Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/List of political parties in Italy

List of political parties in Italy
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

After long discussions, it was in no way possible to find an agreement on the criteria of inclusion and on the set up of the page. In my view, the criteria should be remarkably simplified, and the tables listing the parties should look better and contain more useful information.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 1, Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 2, Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 3, Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 3, Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 3, Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 3

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

In the latest RFCs many users have expressed themselves for the simplification of the criteria, and I agree with them. I think we need for impartial mediation in order to achieve a consensual set of rules and a better set up of the page. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Checco
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

First statement by moderator, Italian political parties
I am opening this thread for moderated discussion. Your discussions should be addressed to the community, and to me as the representative of the community, not to each other unless I say that you may engage in back-and-forth. First, please read the rules. These are not exactly the same as the rules that I or other moderators normally use, but they are similar to the usual rules, with certain differences. Second, please read the rules again. If you have any questions about the rules, ask, rather than guessing.

I see at least four basically different possible ways that we can specify what parties are listed.
 * A. No rules.  Any editor can list any political party.
 * B. A party may be listed if it is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.  A party may have an article if it satisfies general notability.
 * C. A party may be listed if it has a Wikipedia article.  A set of rules can be adopted for when articles on Italian political parties are in order.  These rules may be maintained somewhere else, such as at WikiProject Italy, and will need to be established by consensus, which can be established by RFC.
 * D. This article can have a set of rules as to what parties are listed.  If so, the list should be established by consensus.  Any statement that there is an existing consensus will need to be established, and can be modified anyway, or an RFC can be used to establish the consensus.

For now, I will ask each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to whether they favor A, B, C, or D, and explain briefly why. Each editor may also ask any questions about the rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

First statement by Firefangledfeathers, Italian political parties
I am grateful to Robert McClenon for moderating. I favor Option D. As editors at the talk page have noted, Italy has a plethora of parties and party-like political organizations. I think our readers will be best serve if we take advantage of the option provided by WP:NLIST in which "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" as long as the grouping the list is about is itself notable. Including only parties with articles, or with a demonstrable chance of meeting a notability guideline, would exclude content readers will value. For the record, I initially joined this dispute as a WP:Third opinion volunteer. Firefangledfeathers 05:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

First statement by Scia Della Cometa, Italian political parties
I would exclude option A, any user could include objectively irrelevant parties in the list, without their own article. In the past there has been a significant production of articles about irrelevant or unknown parties (or similar subjects), so I would also exclude option B. I don't have a particular preference between options C and D, perhaps option D is preferable. Obviously the rules will have to be rewritten point by point, and will have to be established through consensual procedure. The rules should be simple, not full of quibbles. By simple rules I mean immediately demonstrable. The rules could be displayed on Talk:List of political parties in Italy, or on the page itself, as long as they do not have too much impact on the appearance of the page. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

First statement by Autospark, Italian political parties
My preference is for Option D. The subject at hand, the scale of diversity and number of political parties in Italy, requires that approach. I think the rules should be compiled by consensus, with the end aim of being as concise and understandable as possible, while also detailed enough to be useful.--Autospark (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

First statement by Yakme
Italian parties are a lot, this is true. However there is no reason why we should exclude WP:NOTABLE parties from this list. In fact, the issue that Italian parties are a lot is an important characteristic of Italian politics (almost "a feature, not a bug"), and of the way it works. I do not think it is a good idea to "hide" this from the interested reader by presenting only a selection of parties in the article called "List of political parties in Italy": a reader would expect this list to be as complete as possible. Furthermore, any criterion to exclude parties is going to be arbitrary, and possibly the source of more disputes in the future whenever some major or minor political rules change (like electoral laws, that in the last decades have changed very often). So I would go for option B, noting that this does not mean to include only the parties that have WP articles, but actually all the ones that would be notable enough to qualify for one. --Yakme (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

First statement by Checco
Option D! Italy's party system, regional party systems and politics in general are very complex. List of political parties in Italy is one of the most clearly organised and complete articles of that kind, but also one of the longest in terms of number of parties. With no rules, it would be infinite and never settled. If having no rules is not an option for me, including all the parties with articles would not be fine: there might be relevant parties lacking an article, worth being included and ultimately having an article of their own. Rules should be simple, but also comprehensive (tracking Italian politics is not easy) and should be written and presented in a way preventing frequent interpretation disputes. --Checco (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

First statement by North8000
I'm not involved in a dispute but agreed to participate. First to note, the inclusion/exclusion criteria (rightly so) being addressed separately from the classification question. I would recommend an unlisted option "E" which is a criteria that it has a Wikipedia article. I think that "B" and "C" sort of strive for meeting this in spirit, but IMHO they both have significant technical and implementation issues. I'll not detail those unless asked, but a general note that trying to say that they meet the criteria for having an article sets this up for eternal debates on whether or not one meets the criteria, whereas saying that it has to have an article decisively settles it. The next question is whether or not "has an article" is too high or low of a bar. Looking at the article, even with the criteria, you certainly have a huge list. And it would only exclude a few percent of those currently listed. o IMO that shows that it isn't too. Also, if a party has an article, they certainly merit one line on this list so IMO that shows that it isn't too low. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator on Italian political parties
It appears that most of the editors favor Option D, but there is some support for Option B. Option D is to have a set of rules on the listing of political parties.

So the way forward probably is to develop the proposed set of rules that has agreement by people who think that there should be a set of rules. Then the proposed set of rules can be submitted to the community via RFC. If there is disagreement, among proponents of a ruleset, as to what the rules should be, we can decide to develop two alternate rulesets, but not more than two, and not now.

So the next step is for those editors who favor a ruleset to state what categories of political parties or sections it should be organized into. If we have agreement on the categories of parties or sections, then we can start populating each category with rules. Otherwise we may identify issues about what the categories or sections are.

The responses by editors may each be several paragraphs if they are clearly structured. At this point, clarity is even more important than conciseness. So each editor should provide a clear breakdown of what they think the categories of political parties should be. Editors who don't want a ruleset can just state briefly that they don't think that we need a ruleset. We are developing a proposed ruleset at this point, not a final ruleset (and we might not have a ruleset). If you favor Option D, a set of rules, define how the rules should be organized. If you favor Option B, restate that view. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by Checco
I favour the current organisation of the list, featuring sections for political parties (active and defunct), coalitions and parliamentary groups, as they are currently defined. One could argue that coalitions and parliamentary groups should have separate lists, but a joint one has clear advandages. A better presentation of the current rules is available at Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 4. Political parties are so many that both active and defunct ones should be classified in sub-sections: main/major parties (so that readers, who might not be interested in an in-depth study of Italy's party system, can easily identify them), minor parties, regional parties and parties of Italians abroad. By "regional" I mean political parties active only in one region or autonomous province, not multi-regional parties and/or parties supporting regionalism. There should be general conditions of admission and rules of classification. The fact that I like the current structure of the list and that I like a specific presentation does not mean that I am endorsing the current rules. --Checco (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by Scia Della Cometa
I begin to expose my point of view, the page should be divided first into Active parties and Defunct parties. Coalitions and parliamentary groups, which are not political parties, should not be included in the list (which is indeed called "List of political parties"), their presence on the page is redundant and not necessary. Both sections should be divided into: National parties, Regional parties (or "Parties active in a single region") and Overseas parties (or "Parties of Italians abroad"). I think the current distinction between Major and Minor parties is the result of original research, based on arbitrary criteria. I think instead that there is a need to make another type of distinction (only for active national parties): a distinction between the parties currently represented by a parliamentary group (at the moment there are seven parties with a parliamentary group) and the other parties that meet at least one inclusion criteria (Extra-parliamentary and minor parliamentary parties).

A brief consideration regarding the rules: I don't really like the idea of having inclusion criteria, but I realize that an excessive number of pages concerning Italian parties have been created on en.wikipedia, some with very little relevance. In my view, the new rules should meet the following characteristics:
 * being very simple and immediately verifiable (no quibbles);
 * being as inclusive as possible
 * being the same for all types of parties (national parties, regional parties, overseas parties), no exceptions should be made for any type of party.

Furthermore, only parties with their own article, or with a high expectation of creating it, should be included in the list. The parties of which we have no information, and which therefore cannot have their own page, must be excluded from the list, because they do not meet the principle of WP:Notability.

When we decide on the new rules, we will have to consider the following factors: electoral threshold, the election of a representative in an assembly with its own symbol (which assemblies), the minimum number of representatives in an assembly for those parties born from splits (or that have elected their representatives within other lists or parties). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

First Statement by Nightenbelle
I'm sorry I was not able to participate before now..... personal life. However- I would also favor option B or the unstated E- that they have to have a WP article to be on the list. I fail to see how adding anything to the list which is not notable enough to have a WP page meets WP guidelines, AND why re-invent the wheel when there is already a carefully developed policy that decides what is and is not notable. Any other list of what makes a party notable is going to be, by definition, original research- because Italy does not have such standards, nor do most developed countries. In addition, creating that list creates needless drama- Example A- this entire dispute! Nightenbelle (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by Yakme
I re-state my view supporting option B, or really any solution that avoids arbitrary selection criteria. Notability is enough and all it is needed to create a complete list of Italian parties. In the "parties" I also include political coalitions and parliamentary groups – really, any political organization which is notable and has (or had) a continuous activity in Italy. Inclusion criteria involving thresholds on the electoral results, or on the number of MPs, are going to be questionable by definition, and rightly so. Also because – like it is with the current criteria – the actual thresholds are probably going to be "doctored" by the Italian politics experts here to be inclusive of those parties they personally think should be in the list, and exclude the rest. See the amount of discussion on Talk:List of political parties in Italy about fine-tuning a threshold to be 1% or 0.5% (why not 0.6785%, I would say?), or rather 2 MPs or 3 regional councillors. Regarding the classification criteria: I guess in that case, once all notable parties are on the list, then approving criteria to simply order or separate them in a certain way is going to be a secondary discussion.

An additional note about the feasibility of option B: as far as my experience goes, the issue that an Italian party might be notable and not have a page on WP is virtually non-existent. Italian politics editors usually immediately produce articles for any smallest political group or regional party as soon as it comes to life. However for completeness and logical reasons, I would still use option B rather than E as the final choice: the difference is only going to be a handful of red links which – again, from my experience – would very likely become blue in a short amount of time. --Yakme (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by Firefangledfeathers (IPP)
I have been persuaded by some of the above statements into dropping my previously stated reasoning. I had been worried that notability as a list criterion would exclude useful content. I now worry that notability as the sole criterion would be overbroad. SDC alluded to this, and a glance at Category:Political parties in Italy and its subcats supports the existence of an issue here. I am torn between B and [D but with notability as one of the criteria]. B would create a long list and burden article editors with adding richness of content to elevate the list over a simple category. D would create a shorter list, but would likely perpetuate dispute over the additional criteria. Firefangledfeathers 17:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Third Statement on Italian Political Parties by Moderator
I was not clear in stating what option B was, and I intended it to mean that the party had to already have an article, so that the party would be listed in blue. However, I will now revise the list of options to be consistent with how they have been discussed:
 * A. No rules.  Any editor can list any political party.
 * B. A party may be listed if it is thought to be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.  The party should be listed in blue link or red link.
 * C. A party may be listed if it has a Wikipedia article.  A set of rules can be adopted for when articles on Italian political parties are in order.  These rules may be maintained somewhere else, such as at WikiProject Italy, and will need to be established by consensus, which can be established by RFC.
 * D. This article can have a set of rules as to what parties are listed.  If so, the list should be established by consensus.  Any statement that there is an existing consensus will need to be established, and can be modified anyway, or an RFC can be used to establish the consensus.
 * E. A party may be listed only if it already has a Wikipedia article, so that it can be listed in blue.  A party has an article if it satisfies general notability.

The next question, regardless of what option applies to listing the parties, is how to order the list of parties. Are we in agreement that the list will be arranged as: ? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Active parties
 * 1a. Active national parties
 * 1b. Active regional parties
 * 1c. Active overseas parties
 * 2. Former parties
 * 2a. Former national parties
 * 2b. Former regional parties
 * 2c. Former overseas parties

Each editor may restate their viewpoint on which option to use, and is then asked to comment on the listing of groups of parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Third statement by Checco
Regarding the options, I confirm my preference for option D. The other four options look very similar to me and I oppose them. I think that, similarly to most lists on political parties in countries, there should be a distinction between major/main and minor parties. Thus, I confirm that I would organise the list in the following way: 1. Active parties → 1a. Active main parties; 1b. Active minor parties; 1c. Active regional parties; 1d. Active overseas parties; 2. Former parties → 2a. Former main parties; 2b. Former minor parties; 2c. Former regional parties; 1d. Former overseas parties. As a side-note, I prefer "former" to "defunct". Finally, I continue to think that, for readers' sake, it is better to include in the list also coalitions and parliamentary groups (meaning groups formed by multiple parties and/or non-party independents). --Checco (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by Autospark
My preference is for "former" or "disestablished" as terms for non-extant political parties, although "defunct" is on balance not controversial. I support the idea of attempting to distinguish major and minor political parties, although I realise this could be problematic in practical terms – there would have to be clear guidelines, agreed upon consensual lines of what exactly constitutes either category. These categories would have to be time-relative (taking into account the variation in seat counts in the Italian parliament and regional assemblies over history) and region sensitive (the regional assemblies in Italy can vary significantly in terms of seat count).--Autospark (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Third statement by Scia Della Cometa
I have reread the various options better and I rectify my previous opinion: in my opinion, the best option is C. This option is certainly the one that would best allow us to have an overall view of the situation for a possible determination of new criteria. Theoretically, my preferred option would be E, but I think currently many blue-linked pages don't meet the WP:Notability criterion. The page might get too crowded.

About the classification, I agree with the Moderator proposal (I don't know if the more correct term is "Former" or "Defunct", I am not a native-English speaker, but this is a minor issue). A further distinction between "Main parliamentary parties", "Minor parliamentary parties" and "Extra-parliamentary parties" can be made only for active parties. The only objective criterion for distinguishing a major parliamentary party from a minor parliamentary party is the current representation in Parliament with its own parliamentary group.

Instead, the distinction between former major parties and former minor parties is much more complicated, parties born from splits and represented both in the Chamber and in the Senate with their own parliamentary group have eventually turned out to be micro-parties in the test of the elections (an example, Future and Freedom got less than 0.5% of the votes in the 2013 general election). These parties should not be classified as "Former major parties". Establishing distinction criteria for former parties is very complicated and should not take into account parliamentary splits. In my opinion, the distinction between "Former major parties" and "Former minor parties" is not necessary. Any criterion of distinction, in this case, could turn out to be arbitrary.

Surely the page should not list coalitions and especially parliamentary groups: their presence is a contradiction with the title of the page itself (List of political parties), their presence is decidedly misleading. On a page entitled "List of Political Parties", I expect to find political parties, not different subjects. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Third statement by Yakme
I confirm option B, and I refer to what I wrote in my first and second statements. Option C could also be a good idea in my opinion: as far as I understand, this would mean that we will have a general written set of guidelines, approved by consensus, by which we can determine whether a new party (or movement, or group/association) meets the Wikipedia notability criteria; I think this could be very helpful to avoid future issues. Regarding the classification in the list, I agree with the one proposed by the moderator, and I would add two things: (1) a sub-categorization – or a sub-ordering – within the national parties, in order to be able to distinguish the main parties who usually are in Parliament from the rest of the smaller, but still active and notable, parties; (2) separate categories for party coalitions, e.g. The Union and the House of Freedoms (which are objectively a main piece of Italy's political history), and for parliamentary groups, e.g. the infamous Mixed Group or other relevant multi-party groups like For the Autonomies. --Yakme (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Third Statement by Nightenbelle
I confirm option B as well- why reinvent the wheel? I also would be okay with E- but I prefer B. As for how they are listed- The way Robert suggested makes sense imo- I wouldn't mind them being separated by major and minor, except that I think that will lead to yet more pointless, unending arguments. I oppose any option that requires this page to have a set of rules different than other lists of political parties for other countries. That's just silly and unnecessary. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by North8000
I suggest option E.  Besides being a good and workable idea, this would make this simple and settled (vs. being an opening for more eternal debates), and not require major shifts in who is/isn't listed. "A" if taken literally has and issue which would need to get clarified if selected. Besides saying "no rules" has a second statement which can be taken as any one editor can force inclusion.

Regarding the sequencing, I see nothing wrong with that but will leave it to others more knowledgeable than me on this specific situation to decide. North8000 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Third Statement by Firefangledfeathers (IPP)
I support B and D. More specifically, I support B if there's agreement that this wouldn't create an excessively long list, and I support D provided that notability or likely notability is one of the criteria. I support the moderator's proposed organization in general. I support the addition of subsections for major/minor parties, at least in the active parties section. I would like to hear counterarguments to SDC's point about the split being untenable when it comes to former parties. I support the inclusion of coalitions/parliamentary groups and think it's justified by WP:NCLL, which states, "The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject." I do think it's wise to distinguish the collective groups from solitary parties, and I am agnostic for now on whether that should be done with subsections, columns, footnotes, etc. Firefangledfeathers 05:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Fourth Statement on Italian Political Parties by Moderator
I will focus for now on the organization of the list. The inclusion options still need to be addressed, but we can work on the organization of the list first, because we seem to be almost in agreement on that. We will refer to former parties rather than defunct parties for reasons of connotation in English. (I have probably spoken more English than anyone else in this discussion.)

It appears that some editors think that we should distinguish between major and minor parties, as follows:
 * 1. Active parties
 * 1a1. Active major national parties
 * 1a2. Active minor national parties
 * 1b. Active regional parties
 * 1c. Active overseas parties
 * 2. Former parties
 * 2a1. Former major national parties
 * 2a2. Former minor national parties
 * 2b. Former regional parties
 * 2c. Former overseas parties

Do parties ever change between major and minor status due to losing or gaining voters? If so, should active national parties be listed based on their present status? Should former national parties be listed as on their maximum status?

Do parties ever change between being national and being regional?

We know that parties can change from being active parties to being former parties, but that is not the question.

I would like each editor to state briefly why parties should be listed separately as major and minor, or why they should not.

There has been mention of groupings of parties, and coalitions. As an American, I think that I would want to see groupings of parties and coalitions listed, and that I would want to see them listed separately. I think that a Briton also would want that. If there is a reason why we should completely omit groups and coalitions, or alternatively why we should jumble them with the parties, I would like to see it stated briefly.

As I said above, I was initially not clear as to what option B was, and there is now confusion as to what options B and E are. Option A is no rules. Option E is that a party may be listed if it has its own article. Is there any other middle-ground option, or did Option B go away?

Option C is to have the set of rules defined somewhere else, such as by a WikiProject. Option D is to have this article define the set of rules.

I think that the remaining issues about the organization of the list are whether to distinguish major and minor, and how to list coalitions and groupings.

I think that the remaining issues about the inclusion criteria are whether to:
 * Have someone else have a set of rules (C).
 * Define our own set of rules (D).
 * List all parties that have Wikipedia articles (E).

Please follow up briefly, as explained above. If this isn't clear, then I will start over on the next round. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Fourth statement by Yakme
I did not quite get why option B has been dismissed now, given that three editors out of seven supported it in the third round. Option C – on the other hand – was supported by one editor, and by myself as a second option (even though I misunderstood the meaning of option C, so I was going to backtrack on that now). Before I write my full reply to your fourth statement, I would like to ask you to revise the "remaining issues about the inclusion criteria" by including also B which is one of the most popular options. --Yakme (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Fourth statement by Scia Della Cometa
I apologize in advance that my statement will not be very short but rather detailed. I premise that I am not opposed to options B and E. If it were not possible to find a broad agreement on rules that allow the inclusion of the highest number of parties, I still firmly think that the page should not have any specific rules (but that only meet the general rules of Wikipedia). However, these options could potentially lead to future disputes (for example, in my view, not all articles on Italian parties meet general notability guidelines).

About the organization of the list: I am not in principle against the distinction between major and minor parties, but how do we determine objective criteria to make a neutral distinction? When is a party "major"? When, on the other hand, is a party "minor"? There is no doubt about some parties: in the past, DC, PCI, PSI, DS, AN, PDL, etc. were definitely major parties. But exactly what characteristics must a party meet in order to be considered "major"? It is not easy to determine objective criteria. Above all, it is not easy to determine equal criteria for active parties and former parties. Let me explain: in Italy, since the 1990s / 2000s, the phenomenon of parliamentary splits has become very frequent. In the Italian parliament, parties are frequently formed from splits with a considerable number of MPs. Anyway, when these parties participate in elections, their electoral results are almost always unsatisfactory. These parties are not historically remembered as large parties, because they had temporary relevance (SD, FLI, AP etc.). Even the parties currently represented in Parliament that were born from splits, IV and CI, have already achieved disappointing electoral results and are quoted in the election polls with very low results.

In my opinion, it is decidedly complicated to establish objective criteria for distinguishing between major parties and minor parties that are the same for both active and former parties. For active parties the most important feature is the current relevance (ie: parliamentary relevance), the former parties instead should be considered from a historical perspective. IMHO, it would be easier to make a distinction between current parliamentary parties and current extra-parliamentary parties, as in other lists of parties (this distinction would instead be complicated to apply for the parties of the past, as there have often been individual adhesions difficult to ascertain).

Answering shortly the questions: "Do parties ever change between major and minor status due to losing or gaining voters? If so, should active national parties be listed based on their present status? Should former national parties be listed as on their maximum status?" It depends on the threshold of voters considered. Surely the active parties can be categorized according to their current status and the former parties according to their maximum status, but it depends on what we mean by status: number of MPs or number of voters? As I said above, the number of MPs can be a valid criterion of distinction for the current parties, while the number of voters would be a valid criterion of distinction for the former parties (even if it would risk being arbitrary). "Do parties ever change between being national and being regional?" It's possible. For example, the MPA, initially active throughout southern Italy, subsequently remained active only in Sicily. But this is not a problem, it is enough to consider the current or historical status.

About parliamentary groups or political coalitions (or electoral lists): they are certainly interesting articles, however I think that the List of political parties in Italy is not the right place to list them; for example the List of political parties in France or the List of political parties in UK don't list parliamentary groups. A solution could be to list them on separate pages, a page like Parliamentary group (Spain) could be created, indicating it in the "See also" section at the bottom of the page. The same solution could be adopted for political alliances in Italy.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Fourth statement by Checco
I agree with the organisation of the list that the Moderator presented at the beginning of his fourth statement. Terminologically speaking, I have always preferred "former" over "defunct", I would avoid "national" (there have been parties neither regional-only nor national—see Lega Nord, Movement for the Autonomies, etc.) and, finally, I prefer "main" over "major". And now to the issues! 1) Political parties should change between "main" and "minor" status due to losing votes and/or MPs. That is why the current rules are so balanced and, unfortunately, complicate. Parties should be listed on their present status, former parties on their maximum status. 2) Very rarely, "national" or "multi-regional" parties are reduced to being "regional" or the other way around, but, for historical purposes, I would consider them "minor". 3) Parties should be listed separately as "main" and "minor" so that regular readers, who might not be interested in an in-depth study of Italy's party system, can easily identify them. Basically, each and every "List of political parties in Xxxxx" does that. In our case, being represented in Parliament is not enough because dozens of parties are, so that not even all parliamentary parties are included in the list (the bar was raised recently and I was not the proponent). A certain share of vote and a certain number of MPs should be the thresholds. The distinction between "main" and "minor" parties matters also for former parties as there are so many. 4) There could be separate lists for parliamentary groups (meaning parliamentary groups not directly connected to a political party and/or formed by MPs belonging to different parties and/or non-party independents) and coalitions, but having those items in the same list would quite benefit readers. Also, in this case, we should have limits as coalitions and electoral lists are also quite common and numerous. As I said, the only option I can agree with is D, due to the near-infinite number of parties in Italy. Having no rules is really not an option, in my view. I am an inclusionist and I will never propose an article on a party for deletion, but this does not mean that we should have a near-infinite list (option E). Also, there might be relevant parties lacking an article and they should be listed, possibly in red so that some editors might think about editing them. Having notability rules both for having an article and being included in the list (option C) would be quite problematic. We really risk moving controversy and debates to dozens of talk pages and requests for deletion: an opening to more endless debates, indeed. --Checco (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Fourth Statement by Nightenbelle
I also don't understand why option B was removed when 3 of us were in favor of it. But I am also fine with E. I'm not sure why Checco thinks either of those options will create an endless list- both have rules- they require a party to meet general notability requirements for WP. And if they meet those requirements- and are, by definition- a political party in Italy, why then would we then exclude them from this list? That makes absolutely no sense. I like going a step further and saying that they have to actually have a WP page- saying that some editor has put the work in to make a page, and it has been accepted as notable so yes - that party deserves to be on this page.

