Jump to content

Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

RfC: new presentation of rules

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.


Should the rules overseeing this list be presented in the following way or as they are now? --Checco (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Conditions of admission
In order to be part of this list, a political party needs to have 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;
Classification
The parties are classified as:
  • Major parties — parties having obtained at least 5% of the vote in a countrywide (general/European) election or having been represented by at least 100 MPs or 10 MEPs;
  • Minor parties — parties having fulfilled one of the other conditions;
  • Regional parties — minor parties active only in one Region (Province in the cases of Trentino and South Tyrol);
  • Parties of the Italians abroad — parties active only among Italians abroad;
  • Parliamentary groups — parliamentary groups formed by coalitions of parties and/or non-party independents.
Active major parties are those having obtained more than 5% of the vote in the latest countrywide (general/European) election or currently being represented by at least 30 MPs or 5 MEPs.

Please enter Yes or No in the Survey with a brief statement. Back-and-forth discussion may be conducted in the Threaded Discussion. --Checco (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Survey (II)

  • Yes. Rules are necessary in this list because the number of political parties in Italy, active and defunct, is near-infinite. That is why, both in it.Wikipedia and en.Wikipedia, both regarding the template and this list, rules have been discussed and uploaded. They are quite complicate and they need some overhaul. In order to make the current rules clearer, both for readers and editors, and make the proposal and the discussion of changes easier, I am proposing a new format of presentation of the rules. This does not mean that I agree with all the current rules (I would like to simplify and change several of them), but just that it would be a good start to present them in a clearer way. --Checco (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly no. Many of these rules have never been approved in any discussion, so they are not supported by consensus. Furthermore, the scheme is merely copied from the party template, for a reader it is quite offensive to read trivia such as the explanation of what a regional party is (a party active in only one region). These redundant explanations are not (rightly) present on any other list.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No, one can simply include any parties from Category:Political parties in Italy. Basically, one only needs an organization to be describes as a political party in Italy in multiple RS. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • strongly no Simply because wasting energy deciding how to present rules that do not currently have consensus is a manipulation of the system. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes - Italy's got more political parties (current & past) then I could count on fingers & toes. There needs to be an 'inclusion' criteria for this list article. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes – we should have some admission criteria for the list. Italy is one nation known for a wide variety of political parties, at national and regional level, and otherwise this list could become unmanageable, or at least needlessly unclear to any end user who may not be familiar with the subject.--Autospark (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Faulty RFC (invited by the bot) This has 6 questions presented as 1 question. One is have a threshold for inclusion in the article (which I think is a good idea and proposal) the other 5 are editor creation of unsourced definitions for 5 terms, presumably for the text of the article, a violation of policy. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    Maybe you could fix this issue by striking the second half. Most people have been responding to the first half. North8000 (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible no, with an emphasis on the fact that there is no indication of consensus for these "rules". First, they should be guidelines instead of rules; establishing specific hard-and-fast rules for an individual page smacks of WP:NOTBURO and, if it were to happen, would require a lot more than has occurred here. Second, the classifications seem like WP:OR as written. Agree with North8000 that this ought to be broken up into smaller RFCs on specific proposed guidelines rather than one sweeping RFC for a big table (the wording of "presentation" is also weird; the important question isn't "how should we present these guidelines" but "what should the guidelines for inclusion be in the first place".) EDIT: Changed to strongest possible no after reading some of the discussions below, especially the absurd statement that these rules are the established consesus of this list; 2) the RfC is not about the rules themselves, but their presentation. Obviously that consensus is in question and needs to be settled first, before anything else; trying to present them as a WP:FAITACCOMPLI and trying to avoid an RFC on that is WP:STONEWALL / WP:OWN behavior. That underlying question needs to be settled unambiguously first, before anything else, and if the framer of this RFC doesn't believe it addresses that question then this is not a valid or useful RFC. Setting inclusion guidelines via a future RFC seems reasonable, and these are not unthinkable; but this is not the way to go about it. --Aquillion (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No, not THOSE rules - those do not seem a consensus per Archive 1 Revision of some criteria, and just look too complicated and trivial as criteria to be meaningful to readers. I would suggest limit it to those actually having an elected officeholder. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes In the absence of any other limitations or rules, this page needs some guidance/limitations on what can be included, as has been said, Italian political parties are infinite. At least this is some forward movement that helps to address the problem, it can be modified at some later point. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion (II)

To be clear: 1) these rules are the established consesus of this list; 2) the RfC is not about the rules themselves, but their presentation; 3) it would indeed be great if the same rules were applied both to the template and this list; 4) a regional party is not necessarily active in just one region (as defined by the Italian Constitution), as a regional party can be active in multiple regions and/or being simply a supporter of regionalism, the ideology; 5) few other countries have so many parties as Italy. --Checco (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

1. If I had written the rules in your place it would have been the same thing: they are contested rules, so they are not supported by consensus. Periodically remove parties from the list wanted by other users based on rules you have unilaterally introduced is a behavior that does not conform to the principles of Wikipedia..
2. The RFC is clearly a flight forward, now that I am about to ask for the legitimacy of the imposition of the rules themselves.
3. That would be great, but there is no consensus.
4. The Italian Constitution does not define what a regional party is. Furthermore, the explanation of the categories is very superfluous.
5. Each list lists the parties a country has. On it.wikipedia there is no inclusion criteria and there are no problems.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
1) The rules are established consensus and are strongly challenged only by you. 2) The RfC is just about presentation, nothing more. 3) If there is no new consensus, we will keep the current rules both here and in the template. 4) The Italian Constitution defines regions, indeed that is what I wrote ("region (as defined by the Italian Constitution)"). 5) Are you really willing to abolish conditions of admission and categorisation? Do you really want the list overloaded with dozens of additional parties and disorganised? --Checco (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
"Established consensus" means a lot or nothing: if I had introduced rules to my liking, the result would have been the same: these rules were introduced unilaterally by you, and you have never proved otherwise, despite having repeatedly invited you to do so. And yes, I want to ask for the abolition of all current rules, never approved in any discussion. No party list has rules for inclusion, and the situation worsens since these rules have not been decided anywhere. Eventually, when the conditions are right, with the widest possible involvement of interested users in the project, they could be consensually reintroduced. In my opinion, the current rules are not legitimate.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the RfC and, above all, it is false. Please understand what established consensus means. You are challenging rules that have been decided and uploaded several years ago and, as one user pointed out at Wikipedia:Teahouse, "there is a huge discussion on the talk page, and it seems that a lot more history has been removed". Finally, as another users pointed out: "Standalone list inclusion criteria can be whatever is supported by consensus of the editors involved in working on that list". You have long tried to achieve a new consensus, but unfortunately only two users have more or less regularly answered to you. What does this mean? It simply means that the current rules are scandal for no-one but you. I am a good-faith editor and, as you should know, I am always open to debate and compromise, otherwise I would have made bold edits (including adding the non-controversial "Organisation" scheme) and I would not have accepted compromise rules that I do not like (including some of the current rules, proposed by you). --Checco (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
You don't seem to realize that you have arrogated to yourself the right to decide, control and authorize the content of the entire page, something that doesn't exist anywhere. You only mention the interventions you like, but not the ones you don't like. Rules "uploaded several years ago" by yourself, so please don't state anymore that they have been approved by other users, because that's not true. However I will see what to do, I would like to know if my doubts about the legitimacy of the current rules are well founded or not.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Again, that is not true and you know it. I would like to make several changes and I have already accepted some compromises that are far from what I would like. There is an established consensus, now including also some of your proposals. --Checco (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Where was the discussion or RFC that you say established consensus for these rules? I am not seeing it. (Even if it did exist, WP:CCC applies; it is clear, given how sharply discussions on this page have devolved, that an RFC on the rules is needed before anything else can really happen. An RFC on their "presentation", with some sort of weird presumption that the very consensus that people are arguing about somehow exists, is obviously unproductive - you need to take a step back and settle that issue first. If you're confident that a consensus does exist for them, then an RFC should just affirm it, but it's unproductive (and ultimately self-defeating!) behavior to try and block or avoid an RFC on something that is very clearly at the crux of an active dispute. Maybe at one point WP:SILENCE was sufficient, but at this point, with a loud and active dispute, you need a clear RFC on what guidelines for inclusion or terminology should be used on the page first, that you can point to in both this and future disputes. In the long run you will be saving yourself time and energy anyway. (I should also mention that I strongly recommend decoupling the inclusion criteria from the terminology and holding separate RFCs on each. Holding an RFC on guidelines for inclusion is fairly common and not at all unusual, but the terminology one seems extremely unusual and is likely to torpedo the whole thing if the two are bundled together.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Outside observer here- I was invited by yapperbot to this RFC- I read a few of the conversations on this talk page- I see two people arguing about rules, but never finding a compromise. I see one person claiming there is a pre-existing consensus, but not realizing that does not negate all future discussions. The conversation about the rules never reaches a conclusion- but suddenly we have a RFC for how to present the rules that have yet to reach consensus. I think this RFC is waaaaay to early and instead you need to get more eyes on the conversation about what the rules should be. This RFC is forcing a set of rules that does not (currently) have consensus. And if there was a discussion elsewhere that provided consensus on these rules- it MUST be linked here. To continue with this is a farce and not consistent with a cohesive, collaborative encyclopedia. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@User:Nightenbelle: The people arguing about rules are three, not two. Several compromises have been already uploaded, others have not because User:SDC wants "all or nothing". I realise that there is an established consensus, but I am always open to debate and I have never refrained from discussion. The RfC is not on rules that have yet to reach consensus, but on a better presentation on the current, consensual rules. What is more interesting is that some of those rules have been proposed by User:SDC (on some cases, I was not convinced, but I accepted his proposals for the sake of compromise) and, as said, I would like to make several changes to them too. --Checco (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I am aware there are three discussiong (there have actually been more than that) I said I see two people arguing. And I maintain that opinion. If you are discussing/debating/arguing about rules- then there are no currently consensual rules There are rules that used to be consensual- but they are no longer. So, as I said, this RFC is inappropriate because you are asking for imput on how to put something on a page that does not have consensus to remain on the page. This is a backdoor way to force consensus on your chosen rules. This should be closed and retracted until a new consensus has been reached. Anything else is an abuse or manipulation of the system. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
But they are not my chosen rules! Some of them (precisely the first three out of six) have been proposed by User:SDC and agreed with him! However, as long as a new consensus is not achieved, the former consensus should stay, otherwise we would always be edit-warring. --Checco (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
To be more accurate, User:SDC has agreed on the first two rules and on the first part of the third rule (they have been changed according to his proposals!). We are now discussing mainly on the second part of the third rule, the fourth rule and the fifth rule. Also the classification rules have been changed with User:SDC's approval. Again, having a clear presentation of the current rules would help editors to discuss further changes. --Checco (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@Checco Rules must not be accepted by a user, rules must be agreed. Some rules were decided solely by you and you have not shown yourself in any collaborative way in modifying them (I am referring in particular to the regional threshold, which affects the content of a large part of the page). Your "all or nothing" reasoning has nothing to do with reality, you don't have to concede me anything. As Nightenbelle has already stated, a discussion about how exposing unapproved rules is quite a forcing. Even the classification, despite having reached some sort of compromise, is a great original research, as Usedtobecool has rightly pointed out: the criteria for determining this classification remain arbitrary (indeed it is strange not to see parties such as Italia Viva and Coraggio Italia in the first table, which should not necessarily be classified as major parties).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Rules are arbitrary by definition, as they are decided through consensus. Also your proposals are arbitrary. There is a set of rules, some of which have been proposed by you. I am open to changes, but, if there is no agreement, the previously established rules should stay. I will always be available for debate. --Checco (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Established by you... the classification (major/minor parties), in addition to being arbitrary, is not even necessary. I knew that Wikipedia was a free encyclopedia. If there are rules, they are decided by a community of users, not just by Checco ...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Again, all of this is not true. Some of the current rules were even proposed by you! --Checco (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
And the others (like the regional threshold one)? Are they agreed rules? Or established by one user? I would say the second hypothesis....--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Everything is established consensus, part of which achieved after your arrival to en.Wikipedia upon your proposals. --Checco (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

