Talk:List of political parties in Italy

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Associate parties

Okay, looks like we need to discuss just about every detail. Then: I propose to divide in the table the parties with an autonomous delegation from those represented within other parties. There are semi-non-existent parties or parties that are little more than factions within other parties (and therefore without autonomous delegation) that are listed before the SVP, this makes no sense. Not even the separation of regional and overseas parties in that table had ever been decided anywhere, for example I have never agreed with it, but in any case it was not conflicting with the outcome of the discussions. Since the division of the "autonomous" parties from the "subordinate" ones does not conflict with what has been decided so far, I ask why the separation of the regional parties was kept while that of the subordinate parties not. It seems to me like a sensible separation to me. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Your message is not very clear, but, as I saw this bold edit of yours and I agree with it, I think understood the point. Do you mean "associate parties"? If so, I am much in favour of listing them separately, also because, in most cases, their MPs are already counted among the MPs of the larger parties to which they are associated. Of course, it would be even better to have separate tables for countrywide parties, associate parties, regional parties and minor ("un-represented") parties. Each table could have different columns (in the case of "associate parties", there should be a column for the mother party). In the meantime, I hope your bold edit could be implemented again. --Checco (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I am in favour of a single list of parties, as was agreed in the RFC. I did not come forward against the separation into national and regional just because I wanted to keep a peaceful environment. But now we are starting to have too many sub-tables in the original tables that were decided in the RFC, so I intervene before someone else comes up with yet another table. Indeed I do not agree that we need a separate table for "associate parties" (what are they anyway? it's going to be extremely difficult to define them), and I would keep the current state. If there are parties that are actually party factions or semi non-existent, then the right thing to do is to remove them from the list. Yakme (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

There are too many tables because parties are both ordered by representation and nature/scope. My argument is that it is better to have only one division, according to nature/scope. The proposal of listing "associate parties" separately is definitely a big improvement, even if the current structure is kept. --Checco (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Yakme: So you don't revert edits you don't agree, to keep the a peaceful envinment, only on on the basis of their author? The parties should be listed according to their relevance in Parliament, not only there are some regional parties more relevant than other countrywide parties (just think of SVP), but there are some parties that have now reduced to mere factions of other parties (such as Article One), other entities that it is not clear whether they still exist (èViva, CpE) and other entities that are not even parties but associations (Animalist Movement, Italian Liberal Right). Many of these have no autonomy in parliament and their seats cannot be counted together with others, listing them separately just seems like common sense to me.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Checco, you cannot keep advocating for a regional-based classification in this article, after this option has been categorically rejected by the community. @Scia Della Cometa, I do not care about the editors, please assume good faith. For the SVP problem, indeed I would order parties based on their seat count, regardless of regional or not. For the èViva and CpE problem, if they do not exist, they should not appear in the table. It's surprising to me that non-existing parties appear in this table. What about having a "Coalition partners" column like in the main table of List of political parties in Spain? Yakme (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I actually also see other inconsistencies, like for example for the CpE we state "into PD group" in a note, while for IV we do not say "into Azione–Italia Viva group" in a note. So are we adding notes about the parliamentary group memberships or not? If we are, then we should do it for all parties. Yakme (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The question is: what do you want to have represented in the table? The party to whom an MP belongs, the party (or coalition) which supported his/her election, or the parliamentary group? There could be 3 different outcomes.

Example: Luca Pastorino. Member and founder of èViva, elected as independent (supported by the Center-Left coalition) in the Liguria-U03 FPTP constituency, part of the mixed group (+Europa subgroup) in the Chamber of Deputies. You can have him therefore associated with either èViva, +Europe or none party at all...

By my side, I'd like to keep consistency with these two pages, List of members of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, 2022– and List of members of the Italian Senate, 2022– P1221 (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Clearly, as I long argued, organising the list according to representation and the number of MPs creates a lot of problems of interpretation, updating, consistency and competeness. The real solution would be to go back to a simpler version, organised by nature/scope and with the parties ordered by alphabetical order in their different categories. This said, there are some MPs who are effectively members of more parties at once and the better solution would be to list associate parties separately as the their numbers are already included in the main parties' totals. That is the case of the MPs of Article One, for instance. It is not the case of Luca Pastorino, in my view, as he is a èViva member or, if you prefer, an independent member within the +E parliamentary sub-group and it is not a member of the +E party. --Checco (talk) 06:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Yakme: The small consistency issue of the wording "group" in the notes was already fixed in the edit you reverted: it is enough to remove the word group, specifying only the cases in which a party is represented within another party. Concerning a "Coalition partners" column similar to the Spanish table, I wouldn't be against it, but am I wrong or did you all want to keep this table as slim as possible?