As for listing them as major or minor- I think that is opening the page up to yet more arguments as we set regulations for what each of those mean (see the multi-paragraph responses in this section alone as evidence)- So I would rather just see current, and former as the only two definitions used. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Fifth Statement on Italian Political Parties by Moderator
I either have confused everybody, or am confused. We will primarily go back to the inclusion criteria for now. We will work on the organization of the list again when we have the inclusion options defined.

I dropped Options A and B for the inclusion criteria, and have caused confusion by dropping Option B. I thought that I had worded it poorly, and I meant that each party should have its own Wikipedia article, so that it was the same as Option E.  I had written that the remaining issues about the inclusion criteria are whether to:
 * Have someone else have a set of rules (C).
 * Define our own set of rules (D).
 * List all parties that have Wikipedia articles (E).

So if there was an Option B that differed from Option E, what was it? How do the editors think that Option B differs both from Option E, which requires an existing article, and Option A, which is no rules? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of the organization of the list of parties can continue. If editors think that I should not have dropped an Option B, will they please tell me what they think Option B is, and how it is different from either A (which we agree should be dropped) or E? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Fifth statement by Yakme
[I move here part of my reply above, since I posted just a few seconds after the moderator started the fifth round of statements] Yakme (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

My reply to the fifth statement by the Moderator – regarding inclusion:

Yes definitely there is some confusion. By option B, I mean that parties should be on the list even if they do not have an article yet, but are notable by WP standards. Their notability should be proven by providing appropriate reliable sources (or by using an inter-language link if available). See also the Spanish, British or German counterpart, where parties which do not have articles (yet) are also listed in black (red). Alternatively, I could also support option E – but just because I know that the risk of having a notable Italian party without a WP article is virtually zero (likely the opposite is true: over-proliferation of non-notable Italian "parties" articles). Yakme (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

My replies to the Moderator's questions in their fourth statement – regarding classification:

The risk of having a very large number of parties listed in this article is real. But if this becomes a problem, the solution cannot be to cut off notable articles based on an arbitrary selection. If we notice that we are getting to a very long page, the list can surely be split (for example by creating a List of former political parties in Italy, as a special case of WP:NCSPLITLIST). Yakme (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do parties ever change between major and minor status due to losing or gaining voters? Sure, a party might start as minor and become major, or viceversa. If so, should active national parties be listed based on their present status? Yes, and Should former national parties be listed as on their maximum status? yes. The historical relevance of a former party can definitely be measured on their peak popularity, and I do not see any inconsistency in having similar criteria for major/minor current and former parties.
 * Do parties ever change between being national and being regional? Other editors might know examples of this which I do not, but certainly this change cannot be excluded. In these events, I would – again – use the maximum extension of the party as the reference status for classification of former parties.
 * I would like each editor to state briefly why parties should be listed separately as major and minor, or why they should not. A separation is necessary given the amount of notable political parties in Italy: with a simple alphabetical or chronological list of parties, the reader would get lost and not understand which parties actually hold power and popular support. For example, having a separation based on whether a party has MPs or does not have MPs could be a criterion (I would generally take as reference the very-neatly-organized List of political parties in Spain, where there are also many parties, and a reasonable grouping has been achieved).
 * Regarding coalitions of parties and "parliamentary groups", I also do not see a reason why not to include them here, in a separate section.

Fifth statement by Firefangledfeathers (IPP)
Originally, Option B was A party may be listed if it is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. A party may have an article if it satisfies general notability. I took that to mean blue or red link. Your followup tweak didn't change my understanding of Option B. I believe most people who have supported Option B have a shared understanding of that meaning. Option E appears to be bluelinks only. Firefangledfeathers 22:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Fifth statement by Scia Della Cometa
I interpreted the difference between options A, B and E like this:
 * A: inclusion of blue links and red links, regardless of notability;
 * B: inclusion of blue links and red links, provided that parties meet the principle of WP:Notability (I did not understand only one thing: only the parties with the red link must meet the principle of notability or also those with the blue link?);
 * E: only blue links.

It seems to me that we all agree to exclude option A, which would allow anyone to include any objectively irrelevant party on the list. The practical difference between options B and E is minimal: as has already been stated, it is easier that an irrelevant / unknown Italian party to have its own article than a known party not to have its own article yet.

I think it is absolutely necessary to go beyond the current criteria, and it finally seems to me that most users think like me, not only these criteria are arbitrary, but they create incredible paradoxes: they exclude from the list potentially known parties and allow the inclusion of completely unknown "parties". Until last summer the situation was even worse.

When I refer to inclusion criteria, I refer to criteria that tend to include, not exclude parties, like the current criteria. Indeed, if we can't agree on inclusive (and consensual) criteria, I think the best options are B or F. More precisely option B, if the WP:Notability principle were applied to both blue and red links. But when does a party meet the principle of notability? I think I have interpreted this principle correctly, but some other users might think differently from me. And there would again be disagreements about what meets this principle and what does not meet it.

About "major" and "minor" parties: it is not enough to agree on applying this distinction, but it is necessary to determine when a party is major and when a party is minor. The distinction between parliamentary and extra-parliamentary parties is different from the distinction between major and minor parties. It is necessary to make concrete proposals, and to take into consideration all the possible consequences.

About coalitions and groups: there are many reasons for excluding them from this page. 1. First of all they are not political parties, while this is a list that explicitly concerns parties. 2. No list of political parties also includes lists of coalitions and parliamentary groups. 3. A reader may be confused about the inclusion of entities other than parties on a list that should only include parties. 4. If we include coalitions and parliamentary groups, why not include further political entities other than parties? Electoral lists, youth wings, factions, movements (not parties, but movements in the literal sense of the term). If we list anything related (directly or indirectly) to a party, the list would become really huge and the situation would become anarchic, since in a list of political parties we could include in it a series of entities that are in no way political parties. IMHO, the best solution would be to list them on other pages, to be indicated at the bottom of the list of parties.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Fifth Statement by Nightenbelle
I still prefer B- any party that qualifies for a WP page based on notability can be included. I am totally fine with E though- any group with a blue link can be included- I don't think there are many parties that don't have a page that would qualify- and if someone wants to add them- well they can go make a full WP page and then add them. I still maintain anything more is contrary to our WP:NOTABILITY policy. I 100% do not want more rules. I think separating them into major/minor/defunct is just going to create more drama and is unnecessary. I like the idea of if the list becomes too long creating a separate list for defunct (or whatever word people want to use) parties. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Fifth statement by Checco
I appreciated the fact that some options had been dropped because too many options looked similar to me. I was thus a little bit confused to read the following statement. If B is restored as an option, others might go. By the way, I am going to answer below. --Checco (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Sixth Statement on Italian Political Parties by Moderator
I will restore Option B now that I understand it. The possible inclusion criteria are: Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * List only parties that are thought to be notable, so that they must have either a red link or a blue link (B).
 * Have someone else have a set of rules (C).
 * Define our own set of rules (D).
 * List all parties that have Wikipedia articles, so that they will have a blue link. (E).

Option C can go away if there is no other candidate for who will have the set of rules, in which case the choices are between B (red and blue links), D (our own list of rules), and E (blue links only).

We will try to set up an RFC to decide between those criteria, but not quite yet.

In the meantime, we will discuss organization of the list of parties. I think that we should try to keep the organization of the list relatively simple, because it won't be simple anyway. The most detailed list of parties seems to be:


 * 1. Active parties
 * 1a1. Active major national parties
 * 1a2. Active minor national parties
 * 1b. Active regional parties
 * 1c. Active overseas parties
 * 2. Former parties
 * 2a1. Former major national parties
 * 2a2. Former minor national parties
 * 2b. Former regional parties
 * 2c. Former overseas parties

So what groups can be combined? Some editors have said that it is not necessary to distinguish major and minor parties, and some have said that is necessary. What else can we possibly combine? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Editors may reply to any previously asked questions, but do not reply with a wall of text to any question. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Sixth statement by Yakme
I re-state (for the sixth time) my preference for option B for all the reasons that were explained in the previous rounds by myself and others. Regarding the classification of parties, I tend to agree to the one proposed by the moderator. However, if not major/minor (which are terms that sound too "generic" and open to interpretation), then at least a separation between national parties with current Parliamentary representation and national parties without current Parliamentary representation must be done IMHO. A similar separation could be done for former parties: former parties that were in Parliament at least once, and former parties that were never. Yakme (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Sixth statement by Nightenbelle
Yup, I'm still pro-B

As far as separating parties. I still think former and current are enough. However, I would be open to dividing them by who had candidates in parliament and who did not. I don't like the idea of terms "major" and "minor" because those are subjective and unless we have a Reliable source calling them that- WP:OR. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Sixth statement by Checco
Option E is probably the worst because it would overlad the list with mostly unrelevant parties and still exclude some relevant parties lacking an article (there are about 20 red links in the current list and they are all relevant parties—I hope to be able to start those articles soon). Option B and option C look very similar to me and are not acceptable because, through very generic rules, they would also create an endless list. Per option D, I continue to think that we should have conditions of admission and a reasonably long list that can be an effective guide for readers. Being an effective guide also makes necessary the distinction between "main" and "minor" parties, as it happens in most lists of political parties. Quick readers should be able to identify the main parties, while other readers would still be able to have a broader picture. Being in Parliament should not be the bar, as there are usually several dozens of parties in Parliament, they come and go, MPs frequently switch parties (more than 200 did so in the current parliamentary term), some parties are short-lived, sometimes parties are formed by only one MP and have not an electoral base (that is why User:SDC successfully proposed to raise some thresholds during 2021) and so on. On the organisation of the list, I have to repeat myself, as the question was asked again. I broadly agree with what the Moderator presented in his sixth statement, but I need to clarify three points: 1) I am happy that "former" replaced "defunct; 2) I prefer "main" over "major", as the former is more accurate; 3) again for the sake of accuracy, I would refer simply to "main parties" and "minor parties", by avoiding "national" (there have been parties neither regional-only nor national—see Lega Nord, Movement for the Autonomies, etc.). --Checco (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Question for Checco
I am genuinely curious- if both B and E require that a party meet WP:NOTABILITY, other than "there are too many," how can you justify not including all notable parties? I'm genuinely confused by this- not trying to pick a fight- just a question. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My answer is quite simple, sorry about that. There have been hundreds, possibly thousands, of parties in Italy meeting notability (meaning that they had an organisation and/or MPs and/or MEPs and/or regional councillors and/or a notable share of the vote and so on). My argument is that all of them are worth of an article (and I will never propose any party for deletion), but not all of them are worth being included in the list, that would become near-infinite and unreadable. --Checco (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Sixth statement by Scia Della Cometa
It is not easy to distinguish between major and minor parties in Italy. And it is even more difficult to put the current perspective and a historical perspective on the same level. Objectively, the parties currently relevant in the Italian Parliament are seven, not five as currently shown on the page: in addition to Lega, M5S, PD, FI and FdI there are also Italia Viva and Coraggio Italia. That is, those parties that are currently represented by a parliamentary group. But I am not sure that IV and CI, when they are dissolved, will be remembered as major parties. For this reason I struggle to find uniform criteria of distinction for both the current parties and the former parties.

The distinction between parliamentary and extra-parliamentary parties might be reasonable for the current parties, but extremely difficult to implement for the former parties. The political and party situation in Italy is unstable. On this point Checco is right: too many MPs change party, in some cases joining small extra-parliamentary parties (until then). The current situation can be monitored, but making a clear distinction between former parliamentary and extra-parliamentary parties would be complicated.

I understand that making big parties stand out over small ones is useful, therefore I have a proposal: we could distinguish the current parties into "parliamentary" and "extra-parliamentary" parties. Parliamentary parties would be listed from most to least represented, in this way the major parties would automatically stand out on the others.

I would make a single list for the former parties. To make the larger parties stand out (such as DC, PCI, PSI, PPI, PDS, DS, AN etc.) we could insert in the table (not yet existing) their maximum result: for example their best electoral result for the Chamber, Senate and the European Parliament; or the maximum number (if available) of Deputies, Senators and MEPs. In this way the readers would immediately understand which were the most relevant parties, without making arbitrary distinctions on the list.

One last brief comment on a statement by Checco: some parties remained with the red link because there are no sources that describe them. I myself tried to create a page for some of those parties, but I gave up due to lack of sources. If a page is to be a three-line stub based on a single source, it better not exist. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

In this last statement I did not comment on the topic of the rules: at this point I believe that option B is the best choice. No arbitrary rules, let's just include all parties that have an article (except blatantly irrelevant stubs or subjects that are not parties, such as regional council groups) and let's include only red-links of parties that may potentially have a page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post scriptum

Third statement by Autospark
My preference is still for option D, with option "B" a distance second-choice (albeit with the proviso that the red-linked articles would be soon created). If the sub-categories or "major/main" and "minor" former parties have to be combined into a single "former parties" list, User:SDC's solution has its merits for a means to distinguish the more significant parties; however, I raise the issue that seat counts for the Italian and European parliaments have varied over time, so that may lead to "apples and orange" comparisons.

For notability reasons, I think there should be a mechanism in the rules for inclusion of former parties, however small, which participated in national-level government cabinets at some point, even if said parties never participated in later elections independently.--Autospark (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator on Italian political parties
The status quo would appear to be D, a set of rules, which are listed in the article. I will comment that, if we keep a set of rules for when parties are to be listed, then it will serve as the special notability guideline for Italian political parties (even if it has a clause saying that it is not a notability guideline). There is less difference between a special notability guideline and an outcomes essay than may be intended by those who categorize the essays and guidelines.

The status quo breakdown of categories of rules is as I previously listed them:
 * 1. Active parties
 * 1a1. Active major national parties
 * 1a2. Active minor national parties
 * 1b. Active regional parties
 * 1c. Active overseas parties
 * 2. Former parties
 * 2a1. Former major national parties
 * 2a2. Former minor national parties
 * 2b. Former regional parties
 * 2c. Former overseas parties

A tabulation of the number of parties in each category in the current article, List of Italian political parties, is:
 * 1a1 - Active major parties - 5
 * 1a2 - Active minor parties - 37
 * 1b - Active regional parties - 82
 * 1c - Active overseas parties - 2
 * 2a1 - Former major parties - 27
 * 2a2 - Former minor parties - 84
 * 2b - Former regional parties - 106
 * 2c - Former overseas parties - 2


 * 3a - Active coalitions - 2
 * 3b - Former coalitions - 14
 * 4a - Active parliamentary groups - 1
 * 4b - Former parliamentary groups - 18

I will comment that this is a list article, and that lists often include a few hundred items, as this list, which is organized into sublists, does. The number of parties does not seem to be a reason why either inclusion criteria are needed or why inclusion criteria are not needed.

Are we in agreement that the choice of inclusion criteria is between the status quo, which is D, a set of rules, or B, red or blue links, or E, blue links only? If so, a question is whether any parties are being excluded by the current rules. If so, should we include them by going to B or E, or leave them excluded?

We currently have 12 sublists. I would suggest that those who wish to reduce the number of lists, that is, combine lists, should explain why the lists should be combined.

We already have lists of coalitions and parliamentary groups. Editors who want to exclude those lists should explain why they should be excluded. In a list article, additional information is often good.

The next step should be for editors to explain why they want to change the status quo, which has a set of inclusion rules, and 12 sublists. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Seventh statement by Scia Della Cometa
I still think that option B is the best: we should include all blue links (except blatantly irrelevant stubs) and we should exclude parties whose pages will surely never be created. Anyone who wants to include a red link must at least prove that there are enough sources to create a page. For this reason I prefer option B to option E: the red links of potentially relevant parties are very few in the case of the Italian parties, but some pages can still be created. The inclusion of the red link in the list may be an invitation to create the page, but to include this party, it will be necessary to demonstrate that there are already enough sources and therefore the party meets the principle of WP:Notability. If instead we decide to create a set of rules, these should be flexible, inclusive and free of quibbles.

I think 12 sublists are too many. I also think that other parties should be included in the list, and that they should be organized into informative tables. I do not think it is consistent to complain about the length of the list if one wants to include subjects different from parties in it (meanwhile excluding parties that could instead be listed). I have not proposed to delete this information, I have proposed to move them in different pages, such as "Parliamentary group (Italy)" and "List of political alliances in Italy", whose links could be indicated at the bottom of the page. It seems to me the most coherent and efficient way of organizing information; if we want to make a complete list of parties, it would be long enough, it doesn't seem like a good idea at all to want to include different subjects on the same page, when they might just be listed on different pages. If we begin to include subjects other than parties in this list, we risk never ending: movements (such as Sardines and Pitchforks), youth wings, factions, etc. It seems useless to steal space from information that is certainly more inherent.

For those who want a distinction between major and minor parties, I invite other users to make specific proposals. For example, it seems to me that there are currently 7 Major parties in Italy, not 5 (I would also include Italia Viva and Coraggio Italia).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Seventh Statement by Nightenbelle
I want to go with option B because the current set of rules is arbitrary and contrary to WP:Notability. I see no problem having a long list- with a couple hundred parties. That is the nature of Italian politics and should be accurately represented by this list. I don't care if we go with blue links only or red and blue links- as long as there is enough sources to prove the party is notable enough for a page.

I'm not a fan of 12 sublists. I would rather see it split thus:

1. Active parties
 * 1a1. Active major national parties
 * 1a2. Active minor national parties
 * 1b. Active regional & Overseas parties

2. Former parties
 * 2a1. Former major national parties<
 * 2a2. Former minor national parties
 * 2b. Former regional & Overseas parties

Just for simplicity sake. But I'm less passionate about how they are split up than I am about inclusion rules. If others want more or less or a different arrangement- I'm okay with that. As long as all notable parties are included and ones that are not notable are left off. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Seventh statement by Checco
I have little to say on the latest issues raised by the Moderator, as I am basically in favour of the status quo over: 1) Option D — I would change the current rules, however they are already so lax and inclusive that all notable active and former political parties, by any definition, are already included. 2) 12 sublists — I would adopt different names ("main" not "major", no to "national") and I would surely change some of the classification rules, e.g. those between "main" and "major" (if I am not blatantly wrong, they became stricter after a proposal by User:SDC that I endorsed for the sake of collaboration, but I would be more than happy to lower the thresholds). Finally, I could accept separate lists for coalitions of parties and non-party parliamentary groups, but I believe that it is beneficiary for readers and editors alike to have them in a joint list. I am more than willing to change how the rules are presented. There should be general conditions of admission (notability, if you will) and then a reasonable classification of the parties in sublists. That is exactly what I have long been arguing for. The point is: which admission/notability rules? --Checco (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Eighth statement by moderator on Italian political parties
I have created a subpage for this dispute resolution, at Dispute resolution noticeboard/List of political parties in Italy, and has a shortcut of WP:DRNLPPI. I have done this so that our discussion does not overshadow any other DRN threads. There aren't currently any other DRN threads, but there may be, and this discussion appears to be still unfolding rather than wrapping up.

There are three separate related questions that we need to address. The first is whether this list article needs special rules for listing of parties, or whether general notability is a sufficient guideline. The second is how to divide the listing. I would like to try to resolve the first question, which is the choice between options B, D, and E:
 * B. Parties should be listed if they satisfy general notability, and are listed either as blue links or as red links.
 * D. A set of rules should be used.  The list currently includes rules for listing, and these rules will be the status quo, and we can then discuss where to go from there.
 * E. Parties should be listed if they satisfy general notability and already have articles.

Since Wikipedia already relies on the general notability guideline, GNG, going with either B or E simplifies the housekeeping of this article, and avoids the need to argue over percentages, and numbers of seats, et cetera. I will start by saying that option B is the easiest to maintain, and so will suggest that editors who disagree should explain why they disagree. At least one editor has said that option B or E would result in a near-infinite number of parties being listed. Isn't 300 already quite a large number? I have a homework exercise, that is optional. How many political parties have articles but are not currently listed? How much expansion would B or E really result in? Can someone identify how many articles Wikipedia already has on Italian political parties that are not listed in the list? If there are only a few parties that have articles that are not currently listed, then we do not need inclusion criteria other than GNG. So my assignment to any editor who says that we need to keep or modify our inclusion criteria is to identify how much longer the list would be with no criteria other than GNG.

The second is whether to retain the lists of coalitions and parliamentary groups. Since we already have them listed in this article, that is the status quo. So my question for any editor who wants to delete those sublists is to say what harm is done by keeping them.

The third question is how to group the lists of political parties. Each editor may briefly restate their position on whether to combine or modify the sublists.

Reply in WP:DRNLPPI. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Scia Della Cometa, User:Checco, User:Nightenbelle, User:Yakme, User:Autospark: This is where the discussion is continuing.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Eighth statement by Scia Della Cometa
I reiterate my preference for option B, however I could also agree with option E. Despite my initial statement, I would exclude option D if possible, I have already had a bad experience with this. IMHO, the notability is enough. In any case, I am willing to discuss the new rules if necessary.

As I have repeated in vain for months, the current criteria have enormous flaws, until last summer they were even worse: they have the paradoxical effect of favoring totally unknown regional micro-parties, born from splits in regional councils, while excluding parties that objectively have a much higher notability. Unfortunately, my every attempt to balance the negative effects of these rules has failed, so I think the page would be better off without any rule. I have made an approximate count: we should add about 100 parties (the completeness is not a defect), part of which are undoubtedly more well-known than many parties currently listed. We must consider that we can remove some red links, which will never be created. We should also remove some pages illogically listed among the parties (I refer to a handful of pages concerning groups of regional councils, inexplicably classified as "parties", when in reality they are assembly bodies).

Answer to the second question: for all the reasons I have previously listed. First of all, it makes no sense complaining that the list is too long and at the same time wanting to include parliamentary groups and coalitions, at the expense of other parties. Then, if we created pages like "Parliamentary group (Italy)" and "List of political alliances in Italy", the reason for keeping them on this page would totally disappear. We should free up space from the page by removing not inherent pages to list pages related with the title. I hope no one is against this solution.

