Template talk:Italian political parties/Archive 3

Parliamentary groups
Why are the parliamentary groups listed on this tmp and on List of political parties in Italy? They are not parties, there is no reason why they are listed here and on the other page, therefore they should be removed. --Wololoo (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I remove the parliamentary groups, because they have nothing to do with the subject of the two pages ..--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Parties can be parliamentary-only, so it should not be a problem in theory. Furthermore, practicality and convenience are even more important than theory: this is a navigation box and it is quite useful for readers to find the links also to parliamentary groups not connected to a specific party. I will thus revert Wololoo aka SDC's edit, while I can do anything to change Wololoo's new name, even if I already miss his/her former one. --Checco (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a joke: you need a reliable source to state that SDC is the correct abbreviation! --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I did not well understand the reasoning about changing my username, however... parties and parliamentary groups they are 2 completely different subjects, if a parliamentary group is not connected to a specific party, is not a party, while this tmp concerns only the parties (and also the page "List of political parties in Italy"). Therefore, it seems to me quite obvious that they are out of place, if a page/tmp concerns the political parties, it cannot deal with other topics as well. I see no practicality and convenience, an English/international reader is not interested to see the parliamentary groups here (the parliamentary groups are not included in the tmp and on the page even in Itwiki), it's just a forced advertisement of these pages, that instead must entered in the pages of parties and MPs. It's a matter of coherence. what is your opinion about this topic? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

A discussion cannot last for weeks, if I do not receive answers I will remove the groups from these two pages again, because this is not their place and the greater visibility is not a good reason to include them on the wrong pages. If you want to list them a special page must be created (like Parliamentary group (Spain)), but frankly I don't see the need, because they are already treated in the pages of parliament, parties and MPs.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not like Wololoo's new username, especially the capital D for "della", but this is not up to me.
 * I surely oppose SDC aka Wololoo's removal of parliamentary groups from the template. Practicality and convenience, as I said! User:Ritchie92 thanked me for my rollback, thus I sense he also oppose that removal. Can he/she confirm it? Do other users, like User:Autospark and User:Nick.mon, have ideas about it? In the meantime, let's keep the established version. --Checco (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn't know that Scia Della Cometa actually was Wololoo :) Anyway I support Checco and Ritchie92, INMHO we should keep parliamentary groups -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Checco, Nick.mon and the same Ritchie92 (that wasted no time answering my opinion request): apart from the fact that the introduction of parliamentary groups is inconsistent with the very title of the page, "parliamentary" means nothing (it should be "parliamentary groups"), furthermore the section is partial and incomplete: the Mixed group is present both in the Chamber and in the Senate, furthermore, for a minimum of consistency, all parliamentary groups should be indicated. Always for consistency, the tmp should be renamed (in the section "title") "Italian parties and parliamentary groups", since it contains entities other than parties. In any case we are also talking about the "List of political parties in Italy" page (another unique case of page on parties that also lists parliamentary groups that are not parties (list already quite long without parliamentary groups)); furthermore, I think it would need more consistency with the page titles, for this reason I strongly oppose to list entities other than those indicated by the title of the pages and I don't see any "Practicality and convenience" to list, for example, the Mixed group in this tmp. (who cares about it?) ps. Yes, I changed username (however I didn't think there were even preference about usernames...) --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on this. I actually thanked User:Checco on this talk page because I agreed with him that I missed the old username Wololoo, if I recall correctly. Anyway we should be careful to count thanks as endorsements. If I have to say my opinion, then I think that the Parliamentary Groups that do not have a party association can stay in the article List of political parties in Italy, because it is explained in the text. We don't need to be to "fiscal" about this: it is clear that we're making an exception. About the template I am not sure, I also don't like "Parliament", it's confusing. That could become "Other groups in the Parliament" or something like that. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I am happy that there is no consensus on removing the parliamentary groups which are not connected to a specific party, already listed in the template. The explanation ("Parliament: parliamentary groups formed by coalitions of parties, or independent MPs") is well enough for me, but let's think how we can improved it. Side note: I know that thanks are not necessarily endorsements. That is why I always favour open debate. At the same time, I strongly suggest everybody do seek consensus first in talk pages. Of course, being bold is OK, but whenever an edit is opposed even by only one user, that must be discussed in talk page. --Checco (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The problem is not the explanation, addressed to editors only, the problems are, above all, the very presence of subjects (that are not parties) on a page/tmp expressly entitled to the parties, and the title fo the tmp section ("parliament"), which in a template like this one means "political parties in parliament" and not "parliamentary groups other than parties". So the presence of parliamentary groups requires the change of name of the section (and this seems obvious to me) but also of the same template (no longer just "Political parties in Italy" but "Political parties and Parliamentary groups in Italy"). At this point the parliamentary groups section should be completed with all the parliamentary groups, otherwise it would obviously be incomplete. It is a feasible thing, but I wonder: can an user really be interested in the indication of parliamentary groups in this tmp? (and I would also add the page of the Italian parties, where most of the links of the parliamentary groups are obviously red). However, consistency and clarity are the most important things, both are currently missing in that section...