As recommended by an arbitrator in another area. This RFC should be advertised on related WikiProjects, to get more input. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay I think you have not read the Rfc correctly: it does not concern the presence or absence of criteria on the page (the inclusion criteria are already currently displayed on the page), but their mode of exposure, which is merely copied from the template of the Italian parties, with a decidedly rendundant classification of parties (you need a bulleted list to explain to readers what a "regional party" is?). And is it really useful to discuss now how to display the rules that are still under discussion?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Of course, a better presentation of current rules helps! And "regional party" need to be defined: in this context, "regional party" means a party active only in one region of Italy, not a regional party active in multiple regions and/or a party supporting regionalism, the ideology. --Checco (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I'll abide by whatever the result is of this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@Checco: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,200 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Practically, Checco signed after the list of criteria, while he had to sign immediately after the question in bold and then expose the new set up. Anyway, I think it would be useful if the last two users (GoodDay and Autospark) added something else to their motivations, otherwise there is a risk that other users will misunderstand the topic of the Rfc: reading the last two motivations, it seems that the RFC is about agreeing or not with the presence of inclusion criteria, in reality it only concerns a different exposure of criteria already present on the page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Again, I'll abide by the results of the RFC. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Questions – Is this RFC intended to establish consensus that these are the rules for the listing of parties, or is it only intended to establish how to present the rules?
  • If this is only intended to establish how to present the rules, where and when was consensus established on the rules? (Show me the consensus in a talk page, or it might not exist.)
  • If this is intended to establish a consensus for these rules, there should be discussion first so as to arrive at something that might be approved.
  • Checco writes: 'Rules are necessary in this list because the number of political parties in Italy, active and defunct, is near-infinite.' Yes. But are we trying to identify the rules, or are we trying to determine how to present them?
  • Approving a presentation of the rules when we don't agree on what the rules are seems likely to result in confusion, because some editors will think that it establishes consensus, and some will think that it doesn't.
  • Uncertainty over what the rules are is worse than no rules. Uncertainty over whether a consensus exists is worse than knowing that there isn't a consensus.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

If the RFC has to be scrapped & a new RFC begun? Ping me if/when it occurs. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I do not know why editors here have come up with such complex criteria. The article can simply list all Italian parties. If that would be too big, the list can be split. If that is undesirable, we can list all "notable" Italian parties only. Or, we could list all parties which have won at least one seat in parliament in their history. It appears Italy itself has come up with some ideas to limit the number of parties[1], which might give some selection criteria we can use as well. If the list is to be subdivided by prominence, the division should be based on reliable sources. Setting our own criteria for what makes a party "major" or "minor" is original research. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree that if the RFC is scrapped and restarted (which I think ought to happen), everyone who commented on it ought to be pinged for the new one. --Aquillion (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I have been passively following these discussions almost daily (I watchlisted this page), but refrained from being involved out of fear of being trapped into these wall-of-text discussions. I am really glad to finally see some sanity now that external users intervened: I suggest to restart an RfC with a very simple question like "Does this page need inclusion criteria or not?" and then work further starting from that. Yakme (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon I'll start by answering your questions: 1. the Rfc is only intended to establish how to present the rules (on this I can answer instead of Checco); 2. Checco should answer this question, however he has so far replied to me that the previous criteria have been decided on it.wikipedia (in reality the it.wikipedia list has no rules, and in any case here the it.wikipedia rules have no relevance) and on en.wikipedia for the template on Italian parties (which, however, would be a completely different thing). Some of the current criteria have been agreed between me and him, others, until proven otherwise, have been introduced by him. 3. I absolutely agree, that's what I've been saying for weeks; 4. Same answer as point one, he is currently working on how to expose the rules (before they have received effective support from the community); 5 & 6. I fully agree with these statements as well.
@Usedtobecool: In my view it would not be a problem to have the list without rules, it would avoid a lot of controversy. If a party does not deserve to be listed on the Italian parties page, maybe it is not so relevant as to have its own article on Wikipedia (however this is my personal consideration).
@Yakme: Did you read the whole discussion? wow... However yours is not a bad idea at all: first we should open a Rfc on whether or not to have inclusion criteria. In the case that the majority expresses themselves in favor of the presence of inclusion criteria, we should open a discussion in Wikipedia:Drn with all users who have intervened in the Rfc. Finally we should decide how to expose any rules. This Rfc seems to me a leap forward, I think it should be annulled.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The current classification between major and minor parties should also be revised, currently it is only one original research...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
So it appears we are finally getting what both sides wanted- more eyes on this issue. So I agree with those above me that this RFC should be scrapped- and an RFC be formulated under @Robert_McClenon 's mediation as to a couple proposals for inclusion criteria- and then re-opened for those now engaged to comment on. Lets get a real consensus on this then decide how to present the agreed upon rules. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I will try to answer concisely to all the points raised above.
First of all, you can believe it or not, but the discussion on the rules oveseeing this list started 15 or 16 years ago regarding the it.Wikipedia template on Italian political parties in Italy, then those rules were tranferred to the en.Wikipedia template and finally the list, then they were periodically re-discussed and changed. There have been several long discussion in several places (also project pages) and some of those discussions are no longer available, additionally there have been lots of cooperative editing and bold edits by several users. Over the last year, great changes to the rules and the list occured, especially after User:SDC stopped edit warring and started to seek consensus in talk page.
Per Wikipedia:Consensus, "in discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". This is what happened most of the time over the last year. User:SDC has proposed several changes and many of them were uploaded. Other proposals were rejected by a lack of consensus. Further compromises were reached, but a sort of "all or nothing" approach (instead of a step-by-step one) and, frankly, excessive bludgeoning prevented them to be implemented. This said, I am very happy that several editors are now involved in this discussion and I look forward to a possibly entirely new consensus.
I am quite convinced that conditions of admission and rules of classification are necessary to this list. Very few editors objected it. The Italian party system or, better, systems is/are particularly complicate. I agree with User:Autospark, User:GoodDay and others on this. If there were no rules, hundreds of parties could be added and the list would become ingovernable.
This RfC is intended only to establish how to present the current rules, but I am sure that a clearer presentation will help long-time editors of this list and, more importantly, newcoming editors to discuss, change the current rules or approve new rules. HI am open to any discussion and I am thrilled by the fact that several users are now interested in the list. I would be even more thrilled if these editors were interested in a) determining whether rules are useful; b) determining which rules to apply; c) editing the list accordingly, by removing and adding parties; d) writing new articles for relevant parties included in the list. Of course, I also favour a less complicate path, like discussing specific changes to the current rules, most of which have been already discussed and agreed with User:SDC. Thanks to this RfC we are now having this debate and everyone now clearly knows which rules are currently applied to this list. I am thus very happy for what I have already achieved and I look forward to our future debates. --Checco (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
So what is your brief and neutral statement? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
"Should the rules overseeing this list be presented in the following way or as they are now?" No rule was changed. The RfC was intended to propose a clearer presentation of the current rules, that are have been changed several times and that can be further changed anytime. --Checco (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm tired enough of reading "all or nothing": all or nothing what? Then how do you consider valid the rules discussed in it.wikipedia 16 years ago, then transferred to the template and then transferred to this page? It does not work like this.
As already stated by other users, this Rfc should be the last step, not the first one. First we should decide whether to have rules, then eventually we should discuss which rules to have, finally how to expose them. This Rfc, which theoretically has the purpose of changing the exposition of the rules (and in any case I object to merely copying a list written and designed for us editors and not for the readers), implicitly aims to fix the current rules. Please, let's start over and do things in order.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Ps. The edit war you were referring to consisted of adding a dozen parties, certainly not a drama for the weight of the page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Checco at no point have you offered a single link to a previous conversation- searching this page has not shown any discussion. Even if there was one- enough editors are here now saying the existing rules are not sufficient to assume that consensus is no longer going to be valid at the end of this conversation. Continuing to post saying "But there has been consensus." Is unnecessary. Consensus has now changed- the exiting rules don't work. Time to make new ones. Please do not continue to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion insisting on previous consensus. Lets move on- starting with closing this RFC and formulating a relevant one on what the guidelines should be moving forward. We all know that the current page should remain until a new consensus is reached- however that doesn't mean the current rules have consensus- it means we all know better than to edit war while we are finding a new consensus. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes, Usedtobecool, Nightenbelle, North8000, Aquillion, GoodDay, and Yakme: At Robert McClenon's suggestion, I will file a request at Wikipedia:DRN. Since I have to indicate the users involved, in addition to indicating Checco and Autospark, I will also indicate you as interested users. I sincerely hope that you will intervene in the Drn, in order to have greater legitimacy of the choices that will be made.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