Answer to the third question: I basically agree with the moderator's proposal. I am just wondering how to distinguish the major parties from the minor ones. I have a personal idea about it: having exceeded a 4% threshold for former parties; exceeding a 4% threshold or being represented in Parliament with parliamentary groups for active parties.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Eighth statement by Yakme
Here are my ideas about each of the Moderator's questions. 1. I agree that B and E would be the easiest to maintain. I also would not mind if in the list of parties we kept blue, red and black links (meaning: parties which WP:FAILN, so with not enough WP:N to have a stand-alone page – but with their own section or merged in other articles). This would comply with the general notability guideline for stand-alone lists. This could be done together with a general cleanup of the Italian parties articles – I am sure that many of them are not really complying with WP:GNG nor WP:ORG, and should be proposed for deletion or merged. I do not have the expertise to estimate how many parties are missing in this list, however I can make one practical example of why having election- or MP-based inclusion rules (i.e. option D) is wrong: the list currently does include "parties" whose articles are based on a single source (so blatantly failing WP:GNG) like Greens Greens just because they had a member in some regional council, but does not include Volt Italia which has been extensively covered by news networks, both in Italy and Europe with its main branch Volt Europa (so definitely notable enough to pass WP:GNG) – just because Volt never won any seat in Italy. Obviously, having option B, E, or "extended B" would make this list even longer – as also SDC pointed out. This is why my main proposal would be to WP:SPLIT the list, rather than cutting it. A possible split could be into national / regional (by region), given that the regional parties (as counted by the Moderator) are the largest subgroup.

2. This is a list of parties, so it naturally should include party groupings like Parliament groups or coalitions, especially in the context of Italian politics. In Italy coalitions are often almost treated like parties in election laws and in media coverage, so not having them here would be a gross shortcoming. After all, there is only a few tens of them, so they would not impact the length of the article. This does not mean we would ever need to add movements, youth sections or party factions: these are not political parties nor super-structures of political parties.

3. Now I am quite convinced that we should avoid using "main", "major", "medium" or "minor": this is recipe for future fights. Let us forget about what is major and what is minor, and just separate them by an easily-verifiable feature for each party: whether it is in Parliament or not. Analogously for regional parties: whether it is in the regional parliament of the corresponding region or not. So now I propose a slightly inverted version of the categorization proposed by the Moderator: Finally, I would not merge together regional and overseas parties: these are quite separate things in Italian politics. Yakme (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. National parties
 * 1a. Active national parties
 * 1a1. Active national parliamentary parties
 * 1a2. Active national non-parliamentary parties
 * 1b. Former national parties
 * 1b1. Former national parliamentary parties
 * 1b2. Former national non-parliamentary parties
 * 1c. Party coalitions
 * 1d. Other parliamentary groups
 * 2. Regional parties (separate by region, each linking to its stand-alone article)
 * 3. Overseas parties
 * Notes:

Question for Yakme
I did not understand one thing: why split regional parties (which are parties) from the page and not parliamentary groups and coalitions (which are not parties)? I am interested in creating pages like "Parliamentary group (Italy)" and "List of political alliances in Italy", in this circumstance I wouldn't see too useful in taking up space for pages already listed elsewhere.

Instead I definitely agree with the idea of a general cleanup of the Italian parties articles, in this case the pages to add to the list would certainly be less.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I would not split this list, if not for the length issue. Splitting the regional parties would solve the possible issue of too many parties on this list, and that is the only advantage (easing the navigation of readers); on the other hand splitting the coalitions would not bring any substantial advantage in terms of length, and would disperse important items from this list. PS: If I were you I would not create those pages you want to at the moment, while a related dispute is ongoing here. This could backfire. Yakme (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Technically I could create them, only the page object of the Drn cannot be modified. However I'm not going to create them now, first I have to see where this discussion is going. However, it doesn't seem to me too logical to move content directly related to the page title and keeping non-related content, which could actually be moved elsewhere. If space is needed I think we should start to move the content not directly related to the topic. Anyway, let's await other opinions too. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Eight statement by Checco
1) I definitely support option D as a specific set of rules should be used. The list should be cohesive, consistent and inclusive. I am a committed inclusionist and I will never propose any article for deletion, but this does not mean that each and every political party should be included in the list. Wikipedia is full of irrelevant parties like 10 Times Better and, yes, Volt Italia, which never obtained or have not obtained yet significant electoral results (not even in specific places) and/or representation in Parliament, the European Parliament or Regional Councils, but have long been cited by sources and have a committed base of supporters willing to expand their respective articles. There are hundreds of such parties in Wikipedia and probably a thousand articles could be written of parties quite larger and more relevant than the two above cited, but still with negligible eletoral results, no results at all, scarce or no representation, and so on. I would like to have articles for all of them, but including them in the list would be unreasonable. Option B and E would variously and/or to different extents: a) complicate the housekeeping of this list, no longer be cohesive and consistent; b) generate several talks on the notability of individual parties, as well as several deletion proposals; c) generate a near-infinite and unsettled list; d) overload the list with irrelevant parties, only because they have an article, while still excluding others (again, no more consistency). It is not arbitrary to decide than only parties achieving a minimal share of the vote or representation in elected assemblies should be listed, while it would be quite arbitrary to decide which subjects are parties or not according to our personal preferences and not to political science: definitions of "political party" vary, but I think that we should adopt the broadest of the definitions, by including also parties which are parliamentary-only (like the early parties in most countries). 2) For the sake of readers and editors alike, I think it is quite useful to have coalitions of parties in the joint list (as of today), but I could live with a separate list for them. Otherwise, it is all-important to have an appendix listing those parliamentary groups formed by multiple parties and/or non-party independents (as of today), but I would not oppose the creation of another list with all parliamentary groups (thus including also the ones representative of parties), with start/end dates and statistics on members—that would be really great! 3) Finally, here is how I would slightly change the organisation of the list for political parties: 1. Active parties → 1a. Active main parties; 1b. Active minor parties; 1c. Active regional parties; 1d. Active overseas parties; 2. Former parties → 2a. Former main parties; 2b. Former minor parties; 2c. Former regional parties; 1d. Former overseas parties. I would divide among "main" and "minor" parties: I broadly agree with what User:SDC's proposed on how to divide them and "main" would be definitely more correct that "major". "Italians abroad" would be more correct than "overseas" as there could be also parties based in Europe. I would not talk of "national" parties as some parties are multi-regional, but neither national. --Checco (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Fourth statement by Autospark
As for retaining parliamentary groups and coalitions on the list page, we should consider that 1.) some notable historical parties may have been (by modern standards) parliamentary groups, and 2.) some deputies and senators will have been elected via coalition electoral lists rather than as members of organised parties. This should be taken into account before we may a clear choice as to whether to move from the status quo.

If we stick to the status quo and include coalitions and parliamentary groups, by proposal would be:

1. Active parties 1a1. Active major parties 1a2. Active minor parties 1a3. Active parliamentary groups 1b. Active regional parties 1c. Active overseas parties 1d. Active coalitions 2. Former parties 2a1. Former major parties 2a2. Former minor parties 1a3. Former parliamentary groups 2b. Former regional parties 2c. Former overseas parties 2d. Former coalitions

Without:

1. Active parties 1a1. Active major parties 1a2. Active minor parties 1b. Active regional parties 1c. Active overseas parties 2. Former parties 2a1. Former major parties 2a2. Former minor parties 2b. Former regional parties 2c. Former overseas parties

--Autospark (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Ninth statement by moderator
It appears that we will not have a consensus on whether the list needs inclusion rules other than general notability. Some editors think that Option B or Option E, both of which are general notability only, are sufficient, and that we do not need separate rules. User:Checco supports Option D and says that a set of rules beyond general notability is needed. That means that we will need to resolve the dispute by a Request for Comments. I will be composing a draft RFC within the next 24 hours, at which time I will post a link to it for review. Then it will be moved to the article talk page. In the meantime, you may make concise comments here about either the inclusion rule or the organization of the list.

If you want to discuss with each other, do so in the space for back-and-forth discussion, not in the space for statements.

Do not create any list articles, because that would be a backdoor change to the article. If you think that the article should be split, explain why in your statement below. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Tenth statement by moderator
I have created the draft RFC to distinguish between what we call Option D, which is the status quo, and what we call Options B or E, which are general notability. The draft RFC is available for viewing and comments at Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Draft RFC 2. You may comment on it in your statements below. Do not !vote in it yet; it isn't active yet.

This RFC decides whether to keep an entry criterion for minor parties, which is the difference between the options. We do not at this time need to ask the community to decide about the difference between major and minor parties, or any other difference. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Tenth statement by Scia Della Cometa
I agree to postpone the discussion on the division between main and minor parties at a later time.

As concerns page organization: I would list all parties in informative tables, which include the most important information, as in all other party lists: establishment (and disestablishment) date, political position, ideology, seats in the main assemblies, leader. I would also restore the original Italian name for the parties with an English page title.

As for the rules, we have to decide whether they should be lax or restrictive. The current rules are essentially unacceptable, because they allow the inclusion of unknown parties and arbitrarily exclude the inclusion of more relevant parties.


 * If the rules were to be restrictive, I would modify the proposal in the RFC as follows: having scored at least 0.5% of the vote in a general or European election; having elected at least one MP/MEP/regional councillor with their own lists; having been represented by at least 3 MPs or 3 MEPs (I would remove the criterion of regional councils, which is too complicated ).
 * If the rules were to be lax, I would propose the following criteria: having participated with their own list in a countrywide election; having obtained at least one seat with their own list in at least one of the main local elective assemblies (Regional councils, Provincial councils, Municipal councils of the provincial capital municipalities); being officially represented with its own delegation in the Italian Parliament, in the European Parliament or in a Regional Council.

An indispensable condition in both hypotheses: meeting the principle of WP:Notability, i.e. those parties already having their own article (not a micro-stub proposable for deletion) or those parties that don't yet have their own article but for which there is a high probability of creation (i.e., a large number of sources concerning them).

The second set of rules seems to me a good alternative to options B and E, because it would allow for a substantially complete list of known parties (and for those who ask, even Volt meets one of those criteria).

As for parliamentary groups and coalitions: I repeat my opinion, parliamentary groups have nothing to do with this page. No party list includes them (rightly so), like the List of political parties in France or the List of political parties in the United Kingdom (I mention these two lists because there are several pages about French or British parliamentary groups). On the page there is a mere list of parliamentary groups comprising several parties or independents: these groups should be listed in a satisfactory way on an apposite page, which explains what a parliamentary group is in Italy and how it works. The groups should also be organized in tables, showing the main information concerning them (assembly, composition, seats, ideologies, years of activity, etc.).

The coalitions could be more inherent than parliamentary groups, but only a specific page could list them in a satisfactory way. Currently, the page only lists the electoral coalitions that have obtained at least 10% of the votes. Instead I think we need an apposite page that distinguishes between electoral coalitions (distinguishing them between electoral lists and multi-party alliances) and government coalitions. All coalitions that include the parties already listed in the List of parties in Italy should be listed, and they should be organized in tables showing all the main information.

These improvements require space, therefore specific pages (which would be indicated at the bottom of the list of Italian parties).

It will then be necessary to clarify possible original researches, that is, on those subjects defined as "parties" according to the interpretation of the user who created those pages, even if the sources describe them in another way. Subjects such as the Historical Right and the Historical Left were "parties" according to the standards of the time (in the 19th century), so they can be listed among the parties. Obviously, those parameters have nothing to do with the parties of the latest century.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Tenth statement by Checco
I thought we should comment the RfC proposal and nothing else. As it is, the RfC includes an inaccurate assertion: "The inclusion criteria for active minor parties (and therefore for the appearance of a party in the article) is". That is not correct. Indeed, parties can be included in the list under different rules. The complete (and too complicate!) rules are: I would rewrite part of the RfC in the following way: ''The article currently has detailed inclusion lists for each sublist. The main inclusion criteria (and therefore for the appearance of a party in the article) is: having fulfilled at least one of the following conditions: having scored at least 0.5% of the vote in a countrywide (general/European) election; having elected at least one MP/MEP/regional councillor with their own lists; having been represented by at least 5 MPs, 3 MEPs or in 3 different Regional Councils. There are further conditions of admission for parties active only in one region and representing Italians abroad. That would be accurate. Thanks, --Checco (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * having obtained at least 0.5% of the vote in a countrywide (general/European) election;
 * having elected at least one MP/MEP/regional councillor with its own list;
 * having been represented by at least 5 MPs or at least 3 MEPs or in at least 5 regional councils;
 * having obtained at least 2% of the vote in a regional election (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol) or in a countrywide (general/European) election at the regional level (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol) — this rule is applied solely to political parties active only in one region or autonomous province in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol);
 * having been represented by 5% of the elects in a regional council (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol)
 * having obtained at least 15% in a constituency for Italians abroad in a general election.

Eleventh statement by moderator
When I created a subpage for this thread of DRN, that is separate from the main noticeboard, I did that in order to prevent this thread from crowding out the other discussions at DRN. I didn't do it so that any one or two editors could fill the subpage up with material that is too long to read. I did not intend to restart a lengthy discussion about what the details of the detailed inclusion rules should be. The RFC is intended to ask whether there should be detailed inclusion rules at all, not whether they should be lax or strict. The RFC, if adopted, would replace all of the rules by the requirement only that the party satisfy general notability.

I have reworded the draft RFC as advised by User:Checco.

It appears that User:Scia Della Cometa is favoring some version of D after all, because in the collapsed post they discussed whether the rules should be lax or strict. If User:Checco and User:Scia Della Cometa agree on D, then we can cancel the RFC, and discuss the detailed rules, unless any other editors still favor B or E.

Do any editors still favor deleting the detailed inclusion rules and replacing them with general notability? If so, we will start the RFC shortly. If not, we will have to figure out what the disagreement still is.

Each editor may provide one paragraph about the organization of the list. Each editor may state or restate in one paragraph what option they want for whether there should be detailed inclusion rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Eleventh statement by Scia Della Cometa
I try to explain myself: I am still in favor of option B. With common sense, users must be able to know which parties to include and which to exclude. It works like this in all party lists. However, I think that the RFC needs to be formulated better: it asks users if they are in favor of keeping the current rules or to delete them.

I think it would be better to first ask users whether or not they are in favor of detailed inclusion rules (regardless of what they are). If yes were to prevail, a discussion on the rules should be initiated.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Eleventh statement by Yakme
It is becoming difficult to keep up with the speed of your replies and new rounds. I have not read all, but I still strongly favor option B, as do most of the editors who contributed to this discussion. They probably got bored after the eight (!) basically identical rounds of replying to whether they favor option B. This is not a dispute between Checco and SDC anymore, it cannot be solved by an agreement between those two editors alone, therefore I do believe that an RfC on this is needed. Yakme (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Eleventh statement by Checco
I would love to avoid the RfC and go directly to discuss the detailed rules, that in my view should be reasonable, simple and inclusive. The RfC question is clearly better now than before, even though one might still think that the main condition for the appearance of a party in the list is the "active minor parties". Also, it should be mentioned that the same rules are applied to former parties. By replacing detailed rules with general notability, the risk is that the list would become near-infine and no longer consistent and comprehensive. It would be easier to add current parties with negligible electoral results than former parties with much more relevant electoral results, but little or no significant coverage in sources. The current list is very balanced and comprehensive (and it is, frankly, false that particularly relevant parties are not included: 0.5% of the vote in countrywide elections! 2% of the vote in regional elections!), a list based on pure notability and/or having articles in Wikipedia would be the opposite, not to mention the fact that there would be neverending discussions on which parties are really parties and deletion proposals. --Checco (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I am proposing a new text for the RfC (it is important that editors understand that keeping the current rules as they are is not an option):
 * Should the list have detailed inclusion rules or should they be replaced by general notability guidelines?
 * The article currently has detailed inclusion lists for each sublist. The inclusion criteria for active minor parties (and therefore for the appearance of a party in the article) is:
 *  having fulfilled at least one of the following conditions: having scored at least 0.5% of the vote in a countrywide (general/European) election; having elected at least one MP/MEP/regional councillor with their own lists; having been represented by at least 5 MPs, 3 MEPs or in 3 different Regional Councils. 
 * There are further conditions of admission for parties active only in one region and representing Italians abroad. The same rules are applied also to former parties.
 * The purpose of this RFC is to decide whether to have detailed rules or replace them with general notability. If the community votes Yes to having the rules, there will be a subsequent discussion on specific changes to the current rules. If the community votes No and deletes the inclusion rules, the next topic will be the organization of the list into sublists.
 * Please make a brief statement in the Survey along with a statement of Yes to have detailed inclusion rules, or No to replace them with general notability guidelines. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. The Thread Discussion section is for back-and-forth discussion.

What do you think about it? Please improve my English, if it is not OK. --Checco (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Twelfth Statement by Moderator
I have made a few changes to the draft RFC based on the comments by User:Checco. If anyone else wants to propose changes to clarify that it is on deleting the detailed rules, please do so as soon as possible. I have tried to make the RFC clear and will continue to try to clarify it before it is published. I see that Checco and I have different concepts of how to word the RFC. Checco's proposed wording of the RFC is whether to have detailed inclusion rules. Since the detailed inclusion rules are the status quo, my draft of the RFC asks whether to delete the detailed inclusion rules. The next main topic of discussion should be which way to word the RFC, whether to word it to establish detailed rules or to delete the detailed rules. Discussion of the organization of the list into sublists can continue, as a lower priority decision.

Discussion of the details of the detailed inclusion rules is a distraction; we are deciding whether to have detailed inclusion rules, and how to print the ballots on whether to have detailed inclusion rules. We are not discussing alternate detailed inclusion rules.

I would like to get the RFC out within a week. Please provide any comments on how to word the RFC, in the Twelfth Statements. You may also comment on organization of the article, but the main topic should be the RFC. Should Yes be to have detailed inclusion rules, and No to rely on general notability; or should Yes be to delete the detailed inclusion rules, and No to maintain them because they are status quo? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Twelfth Statement by Checco
I see the Moderator's point. In my view, it is important that participating editors do not think that we are discussing on keeping the current rules, but rules in general. Can we do anything to clarify this? Would it be an idea not to mention the current rules in the RfC question? --Checco (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Twelfth Statement by Scia Della Cometa
This time I agree with Checco: the Rfc should not mention the current rules. In the case that users should express themselves in favor of maintaining some rules, these should be decided in a subsequent discussion.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Twelfth Statement by Yakme
The Moderator's question is clear enough. I do not think that Checco and SDC intend to "revolutionize" the current rules: the discussion they were having is whether to change the threshold of 2% with 1%, or 5 MPs with 3 MPs or substitute a provincial councillor with a regional councillor, or something on this level. To first approximation this amounts to "keeping the current rules", just slightly tweak them (probably to include or exclude ad hoc the Rhaetian Populars or similar?). So I think that the Moderator's question is a good representation of the current dispute about having specialized inclusion rules. Also, it avoids having people discussing which rules to have, and hopefully makes people focus on whether to have specialized rules on top of WP:GNG. Yakme (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Twelfth Statement (kinda??) by Nightenbelle
First of all, I apologize for my absence. My community got hit by a kind of extreme snow storm for our area and I was without internet for a few days.

Second- I think the RFC wording is clear and fine. But- if we have all except one person here in agreement with notability as the threshold- even if it makes the list long (which is perfectly acceptable by WP standards), I don't understand why an RFC is necessary- we have a consensus. However, I bow to the process and will participate. I just find it unnecessary at this point. We have one person insisting on their way, and the rest in agreement of another way. As to the organization- I am a fan of simplicity and less being more categories. I dislike the word "main" and because it implies value, or rather dominance which if unwarranted. I would prefer major / minor or large / small. But, I don't feel strongly enough to hold up the process. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Thirteenth statement by moderator on Italian parties
I have tweaked the wording of the RFC so that it no longer mentions the existing rules. The editors are requested to comment further on the draft RFC. If there are no comments, I will activate the RFC. This dispute has been going on for long enough that I don't want to try to close it on the basis of a local consensus here, but to submit it to the community.

The editors may also comment on how the list should be organized, and such comments will have a lower priority. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Thirteenth statement by Scia Della Cometa
The question now seems perfect to me. For me we can proceed with the Rfc.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Thirteenth statement by Yakme
I would have actually still shown the rules on the RfC, as a useful example. An editor who is new to this issue might get a wrong impression of what is meant by "detailed inclusion rules". But if it is just me worrying, just go ahead and post it. We have already spent enough time on this. Yakme (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thirteenth statement by Checco
I appreciate the Moderator's work on the RfC proposal. I would simplify it even more:
 * Should the detailed inclusion rules for this list be deleted, and replaced by general notability guidelines?
 * The article currently has detailed inclusion lists for each sublist. The inclusion criteria are found in the current list article. They are not repeated here, because the question here is whether to delete them.
 * The purpose of this RFC is to delete the detailed rules, in which case parties will be listed if they satisfy general notability, and so appear in a list as either a blue link or a red link. If the community votes No to deletion of the rules, thus keeping the rules, there will be subsequent discussion on specific changes to the rules. If the community votes Yes and deletes the inclusion rules, the next topic will be the organization of the list into sublists.
 * Please make a brief statement in the Survey along with a statement of Yes to delete the detailed inclusion rules, or No to retain the rules; if the rules are retained, we will then discuss changes to the detailed rules. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. The Thread Discussion section is for back-and-forth discussion.

The initial question would be even better as follows:
 * Should the list continue to have detailed rules or should they be replaced by general notability guidelines?

Hope the RfC starts as soon as possible, even though I am likely to loose the argument. --Checco (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thirteenth statement by Nightenbelle
Looks good to me as is chief! Nightenbelle (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Fourteenth statement by moderator on Italian parties
We need to formulate another RFC, because the editors who have responded to the current RFC have made some valid points, one in particular, which is that notability applies to articles, not list entries. This seems to be a case where the responses to the RFC indicate that we should be asking a question with somewhat more nuance. I think that we should let the RFC run at least until we can agree on an alternate RFC, at which point we can post a new RFC. The old one can then be ignored and allowed to die.

My first thought is that we should ask the community to choose between four options:
 * A. No rule.  This was our Option A which we considered and rejected, but maybe we should include it.
 * B. General notability.  The same as our Option B.  The community is currently voting against this option, but we need to continue to allow them to vote against it (or for it).
 * C. Keep the current rules.  This was our Option D.  We need to let the community know what they will be keeping.
 * D. A different set of detailed rules.

Those are the choices that I think we should let the community choose between. I would like each editor to comment, not at too much length, and I will start drafting a new RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Fourtheenth statement by Yakme
I think that simply "no rule at all" is not an option by WP standards: it is better to specify that the bare minimum condition has to be verifiability – otherwise anyone could come up with made-up parties. So in order to cover all reasonable possibilities and also keep the number of options to four, I propose:


 * A. No rule: every verifiable party that exists or existed in Italy should be part of the list.
 * B. Apply general notability guidelines or organizations-related notability guidelines to list items. Basically list all parties that have (or would soon have) an article on WP.
 * C. Keep the current rules or its structure (inclusion thresholds based on vote share and/or number of MPs). A future RfC on how to modify (or retain) the current rules will be opened.
 * D. A different logic for inclusion rules. Most probably a future RfC on the inclusion rules will to be opened.

For case C, I would also display an example of the current rules, so that editors who are not familiar with the topic could easily get the picture. After the formulation of the question, I would also add a bit of context for external editors, and explain that after months of discussions on the current rules, editors noticed that nobody could point to the exact place where the current rules where discussed and approved by consensus (looks like they were first built on it.wiki – where exactly? – and then exported to en.wiki); therefore this RfC could hopefully be the first place on en.wiki where a clear consensus about this list is achieved. Yakme (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Fourtheenth statement by Scia Della Cometa
I would have preferred to directly poll users first if they would like to delete the current rules.

However, the proposed question is also okay with me. Unlike what I have stated in the past, I believe it is essential to list all the current rules in the question (to make the current page status evident). It also seems important to me to make a summary background (i.e. months of discussions on the rules without any concrete results). As for the options, I substantially agree with Yakme.