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * As I said, in this context, I favour practicality and conveniece over precision. Readers take a look to navigation templates for links (the more, the better), not for precision. I think that having parliamentary groups not affiliated to specific parties in the infobox is something useful. Moreover, as I also said, technically, a parliametrary group is a party: originally, parties were parliamentary-only. --Checco (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is legitimate having a personal opinion, but you cannot say that the parliamentary groups are parties because, technically, a parliamentary group is NOT a party, and this is not an opinion: a parliamentary group is not a Voluntary association, they are two different types of legal entities. Anyway, if I really cannot remove the parliamentary groups, I must at least specify their presence, because currently it is incomprehensible.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm really starting to get tired of your behavior! Now EXPLAIN TO ME what I did wrong in the template, I demand an answer, because I have not removed absolutely anything, I have only clarified the content! --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I re-fixed the major inconsistencies in the template, if there is non consensus to remove the parliamentary groups, it is however evident that the previous version was ambiguous and unclear: the tmp also concerns the parliamentary groups and in a template like this "Parliament" means parties in parliament, not parliamentary groups. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You should moderate your tone. You don't demand anything, we are not in a regime lead by you. You have started this thread, the discussion is ongoing, no decision has been taken, and the discussion is about the Parliamentary groups in the template: you should wait until a decision is made about those things before editing. Instead you rush into pushing your ideas. And you complain for reverts! So why are we even discussing on talk pages, if then you push your edits anyway? This time I even agree with the edits you made! Why can't you just be patient and wait, and respect the other editors' opinions and times? --Ritchie92 (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Regime? I proposed these changed on 22 August, I have not seen any contrary reply, So yes, I have the right to demand an answer for yet another arbitrary rollback. I am not arrogating myself a right to undo the edit of other users with extreme ease, the regime is certainly not mine. Furthermore the thread concerns the removal of the parliamentary groups, I have only fixed some ambiguities of the tmp, to which no one has opposed, the rollback was simply meaningless. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, please moderate your tone and be patient. You don't demand anything from anyone on WP. Now going into the issue: I wrote About the template I am not sure, I also don't like "Parliament", it's confusing. That could become "Other groups in the Parliament" or something like that. some days ago, you proposed something else the day after, which included something similar to what I was saying. User:Checco appeared to be contrary to that in their reply (but it is unclear what their opinion is). Then you said something like if I really cannot remove the parliamentary groups, I must at least specify their presence: you must not! Part of the discussion is about how to specify "parliamentary groups" in the template, so just wait! You are far away from being free to add your proposal instead of waiting for clarification or more replies from other editors. That's what discussions are for. But you have to be patient and wait, even a week. There is no rush. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What should I wait for? Each discussion cannot last weeks and you reverted my edit without commenting on the talk, it is incorrect. that "parliament" is obviously ambiguous is evident, if there is no consensus to remove groups, then at least I correct the ambiguities, there is nothing to wait, also because nobody has objected to this. About "Other groups in the Parliament", it's too long to insert in this template ("parliamentary groups" too must be written on 2 lines).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion can last as long as it lasts. If you seek consensus here, you can't then just do whatever you think it's better in the meantime... Some of the things you wrote now are just your ideas, they are not obvious things. But whatever, I feel like I am talking to a wall of concrete. No way you are going to change your style of editing, and I am not going to lose more time on this. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The thing is reciprocal for me, I seem to waste time, if you think it is right, you continue to arbitrarily delete the edits of the other users, even those that have already been proposed and that have not received any objection, good work, I have a different conception.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I add, edits that you also agree, as well as not having received an objection...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, I respect the other editors that might not agree with me or you and do not have time to reply every day in the talk pages. But anyway. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm back. Real life can take us away from Wikipedia for a while (in my case, I have never been away for more than two weeks since 2009, I guess). User:SDC correctly proposed something in think talk, but his/her proposal has not been accepted yet by anyone else. As pointed out by User:Ritchie92, "the discussion can last as long as it lasts" and "there is no rush". I am going to re-establish the old version of the template until a new consensus is formed. --Checco (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Ps: By reading political party, I confirm that I do not see any problem in having parliamentary parties/groups in the template per se: parties can be parliamentary-only.