My involvement is just "trying to help" and "willing to try to help" rather than being concerned about the outcome.North8000 (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Honestly, DRN seems like it might be premature or unnecessary. I would just have RFCs about, specifically, "should this page have rules, guidelines, or nothing for inclusion and / or classification?", "Should this page use this specific criteria for inclusion?", and maybe a separate one for "should this page use this classification system?" Or something along those lines. The dispute is over whether a consensus exists and we have well-established procedures to determine that. --Aquillion (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@North8000 and Aquillion: Unfortunately, RFC has not worked well so far. In reality, the DRN is not premature, the dispute has lasted for six months. Robert McClenon has offered to provide mediation in Wikipedia:DRN. I am finalizing the request, even your simple opinion could be important. Can I indicate you among the users involved?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
No, I'm not really that involved. And I feel the issues are just flaws in the previous RFC - you absolutely need the RFCs on the basic facts before anything else can happen, since Checco continues to insist that the criteria has consensus. It's pointless to discuss anything else before the RFC needed to confirm that occurs. --Aquillion (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I have to agree that the DRN is premature- you two have discussed itfor six months- but all the additional interest is new and we should allow this to play out before we go to mediation- however- I will participate, but I don't think its necessary yet. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So you have a unresolved dispute and then write an RFC with fatal flaws. My first thought is along with Aquillion's ....that the next step is a better written RFC. DRN could be a mediated methodical way to end up with that. I'll try to help wherever I can (including at DRN) but am not involved in any dispute and don't want to be listed as someone involved in one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you're gonna go the DRN route? Then this ongoing RFC would have to be shut down. Otherwise it would be rather confusing & less likely to get a consensus on anything with both running simultaneously. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Nightenbelle, North8000, and Aquillion: Ok, one month more or one month less does not change much, it is worth trying a last Rfc, if there are no results I will file a request at DRN as proposed by Robert McClenon. Indeed, the purpose is not a dispute, but a confrontation and an agreement on basic rules. It would be a good thing if you and the others users (@My very best wishes, Usedtobecool, GoodDay, and Yakme:) participated with the Rfc that I am about to open and in a serene discussion on how to write consensual rules for this page. The issues were never resolved because no other users never intervened, but with more participation it would be much easier to reach a consensual version.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay Not exactly, the topics are related but they are not the same: this Rfc concerns only the exposure, the Drn would concern the content. But I have decided that I will try with one last Rfc, hoping for more participation. Otherwise the DRN will be inevitable.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Best you get an agreement from Checco, to shut down the preceding RFC, before starting a new RFC. As for DRN? I won't be participating in that. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I have a suggestion that might save you a few months and a lot of grief and work. Limit the list to parties which have a Wikipedia article. Those are presumably WP:Notable, and that should be sufficient for (mere) inclusion on a list. Looks like such a rule might remove only 5% of those listed. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: For now the DRN is in Standby. I take note that you will not participate in it. The problem is that we don't know when Checco will log in the next time, and it is not obvious that he intends to close this Rfc. Honestly, I'm not going to wait a month to discuss things that can already be discussed now.
@North8000: It is not that simple, many Italian parties have a page on en.wikipedia but they are not listed on this list. Practically, there would be more parties to add than to remove. Personally, I have no problems with your solution, but the admission criteria should be removed in order to implement your proposal.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I am in a hurry, so please excuse me if I did not read carefully all the comments. My impression is that, despite some animosity, none of them actually contradicts what I have been saying and proposing, specifically in my latest two comments. You may like or not the current rules, but they are exactly those I clearly presented above. Some of them are old, many others were changed during the last year, according to User:SDC's proposals and/or compromises made with him. I still think it would be easier to have the current rules clearly presented before editing them. That would simplify our discussion. However, as User:Nightenbelle said, "we all know that the current page should remain until a new consensus is reached" and, while "that doesn't mean the current rules have consensus" (I would add anymore), "it means we all know better than to edit war while we are finding a new consensus". I really look forward to a new consensus. Surely, the following RfC might be redundant, but it is also important that users realise how rules are necessary to this list, thus I am thanking User:SDC for starting it. --Checco (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rfc on the need to have admission and classification criteria and on their consensual rewrite

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.


Should this article contain inclusion and classification criteria?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Currently, the page contains inclusion criteria for which a discussion where they were decided has never been indicated. It is necessary to state that all the other lists of the same type have no inclusion criteria (List of political parties in the United Kingdom, List of political parties in Germany, List of political parties in Spain, List of political parties in France etc.). The classification between major and minor parties is essentially the result of an original research, with some parties listed among minor parties despite being represented by sizeable parliamentary groups.

Could the page do without the current criteria? If you feel that some criteria are necessary, are you willing to participate in a constructive discussion to write new consensual criteria?

Please take into account that the previous Rfc is merely about the display of the criteria, and not the content of the page.

