Talk:Lega Nord/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Repetition of the tables on the results of regional councils

@Ritchie92 @Nick.mon Can you explain to me for which you want you want to keep two tables with the same results??? In the past I had already found that the complete table was unreadable. If the complete table is unreadable, then we delete it. But keeping two tables with the same results is useless, the page is already long enough without unnecessary repetitions. For me it's OK to keep only the table with the latest results, the introduction of an incomplete table in the presence of an identical table with the complete results makes no sense. I invite you to make a choice, let's avoid repeating the same contents on the page; however I am not deleting any content that is not already present on the page in the same form.--Wololoo (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I am for keeping both table, especially the "detailed" one. Several articles include information in short form and, later on, in detail, thus I do not see the problem. I will rollback the removal of the table as there was no consensus for it. Let's discuss first, then edit. --Checco (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

But in this case we have not a short form and a detailed one, but two identical tables, one with all the results and only one with the latest results. Furthermore there is another table with the results by region, there are practically three tables for results on regional elections! I see that some users are committed to making this page different from the others, but I do not understand why. If there is already a table with all the results, the incomplete one is useless. If the table with all the results is unreadable, then we keep only the one with the last results, as for the other parties! The presence of both tables is excessively redundant. What is the point to fill an already long page with unnecessarily repeated information?? --Wololoo (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I really like the current version. Moreover, I do not think that the detailed table is unreadable—at all. As I said, I would keep both tables, especially the detailed one. This article is longer and more detailed than others for a simple reason: the LN is the oldest party among those active. The idea of moving some content to other articles might be good, though, but long debates would arise. --Checco (talk) 07:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Checco, both tables are readable, contain interesting and relevant data, and by the way they are intrinsically different from each other: one is a table of the LN presence in the Italian Regional Councils as of today; the other one is the historical presence of LN in Regional Councils. The first one is really useful if one wants to have an overview of LN political power in the various Regions; the other one is useful if one wants to study its evolution, thus is a little less readable but contains more data. The third table you refer to I guess is the one in the Section "Electoral results by Region" and this is just about the electoral "results", not the number of LN representatives in the Regional Councils. It is a bit redundant maybe and difficult to read indeed and I would approve a deletion or substantial restyling. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: you are wrong, the first and the second table are pratically the same thing, also the second table contains the latest election results. Otherwise it is not clear why there is not a table indicating the latest election results for national and European elections, with your reasoning you legitimize the creation of tables that exclusively contain the results of the last elections of each type, in my view something quite useless but at least more coherent. The table with the latest election results is not intended to represent the current presence of the party in the regional councils, for this purpose there is an indication in the infobox of the number of regional councilors and the page on the regional councils, of which I strongly proposed the introduction. However, I would like to mention finally that there is no page of any party of any other Country that contains a table with all the results of the regional elections, and the reason is very obvious. The reason why you want to differentiate this page from the other is incomprehensible to me --Wololoo (talk) 10:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The reason why LN deserves a section with detailed Regional Council composition as of today is that LN is a regionalist party and bases its success on its power in the Northern Regions. Also, the cumulative number of Regional Councillors in the introductory infobox is not enough information to discern LN presence in the Northern and Central Regions of Italy. An option could be to delete the most recent result in the second table, but I would not encourage it. Also I appear to have the approval of other users, so this is not just my opinion. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The party has begun to participate in the elections of all the Italian regions, in a few years the table will be unsustainably long. Its detailed presence in the regional councils is clearly visible in the page Composition of Regional Councils of Italy, as for all the other parties. Unfortunately I see little practical sense in this matter. At this point it is more consistent as a whole to insert a table with the latest results for all types of elections, it is the same type of repetition but at least the results are more coordinated. --Wololoo (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with User:Ritchie92, except on the "third" table: I do not think it is redundant, I do not support its deletion, but I am open to see it re-styled. I would encourage to add similar tables also in other articles, as in the past. --Checco (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Ps: I liked these edits by User:Wololoo very much, by the way.

I agree with Wololoo when he says that there are too many tables about regional results. I think that a good choice could be move historical results in regional council from Lega Nord to pages dedicated to his sections such as Lega Lombarda, Liga Veneta etc... . What do you think Ritchie92 and Checco?--Facquis (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I oppose that. In fact, I would rather remove the "latest results" section, while keeping the "historical results" and "Electoral results by regions" sections. However, I might accept a compromise like the following: keeping only the "latest results" section in this article and moving the other two sections to a new article named Electoral results of Lega Nord. --Checco (talk) 07:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Every party's page includes the national historical electoral results, the problem is the indication of all historical regional results, that is a peculiarity of this page. So it would be logical if the new page contained all the results by region of the party.--Wololoo (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The new article could be the solution, but I'm not strongly agree because I think that it would set a precedent for all the other political parties, this might get messy.--Facquis (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Not all political parties in Italy have a long history like the LN. And there are already sister articles for parties or politicians, like "History of", "Factions of", "Electoral history of", leadership elections, list of leaders, etc. However, if were the only one entitled to decide, I would keep the article as it is now. I would actually implement those data also in other articles. Once, every party had a table with the results in the 10 largest regions. --Checco (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning the party in articles

Hello, there have been several discussions on this article's name and, as of today, consensus was always to keep where it is, at Lega Nord. This said, the party is referred to in other articles both as "Lega Nord" and "Northern League" (before 2018, see also Talk:Next Italian general election#Lega's abbreviation). In my view, consistently to "Forza Italia", the party should always be referred to as "Lega Nord" (before 2018) in articles on elections, governments, etc. I opened this discussion at Talk:Conte Cabinet (Talk:Conte I Cabinet/Archive 1#Two little issues), but it is better to continue here. I am copying the relevant comments by other users below.

• User:Wololoo: The name "Lega Nord" has been maintained, despite the wikipedia conventions suggest the most common name in English language, it's not a great problem, but the most common name of this party remains Northern League/League, even in this case it is in the interest of readers to read the most common name on the page. The names of FI and Lega are two completely different cases. [11:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)] I do not know what English sources you read, but Northern League is the most common name in english language (also used by official sources), the page name is the Italian one simply because of the opposition of three users. [20:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)] The text of a page is much smoother if the english name of a party is used, which is also the most common name. [23:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)] It seems to me all too highly inconsistent: we adopt translations of names of parties invented or never used, and when we have a party that is almost always called with its translation, some of you want to use its Italian name even in these pages, an evident contradiction. So, after 2018, the name used should always be "Lega Nord", because also "Lega" was rejected as title of the page. [21:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)]

• User:Ritchie92: I think this is not a "little issue" at all, since it has been topic of at least three move requests (in June 2017, March 2018 and April 2018) and one discussion thread. As far as I understand there is no obvious outcome, because there is a superposition of various directives. I found these which are relevant: the natural disambiguation argument which is in favour of keeping "Lega Nord", and the "use English" argument which would be in favour of Northern League (however here we are in the case of "divided usage in English", for which the directive is not super clear, but only says "Use what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. Whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title and mention both forms in the lead."). [14:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)]

• User:Nick.mon: As Ritchie said, Lega's name has been discussed many many times [...]. As I always said, I personally prefer "League" (for party's current name) and "Northern League" (for the previous one), but as Checco stated many times, "Lega Nord" was also quite used and there'll be a problem with all the linked federal parties (Lega Lombarda, Lega Nord Emilia, Lega Piemont, ecc.) [14:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)]

• User:Autospark: [W]e should keep the use of "Lega Nord" (as is the title for article about the political party). [13:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)]

• User:Desyman: The Italian name is better, many English speakers even use that. But I would not roll back anyone for using Northern League. [15:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)]

I open to a further discussion on this article's name, but the consensus name should be used in other articles too. --Checco (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Checco: you have a strange passion for endless discussions and to check the edits of other users, pity that instead you do not spend as much time to improve the pages we are talking about. Most of the users you have collected are not even interested in editing these pages (including you, evidently). These are the changes that wikipedia needs, not improving pages like this! Honestly I have no words...--Wololoo (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I never engaged in long discussions before your arrival to Wikipedia, but that is how we achieve consensus. I am definitely more interested in editing articles and my 14-year record speaks for itself. Ah, checking edits... that is what the watchlist is all about! Why is it strange? --Checco (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Sincerely I have no interest in your years in wikipedia, and your long discussions are about my legitimate edits, like the partial change of the intro of this page and the insertion of a political position that you wanted to remove for mere personal convictions (and Watchlist on any page means checking the edits of all other users)... However, the only users who are editing the pages on governments have expressed a tendential preference for its English name, following your reasoning we should use the name Lega Nord even after 2018, and this does not simply make sense. With this your need to discuss each point, you got the interruption of the improvement of those pages, it seems to me that it is for you more important to use anachronistic names or to forbid the translation of the word Lega, rather than to complete the pages on the governments or on important Italian politicians. Honestly I do not understand these priorities and this modus operandi, especially in the presence of the extremely lacking state of many pages on Italian politics...--Wololoo (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no ownership of articles and anyone is free to edit the articles he/she wants. --Checco (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, but I see that almost every edit of mine is questioned, and an user who call other users to decide on articles that they does not intend to edit/improve, It seems to me a bit a contradiction.--Wololoo (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I opened this thread here because User:Ritchie92 and User:Nick.mon asked me to do so at Talk:Conte I Cabinet/Archive 1#Two little issues.
@User:Ritchie92, User:Nick.mon, User:Autospark, User:Desyman, User:Braganza and everyone interested and concerned: Please have your say! The question is quite simple: "Lega Nord" (not "Northern League (Italy)") is the long-estabished name of this article; do you prefer referring to the party as "Lega Nord" or "Northern League"? This would apply only to articles on elections and governments before 2018. --Checco (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I personally prefer Lega Nord, due the regional wings and his splits like Lega Autonomia Lombarda or Liga Veneta Repubblica Braganza (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Before 2018, ehehe... if the justification is the name of the page, the name Lega Nord must always be used, obviously. The names "Northern League" and "Lega" have been both rejected, so following this reasoning the name "Lega Nord" must also be used after 2018, for consistency.--Wololoo (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. There is a consensus to use "League" or "Lega" for the electoral and parliamentary activities since 2018. See Talk:Next Italian general election#Lega's abbreviation, which was the premise of my reasoning. --Checco (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not wrong, excluding your own consideration, the whole thread was based on the abbreviation to use in brackets (LN or Lega), not the name to use in the pages. --Wololoo (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I prefer Lega Nord, for reasons similar to those laid out by Braganza, and due to the established nature of the article title.--Autospark (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Also this discussion is taking a strange turn, the italian title was kept, leaving out the knowingly false motivation based on which it is the most common name, for a reason of natural disambiguation. Following the reason of the Checco proposal, we have to use the name Lega Nord everywhere (in pages that he and other users don't even contribute to edit), when the name "Lega Nord" was put aside at the end of 2017. In these pages, for custom, the most common names in English language are used (so Northern League before 2018 and League after 2018). The same Talk:Next Italian general election#Lega's abbreviation started from the pre-assumption of the English use of the name for the use of the abbreviation "Lega" in brackets. Honestly I don't understand someone's convinction that the word "Lega" can not be translated into English in any page, when instead we have some italian parties that here have pratically an invented English name, it seems to me be definitely a contradiction.--Wololoo (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The issue is simple. It does not matter why "Lega Nord" was chosen again and again as this article's name. That is the article name and that should be used in other articles, consistently with "Forza Italia". That is what most users want. There can be exceptions, like List of political parties in Italy (where also "Forza Italia" is referred to in English, as "Forward Italy"), but we should reduce or eliminate those exceptions. There is no reason for referring to the party as "Northern League", as the article is named differently. Whenever there will be consensus on moving the article to "Northern League (Italy)" (a much more complicate name, though!), I would be the first to aknowledge it and respect the new consensus. For instance, that is what I did with Die Freiheitlichen, after strongly lobbying for an English name: I lost and I abided to that decision since then; I would surely like to ask again for an article move, but, when consensus is settled, I do not challenge it everyday. --Checco (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The use of the page title in any case is not a rule, see for example the belgian elections (like 2019 Belgian federal election) where the pages of many parties are titled with the original names, but are referred with the English name (since you are recruiting users little interested to the pages in question, should we listen also the users who edit these pages?). Furthermore, we are talking about a party that has been rebranded in 2018, and this goes against the principle you are supporting. ps. However, it seems to me strange that you want to translate the titles of pages that would have a dubious translation and not the names of parties that have an almost official English translation...--Wololoo (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The issue of Belgian parties is very problematic to me. In the past, I tried, along with User:Autospark, to translate all their names, but there was no consensus, as there is no consensus here for what you want. As I said before, I would be glad if you were to join forces with User:Autospark and I in proposing the move of all Belgian parties' articles to English names. Will you?