 * @Checco The parliamentary-only parties are simply your invention, if you don't demontrate the contrary (but I doubt it). You talk about new consensus, but I have not removed anything, so: why did you rollback my edit??? You can't to continue to lock the work of other users, I control your edits and I see only interventions in the talk pages.... anyway, there is no consensus even for "your" version, also User:Ritchie92, that has rollbacked my edit, said that agree with it, therefore, if you are not able to explain your rollback, I have to restore my version, that is certainly more clear.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And I add that it is a compromise version, because for me the groups should be removed, I don't see any discussion to insert them in the tmp...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So far, 81.6% of my edits are in mainspace (including templates) and I tend to avoid series of small edits, otherwise the figure would be higher. Unfortunately, I have currently a few time to spend in Wikipedia and most of it is dedicated to endless discussions, especially with you. While I cerish debate, I wish we do not need to argue on everything. Before your arrival, there was consensus on most everything and I did not need to debate all the time. This said, I would not turn back the clock. While I disagree with your modus operandi (and I hope it will eventually change), I appreciate your contribution and I fully accept the burden of being a Wikipedia editor. Each of us is a consensus-builder, not just an editor, anyway. Otherwise, this would not be a cooperative effort, but a personal blog. As I have been patient with you, you should be patient with others and, especially, the consensus-building process. Wikipedia is about consensus, indeed. Sometimes that is difficult and we need to dedicate a lot of time to discussions, but there is no other way to work out differences.
 * I oppose both the removal parliamentary groups (and I thank you for not trying to do it again) and this edit of yours as well. Of course, if you seek and obtain consensus on it (like on everything else), I will accept it. Where is that consensus so far? There is no hurry.
 * On the general issue, in history parties were long parliamentary-only. Think of Tories and Whigs in England. More recently, I have in mind the emergence of parties in Estonia after independence, for instance. Arguably, the Federalists and Liberal Democrats and the Liberal Popular Alliance were parliamentary-only too. However, this is not the issue. Sometimes, in Italy like in other places, there are groups that are not affiliated to a specific party or include different parties: for practicality and convenience, it is useful to have those groups linked in the template. --Checco (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Checco you cannot say that you are against a change without explaining the reason, it is unfair behavior! How can you expect me to be patient if you rollback my edits without giving an explanation (which is not the usual excuse "no consensus" to prevent another user from editing a page/tmp?) Is my "modus operandi" to be wrong? Or maybe is your behavior to be uncorrect? Unfortunately only 3 users intervened in this discussion, and 2/3 users agreed to improve the template, so it seems to me that there is no consensus on the current version. As for Talk:Regional Council of Molise, I think it's a good idea to resort to Wikipedia:Third opinion. And responding to your statement, the current parties are something different than those of centuries ago, I knew that "Federalists and Liberal Democrats" was essentially a parliamentary group, as written in itwiki, while ALA had a minimal extra-parliamentary structure (like a headquarters) and presented some lists in local elections (fo these reasons it could be qualified as a party and not just as a parliamentary group). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I oppose your proposal because the template should continue to be named "Political parties in Italy", as the last row named "Parliament" is just as small part of it. I also support short descriptions in the first column ("Major", "Medium", "Minor", "Regional", "Abroad" and "Parliament"), as there are clear explanations below. However, I would like to see "Parliament" changed into "Parliamentary" and I also accept the note. Let me try a new compromise version. Please rollback me, if you disagree with it. --Checco (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't like "Parliamentary" either. It should be "Other parliamentary" or "Only parliamentary" at the very least. I also don't like the use of long and multiple footnotes in a template (including the LN one that I know is necessary but it just bothers me), so it should be clear from the section title that it is about other groups that are only parliamentary, without needing to read the note. Also the "see below for further explanation": below where? The template appears in the pages without all the rest of the stuff below! I also don't like this "More templates: " that you added, it's not needed at all, it suffices to leave the links. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am going to remove some stuff, especially the note (as it is all explained below), "See further explanation below" and "More templates". The bad thing about "Other parliamentary", "only parliamentary" or, more correctly, "parliamentary only" is that they are too long. --Checco (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What about "Parliament only" with a br in between? --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * While preferring "Parliamentary", I would support it as a compromise. --Checco (talk) 08:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand where is the compromise, the template has remained ambiguous as before. @Checco, it is now quite clear that your edits are addressed exclusively to the editors and not to the readers: what does "see below" mean? Do you know what a template is for? And above all what do readers see? How do I seriously consider certain operations? @Ritchie92 you said that "Parliament", is confusing and now is "Parliament only" ok? I'm amazed at all this... now the Mixed Group is a "parliament only" party, I sincerely hope that some other user can intervene to stop this.....