This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
I find the use of the political party infobox not suitable for this article. The Historic Compromise was not a political party nor in any way similar to a political party that would justify the use of this template. It was merely an ad-hoc cooperation without any form of common organisation, programme or leadership. This case is unlike the relatively stable pre-election alliances that were usual in the 1990s and 2000s (House of Freedoms, The Olive Tree/The Union), that had at least some form of common manifesto, campaign, joint leadership and vaguely defined political alignment (either centre-left or centre-right). For the same reasons, the "Electoral results" section seems unsuitable. It suggests that the partners of the Historical Compromise had run these elections jointly while in fact they were rivals and only saw themselves forced to cooperate after the election for the supposed good of the country. The same arguments apply in my opinion to the cases of Organic Centre-left and Pentapartito where I would like to remove the infobox template as well. Ad-hoc government coalitions (or, in the case of the Historic Compromise not even a real coalition, but merely an informal agreement) should not be confused with fully-fledged electoral alliances. @Nick.mon, Checco, Autospark, and Bergmanucsd: Please feel invited to join the discussion. --RJFF (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford Handbook of Italian Politics [1] delimits this (and the other related time periods) as their own chapters in Italian political history. For this reason, I think that the party coalition infobox would be appropriate, especially for comparing to previous or subsequent ruling coalitions. Bergmanucsd (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Bergmanucsd @RJFF:[reply]
I completely agree that this was a period in Italian political history. But it was not a political party or similar to one. Please note that we are talking about the political party infobox, not one about political periods. The Historic Compromise had no leaders (each of the partners, of course, had its own leader, but there was no joint leadership of the Historic Compromise), no headquarters, no common ideology, so most of the political party infobox parameters are not applicable anyway. --RJFF (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I partially agree with you. In my view we can remove the infobox from this page, because the Historic Compromise wasn't de facto a political alliance, but as you said, a simple cooperation between the two main parties; but, according to me, we should maintain the infobox in the pages regarding the Organic Centre-left and Pentapartito, because before the elections, it was clear that those parties would have form a coalition to rule the country. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