I personally propose that the party should be always mentioned as "Lega Nord", according to the article's name. This is something that is supported by the majority of the users working on Italian political parties and other Italian politics' articles. All these users are interested specifically in those pages, just think of User:Braganza with Centre-right coalition.

On principle, I would not oppose the move of this article to "Northern League", but, as the most palusible solution is "Northern League (Italy)", I strongly oppose it. The issue was settled at least 15 years ago with the crucial contribution of User:Nightstallion. After that, there was never consensus to move the article. --Checco (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not here to discuss the title of the page, I disagree with the italian title of this page as I disagree with the original names as titles of the belgian parties, but I accept the titles of these pages and I have not intention to change them (anyway I dont'understand the problem with the disambiguation "Italy", which is present in the titles of many other pages, I hope it's not just for a "political idea"). I have mentioned the pages on the Belgian elections as a kind of model, because they anyway use English names. However I am absolutely against the solution prposed here, it is totally against the interest of readers (which unfortunately is often not considered), the party's name has also been rebranded, if so, I have no interest in continuing to edit these pages..--Wololoo (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Lega Nord vs. Lega per Salvini Premier

From a formal point of view we have two distinct parties, with two different tax codes and different statutes, and both registered in the National Register of Recognised Political Parties:

• Lega Nord per l'Indipendenza della Padania (abbreviated: Lega Nord), fiscal code 97083130159, with this Statute (see Article 1 of the Statute: "Lega Nord per l'Indipendenza della Padania" (hereinafter referred to as "Lega Nord", "Lega Nord - Padania" or "Movimento"), is a confederal political movement formed in the form of an unrecognised association whose purpose is to achieve the independence of Padania through democratic methods and its international recognition as an independent and sovereign Federal Republic");
• Lega per Salvini Premier (abbreviated: Lega), fiscal code 97794930152, with this Statute (see: Article 1 of the statute: "Lega per Salvini Premier is a confederal political movement formed in the form of an unrecognised association whose purpose is the peaceful transformation of the Italian State into a modern federal State through democratic and electoral methods. Lega per Salvini Premier promotes and supports the freedom and sovereignty of peoples at European level").

So, actually there are two distinct parties, which would require two distinct articles. According to this news, transition to the new party will be before the European elections. --Holapaco77 (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not opposed to a new page. If and when Lega Nord will be history, it would be better to have two articles: one on the old Lega Nord and one on the new Lega. The problem here is discerning substance and form. It is true that formally there are two parties, Lega Nord in the Centre-North and Lega per Salvini Premier in the South. Lega per Salvini Premier is the evolution of Us with Salvini. Additionally, in the 2018 general election Lega Nord and Lega per Salvini Premier formed a joint list under a third name, Lega Salvini Premier. My sense is that we should wait longer to see what happens. : I don't think that the transition to the new party will be before the European elections, honestly I am dubious about the necessity of an independent article for Lega per Salvini Premier. I am dubious beacuse currently it is a sort of puppet party, but it is also true that the southern members of the League are members of Lega per Salvini Premier and not of Noi con Salvini. The impostation of Template:Italian political parties and Us with Salvini's pages is wrong, because Noi con Salvini was only a list with which the League initially ran in the elections in the southern regions, but currently the national League is composed by LN and LSP, NcS has not really MPs. From this point of view the creation of a page on LSP would not be wrong, but personally I would prefer to deal with all the topics on the page of Lega Nord.--Wololoo (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not opposed to a new page. If and when Lega Nord will be history, it would be better to have two articles: one on the old Lega Nord and one on the new Lega. The problem here is discerning substance and form. It is true that formally there are two parties, Lega Nord in the Centre-North and Lega per Salvini Premier in the South. Lega per Salvini Premier is the evolution of Us with Salvini. Additionally, in the 2018 general election Lega Nord and Lega per Salvini Premier formed a joint list under a third name, Lega Salvini Premier. My sense is that we should wait longer to see what happens. --Checco (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm agree, LSP is the follow-up of Noi con Salvini. Then, note that Matteo Salvini was elected in the constituency of Reggio Calabria. So, I guess that electors of Reggio Calabria didn't voted for "achieving the independence of Padania". --Holapaco77 (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure. However, as of now, the current status quo is OK with me and the NcS is quite balanced as it is open to different interpretations. As we do not know how things will eventually play out, a definitive interpretation of facts is not possible. This said, I do not oppose the creation of an article on LSP (or should we talk about LpSP, to distinguish it from the 2018 joint list and the current parliamentary groups?). In Wikipedia we had, have and always will have articles on would-be, proposed parties. That is how the articles on the PD and the PdL were started, if I remember well. --Checco (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Checco @Holapaco77 currently we have we have only one certainty: the northern member are registered in the Lega Nord, the southern members are registered in the Lega per Salvini Premier [1]. De facto, Noi con Salvini no longer exists. I see two solutions: the creation of the page "Lega per Salvini Premier" or the entering all the information in the Lega Nord's page (solution preferred by me). But the indication of deputies and senators in the Us with Salvini's page, as I already said, is misleading, because NcS has been pratically archived...--Wololoo (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Upgrade: The symbol for the next European elections 2019 was officially presented by "Lega Salvini Premier". (See: here and here). --Holapaco77 (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Update, if you will... Uhm, no: the symbol was filed by the LN; "Lega Salvini Premier" is the name of the list. --Checco (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

...filed by Lega Nord AND Lega per Salvini Premier (source: https://dait.interno.gov.it/elezioni/trasparenza/europee2019 ). --Holapaco77 (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that LSP is the heir of NcS. As we can see in its statute, "Lega per Salvini Premier" is active in all the twenty regions, not only in the Southern ones, like "Noi con Salvini". -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Take a look to how carefully the article on NcS is crafted: "The 2018 membership recruitment was made under the name of Lega per Salvini Premier (LSP), practically supplanting NcS". What is sure is that, as of today, the only members of LSP or, better LpSP are Salvini, a few others and all the southern leghisti. We really need to wait and see, in my view. --Checco (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Checco, Holapaco77, and Nick.mon: The problem is that Noi con Salvini is de facto disbanded. The LSP is, according to its statute, a national party, but pratically is a puppet party (with a ghost headquarter) used for the Southern Italy. It's wrong to to continue listing NcS in the pages and counting the southern MPs as its members. I would keep this page as it is without creating a new page for LSP, and I would definitely set aside the page Us with Salvini, since it was only a list that is no longer active.--Wololoo (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Wololoo: Yes I quite agree with you, NcS is de facto totally disbanded, but the current situation around Lega is very very unclear. How many parties do we have? Two or maybe three? Anyway I hope that this situation will be resolved soon. -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: I don't think that this situation will be resolved soon, because (in my view) it does not seem that currently Salvini really wants to create another party, the LSP is a ploy for LN to have members also in southern Italy. The main party remains Lega Nord, rebranded as "Lega" or "Lega - Salvini Premier" and that also includes "Lega per Salvini Premier". Obviously there is no official version, but in fact it is so. Therefore it is misleading to continue to mention NcS as if it still existed.--Wololoo (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