--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would in fact remove the Mixed group. --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * the problem is not only the mixed group, but also the title of the tmp and the the title of the last section (if not the entire last section). If a tmp includes parties and groups, must be renamed consequently, I'm not the one who wants to keep them. And "Parliament", "Parliamentary" and "Parliament only", in a template like this, they made the same meaning: parliamentary parties. But really users who want to edit these pages are not able to understand something so basic? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please moderate your tone. We can write "Other groups in Parliament" in the section title, would that be ok? I don't think we should change the title, in the end this is a template to navigate easily the political parties, and it's useful to have also "Free and Equal" and such "parliamentary-only" political groups, without having a very long superfluous title. After all, we are not listing all the political groups in Parliament, so your title would also be wrong. Now, don't reply saying "parties and groups are different" because we know that. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "we know that": it doesn't seem to me, maybe you know that, but User:Checco stated that parties and parliamentary groups are substantially the same thing, stating also the existence of so-called "only-parliamentary parties": reading all this, I am stunned. Apart from the fact that if the TMP contains both groups and parties, it should be titled "political parties and parliamentary groups" (and as it does not list all the parties, it need not necessarily list all the groups), the distinction between parliamentary groups and parties must be clear: since "Other groups in Parliament" seems to me too long, I see "parliamentary groups" as the only possible title of that section, with the necessary explanation. Indeed, even "major", "medium", "minor" etc. should be renamed "major parties", "medium parties" etc. However, on one thing I am totally certain: "Parliament only" is totally wrong and misleading. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think "Parliamentary only" it's "totally wrong and misleading", it's actually what it is. I would say "Other groups in Parliament" isn't too long, if we put it in two lines. Writing "Parliamentary groups" would force us to put all the groups, also the ones corresponding to major parties: this would be a major inconsistency. Instead "other" means that we list the groups that do not correspond to any of the parties listed before: it's clear. I am also against writing "major parties", "medium parties" and so on. The template is after all called "Political parties in Italy", so it's clear it's parties. I would go for "Other groups in Parliament" with a line break in the middle. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I had already resolved this problem, both you and Checco rollbacked my edit: a title which does not refer only to the parties and the add of a note that specifies that the listed parliamentary groups do not correspond to the parties. The section refers to "parliament groups", "parliament only" in a tmp titled "political parties" means "political parties only in parliament". But is it so difficult to understand?? This is surreal thread, I still hope that some other user will objectively take part in this discussion.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Your title was wrong: "Political parties and parliamentary groups" implies that we should list all of the groups in the Parliament. Which we do not and cannot do. I said this already but you ignored it. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * instead you are the one who ignored what I wrote:


 * 1) 1 Why all of the groups but not all the parties? Why doesn't "political parties" implies all the parties? Where is the difference?
 * 2) 2 I had already added the note that specified that these were only groups other than parties.
 * But you have not answered to any of these observations! Neither you nor Checco have explained why the current version should be clearer.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Another observation: Why can a tmp titled "Political parties in Italy" list parliamentary groups while a tmp titled "Political parties and parliamentary groups in Italy" can't do it? I would like you two to answer all these blatant inconsistencies --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been very patient in this thread. You keep using this tone. Calm down. I'll reply to all your questions.
 * 1) We don't list all the parties because we only list the relevant parties. However we won't list all the relevant groups (i.e. the ones corresponding to major-medium parties), but actually just the very minor ones (LeU and Aut). You can't compare the two restrictions: in one case we are cutting all the tiny parties, in the other case we would be inexplicably cutting all the major to medium parliamentary groups.
 * 2) It's better to add self-explanatory sentences like "Other groups in Parliament" rather than putting a general claim "Parliamentary groups" and then having a note saying "actually, only the very smallest parliamentary groups". This is weird, and by the way I wouldn't abuse of footnotes in templates.