Please enter Yes or No in the Survey with a brief statement. Back-and-forth discussion may be conducted in the Threaded Discussion.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Survey (III)

  • Yes but only if simpler have a criteria per WP:LISTCRIT, and where that says “unambiguous, objective, and supported“ indicates to me it should be limited and simpler than previous discussions. More along the lines of ‘has someone currently in currently in office at the national level, either the Chamber of Deputies or the Senate’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes. Italy has and has had too many parties. Several regions have their party system, different from others. Rules are necessary. Personally, I do not think that the rules should be completely rewritten (several edits to the list would follow), but I will first present them in a better way (see RfC above) and then fix them one at a time. --Checco (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No. I do not think there is an issue of space or anything else really preventing us to remove the inclusion criteria. Yes, Italian parties are a lot: but that does not mean we have to trim some of them from the encyclopedia, we should just embrace this characteristic of Italian politics and so be it. Any exclusion, any criteria, would necessarily be arbitrary, and cause endless nitpicking discussions like the ones clogging this talk page. I would also agree to limit ourselves only to parties which have a Wikipedia article. --Yakme (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, but much simpler Any party that is notable enough for a WP page should be on this list. That is a simple, easily supported by policy rule and would make this whole thing much easier. And anything else trying to decide what makes a party acceptable for this list is flirting with [[WP:OR]Nightenbelle (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, but anything complex will die under it's own weight. Suggest simply saying if one has a Wikipedia article, it can be listed, and if not, not.North8000 (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I just noticed that this RFC is also defective. It asks for a "yes" or "no" answer for a bundle of two questions (inclusion and classification). I'd say "yes" to inclusion if it wasn't for this problem. North8000 (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, as long as there is adequate discussion thereof. I sympathise with the idea that more streamlined set of rules should be aimed for, albeit one taking into account the regional nature of numerous historically significant Italian parties. (Incidentally, I'm not particularly convinced that the lack of entry criteria for lists of political party setups for countries other than Italy should be relevant to this particular discussion.)--Autospark (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion (III)

Could you clarify? Where are the current criteria that you mention? This would also answer the second question which is where would the critera be listed? In the body of the article/header on the list? On the talk page? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The current criteria are different for each category of party (major, minor, regional, Italians abroad, etc.) and are indicated on the page under the title of each subsection. My initial purpose was to simplify them, make them uniform for all categories of parties and indicate them in a single point. In six months of discussion it was not possible to achieve this purpose. Where and how to indicate them is a secondary matter, first of all we should decide whether to have them and what criteria to have, right?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The current rules are clearly exposed in the RfC above. My argument above is that, before broadening the discussion and trying again to change the rules (they have been changed several times, also according to User:SDC's views), they should be clearly presented. --Checco (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Possibly Concluding Comment

User:Scia Della Cometa, User:Checco - I do not understand what your reason is for avoiding moderated discussion, but I am beginning to think that maybe you don't understand what you are doing and that both of you would rather complain. First User:Scia Della Cometa was so desperate for action that they requested arbitration, but then, on being advised that maybe moderated discussion is in order, both of you would prefer to post poorly worded RFCs and let them run. I won't try to help you if you won't ask me to try to help you, but it seems that you are wasting your own time and that of other editors.

I may or may not be available for moderated discussion when you decide that you want third-party assistance rather than playing games. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Robert McClenon I assure you that I have no intention of playing or wasting time, I really appreciate your availability to mediate the discussion! Yesterday I was finalizing the request to the Drn, but in the meantime it was pointed out to me that in this last week there has been a significant participation by other users, a novelty compared to the past. Moreover, none of these users has still given their availability to be involved in a possible Drn. Given the participation of new users, I thought to temporarily put the request to the DRN on standby, to see if it is possible to obtain greater involvement with an Rfc. However I am still interested in your Drn proposal, this is a last attempt, if it fails, and if you are still interested in mediating the discussion, I'll surely file a request at Drn. (with the interested users).
I hope you understand, I'm definitely not trying to avoid a moderate discussion, I'm just trying to figure out if there are other users interested in this topic and if they want rules or not (and which ones).
Why do you think my RFC is poorly worded? Wouldn't it be fair to first figure out if users want criteria on this page? For example, I have seen some opinions in favor of having inclusion criteria as long as they are simplified, which I can only agree with.. Otherwise, if the criteria are to be as complicated as the current ones, it is better not to have any.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Scia Della Commeta, Your RFC is poorly worded because it doesn't provide clear, well thought our proposals- it looks like you typed it out quickly to get something up before anyone else could. THe other RFC was not closed first so we currently have 2 competeing RFCs- one has to be closed, because they are mutually exclusive. What should have happened- what we have all been telling you needs to happen is a discussion to find consensus. We have said that the current RFC has to close and a discussion to formulate a new one / a new set of rules needs to happen. So yes- the two of you are STILL ignoring what every other editor is saying and running away screaming and arguing. Its ridiculous. So please, both of you withdraw and close your RFC's and let all the interested parties discuss this and try to forumlate an RFC. Robert McClenon- The newly involved editors do all agree that a DRN is premature with the new eyes involved- however the two older involved editors seem to be ignoring us in favor of their own competing priorities- so a mediated discussion may be the only option after all- either that or the rest of us just start our own discussion and let those two keep arguing amongst themselves and ignore them until they decide to stop ignoring everyone else. Either way. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nightenbelle It doesn't seem so to me, my question is: should the page have criteria or not? For example, if the majority of users were against the inclusion criteria (therefore, if "no" would prevail), the discussion would already be over. I opened the RFC with the sole purpose of seeing if users agree to have some criteria and possibly discuss them. However, I have no problem closing the Rfc, but first Checco should do it, who is seeking consensus on how to expose non-consensual criteria, starting from the last step: first we decide whether to have criteria and which criteria to have, then we decide how to expose them. If you feel like it, you can open a discussion yourself to agree on the setting of this page, I will gladly participate in it.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You all should follow Robert McClenon's advice and let him guide the process, if he is willing to do so. Otherwise you just have a big mess that isn't progressing. North8000 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Competing RFCs

