oppose your proposal (see above) and it has little to do with this talk. --Checco (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can also open another talk, but this is one of the great lacks of the section on italian policy in enwiki. Sincerely, I don't think that the opposition of only one user can stop the conformation with the parties of other countries. Furthermore, your motivation doesn't justify the absence of the number of regional councillors. There isn't anything of deceptive or confusing, also because the templates of the regional parties concern only the relative regional councils. I do not understand yet another opposition to a perfectly sensible and reasonable proposal--Wololoo (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what you mean by "the templates of the regional parties concern only the relative regional councils"? Which templates are you talking about? Infoboxes, as I understood above? In fact, I oppose the introduction of the aggregate number of regional councillors in the infoboxes of countrywide parties (quite deceptive and confusing, for the reasons stated above, and also not easy, due to double memberships and especially the presence of several "civic lists" whose members are often members of countrywide parties), while I favour their introduction in the infoboxes of regional parties (that is what I have always done with Valdostan, South Tyrolean, Trentino, Venetian, etc. parties). --Checco (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I will also state my opposition to inclusion of number of regional councillors in the Infobox.--Autospark (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Wich is the valid reason why the italian parties templates cannot have the regional councillors while the tmps of any other important country can have them?--Wololoo (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I mean the infobox, I used the wrong term. However. this opposition to the introduction of the regional councillors is incomprehensible, the presence of the civic lists doesn't mean, because it is obvious that only members of the group of a party should be considered. The behavior of Autospark is not very fair, not answering my question, furthermore it seems that there is an uncritical support (as the intervention above) between only 2/3 users. The section on italian policy of enwiki is quite bizarre, there are many pages that cannot interest anyone, but the pages of important italian politicians are absent! Furthermore, the opposition of 2 users (and one has not even explained the reason) can prevent the integration of the pages on italian parties with the introduction of an important data, ie the number of members of legislative assemblies, such as the pages on the parties of other countries. I wanted to contribute fill these lacks, but if so I give up...--Wololoo (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * While I disagree with this proposal of yours, as well as with other things you have so far proposed and edited, I deeply respect your contribution and I think we need it. We also need your critical thinking and insights. Please, do not leave en.Wikipedia! --Checco (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * please do reconsider, you are a valued contributor! Disagreements at times over courses of action are part of the nature of collaborative endeavours. Also, I apologise for not yet responding to your question. The reasons I object are broadly the same as Checco's, and also for practical reasons in terms of keeping articles up to date with seat counts.--Autospark (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Coming from the request for more opinions posted at WP:Politics, I believe every current party should be included in the template. There may be a lot to fit in, but this can be managed by converting it to Navbox with collapsible groups – the template could be split into those with parliamentary representation and those without, with the former expanded and the latter collapsed. Number  5  7  21:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the intervention, but now my question concerned mainly the indication of the regional councillors in the infobox. About your proposal about the template, it can be interesting, but there are many pages on italian parties and many of them are really irrelevant, it is difficult to include them all...--Wololoo (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah, my bad. I have to say I agree with the logic of Checco. If regional councillor seats aren't evenly distributed by population then their inclusion in the infobox may give a false impression of party strength. Number   5  7  12:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I oppose the proposal for several reasons and I think that adding the data on regional councillors in the infoboxes of parties would be highly deceptive and confusing. As I argued before, regional concillors are disproportionately allocated in regions (Aosta Valley has a regional councillor every 3,628 inhabitants, while Lombardy has one every 121,990) and Italy is disproportionately sub-divided in regions (some parts of the country have more regions, with less inhabitants, than others). Secondly, there is the presence of party-sponsored "civic lists", whose members are often members of