NcS is de facto disbanded, but just de facto. I perfectly agree that the LpSP is practically a "puppet party (with a ghost headquarter) used for the Southern Italy", mainly because there is no consensus within the LN about welcoming southerners in the once-Padanist party. However, I still think that the article on NcS, as well as this one, is very balanced as it is (it simply comments facts, without reaching toward a conclusion) and that it is fair and correct to continue to mention NcS in some articles, like those on parties and elections, and in some templates. Once again, I would like to underline that electoral lists and the parliamentary groups are not named after "Lega per Salvini Premier" (LpSP), but as "Lega Salvini Premier" (LSP). Is it just a case? --Checco (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Checco NcS is not only de facto disbanded, the last enrolment dates back to 2017, since 2018 the enrolment takes place through LSP, ergo the currents southern MPs are not members of NCS, there is nothing balanced on the page Us with Salvini, it's only an original (wrong) research. I have not yet corrected this obvious error because I want to avoid yet another edit war, but, as I repeat again, the informations cannot be invented, that page should be put aside, NcS is no longer active. And I didn't understand the reasoning about the name of list and parliamentary groups, "Lega Salvini Premier" (or simply "Lega") is the name of the list, "Lega per Salvini Premier" is the party used to get members in the southern Italy. --Wololoo (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The article on NcS leaves doors open, it comments facts, without reaching toward a conclusion. That is why is sensible and balanced. I subscribe to your last sentence: that was my point; you are well-informed, but several people get confused about LSP and LpSP. --Checco (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Checco The page Us with Salvini indicates the southern MPs as its members and above all in the template of italian parties there is indicated Lega (Lega Nord * Us with Salvini): but it is not so! Pratically Lega and LN are the same thing, with the difference that the first one is active throughout the national territory. After the eurpean election, maybe, the League will be listed among the major parties, it is not acceptable to indicate among the major parties a list that existed for a short time only in southern Italy and currently no longer active. It is irrelevant that people do not understand the difference between Lega Salvini Premier and Lega per Salvini Premier, NcS is no longer active and Lega per Salvini Premier is a puppet party, only the existing parties must be indicated in the template (especially among the major parties)! I wouldn't want a new edit war, I would like you to understand the meaning of my reasoning. --Wololoo (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You should never start edit wars! I understand you reasoning, but, as of today, I would not change anyting, even tjough, as I said before, I am not opposed on creating a short articles on LSP and LpSP. --Checco (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Checco Starting edit wars... but if I had to rightly remove Ncs from the tmp, you would cancel my edit! But the edit would be right, while you want to mantain an inactive list in the tmp without any logical explanation. Or the information is provided correctly or it is better not to provide it, the League's southern MPs are not members of NCS (or at least not anymore). An article for "Lega per Salvini Premier" would be superfluous, since it is a puppet party, it would be even worse to include it in the template.--Wololoo (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, we disagree. That is why we need to seek broader consensus. Don't rush. --Checco (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I would have no problem in replacing "Lega (Lega Nord - Us with Salvini)" in the template on political parties with "Lega [Salvini Premier] (Lega Nord - Lega per Salvini Premier)". Could that be a compromise? --Checco (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Checco In the case of the national list, the name is "Lega" (Salvini premier is only a slogan, such as for other lists). The problem about "Lega per Salvini Premier" is above all one: it is a puppet party, a direct emanation of LN in order not to change the party's statute (and collect safe money). In my view, it is misbecoming to indicate a puppet party in the template, especially if the League will be listed among the major parties, and anyway the Lega/LSP is not really a federation between LN and Lega per Salvini Premier (a federation is composed of objectively distinct political parties), Lega is the new (unofficial) name of LN. We are practically faced with a single party with an incredibly complex structure (personally I would even be in favor of changing the page title with the new name, both here and in itwiki, but I know that this is not easy). On the other hand, NcS is no longer active. I would include in the tmp only Lega Nord with its new name, as we do for the elections. @Holapaco77 @Nick.mon, what do you think about this topic? Please give an opinion or suggest an alternative solution. --Wololoo (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The situation is very complex, but three things are clear:: NcS doesn't exist anymore, nobody calls the party "Lega Nord" now and "Lega for Salvini Premier" is a puppet party founded during the "49 millions affaire" (and to prevent a party's war regarding the removal of "Nord" from the name). The party is now called simply Lega, but as you said, it's an unofficial name (not like Le Pen's National Rally, where I think there were a statute's changing). However, LpSP is not the direct heir of NcS, in fact LpSP acts in all the 20 regions and not only in the Southerns ones. I saw that in it.Wiki (where NcS's page never existed) they've kept "Lega Nord" as article's name, but used only "Lega" in the infobox, maybe it should be a good compromise. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I would not change anything in this article, neither in the into (quite balanced) nor in the infobox.

However, @User:Nick.mon, "Lega Salvini Premier" (not "Lega per Salvini Premier") is an electoral list and could have an article. Are minor and short-lived electoral lists like The Right–Tricolour Flame, New Centre-Right – Union of the Centre and Green Italy – European Greens or likely minor and short-lived Green Europe or The Left more relevant than "Lega Salvini Premier"? Please note that Wikipedia has also an article on Rassemblement bleu Marine, other than the one on the National Front/Rally (by the way, I disagree with the fact the the article was moved: I would have started a new one). --Checco (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@User:Checco "Lega Salvini Premier", or better "League/Lega" ("Salvini Premier" in this case is a slogan entered in the logo) is not an electoral list distinct from LN, as already said, it is simply the new name of the party, it is written also in the intro of the article. For this reason "Lega Salvini Premier" can't have another article, while theoretically the "Lega per Salvini Premier" could have its own page (but honestly it doesn't seems to me necessary). It is not the first time that a party adopts a new name without changing the previous one in the statute, the Union of the Centre (2002) didn't changed the name "Unione dei Democratici Cristiani e Democratici di Centro" in its statute, also the Party of Italian Communists, when it changed its name into Communist Party of Italy (2014) maintained the old name in the statute (they are the same party, also if divided in two pages). Obviously, here the situation it's more complex, the League has not only changed its name but it has also created another party with another statute for the South, also if it is de facto its the southern section. Personally I would also change the title of this page. Anyway, I agree with Nick.mon about the infobox, since it was also my proposal.--Wololoo (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

On the infobox, while favoruing the current version, I could agree only on "Lega Nord / Lega": would that be a viable compromise? On the other hand, I strongly oppose to ever moving this article to "Lega", "Lega (Italy), "League (Italy)", "Lega Salvini", "Salvini League", etc. In case the party's constitution will be changed in order to replace Padanian independence as the party's goal, change the name and alter the internal structure, opening the way for more national/regional sections (south of Umbria), I would start a new article. I also do not understand why we should not have parallel articles on the LSP (electoral list) and the LpSP ("puppet" party). On the former, I recall that we have articles on short-lived electoral lists, would-be parties and proposed parties. On the latter, "puppet" is our characterisation: we all agree on that, for now, but that is quite POV, isn't it? --Checco (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that moving the article now is premature. I think the list LSP is equivalent to Lega, so there's no need for another article, like there is no additional article for "Forza Italia – Berlusconi Presidente". LSP deserves a mention in this article, however, when talking about the last elections. Similarly, LpSP sure has to be mentioned in this article (and in the NcS article) in more detail than it is now, citing the fact that it is formally a new party but actually it is the only way Salvini can have candidates in the South without a "Padanian" statute. If you want to create a separate LpSP article I do not oppose it though, since it is formally a registered party. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I know that moving the article is still premature, mine was just a personal opinion. As also said by Ritchie92 Lega/Lega-Salvini Premier/Lega Nord are the same thing, a new article must not be created. I personally don't see as necessary an article for "Lega per Salvini Premier", but in enwiki there is everything, therefore nothing prevents its creation. Anyway, I am absolutely against its inclusion in the template of Italian parties, because it exists only on paper. In my view, the best solution for the template is that one proposed by Nick.mon, alternatively we can only keep Lega Nord, I would avoid to write "Lega Nord / Lega". --Wololoo (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

While I agree on some of the things User:Ritchie92 most recently wrote, I would like to be clear on one point: Lega Nord and Lega Salvini Premier are not the same thing! Clearly, Lega Nord is a party active only in central-northern Italy, while Lega Salvini Premier is a larger outfit, that can easily be considered a coalition of parties or, at least, a joint electoral list. --Checco (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Even in the intro of this page there is written "the party was rebranded as Lega": the name and the logo were adopted by the federal council of the LN at the end of 2017 ([2]), the hypothesis that the "League" is a joint list or federation is quite an original research. The Northern League has almost always presented its list throughout Italy, even without having members in southern Italy, only that at the end of 2017 it eliminated the word "Nord" to make itself more presentable in the South. "Lega per Salvini Premier" was created (by the same Lega Nord) only to have registered members in the South (and a separate cash), it is practically just a tool of Lega Nord. The most plausible solution is to keep only the Lega Nord into the template, with its new name (Lega or League) or simply as Lega Nord. We have ascertained that Us with Salvini is no longer active, therefore the party cannot be represented as still active.--Wololoo (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

In absence of news, I will remove NcS from the template, leaving only Lega Nord as "Lega", since it seems the best solution.--Wololoo (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

"In absence of news", that party is still active. Are you sure to have consensus behind your proposal? --Checco (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Surely the southern MPs they are not registered to NcS and I have not seen great objections to this solution in this talk.--Wololoo (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

More simply, the issue of the template was not discussed, except by you and me. --Checco (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

This solution was also proposed by Nick.mon, furthermore, it is a fact that the southern MPs are not members of NCS, the template objectively represents a wrong situation.--Wololoo (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Nick.mon did not say anything on the template, but fair enough: I will remove NcS and add a note. --Checco (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

"I saw that in it.Wiki (where NcS's page never existed) they've kept "Lega Nord" as article's name, but used only "Lega" in the infobox, maybe it should be a good compromise": it seems to me that it can be applicable to the template too, also if actually he doesn't talk about the template..--Wololoo (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Anyway for me the note is ok, but I think that it should be indicated as "Lega".--Wololoo (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I oppose that and there is no consensus on that. The party is and has been named for years "Lega Nord". What I would do is:

Lega Salvini Premier (Lega Nord – Lega per Salvini Premier)...

...but there is no consensus for this either! --Checco (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

About "Lega Salvini Premier" there is no consensus simply because it is the name with wich LN has been rebranded...--Wololoo (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

That is what you would probably like, but it is not the case, at least not yet. --Checco (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this discussion is adding confusion to confusion, apart from bordering on a personal battle between User:Wololoo and User:Checco. In my following statements I might be wrong, so I seek confirmation. However I am trying to be objective.

Lega Salvini Premier (LSP) is not a party, so it should not be listed in the template of Italian parties. Instead Lega per Salvini Premier (LpSP) is a party, so it might be eligible to be listed in the template. Now the question is whether it should be listed indeed, i.e. whether it is a major or medium party, a small party, or part of another party. This we cannot say for sure because there is no way to uniquely distinguish between members of LN and members of LpSP, as far as I know. That said, since we all know that (at least for now) LpSP is only a puppet party to include former NcS members and new Salvini supporters in the South in the same big mother-party that we usually refer to as Lega, I think the current situation with Lega Nord (the official name of the biggest and historical party) and the note is perfectly clear and sums up the current situation. In case this is not liked by other users, another possible option I would agree to is to write:

Lega (incl. Lega Nord and Lega per Salvini Premier)

Anyway, I guess the situation will develop in the future. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Apart the "personal battle" issue (not from my point of view, at least: I crave for consensual edits!), I agree with User:Ritchie92 and I thank him/her for his/her comment. I like the current status quo, but I appreciate his/her proposal and I still think that both "Lega Salvini Premier" (the electoral list) and "Lega per Salvini Premier" (LN's sister party) should have an article. My new proposal for the template is Lega (Lega Nord – Lega per Salvini Premier). --Checco (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Checco I don't understand "That is what you would probably like", I would not like anything, the sources says that the party has been rebranded with this name (and it is also written in the intro of the page), it isn't only my supposition.