 * Last observation: Why can a tmp titled "Political parties in Italy" list parliamentary groups while a tmp titled "Political parties and parliamentary groups in Italy" can't do it? I never said that: obviously a template with the second title can list groups, but this is not the point. I am saying that such a long title is actually too long, and it doesn't give proper weight to the content because in the end this is a list of relevant parties with the addition of a few groups, the ones that are relevant in Italian politics but do not have a party. We are not listing all of them. The title with "parliamentary groups in Italy" would make the reader expect that all the groups in Parliament would be listed, and in an orderly way: this we don't and can't do, and honestly would need a different template in my opinion (along with specific pages for each Parliamentary group) but this is science fiction and I don't know if such a template would be needed at all. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I premise that I had not seen your last change: indeed I stated that "Parliament", "Parliamentary" and "Parliament only" should be avoided categorically, about "Other groups in Parliament" I said only that seems to me too long as section title. Now the tmp is no longer set up ambiguously as before, but I reiterate all my perplexities: a template named "Political parties in Italy" and a page titled "List of political parties in Italy" should list only parties, the parliamentary groups should be listed elsewhere. Otherwise, the name of the pages should at least be changed. I think that parliamentary groups are incompatible both with this template and with the page on Italian parties. I only hope that other users intervene in this discussion and that a consensus can be reached on this topic, in one direction or another. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, and I explained you why. The correct title in the current state would be "List of Italian political parties and parliamentary groups not corresponding to a party", but this is obviously ridiculous. The only other consistent option would be to remove the parliamentary groups, but this is inconvenient for such a list and/or for the list article. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have read all the discussion in a hurry. I hope to be able to catch up. My order of preference is: 1) "Parliament"; 2) "Parliamentary"; 3) "Parliament only"; and finally 4) "Other groups in Parliament". The latter is my least-preferred option, but I can live with it, provided that there is "Major parties", Medium parties", "Minor parties", "Regional parties" and "Parties of Italians abroad". I will try that. Hope you will like it. --Checco (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I don't like this repetition of "... parties" everywhere, it's totally redundant. The template is called "Italian political parties". The specification is only needed for the parliamentary groups, which are an exception to the rule. I don't understand your order of preference at all: "Parliament" is not specific and it's difficult to understand what it's meant by "Parliament" and then listing "Mixed", "LeU" and "Aut". At least an "only" or "others" is necessary. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not like long titles in a navigational box. I thus oppose "Other groups in Parliament", unless there is consistency: "Major parties", "Medium parties", etc. "Parliament" would be well enough in my view beacuse there is an explanation below. --Checco (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Below where??? The template appears without the explanation below in this article... --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are TOTALLY right on this. Still, I would prefer to see "Major parties", "medium parties", etc. --Checco (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ps: Otherwise, I would appreciate "Parliamentary" with a note.
 * "Parliament only" is as wrong as "Parliament" and "Parliamentary", because they all mean "political parties in parliament". The only 2 possible titles are "Other groups in Parliament" or "Parliamentary groups" with a note. And the indication of "Major parties", "medium parties" etc. would make the template more consistent, even if it would effectively be redundant. As I have already stated, the remotion of those 3 entries from the tmp would solve all this problem...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @User:SDC: Provided that "Other groups in Parliament" stays, whould you support "Major parties", "Medium parties", etc. You are right that they would be a little bit redundant, but definitely consistent and complete. --Checco (talk) 06:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Major parties", "Medium parties" etc. would be more consistent with a tmp named "Political parties and parliamentary groups: if the tmp is called only political parties, the specification "parties" each time is superfluous, since it is obvious that they are parties.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Archive bot?
Hi. Should we establish an automated archiving of this page? There are thread as old as 2005, and the page is very long. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think nobody is against this, so after more than a week I will instantiate an archive bot here. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Criterion no. 3
Since this template will have to be modified following the results of the regional elections, I take this opportunity to propose the modification of the criterion that convinces me least of all, the no. 3 ("being represented by at least two MPs/MEPs"): the criterion is not clear, since it is unconditional, it could be a party completely incorporated into another major party, I would change it as follows "being represented with its name by at least one MP/MEP in the reference assembly". What about it?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what you mean by "reference assembly". However, while being an inclusionist, I think it is better to avoid having one-person parties (emerged after the election) in the template and I would keep the rules as they are. --Checco (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For "reference assembly" I mean "assemblea di riferimento", that is the assembly where the the deputy sit. However don't get me wrong, this proposal is not necessarily more inclusionist: indeed, for example, this rule would exclude the parties located within other parties or those parties that are not part of any component of the mixed group. The threeshold of 2 MPs/MEPs has 2 flaws: 1) it is however an extremely low number, so the difference with parties with only one MP/MEP is irrelevant (a minimum acceptable number could be 3 or better 5 Mps); 2) it is an unclear rule, which for example does not exclude invisible parties that are internal to other parties or have not managed to form any component in the Parliament. My proposal is to bind the presence in parliament, regardless of the number of deputies, to the explicit representation in one component.