About the rules: not even Checco was able to indicate exactly where they were decided. Anyway it seems that this kind of rules were decided for the template of parties in it.wikipedia a long time ago (maybe even more than fifteen years ago). Surely they were not decided for the list of parties nor in en.wikipedia. Later he may have imported them into this list.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Fourtheenth statement by Checco
I think that the ongoing RfC is clear enough: specific rules or general notability? Regarding the fact that "notability applies to articles, not list entries", that is the core of my argument: the list is useful as long as it is reasonably long and consistent, via admission rules. I thus disagree with any new RfCs, especially not binary ones. Specifically, I think that option A is too similar to option B, at the end of the day, as general notability would basically mean "no rule". More important, I think that it is pointelss to have both option C and option D, as no-one wants to retain the current rules. We need to figure out just one thing before proceeding: does the community think that specific conditions of admission to this list are OK or not? It is a general and abstract question and has nothing to do with the current rules, that, despite being changed recently, do not convince even those who agreed on those compromises. --Checco (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Fourteenth statement by Nightenbelle
I agree with Yakme's proposed revision to the new RFC. The intention was to have people discuss General Notability or current rules- but that is not what they are discussing or voting on- they are voting on general notability or NO rules- and while I'm more okay with no rules than I am with the existing rules, my preference doesn't dictate what we do. So we must re-do the RFC to clearly offer other participants the correct options so that no editor assumes incorrectly that vetoing one listed option means accepting another listed option when the editors voting are stating their preference for an option we didn't even list at all. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Fifteenth statement by moderator on Italian parties
I have developed a new draft RFC at Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Draft RFC 3. Please review and comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Civility is still the fourth pillar of Wikipedia in back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Fifteenth statement by Scia Della Cometa
I agree with the RFC proposed. To be complete it only needs a small addition, since not all the current rules have been indicated: For completeness, even these two rules should be indicated among the current ones.
 * having scored at least 2% of the vote in a regional election or in a general/European election at the regional level (for regional parties);
 * having scored at least 15% of the vote in one constituency abroad in a general election (for parties of Italian abroad).

I apologize for the slightly altered tone of my last statement here below, but reading certain statements annoys me, after having debated for months to add other parties on the list and make it more consistent and complete.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Fifteenth statement by Checco
I strongly oppose the new RfC proposal for the reasons I already explained above and below. In my view, there is no need of a new RfC because the ongoing one, despite some doubts I raised, is clear enough. However, I could accept a new RfC, provided that it includes only two options, like: There should also be a clear note, that, if option Y prevails, changes to the current rules will be decided (as those rules are not OK with anyone). By the way, the current, much complicate, rules are the following: having fulfilled at least one of the following conditions: having obtained at least 0.5% of the vote in a countrywide (general/European) election; having elected at least one MP/MEP/regional councillor with its own list; having been represented by at least 5 MPs or at least 3 MEPs or in at least 5 regional councils; having obtained at least 2% of the vote in a regional election (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol) or in a countrywide (general/European) election at the regional level (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol) [this rule is applied solely to political parties active only in one region or autonomous province in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol)];    having been represented by 5% of the elects in a regional council (provincial in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol); having obtained at least 15% in a constituency for Italians abroad in a general election. They should not be mentioned nor proposed as an option. --Checco (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * X No rule except verifiability — every party that exists or existed in Italy and is documented may be included in the list;
 * Y A specific set of rules — every party that respects the conditions of admission may be included in the list.

Fifteenth statement by Yakme
The RFC version 3 might be complete enough, so not to raise inconsistencies and confusion in other editors. Yakme (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Sixteenth Statement by Moderator on Italian Parties
It appears that one editor disagrees with the new draft RFC. Each editor is asked to make a brief statement saying either why they disagree with the new RFC or why they agree with it. The new RFC is intended to clarify what the community actually thinks is appropriate. So any statement of opposition should explain either why the RFC will not clarify community views, or what will be better.

I would like either to get a new RFC running within 48 hours, or to get agreement that we don't need a new RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Sixteenth statement by Checco
As I explained in my 15th statement, I oppose a new RfC because the ongoing one is clear enough. We need to determine whether having specific rules of admission is OK, not whether the current rules of admission should be confirmed. A new RfC with four options, some of which are not supported by anyone, is a little bit pointless. --Checco (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Sixteenth statement by Yakme
The fact that the current RfC #2 has caused misunderstandings and confused replies in the Survey is obvious. The current RfC #2 will result in "no consensus", so it is better to prepare another, clearer, more effective RfC (like the one the Moderator and I proposed). The four options of the proposed RfC #3 should cover all possibilities, and have been shown support by various editors. In particular: option A has my support and apparently the support of some of the editors who replied to RfC #2; option B has had a lot of support on this DRN discussion; option C is to be understood as "retaining the current structure of the rules" and not exactly the current rules, and therefore has the support of two editors on this discussion; option D is meant to be used for anything else that we might have missed and could be interesting. If editors will use an order of preference in their replies, then hopefully a robust consensus can be achieved. Yakme (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Sixteenth statement by Scia della Cometa
I absolutely agree with the Draft RFC 3. I too initially thought that the previous Rfc was clear, but it is evident that it was not so for many users, since three users voted "no" in the unawareness of giving a vote totally against their ideas (ie in favor of a set of stringent rules). It is a faulty Rfc, it is undeniable. The new RFC, on the other hand, is extremely clear and I think it should be started as soon as possible, while the previous one must necessarily be closed.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Seventeenth Statement by Moderator on Italian Parties
I have activated the second RFC. I will be deactivating the first RFC by removing the RFC tag shortly. I intend to leave it alone, so that the comments can be available to the closer when the new RFC is closed.

I would suggest that discussion of how to organize the list should be deferred until the consensus to the RFC starts to emerge, because it will be affected by the result of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Eighteenth statement by moderator
This is sort of a procedural inquiry. I have two options with regard to this dispute. I can leave the current case open on hold until mid-March, when it will be closed with a conclusion, and can then resume discussion of the categories of sublists. Or I can close this case, and we will know that any of the editors can open a new case if there is disagreement about how to organize the list. It doesn't really matter to me. What do you want? If I don't get at least one request to keep it open, or if a majority of editors request that I close it, I will close the case, without prejudice to opening a new one. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Eighteenth statement by Yakme
It currently looks like the last RfC will also likely be closed as "no consensus". So I do not think that closing this discussion is a good idea. We will need to open a new, possibly clearer, RfC with the simplest question "Should the current rules be scrapped, or kept?" Yakme (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Eighteenth statement by Scia Della Cometa
I think that this discussion must be maintained and resumed in March, now it has been temporarily suspended pending the outcome of the Rfc. Let's wait to see which option will prevail in the RFC. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Eighteenth statement by Checco
I have no preference regarding the procedural inquiry, but I definitely appreciate the Moderator's guidance. This said, I was right when I envisioned that a four-way RfC was a mistake. The previous, binary RfC was much better. However, if no consensus emerges, we have to acknowledge that having specific conditions of admission is not a bad idea or, at least, not a controversial one. The best thing to do would be to start discussing new conditions of admission, starting from the current ones. --Checco (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Nineteenth statement by moderator
In response to a ping from User:Scia Della Cometa, it is correct that in a few days, Legobot will remove the RFC tag, and the RFC can be listed for formal closure. Then we will wait for formal closure. There is no need to hurry to remove the rules prior to closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Nineteenth statement by Scia Della Cometa
I was probably misunderstood, I did not say to remove the rules now or immediately after March 13th. I meant that on the basis of the opinions expressed in the RFC, when the discussion is officially closed, there will no longer be a real reason to keep the rules on the page, as it will be clear that they are not supported by consensus.

I think instead it would be useful to start thinking about the next step of the discussion right now.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Twentieth statement by moderator
On the one hand, I am not in any hurry to start discussion of the organization of list, or any other topic, until the RFC is closed. On the other hand, any editor who wants to offer an idea for discussion is welcome to do so. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Twentieth statement by Scia Della Cometa
@User:Robert McClenon: The Legobot has removed the RFC template, therefore that discussion can be considered officially concluded. As I have already stated, from the RFC is emerged that currently there is not the consensus to keep the rules on the page: : 7 favorable opinions for options A or B (no detailed rules) 3 favorable opinions for C or D (4 favorable opinions including Fieari, that in my view he/she gave an inconsistent opinion, since option B is absolutely not more restrictive than option B/C).

My proposal is to remove the current rules and start reasoning about the set up of the page (as well as deciding once and for all whether the verifiability or general notability of the parties is better as a selection filter). If not even the result of that Rfc is enough to remove objectively non-consenual rules, this discussion will go on indefinitely: unfortunately it is not possible to have a unanimous consensus on a single solution.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Twentieth statement by Checco
I do not see a clear consensus on removing the detailed rules and it is unfair to sum A with B and C with D. On this, I agreed with User:Fieari. Clearly, the rules can be changed through consensus and I am always open to any discussion. I would ask the Moderator to express his view on the result of the RfC and propose a path forward. --Checco (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Twenty-first statement by moderator
This is silly, arguing over the results of an RFC before it has been formally closed. I have not yet requested formal closure, and there has not yet been a formal closure, But arguing over how to interpret an RFC that has not been formally closed is not constructive or collaborative. I will request formal closure. That's what it's for. In the meantime, you should either wait, or discuss any improvements to the article that do not depend on whether we keep or get rid of the detailed rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Twentysecond statement by moderator
I have requested formal closure of the RFC. This may happen in a few days or in a week or more. In the meantime, I would advise continued patience about whether we will keep and revise the rules or delete the rules. Discussion of other topics having to do with the list article continues to be permitted (but may be unlikely). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Twentysecond statement by Scia Della Cometa
I don't think it's silly to analyze the views of an RFC after the last opinion was expressed almost a month ago (on February 19th). There is no rush on removing the rules now, of course, but I don't see the reason why we have to continue to postpone this discussion: no other users will intervene in that Rfc and the result will not change, there is not yet its formal closure, but the result could already be easily analyzed now. In my view, we are extending the time of a discussion that already seems endless for a formality. But if it has been decided to wait for the "official" closure of the RFC to analyze it, then I will wait for it. Surely it is better to proceed step by step and not start now other discussions about the other issues of the page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Twentysecond statement by Checco
I carefully read User:Isabelle Belato's closure of the RfC. Her analysis is quite thorough and balanced. Her conclusion is: "There is consensus for more inclusive rules for adding parties to this list, with a slight preference for B". Option B was the worst outcome I feared, but indeed that is just a slight preference. There was not a landslide victory for any option or camp (actually, there were no clear camps as there were some users like me who supported C and D, but also preferred A to B). I think that compromise could be reached with looser and more inclusive conditions of admission, not with no rules at all. I would make sure that no party with similar conditions of those included is excluded. The fact that there have been thousands of parties and elections in Italy makes this difficult and, as you know, this was my main argument for C and D. Anyway, we should find a way to make it possible. --Checco (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Twentythird statement by moderator on Italian political parties
We have had a formal closure of the RFC by User:Isabelle Belato, for which I thank her. There is, as the closer noted, some support for option B, which does away with the detailed rules and replaces them with general notability.

User:Checco still wants a set of rules and wants to discuss what they consider a compromise in terms of a looser set of rules. Since option B, general notability, had the most support, although not a majority, the previous rules should be discarded. Any discussion of a new set of rules should start with the assumption that general notability is the current rule. User:Checco, or any other editor, may propose a new set of rules. There can be limited discussion of any new set of rules, but then any proposed new set of rules will be submitted to another RFC, and the RFC will be Yes/No.

If any editor thinks that any political party that has not currently been listed but is the subject of an article does not satisfy general notability, they may identify it here, and we can discuss whether to delete its article. Anyone can nominate any article for deletion, but I propose that each editor who wants to delete any parties from the encyclopedia first make a list here, and we can discuss the list before bundling them together in a deletion discussion.

Before the RFC was submitted, the other topic of discussion and possible controversy was how to organize the lists of political parties. Each editor should state concisely how the lists of political parties should be organized. After each editor has stated how they want to organize the lists of political parties, I will decide how we proceed with further discussion of the organization of the lists.

Each editor may also list any other issues about the article that should be resolved. Each editor may ask any questions about how we will be resuming this discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Twentythird statements by Checco
What is "general notability"? Arguably, all parties having participated in elections and having been represented in elective assemblies are definitely notable and, arguably, only one institutional source (electoral archives, Parliament, Regional Councils, etc.) is "significant coverage". This would open the lists also to "civic lists", that especially at the municipal level tend to have an organisation and, scientifically speaking, are local parties. There is an additional problem: recentism. It is easy to find news sources on active minor or micro parties, while it is more difficult to find sources on larger parties active in the 19th and 20th centuries. Finally, there are two collateral problems: notable parties lacking an article (the current red links are definitely notable parties, having gained substantial electoral results) and not very notable parties having an article (I would try to avoid their inclusion in the list, but also their deletion). That is why I think that some rules should be still part of the list, otherwise anyone could add anything. In my view, those rules should be very simple, like having been represented in elective assemblies (in my view, Parliament, European Parliament and Regional Councils, not Provincial and Municipal Councils, for the reasons stated above) or having obtained a minimal share of the vote (say 0.5% countrywide or 0.5–2% regionwide). Leaving aside regional politics for a moment, another solution would be to have three categories of parties: big parties, minor parties and all the other parties anyone could add. I am in favour of the first option. I confirm that I would organise the list in the following way: 1. Active parties → 1a. Active main parties; 1b. Active minor parties; 1c. Active regional parties; 1d. Active overseas parties; 2. Former parties → 2a. Former main parties; 2b. Former minor parties; 2c. Former regional parties; 1d. Former overseas parties. Finally, at some point we should deal also with Template:Italian political parties. No conditions of admission also there? --Checco (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Twentythird statements by Scia Della Cometa
I read problems that are common to all countries (overexposure of recent parties compared to old parties, hypothetical infinite lists, etc.), but no list of parties (except the Italian one) has ever had detailed or restrictive rules and no user has never posed these problems on those lists. A complete list of parties is a utopia for almost any country. A party that ran for elections, which obtained 0.00% of the votes and which is not mentioned by any relevant source, does not meet the principle of general notability. 5 out of 11 users preferred option B as first choice, one user as second choice (behind an even more inclusive option, option A). Another user expressed their choice for the more inclusive option, option A. It is not an overwhelming majority, but we can say that, of all the options, there is substantial consensus to remove the rules and that the preferred option is the one concerning the general notability (option B). This does not prevent other users from proposing alternative sets of rules, but if they don't obtain consensus, the page must be based on the principle of general notability. The common sense of the users is more than enough to determine if a party can be on the page or if it has been inserted for promotional purposes, we don't need arbitrary rules to establish it.

So I propose to include all parties that respect the principle of general notability (like any other normal party list) and to organize them as follows: Active parties → 1. Parliamentary parties; 1a. National parliamentary parties (by order of MPs and MEPs); 1b. Regional parliamentary parties; 1c. Overseas parliamentary parties 2. Extraparliamentary parties (by alphabetical order) 3. Regional parties (by region and alphabetical order). Former (or defunct) parties → 1. Former national parties (by dissolution date); 2. Former regional parties (by dissolution date); 3. Former overseas parties.

I would organize the parties in tables, with: original name (if the party name is translated), establishment date, dissolution date (only for former parties), political position (i.e. political spectrum), ideology (one or more), leader (only for active parties). I would enter the current number of MPs and MEPs for the active parliamentary parties, while I would enter the maximum number of MPs and MEPs (with relative year) for the defunct parties (this would be an automatic mechanism for distinguishing major and minor parties, without the necessity to establish arbitrary rules of distinction).

The template is different from the list, it must necessarily contain fewer parties. I don't agree with the current rules of that template and I think it should be organized differently, however, almost no template doesn't list all current parties from a particular country.

I have a list of parties that I would like to propose for deletion, but I will show it later. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Twentyfourth statement by moderator on Italian political parties
We will not reargue whether to have inclusion rules for parties, and we will not reargue interpretation of the result of the RFC. Parties may be included in the list if they pass general notability. User:Checco asks: What is "general notability"? It is defined in this guideline. This guideline has been in effect in Wikipedia for more than a decade. It is not always a clear guideline, but it is the guideline that is used in most topic areas in the English Wikipedia. If any editor wants to propose a specific new set of rules that are different from the previous rules, we can start another RFC, which will run while this dispute resolution is continuing. But we will not reargue the results of the RFC, unless someone has a specific proposal to submit to a Yes-No RFC. We will now discuss organization of the list.

Here is a comparison of the two proposals on organization of the list. The first proposal is:
 * 1. Active parties
 * 1a. Active main parties
 * 1b. Active minor parties
 * 1c. Active regional parties
 * 1d. Active overseas parties.
 * 2. Former parties
 * 2a. Former main parties
 * 2b. Former minor parties
 * 2c. Former regional parties
 * 2d. Former overseas parties.

The second proposal is:
 * 1. Active parties
 * 1a. Parliamentary parties
 * 1a1. National parliamentary parties by order of MPs and MEPs
 * 1a2. Regional parliamentary parties
 * 1a3. Overseas parliamentary parties
 * 1b. Extraparliamentary parties (alphabetically)
 * 1c. Regional parties
 * 2. Former parties
 * 2a. Former national parties by dissolution date
 * 2b. Former regional parties by dissolution date
 * 2c. Former overseas parties

I will ask whether a listing in order of the number of MPs and MEPs avoids the need to draw a line between major and minor parties. Other than that, one difference is whether to break the former national parties into major and minor or to list them by dissolution date. The other difference is whether to list extraparliamentary parties separately. I have a question. Are they extraparliamentary because they do not nominate candidates for Parliament, or because they have failed to have any candidates elected? I will ask each editor to make a statement of no more than two paragraphs as to whether they will accept the other organization, and why they support their own proposal.

We will discuss the template after discussing the organization of the list article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Twentyfourth statement by Scia della Cometa
I think my proposal is effecacious because it avoids an arbitrary distinction between major and minor parties. A distinction between major and minor parties requires the invention of new rules, which would be original research. With the indication of the current number of MPs / MEPs and the maximum number of MPs / MEPs for the former parties, readers can immediately see the balance of power between the parties, without arbitrary rules of distinction. For this reason I do not like the other proposal: we should start discussing what is a main party and what is a minor party.

Now, I will answer the question about extra-parliamentary and parliamentary parties: it is simply a distinction between parties with or without seats in the Italian or European Parliament. Some parties are born after the elections, through splits, such as Italia Viva and Coraggio Italia. Other parties got seats within larger parties (for example, the Pensioners' Party got a seat among the ranks of Forza Italia). Other parties failed to get seats in parliament, but some MPs joined them later (such as the Communist Party or the Greens). These are parliamentary parties. An extraparliamentary party is simply a party without seats (it could theoretically have won one seat, but lost it later, if the elected member joins another party). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Twentyfourth statement by Yakme
I am glad we finally have a verdict on the RFC. Regarding the organization I support the structure of the second option that was proposed – that is, no major/minor separation. A listing with parties ordered by number of MPs or MEPs will remove the need for an arbitrary cut between "major" and "minor" parties, and indeed I think that a classification into major (or main) and minor is a form of WP:OR. Regarding the current parties, I would have the national parties ordered by MPs, and the regional parties ordered alphabetically by region, and then ordered by MRPs within each region. The extra-parliamentary includes active parties which currently do not have seats either by choice or because they lost in the latest election(s).

Regarding the former parties, I would really just have a separate list article. Anyway even if listed in this article, I support separating the former parties into a few categories (like, pre-Fascism, first Republic, second Republic). This would make it much more convenient to order them, for example, by their highest number of MPs reached in their history, rather than chronologically or alphabetically. The latest options would not be optimal, because then we would have all former parties on the same level, while an ordering by number of MPs would again avoid the need to come up with an arbitrary cut between "major" and "minor". Yakme (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Twentyfourth statement by Checco
Italian party politics is unfortunately exceptional in the Western world, that is why some rules are needed, if we want to have a stable, consistent and comprehensive list. For the same reason, I oppose having the numbers of MPs and MEPs because they always change in Italy: a compromise would be to have them only for larger parties, at it is now. For the identical reason, I also oppose entering political positions and ideologies because they are a matter of extended debate: having them would simply mean adding controversy. Here is my compromise version: Main parties would be those having or having had autonomous parliamentary groups, while minor parties those not having or never having had autonomous parliamentary groups. I am sure User:SDC will like the proposal, as it is something he has long argued for. Extra-parliamentary parties should be mainly those having "failed to have any candidates elected", but, if there are no rules of admission of any kind, all parties. Regardless of their parliamentary representation, regional parties and overseas parties would be parties active only in one region (including autonomous provinces) and parties active only among Italians abroad, respectively. Of course, the list should continue to be one and to keep including coalitions and parliamentary groups, as defined now, thus "parliamentary groups not directly connected to a political party or coalition of political parties". We contribute for readers, not for ourselves: it is clear to me that readers benefit from a joint list. --Checco (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Active parties
 * 1a. Main parliamentary parties
 * 1b. Minor parliamentary parties
 * 1c. Extra-parliamentary parties
 * 1d. Regional parties
 * 1e. Overseas parties
 * 2. Former parties
 * 1a. Main parliamentary parties
 * 2b. Minor parliamentary parties
 * 2c. Extra-parliamentary parties
 * 2d. Regional parties
 * 2e. Overseas parties

Twentyfourth statement by Autospark
I think we should investigate the suggestion by Checco to divide parties into Main/major versus Minor cateogires in regards to having had electoral lists – it might offer a solution which could be relatively easy to verify and research. I think if MP and MEP counts are included, as per SDC and Yakme's preference, then no other information should be included (ideology, etc) to keep any to-and-fro-ing with edits to a minimum. Also, I would like Yakme to elaborate on his ideas for having a separate list article for Former Parties - does he envision that significant former parties would still be included on this article, albeit perhaps in truncated form?--Autospark (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Twentyfifth statement by moderator
First, we agree that the parties will first be divided into active parties and former parties.

Can we agree to divide the active parties into those that have MPs and those that do not?

If the lists of parties are in Wikitable format, can the tables be sortable so that an editor who wants to see them by number of MPs can do so, and an editor who wishes to view the list alphabetically can do so? Can the tables of former parties be sortable both alphabetically and by date of dissolution?