@Ritchie92 I agree with most of the things you written, anyway I don't consider this discussion as a personal battle. I would avoid inserting a fake party like "Lega per Salvini Premier" directly into the template, in my view the best solution should be the indication of the party in the tmp as Lega, but if other users disagree, for me it's ok also the current version.--Wololoo (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Checco I add a consideration about the tmp: it's true that this year the name declared to the Ministry of Interior is "Lega Salvini Premier", but it is not the first time that the name declared to the Ministry contains the name of the leader (for example, FdI with Giorgia Meloni). The new name is not indicated in any statute, so there is no official name, if not Lega Nord. Now the party is indicated everywhere as "League/Lega", furthermore indicating it as "Lega Salvini Premier" in the note would create an unnecessary confusion with "Lega per Salvini Premier", as well as with what is written on this page. After all, even in the previous version there was written only "Lega". --Wololoo (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I am an old-fashioned guy and I like parties with regular names (Democratic Party, Liberal Party, Socialist Party, etc.), but we need to look at facts. As User:Holapaco77 showed, the papers filed jointly by the LN and the LpSP for the 2019 EP election point to "Lega Salvini Premier", while there are Movimento 5 Stelle, Partito Democratico (no mention of Siamo Europei or PSE), Forza Italia (no mention of Berlusconi), Fratelli d'Italia (no mention of Meloni), etc. (source: https://dait.interno.gov.it/elezioni/trasparenza/europee2019 ). "Lega Salvini Premier" is the list's official name. --Checco (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Second thoughts.* While I convincingly think that "Lega Salvini Premier" is the official name, I will rollback myself and leave just "Lega": for our purpose, that is explaining in short what is happening to Lega Nord in the template, "Lega" is enough. --Checco (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

In 2018 this list was presented as "Lega Nord" [3] (and the official name should be "Lega Nord per l'Indipendenza della Padania") while FdI as "Fratelli d'Italia con Giorgia Meloni". In my view we are talking about an unofficial name, it isn't written in any statute, in the regional election, for example, there is not written "premier" in the logo but the name of the region. Anyway, official or not, the note would be hardly comprensibile if it mentioned "Lega Salvini Premier" and "Lega per Salvini Premier", as you already said "Lega" for the purpose is enough.--Wololoo (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

2019 EP election

"Lega Nord performed strongly in small towns and areas affected by the European migrant crisis" is an out-of-context and imprecise sentence that should not stay in the article. The party got its best results in areas NOT affected by the migrant crisis, that is to say the North-East. The party won 49.9% in Veneto and 43.4% in Lombardy. The party always performs stronger in small towns than big cities. Moreover, the sentence makes people to think that the party was particularly strong in the areas affected by the European migrant crisis, but that is not a relevant info and it is not even fully accurate. Four cases are given: Lampedusa (46%), Riace (30%), Ventimiglia (44%) and Bardonecchia (41%). Lampedusa has been for long a stronghold of the party, so what? Additionally, in other municipalities of Calabria (the region of Riace), Liguria (Ventimiglia) and Piedmont (Bardonecchia) the party scored better, so why talking about those municipalities? --Checco (talk) 06:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I clarified it. --Nordostsüdwest (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

is there a relationship between towns affected by the migrant crisis and an increase in Lega electoral results? Both sources give some convincing examples of such a phenomenon in "symbols" of the migration crisis, but they don't draw a global analysis on all cities affected. For the moment, I have added another source and precised the concerned towns Azerty82 (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources can be wrong, sometimes. Neither of those places are strongholds for the party, compared to other places. --Checco (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning "Lega Nord" in Wikipedia articles

Hi all. I would like to move here a discussion that was first on the user page of Checco and then moved on the talk page Talk:Lega Nord Umbria. I think here is the best place to have it because it's general enough and it would get more attention.

Here is the discussion until now:

Hi Checco, I'm sorry to see that you are almost engaging in an edit war with me on Lega Nord Umbria. I stand by my statement that "Northern League" is how the party should be named in the texts of the articles on English Wikipedia. Your comment that the article Lega Nord is "virtually linked everywhere" with the Italian name is actually false: I see prominent Lega Nord-related articles (see Matteo Salvini, List of political parties in Italy, 2018 Italian general election and many more) where "League" or "Northern League" is used. Also, the fact that the page Lega Nord has the Italian name was discussed already in the past and the decision was to keep it in Italian because of the natural disambiguation with Northern League, and not because the party does not have an WP:ESTABLISHED name in English (which indeed has). Therefore I think that, even though the article's name is Lega Nord, in this case nothing justifies to suddenly switch to Italian words in the text of English-language Wikipedia articles. --Ritchie92 (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I do not like to use user talks, thus I am answering to you here. My argument is quite simple: as long as the article is named "Lega Nord", it should be linked that way. It has always been so until the party was re-branded as "Lega" and I am just defending an established use. "List of political parties in Italy" was just an exception. I am much open to a broader discussion on the issue, as well as another proposed move of "Lega Nord" to "Northern League (Italy)". --Checco (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The article name has nothing to do with how one should refer to the topic in the text of other articles, which is indeed in English. In this case there is no reason to not use English on English Wikipedia. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nick.mon, Scia Della Cometa, Impru20, Braganza, Facquis, Autospark, and Alienautic and others Italian-politics interested editors: what do you think about the use of the English name for Lega Nord in the text? I would like to stress that this is not a discussion about the title of this article, but only about the flow of the discourse in the rest of the encyclopedia where English can and should be kept. As a matter of fact, as of today, many articles about Italian politics pipe Lega Nord with the English term Northern League, so I don't see why this should not be the standard everywhere else, including Lega Nord Umbria. Since this is a very general issue, I think establishing a consensus here is the best option. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

As long as this article is named "Lega Nord" (it has been confirmed several times, but of course it can be discussed again), we should refer to the party primarily as "Lega Nord". I always comply with article's names, also when I disagree with them ("Italia Viva", "Cambiamo!", "Die Freiheitlichen", etc.): in all those cases I personally adopt the names sanctioned by consensus when citing the parties in other articles. Moreover, as of today, most articles refer to Lega Nord as "Lega Nord". There are quite a few exceptions, there should be less of them and "Lega Nord Umbria" should not be one. --Checco (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you have your opinion, and as a result most of the Italy-related articles have Lega Nord instead of Northern League in the text, does not mean that it's correct. I think that the general rule about the usage of English in the text is more important than one editor's personal style or opinion. And again, I am not contesting the title of this article and there is no rule stating that articles should be referred using their original title: that's what piping is for. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Using the "original" name of articles when referring to them is quite obvious to me. It is quite customary all around Wikipedia. However, luckily this is not just about you and me: other editors can have a say. But, why aren't you proposing a move? --Checco (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I think I was already quite clear above: one thing is the title of the article, another thing is how to mention it in the text. These two names can be different: the decision about the article title can involve more arguments (like in this case the natural disambiguation with Northern League), but the use of the party name in English in the text should be kept. When the title Lega Nord was decided, Wikipedia users did not decide that – from that moment forward – the party shall be called in Italian overall the encyclopedia. They just decided to keep the Italian title for convenience. Therefore I insist that instead English language should be used everywhere else apart from the title, when the disambiguation convenience is not needed. It's not that difficult. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for my question, but I did not understand just that point, not the rest. Your reasoning is refined and sensible, but I still disagree. Yes, in my view, when we adopt an article's name, we decide to use it virtually everywhere. --Checco (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

In the past I had already expressed my opinion about it, however I repeat what I had already stated: first of all the title of a page does not necessarily have to be used within the texts, there is no automatism. In this specific case, the established name in English is "Northern League" (since 2018 "League"), so it is in the interest of readers to read a well-known English name rather than the Italian one. Therefore I am in favor of using the English name also on the party page. Secondly, when I proposed to move this page, there was no consensus for the English name, but neither for the Italian one (if I am not mistaken it was 5 favorable opinions and 5 against), and in any case I still think that the title of this page should be the one most known in English...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Basically, my opinion is, if the article name is "Lega Nord" or "Lega Nord Umbria", then the party should be referred to as such in the article text, not the preferred translated name, for clarity purposes.--Autospark (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, we should use English language as much as possible, for clarity purposes. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Since this discussion was born on the translation of the name on the Lega Nord Umbria page, I would have a question to ask: when a name (of a party) is followed by the name of a Region/Country, like "Lega Nord Umbria" (that means Northern League of Umbria), what is the correct translation? "Northern League Umbria" or "Umbria Northern League"? I think it's the second one. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic. Please open another discussion about this issue. I think it's the first, Northern League Umbria. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree with User:Autospark Off-topic: "Northern League Umbria", definitely. --Checco (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Popular support timeline

Hi everybody, last week I edited timelines of popular support of all the Italian parties, in a way that solves the problem of years with two elections (like 1994 or 1979), but Ritchie92 rightly undone my edits saying that in the previous version, the timeline was more linear. Ok, this is right, but who cares about the years without elections? We need to stress the share of votes reached by parties during election years. Anyway, these are the two versions, I would like to know the opinion of Checco, Impru20, Autospark, Scia Della Cometa and Braganza :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi. We discussed this already in another talk page and there was no consensus. Anyway, I stand by my view: it makes no sense to make a chart with the "years" as "x" axis and make it not linear. At this point let's remove the chart altogether and use only the table. The only purpose of the chart is to see how the popular support goes in time, so linearity is fundamental. The linear axis is also more accurate, because it's actually very important that the distance between two consecutive elections is not constant, and this can be seen very nicely with a linear graph. On the contrary, your proposal fails to represent the time-evolution of the popular support, because it looks like from 2009 to 2013 the party had a significant drop in the same amount of time-span of the earlier elections (say, 2008 to 2009). Same with the jump 2014 to 2018. It's very important to show that many years passed between these elections. Otherwise, again, let's just drop it and use only the table. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but if consistency still matters here, we had to remember that in all the other articles about political parties, when this chart is used, only eletctoral years are indicated (see, for example Swedish Social Democratic Party or Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party). Anyway, if we don’t reach an agreement, maybe we should remove them... -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree with User:Ritchie92. I like the current versions. --Checco (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no such thing as "consistency matters" among the entire number of Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia:Consistency only refers to article titles, or to consistency within a given article, but not among all articles on a similar subject. So I would not use consistency as an argument, in general, but always try to find a good solution for each article (and of course in such case, this solution might be good for all Italian politics articles, or all politics articles). But if a solution is good, one should not directly discard it just to be consistent with the rest of the articles, otherwise improvement is never going to be achieved on this encyclopedia. --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