countrywide parties. Finally, I also think, per User:Autospark, that "keeping articles up to date with seat counts" would not be easy, due to the frequent changes in party affiliation. --Checco (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The civic lists are not a problem, because should not be counted. For the other "problem", I take as example the Germany: Berlin has a population of 3,388,000 inhabitants and its Landtag has 180 seats, Bavaria has 12,843,514 inhabitants and its Landtag has 160 seats, Saarland has 995,597  inhabitants and its Landstag 51 seats, North Rhine-Westphalia 17,865,516 inhabitants and 237 seats, Saxony 4,143,000 inhabitants and 126 seats. Pratically the seats are distributed disproportionately also in Germany. Probably the same problem for other states, it is not a feature only Italian. I point out that regional councils have legislative power, are not at all irrelevant. Are not the rules the same for all parties?--Wololoo (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The main difference is that Germany has a simple and ordered party system, while Italy has a very complex one, plenty of regional and regionalist parties, let alone the "civic lists": the inclusion of regional councillors "may give a false impression of party strength", indeed! Additionally, regional councillors elected in civic lists should be classified and counted: just think of regions like Lombardy or Veneto, where virtually all the regional councillors elected with Maroni/Zaia lists are actually Lega Nord members (for Veneto, see this); the same happens in other regions. --Checco (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It isn't the same in all other region, the members of the civic lists are often independents. However the (national) strength of a party is given by its number of MPs, instead the number of regional councillors is a very useful information. Before your main reason looked the disproportionately distribution, now it looks the complex party system. Furthermore one of the criteria for this template and for the List of political parties in Italy concerns the presence of a party in at least 3 regional councils, how can you justify the compliance with this rule to a reader if you don't show the number of regional councillors in the infobox?? It's a countersense--Wololoo (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I answered to your latest point before. As I said, I oppose your proposal for several reasons and I do not want to repeat myself too much. However, if your proposal is accepted, regional councillors of civic lists "should be classified and counted". --Checco (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

However if you don't want to insert these data in the infobox, it can be created a specific table for each party with the seats in the regional councils (a similar solution is already adopted in the page of Communist Refoundation Party)--Wololoo (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That is an interesting idea and we should thoroughly consider it. In those templates, we could indicate the number of regional councillors for each region including also those elected in civic lists (that is my only condition) with the due sources.--Checco (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

PRC and MEPs
User:Wololoo correctly pointed out that, under the current conditions of admission, the Communist Refoundation Party (PRC) should not be included in the template, however I disagree with replacing "having at least two MPs, or two MEPs, or one MP and one MEP" with "having at least two MPs or one MEP". The rule was designed in order to avoid one-man, personal parties in the template. Nowhere in the disussion above the "two MPs or one MEP" clause was even discussed and Wololoo always supported higher thresholds. This said, the problem with the PRC is that is has long ran in joint lists named after The Other Europe (AET).

I see two solutions:
 * "having elected at least one MP or MEP with their own lists or party-sponsored lists";
 * "having at least two MPs, or two MEPs, or one MP and one MEP, or one MP/MEP and one regional councillor".

I think we should be both inclusionist and careful to avoid one-man parties. We should be aware of editing the rules for the sake of one party, but I also think that we should include parties which are stable features of joint lists. --Checco (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Though I proposed a solution similiar to the party-sponsored lists, I disagree with it. "Party-sponsored list" is a too vague term, the result of AET was pushed above all by the independents and SEL, furthermore the logo of AET didn't include the pulce (small logo) of PRC, I strongly disagree the second solution (the "one regional councillor" confirms the countersense up there: where we can see that a party has a regional councillor?) also if I agree that the rules should be interpreted case by case basis. However the rule "having at least two MPs, or two MEPs, or one MP and one MEP" is written in a way that sounds strange, I think that "having at least two MPs/MEPs" would be much better and simpler--Wololoo (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, we disagree. Moreover, I find difficult to understand what is the problem with "having at least two