I think that the matters on which there is disagreement are close enough so that I will allow back-and-forth discussion for a few days (maybe four to seven), and I will see whether progress is being made. Be civil and concise. It is very important to sign your statements. Do not change anything that has been posted (even by yourself after you have posted it - the other person might be in the process of replying). Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Twentyfifth statements by editors and back-and-forth
I agree that parties should be divided into active and former parties, as well as into those that have (or have had) MPs and those that do (or did) not. I would also divide parliamentary parties into those having (or having had) a parliamentary group of their own and those not having (or having had) it, as User:SDC has long proposed. I would not aplly the Wikitable format as I oppose including the number of MPs and MEPs for practical reasons: the list should be constantly updated, as changes of affiliation are very frequent in Italy. Also, I strongly oppose including political positions and ideologies because we would be always in the process of debating them: any reader interested can go to specific party articles. --Checco (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC))


 * I absolutely agree with the moderator on the proposal to make the wikitable sortable by alphabetical order or by order of MPs or by order of foundation / dissolution. I think the wikitable format is indispensable, it is used in almost all party lists for one simple reason: it works. All the lists (including the list in it.wikipedia) use a wikitable showing the most important data of the parties, wanting to deprive the page of this information is equivalent to wanting to make (or better, keep) the page extremely poor. Readers should have the right to immediately see the indispensable information of each party from the list. I don't understand all these attempts to make the page content poor. Why should the List of Italian parties be different and poorer in content than all the others if there are users willing to improve it? I honestly don't see any valid reason.
 * Checco is right when he says that the data relating to the Italian MPs are extremely variable, but this problem also concerns the infoboxes of the same parties: should we remove this data also in the pages of the parties? If the page were not always updated in real time it would not be a drama. Information such as leader, political spectrum and ideology are of fundamental importance. We can agree on the inclusion of only the main ideology (although I would prefer 2/3 ideologies), as long as the political position is included in the table. Could there be some contrasts? We are here to find a solution to contrasts, it is not a valid reason to permanently deprive the page of important information.
 * IMHO it is possible to make a division between parties currently represented by parliamentary groups and smaller parliamentary parties, but this becomes absolutely more complicated for the former parties. I think former parties should be organized differently than active parties. I'd rather keep them on the same page as active parties, but it's too early to talk about a split page. My humble advice: maybe it is now better to focus on active parties and discuss the former parties later.
 * Finally, I reiterate my idea on coalitions and parliamentary groups: are readers more interested in seeing them in a poor "shopping list" style list on a page that does not concern them, or in specific pages where they are described more precisely? For me there is no shadow of a doubt, the second solution is better. The Italian parliamentary groups need a page that describes them; same reasoning for coalitions (governmental or electoral). I don't see why to differentiate the list of Italian parties on this aspect as well.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * An editor has written: I don't understand all these attempts to make the page content poor.  No one is trying to make the content poor.  There is disagreement over how to make the content better.  I remind the editors that the assumption of good faith means that everyone is trying to improve the encyclopedia.  We don't agree on how to do that, which is why we are here.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There are concerns about the need to update the tables frequently. Any table containing information about political parties in any representative democracy will have to be updated at least every time that there is an election, either a general election or a by-election.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the opposition to Wikitable format. If you don't want it, please explain why not.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon: Just a precistation, maybe I explained myself wrong: I'm not assuming bad faith, what I meant is that a page privated of important information seems "objectively" poorer to me, so I don't sincerely understand why someone prefers the list in that way. I think that a list organized through a wikitable similar to all the other pages is objectively better, so I struggle to understand who is opposed to it, but in this case there is no assumption of bad faith, just a difficulty in understanding. Then, it is true that the level of Party switching in Italy is much above the average, but if the wikitable is not always updated in real time it is not a big problem. In any case, I also draw the attention of other users who have participated in the DRN (Nightenbelle, Yakme, North8000, Autospark) to give their opinion, in order to continue the discussion. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I'm not in deep enough here to have an opinion on the details. My recommendation remains to include all and only those which have a Wikipedia article. IMO that will pretty much solve everything. I'd do it in a way that is not time sensitive/ require lots of updating. Let the linked articles provide the detailed info.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I personally support having a table enclosing the list of parties, as per the motivations expressed by the Moderator: easy access and re-ordering. I also think a table just gives an improved graphical output. I would also include some details about the parties, such as their main ideologies. IMHO this list should not just contain a list of party names; giving a sense of the main ideologies can improve the page and be informative with not so much effort (e.g. by taking the main ideologies from the correspondent party articles infoboxes). Yakme (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I confirm my position: no to number of MPs and MEPs, no to ideologies, no to political positions, thus no need of Wikitable format. Differently from "normal" countries, where "information about political parties [...] will have to be updated at least every time that there is an election, either a general election or a by-election" or, better, only in those occasions, in Italy party switching is so frequent that any table would need constant updating. At the same time, it would be bad to have extended discussions on ideologies and political positions, that could be very controversial and need a lot of debate and compromise. The list should be stable and consistent: including MPs and MEPs, on one side, and ideologies and political positions, on the other side, would prevent it. Finally, it is quite more important to me how the list is organised. On this respect, both for active and former parties active in more than one region, I think it would be a good thing to have three categories: a) parties having or having had parliamentary groups of their own; b) parties being or having been represented in Parliament, the European Parliament and, possibly, multiple Regional Councils (meaning at least two); c) parties not having or not having had parliamentary representation. --Checco (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately my position and that of Checco remain diametrically opposed: I would like to make the list of Italian parties similar to all the other lists, while Checco would like to make it different (depriving it of useful content). Honestly, I can't understand this position. Without the indication of MPs, even the distinction between parliamentary and extra-parliamentary parties would become totally useless. In practice, the result would be a huge bulleted list, deprived of any information: can we really think of improving a page in this way? Unfortunately the discussion is getting longer (we don't even agree on commas) and some users are leaving it. We will probably have to do an RFC on whether or not to have a wikitable similar to the other lists: this means taking at least another month. I hoped that at least on this topic it would be possible to find a consensus more easily, but probably I was wrong... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Twentysixth statement by moderator
We appear to be at another impasse. I am reinstating the usual moderated discussion rule. Editors should reply to my questions, and should only engage in back-and-forth discussion in the space for the purpose. What I will try to resolve, if possible, at this point is whether to use a Wikitable format for the list or lists of parties. This issue can be addressed before and separately from the issues of the details of the lists of parties.

So I will ask each editor to answer two questions, each with one paragraph. First, should the Wikitable format be used for each list of parties? If so, why, and if not, why not? Please be concise.

Second, how many lists of parties are needed? We are in agreement that at least active parties and former parties should be in separate lists. Are there any other lists that should be separated? Please explain concisely how many lists there should be. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Twentysixth statement by Yakme
I would like to thank the Moderator for their help and patience in this complicated discussion.

This list should contain some details and context for each party, in order to be really informative. I would add several details, like the foundation date, the political position, the main ideologies, the number of MPs/MEPs, and the status in government. The Wikitable format is the best way to do this, and it is a plus because it gives a sense of order to the list. It has the advantage that it can be re-ordered by the readers. On the objection that this means having to update the tables very often: it is true that politicians change sides quite often in Italy, however if a politician switches from party A to B, at the moment we already do update page A, page B, the infobox in the Chamber/Senate page, the tables in Legislature XVIII of Italy, and so on; updating also this page is not such an additional hassle. On a different note, I would also say that we should not feel the unbearable pressure of updating everything if a party slightly changes its number of MPs; e.g. if an MPs number of 178 is shown instead of 176 for some time until someone updates it, it is not a tragedy: what matters is to be able to get a measure of the party weight from reading this list. On the ideologies, no discussions should start here if we agree to take the first one or two ideologies from each party's infobox (possible discussions would be started into the party's talk page).

How many lists (i.e. tables) are needed? At least one for each sub-category of active and former parties. So one for active parliamentary, one for active regional, one for active not-represented. For the former parties, as I stated above, I would also separate the list into three historical periods: pre-Fascism, First Republic, Second Republic. Yakme (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Twentysixth statement by Scia Della Cometa
I join in thanking the moderator for his help in this long discussion.

The answer to the first question is: absolutely yes. The wikitable is essential to make the page clearer and more usable, all the main lists use it, I don't see why to keep the list of Italian parties on at a lower level compared to the others. Political instability is not a valid reason to keep the page in a poor state: as the infoboxes on the pages of the parties are updated, the seats in the list of parties will be updated. If the page is not updated immediately it is certainly not a drama: a page full of useful content, even if not updated in real time, is better than a page without any content. An efficacious wikitable should contain all essential information: name of the party (title of the page + original name); years of activity; main ideologies (one or two, depending on the party); political position; seats (Deputies, Senators, MEPs); leader. Obviously, if we separate parliamentary and extra-parliamentary parties, seats are not needed for the second category. The political position is that indicated in the infobox of each party, so there are no problems. The main ideology/two main ideologies are those at the top of the list of ideologies in the party infoboxes. If there are any disagreements, they will be discussed on the talk pages of the parties (but it seems to me that these problems have already been discussed and resolved). In conclusion: wikitable is in the total interest to readers, depriving them of this useful tool (only) for Italian parties would be a loss.

Regarding the second question: surely, after the introductory part, the page should contain two sections / main lists of parties: the active parties and the former parties. If the page is organized neatly, I don't think it will be necessary to split the lists into two different pages. As for "active parties", I confirm my previous proposal: 1. Parliamentary parties; 1a. National parties 1b. Regional parties; 1c. Overseas parties; 2. Extra-parliamentary parties; 2a. National parties; 2b. Regional parties; 3c. Overseas parties. As for "former parties", I agree to divide the (national) parties according to the historical period in which they dissolved: Monarchy (until 1946), First Republic (until 1994 / 1995), Second Republic the / the following period (from 1994/1995). I think that the indication of maximum seats in the wikitable, where possible, would constitute a natural disambiguation between big and small parties, without having to artificially separate them. Finally, the section of former parties should also list the regional and overseas parties, but in the latter two cases I don't think further subdivisions are necessary. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Twentysixth statement by Checco
I am neutral on the Wikitable format. On principle, I oppose including the number of MPs and MEPs, as well as ideologies and political positions, so the Wikitable format would be useless. However, in order to prevent another RfC and months of impasse, I could agree on having MPs, MEPs, the main ideology (meaning the first mentioned in the party's article infobox), establishment date and leader, but only for larger parties and nothing more. Regarding the organisation of the list, I stand by my proposal above, plus coalitions (active and former) and parliamentary groups as currently defined (active and former). I am resolutely opposed to having historical periods as there are parties which have been part of different political eras and, ultimately, it would be original research. --Checco (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Twentyseventh statement by moderator
User:Scia Della Cometa - Do you agree to the compromise proposal by User:Checco? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Checco - You said that you are willing to list number of MPs and MEPs, ideology, date of establishment, and leader, but only for larger parties. Does that imply that you want to propose a rule defining larger parties? If so, the rule will require an RFC. Are you willing, as a further compromise, to allow the inclusion of that information for all parties?

Are we in agreement then that, as a compromise, the Wikitable format will be used? I think that some editors favor it and some are neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Twentyseventh statements by Scia Della Cometa
@Robert McClenon: Unfortunately not, Checco's proposal is far from the standards of the other pages. He proposes to use wikitable for very few parties (at most for seven parties, if I understand correctly) and without the political spectrum, information that is absolutely necessary in my view. The division between parliamentary and extra-parliamentary parties, on the other hand, only makes sense if we indicate the MPs / MEPs for all parties of the first category.

Finally, the division into periods of the former parties would not be an original research: the division would refer explicitly to the date of dissolution. However the former parties do not necessarily have to be divided into historical periods, but I simply disagree to make a division between big and small parties: the indication of the maximum number of seats (where available) is enough to give readers an idea of the strength of the party. A subdivision of the former national parties could be made on the basis of the highest electoral result achieved, but I would prefer to address this topic later.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Twentyseventh statements by Checco
I have never endorsed a "all or nothing" approach and I have always been interested in debate and compromise. That is why I offered the compromise above. According to my proposed organisation of the list, I would accept listing active parties, both main ones (those having a parliamentary group of their own) and minor ones (those having at least one MP or MEP), with the following infos: number of MPs, number of MEPs, main ideology (just one), year of establishment and leader. I would not include those infos for active extra-parliamentary parties, as well as for active regional parties, active overseas parties and former parties. I am worried that it would be too difficult to keep the list up-to-date. Also my compromise proposal would create an unnecessary burden of updating, that is why, if it were for me alone, I would not add MPs, MEPs and ideologies altogether to the list. Also, I am worried that too many discussions would arise in individual articles on ideologies, but that is what compromises are all about. I continue to be neutral on the Wikitable format: according to my proposal, larger parties would be listed by number of MPs. --Checco (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Twentyeighth statement by moderator
I am now asking the editors to discuss back-and-forth for maybe three days to see if they can reach a compromise on the Wikitable listing or listings of the active parties. If we can resolve how to list the active parties, that may get us closer to agreement on the former parties (and the active parties are more important). So can there be a compromise on how much information to list about the major parties?

Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Twentyeighth statements by editors, back-and-forth
I agree to discuss only active parties at the moment. It would be better to reach an agreement without resorting to a RFC, but we cannot yet rule out this solution. IMHO, wikitable should contain all information that helps readers identify a party immediately (including 2/3 major ideologies, regional councilors and European and international affiliations). I realize it is difficult to find an agreement on all this information. However, some information is essential in my view: the original name, the main ideology, the national and European seats, the political spectrum, the leader, the year of foundation. Without main ideology or without a political spectrum, it is difficult or impossible for the reader to have an immediate vision of the party. I notice the progress made by Checco on party seats and I am pleased about this. But I would also list the extra-parliamentary parties in the wikitable (without the seats, of course): some extra-parliamentary parties (for example, Italian Republican Party and Communist Refoundation) are definitely more important than other parties currently represented in Parliament, and therefore they require adequate presentation. After all, the difficulty of updating concerns the parliamentary parties, not the extra-parliamentary parties. And this problem does not only concern the list, but also the infoboxes of the parties and the page about the current Legislature: as these pages are updated, the list of parties can also be updated. If the update isn't done right away it's not a big deal, Wikipedia is always a work in progress. About ideologies: I would prefer to insert 2/3 ideologies in the wikitable, like most of the other lists, but to reach a compromise I can agree to indicate only the ideology at the top of the list of each infobox. If there are disagreements, now is the right time to resolve them. Some problems may arise for regional parties: we cannot indicate regionalism for 95% of regional parties, many of them have their own specificities. Finally, I have a proposal: I would divide the regional parties into parliamentary and extra-parliamentary parties. Should we also make this distinction with regard to representation in regional councils? If so, we should indicate the regional seats for the regional parties represented in the regional councils. I would agree to do it. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Scia Della Cometa - When I said to be civil and concise, I meant don't post a paragraph that is 376 words long and is hard to summarize. I was overly optimistic in starting back-and-forth.  I will see whether User:Checco replies with something concise.  Otherwise we will have to have a second RFC.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon: I summarize my statement: ok to indicate just one main ideology, but in my view the wikitable should at least also indicate the original name of the party, year of foundation, political spectrum, number of MPs and MEPs and leaders. Extra-parliamentary national parties should also be listed in a wikitable (without MPs and MEPs, of course). A somewhat more articulated speech would be necessary for the regional parties.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Checco's proposal: no need to have lots of information about extra-parliamentary parties and about former parties. Instead I would have some info for active regional parties (like number of regional parliamentary members and ideology), but only for the ones that have elected officials. Similarly for active overseas parties (which are very few, so it is going to be little work to have more info about these). Yakme (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to ask Yakme a question: exactly, what information would you keep on the Wikitable (for parliamentary parties)? The original name? The political position? The number of regional councilors also for national parties? How many ideologies? The discussion is becoming quite complex, now we should understand if we can find an agreement on the wikitable for parliamentary parties.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * IMHO the table of parliamentary parties should contain the name (of course), party colour, logo, foundation date, leader(s), number of MPs, MEPs, political position (simplified as left, centre-left, centre, centre-right, right), two main ideologies (if available, from the related party's article infobox), position in government (in government vs opposition). We could debate whether to also add the latest general election result (it's a good measure of the strength of the party). The "purely" regional parties would contain the number of members of the correspondent Region's parliament members (MRPs) instead of MPs or MEPs. Something like the following: Yakme (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yakme I wouldn’t object to that, as long as you replaced “Position” with “Coalition”, and we limited ideologies to a single entry.—Autospark (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Currently there are no fixed coalitions in Italy.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't completely object to ideologies and political positions being listed, but it may overload the list with information best left to individuals articles – also, it will inevitably lead to extra edit conflicts, and redundant information (three or four ideologies per party, "centre to centre-left" type edits, etc). So I'd support core ideology (a single ideology per party) as a compromise, and forgo listing any political position. Also, I would not list international affiliations – they just usually aren't relevant. Listing the European affiliation is acceptable, as long as it's the European Parliament group rather than the Europarty – elected legislatures are more important.--Autospark (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Autospark: Renouncing to indicate the political position does not seem to me a good idea at all, especially with a single ideology: in this way, it would become impossible to identify clearly a party. It is not even easy to indicate just one political position: for example some centrist parties tend towards the centre-right, other parties towards the centre-left. Other parties are placed both in a political position and in another less moderate one.
 * @Yakme Another question: how would you list the regional parties represented in parliament (like UV or SVP)? With a separate wikitable?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Autospark: I can live with no political position (listing the coalition instead), but I think that it is useful to express two main ideologies when they are available, as taken from the infobox of the party's article. I don't really see a problem in having two main ideologies instead of one. I thought about it a bit more, and I changed my mind: I invert my suggestion. OK to have a single ideology, but I would still list the political position (necessarily in a single word, so no "centre to centre-right" or "centre-right to far-right"). If you think that the political position can be summarized via the coalition, we can discuss about this and see other editors' opinions.
 * @Scia Della Cometa: This is a good question, to which I do not have a strong answer. I would tend to insert UV and SVP into the table of national parliamentary parties. So, by "national parliamentary party" I would define "those parties which have a representation in a national assembly". This way the separation of national and regional parties becomes very definite. Yakme (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Yakme: I think regional parties should be listed separately, otherwise it would not be possible to indicate the regional seats of parties like SVP and UV in the same table of national parties.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, but we are also not going to list the regional seats of other parliamentary parties like PD, Lega, etc. It is more important to stress that SVP has 6 seats in the Parliament, than not. Removing it from the Parliament list means that the info about the SVP Parliament seats would be lost. Yakme (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? This information would not be lost. It would be enough to list the parliamentary regional parties in a separate wikitable, to enter both national and regional seats.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see a compelling reason why in this list it is so important to show the number of regional members for SVP and UV, and not for Lega or PD (which BTW have far more regional representatives than SVP and UV). In any case, I would tend to avoid multiplying the number of tables needed, so a single table for parties that are in parliament, and a single table for parties that are in regional parliaments. Yakme (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have never stated that I am against the number of regional councilors for national parties in the wikitable, indeed I am in favor. And I am certainly not advocating the moltiplication of the tables: I simply stated that national parties and regional parties should be listed in two different tables. It is sufficient to distinguish, in both cases, the parties represented in the assemblies from those not represented.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that there is a disagreement on the definition of "national party" and "regional party". Yakme (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The information would not be lost if it is not in this list. This list is a broad overview- it doesn't need to provide the reader with every details- just a list of parties. If they want to know more, there are other pages that already provide that information- the party's WP page, Italian_Parliament, etc. We don't need to duplicate all information. I believe this would be plenty:
 * {| class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed" style="font-size:100%"

! colspan=3| Party ! Est. ! Leaders ! Position ! Ideology ! Status in government Partito Democratico Christian left
 * style="background:;"|
 * No image available.svg
 * Democratic Party (PD)
 * Democratic Party (PD)
 * 2007
 * Enrico Letta
 * Centre-left
 * Social democracy
 * Government
 * }
 * Less is more! Nightenbelle (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that showing the number of seats is very important, because we need that the parties are ordered according to it. So if "less is more", we could remove "Leader", "Position", or "Status", but we should keep the seats numbers. Yakme (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My "less is more" version, with a single ideology: Yakme (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable sortable collapsible" style="font-size:100%"
 * I think that showing the number of seats is very important, because we need that the parties are ordered according to it. So if "less is more", we could remove "Leader", "Position", or "Status", but we should keep the seats numbers. Yakme (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My "less is more" version, with a single ideology: Yakme (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable sortable collapsible" style="font-size:100%"

! colspan=3| Party ! Est. ! Ideology ! Seats in Chamber ! Seats in Senate ! Seats in EP Partito Democratico
 * style="background:;"|
 * No image available.svg
 * Democratic Party (PD)
 * Democratic Party (PD)
 * 2007
 * Social democracy
 * }
 * I would consider the above example an acceptable compromise, if we are going to using a Wikitable.--Autospark (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * }
 * I would consider the above example an acceptable compromise, if we are going to using a Wikitable.--Autospark (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would consider the above example an acceptable compromise, if we are going to using a Wikitable.--Autospark (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Theoretically, a national party is active throughout the national territory or in a large part of it. A regional party, on the other hand, is active in only one region. I would like to add that practically all the pages show the seats of the parties in the main assemblies, this is useful to show the actual relevance of each party. It seems to me that every user has a personal idea and that it will be difficult to find a common position. Perhaps a RFC will be needed.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is quite obscure to define a national party as a party that is active on "a large part of" the national territory. What about parties that are active on a "medium-sized part" of the national territory? How do you define "a large part" of Italy? Also, it is restrictive to limit the definition of "regional party" to a single region. Since Italy is not a federation but a unitary state, in principle nothing prevents a regional party from having active followers in other regions, so this distinction is a bit forced IMHO. Yakme (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

What a long discussion! First of all, let me tell you that we should try to avoid RfCs on such technical issues. Previous RfCs were already very complicate to understand for many readers. Secondly, I do not think that that lists of parties in other countries should be a guidance, mainly because the Italian context is quite different and, basically, more complex. I accept discussing now ONLY on current parties active in more than one region, those I would divide in three categories. Are we all OK with dividing them in a) main parties (having parliamentary groups), b) parliamentary parties (having at least on MP or MEP) and c) extra-parliamentary parties? We could have real progress if that is decided once and for all. I also think that "less is more", meaning that less columns are better. I would have only a) party colour, b) party name, c) leader and d) year of establishment, but, as I said, for the sake of compromise, I would accept having also e) main ideology, f) number of MPs and g) number of MEPs. Also, I would consider having the share of the vote or the number of MPs elected in the latest general election, possibly as a replacement of current MPs and MEPs. That is already a lot to me and really a long way from what I would like! I would surely oppose adding logo (the feature I dislike more in several other lists, as they make those lists so confusing!), original name, multiple ideologies, political position, coalitions, international affiliations, status in government, etc. I would keep regional parties represented in Parliament or the European Parliament among regional parties and I would not discuss on active regional parties, as well as active overseas parties, now. Sorry for my long comment, but there was a lot to say and answer to. Hope we can all renounce to something and soon reach a compromise! --Checco (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Yakme Well, theoretically there is no doubt about regional parties: if a party is active in only one region, it is surely regional. You are right, the discourse is more complex for "national" parties: some parties are active only in certain regions. We can use a different definition, but I would keep parties active in one region separate from parties active in multiple regions or throughout the national territory.
 * @Checco The Italian political system is different from that of other countries (it is on average more unstable), but this does not in any way affect some essential information such as original name, ideology and political position: they work in Italy as in any other country. The Rfc is the last resort, if we don't find an agreement here, but it certainly cannot be ruled out in advance. I think a user knows if he/she prefers to have a certain information in the wikitable or not.
 * Personally, I'd set wikitable like this:


 * And I'd set wikitable on regional parties (represented in the Italian / European parliament or in the relative regional council) like this:


 * In my view, original name and position are essential information.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of theoretical doubts on what a "regional party" is, but I agree that, in this context, "regional parties" should be those active only in one region, thus not those being active in multiple regions, let alone those supporting regionalism. As I have argued before, I would not speak of "national parties" because I would include all the parties active in more than one region among "main/parliamentary/extra-parliamentary parties".
 * It would be very important if we were to agree on dividing those parties among a) main parties (having parliamentary groups), b) parliamentary parties (having at least on MP or MEP) and c) extra-parliamentary parties. I hope there is eventually consensus on at least this.
 * The information included in the two tables proposed by User:SDC is way too much for me. I especially oppose including the original name because some parties have articles named with their original name and others with the English name: last year we agreed to adopt only the names used in Wikipedia, whether original (i.e. "Forza Italia") or English (i.e. Democratic Party)... I do not know why User:SDC changed his mind, but I would like to stick to that consensus that was not easy to achieve! I also vigorously oppose including the political position as, relating to Italian parties, it would be a very controversial and confusing feature. As I have long argued, the real risk is, by stealing User:Autospark's words, to "overload the list with information best left to individuals articles", that would "inevitably lead to extra edit conflicts". --Checco (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * My opinions in short: (1) I strongly oppose separating the currently active parties into "main" and "minor", because this is a form of WP:OR. (2) I think having the original name in the table is extremely important, and adds no new columns, so it's for free. I would also put the abbreviation (when it really exists, not made-up by WP editors) in the Name column, so to save space. (3) I find the Leader column a bit superfluous: a party is not defined by its leader, as also Checco usually says, so it's a bit useless to have it in the summary table, if we want to save space. Yakme (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Checco "including the political position as, relating to Italian parties, it would be a very controversial and confusing feature": what does this mean? Do the Italian parties have "special" political positions? I don't think so. After some recent discussions about a certain party, I hope you do not object because you do not agree with the political position attributed to that specific party. Otherwise please explain why the political positions of the Italian parties are controversial compared to other countries, honestly I don't really understand the reason. About the original names, I have only partially changed my mind: if a party's page has the original name as its title, let's put just that. If it has the name translated, we also insert the original name, as in all lists of parties, it is quite simple. We do not have to translate everything, with the risk of having unusual (Forward Italy), strange (Courage Italy) or cringe (PoundHouse) translations... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Twentyninth statement by moderator
The back-and-forth has been useful, but I will now ask the editors each to summarize what each of them thinks is a reasonable basis for compromise. We should keep the number of subdivisions of the lists to a minimum. Are we in agreement that the name will be a sortable field for both the active and the former parties? Are we in agreement that the date of dissolution or deactivation will be a sortable field for the former parties? Are we in agreement that the number of members of Parliament will be a sortable field for the active parties? So I am asking each editor to restate their proposal, with no back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Twentyninth statement by Scia Della Cometa
I agree with all the moderator's proposals. In my view, the essential information in the wikitable are: 1. original name (under the English name of the party, if translated ); 2. the year of establishment; 3. the ideology (at least one; better if two); 4. the position (at least one; better if complete); 5. the number of Deputies, Senators, MEPs (personally, I also consider the number of regional councilors very important, it would be very inconsistent to indicate this data only for one-region parties).