December 2019 Congress

Hi everybody, I've read that Lega is going to have an "extraordinary" congress on 21 December to definitely disband the old "Lega Nord" and to establish "Lega per Salvini Premier". Maybe we should decide what to do with the two pages (Lega Nord and Lega per Salvini Premier). -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The new proposed statute (see here) does not mention changing the name of Lega Nord. I think it just gives more powers to the Secretary, and reduces the number of votes needed to make variations to the statute or to disband the party. When this happens we can decide what to do with the two pages. For now it looks like there are still going to be two separate parties. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Officially the old Lega Nord will be emptied and become a "bad company" that will stay alive just to pay its debts (49 million euro). All politicians and members will transit in the new Lega per Salvini premier. (Source here). Official parliament grups are called Lega Salvini Premier (here, here). --Holapaco77 (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

What User:Ritchie92 wrote is correct. As of now, nothing happened. We will see when something happens. --Checco (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

News about Lega Nord and Lega per Salvini Premier

Hi all. Apparently in the last days there has been some major news and progress about the situation of the "double" party structure LN–LpSP. Now Lega Nord is officially under administrative control by deputy Iezzi. I think this is important news, and probably triggers new discussions about the future of the two pages Lega Nord and Lega per Salvini Premier. Here is the source. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Is it confirmed that Salvini is no longer federal secretary of the LN? We are in a sort of transition period. Hopefully, by the end of the year the transition of "national sections" from the LN to the LpSP ("regional sections", then) will be concluded and everything will be settled. As of now, unfortunately, it is not. The LpSP is no yet the final structure. Anyway, what we have long waited is eventually happening and will bring clarity. --Checco (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Some important news. Today the first regional sections have been founded: Lega Emilia per Salvini Premier, Lega Romagna per Salvini Premier, Lega Lombarda per Salvini Premier Lega Toscana per Salvini Premier --Facquis (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

In practice, the "national sections" of the LN are being re-established as "regional sections" of the LpSP. --Checco (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

There's recent news, I don't know much detail because I can't read the full article, but here it is from La Repubblica. Apparently they are going to dissolve the "old" Lega Nord tomorrow? Checco do you have more info? --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Uhm, no. I was able to read the article, which contains several inaccurate infos btw. However, the article explains that on 31 July 2020 the membership recruitment of the LpSP ended. As far as I understand, this year there was initially a separate recruitment by the LN, but at some point it was decided to award LpSP members (probably only in the North) with LN membership cards too. This created a debate within LN ranks as some people of the old guard, notably Gianni Fava and Gianluca Pini, wanted to be members of the LN alone—and had already paid for that. They would like also to field electoral lists. However, as of now, Salvini controls both parties. What is sure is that, unfortunately for us, this tale of two parties will continue for who knows how long. --Checco (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Article issues

There are a few issues that need discussing.

• 1)- Article assessment: The current assessment does not seem to be inline with the criteria. Three sections have "additional citations" tags (criteria #1) that has not been addressed.
• 2)- The lead seems to present more than a summary of the article as the basics in a nutshell. It does not need to be so long and in-depth to not only be difficult to read but to cause a potential loss of interest. An article can be promoted without five lead paragraphs including one that is extremely long. As a summary of sourced content found in the body there is an actual need to only source controversial or contested lead content and certainly not over cite (5 on one sentence) content. New information should not be in the lead.
• 3)- The "defined structure" is questionable. I noticed that Padania Libera Radio Padania Libera" redirects to the article but there is no actual coverage and I had to read the last sentence of the second paragraph of the Padanian separatism section to find there is only passing mention.

At least some of these issues could lead to an article reassessment if not resolved. Otr500 (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

As soon as possible, I will take some time to shorten the lead and find additional citations. --Checco (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Disinformation!

Hi, Why is the old name still reported here when the new name is just "Lega"? --Granata789 (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Current ideology

The section on current ideology of Lega Nord seems extremely outdated and poorly sourced. A "Catch All Party", because a third of their voters in 1992, 3 decaded ago, were left leaning? Most current LN members where not even born back then, and voters are a terrible way to assess elite ideology. Similarly, supporting minimum wages is not a "liberal" position in any meaning of the word, and especially not in the Italian context; rather, it is the opposite of European liberal parties and a quite common position among Nationalist parties. And calling Mattero Salvini a former communist borders on defamation - according to Salvinis biography, he "went once" to a leftwing youth club and was never associated with any leftwing political party, let along communist. In fact, Salvini became a member at age 17, so when exactly was he a communist - in kindergarden?

A good example for this absolutely horrible section is this: "According to a number of scholars, Lega Nord is an example of a right-wing populist,[2][13][245][246] radical right,[245][247][248][249] or far-right party[250] while some see significant differences to typical European radical right-wing populist parties,[251] or reject the label of radical right as inadequate to describe the party's ideology.[10][252]"

So essentially, nine academic sources call it a radical/far-right/populist party, but that is of course equally balanced to 3 sources which doubt this - and are all between one and three decades old, basically admitting that the party shifted to the right since the 2000s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:2813:BB40:B026:CA0A:D5D0:8765 (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The quoted sentence is quite balanced. And, yes, Salvini was a member of the internal faction named "Padanian Communists" in 1997 and was later considered a left-winger before becoming party leader in 2013. The fact that several of the party's current leading members, including Salvini, Giorgetti, Molinari, Siri, Bagnai, Borghi, etc. (not to mention Bossi and Maroni) hail from the left is significant. The party is quite diverse. Just to let you know, last week the party in Veneto was close to voting a no-confidence motion against the lone right-wing member of the regional government and reclaimed the anti-fascist roots of the party (someone, like councillor Favero, a left-winger, went even further calling the Resistance a source of inspiration for the party's autonomist stance). --Checco (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Checco, there is a difference between "was a communist" and "was a member of internal faction named Padanian Communists". There is also a difference between "ppl in 1992 who voted for the party were partly left-leaning", which is a weak argument, and "the party leader and several leading members were considered leftwingers", which is much stronger and less biased (if you add by whom). I agree that that would be relevant, but why not be precise here rather than vague? Also, that very much leaves open the argument within most academic sources that the party shifted to the right starting in the 2000s and increasingly in the last 5 years. --2A02:908:2813:BB40:F5C0:A92F:726A:4171 (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That section definitely needs some updates. I hope to soon find the time to work on it. --Checco (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox: ideology/position

After that I rollbacked a good chunk of his/her edits, User:Vacant0 wrote this message in my talk page: "What is your reason behind reverting my edit that I made to the ideology and political position section in the infobox? I re-organized the order of ideologies, grouped and added more references. Is there a way we can fix this?". I took a deeper look in those edits and, indeed, there was much good in them, so that I mostly restored them. Many thanks for that valuable contribution! Some parts of the article, notably including the infobox, are the result of long discussions and subsequent compromises. That is why, I disagreed with re-ordering, while I liked so much the re-organisation and grouping of sources, and even more the fact that more of them were added. --Checco (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

As I look at it, some ideologies could be well removed. I would start removing "anti-Islam", "anti-immigration" and possibly "anti-globalism". As User:Nick.mon observed in an edit summary of another article, "anti-Islam" is not an ideology. "Anti-immigration" is not either. And "anti-globalism" is frankly out of context here. The party might be Eurosceptic, but describing it as "anti-globalist" is really a long shot. --Checco (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Disagreed. Anti-Islam and Anti-Immigration are key ideologies of the modern far right, removing them is removing relevant information. It has been describes as "anti-globalist", and since we don't do original research, I would leave it as that. --2A02:908:2813:BB40:15F1:D40A:F539:5951 (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The League is a broad catch-all party, which governs the most developed regions of Italy and whose members are very ideologically diverse, stretching from the centre-right to the centre-left. Describing it as far-right is a long shot too. However, this is not the point I am trying to make here. Despite my long-held views, the party is already described as you say in the infobox. My point is that "anti-Islam", "anti-immigration", etc. are policies, not ideologies. It really makes no sense to have long lists of ideologies in infoboxes. In my personal view, even "Euroscepticism" and "pro-Europeanism" are redundant. In infoboxes, we should list fewer ideologies and, more important, ideologies that are really ideologies, not policies! --Checco (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