 * Example: If "X Party", represented by an MP, has formed a component called "X Party" in the mixed group of the Senate, it meets the criterion. If "Y Party" and "X Party" have formed a common parliamentary group called "Y Party - X Party", then "X Party" fulfills the criterion (even with only one MP). If "X Party" has two MPs enrolled in the "Y Party" group, then it does not meet the criterion.


 * The criterion could be written as follows: "the party being represented with its name by at least one MP/MEP in a parliamentary group or component". However, in my view the third criterion should be changed, in some way (my proposal would not change anything at present in the tmp, it would only restore the previous rule more stringently). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your clarification. As an inclusionist, I cannot agree with the proposal, though. --Checco (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The third criterion has never been really the result of a community decision, it was just a revision proposed by you and accepted by another user. I didn't like the previous criterion (1 MP/MEP), but the current one is worse. The criterion I have proposed is not more or less inclusionist, it depends on the cases, but it is more reasonable. To maintain a threshold of MPs, this should be more high than 2 (for example 3 or better 5 MPs / MEPs)...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't recall how that rule was changed. I like it as it is, but I would consider changing it to 3 MPs/MEPs, while I definitely oppose your earlier proposal. Hopefully, other users will express their opinion. --Checco (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Until the beginning of 2017 the requirement was as follows "having at least one MP or one MEP" (criterion I was against); then the threshold was raised to 2 MP/MEPs, but I am against also this threshold. the threshold of 3 MPs/Meps is already more acceptable, if there are no other interventions (I have already put the tmp for the request of comments) I will change the criterion in this verse. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced by the idea of raising the threshold to 3 MP/MEPs. Would you wait for other comments? My suggestion is to leave a notice on this discussion on other talk pages, so that other people come here and tell their opinion. --Checco (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It was you who claimed to consider to raising the threshold to 3 MPs/MEPs, I have added the tmp for the requested comments, but no one intervened. De facto, the 3 MPs/MEPs threshold is the one that has encountered less opposition, therefore the most acceptable as a compromise, and it is consistent with another criterion (being represented in at least three different Regional Councils). If no one intervenes, the criteria will have to be corrected, there has never been a real consensus on the threshold of 2 MPs/MEPs. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I think 2 MPs is fine, at least it means that the party is composed of more people (better than 1 MP, because otherwise any single MP could form their own party and would have to be included here). Especially now that the Parliament has been reduced (starting from the next election), I think 2 MPs is a good limit. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My previous proposal depended on the fact that a 2 MPs threshold is so low that it is worthwhile to include all parties represented with their own component. But if we have to introduce a threshold (and I agree with the introduction of a threshold), it should make more sense: for example, the threshold of 3 MPs / Meps is not accidental, as it corresponds to the average of one representative for each major assembly (Chamber, Senate and European Parliament) and it is the minimum threshold required to form a component in the mixed group in the Chamber. If you talk about the risk of one-person parties, you should known that in the past, by interpreting the current criterion in an elastic way, we could have included in the tmp a political group composed of two spouses, that is "Insieme per l'Italia" of Bondi and Repetti. I therefore do not understand why you are opposed to this slight modification which would however make the current threshold more serious than the current one.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Consider" does not mean "support"! Again, I find your arguments interesting and the Bondi-Repetti's example quite thoughtful, however I would keep the current rule. In the end, there is no particular need to reduce the number of parties represented in this template. --Checco (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No party would be removed from the tmp with the change of this criterion. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This helps us to discuss the proposed change on principle and that is why I do not see a need for it. --Checco (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, discussions on the admission rules should always be made in principle and never for or against a specific subject. A threshold of 2 MPs is so extremely low that it cannot justify the exclusion of parties with one MP, while a threshold of 3 MPs would already make more sense...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Our principles slightly differ on the matter, no big deal in my view! --Checco (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead it is not good that there is a criterion important enough for the tmp on which there is no agreement on the basis. I find that the 2 MPs threshold has no real rationale and not even a real consensus was found about it, after all I don't think the threshold of 3 MPs is unreasonable, but if I tried to change it, I'm sure you would restore the previous version. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)