I would separate active parties into 3 lists: parties active in several regions or throughout the national territory, one-region parties and overseas parties. I would in turn divide these lists into two further sub-lists: parties represented in the assemblies and parties not represented in the assemblies.

I conclude my statement with a consideration: political position and leader are essential information for the Italian parties. One of the main characteristics of most of the Italian parties, indeed, is that they are highly dependent on their leader. Another characteristic of Italian policy of the last 30 years is that generally Italians recognize themselves more in political positions (although this trend is itself declining) than in classic ideologies. For these reasons, these information are essential for identifying Italian parties (which often do not have well-defined ideologies). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Twentyninth statement by Yakme
Regarding the three direct questions by the Moderator, I agree.

The active parties table minimal details should be: (1) name, original name (if different from name), abbreviation (if used); (2) party colour; (3) ideology; (4) number of MPs, MEPs. I am also not against adding (a) establishment year, (b) political position, (c) latest electoral result, (d) leader, but I would not trade any of (1-4) with (a-d).

I fundamentally oppose separating active parties into "main" and "minor", as I explained many times in my previous statements.

I also oppose separating them into parties that are "active on the national territory" and parties that are "active in one region only". First of all: what about parties which are active in two regions only? Are they considered "national"? Furthermore, this feature is not easily verifiable by non-expert editors, and can lead to issues and misinterpretations. I say, let's separate parties based on an extremely easily verifiable detail: whether they are represented on a national level, or only on regional level. This is an easy check that a toddler could do and leads to zero discussions. The active non-represented parties (parties that have no national nor regional representation) can be listed all together alphabetically – even without a table format IMHO – and if you really like we can have an additional subsection of non-represented "one-region" parties. But I would really avoid having a section for active parliamentary parties which is missing some historically parliamentary parties like SVP or UV just because these parties are ideologically linked to a single region (or province). Yakme (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Twentyninth statement by Checco
I agree with the Moderator that the number of subdivisions of the lists, also the one on active parties that might have more columns, to a minimum. I surely agree that the name should be sortable field both for active and former parties. I agree that the date of establishment should be a sortable field for active parties, while the date of establishment and the date of dissolution should be sortable fields for former parties. I agree that the number of members of Parliament and the European Parliament should be a sortable field for active parties or, at least, those with parliamentary representation. Regarding my previous compromise proposal, I also would remove the "leader" column and I would frankly not add any more columns, especially not "political position". As other users are expressing their views also on other issues, I would write something more. Dividing active parliamentary parties from active extra-parliamentary parties would not be original research and also dividing parties with parliamentary groups from those without would not. Moreover, there is a clear distinction from parties active only in one region and some parties, active or former, like Lega Nord or the Movement for Autonomy, being active in multiple regions, that is why I would not use "national", but simply "main", "parliamentary" and "extra-parliamentary"; "regional" parties and "overseas" parties would be in different categories. Finally, a note: in the next 6-7 days I will be possibly absent from Wikipedia. --Checco (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtieth statement by moderator
If an editor wants to divide the list of active parties into multiple sublists, it will be necessary to provide a clear basis for how the make the decision as to which bin to put a party in, or there will be quarrels in maintenance. So any criteria that divide the list should be unambiguous. I have a question. If some editors want to split the list into multiple lists, and others want to keep it in one list, is a compromise using sorting possible? The compromise seems to be to define a field, such as national status, that can be sortable, so as to put one group on top of another, having the effect of splitting the table. Is there any reason why this cannot also be done with the number of members of parliament, so that the table can be sorted by a reader on the number of members of parliament, thus putting the parliamentary parties above or below the non-parliamentary parties.

I am now asking each editor to state what is the minimum number of separate lists that they will agree to, because I am asking any editor who wants to divide the list to consider whether a compromise is possible via sorting instead. So please state what the minimum number of lists and maximum number of fields are that you will agree to. We will see whether a compromise is possible.

Each editor may reply quickly, or within a few days, because User:Checco may be busy for a few days. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtieth statements by Scia Della Cometa
It is a rather complicated speech. But I want to clarify one thing immediately: for me there is no "maximum number of fields", because I would not want to prevent any user from entering standard information that they might consider important. This is what I think has also happened for the other lists, so I do not understand the numerous vetoes that should exclusively concern the list of Italian parties. The fields of the table that I consider indispensable (unless there is a clear consent against their inclusion) are: original name, ideology, position, leader, MPs, MEPs. The vetoes on this information are incomprehensible to me. But to implement my proposal, the number of regional councilors would also be necessary.

"If some editors want to split the list into multiple lists, and others want to keep it in one list, is a compromise using sorting possible?" In my view, yes. It seems to me that we only agree on one point: the division between parliamentary and extra-parliamentary parties. Should we consider parliamentary parties, even those represented only in the European Parliament? I think so. Regional parties such as SVP and UV should be counted among parliamentary parties. However, for practical reasons, I would keep them in a separate table from national parties or parties active in multiple regions. So my proposal for "Active parties" is the following: 1. "Parliamentary parties"; 1a. "Nationally or multi-regionally active parties" (or "Parties active in more regions or throughout the national territory"); 1b. "One-region parties" (or "Parties active in one region"); 1c. "Overseas parties"; 2. "Parties represented only in Regional Councils"; 2a. "Nationally or multi-regionally active parties"; 2b. "One-region parties" 3. "Non-represented parties"; 3a. "Nationally or multi-regionally active parties" 2b. "One-region parties". Obviously the titles of sublists can be worded differently. In practice, for me there is no minimum or maximum number of lists, we should find the most efficient way of organizing parties. I will show my proposal in practical terms here below, in the Back-and-forth discussion. Any proposal that can reduce the number of lists by making the tables sortable is welcome.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtieth statement by Yakme
In principle I do not oppose the suggestions of the Moderator, i.e. having a single sortable table for all parties. However I think that it is good to separate the active parties into sections in order to add some structure and to be more informative. IMHO a criterion by which a sensible split can be made is: parliamentary vs non-parliamentary. This is a super-easy thing to be checked by non-expert users, so updates to the table won't be controversial. This way, also, one can limit the amount of detail of the non-parliamentary table, for example by removing the empty MPs/MEPs columns altogether. Note that my proposed split criterion is opposed to the "national vs regional" which I do not think is a straightforward and effective criterion, because it is sensitive to the political position and action of each of the parties.

I also see the tables proposed by SDC in the back-and-forth discussion section, and I disagree with this proliferation of separate tables (some of which are going to have two entries in total). The proof of this exaggeration of detail and classification can be measured by the length of the titles of some tables, like "Nationally or multi-regionally active parliamentary parties". Yakme (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtieth statement by Checco
Please excuse me for my absence and thanks for your patience! I hope to have understood the questions correctly. I do not agree to any separate lists, as I would like to have a joint "List of political parties in Italy", as it is now. I would like to divide the list as follows: 1. Active parties → 1a. Main parliamentary parties (those having parliamentary groups); 1b. Minor parliamentary parties (all the rest); 1c. Extra-parliamentary parties; 1d. Regional parties; 1e. Overseas parties / 2. Former parties → 1a. Main parliamentary parties (those having had parliamentary groups); 2b. Minor parliamentary parties; 2c. Extra-parliamentary parties; 2d. Regional parties (divided by region); 2e. Overseas parties (divided by constituency). This is for the sake of compromise: I would probably prefer to mix two criteria (parliamentary numbers and share of the vote), but it could become too complicate. Regarding the number of fields, I would have: a) colour, b) name (according to the Wikipedia article's name) and c) year of establishment. I would add d) region for regional parties, e) constituency for overseas parties and f) year of dissolution for former parties. For the sake of compromise, I could accept adding g) number of MPs, h) number of MEPs, i) main ideology (just one), j) leader and nothing more. If all these fields will be included, the tables would be large enough, maybe too much, that is why preference is for less fields. --Checco (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtyfirst statement by moderator
Okay, User:Checco, User:Scia Della Cometa - I will research your previous posts to see what are the least different positions that each of you have taken as to the lists. In the meantime, I am asking each of you to provide a brief statement as to what you want the RFC to propose as your position. Please be civil and concise; in particular, please be concise.

Also please state what you think are the reasons why your position is correct. You don't need to be concise in the long statement, but any long statement should be separate from your short statement.

I will collapse the current back-and-forth, because it clearly just was more of the same.

Please provide a brief summary of what your position is, for my use in developing the second RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtyfirst statement by Checco
I am bit confused, thus I am asking the Moderator to clarify his position. Most importantly, I am not in favour of a new RfC because I fear it would be a waste of time. However, if I understood correctly the Moderator's question, the RfC issue could be two propose two distinct proposals of sub-divisions. My proposal would be to divide active parties, as well as former parties, in five categories: a) (countrywide) main parties (those with parliamentary groups); b) (countrywide) minor parties (those with parliamentary representation); c) (countrywide) micro parties (those with extra- no parliamentary representation); d) regional parties (those being active only in one regions); e) overseas parties (those active only in the constituencies for Italians abroad). I think that my position is good because any of the five sub-divisions I proposed would be composed by clearly and objectively defined subsets of political parties. --Checco (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtyfirst statement by Scia Della Cometa
I think that the RFC should concern two fundamental aspects: the organization of the sublists and the setting of the wikitable. I think both should be inspired by the List of political parties in Germany.

As for the organization of the sublists, the list of active parties would be based on the subdivision into three sublists: "Parties represented in the Italian or European Parliament", "Parties represented only in Regional Councils", "Non-represented parties".

As for the setting of the wikitable, I think it should contain the basic information contained in the wikitable of any other list of parties, i.e. the following fields: Party (including original name, if the title of the party's page is different), year of establishment, ideology (at least the main one), political position (at least the main one), leader, number of MPs, number of MEPs.

The RFC should give users the possibility to choose between this or other proposals. The advantages of this proposal (inspired by the list of German parties would be): few sublists (only 3), clarity and uniqueness of the section titles, exposition of the essential information characterizing a party, according to the standards of the other Wikipedia lists of parties.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtysecond statement by moderator
Now I am also a bit puzzled by User:Checco's statement. They say that they are not in favor of a new RFC because they think it will be a waste of time. Do they mean that they will agree to the proposals of User:Scia Della Cometa or User:Yakme? If not, how do they propose to resolve what Scia Della Cometa says is an impasse?

I have another question, also for User:Checco. How do they propose to divide major parties from minor parties? Will that require an entry rule? Do they want to propose an entry rule? If so, they need to define the rule, and the rule needs to be accepted by an RFC, since we otherwise did away with the rules.

I may add to this, but will post this now. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtysecond statement by Checco
I think we can find common ground here. Five users have been consistently editing in this dispute. I am confident that the Moderator will be able to find common ground among the five of us. Otherwise, this discussion will take more time. If continuing to proceed through RfCs is the best way forward, I will surely comply to that. I just want to make sure that everybody knows that there could be several RfCs and that there will be several interpretation issues. However, I am open to any discussion through any means, as I was in the first place. We opened a Pandora's box: let's see how it plays out. This said, I offered a clear answer to the previous questions, thus I am not going to make this comment too long. On the very last question by the Moderator, I propose to divide multi-regional or countrywide parties in three categories, let's call them "main", "minor" and "micro". Basically, all lists of political parties have subsets and this list desperately needs subsets as there are as many active parties in Italy as the combined active parties in ten or maybe more EU countries. In my proposal, "main" parties would be those having (for former parties: having had) parliamentary groups of their own or, alternatively, having surpassed the electoral thresolds established by electoral laws (now it is 3% for the Chamber of Deputies), "minor" parties would be the other parties represented (for former parties: having been represented) in Parliament or the European Parliament, and "micro" parties would be extra-parliamentary ones. Then, I would have "regional" parties, meaning those active in one region alone, and "overseas" parties. Rules were rejected by the latest RfC, thus the "micro" parties' subset will be virtually endless and incomplete, that it is why I would keep it separate. Also the subset of "regional" parties will be virtually endless and incomplete, but at least we could organise it by region. We need to prepare for the inclusion of possibly hundreds of parties. --Checco (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtysecond statement by Scia Della Cometa
I am quite neutral on the greater or lesser particularization of the lists, even if I do not agree with Checco's specific proposal. The problem is that so far the discussion has not brought any results. I'm used to this, that's what happened from June to December last year, so I wouldn't want to repeat such a waste of time. So far, very few meeting points have been found. Also I want to be honest: if the vetoes on information such as original name and political position remain (information entered in every wikitable), for me the the search for a compromise has already failed, so searching for the opinion of other users through an RFC does not seem to me like a waste of time. Furthermore, the hypothesis concerning the inclusion of "hundreds of parties" seems to me an exaggeration, many parties will be included, but we are talking about tens, not hundreds. Let's not forget that many pages that currently exist are somewhat useless, the Moderator had already proposed to draw up a list of parties to be nominated for deletion: by checking the categories I found about fifty of them (I am an inclusionist, but finding a minimum relevance in some pages is really difficult).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtythird statement by moderator
I have another question for User:Checco. You write: I am confident that the Moderator will be able to find common ground among the five of us. I will ask whether I am being asked to find common ground by facilitating discussion, or by selecting a compromise. If it is the former, then I have already asked you to try to reach common ground. If it is the latter, then I will restate that I am not an arbitrator, and will not impose a middle ground on you.

I have created the outline for an RFC on the structure of the lists of political parties. The mostly empty outline is at Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Draft RFC 4. I invite at least User:Checco and User:Scia Della Cometa to each fill in one of the plans, as Plan A and Plan B. Any other editor who wishes to fill in a Plan C is welcome to do so. If there is agreement on how to structure the list, without using an RFC, before the RFC is moved to the article talk page, then we will have resolved the matter without an RFC.

After each of you has set forth your plan in the RFC, which will likely repeat what you have already written, then I will be able to take another look and compare them and see if I can propose a compromise. Then, if I don't see a further compromise, we will have an RFC to move to the article talk page.

So please fill in Plan A and Plan B. It doesn't matter which of you fills in which, but the one who starts first will do Plan A.   Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtythird statement by Scia Della Cometa
I have confirmed my previous proposal in the Draft, since (also following personal attempts) it seems to me a reasonable and easily feasible solution.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtythird statement by Checco
As the five users involved have offered different views on subsets and fields, I thought it was possible to collect those opinions and find a common ground. For instance, only one user wanted the "leader" field, so that field could have been easily dropped. I am not sure that the direction taken is helpful, but I much respect the Moderator and, following his question, I filed Plan B. I still hope we can find a compromise without restorting to another RfC. --Checco (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtyfourth statement by moderator
I see that I wasn't clear as to whether I was asking for plans as to how to organize the lists of active parties only, or of active parties and former parties. I should have said that the plans should include the lists of active parties and former parties, as well as of any other entities that the editors think should be specified in the plan (e.g., parliamentary groups, coalitions). So, if you have only provided for active parties, please expand your plan to include former parties. If there is an RFC, we want it to be comprehensive. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtyfourth statement by Scia Della Cometa
I am not completely convinced, anyway I have implemented my proposal on how the whole page should be organized. @Robert McClenon: therefore, as far as I am concerned, proposal A is ready to be submitted to the Rfc.

I invite other users, if interested, to propose an eventual Plan C. Otherwise I think we can start the Rfc.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtyfifth statement by moderator
User:Scia Della Cometa says: "I am not completely convinced". Does that mean that they are not confident that we can reach a compromise, where User:Checco is more optimistic? Do they, or any other editor, want to propose a compromise? Does any other editor want to propose a Plan C? I will wait between 24 and 72 hours for a response before I move the RFC into live status on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtyfifth statement by Scia Della Cometa
I meant that I was thinking of a more gradual approach, that is a RFC only on active parties, but I accept the decision of the Moderator and indeed I have already adapted my proposal. On the other hand, I do not believe that the agreement with Checco can be reached here, his optimism is quite unmotivated: all the discussions (which lasted many months) with the user on the talk page of the list of Italian parties have failed and there is no reason to think that now the result may be different, there are irreconcilable positions.

However, I think that before moving the RFC into live status on the article talk page, Checco should include at least one example of wikitable in his proposal. Without it, the proposal is still incomplete.

I also think that the next step could consist in drawing up a list of parties to be deleted, as already proposed. We could discuss this topic here while the RFC is underway.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtyfifth statement by Checco
I understood the Moderator had asked how we would like to organise the whole list, hence my Plan B. However, I agree with User:SDC that we should proceed more gradually. I would also prefer to reach and agreement or agree on a RfC proposal on active parties first. I also think that we should not discuss on tables and fields at this point and the Moderator did not mention fields in his latest statements. I thus ask the Moderator to clarify what the RfC should be about and, consequently, User:SDC and I will fix their Plans. --Checco (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtysixth statement by moderator
User:Scia Della Cometa and User:Checco have said that they would prefer to proceed more slowly in deciding the format of the lists of parties. This case has been in progress for somewhat more than three months. How long do the two principal editors think it will take to resolve? I have a question for the two principal editors, and for any other editors: Why do you think that it has taken more than three months to resolve? For one month, the case was on hold to allow the first RFC to run. Why has it taken two more months? (It appears to me to be a case of two editors, each of whom do not want to agree to anything that the other has proposed. That is my opinion, and I hope that the two editors can provide a more positive view.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

After thinking about the intention of the principal editors to proceed more slowly, I am willing to proceed in one of three ways
 * 1. We can publish the RFC in its current form, and resolve the structure of the lists of both active parties and former parties.  I will then close this case.  If there are any subsequent disagreements, the editors will be expected to try to do something that they have not been able to do in the past, to compromise.
 * 2. We can remove the former parties from the RFC and publish a shortened RFC on the active parties.  I will then close this case.  The editors will then be expected to work out the former parties.  They will also be able to request dispute resolution another time.  I am not guaranteeing that I or another volunteer will be available.
 * 3. I can split the RFC into a two-part RFC, with separate plans for the active parties and the former parties.  It will be published as one RFC with two Surveys.  I will then close the case.  If there are any subsequent disagreements, the editors will be expected to try to compromise.

Which option do each of the editors want for how to resolve this dispute? Do they have a fourth or fifth idea for how to resolve the case? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtysixth statement by Scia della Cometa
@User:Robert McClenon: you're right, it took us months of discussion because we don't agree on anything. This embitters me enough: the lists of parties from other countries have had a natural evolution, in which all the authors have contributed to improve the pages without hindering each other. Only in the case of the list of Italian political parties all this was not possible (and it does not matter that I explain the reason). If I see vetoes on information (important for comparative analysis) present in any other list, it becomes difficult for me to find any form of compromise here. I would like to normalize the list of Italian political parties. My slight perplexity about the RFC concerned the fact that we had so far discussed almost exclusively about active parties (for example, I had not yet shown my idea of wikitable for the former parties). But we have entrusted the task of moderating the dispute to you, and if you have set up the RFC that way, I certainly accept it (Option 1). The alternative is Option 3, while we cannot afford Option 2.

However, before starting the RFC, I renew the invitation to Checco to include an example of wikitable in his proposal : if he does not do it, the proposal is not complete and does not give an idea of how he would really like to set up the page.

@Robert McClenon: One last note: you proposed to present here a list of parties to be deleted, since it would be necessary to do some cleaning and this would need a general discussion. It seems to me that this is really necessary. Do you think it is a good idea to have this discussion here while the Rfc is underway on the talk page of the list of Italian parties? I think moderator supervision would be helpful. In this way we would be ready to edit the page when we have the outcome of the RFC and the DRN will be closed. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtysixth statement by AGreatUsernameChoice
(This is an incredibly long discussion, oh my!)

I think a good solution to this IMHO is to allow political parties to be added *with a source* (following all guidelines, etc.) with special exceptions ruled in a case-by-case basis by the other editors. This will probably fall apart at the seams with whatever the reply to this is, but there’s my 2 cents. 𝙰𝙶𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝𝚄𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚗𝚊𝚖𝚎𝙲𝚑𝚘𝚒𝚌𝚎 (ramble) 12:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtysixth statement by Checco
I understand the Moderator's frustration, but, in fact, this dispute resolution would continue for several months anyway, even if we were to agree on this RfC. There are so many issues that User:SDC would like to discuss and that should be discussed, while I am mostly fine with the current form of the list. In my view, the key to the problem is to proceed step by step by finding a majority opinion among the five users who have estensively participated in this talk. That was my point and would be my fourth option. This said, I broadly agree with each of three ways proposed by the Moderator, provided that no Plan includes tables and fields. The RfC should be on the organisation of the list, namely the number and the scope of the subsets, something that should not be so difficult to resolve. I ask the Moderator to be clear on the inclusion of tables with specific fields. Anyway, I am sorry that the Moderator intends to close the case after the list's structure is decided. More controversial points are still to come. --Checco (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtyseventh statement by moderator
User:Checco says that we will need continued mediation even after the RFC on the structure of the lists of parties is published, and that More controversial points are still to come. Can they identify the additional controversies at this time, so that we can start discussing them? Are they merely saying that the future will be like the past? Does User:Scia Della Cometa also think that there are additional controversies to come?

The editors are requested to identify any future controversies Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtyseventh statement by Scia Della Cometa
As I have already stated, there are three controversial topics that need mediation: the structure of the lists (1); the structure of the wikitable (2); a reduction in the number of pages of irrelevant parties (3).