The second RFC was started 48 hours after the first one. The least bad way to deal with them probably is to wait until the second one runs out, and then have one closer close both of them. The two competing RFCs are the result of the two editors who seem to be both trying to avoid discussion with each other, and so are both talking to the community instead. That may be what they want, even if it doesn't help the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon You have actually hit the point, the dialogue between us has failed, so surely there is an attempt to involve more users in the dialogue. I'm sorry if I didn't use a correct procedure, but Checco's Rfc is definitely premature, despite the fact that I had been trying to make him understand that consensual content is more important than exposure. However, from my Rfc I have already obtained some very interesting opinions, that is the awareness of having to simplify rules that are currently too complicated. It is first result. As I have already stated, if Checco is willing to terminate his Rfc prematurely, I will do the same with the Rfc that I started. And I'll take advice on how to deal with a broader discussion with more users.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I broadly agree with User:SDC's latest comments, less to the latest. I always thought that we have always been very close to compromise. User:SDC has had a big impact on the current rules so far and new compromises are quite around the corner. User:SDC's proposals have always been closer to the current rules than anyone could think by reading our arguments. I started the RfC above before User:SDC's comment at Wikipedia:Teahouse and before User:SDC's entry at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. I would never have started a RfC after. I was thus surprised by User:SDC's RfC, but positively so. The two RfCs are consistent with each other. In fact, I urge all users (and I am asking primarily User:SDC to do so) to please vote "yes" in both RfCs. The result would be: consensus on having rules and rules clearly exposed. Right after (or even at the same time), we should discuss new, simpler rules. In my view, the rules should be simpler, but those new rules should not impact very much the current list, which is well organised and complete. The compromise we are looking for might be the result of a broad discussion (it depends on the real interest by those users who have been participating in the RfCs to go down to specifics) or the result of a mediation by User:Robert McClenon between the very few users who have a deep knoweledge of the Italian party system/s. I really have no preference between the two solutions, but anyway I would like User:Robert McClenon to be our guide: he is neutral enough and, differently from others, seems not to be interested in the issue, but just in the process. --Checco (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I take note that Checco intends to carry on his RFC, which, as several users have already stated, should not be carried forward with the current rules. At this point I assume that both RFCs will last until their natural expiration, but probably nothing will change after their expiration. It is significant that among all the users who voted "yes" to the first RFC (except Checco himself), no one objectively supported the exhibition proposal, but only the need to have criteria (and this is the question of my RFC). And it is significant that many users have stated that rules need to be simplified: well, rules like "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)" are as far from simplicity as possible. It is not true that the agreement between Checco and me was close, on the contrary, the distance between him and me on rules like this one was sidereal. You cannot support the simplification of the rules and at the same time support a similar rule, it is a contradiction.
@Robert McClenon Even if the RFC were not interrupted, it would still be possible to start discussing the criteria right now, right?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I just want to slam my head on the desk. Every new editor who has joined to participate on this page is begging both of you to stop your RFCs- and yet you two seem deaf to everything that is being said. Okay. We'll do this your way- let your RFC's expire, close, and then those of us not too caught up by pride to step back and admit we are part of the problem will step in and get it figured out. You two keep arguing with yourselves and don't mind us as we actually work on building an encyclopedia. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Scia Della Cometa - You ask whether it is possible to start discussing the criteria right now. That question is difficult to understand. You both are already discussing the criteria, or at least discussing the article. You both seem to be engaged in some sort of theatre, because you are not discussing the criteria with each other, and you are not listening to other editors. I have already said that I am willing to open a discussion at DRN if either of you files the request to open the discussion. Your question is difficult to understand. Please clarify your question. What do you want? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I already stated above that I find both RfCs useful and that I am open both to a general discussion and a mediation by you, User:Robert McClenon. User:SDC's RfC could easily result in "yes, we need rules", then, before changing the current rules, it would be useful to have a clear presentation of them, that is why I started my RfC in the first place. I see that several users have not understood the meaning of that RfC (it is not about the rulses themselves, rather their presentation), but hopefully they will change their mind. I strongly encourage User:SDC to vote yes in my RfC, so that we can have a set of intelligible rules and that changes can be more easily debated. I am always available for any kind of discussion. Rule 4 is definitely the most complicate: it does not mean that it is wrong or unreasonable, anyway I recall that User:SDC has proposed to lower the 2% threshold to 1% and that I proposed to take into account only regional and Senate elections... we have never been really that far from each other. It is also true that he long proposed very complicate additional rules like that on provincial elections. It is also interesting that, when proposing his latest set of rules, he used a presentation quite similar to the one I am proposing above. I understand that he does not believe in my good faith and that he thinks that, whenever the rules would be clearly exposed, I would refuse to discuss anymore, but that is not true! Really, things would start to get better if only User:SDC were to support my RfC. If both RfCs are approved, we could easily focus in tweaking the rules. I am asking User:SDC to have confidence in me and in the path I have envisioned. --Checco (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Nightenbelle: As you can see, I am willing to take a step back (Wikipedia:Closure requests#Talk:List of political parties in Italy#Rfc on the need to have admission and classification criteria and on their consensual rewrite), at this point I care relatively little what Checco decides to do. I am not interested in deciding the criteria myself, I am interested in having them agreed by a plurality of users (because this is the consensus).
@Robert McClenon: I am still interested in the Drn, my question is: how many users are actually going to participate in it? And how many users instead would participate in a discussion to decide together the criteria in this talk page but not in a Drn? I asked the users involved in these Rfc if they are available to participate in a Drn: some users have not given their willingness to participate in a Drn now, other users did not answer, I would not want it to be just me and Checco again. I believe that other users also need to participate in the decision-making process. So my answer is: I don't have a precise idea, but any solution that involves the largest number of users is fine by me.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This issues described are going to keep this gridlocked until the RFC's run out. Or you can save yourself that grief and both withdraw them and let Robert McClenon help you now. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Checco: I am firmly against your RFC, both in form and content. The rules can be clearly exposed, but provided that: 1. the scheme is not simply copied from the template; 2. the rules are consensual 3. the rules are the same for all parties. Your proposal does not meet any of these 3 requirements. The election of a provincial councilor is a very simple rule, anyone can verify it. Rules you have decided for regional parties like this one ("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)") or worse still proposals like this one (2 regional councillors in regional councils with 20–35 members, 3 regional councillors in regional councils with 41–51 members, 4 regional councillors in regional councils with 60-80 members) are extremely complicated and frankly unacceptable to me. The agreement has never been close.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Checco None of the involved editors have any trust in you at this point. We have done you the courtesy of reading everything you write- you have not done the same to us. Believe me when I say- we all completely understand wqhat the RFC is about, what you want to happen. WE are saying no- we don't agree or find it appropriate- it is possible for us to understand what you are saying and still disagree. The overwhelming majority are voting no in your RFC. The overwhelming majority want to discuss before deciding rules- but all you can say is "please vote yes." we've voted. The answer is no- waiting the rest of the time for the RFC to run itself out will not change that. Bludgeoning us to vote yes will not change that. Thank you Scia Della Cometa for moving forward. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Surely, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. The rules that I mentioned in my RfC are identical to the ones that are currently in the list, just their presentation is different. If you think that that the current rules are better presented in the list, I surely respect your opinion. --Checco (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@North8000 Honestly, I don't well understand your position. On January 11 you stated it was too early for a Drn, now you are telling me that I should accept to partecipate in a Drn... For example, would you be willing to participate in the Drn?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd be willing to participate either here in the talk page or at the DRN. I don't want to be listed as a party involved in a dispute. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@North8000 Ok, thank you for the clarification!--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@North8000 Being listed as involved at the DRN is not a negative strike in any way- its positive actually if you participate professionally. Its not an administrative intervention. However, totally your decision. I don't mind being listed and will gladly participate. I thought it was too early- but seeing as only one of you appears willing to listen on this talk page.... I was wrong. Robert is better at this than I am- especially when I care about a page as opposed to it being just part of a project I care about. And I care about politics. Nightenbelle (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes, Usedtobecool, Nightenbelle, Aquillion, GoodDay, Yakme, Deathlibrarian, and Markbassett: sorry for the ping, as soon as my Rfc is closed (I have already submitted the request for closure), I'll file a request at Wikipedia:DRN, as suggested by Robert McClenon. The discussion on the criteria was born between me and Checco, so we are the two involved users. However, it would also be important to have the opinions of users who have not been directly involved in the discussion so far. Your participation in a mediated discussion would be very helpful. Who among you is available to intervene in the discussion that will be opened to provide your own opinion as a user not directly involved? Until now the availability has already been given by North8000.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Good luck to all, over at the DRN. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Scia Della Cometa - OK, although I think my position is obvious: have simple criteria. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Nightenbelle, that is an unfair misrepresentation – Checco has been trying to engage with other editors to build a set of rules for inclusion in this list article, which he has proposed a clear framework for, while having to deal with another editor who has at times been needlessly confrontational (rather puzzlingly, I may add, given the two are closer than further apart in terms of their respective views).--Autospark (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Is it unfair when seven different editors have tried to engage and they have refused to actually listen but just keep repeating themselves? Is it unfair when many people have now stated those rules are not acceptable but they refuse to discuss them- just insist on an RFC for rules that do not have consensus? Please- where are they currently engaging in a discussion on what the rules should be as opposed to trying to force their preferred set of rules on the page by that completely inappropriate RFC? They don't want engagement- they want agreement. Good lord- they are campaigning on this talk page begging people to vote yes even in sections that are not about their RFC. That is not engagement- it is tone deaf and a waste of energy. I'll gladly participate in mediated discussion- I usually try to do the mediating- but politics is one of my passions and an area I actually know quite a bit about- yes- even European politics yes- even though I'm American. But I will not engage in more senseless discussion about should we have their presentation of non-consensus rules on the page. Rules first- presentation later. Nightenbelle (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nightenbelle: You are using the pronoun "they": please do not attribute the behavior of another user to me. With my Rfc I have not forced any set of rules, but I simply asked if any rules are necessary. And I am not campaigning to vote "yes" to my Rfc. My position was neutral, indeed I didn't even vote for my Rfc. So please don't use the pronoun "they". However, I am satisfied that you are available to participate in the discussion.
@Autospark: No, my position and that of Checco have never been close: although I have tried several times to propose a set of rules that could also be acceptable to him, he has always fossilized in defense of complicated and full of quibbles rules.
@Seggallion: currently the closure of both Rfc has been requested, I am happy that Checco has finally taken a step backwards as well. Although both RFCs have been started a few days ago, and although someone may have misunderstood the first RFC, one thing is already clear: numerous users have expressed themselves in favor of a set of rules, as long as they are simpler. This is a very positive sign. But to decide which rules it adopts, these RFCs are not fit for purpose.
@Yakme: You have withdrawn your comment, but I anyway received the ping notification.To fix the page setting, a single Rfc would not be enough. I am aware that the Drn failed last time, but Robert McClenon has given his willingness to mediate only in a eventual Drn, so at the moment I don't see alternative solutions. If you also participate in the discussion, as a user involved in this project, it would be a very positive thing.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
They is used often as a singular pronoun when gender is unknown or fluid. Not necessarily as plural. I am female- I often get called HE on here- ticks me off. I've started using they so I don't inadvertently assign the wrong gender unknowingly. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I won't answer to old and new accusations depicting me as the quintessential bad guy. I consider them quite unfair, but, rather that just defending me, I am more interested in finding an agreement on the rules. I have never refrained from engagement and dialogue and, thus, I am more than ever willing to discuss. Sometimes, or quite often, I find difficult to log in every day and during one very unfortunate week I was always out, but hopefully we will able to find a way. Above, I envisioned four steps. It seems to me that "a) determining whether rules are useful" is over: I am glad that rules are clearly deemed necessary by the majority of the users involved. We now need to "b) determin[e] which rules to apply". The more we depart from the current rules, the more the list will change, that is why I mentioned also "c) editing the list accordingly, by removing and adding parties" and "d) writing new articles for relevant parties included in the list". Answering to User:SDC, I think that: 1) the rules of the list should be applied more or less identically also to the template; 2) of course, the rules have to be consensual; 3) there could be different rules for different contexts (e.g. constintuencies for Italians abroad), but the more consistent, the better. --Checco (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nightenbelle Ah ok, thanks for the clarification, I don't know many details of the English language ;)
@Checco I also think that the list and template rules must be the same, this does not mean that a list of rules drawn up exclusively to be read by the editors should merely be copied here as well. The setting of this page should be re-discussed starting from scratch, and the rules should be the same for all parties, without making arbitrary distinctions, the criterion that includes the representative parties of Italians abroad is already there, and it is the most basic: "having elected at least one MP".
Now that the RFCs are closed we can seriously start the discussion. @GoodDay: I'm not very confident with idioms in English, with your last post you meant that you don't want to get involved in the discussion, right? @Seggallion: so what have you decided, are you available to participate in the disussion? @North8000: Being listed as involved at the DRN is not a negative thing in any way. After all, the discussion is meant to be constructive.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I've departed the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@User:GoodDay: Sorry about that! Can you explain why? Hope you will be back at some point. --Checco (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm confident that with 'one less' participant at DRN, you all will reach a solution quicker. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, @Nightenbelle, @North8000, @Usedtobecool and anyone interested, I point out that I have submitted a request at Wikipedia:Drn here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#List of political parties in Italy. @Nightenbelle: While I was submitting the request, I forgot that you gave me the availability to indicate you as an involved user, and I indicated only me and Checco, but I think you can still insert yourself in the list of users. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Moderated Discussion