My point was not to call LN a far right party, my point was that these are key ideologies of the far right. If far right is too broad of a term to describe this party, then more precise ideologies such as anti-Islam capture those very real, very existing parts of the party. Removing them, while keeping more centrist ideologies, would not describe an ideologically diverse party, it would descripe a purely centrist party without a right wing. Which is manipulating facts to fit a narrative more than an accurate representation of all wings. --2A02:908:2813:BB40:15F1:D40A:F539:5951 (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: Thanks for restoring some of my edits! Anti-Islam, Anti-globalism and Anti-immigration are political stances/policies not ideologies and these policies are mostly connected to its leader Salvini and not the whole party, and since the party is technically big tent I think that we should remove these from this section. I agree with the IP user that anti-Islam and anti-immigration are key ideologies of the modern far-right but these policies do not represent the whole party so they should be removed from this section. PS: my pronouns are he/him since I'm a male! Again, thanks for co-operating! Vacant0 (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Ideologies do not have to represent the whole party; otherwise, "diverse/broad coalition" would not make any sense, as being diverse alone is not even a political standpoint. Being a big tent party means including both a centrist, federalist wing and a far right, anti-immigration wing - which the current ideology section represents well by naming all currently relevant ideologies and all previously relevant ideologies of the party. Removing some while maintaining the others would not depict the party as big tent, it would depict it as narrowly centrist/moderate. --2A02:908:2813:BB40:15F1:D40A:F539:5951 (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention that they are members of IDP in the EU, which is defined by anti-islam, anti-immigration and anti-globalism as their key ideologies. One of their key members is RN, not even a new populist right party but a classical far right party... You can argue that those ideologies are not all there is to LN; but claiming that they do not, at all, represent the party when it is a members of THE european party representing those ideologies is a tough position to take, let alone provide evidence for. --2A02:908:2813:BB40:15F1:D40A:F539:5951 (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @Checco: and @Vacant0: that anti-globalisation, anti-Islam and anti-immigration are policies, not specifically ideologies, and should not be listed in the Infobox. I also support reducing the Infobox section down to as few, concise-yet-broad ideologies as possible. (In general I think that three listed ideologies should be the absolute maximum for political parties, although I realise that Lega Nord is different to the typical party, with its big tent, regionalist history.)--Autospark (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Autospark: and @Checco: I would prefer if we keep Italian federalism, regionalism, populism and euroscepticism in the ideology section (since they are ideologies). References about conservatism and anti-immigration should be moved to its lead text into the "The party has always opposed illegal immigration and has often adopted Eurosceptic stances, lately joining the Identity and Democracy Party at the European level." sentence, presumably changing it to "The party has always opposed illegal immigration and has often adopted Eurosceptic and conservative stances, lately joining the Identity and Democracy Party at the European level." Vacant0 (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The LN is misplaced within the IDP, so that some leading members proposing to EPP membership and there are increasing signs that the party wants to follow a liberal direction. Within the IDP, the LN shares PVV's economic liberalism and its former (or closet) separatists go well along with VB; the RN is quite different, not to mention AfD. Moreover, EU party affiliations sometimes can be confusing: just think of the Irish FF and the Czech ANO that are members of the ALDE Party! However, as things stand now, I would have "federalism", "regionalism", "conservatism", "populism" and, possibly, "Euroscepticism" as current ideologies in the infobox. That would be a good compromise. In the future, it is possible that we will need to ditch "Euroscepticism" and add "liberalism". --Checco (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: I agree on that. Do you think that we should move references about anti-immigration into the lead text? Vacant0 (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

No, I do think that those sources should be better moved to the "ideology" section. --Checco (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

You're right since it makes more sense. You can change the infobox now since we agreed on this subject. Vacant0 (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Good! Let's wait some days, say a week, in order to see if other people have something to say. --Checco (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

How is removing everything related to right wing policies and leaving only centrist keywords a good compromise? Furthermore, last time I checked, party affiliation is not decided by Wikipedia, but by the actual reality of where a party is affiliated. --2A02:908:2813:BB40:15F1:D40A:F539:5951 (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you really think that "conservatism", on some respects "populism" and "Euroscepticism", "right-wing to far-right" (on which I disagree, for sure) and the introduction mentioning anti-immigration stances are "centrist keywords"? --Checco (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Conservativism, yes, as its tied to center-right politics. Populism and Euroscepticism are independant of left/right scales, so yes. I agree that right-wing to far-right and anti-immigration indicate a rightwing stance clearly, but those are not in the ideology section, which I find to be relevant. To be clear, I am not advocating against any of those labels (they are all correct), I arguing that removing those closely associated with a rightwing stance, but keeping more centrists ones on creates an imbalance and depicts the party in a counterfactual way - namely, a purely or mostly centrist party, rather than showing a whole range of positions which de facto exist. --2A02:908:2813:BB40:894F:EB52:E972:DA34 (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I see your point, but you are possibly missing ours. It does not matter whether we agree on those labels or not—I do not: "anti-Islam" is a long shot, "anti-immigration" is not even entirely correct as the League includes legal immigrants in its ranks and also the first and only black senator, and "anti-globalism" is even more controversial, but, despite my thoughts, all of that is mentioned in the article). The fact is that those labels (and, in my view, also "Eurosceptiscism") are policies, not ideologies! That is a big difference. Just think of a regular centre-left party: in its infobox's "ideology" parameter we could have "social democracy", "social liberalism", "green politics", a more generic "progressivism" and so on, but not policies or political stances like "pro-minimum wage", "pro-trade unions", "pro-immigation", "pro-multiculturalism", "pro-same-sex marriage", "pro-cap&trade", etc. That is the point. I am sure that with this example you will understand what this discussion is about. --Checco (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional question: should we continue to include the "Historical" section for Ideology in the Infobox, or bring the information instead to the body of the article (the Ideology and Factions subsections, in this case)? I have to admit that generally I am not a fan of the "Historical" section for most political party articles.--Autospark (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer if we move it out of the infobox and just keep the contemporary ideologies. In the case of Lega it would be better if we add it in the lead text. Vacant0 (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I am sensitive to User:Autospark's argument, but in this case I think it is useful to reflect the party's long ideological journey and its diversity also in the infobox. Moreover, the lead section would become too long. It is easier to summarise all those infos in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Checco I would be fine with the "Historical" section remaining if it was truncated – perhaps just listing Padanian nationalism plus Separatism and/or Autonomism (political doctrine)|Autonomism? What do you think? --Autospark (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Liberalism, libertarianism and social democracy (the latter unfortunately unsourced) are the ideologies best representing the early Lega Nord. I recently saw old posters describing the party as the new "liberal-democratic and federalist centre", as well as connecting the party to the values of Italian Resistance. The party was considered to be left-wing, by several members, PDS leader D'Alema and FI leader Berlusconi. I would thus leave that part as it is now. Obviously, I would not oppose a new consensus on this, but I would not contribute to it. Sorry about that. --Checco (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I might be late. I agree with removing policies from the ideology section of the infobox. However I would still keep them and their precious sources in the article, somewhere in the text, for example in the section Lega Nord#Platform and policies. BTW @Checco: the League does have an anti-immigration policy, of course against illegal immigration, but also against some legal migration: for example, Salvini himself wrote the security bill, which restricted the number of valid reasons for a migrant to request special protection in Italy, therefore limiting legal migration. So, a broad "anti-immigration" stance is well suited to describe the League's recent policies. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sure, that is the latest compromise we reached! Virtually everyone agrees, thus we can proceed, anytime. --Checco (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I strongly disagree with removing such policies from the infobox, which are traditionally included among the ideologies in many other political parties on Wikipedia. Making this kind of reasoning about a single party is quite inconsistent and wrong, or the reasoning affects all political parties of all countries or these changes can be easily contested. Furthermore, Anti-Islam and Anti-immigration policies, unlike what has been said, have always characterized the League, Toni Iwobi himself supports these policies.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

As User:Vacant0 can see, that is why I waited before editing. It is always good to take time and let other users have their say.

Said this, I still think that the "ideology" parameter should contain only ideologies, not policies. It would be great to have a complete consistency in all the articles about political parties (and I, thus, favour any broader debate), but at least we can be OK with the fact that most articles on political parties, from Democratic Party (Italy) to Brothers of Italy (thanks to User:Nick.mon), do not include policies in their infoboxes. This article is the major exception and, while respecting all views, I think that there is a clear consensus on removing policies. --Checco (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: I agree, policies should remain in the article but not in the infobox. Vacant0 (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, a consensus was reached on the issue. It is reinforced by similar edits made on other political parties active in Italy, for instance this edit by User:Nick.mon on Brothers of Italy. I am going to implement the changes. Further improvements and debate are welcome. --Checco (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, anti-immigration and anti-globalization are not ideologies, so I support a removal from the infobox, but we should keep them in the "Platform and policies" section. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Aosta Chapter

Hey why is it whenever I add the Aosta chapter to the section dedicated to the chapters of the party it is always reverted? do we just not talk about the Aosta chapter here? they are the single largest party in that region! https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Lega_Nord_Valle_d%27Aosta

Scu ba (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Simple: you are adding that info in the wrong place! There is a section on "national sections", but long ago we decided to give information only on the three major ones: Lega Nord#Major national sections. You can propose to have the full list there. Aosta Valley's section is mentioned in one of the templates and, of course, has its own article. LNVdA is surely VdA's largest party, but VdA is the least populated region, by far. --Checco (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Mhammel14.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Is Salvini the Secretary?

Hi everybody, I’ve seen on the official website of Lega Nord that the new secretary of the party is Igor Iezzi (as commissioner). Do you think we should modify the article? -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Salvini is the secretary of Lega per Salvini Premier, not of Lega Nord. This is very confusing because Salvini has no position in the Federal Council of LN, but he is still the de facto leader. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it’s definitely confusing... anyway, I sincerely don’t know what to do. Lega Nord still exists but Salvini is the official secretary of Lega per Salvini Premier, not Lega Nord, but even in it.Wiki there’s only one article, the one about Lega Nord. We have Lega per Salvini Premier too, but it’s a stub. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess we should start moving content, especially 2018 onwards, from this article to the one on LpSP. --Checco (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I think a good proposal would be to merge the two articles into one article, as things are in this moment there is no real difference between the two parties (except the geography of their membership). It's going to be a bit like the Facebook company, which has Facebook Ireland LTD as its "European" counterpart to the main American one, but of course on Wikipedia there is only one article about Facebook, Inc. and not one specific about the Irish one. In the same way we could have an article about Lega Nord (or Lega) which in the lead section states clearly that the party is technically split into two organizations with different structures. I don't know if this is a good solution, but at the moment I find it very confusing to have separate articles with separate histories and updates, when in reality in Italian politics for now it looks like the party is only one. Many sources (even the most reliable) also make the same confusion between the two parties, or are not clear enough on whether something or someone belongs to LpSP or LN, so it will be very very difficult to discern which is which. The risk of keeping LpSP as separate is that the article will always be a stub or a small side article to Lega Nord (like it is now) simply because mostly everything and every RS that refers to Salvini's policies cites a general "Lega" and not LpSP as the party. To reply directly to Checco: Moving LN content after 2018 to LpSP is not that simple, because the sources refer to Lega or Lega Nord without making a distinction with LpSP (so there will be a problem of adhesion to sources). Also, it would be weird for a reader of this article to have a sudden interruption of the history at 2018, while the party is still active, it was in two governments, etc etc (personal comment: This is a difficult situation, only Italian politics could create a monster like this...) --Ritchie92 (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I would personally keep the LN article with updates on leadership and a short recent history, pointing to the new party (the LN is still active, but since late 2019 it has been practically supplanted by the LpSP and also LN's "national" sections have been transformed into "regional" sections of the LpSP, even slightly changing names) and have an expanded LpSP article with the current leadership and history since 2019 (of course, with a large "backround" sub-section pointing to the LN article). --Checco (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