Surely the Rfc exclusively on the structure of the lists, alone is not enough. The RFC should also cover the structure of the wikitable: we can propose the two topics in the same RFC, in two simultaneous RFCs or in two RFCs in separate times, everything is fine to me. Another thing that regrets me enough is to see a certain attitude which, as already done in the past, always poses new obstacles to a compromise: we could at least agree on the inclusion of a single ideology, but the obstinacy to indicate any regional party as regionalist (regardless of whether it is simply regionalist, autonomist and even separatist) drops the possibility of compromise on this topic as well. We cannot indicate dozens of regional parties (with enormous differences between them) exclusively as regionalist parties in the ideology's field: for this reason I now argue that the wikitable should contain up to three ideologies. One thing is clear: if we do not find an agreement on which ideology to indicate in the wikitable, more ideologies should be indicated. No user can decide for himself with which ideology to describe a party in the wikitable.

If we solve the first two topics (lists and Wikitable) through RFC and in the meantime we discuss here (under the mediation of the Moderator) which pages to delete, the times could be shortened. On the other hand, continuing to claim that we should continue to discuss here of lists and tables, means wanting to prolong the discussion in indefinite (or infinite) time. In conclusion, we should decide whether to solve the problems concerning lists and wikitables in one or two RFCs (simultaneous or one after the other).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtyseventh statement by Checco
The main problems we have to solve are: 1) structure of the list; 2) which substets need a table; 3) fields of each table; 4) interpretative issues. As I have long argued, having no rules will bring more arguments, including on proposed deletions. Also, the more fields in tables, the more arguments. --Checco (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtyeighth statement by moderator
User:Scia Della Cometa lists three matters that need to be resolved:
 * 1. The structure of the lists.
 * 2. The structure of the wikitables.
 * 3. The parties to be deleted.

Deletion is not done by moderated discussion, but by AFD. An AFD runs for 7 days, and we can start the AFD while the second RFC is in in progress. If that is what is being requested, then we can start to assemble a list of parties to be deleted either while we are still working on the second RFC, or while the second RFC is running. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

What does User:Checco see as requiring continued moderation after the second RFC is start? In particular, what are interpretive issues,and why can they not be resolved by normal discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtyeighth statement by Scia Della Cometa
I agree with the plan designated by the moderator. If I understand correctly, we should start with a first Rfc regarding lists; afterwards, there will be an Rfc on the tables. During the second Rfc, we will start discussing Afd. I will adapt the Draft accordingly to what has been established.

...and yes, there is another (less important) problem concerning some interpretations. I think Checco (later he will confirm or not) refers to one of the following topics (or both): general notability of parties (1) and nature of parties (2). As for general notability, iI have not yet understood what, from Checco's point of view, does not meet the principle of notability: nevertheless, if there are no sources, a topic is not notable. There will be problems with regard to general notability only if someone wants to create problems, but the existence of sources or not is a rather objective fact. Therefore a party for which it is not demonstrable the existence of adequate sources cannot be included in the list. This doesn't seem like a problem to me.

The problem regarding the interpretation of parties is slightly more complex: Checco has established that some local parliamentary groups are political parties, even if the sources state that they are regional parliamentary groups (therefore mere assembly bodies). In my view, the attribution to a subject of a different nature from that established by the sources is an original research. There is no so-called international political science that states that parliamentary groups are political parties, it is just a very personal interpretation. Effectively this is another issue, but I had intended to propose these "groups" for deletion, for this reason I had not mentioned the diatribe on interpretations...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtyeight statement by Checco
I have really appreciated the Moderator's effort, but I understand that it has been more difficult that he could think. I think that a moderated discussion was a good opportunity and I am sorry that the Moderator is not willing to continue to moderate the discussion. As I mentioned above, the main issues before us are: 1) structure of the list; 2) which substets need a table; 3) fields of each table; 4) interpretative issues. Just three examples: which subjects can be considered parties in order to be included in the list?—with no rules, every political outfit, even the so-called civic lists (that are truly local political parties), could be included; then, depending on the fields that will be chosen, there will be discussions on what to include in those fields; finally, deletions. I am open to debate in each and every AfD, but, as I said, I am more interested in transforming the current red links into articles (I could not do it mainly because I was stuck in this long dispute). I am not convinced by the idea of assembling a list of articles to be debated because each political party is different from the others: individual AfDs are better. --Checco (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtyninth statement by moderator
I have started the RFC running on the structure of the lists of political parties. I see that the table formatting was removed from the RFC, and that means that the principal editors should find a way to agree without continuing to need a moderator. I do not see any reason why we need to wait until the RFC is completed before discussing deletion of parties. If a party does not have sources, it should be nominated for deletion. If a party has sources, but you want to delete it for some other reason, you can also nominate it for deletion, and it will probably be kept. If there is an objective to delete some of the parties, it can be discussed now, without waiting for another 30 days.

Are there any new questions or issues at this time? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtyninth statement by Checco
I am sorry to be late on this, but I have a suggestion and I hope it can still be implemented. I propose to split the RfC in two. The first would be on parties (that is to say, basically, on how categorising regional parties), the second on having electoral lists, coalitions and non-party parliamentary groups in the list or in separate lists. It is useful to separate the two issues. Is it possible? I will answer to the other issues, including those raised in the thirtyeight statement by the Moderator, in another post. --Checco (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Possibly, there could be three concurring RfCs, the third on the opportunity of dividing countrywide parliamentary parties in main parties (those having or having had parliamentary groups of their own) and minor parties (those having or having had just parliamentary representation). --Checco (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirtyninth statement by Scia Della Cometa
Maybe I was misunderstood: I removed the wikitables from the draft so that we can discuss them in a separate RFC. The wikitable format was one of the three core topics of this DRN, along with rules and list organization. For me it is indifferent if we discuss lists and wikitables in a single RFC, in two simultaneous RFCs or in two RFCs at different times, but I would be really grateful if you continue to moderate the discussion until a consensus is reached on these two hot topics. And so I think it is really important that the RFC on wikitable takes place under the mediation of a moderator.

I agree with Checco that parliamentary groups and coalitions must be kept out of this RFC (indeed I mentioned them in Plan A only after Checco had proposed them in his plan B). But I would not discuss parliamentary groups and coalitions now, it is the least important topic of all and it can be submitted to Rfc when we have solved all the other problems (and probably when the DRN is closed).

I think the best formula is to have a RFC on the organization of party lists ( parties only ) and a RFC on the wikitable set up.

@Checco: I will present one list of parties to be proposed for deletion when the Moderator asks, but of course the several AFD will be separated.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Fortieth statement by moderator
I will be closing this case as a failed discussion shortly. It does not appear that I will be able to facilitate a resolution of this case in any predictable amount of time. I do not know whether the failure to resolve this dispute is my fault, either for being too patient with the principals or for not being sufficiently patient in willing to spend several more months, or whether the fault is that of one of the principals, or of both of the principals. It is not important whose fault this failure is. I have been deeply disheartened in the last week by the statements by the principals that they think that multiple consecutive RFCs may be needed, and by changes in opinions as to how to organize the RFCs. I am not sure that any number of RFCs will result in satisfaction. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not yet sure what the next step is, and am not sure whether I will know what the next step is. The principals are encouraged to create their own RFCs and let them run. The principals are encouraged to discuss on the article talk page. Be civil and concise. Discuss edits, not editors. Do not edit-war.

I will be closing this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Fortieth statement by Scia Della Cometa
@Robert McClenon: I understand your discouragement, the contrasts are strong. I also understand that you lost your temper after being asked to change the Rfc. But this DRN was not a failure. We've established that the list will no longer have stringent rules - we've argued about those rules for at least six months! Without this Drn it would not have been possible solve the "problem".

Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, I don't think I have demanded anything exceptional: I asked to make this page more similar to the others, but I met great resistance.

That list must be rewritten: without a mediator there will be disagreements. We need to solve the last two problems. Basically we need 2 Rfc: one on the party lists (ready) and one on the wikitable (and I already have my proposal).

It doesn't seem like it, but we're almost there! Obviously, unlike Checco, I am absolutely aware that those disputes cannot be resolved directly here through normal discussion, but if those two RFCs work and give us a consensual result, the diputa can be considered truly closed.

If you decide to close this Drn, I will respect your decision. But I would be grateful if you decide to launch the last 2 Rfc (lists and tables) and wait until they are closed. If you think you can no longer mediate this discussion, I will launch those Rfc, but that would be a shame. I think a third figure would be essential until these two topics are decided.

I hope you can give us one last chance, otherwise thank you for your mediation exercised so far. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Robert McClenon: I rectify myself, it's not fair to ask you to remain involved in this long discussion if you don't feel like it anymore. This is why I ask you to close this Drn and also the current Rfc on the Talk page of the list of Italian political parties as soon as possible. I will take care of starting the next two RFCs myself - hoping they will work -.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Fortieth statement by Checco
Since the first time, it was clear to me that the Moderator had no idea on how complicate the dispute had been and would be. This said, I also think that a moderator would help on our way forward. The only other option we have is for User:SDC and I to agree on informal surveys and RfCs, that would be decided by the other users involved. To be sure, I am also tired by the longness of this dispute and it a burden for me, which really changed my attitude toward Wikipedia (no longer a simple hobby, but something similar to a commitment). I would have spent my time differently in Wikipedia, but, while I liked how the list was styled and organised, I could not ignore User:SDC's proposals and, especially after he decided to no longer resort to edit-warring, I thought it was my duty to be involved in the discussion. It will be harder to find a solution to our disagreements without a moderator, but, unless we find a committed moderator knowledgeable of the issue, the only way forward is to understand which disagreements can be resolved by the opinion of the other users involved and/or through RfCs. Several times before we were very close to big compromises: hopefully, the days of "all or nothing" approaches are gone forever and for good. --Checco (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion
Answering to Checco's statement: I think that certain pages must be deleted. I am a strong inclusionist but some pages make no sense at all. And if a page has 0 incoming links, there is confirmation of its irrelevance. I have proposed two possible sets of rules, it's true, but I am still a firm supporter of option B. Also because starting now again to re-discuss rules, after inconclusive months and after the majority of users in this DRN have expressed themselves in favor of their removal, it doesn't seem like the best way to pursue.

So, I think that an eventual RFC should be reformulated better: it should ask users if they agree to have detailed rules (and to discuss them) or keep the page without them.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * As I foresaw, the decision of not having rules would probably result in neverending discussions ahead, over-editing and deletion proposals. You have long "campaigned" for the inclusion of a few parties currently excluded from the list. These notably included Rhaetian Populars. If that is included, basically no party can be excluded from the list and, arguably, also all of the so-called "civic lists" should be included too. If we decide to be radically inclusionist regarding the lists, no party articles should be deleted. --Checco (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I did not campaign for the inclusion of Rhaetian Populars, I campaigned for the inclusion of all the parties that participated in elections and obtained seats, even if at the local level. You only mention that page because it is the only one created by me among all those I wanted to include on the list. Then, just to be precise, "Rhaetian Populars" was not a civic list, as you call it, but a party with a statute, a directive body and structured on the territory for years. Veneto for Autonomy, Venetian Centre-Right, Sardinia is already Tomorrow etc.: these were not parties, and no source describes them as such. These are just some of the many existing regional councils' groups, that you have noticed and for which you have created a page, describing them improperly as parties. The deletion of an article can be decided on the basis of the status of the page or the quantity/quality of the sources concerning it. Currently many pages could be proposed for deletion.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The Rhaetian Populars are surely worth of an article and I am thankful to you for creating it. In my view, any addition to Wikipedia is useful and, from what you say, I am more inclusionist than you. However, there are thousands of "parties that participated in elections and obtained seats, even if at the local level" (meaning also in provincial and municipal election) and it is virtually impossible to check thousands and thousands of elections. The list should be comprehensive and consistent. I know that you have a narrow definition of "political party", but I do not think it is grounded in political science. --Checco (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * No user is the depositary of "political science", Wikipedia is based on sources, anything that is not based on sources is WP:Original Research. No party list includes all parties in a country, the lists only include those parties for which there is information. I have never claimed to want to list every existing party on the page. Only those about which we have enough information should be listed, i.e. those that meet the principle of notability. It works like this for all the other lists, I don't see why it shouldn't be the same for the list of Italian parties. It would be enough to not create pages of two lines or totally unknown parties and ignored by the sources.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yakme: If you also think that my concern is to include the Rhaetian Populars, it means that you have not observed the additions I had made and that Checco wanted to remove. Don't make rash statements, please. I want to include as many pages as possible in the list, I am not trying to include this or that specific party. The discussion about those percentages was only aimed at finding a compromise with Checco, but I have never really agreed with these kinds of rules. The purpose of the RFC, as it is currently set, may seem the confirm or deletion of the current rules. But it seems to me that we were thinking about whether or not to have rules, whatever they are. In any case, I would vote against detailed inclusion rules, but maybe some users may want different rules.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

For the reasons explained above, I would modify the final question of the Rfc as follows: "Please make a brief statement in the Survey along with a statement of Yes to delete detailed inclusion rules, or No to retain detailed rules, to be established in a subsequent discussion. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey.  The Thread Discussion section is for back-and-forth discussion." --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Requiring a brief statement of commenters is not normal RFC policy, its considered a good move to make one- but its not required. Its a request for COMMENTS, not DISCUSSION. Secondly- What is the big deal about having a long list. Its a list of Italian political parties. There are a lot of them, this should be a long list. THere is absolutely no reason any notable party per WP standards should not' be on this list. It should be an objective list. At some point it may be necessary to split into defunct and current, but there is no good reason now to avoid having a long list other than personal preference. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, I disagree. The list would not longer be objective, consistent and comprehensive. Hundreds of parties would be added, but many others with identical notability, especially former minor parties, would not. The conditions of admission have ensured that all parties with objective, minimal notability requirements are listed. That would not be the case anymore. The list would become near-infinite and chaotic, but, in some way, it would be less complete than now because very minor active parties, as well as parties from some regions, would a have a disproportionate chance of being listed than former minor parties, as well as parties from other regions. Unfortunately, there would be more, not less, case-by-case debates on the inclusion on specific parties, long discussions on the notability of individual parties, arguments on what can be defined a party or not, deletion proposals. Of course, if "Yes" were to prevail, I would love to be wrong and I would do whatever I can to add parties and write new articles. Over the last year discussions like this absorbed virtually all my time in Wikipedia and I hope to be able to be back soon to editing. I love debate, but the main reason why I have been an editor of Wikipedia is, like all of you, mainspace editing. --Checco (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You are basically saying the you disagree with WP:NOTABILITY. Notability using WP standards will not create debate. It is crystal clear- a party must be covered significantly in 2 or more independent sources. That's it. Can't find 2 sources- then its not notable enough to be included. Period. No debate. More rules = something new to argue. See this entire freaking DRN as proof. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Total completeness is a utopia, there is no list on Wikipedia that includes every single party in a country. The lists include the parties for wich we have news, and there is no reason why the list of Italian parties should be an exception. It is normal to have more news about current parties than defunct parties, I don't understand why this is a problem only for Italian parties. In Italy there are on average more parties than in other European countries, but it is definitely not true that there would be chaos by replacing cumbersome rules with the principle of general notability. General notability would be a sufficient criterion, also because several parties that have their own article on en.wikipedia probably do not meet it. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon It seems that the Rfc has been fraintended (probably it's my responsability). Unfortunately the current Rfc, that concerns both rules and general notability, has generated confusion, so I think that it should be considered faulty and rewritten in a different way. In particular, the users who voted no, have voted against the principle of notability but not in favor of the detailed rules. I think that a new Rfc should list the current rules (despite my previous statement, now I realized that the rules should be listed in the question, to be easily readable by users who want intervene in the Rfc) and it should concern only them. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * What is becoming crystal clear though- is that the vast majority do not support complex unnecessary rules that go beyond policy and into arbitrary. But I agree- to those unfamiliar with the context of why we are asking the question, aparently what is being asked is not clear enough in the current RFC. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Effectively, as it had already appeared in the two previous Rfc and in this Drn, the rules of that page are anything but consensual. Three users who voted "no" were actually much closer to the "yes" position. @User:Robert McClenon As soon as you can, could you close the RFC and reopen it with some corrections? I was wrong to assume that users were going to read the rules of the page. I think the new RFC should be a "yes" or "no" to the deletion of the current rules (making them explicit in the request itself). Thanks! --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I oppose that! We are not discussing on the current rules, but on having rules or not. On some respects, the rules got stricter thanks to User:SDC's proposals, it is not a joke! The RfC could have been clearer, but it is clear enough: specific rules or general notability? --Checco (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "General notability" is not equivalent to "no rules", as it can be seen from the replies of other editors on the RfC: for them, GNG is even too restrictive! I support either the A/B/C/D options, or alternatively a different RfC asking simply if the current rules (or something structured like the current rules, i.e. my option "C") is acceptable or should be removed. This would finally settle the main point of the debate. Yakme (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Checco- they are not voting for the current set of rules- you are not "winning" here. THe people voting no to general notability are voting to have absolutely no rules whatsoever. Not to stick with the current rules. Leaving this RFC until its conclusion will not result in your prefered set of rules getting consensus. It will lead to confusion because you can't vote for an option not listed in an RFC- and thats exactly what is happening- so the RFC needs to be reformed. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Checco: "the rules got stricter thanks to User:SDC's proposals": Instead I hope it's a joke! What aspects? Just because I wanted to remove a handful of ghost regional parties? I have insisted for months on making the rules simpler and more flexible, you have always found obstacles. I only obtained the inclusion of national parties that had scored at least 0.5% of the votes or one seat in a regional council, otherwise even these parties would be excluded from the list. The "fear" of not being able to include some unknown party and make the list inconsistent has never existed for any list of parties, I don't see why the list of Italian parties should be an exception. There are not thousands of parties that meet the principle of general notability, it is more likely that there are dozens of pages on wikipedia (concerning Italian and non-Italian parties) that do not meet it.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Again, retaining the current rules would not be a win for me. I am just arguing that we need specific rules, otherwise "bad things" will happen—I have explained my predictions quite profusely, so please let me be short on this now. Yes, the rules were changed through 2021 and, in my view, for the worse. My second argument is that parties which obtained relevant electoral results should be mentioned in the list and, possibly, have an article too even though few sources, possibly just electoral records, mention them. That is way we need thresholds and that is why I am saying that we need to have a consistent and comprehensive list that could be an effective guide for editors and readers. No rules and/or general notability and/or pure verifiability would produce a mess, in which, paradoxically, parties with relevant results could be excluded at the benefit of totally irrelevant but properly sourced parties. --Checco (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Your proposed X/Y RfC is blatantly incomplete: Option X and option Y are clearly not the only two options for inclusion rules, and it doesn't matter how many times you repeat it: "verifiability" and "having an article" are not the same and cannot be grouped together as a single option. You say we need to have a consistent and comprehensive list that could be an effective guide for editors and readers but this list article is not a "guide", WP is not a manual; this article should be a complete list of Italian parties, as the title suggests. The "guide" you refer to should be an article like Politics of Italy, for example, where a summary list of "relevant" parties can be shown and detailed. You also say parties with relevant results could be excluded at the benefit of totally irrelevant but properly sourced parties but how? If a party existed and is so relevant, then this will be easily verified (for example, by simply using the electoral results archives as source), and it will be included for sure. Yakme (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that it does work exactly like this, the purpose of the RFC is to see if there are the conditions to still maintain those rules. Even if there are 4 options, the choice is de facto between having specific rules and not having them (therefore between options A/B and C/D). Even if one of the two blocks were to slightly prevail over the other, I think we should follow that way. So, if the majority of users are against the rules (A or B), they will be removed, if the majority of users are in favor (C or D), they will be maintained. But to draw conclusions we must first wait for March, then the decision will be up to the moderator... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think that all editors who picked C or D really voted for these options because they approve the current rules or the current structure of the rules. It looks like many editors are just against notability or verifiability for lists, they are afraid these are too restrictive. But they do not have a grasp of how restrictive the current rules are. So I think that an RfC about whether to have the current rules or not is really necessary to understand what the community wants. Yakme (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Provided the current RfC does not result in consensus, we cannot continue to propose RfCs on the same issue. By the way, the rules are not very restrictive and were even looser before changes approved during 2021. We can obviously loosen the rules, but only rules make sure that the list is comprehensive and consistent. --Checco (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you avoid telling an alternate version of reality? Only after I got some changes, some previously absent parties could be listed on the page, and if you hadn't opposed other simplifications, many other parties would have been listed. What you affirm is simply not true, the rules were even more restrictive until 2021.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * only rules make sure that the list is comprehensive this is an illogical statement. How can threshold selection rules – like the ones Checco supports – make the list "comprehensive"? It is the opposite, they make the list limited to a premium selection of parties. Yakme (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite simple! Rules make sure that all parties with mininal conditions of admission (they can be loosened as we want) are included in the list. No rules would make the list arbitrary, less consistent and, yes, less comprehensive. As an ordered society needs laws, an ordered list need rules. --Checco (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As an ordered society needs laws not necessarily, as there are political theories about ordered societies without laws. But regardless of the political philosophy comparisons... No one is proposing having absolutely no rules here. Since we are playing philosophical here, I can confirm that I agree with your rules, but with the admission conditions put to 0% electoral results and 0 MPs minimum thresholds. Yakme (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Then, the list would be flooded with irrelevant parties, while more relevant parties with no sources would not appear. --Checco (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@User:Robert McClenon On 13 March the Rfc on the talk page of the list of political parties in Italy could be closed. I don't think there will be any news in the next two days. While preference counting is not the best method to establish consensus, it seems clear that the community has expressed itself against detailed rules for that page: 7 favorable opinions for options A or B, 3/4 favorable opinions for C or D (including the opinion of a user, Fieari, potentially faulty, since he/she never explained the inconsistencies of his post). With this result I think that after March 13 the rules will have to be removed and we should start discussing the page set up... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment about the result of the Rfc: there is no broad consensus on any option, as stated by Checco, but now we have to make a decision. I know it is a pretty rough method summing options A and B, but users who have expressed themselves in favour for these options have done so because they are against having specific rules. Therefore most users have expressed themselves against a specific set of rules (regardless of whether they are the same or different from the current ones). There are two possible solutions: taking note that the current rules are not consensual and keeping on with the discussion about the set up of the page, or continue to discuss whether the page should have rules or not (starting yet another Rfc). Honestly, the second solution would seem to melike a waste of time, since the users have already had a month to express themselves freely on this topic. However, I also invite the moderator Robert McClenon to provide his own analysis on the outcome of the Rfc.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Now the Rfc is really officially over. I have already expressed my opinion, however I agree with the opinion of Isabelle (who closed the Rfc), which provides for the overcoming of the current rules (which has generated only disputes) and to make the page more inclusive. Option B provides for a simple rule, that is general notability. Affirming that every single party existing in Italy meets the principle of general notability is simply not true: no list includes all the parties of a country and I don't see where the problem lies. Starting to discuss new rules would only mean one thing: to make the least voted option (option D) prevail and start new and exhausting discussions. However, I invite the other participants in this Drn (Yakme, Nightenbelle, North8000, Autospark) and Robert McClenon to give their opinion. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My opinion for the RFC was "B" was the closest to my recommendation which is to include all and only those which have a Wikipedia article. After the RFC my opinion would be to follow the results of the RFC.  In this case they are one and the same.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My opinion is- WP already has rules, why are we making up more for one article? The same as it has been since day one. I am satisfied with the results of the RFC because I think commenters made the right decision. (Even if I wasn't satisfied I would accept it and move on, but I'm not going to pretend I'm not happy that the decision is inline with what I feel is correct). I hope that this article can finally progress with less drama. If editors want to go on an AFD campaign to delete articles for groups they don't feel belong on the list.... well I'm not sure that is a bad thing either. If we have a ton of articles for non-notable subjects, they should be AFD-ed. Do I believe that to be the case here- No- I think politics in general is a large and confusing topic and lists related to political parties should be long. I think the desire to keep them short is exclusionist and eliminates a big part of the story. Especially in a country that has had so many parties in its history like Italy. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Ps. I would like to propose a small correction to my proposal, in order to avoid repetitions within the page. In my view, the most suitable subdivision would be the following: I have no objection to listing the regional parties by number of regional councilors, but in this case this data should be included in the table, otherwise it would become very complicated to maintain the correct order.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Active parties
 * 1a. Parliamentary parties
 * 1a1. Parliamentary national parties
 * 1a2. Parliamentary regional parties
 * 1a3. Parliamentary overseas parties
 * 1b. Extraparliamentary parties
 * 1b1. Extraparliamentary national parties
 * 1b2. Extraparliamentary regional parties
 * 1b3. Extraparliamentary overseas parties
 * 2. Former parties
 * 2a. Former national parties
 * 2b. Former regional parties
 * 2c. Former overseas parties