MPs, or two MEPs, or one MP and one MEP": it sounds perfect English to me. "Having at least two MPs/MEPs" would be ambiguous: what about a party with one MP and one MEP? I think that "having at least two MPs, or two MEPs, or one MP and one MEP, or one MP/MEP and one regional councillor" (there was a repetion above and I correted it) would be a sensible solution, but we could also interpret the rule on a case by case basis and, without changing the rules, include the PRC. --Checco (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "having at least two MPs, or two MEPs, or one MP and one MEP" is perfectly understandable, but enough redundant. In Italy this rule could be written easily in a better form, I don't think it can not do the same in the english language. For example: "having two members between the national and the european parliament" has the same meaning but it is less redundant. For what concerns the rules, I am not contrary to the introduction of the parties that have elected under their logo at least one regional councillor (obviously with the indication of the regional councillors in the pages of the parties). But the interpretation to include the PRC is quite forced...--Wololoo (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ps: Also with the rule "one MP/MEP and one regional councillor" the Prc could not be included in the tmp--Wololoo (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * See: "having two members between the national and the european parliament" is a much more obscure formulation in English. I understand what you meant, but several users would not. Finally, under the "one MP/MEP and one regional councillor" rule, the PRC 'would' be included as it has a MEP and a regional councillor. I like that proposal and the "one regional councillor elected with their own lists" too. --Checco (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It doesn't result me that PRC has regional councillors: who are they? However, it isn't correct conceiving a rule with the only intent to include a specific party in the tmp, rather, it is best to lower the threshold of MEPs to 1. Furthermore I agree to enter the parties that have elected under their logo at least one regional councillor (but in this case the pages have to been corrected, like made for PD).--Wololoo (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * On PRC's regional councillors I was disoriented by it.Wiki. You are right: the party has no regional councillors. You are also right that "it isn't correct conceiving a rule with the only intent to include a specific party in the tmp". Thus, I doubly oppose the idea of "lower[ing] the threshold of MEPs to 1". I would not make more changes of rules as of now. --Checco (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * PRC has elected one regional councillor, Unali in Sardinia, who has left the party. First consideration: Now. it's very strange to have in the tmp Green Italy that is an unknown party, that got only the 0.8 % in the last european election and that has never been represented in institutions, while the PRC in the same election has elected one Mep (in another list) and it isn't present in the tmp. Second consideration: a party with only the 0.8 % cannot occupy the second position in the tmp, the rule about the threshold must be the last and not the first one for the collocation in the tmp of the minor parties. So, considering that my previous proposal to rationalize the presence of the parties in the tmp was rejected, we make rules inclusionist but with sense: introducing the rule about the direct election under own logo of at least one regional councillor, furthermore the rule on the threshold must the last one, seeing that GI is the less important party in the tmp--Wololoo (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree on the "first consideration": what if Green Italy were part of AET and elected one MEP? I also disagree on the "second consideration": share of vote (of a party which obtained real votes) should come first, in my view, otherwise minor parties which rarely field lists but have connections with larger parties would always be "advantaged" in the template. This said, I strongly agree with "introducing the rule about the direct election under own logo of at least one regional councillor", while opposing that "the rule on the threshold must the last one". I will be bold and add the new rule on which we now agree on. As far as I understand, under the new rule two "minor" parties (Communist Refoundation Party, Pensioners' Party) and five "regional" parties (Citizens' Union for South Tyrol, Alto Adige in the Heart, Administer Trentino, Ladin Autonomist Union, Slovene Union) shall be included. I would have no problem in listing the PRC before Green Italy as the PRC was part of a larger electoral list, AET, but I will leave it to you. --Checco (talk) 07:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ps: Despite being nominally part of the TAA region, Trentino and South Tyrol should always be considered as two regions (that is to say also in the tables that User:Wololoo added or edited in the articles of Italian largest parties): they are considered that way by the Conference of Regions (which includes both the Trentino and the South Tyrolean president), and the Italian Constitution itself.