All that you said does not contrast the idea of having a single article. In fact it actually supports it. LN and LpSP are just two different subsequent structures that correspond to the same party, same "ruling class", only expanded to the South: they are one the continuation of the other, like the Communist Party of Italy and its rebranding as Italian Communist Party. In our case the two organizations are also overlapping in time, unfortunately, but this is just temporary because LN has a bankruptcy commissioner as Secretary and will eventually be disbanded. All of this mess can be much more clearly and easily included in a single article (even called "Lega" which is by now the most common name with which it is referred to), and the reader will understand much more of this issue than if there were two separate articles. Think about the current Draghi government, where Lega members like Giorgetti, Garavaglia, Stefani are LN members: do we link to LN in their party membership, even though the main Lega-related organization supporting the government is LpSP (in terms of leadership at least)? Do we usually say that the government is supported by LN and LpSP, or do we just say Lega? I think the way we refer to the party says a lot about how the two organizations are considered and what is their real difference. And I think such a difference is just a technical one, and it would be much better to put the two organizations into a single article. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

In it.Wiki there is only one article, but there has been a long discussion and currently there is a poll on creating a new page for LSP, so probably in a few days there will be two pages in itwiki. I think two pages are necessary and that the English page of the LSP will have to reflect the Italian one.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any en.wiki page will have to reflect an it.wiki one. I don't see why, really; other Wikipedias are not references for en.wiki. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see now – did some research. The survey on it.wiki was proposed by Scia Della Cometa himself to gain support about his proposal to split the it.wiki article into two (see it:Discussione:Lega_Nord#Sondaggio_sul_nome_della_voce). Funny. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: What's funny? The fact that I support the same solution in both it.wiki and en.wiki? Or the fact that in that discussion I proposed a survey to make a decision after a deadlock? It doesn't seem so funny to me (anyway, in that survey, not initiated by me, the majority of users are expressing their favorable opinion on the division into two pages).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

It's funny that you say that we should follow what it.wiki is doing, which is not a criterion for decisions on en.wiki at all. And you do so probably because you are involved in the it.wiki decisions. I find it curious, but it's just me. --Ritchie92 (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

With the statement "I think .... that the English page of the LSP will have to reflect the Italian one" I simply meant to say that I would apply the same solution for both the Italian and the English page, if I support a solution in itwiki, it is obvious that I also support it in enwiki, for the same reasons. I simply expressed my personal opinion, it doesn't seem funny to me. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with maintaining two separate articles for LN and LpSP – the Lega Nord indeed has a three-decade old history as a distinctly regional party before the current guise of "Lega" as an all-Italy party. I realise Ritchie92's has a point, and there are parallels to how we merged the current article on Union of the Centre (2002) from separate articles on the UDC and UdC, but on balance I think that having separate articles for LN and LpSP is the best solution.--Autospark (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Autospark perfectly summarised my opinion on why there should be two articles and on howe they should be handled. By the way, there is a joint article on the Italian Communist Party, but separate ones on the Democratic Party of the Left and the Democrats of the Left. This said, I agree with Ritchie92 that it.Wikipedia should not be a source for en.Wikipedia. Let's put it this way: it can well be a source of inspiration, but I do not accept the idea that whatever is done in it.Wikipedia should be replicated in en.Wikipedia. --Checco (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, I have already stated that with that statement I did not mean that each language version must be the replica of the other (but they must not even contradict each other), but that on it.wikipedia I supported a solution which I consequently support in the the same way here too.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Checco, Nick.mon, Autospark, and Yakme: What do we do with this party? The current setting must necessarily be changed. Currently the Lega Nord is a "bad company" (with Bossi as president and Igor Iezzi as commissioner) while the Lega per Salvini Premier (with Salvini as secretary) is effectively the politically operative party throughout the national territory. The "Lega per Salvini Premier" page is currently a stub and is absolutely useless in that state. Both the LN page and the LSP page should be updated based on the events of the last two years, and the current reference page should become the one on the LSP.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that more infos should be added to the LpSP (not LSP, btw) article and some infos, notably some history sub-sections, should be moved from this article to the other one. It is correct that since the beginning of 2020 the LN has been led by federal commissioner Iezzi and federal president Bossi, although I would leave Salvini as leader in the infobox of this article. The other leadership roles should be moved to the LpSP article. --Checco (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

If no one objects, I will modify the pages as in it.wikipedia. However, I don't think it is correct to indicate Salvini as leader in the infobox of Lega Nord, since this party is politically inactive and therefore has no leader. Ps. Also LSP is an acronym used for the new party.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

As I said multiple times, doing things "as in it.wikipedia" should never be a guideline for the English Wikipedia. I disagree, and per WP:COMMON I would have a single article for both "parties" with an explanation even in the lead about the "legal status" having two technically different structures. The two parties are the same entity, and they are virtually never considered as two different parties in any source discussing Italian politics (unless they are talking specifically about the technicalities of the parties' organization). --Yakme (talk) 07:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme What do the guidelines have to do with it? I did not propose to do this because it was done on it.wikipedia, but because the right thing to do is the procedure already done on it.wikipedia. Now it is enough to misrepresent my proposals. Why don't you propose the cancellation of Lega for Salvini Premier? Currently the Lega per Salvini Premier page, in that state, is useless. Why don't you propose the move of Lega Nord to another name? Why don't we combine the pages of Liga Veneta and Lega Lombarda with the Lega Nord page? Even then it can be said that they are the same entity. LN and LSP are not the same party and the sources clearly explain this. I would like to have some answers to these questions.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Please stop this attitude of demanding things and explanations from other editors, especially if they already gave explanations to their position. I'll write it again. I am expressing my opinion on your question above What do we do with this party? (my opinion is backed by what reliable sources show, and by WP:COMMON): the Lega Nord and Lega per Salvini Premier articles should be a single article, because de facto, in reality, as politics and history matter, the two legal entities represent the same party organization and political position within the Italian government and parliamentary system. --Yakme (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme Instead I expect answers because they are fundamental: the LN is currently inactive, what is the point of continuing to describe political events on the page of an inactive party? And what's the point of keeping the Lega per Salvini Premier page? These are problems that must be solved, whether you like it or not. Those who oppose the obvious solution should also offer alternatives to these problems, it is unthinkable to continue to make readers believe that the LN is still an active party.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

If information were to be kept on this page, this page would have to be moved. And the Lega per Salvini Premier page should be deleted.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I hate to cite myself, but I have to because I suspect that Scia Della Cometa does not read carefully what I write. I just wrote: Lega Nord and Lega per Salvini Premier articles should be a single article. This is my proposal which I motivated above, I cannot be clearer than that. If you prefer, I can start an official merge proposal, but I thought that it would have overlapped with this discussion. --Yakme (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme: No, you can definitely be clearer than that: merge the two pages under what name? This is essential. I don't seem to have read your statement about it. Surely an official merge proposal from you would be a good way to make a final decision on this matter.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme: I did not understand what name you would like to give to the unique page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not understand what name you would like to give to the unique page that is because I never wrote which name I would give to the "unique" (I guess you meant "merged") page. And that is because the merge is what interests me, not the name which can be decided independently. Of course one option can be "Lega Nord" which is the most common name by which the party has gone in all sources around the globe, another option could be the new brand "Lega" which should capture the most recent developments (abandoning a bit the "northern" side). I would definitely not title the party page as "Lega per Salvini Premier" which is more of a slogan than a party name, and virtually nobody uses it as the party name. --Yakme (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme: I know you didn't say that, that's why I asked you again. It is obvious that the name cannot be "Lega Nord", obsolete from 2018 and totally anachronistic from 2020. So it seems equally obvious to me that the situation cannot remain the current one. The matter of the name is indispensable, Lega Nord can no longer be used as the name of a page that refers to the current party. To propose the merge of the two pages, you need to have in mind a new name to propose. "Lega" would need a disambiguation, so the reasons why the name of this page has been kept in Italian would disappear. Britannica and many other sources refer to the party as "The League" or "League". I still prefer the hypothesis of implementing the LSP page and correcting this one: it is a new party, so it is correct that it has an autonomous page. However if you think the two pages should be merged, I think you should make an official merge proposal.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, let's wait at least a week to see if there are other users who want to post in this thread. But if this were not the case, it seems to me that there is a slight consensus to describe the parties in two separate pages ...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I am strong supporter of the two-article solution. As said, in my view, some infos should be moved from this article to the LpSP one. Additionally, leadership roles should be updated since January 2020, but Salvini should be considered the de facto leader also of the LN. --Checco (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The separate article solution I support and consider in controversial – the changes to Lega since 2018 are at least as major as (to use a few examples) the FI becoming the PdL, or PCI reforming as the PDS, or various similar changes to parties which are considered different entities.—Autospark (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

the changes to Lega since 2018 are at least as major as ... FI becoming the PdL, or PCI reforming as the PDS This is hardly true, if not a complete misrepresentation of history and reality. PDS is a completely different party from PCI, which went from a communist party to a social-democratic one. Also, PDS was only one of the parties who split from PCI (the other one being Rifondazione). On the other end, PdL is a coalition of parties (FI and AN the major ones) so another completely different thing from FI. I think I have never heard something so wrong about Italian politics as this in my life, and I am really surprised. Lega Nord and Lega are the same exact thing, only with two different official names because one is the "bad company" of the other one. --Yakme (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The comparison with the PdL is wrong, while the comparison with the PCI / PDS is correct. The PdL was the simple merger of Forza Italia and National Alliance. In reality it is the Forza Italia of 2013 that is the same party of 1994. On the other hand, the PDS was not a split of the PCI, but its evolution and political heir. Only the PRC was a split. The same thing happened with the MSI, which became National Alliance (and underwent the split of Tricolour Flame). In both cases there was an ideological evolution that led to the name change of these parties. De facto, the same happened with the League: it went from being a secessionist party to a nationalist party (so the ideological turn was even more marked than the previous two examples). There is only one difference: the Lega Nord has not been dissolved due to a debt to Italy: if it had been dissolved, the debt would be burdened on the Lega per Salvini Premier. But they are two different parties, with different statutes and different offices, the most correct solution is to separate the arguments into two pages. Merging the two pages would force us to find a new name for this page (in addition to having to explain the co-existence of the two Leagues on the same page), I'd rather avoid.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree: the current Lega Nord is indistinguishable from the current Lega per Salvini Premier. Both parties are now nationalist, both parties have abandoned the secession, both parties have exactly the same leadership de facto. They did not run separately to any election, and there is no way to distinguish them. Really there is no difference between them, except on the written statutes (and simply because the LN was never updated, but secessionism has been abandoned by the large majority of LN members even before the creation of LpSP). The current separation into two articles only adds confusion: is Giorgetti, or any other Lega MP, a member of LN or LpSP? How do we determine that? We cannot, they are all generically "Lega" members. Merging the two pages would force us to find a new name for this page Of course, and I do not see this as a problem at all, we should not be blocked in doing a correct merge just because of the name. The new name should be "Lega (Italy)" or "League (Italy)", since it is anyway the most common name by which the party is currently known around the world. Conclusion: I am even more convinced that the two articles must be merged, so I am preparing a detailed merge proposal (which is going to be ready probably in the next 4-5 days). --Yakme (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