I have opened the case for moderated discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_political_parties_in_Italy . At this point User:Scia Della Cometa and User:Checco are the listed editors. I know that User:Nightenbelle can add herself to the case if she wishes. Other editors who wish to be added to the list may ask by making a statement in the space for statements by editors. Please read the rules that are in effect if you wish to participate. They are similar to but not the same as the usual rules at DRN. I will repeat some of them. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements will be collapsed. Comment on content, not contributors. I will see those of you who want to participate at DRN. I will not necessarily follow any discussion here. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC on Inclusion Rules for Italian Political Parties

This RFC was withdrawn. McClenon mobile (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{rfc|hist|soc|pol}}


Should the detailed inclusion rules for this list be deleted, and replaced by general notability guidelines? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

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) 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.

Survey (III)

  • Yes. The current rules are arbitrary and complex, they create problems of consistency and above all they provoke endless discussions (six months of inconclusive discussions weren't enough to have a consensual set of rules). No list of parties has rules for inclusion, the list of Italian parties is a unique case. The application of the WP:Notability principle is more than enough to prevent the list from becoming excessively long. All parties that satisfy this principle should be included in the list, as in all other lists of parties. This does not mean that all the parties in Italy should be listed, since a party satisfies the principle of notability only if it is possible to find enough sources about it.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, because it simplifies the meaning and accessibility of this list to readers and editors. It is true that there is a very large number of parties in Italy, but this list should not exclude notable parties just to prevent it becoming too long. A reader would expect this list to be the most complete repository of Italian parties that are worthy of mention on WP. The problem of having a very long list is solved, simply, by splitting the list, and there are many possible natural ways to do so. Any inclusion criterion alternative to WP:GNG or WP:ORG that this community could devise is going to be by definition original research and also cause endless discussions like the ones we already witnessed. One addition: the list should contain also parties that have blue links not linking to their stand-alone article, but having their own section in a merged article or similar. Yakme (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • No (Summoned by bot) because Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists. Mathglot (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment The only rule I would apply to this list is WP:V; as long as the existence of a party can be proven with a source, it can be included IMO (per Mathglot, whether the party meets the WP:GNG is irrelevant for its inclusion in the list). Cheers, Number 57 02:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • No - WP:GNG need not necessarily apply to list of this sort. If the topic of the list is notable, everything the list entails can be included even if each item does not merit an article on it. In this light, I do not understand @Yakme:'s !vote. WP:GNG would not open the list up, it would drastically reduce it. Basically, he criteria in this list is for defining what each section means-- those definitions are useful not only to editors who would want to add something to the list, but also to readers to understand what a "Major Party" or "Minor Party" or "Local Party" even means. And by no means should these categories be simply merged together, as removing the criteria would suggest. The categories are USEFUL, and keep all this information organized and manageable. If additional political parties exist that should be on the list, but don't fit into any of the categories, perhaps a new category should be added, or if that would make this article too large, an additional article added that could usefully and manageably include them (with definitions for what belongs in the list, and without falling back on the WP:GNG). Fieari (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes Ideally- any party that exists should be listed however- because two contributers refuse to allow that- and demand there be some set of rules- lets keep it simple and just use notability as opposed to some super complicated list that exists nowhere else on WP. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • No - again, WP:GNG need not refer to list articles. I prefer a solution that is based upon retaining the existing rules, with a view to revising said rules when and where required.--Autospark (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes On deleting the rules. To replace it, I would have picked "has an article" rather than "meet's GNG" for simplicity, but "meets GNG" is a good second choice. North8000 (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • No — "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. Only a comprehensive and consistent list can be an effective guide for readers. To be clear, I do not endorse the current rules (they should be profoundly changed), but the fact that rules are needed. With no rules, the list would be infinite and never settled once for all. Rules should be simple, but also comprehensive, consistent and unambiguous. 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 all the parties having an article in the list. Replacing detailed rules with general notability would be quite problematic: we really risk moving controversy and debates to dozens of talk pages and requests for deletion. There have been hundreds, possibly thousands, of parties in Italy meeting notability. All relevant active and former political parties, by any definition, are already included in the list (which is already quite long and articulate), but, as I said, an overhaul of the current rules is clearly needed. In a country with hundreds and, possibly, thousands of active and former parties, it is not arbitrary to decide than only parties achieving a minimal share of the vote or representation in elected assemblies should be listed. Otherwise, a near-infinite list would be of little help for readers trying to understand a bit about Italian politics. --Checco (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Threaded discussion (III)

@Number 57, @Mathglot: From your statements, you do not seem to me in favor of specific and detailed rules of inclusion, but simply contrary to the principle of notability. Tell me if I misunderstood.

I am neither of those people, but I don't think they, or I, are arguing against the principle of notability. I, and they, are arguing against the use of the General Notability Guidelines, which are for the purpose of article creation and existence, for article content. The guiding principle for article content is not, and has never been, the WP:GNG, but rather whether or not the content is WP:UNDUE weight or not. If the topic is notable, it's just about weight after that. Fieari (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The RFC is primarily concerned with the deletion or maintenance of detailed rules. "Yes" implies their deletion, "No" implies their maintenance. If the problem is the principle of general notability, maybe the question needs to be rethought...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. From the replies of Number 57 and Mathglot, it looks exactly like what was meant for the "Yes", i.e. any party that can be verified by sources should be on this list. Yakme (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I can't speak for Number 57, but as for me, I responded to the Rfc question as asked, and my response was based on my reading of policy. I did not say that any party that can be verified by sources should be on this list, nor the contrary, but if there is another Rfc that asks that question and I'm randomly selected by the bot or someone pings me to it, I'm happy to respond. So Scia Della Cometa is correct; maybe the question needs to be rethought, if that was the intended question. Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this might be a faulty RfC for addressing two separate issues in a single question: it should be split into "Should the current inclusion criteria be deleted?" and "Should the new inclusion criteria be [something]?" Yakme (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@Mathglot @Yakme: I think this Rfc should be considered faulty, it actually addresses two topics at the same time, creating confusion for those users who read the question. The main purpose of this RFC was to remove the current rules and quibbles for including parties on this list (and for their removal the vote should be yes).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I take your point, and you may well be right, but in good conscience I can only respond to the question that was actually asked, not what might have or should have been asked. If the question is worded such that editor B interprets editor A's "No" response as "actually a 'Yes' " (or vice versa), then perhaps there really is a problem with the question. Mathglot (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Theoretically the question is quite clear, the RFC asks users if, to list the parties on the page, they prefer detailed and specific rules for inclusion (no) or compliance with a more generic principle of notability (yes). The mistake was probably combining two topic into one RFC (detailed rules and general notability) and not listing the current rules for inclusion (to give an immediate impression of the current status).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Number 57: I also think that a party does not need to have an article to be on this list, and that is why I !voted Yes. You state Lists like this do not require the existence of articles for inclusion but this is exactly what should have made you also vote "Yes". From the question written by User:Robert McClenon: "parties will be listed if they satisfy general notability, and so appear in a list as either a blue link or a red link". Red link meaning that the article does not exist. Yakme (talk) 07:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The RfC is confusingly worded. I voted no because I assumed GNG meant that a party would need to meet the GNG to be included. I've amended my comment above to make it clear what I mean. Thanks for the ping to flag this up. Cheers, Number 57 22:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fieari: I agree with your premise, and from the discussion at WP:DRN the corresponding !vote to what you stated should be "Yes". Using GNG would not restrict the entries to this list, but would include many more parties. Regarding the categorization in major, minor, etc there is no official definition of major vs minor party, so that currently that separation is the result of WP:OR. It is not important that readers understand what a "Major Party" or "Minor Party" or "Local Party" even means if there is no such a thing as a "major" or "minor" party in Italian politics. I would go for a different separation like "parliamentary" and "non-parliamentary" which avoids discussing what is major and minor. Yakme (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fieari: The issue is that currently on this page there are restrictive rules for the inclusion of a party, and the RFC mainly concerns their removal. I'm afraid the RFC is not clear enough, and maybe it might be my fault, since I suggested to remove the detailed rules from the question. Perhaps this Rfc should be stopped and reformulated, referring directly to the rules and without mentioning the principle of notability ....--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Checco: I would like to know where you see the "thousands" of parties meeting notability. It is not true, don't make misinformation, please (do not confuse notability with verifiability). "we really risk moving controversy and debates to dozens of talk pages and requests for deletion": So are you saying that non-relevant parties should be hidden in order not to be proposed for deletion? I don't understand this reasoning: if a party is irrelevant, it must not be hidden, but it must be proposed for deletion, Wikipedia works like this. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I confirm what I wrote. I am not referring only to the hundreds of parties having a Wikipedia article and not being currently mentioned in the list, but to the hundreds of parties that were formed, merged and dissolved in Italy from 1861: arguably, they could all be listed. No notable parties are currently excluded from the list (and the current rules could be tweaked in order to include more or less parties), but general notability would higly increase the list, making it inconsistent and chaotic. As a radical inclusionist, my argument is that all parties should have an article in Wikipedia, but not all of them should be listed in a list that should be a useful guide for readers. Now, despite the fact that the rules clearly need an overhaul, the list is comprehensive and consistent, meaning that all the parties with a reasonable electoral strength or presence in legislative assemblies are listed.
The RfC is clear enough, but it could be put that way too: do you think that specific conditions of admission to this list are OK or not? --Checco (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@Scia Della Cometa, Yakme, Number 57, Checco, Mathglot, Autospark, Nightenbelle, and Fieari: - I thank all of you for participating in this RFC. However, it appears from the answers that are being given that the question was worded in too simplistic a manner. "You answered the question that was asked. You may not have answered the question that we meant to ask." I am starting a new RFC below this one, and would appreciate if all of the editors who have responded to the Yes/No question above will also answer as to which choice or choices you prefer out of four. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I think this RFC can be closed, so as not to create confusion. I draw North8000's attention to the new RFC (here below), as also took part in the previous RFC.--Scia Della Cometa(talk) 16:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New RFC on Inclusion Rules for Italian Political Parties