In any case, it is incorrect to list these parties among the others, their members should not be counted together with the others so the current version of the table is not ok. Whether it's a column or a subsection of the table, they should be separated from the others.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I recognize the issue, I just do not think that having another subsection in the table is a good solution. And by the way there would be two new subsections because we would need to have "national associate parties" and "regional associate parties" for consistency (otherwise it would be weird to separate national and regional for the main parties, and then putting the associate parties all in the same group). So my solution is to mimic the Spanish list, by listing the associate parties to some main party in a separate (hopefully slim) column. See proposal below. Yakme (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Party		Founded	Ideology	Leader	Deputies	Senators	MEPs	Associate parties
	Brothers of Italy Fratelli d'Italia	2012	National conservatism Right-wing populism	Giorgia Meloni	118 / 400	65 / 200	8 / 76	DB (S)
	Lega	2017	Right-wing populism Conservatism	Matteo Salvini	66 / 400	29 / 200	24 / 76	Fassa (S) DLI (EP)
	Democratic Party Partito Democratico	2007	Social democracy	Elly Schlein	61 / 400	39 / 200	14 / 76	DemoS (C · EP) Art.1 (C) CD (C) CpE (S)

I wouldn't object, although I would add the assembly in brackets (see above).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I had also thought about that so it's fine for me.Yakme (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It's fine for me, too. P1221 (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I like the proposal above as long as the associate parties are also listed in a separate table. Those parties are indeed full-fledged ones, some of them could have been much larger than several other parties listed and some parties can be associate to another one just for a period of time. --Checco (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

As above; it’s a fine compromise, if paired with the caveats suggested by Checco.-- Autospark (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

This is true, otherwise we lose information like leader etc on these associate parties. I would then have a separate table in the same section, and not a sub-table in the main table. Yakme (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I would thus implement the new column proposed above and have a separate table in the same section. This said, I would not oppose a sub-table in the main table. And... there is also a third option: having further rows below the main party:

Party 1

Associate party 1.1

Associate party 1.2

Party 2

Associate party 2.1

Party 3

Associate party 3.1

Associate party 3.2

Party 4

Associate party 4.1

Associate party 4.2

Associate party 4.3

Associate party 4.4

And so on. The data of associate parties would be included in those of their respective main parties. --Checco (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that some parties like Article One deserve to be listed normally, but with a separate table, the extra column would no longer be needed. My proposal is as follows: a single table for the autonomous parliamentary parties, listed in descending order and without any subsections (the reference note is enough to indicate whether they are parties active in only one region or overseas) and a table for the associated parties ( the section could be entitled "associated parliamentary parties"). @Yakme, Checco, P1221, and Autospark: What do you think?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC) The division between regional parties and countrywide parties instead makes sense for the parties represented in the regional councils, since they are not listed in order of relevance: in this case I would use two tables (countrywide parties and regional parties).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I did not understand your proposal. I surely would avoid "associate parliamentary" as we have a more accurate term: "associate". --Checco (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I mean a list like this: User:Scia Della Cometa/sandbox#Active parties. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

SDC, would it be possible for you to provide a visual demonstration of your proposal, a mock-up, so that we could fairly critique it?-- Autospark (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Autospark I showed my proposal in my sandbox (see the link above). Instead I would avoid listing the associate parties under the main parties, some boxes would become too long.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of having the "Associate parties" column in the main parties' table is (1) making evident which small party is associated to which main party, (2) be justified in using the parliamentary groups numbers for the main parties' members (in most cases). At the moment it's not clear whether the numbers shown are just for the "pure main party" members, or for main+associate party members. If we added that column (as multiple editors already agreed to) the reader will clearly understand that those are the cumulated numbers. Also, in SDC's proposal, it's not clear which party is associated to which, unless one clicks on the footnotes, while in my proposal these footnotes will not be needed. I would support a separate table for the associate parties, but I would keep the additional column in the main table – for the sake of clarity and completeness. Yakme (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Both Yakme's and SDC's proposals are valid for me, and I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I'm in favor of showing the main parties as per Yakme's proposal and the associate parties in a separate table as per SDC's proposal. P1221 (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Is this new version (User:Scia Della Cometa/sandbox#Active parties) ok for all of you?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Good for me, thanks. (I would just use {{None}} for parties with no associates.) Yakme (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I don’t have any objections to that model. The split tables (one for major parties, one for associated parties) is quite a good idea, actually.-- Autospark (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It's good for me, thank you very much. P1221 (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, then I'd say I can proceed to edit the page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Nice job! Thanks! --Checco (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of political parties in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The third pole Italia viva-Azione is not in the centre left coalition

The third pole disbanded in 2023 now italiaviva is in the centre left coalition and azione is not in a coalition Gabrygg1 (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Unlisted political parties

I have long argued for criteria of admission for political parties to be listed in this article. However, as long as there are no such criteria, all political parties that are sourced can be added, no matter if they have an en.Wikipedia article, a redirect or neither. Otherwise, please prove me wrong. -- Checco (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The 2022 RFC outcome expressly provided for the inclusion of only parties that already have a page or will soon have one. Which relevant parties are currently excluded from the page you're referring to? Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2026 (UTC)