 * Checco, but do you always disagree with what I say? :/ In this template the goal of the rule of threshold is clearly the admission of mini parties, so it should be the residual rule: we are talking about a party never represented in any institution which he exploited a legal loophole to present himself at the election (it would never have gathered the necessary signatures). For you, is Green Italy more important, for example, than Italian Left or UDC? Really? All the parties present in this template are more relevant than GI. In another political situation, the rule of threshold would draw properly the political situation, but here we can't admit that a micro party is listed before that other parties with a certain parliamentary relevance. Therefore I can accept to list more possible parties, but at least we make it on the basis of their effective relevance! (Answering about Trentino Alto Adige: it's true that Trento and Bolzano are two autonomous provinces similar to the regions, but the tables are based on the Regional Councils, the regional council of Trentino Alto Adige exists and includes the councils of Trento and Bolzano, therefore is more correct to indicate directly the regional council and not the provincial councils)--Wololoo (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * @User:Wololoo: We discussed about this before: we have different views on several issues, but I much appreciate several of your edits and I always long for compromise. One of the reasons why I like en.Wikipedia is that users are quite pragmatic and discussions are rarely long. However, I also appreciate discussing with you. Other users might not want to be engaged in long discussions, but most of the times they agree more with me than with you.
 * This is a navigational template and we should not have an execessively legalistic approach on it. Whenever a general/European election looms, the template presents problems: parties rise and fall, and the most recent changes might not be reflected or might be improperly reflected by the template, or, with your words, the template might not "draw properly the political situation". In my view, Green Italy–Federation of the Greens should be listed among minor parties according to its share of vote, but I would have no problems in interpreting the rules in order to list some parties which were part of electoral alliances (UdC, SI, PRC, etc.) before it.
 * Finally, again, pragmatism! Trentino and South Tyrol are autonomous provinces, but are practically regional entities. There are neither regional elections (but just provincial ones) nor regional totals. As in most cases, Trentino and South Tyrol should be considered practically as regions, especially with electoral results. That is for the sake of readers! In fact, the tables, which were mostly edited by User:Nick.mon before your arrival to en.Wikipedia, featured Trentino and South Tyrol as regional entities. It is also no surprise that User:Autospark thanked me for my post scriptum above. I would ask to Nick.mon and Autospark to express their views once and for all on the issue and, if they are willing to do so, also on the other issues you raised. --Checco (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:Checco: That table concerns the "regional councils" and the regional council of Trentino Alto Adige exists, the electoral results are obviously only provincial, but indicating the provincial councils in the table is misleading because it concerns however the regional ones. However you are right, unfortunately I have to see that this section of enwiki is quite closed, it is too difficult to advance any proposal here. However, if other users want to express themselves also on the priority of the rules...--Wololoo (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, Checco and Wololoo, in few words what are you discussing about? And how can I help you? :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think that Trentino and South Tyrol should be treated this way or that way in tables? --Checco (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Okok, I'm sorry for Wololoo, who is doing really a great job in improving articles about Italian politics, but I prefer the previous version with two different results and seats which is more clear, even if you are right, when you say that there is only one region Trenino Alto-Adige, not two. But in my personal view, I think that the version with Trentino and South Tyrol separated results is better -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I also prefer keeping the Trentino and South Tyrol results separate.--Autospark (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Third condition of admission
and anyone else interested in the discussion: I have many doubts about the third Condition of admission     (having at least two MPs, or two MEPs, or one MP and one MEP). First of all it seems to me written a little bad, but above all I don't agree with it very much. The number of parliamentarians was increased from 1 to 2, but the problem, in my view, is to determine if a party has elected its representatives in the last election or not. I would like to change this rule: I would include the parties that at least in the last election elected a MP/MEP (with its own list or in other parties' lists) and I would increase the current number of parliamentarians (5?) for the parties that have elected no representative at the last election. With this change, currently, no party would be excluded, while some party could be added in the template. The aim of this proposal would be to avoid in the future to add parliamentary components with only two MPs, that are in fact irrelevant. Do you agree? --Wololoo (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * We can edit the second condition ("having elected at least one MP, or MEP with their own lists in the latest elections") this way: "having elected at least one MP or MEP with their own