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It is my understanding that a lot of discussions took place before editors arrived at this RfC, with the hope that this will lead to less wasted time and more productive work. Thanks to all participants, who tried their best to reach a consensus.

My initial reading here is that participants were mostly split between two main sides: those in favor of simpler rules for adding items to this list (options A and B), and those in favor of more specific rules (option C).

Several editors !voted for B, with A as their secondary option, claiming that including any party that has a Wikipedia article (or is eligible for one) would be the fairest option, easiest to check by any editor that isn't as knowledgable on the subject, and would lead fewer disputes, while also satisfying WP:CSC. These participants also disputed that option C (or any option that would lead to an arbitrary list of rules) could be seen as a violation of WP:OR.

On the other hand, editors in favor of C or D posited that the status quo is more stable, and changing to B would lead to endless discussions and the creation of AfDs to have parties removed from the list. While we can't see into the future, participants who favor option B said that following the notability guidelines would allow editors to have at least a baseline for inclusion criteria, which could be built upon with more ease and less attrition.

It was also noted that, due to the high number of parties in Italy, options A or B would cause the list to have too many entries, giving prominence to parties that received extensive coverage by media but that aren't relevant. It was rebutted that, if the list was to become too extensive, it can always be split according to any one criteria chosen by its editors.

Considering all raised points, those in favor of options A and B (with B receiving the most !votes) have shown to be better supported by policies and guidelines, and have demonstrated that this path is likely to bring less attrition and generate fewer disputes. There is consensus for more inclusive rules for adding parties to this list, with a slight preference for B.

---(non-admin closure) Isabelle 🔔 04:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)



Which of A, B, C, or D (below) should become the rule for the listing of Italian political parties? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


Which of the following should become the rule for the listing of Italian political parties?

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; 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).

  • D. A different set of inclusion rules, in which case a future RfC on the inclusion rules will be opened.

Please identify A, B, C, or D as your first choice, in the Survey, with a brief statement. You may follow your first choice with your second choice and a third choice, so that the closer can determine what option or options have a rough consensus of acceptability.

Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. The Thread Discussion section is for back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey (IV)

  • Option C: The current rules are quite complicate and I do not agree with some of the changes that were brought forward during 2021, but the status quo is better than some of the options offered and it is very important that the current rules' structure is retained, thus my first preference. In a subordinate position, I support option D. "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. All relevant active and former political parties, by any definition, are already included in the list. Only a comprehensive and consistent list can be an effective guide for readers. To be clear, my main argument is that specific conditions of admission, i.e. rules are needed. With no rules, the list would be indefinite, near-infinite and never settled once for all. If neither option C and D were to prevail, my support would go to option A. Indeed, the worst possible option is option B. Replacing detailed rules with general notability would be quite problematic: we really risk moving controversy and debates to dozens of talk pages and proposed deletions. There have been hundreds, possibly thousands, parties in Italy possibly meeting notability. 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 all the parties having an article in the list. In a country with hundreds and, possibly, thousands of active and former parties, it is not arbitrary to decide than only parties achieving a minimal share of the vote or representation in elected assemblies should be listed. Otherwise, a near-infinite list would be of little help for readers trying to understand a bit about Italian politics. At the end of the day, verifiability would produce a chaotic, inconsistent list, while general notability would generate ultimate chaos and endless discussions. --Checco (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option A: virtually all parties that existed should be included on this list. Italian parties are a lot, but a reader would expect a "list of Italian parties" to be exhaustive and complete – and not a selection of premium parties, which have been picked with ad hoc inclusion thresholds (like with X% national rather than Y% regional or the minimum of N parliamentarians, and the rest of the current nonsense). It also appears that the current structure is mainly the original research of one editor, with small modifications done during the years via discussions with another editor. If the editors' main worry is that this list will become "too long", then the solution is to split the list (for example by having separate lists for regional parties and/or former parties) – not to remove portions of it. As an alternative, I can live with the more restrictive option B, listing all parties which have articles (which assumes that they are also verified by sources). I am strongly against option C, as I explained above; I don't have any alternative ideas to cover option D. Yakme (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
    I forgot to mention that both option A and B would comply with the common list selection criteria. Yakme (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option B: in my view it is the best choice, because it allows to include all parties that meet the principle of notability (regardless of whether they have their own article). Alternatively, option A, although this would allow for the inclusion of some potentially non-encyclopedic parties. In the list of Italian parties in it.wikipedia there are no inclusion rules, and obviously the apocalyptic scenarios presented above did not occur. Pages on encyclopedic parties should be listed on this page, instead pages on non-encyclopedic parties should be deleted, not hidden. My third preference is for option D, which I sincerely prefer to avoid: six months of discussion was useless to find a consensual set of rules. Obviously in the last place option C: the list of Italian political parties is one of the worst pages in this category, and it is also due (but not only) to the arbitrary current rules that make it incomplete and inconsistent.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option A There is no requirement for a party to have an article/be deemed notable enough for one for it to be included in a list like this. Number 57 14:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option C with a view to progressing to Option D, i.e. a revised/modified set of rules arrived at by consensus. I am reaching the stage where I think that any further revisions of the rules will most likely have to streamline matters, including possible inclusion criteria, but I realise that compromises will have to be made. I believe that some form of inclusion criteria should be decided upon and in place.--Autospark (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option B is the simplest and minimizes disputes. If the party is significant enough to warrant an article, then it can be included here.--Seggallion (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option B It's the simplest and will eliminate a new round of endless disputes. Even simpler would be: "Has an en wikipedia article" but this is close to that. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option B per Seggallion and North8000. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option C. It is perfectly fine for list articles to have inclusion criteria to keep out non-encyclopedic trivia. However, much of the point of list articles is providing a place for things that are not notable enough for their own articles. The control policy and guideline material here is WP:LISTCRITERIA, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:Notability. Yes evolving toward option D is possible, but that need not be done at this time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option C or D (no preference of one over the other) but I expressly oppose option B in a way that I don't oppose A - Basically, I believe that requiring an article that meets the GNG is too restrictive, because you would expect a list article to cover political parties that are too minor to have an article... but I think option A could be slightly too broad. Having consensus defined rules to exclude the truly trivial and non-impactful is a fair compromise. Fieari (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • option A or B I strongly oppose breaking with existing rules to make new ones just for this page. Lists should be representative of the entirety- not what an editor finds arbitrarily worthy. Nightenbelle (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion (IV)