@Robert McClenon: Is the back-and-forth discussion suspended here too? Otherwise I would have a comment concerning what I have read about splitting the lists.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I wanted to comment on a statement from Yakme: it is possible to solve the problem raised by him by maintaining a primary separation between "Parliamentary parties", "Parties represented only in the regions" and "Non-represented parties". Both the parliamentary parties and the parties represented in the regions can in turn divided into "Parties active in more regions or throughout the national territory" and "One-region parties". Parties like SVP and UV would be listed alongside other parliamentary parties, albeit in a specific section. To make this possible, however, it would be necessary to include the number of regional councilors in the wikitable as well. And finding an agreement about the wikitable in this discussion now seems to me impossible, since that Checco is opposed to two information that I consider essential, above all for the Italian parties: political position and leader. I think a RFC will be inevitable. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am quite sorry to hear you saying that a compromise is impossible. Of course, anyone will have to renounce to something. Otherwise, I would not have offered you a compromise solution, which is far from my preference. We should try to avoid a RfC and spare time. --Checco (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * User:Scia Della Cometa - Back-and-forth discussion is permitted in this section, but not in the main section at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Checco: I'm sorry too, but it seems that the our positions are irreconcilable. I am available on having only one ideology and one political position in the table (although I would prefer 2/3 ideologies and the full political position), but not to deprive it completely of these information (making it unnecessarily poorer). If we can't find an agreed solution here, it's natural to seek the opinion of other users.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I am sure the Moderator will be able to find a way to lead us to a compromise. On some issues, I am on the minority. On others, that is your case. Unfortunately, only very few editors are interested in this issue, but it is surely better to find a common ground among the four or five of us than launching several RfCs, with little interest by other editors and a great wast of time. --Checco (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It will be the Moderator to decide how to overcome the impasse, of course. The previous issue was solved with the RFC because we couldn't find an agreement here, so, in my view, it could be a good solution in this case too.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

As explained in my last statement, my practical compromise proposal is the following:


 * Nationally or multi-regionally active parliamentary parties (Parliamentary parties)


 * One-region parliamentary parties (Parliamentary parties)


 * Overseas parliamentary parties (Parliamentary parties)


 * Nationally or multi-regionally active parties (Parties represented only in Regional Councils)


 * One-region parties (Parties represented only in Regional Councils)

Omissis
 * Non-represented parties

It see this as a compromise proposal because I would keep more information, but these are what seem essential to me. At the same time, it seems to me the most effective and coherent way of listing the several parties. As you can see, I would list the regional sections of the League together with the League itself and not in each single region, since they are the same party.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Yakme Could you give a practical representation of how you would organize the whole list of active parties? This would help us and the moderator to see what the commonalities are and to move the discussion forward. Personally, I still don't understand how you intend to manage the whole list of active parties.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I gave an example of my idea in practice already in . Yakme (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I had already read it, but you only proposed how to list the parties represented in Parliament. Then you stated "The purely regional parties would contain the number of members of the correspondent Region's parliament members (MRPs) instead of MPs or MEPs". SVP and UV are purely regional parties too. Honestly I did not understand exactly how you would organize the entire list of active parties and what title you would give to the various subsections. Or would you like to include everything in one list?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * SVP and UV are not purely regional since they have MPs in the national Parliament. As I said already, I would have one list for the parliamentary parties, and one list for the non-parliamentary parties. Yakme (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Yakme SVP and UV are purely regional parties, they are active in only one region and have a special status as representatives of linguistic minorities. The parties are mono-regional regardless of whether they have won seats in parliament. So, if I understand, you would have only two lists for active parties, one for parliamentary parties and one for extra-parliamentary parties. For the first list would you have the table you showed above in order of seats, for the second a bulleted list in alphabetical order? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not against splitting the non-parliamentary parties into parties that are represented at least in one regional Parliament, and parties that are not. For the former, I would still have a table with some info like the political ideology. For the latest I would not even have a table. Yakme (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In summary, you would have a single table for parliamentary parties and two lists for extra-parliamentary parties: one for parties represented in regional councils, another for non-represented parties, right? The latter would be a bulleted list in alphabetical order. However, in this case it would be necessary to indicate the number of regional councilors for all parties, otherwise there would be an inconsistency between the first and second tables, right? Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, if a party is represented on two regional councils, how would it be included in the wikitable?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

(1) I do not oppose having separate tables for parliamentary parties and parties that are represented in at least one regional council; (2) I do not think that there is an inconsistency anywhere if we do not insert a column for the number of regional councillors; (3) regarding the two regional councils, the words "at least one" clarify what I mean. Yakme (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Yakme: essentially, I would like to understand if there is the possibility of finding a common ground between the proposals. In principle, I am not opposed to your proposal, but only if the number of regional councilors was indicated in both tables. But I would certainly be against using representation in regional councils as an element of distinction without indicating this data in the tables. For this reason I asked you how to indicate the parties represented in several regional councils (there are currently no parties represented in several regional councils without representation in the Italian or European Parliament, but there may be some in the future). The list of active parties would be divided into: "Parties represented in the Italian or European parliament", "Parties represented only in regional councils"; "Non-represented parties".--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There would be an alternative to avoid the number of regional councilors: the inclusion of a field in the wikitable concerning the regions in which each party is represented (for parties represented only in the regions), like for List of political parties in the Netherlands and List of political parties in Germany. This seems to me the only solution to avoid the number of regional councilors.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Currently there are zero non-parliamentary parties with seats in multiple regional councils, but the opposite is a probable situation in Italy, and I am quite sure this was not the case right after the latest national-level election. So I would use the "regional" table for any party (national or regional) that has seats in any number of regional councils, but no seats at a national level (MPs or MEPs). My proposal would go well with the solution implemented in the German list. Yakme (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Yakme Yes, I think the "German model" could be a good compromise solution. In the hypothetical case that there was a non-parliamentary party represented in several regions, a drop-down menu could be introduced to list all the regions. In summary, the proposal would be as follows:


 * Parties represented in the Italian or European Parliament


 * Parties represented only in Regional Councils

Omissis
 * Non-represented parties


 * Do you confirm? As for the regional sections of the League, would you agree to insert them directly in the first table (in a drop-down menu under the League) as above? Also because they could not be included in the second table (they are represented in Parliament).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure several of the major parties have regional sections, so I do not see why we have to make an exception for the League. I would not show them at all. (I am not even sure to why we have separate articles for each of them). Yakme (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Yakme: actually, a few months ago, I had also proposed to remove them from the list, but the proposal was rejected by Checco.Lega Lombarda and Liga Veneta need separate pages, as they pre-existed the LN, while I do not see a great necessity for the regional sections. However, it is also true that the League has a more federal structure than the other parties. Since we have a page for almost all the regional sections of the League, including them in the dropdown menu could be a compromise, or not? As for the general setting of the wikitable, do you agree? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can I add that wit this "German model", I'm still very much against political position being listed as well as ideology – I'd rather have one of the other, and preferably the ideology, if we have to list one if them.--Autospark (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

For me this is already a compromise version, I would have entered a lot more information, so I don't understand these vetoes (without explanation). If we cannot find an agreement at least on essential information, such as the main political position and the main ideology, the only way to solve the issue will be a Rfc. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Unfortunately it seems that we have again reached an impasse. Indeed, after after Checco's last statement, it seems that points of view are not reconcilable. I think your new intervention is required, a RFC could help break the deadlock? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Are you really interested in compromise, User:SDC? I have accepted many things I do not like, as tables and multiple fields, including ideology, leader and MPs/MEPs... why are you never satisfied with the compromises we can plausibly reach? Is your version the only compromise you can accept?
 * Anyway, I suggest that we should first agree on the sub-divisions of the list, then discuss on each sub-division. --Checco (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Checco: I was and am interested in compromise, but frankly now it doesn't seem achievable. I in the wikitable would have included 3 ideologies, a complete political position, regional councilors. But if some essential information present in every wikitable is vetoed, it seems to me that compromise is not possible. All wikitable have original names, full political positions and multiple ideologies. Having only the main ideology and position already seemed to me an acceptable compromise, the table proposed is certainly not large. Honestly, I see no plausible reason to exclude this information from the table... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That is my point. After a long time discussing with you, while appreciating your honesty, energy and knowledge, I have to say that I am not sure that you understand what compromise is all about. I would have *none* of those fields, thus a reasonable compromise would be having *some* fields. It is interesting that also three other users have objected to some of the fields you have been proposing. I am sure we can reach a compromise here, without resorting to multiple RfCs. Of course, compromise will leave anyone only partly satisfied. That is what compromises are all about. --Checco (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems to me instead that it is yours that you have not exactly understood my point of view: I would include much more information in the wikitable, but some of them I consider essential. Obviously there are other users who think differently, so what? So far it does not seem to me that a compromise proposal has been made that is acceptable to all users, so if a compromise cannot be found here, it is better to try other ways. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * To borrow your words, it is essential to me that some of the items you deem essential are not included. That is why, with the contribution of other users (at least three more have been involved mostly all the time) and the guidance of the Moderator, we should reach a compromise here, without resorting to RfCs. We should meet on the middle of the road, how far or close to your or my position depends on the other users and the Moderator. Of course, compromise will not make anyone fully happy, but that is what compromise is all about. However, I am open also to multiple RfCs and, thus, a more protracted discussion. --Checco (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Checco: We are unable to reach a compromise, even though there are only four of us left, this is a fact. There are positions that seem difficult to reconcile: for example, you can't give up excluding some fields (I don't understand why, or maybe yes), for me it's the opposite. This is why I asked for the intervention of the moderator Robert McClenon, who will decide how to intervene (in my opinion a Rfc would be useful). During the Rfc, however, we could discuss non-directly related topics here.
 * Furthermore, let me say you something: your proposal seems a little confusing to me. Where would regional parties like SVP and UV be listed? Between the parliamentary parties? Between the regional parties? Or on both lists? In the latter case there would be a repetition. But SVP and UV are both regional and parliamentary parties. A breakdown of sublists of that type would not work, it doesn't seem clear to me... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As it is now, I would like to see "one-region" regional parties, like SVP and UV, listed among regional parties and no repetition. --Checco (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

There is currently no distinction between parliamentary and extra-parliamentary parties on the list, so the two situations are not comparable. You have proposed to introduce a section referring to "parliamentary" parties, this means that it should include all parties in Parliament, if no distinction is made between national, regional or overseas parties. SVP and UV are minor parliamentary parties, and at the same time they are regional parties. The same reasoning is valid for overseas parties such as MAIE. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My preferences is to broadly keep the current sub-division, albeit in a different way and adding one more subset. Among active parties, "main parties" would be those with parliamentary groups, "minor parties" would be countrywide parties with parliamentary representation and "extra-parliamentary parties" would be countrywide parties with no parliamentary representation. SVP and UV would stay within the "regional parties" category. Same for "overseas parties". --Checco (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you do not specify in the section title that they are only national parties, that section should include all parliamentary parties, including regional and overseas parties.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As it is now, we do not need to specify in section names, but in an explanatory note. Sections with long names are never a good idea. --Checco (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I will write here since the Moderator only asked the opinion of the two disputing parties in his latest statement. However I have a request for to clarify or correct his proposal given here, since it looks incomplete and ill-defined to me. (1) What does he mean by parties with parliamentary group? Is this based on the groups' names? For example: there is a group in the Senate called "Italia Viva – PSI", and there is one senator of PSI in this group, does this mean that by Checco's standards PSI is a "major party"? On the contrary there are multiple MPs of the Moderates party, but this would not be a "major" party just because no group is named after it. This is weird (and obviously WP:OR) and this is why I am strongly against separating parties into major and minor (or also micro). (2) None of the five subdivisions proposed by Checco include parties with no extra-parliamentary representation. Is this intentional or just a mistake? Yakme (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This approach is too legalistic. Of course, in your example, the party having a parliamentary group is IV.
 * Thanks for pointing out my mistake above. I corrected my proposal. --Checco (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, in your example, the party having a parliamentary group is IV well, of course, this is not so obvious and straightforward at all. And possibly the source of misinterpretations and discussions. So if your own description of your proposal is that it has clearly and objectively defined subsets, I have to say this is hardly the case. How do you "objectively" say that in IV–PSI the one to pick is IV and not PSI? By the number of MPs? What if they had a similar number of MPs? You just take the one that is 1 MP higher than the other? What if, in the future, +Eu and Az will be able to make a joint group? Which one of the two will be called a "major party"? Also, this is not a singular instance even in the current Parliament, there are more examples like UDC and PSdAz, small parties which also appear as official parliamentary group names; or examples like LeU which exists as a parliamentary group but not as an organization anymore. Yakme (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I am for keeping also the "parliamentary groups" subset, but I would improve the explanatory note in the following way: "Parliamentary groups not directly connected to a political party or representing a coalition of political parties". However, we could easily find other solutions in order to give more relevance to larger parties, as it is done in all lists of political parties in Wikipedia. We could decide, for instance, that parties surpassing on their own the 3% or 4% threshold in Parliament and European Parliament elections, respectively, should come first in a separate subset. One more thing: any comparison to List of political parties in Germany is not appropriate here, as that list has a number of active parties that is comparable to the number of parliamentary parties in Italy; our list would much longer, thus any comparison is at best deceptive. --Checco (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not mentioned Germany in my comments here. You did not reply to any of my points, I was not talking about what to do with parliamentary groups, but about your separation of parties into major and minor with an arbitrary (and WP:OR) criterion. I showed that there are grey-area cases in your separation criterion by which some relatively small parties would be defined as "major", or would be in an undefined state. Now you doubled down with an even more arbitrary criterion, 3 or 4% of something you decided, which is not supported by any source. So I am feeling like we are going back to the old criteria of this page which were rejected by the latest RfC. Yakme (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Uhm, no. My answer was very specific. There is a clear distinction between parliamentary groups representative of individual parties and those representing a coalition of political parties or not directly connected to a specific political party"—they even have statutes! User:SDC long proposed having a separate subset for parties expressing a parliamentary group of their own and I think that it could be a good compromise. Another possibility would be to single out those parties surpassing the thresholds currently into effect, 3% for the Chamber of Deputies and 4% for the European Parliament. None of my proposals are arbitrary, but based on objective features. My references to List of political parties in Germany was intended to make you and other users think that that country, as well as most countries, have a fraction of the number of Italian parties, that is why it is necessary to have several subsets in order to have an orderly list. --Checco (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe in the past I have proposed representation in parliamentary groups as an "eventual" criterion of distinction. Honestly, however, I see no need to distinguish between major and minor parties. The Italian party system is complex, there are no objective criteria for making a distinction of this type. The reader does not need to "be led by the hand" to understand which are the major and minor parties: the only thing we agree on is the indication of the number of MPs and MEPs, this data is more than enough to allow the reader to get his or her own idea of the size of the parties. Furthermore, starting again to talk about percentages would make the discussion back off, we have already decided not to use similar rules anymore. And as I have already said, there is another problem in Checco's proposal: we cannot mention parliamentary parties, excluding regional and overseas parties from the list without specifying that it refers only to countrywide parties.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We should surely specify that in first subsets only countrywide parties are listed and that regional parties are listed separately. I think that having more subsets is better for readers: there is surely a distinction between parties passing the electoral thresholds and those which do not, as well as between parties having parliamentary groups and those which do not. The problem raised by User:Yakme is one of the least problematic. Italy's party system is a complex mixture of parties, electoral lists, coalitions, etc. I would love to have German-sytled registered parties, but Italy's reality is quite different. --Checco (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the main problem is the identification of the parties with a parliamentary group because Lega and IV have also added PSd'Az and PSI in the name of their groups (even if in the second case the reasons were technical). But the page setting should be suitable for any era and not depend on the current electoral system. Also because in Italy the electoral laws are constantly changing. I don't see the need to distinguish between major and minor parties, because the biggest parties are already at the top of the list. And I would certainly avoid a classification as "micro parties". I was the first to propose a distinction between countrywide parties, regional parties, and overseas parties, but there were objections that "national parties" and "regional parties" were vague terms.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I would prefer a separate subset for parties with parliamentary groups (something common for all political eras) and I would like to avoid terms "national" or "countrywide" in subset names. --Checco (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And it is also for this reason that I disagree with your proposal. In my view, the waste of time consists in believing that an agreement can still be reached in this discussion: it seems clear to me that this is not the case, we are not taking any steps forward. And that is why it would be useful to collect opinions from other users.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I have a question: does the RFC also concern former parties? I assumed it was only about active parties, but actually the question is set on the whole page. I also agree to include the former parties (indeed I updated my proposal), however until now we have only been discussing how to organize active parties... @Checco: I think we should discuss coalitions and parliamentary groups only after we have decided how to list the active parties and the former parties. Tackling too many topics at once only creates confusion. I would encourage you to remove them from your proposal to discuss them later.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Checco: If the Moderator Robert McClenon is tired of this Drn, we should try to finish it as soon as possible. The main issues are essentially three: organization of the list (1), set up of the wikitable (2), lightening of the number of party's pages (3). With a single RFC (or two simultaneous RFCs: I agree to discuss the first two topics both in the same RFC and in two concurrent RFCs) we could directly solve the first two issues, and in the meantime discuss the pages to be deleted. Frankly, your obstinacy to designate every regional party as "regionalist" also drops one of the very few points on which there could be agreement: the indication of the only main ideology in wikitable. According to your view, every regional party would be described as regionalist in the wikitable, regardless of any enormous differences (simply regionalist, autonomist, separatist). I am tired of discussing the order of ideologies in the infoboxes of the parties, so from now on I will support the inclusion of a maximum number of 3 ideologies for each party.
 * AGreatUsernameChoice: Thanks for your statement, however the first issue has been solved ;) now we are discussing the set up of lists and wikitable, your opinion is welcome! --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My last consideration: I may also agree with a possible "Plan C" (countrywide parties, regional parties, overseas parties), to be listed according to their representation (as I had already proposed), but I believe that the RFC will work better with only two proposals.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am quite surprised. I am mostly pleased by the current form of the list and I liked it even more before some changes were introduced. I know how User:SDC would like to tranform the list, but should I agree with all his proposals? It was a pity that he did not accept the several compromise versions I offered over the last year, but I am sure he can say the same. On the latest point User:SDC raised, I disagree on deleting even one article (it is much more important to replace the current red links into articles, but in the meantime we should leave red links) and I perfectly know that ideologies can be controversial (I opposed including them in the first place): if one main ideology has to be included, it may be the "left-right" one, excluding "regionalism", which is a sort of umbrella-ideology for most regional parties, but I am not fully convinced. --Checco (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand exactly what you're surprised at, I haven't seen many compromise offers from you in the past (I might better consider them "concessions"). If a single ideology is a matter of controversy, it is practically automatic to include more than one. However, I don't think I understand your proposal on regional parties.
 * As for the pages to be deleted, the Afd will be there, then the community will decide whether or not to keep these articles. After all, Wikipedia cannot contain everything, there are also irrelevant pages.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In most lists of political parties there is a fraction of the parties that this list contains and, after the changes that we have been approving, there will be even more. We should think about the list's substainability in terms of updating. In my view, there should not be tables for each subset and, as another user pointed out, the less fields, the better. After all, readers can jump into the links and explore just about everything about each political party. --Checco (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed we are discussing wikitables for those parties represented in the institutions, not even for those without representation. The page will be longer but the changes are sustainable. All the lists show a comparative analysis in wikitable. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Checco: you often refer to red links concerning Italian parties, but what exactly are you referring to? These red links can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and probably the pages were not created because there is not enough information on these parties. On the other hand, there are many pages that would not leave red links even after being deleted. A red link does not necessarily have to be converted into a page, also because creating a two-line page is useless. Creating a page is useful when there are enough sources and information regarding that topic. Regarding the civic lists, not all are political parties and worthy of mention, but only those with an effective and proven political organization. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In my view, the current red links refer to political parties worth of an article: I hope to find time and sources to write them soon, but, in the meantime, those parties could stay in the list as red links. Even some municipal "civic lists", that are effectively local political parties (similarly to what happens in the Netherlands and other countries), have "an effective and proven political organization"—just think of Bologna's Civic Coalition and Padua's Civic Coalition. --Checco (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Checco: we also need sources and information about them: a page structured like "XXX is a political party based in XXX. It took part in the XXX municipal elections and won XXX elects. The end." is not really useful for readers and would be eligible for deletion.
 * We must help Robert McClenon to mediate this Drn: the proposal of 3 concurring Rfc is not helpful. The part concerning coalitions and parliamentary groups is not a priority. If you want to propose the division of parties into major (with parliamentary group) and minor parties (without parliamentary group), I invite you to do so in the current Rfc or to postpone the proposal to the end of the discussion. Having three concurring Rfc on the structure of the lists, the division of major and minor parties and on coalitions and parliamentary groups would only create confusion.
 * So my question is: do you agree to discuss now only the organization of the lists (excluding coalitions and parliamentary groups from the discussion) and then wikitables? If you want to propose a separate Rfc for a further division of the parties into major and minor, do you agree to postpone it after these two issues are resolved? Let's try not to complicate the situation further . My question is also addressed to other users. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I definitively agree! --Checco (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Very good, I modified my proposal in the Draft, @Checco: I invite you to also modify your proposal in a simplified way. and anyone else involved in the discussion: Do you agree to list the "Historical parties" (such as Historical Right, Historical Left etc.) in a separate section from the other former parties?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I did what I was supposed to do. Please modify Plan A in order to be structured similarly to Plan B.
 * By the way, parties such the Historial Right and Left should go with "former parties". --Checco (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's avoid mentioning future Rfc in the main proposal, we are now discussing the organization of the lists.
 * @Robert McClenon: I have finished correcting the Draft. What do you think? We have decided to remove coalitions and parliamentary groups from the proposal, as they are heterogeneous topics. We would need you to close the previous Rfc and you to publish the new one. The new RFC should include, in addition to topics such as "Society, sports, and culture" and "History and geography", also "Politics, government, and law". In addition, the two options should appear in the preview, so that interested users can immediately understand the question. Thanks! --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is better to avoid mentioning "historical parties" in Plan A—similarly to the "main/minor" parties issue, it could be resolved later. The issue of the RfC would be to decide whether categorising regional parties according to their parliamentary representation or together in a specific section. Also, it think it would be better to specify in the RFC the future steps: you should specify that a RfC or a specific discussion on wikibales and "historical parties" will be next and I should be welcomed to specify that two more issues should be solved: a) dividing main parties in two categories, one for the parties having or having had parliamentary groups of their own; b) including in the list also sections for coalitions, electoral lists and non-party parliamentary groups. Why not having a joint note? As you were bold yesterday, I was bold today: please take a look. --Checco (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)