lists or from other parties' lists in the latest nationwide elections". I am mildly supportive of it, while I would not change the third condition, which is OK with me as it is now (in case, I would decrease, not increase, the number of MPs/MEPs). In my view, this template must be inclusive, but I agreed in the past that one-person personal parties may be excluded from the template (that is why we increased the number from 1 to 2). --Checco (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * In any case, the rule should be rewritten in better English, but its modification is the main part of my proposal. I do not think it's in the interests of English readers to see in the template ""parties"" like X Movement or Together for Italy, that are unknown even for Italians. At some point in the legislature the fragmentation in the Italian parliament becomes very high, it is a typically Italian phenomenon. In the sake of the readers, the "molecular-parties" formed by 2 friend MPs should not be inserted in the template, because I don't see great differences between one-person party and two-persons party, for this reason I would like to increase the number of current MPS (at least 3, but it would be better 5).--Wololoo (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with that specific proposal and I think that the rule is written in fine English. --Checco (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm wrong, but the sentence "having at least two MPs, or two MEPs, or one MP and one MEP" seems to me written in a rather poor English. In my view it would be better a sentence like "being represented by at least two parliamentarians between Italian Parliament and European Parliament" or simply "being represented by at least two MPs/MEPs", but on the formula I would like to know the opinion of other users. Obviously the purpose of revision of the second condition is meant to balance to the revision of the third condition, then the exclusion of any future useless "micro-parties" (like X Movement or Together for Italy), that even the Italians do not know at all.--Wololoo (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * (I ask you because you have intervened in previous threads): I have no intention to prolong too much this discussion, but could you give your opinion, please? That is, if the sentence "having at least two MPs, or two MEPs, or one MP and one MEP" can be written better (for example "being represented by at least two parliamentarians between Italian Parliament and European Parliament" or simply "being represented by at least two MPs/MEPs") and if it would not be better to increase the minimum number of current parliamentarians at least to 3/5, to avoid the inclusion of unknown micro-parties in the future (like "X Movement" or "Together for Italy" in the last legislature).--Wololoo (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO, "being represented by at least two MPs/MEPs" is fine, as are both the existing wording and Checco's alternative suggestion. I am fine with the minimum number of parliamentarians staying at 2 for the time being.--Autospark (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, nobody else is interested in the discussion. I simply rewrite the rule as "being represented by at least two MPs/MEPs", which is certainly simpler and more immediate than the previous version, I hope it's ok for everyone.--Wololoo (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is fine with me. I will fix wording in order to make it consistent with other rules. --Checco (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Correction of the arrangement of League and Noi con Salvini in the template of italian parties
I report this thread (the second part of the discussion). --Wololoo (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Major/Medium Party Threshold
While I agree with most of the parties' placements (and they do make sense based on the last election), what is the threshold going to be for (potentially) moving the League from "Medium" to "Major"? The last election put them ahead of the PD in both houses of the parliament, and every indication is that they'll be in the top two in the Euro elections next year (to say nothing of any putative next election). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.123.18 (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That will happen if the League obtains more than 20% or at least 20 MEPs in the 2019 EP election. --Checco (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

New layout
New proposal, also in order to solve the issue discussed in another thread. Why don't we change the formal and do something similar to Template:German political parties, using a Template:Navbox with collapsible groups? This would make it nice to have also longer titles for the different groups of parties, having a clear explanation for what are the "Other parliamentary groups", and in general I think it is easier to navigate, since it does not show all the minor and regional parties if they are kept collapsed. In this case I would merge the "Major" and "Minor" definitions in a single group, and keep this section uncollapsed. Bad idea? --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Uhm, I personally do not like collapsible navboxes. They are not confortable to navigate, especially when you go back and forth. Our current template may be a little bit old style, but it one of the easiest to navigate among templates on political parties. --Checco (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Every template on national political parties is based on the peculiarities of that political system. Anyway I prefer the current tmp setting (without collapsible groups) and I don't think it's a good idea to merge the major, medium and minor parties into a single group: some criteria are questionable, but the division by category seems useful to me. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)