Could editors who mentioned option D (A different set of inclusion rules) in their preferences state more clearly what they mean by that? Option D is a sort of "None of the above" reply, so editors who pick it should provide an example of an alternative to A, B or C that they would support. On the contrary, if they don't have such alternative idea, then IMHO they should not create support (or partially support) for an undefined situation. Yakme (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with User:Autospark what wrote on the issue. While the status quo is OK with me and I would especially like to retain the structure of the rules, I look forward to a new set of conditions of admission, via new RfC, in order to avoid inconsistency and chaos. I especially dislike option B and, differently from User:North8000, I think that it would cause endless discussions on including specific parties, arguments over the nature of parties and deletion proposals. --Checco (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. IMO "has an English Wikipedia article" is criteria that would be the simplest and lowest drama to implement. The answer could be instantly determined and would be non-debatable. And I think that it's likely that somebody will take and article to AFD to keep it off the list. "Option B" is the closest option that is one of the listed choices. If a part has an en wiki article, that's a nearly irrefutable evidence that it meets "B". The area for debate would be that a party without an article still meets the criteria. More to come. North8000 (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@North8000: Rest assured that 99% of all slightly notable parties or party factions in Italy has already its own separate article. In the case of Italian politics, the issue would be the opposite: too many articles for non-notable organizations. Yakme (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Yakme: I'm guessing that by "non-notable" you are referring to a comparative real-world meaning, not WP:notable. If it was the latter, such would be in essence saying that those articles should be deleted.North8000 (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I meant the latter. Some parties currently listed here (see Greens Greens for example) have major WP:Notability issues. On the contrary, very notable parties like Volt Europa are not listed because they do not meet the selection parameters decided by some editors. Yakme (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Quite often, having an article is more than sufficient to be on a list. Saying that there are parties that have articles that shouldn't seems more like an argument for deletion of those articles rather than for a criteria higher than "has an article". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Indeed I am mostly supportive of option A than B, and anyway regardless of the situation with existing articles. I think this list should include every Italian party that ever existed, if it were for me. Yakme (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
(reposted because I wasn't done yet but didn't want to refactor after Yakme's response) Thanks for the ping. IMO "has an English Wikipedia article" is the criteria that would be the simplest and lowest drama to implement. The answer could be instantly determined and would be non-debatable. And I think that it's unlikely that somebody will take and article to AFD to keep it off the list. Regarding the inclusiveness/ exclusiveness of this criteria by the numbers, I'm guessing that about 300 parties are listed in the article and that about 95% of those have articles. Persons saying that such would be too inclusive need to argue for a reduction in this number, persons saying "too restrictive" would need to argue that this number is too low. "Option B" is the closest option that is one of the listed choices. If a part has an en wiki article, that's a nearly irrefutable evidence that it meets "B". The area for debate would be that a party without an article still meets the criteria. If you make up specific criteria, you have the work/debates of creating the specific criteria, and, whenever a question arises, the work/ debates of deciding if the party meets the specialized criteria. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
The fact is that there are several notable parties with no article (we can always start them, by the way, and also stubs would be OK, in my view) and several irrelevant parties with an article (I would never ask for their deletion, but having them in the list is pointless and would only make the list inconsistent). If option B is chosen, more endless debates will follow. The reference to Greens Greens and Volt Italia is illuminating: the former is a long-time party (31 years), with few sources available, a regional base and consistent electoral results (1.2% vote in a regional election and 0.5% in a European Parliament election countrywide), while the latter is frequently listed in sources, but has had no relevant electoral results yet (0.4% and 0.3% of the vote in the only two elections to which it took part). Should not be also be aware of WP:Recentism? --Checco (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
OK, but Wikipedia is based on sources. Also, I did not say that Greens Greens should surely be removed, I just said that it has notability and/or verifiability issues, as one can see from the banners on the article Greens Greens. My point is that we should also include parties which are sufficiently covered by media, like Volt Europa, which at the moment do not meet the criteria decided by one or two editors who knows where and when. Yakme (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Volt Europa is not an Italian party, thus it should not be listed here. However, I understand your point and I take your example seriously: Volt Italia has had a lot of coverage, but it has been a residual force so far. I do not think it is a good idea to higlight parties that are beneficiaries of big coverage for any reason at the expenses of more relevant parties which have been ignored by the media and may not have an article. This happens quite frequently in Italy. That is what I mean when I say that the list should be comprehensive and consistent: only minimal conditions of admission can deliver that. --Checco (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Of course I meant Volt Italia. I am not proposing to "highlight parties", I am supporting the generalized inclusion of as many Italian parties as possible, regardless of some ad hoc criteria. Cheers, Yakme (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
My thoughts were based on "having an article" being a reasonably good solution, with a reasonable degree of inclusivity/exclusivity for a list of about it's current size, and to save the editors here a lot of debating time and complexity. So I'm assigning more weight to that last consideration than some others are. That pretty well sums up my opinion/recommendation. North8000 (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fieari: requiring an article that meets the GNG is too restrictive, just FYI, you have picked one of the most restrictive option, that is option C. Indeed the currently implemented option C excludes many parties which have articles. Yakme (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fieari: Sorry, but I still can't understand your statement. Obviously I respect anyone's position, but your statement remains contradictory in my view. How does option C be less restrictive than option B? Option C specifically excludes a number of parties that would be included with option B. Can you clarify your statement? Thanks.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
User:Fieari definitely has a point. Option B is much arbitrary and, as such, it may led both to a) an inconsistent list through the inclusion of irrelevant parties at the expense of more relevant parties (options C and D are the ones making sure that all parties with minimal requirements have to be included in the list) OR b) a more restrictive list. Option B would surely led the list to arbitrariness and endless discussions, not to mention discussions in articles' talk pages and deletion proposals. If it is not possible to have reasonable, consistent and comprehensive list through specific conditions of admission (options C and D), it is better to be fully inclusionist (option A). --Checco (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand how it is possible to claim that option B is more restrictive than option C, as it is the opposite. And IMHO it is incomprehensible that a list inclusive of all known parties can be considered more arbitrary than a list with a set of rules decided on the basis of no objective criteria to exclude a series of parties from it. The consequences of option C are visible to everyone: months of pointless and inconclusive discussions. One thing that would not happen with the simple principle of notability.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Really, what Checco is stating is a wrong conjecture. (1) Fieari is not opposing B because of the possible "endless discussions", but because it is "too restrictive" – which is also a weird prediction given that as of now option B would imply that more parties are added to this list; (2) option B is obviously the one which will imply the least amount of future discussions, because it is the simplest rule. With option B there will be even fewer discussions than with option A (which I prefer nonetheless, for completeness and inclusion), because option A requires entries which do not have articles to be actively verified. Entries that have WP articles should already be verified and sourced. If not, if some of the party articles need more work with sources, or need to be deleted, this will not interfere or depend on the inclusion rule for this list. So I would not take a decision here based on the status of other articles, this can be dealt with little by little whenever it is time, and independently of the outcome of this discussion. Yakme (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I simply disagree. Only specific rules, that can be loosened as much as we want (options C and D) and that are objective, make sure that the list is comprehensive and consistent. Other options might be good on principle, but would a chaotic, irrational and inconsistent list. In democracy, no rules do not mean more freedom. In our context, no rules do not mean more inclusion, but chaos, endless discussions, arbitrariness (i.e. the exclusion of some parties at the expenses of others with no objective reason) and recentism. There have been thousands of parties in Italy and we need to find a way to select a possibly near-infinite list. --Checco (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Checco, we arrived at the Drn and this Rfc following your immovability on the modification of the most inconsistent rules of this list. The discussions were born precisely because these rules exclude several known parties. You claim that option B would include some parties at the expenses of others. Can you give some practical examples? Because until proven otherwise, it seems to me that this is happening precisely with the current rules.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
As I said also at DRN: by logic, threshold selection rules cannot make a list more comprehensive, just simply the opposite! Rules such as verifiability or notability are the opposite of chaotic, irrational and inconsistent; OTOH I would describe as such the current rules instead. No rules do not mean more inclusion, but chaos nobody is proposing "no rules" at all, but simply applying general WP rules like WP:V or WP:N: do these general WP rules mean "chaos"? There have been thousands of parties in Italy: very good! And this list of parties should possibly include all of them, otherwise it is not a "list of political parties in Italy", but a "partial list of parties in Italy". Yakme (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for repeating myself. Rules make sure that all parties with mininal conditions of admission (they can be loosened as much 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. All lists are partial and this list would never contain all of the thousands of parties ever established in Italy, thus it is much more important to make sure that all parties with mininal requirements are listed, otherwise the list would look more complete, but would be more partial and arbitrary. --Checco (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I understand your point, but I do not know of any non-WP:OR way to create minimal conditions based on numerical thresholds. So I would rather have simple, generalized rules like WP:V or WP:N or WP:ORG, and hope that the WP sense of community will be enough to make the list as complete as possible (it's a work in progress after all). Yakme (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_political_parties_in_Italy/Archive_4&oldid=1108707693"