IMHO Lega and LSP are de facto the same party. I think we've never seen something like that, even in Italian politics. The PCI/PDS/DS or FI/PdL/FI changes passed throught a party congress or a new political movement: it's not this situation. Lega Nord became de facto a "bad company" with all its debts and LSP is a sister-party, without debts. I consider it.Wiki's choice a bit reckless: it's true that Lega Nord isn't active anymore, but sincerly, is LSP a "real" new political party to "deserve" a distinct article? IMHO no, I think we should have a single article, at least for now. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon Even Forza Italia (2013) is not a new party compared to Forza Italia (1994), but they are the same party, the PdL was just a parenthesis, nevertheless they are described in two different pages, like two different parties. Instead, in this case, I see more contraindications than benefits in keeping a single page. However, the current situation is not correct and everyone should agree on that. However, in case of merged page, the name should be "League (Italy)".--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, Forza Italia and Forza Italia (2013) are two different parties. I mean, Forza Italia (2013) is a sort of new PdL, revived after the dissolution of the latter. Anyway, I sincerely don't know, there isn't a right thing to do, but I agree that still naming this article "Lega Nord" isn't correct. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I have to correct you, Forza Italia (2013) is not a sort of new PdL, but the resurrection of the old party after the failed attempt at a unitary centre-right party. Anyway, the current situation certainly needs to be corrected, LN is no longer politically active.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I can see Nick.mon's point; it is possible to compare the situation where we once had separate articles for Union of the Centre and Union of Christian and Centre Democrats, and eventually later merged them. However, on balance, I still currently lean more towards the separate articles solution.--Autospark (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

But Forza Italia (2013) is quite different from the old one, for example, despite the rise of FdI, it still has many former members of AN within its ranks (like Gasparri), who were not part of the old FI. It's not the same party of the 1994. Anyway, this situation is totally different. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon In your view, Forza Italia (2013) is very different from Forza Italia (1994) while the LSP and the old Northern League are the same thing? It is not a handful of individual adhesions that change the status of a party: de facto, Forza Italia was born in 1994, not in 2013, its history began in 1994, the statute has remained unchanged. Individual adhesions have no relevance. On the other hand, the current League is objectively a different party from the old Northern League, with a different founding ideology and different offices. The situation is totally different, it is true, but for the opposite reasons. Following the "principle of the same party", a merger of the two Forza Italia's pages would be more logical than a merger of the pages of the two Leagues.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Lega Nord and LSP are the same thing. I'm saying that Lega Nord is a historic party now transformed into a sort of "bad company" and LSP is a newly (tacitly) founded party that Salvini created to solve Lega Nord's debts' problems. I'm not even sure that FI (1994) and FI (2013) have the same statute, by the way, but we're not talking about FI here. The history behind the re-foundation of FI cannot be compared to the born of LSP. I mean, having an article like the one about LSP now, is totally useless. In my view, LSP history is of course deeply linked to LN and the “real” difference between the two parties is very fleeting. We could even have two distinct articles, but sincerely, I couldn’t even tell you when Lega Nord’s history ended and LSP’s one began. Moreover, some party’s members were within the LN, others within LSP and others within both… -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

In these news ([4], [5]), for example, it is written that in 2013 the statute of Forza Italia was restored, it is clearly the same party. Treccani also describes Forza Italia in just one page ([6]). I think it was a big mistake to split it into two pages. On the other hand, an article like the one about LSP would not be useless. The difference is real, there has been an actual ideological shift. The end of the Northern League and the birth of the LSP are well described in it.wikipedia, with the support of many sources. However, I also write it here: the Northern League is de facto finished in December 2019, when it was replaced by the LSP, active throughout the national territory. Since then LN has become a "bad company". Between 2018 and 2019, however, the LSP was only the sister party of the Northern League, which gathered members from southern Italy. The situation is a bit complex but it has already been clearly explained. Currently there are no doubts about the membership of the LSP, given that the only way for the leaguists to continue doing politics is to be members of that party. If there had been no debt of 49 million, something would probably have happened to the Northern League anyway. It could not have continued with the current political line for long while maintaining the old statute. I don't see how we could merge the pages of the two Leagues without also merging the pages of the two Forza Italia.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Even in the infallible it.Wiki, FI (1994) and FI (2013) have two distinct articles, because they actually are two different parties. As I said, regarding LSP/LN we could even have two articles, but we need to implement the LSP's one, which is quite useless (as it's now). Moreover, which party took part in the 2018 election, LN or LSP? I mean, the list was simply called "Lega", because it was a rebranding of Lega Nord. In it.Wiki they used LSP instead of LN, but I've a few doubts... I don't even know where we could find some sources. While in the 2019 EP election, the list was called "Lega Salvini Premier", so I suppose it was LSP. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon It.wikipedia is anything but infallible. Indeed, I hope that the two pages of FI will one day be merged (all sources say the party was founded in 1994). If you re-read my proposal, you will see that I said the same thing about the current status of the LSP page, currently it is useless, it needs to be implemented. Answering your questions: officially, in 2018, only the LN participated in the election, under the new brand "Lega". In the 2019 European elections, both the LN and the LSP officially ran (always under the same symbol). From 2020 only the LSP is active. De facto, the results in the period 2018-2019 are attributable to both parties (which co-existed under the same symbol and brand), from 2020 the results are attributable only to the LSP.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It.Wikipedia is rarely a good inspiration for en.Wikipedia and it is not infallible, quite the contrary indeed. In most cases, it.Wikipedia has nothing to do with political science and comparative politics. On FI I agree with User:Nick.mon, while on LN/LpSP I side completely with User:SDC. Additionally, like User:Autospark I think that it is always better having different articles: RPF/CNRS/UNR/UDR/RPR/UMP/LR, PCI/PDS/DS/PD, FI/PdL/FI, MSI/AN/PdL/FdI, etc. (I would also have separate articles for the French FN and RN). All these cases are different, but, for readers' sake, separate articles make history much more simple and articles more focused. --Checco (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Checco Your statement about political science and comparative politics in it.wikipedia is quite questionable, as no user can presume to have the absolute truth in their pocket. IMHO it.wikipedia does not differ from en.wikipedia on these aspects. As for a single page for Fi and Lega, mine was a generic statement: in fact I stated that based on the principle that justifies a single page for the league, Forza Italia should also have a unified page. The matter obviously changes if we keep the two pages on the League separate (even if I remain a supporter of the unified page for Forza Italia). @Nick.mon I would like to know what you think of the two separate pages after I explain the matter of the "two Leagues" (of course it's all supported by the sources).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand your points of view and ok, it's fine, the situation is quite complicated but maybe two articles are better. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Good! Let's see what Yakme decides to do and then let's make a final decision.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

By the way, if we have two articles, I think we'll have to decide two "minor" issues. First, which color are we going to use for LSP? Blue is the official one, but we have a lot of parties represented by various shades of blue, so using green as a customary color could be a good solution. Green is still used today to represent the League. Moreover, the Conte I Cabinet, which was composed by M5S and LN/LSP was always known as "yellow-green cabinet", despite Salvini labeled it "yellow-blue cabinet". Second, should we name the article "Lega per Salvini Premier" or "League for Salvini Premier"? I think that "League for Salvini Premier" could be a good translation. -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles on political parties and politics in general in it.Wikipedia are very low quality, especially in terms of ideologies and, more generally, scientific terms. Just take a look to any infobox in the articles on political parties: endless lists of mostly invented or out-of-scope ideologies. Btw, I am happy that User:Nick.mon, whose intellectual honesty is renowned, changed his mind. However, how would the "final decision" look like? Having two separate articles for LN and LpSP was decided long ago... My answers to Nick's two questions are: 1) same colour for the two parties; 2) leave the article on LpSP where it is ("Lega per Salvini Premier"), in order to match this one ("Lega Nord"). --Checco (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Uhm, if this page is titled "Lega Nord" (the English title was rejected), I think the other page should be titled "Lega per Salvini Premier". "League for Salvini Premier" is used in some sources? As for the color: the official color of the LN is green, the official color of the LSP is blue (green in the last two years has been completely abandoned by the League). At the time of Conte I Cabinet the ruling party was the LN, so in the collective imagination that party was still represented by the color green. But now the situation has changed quite a bit ...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to improve LSP's article with sections of this one. Regarding the color, I agree with Checco, even if it isn't the official color anymore, IMHO green can be the best solution. There're no doubts that blue is the official color, but green is still the most used color to represent the League (look for example at YouTrend's Supermedia). If we choose blue, maps, parliament graphs and articles would be a mess. While regarding the translation, I don't know, maybe native speakers among us can be helpful. I know that "Lega per Salvini Premier" would match "Lega Nord", but I think "League for Salvini Premier" could be good. -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Checco: Yakme wanted to propose the merger of the two pages. Indeed, there is currently a "de facto merger" on the Lega Nord page, as the "Lega per Salvini Premier" page is practically empty and unused. But the color of the LSP should be blue, no one identifies the League with that color in Italy anymore and the League itself has abandoned it: the green color identified Padania, so it has nothing to do with the current League.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, it's not true. In Conte's first government, Lega had been already rebranded and blue was already the official color of the party, used almost everywhere in party's propaganda, but the government was nevertheless labeled "yellow-green". An official color is one thing, a customary color is another. In every opinion poll (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) Lega is still represented with green, that's because having 5 parties (FdI, FI, Azione, Coraggio Italia and Lega) with various shades of blue would be a total mess. In the article we can clearly write that blue is the official color, but green is the customary one, and we need to use green for maps and diagrams, believe me, otherwise it will become almost impossibile to distinguish Lega from FdI. -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon At the time of the Conte I Cabinet the green color had not yet disappeared (I still remember green ties in 2018), even though blue was starting to take the place of green. If there is a problem for maps and if opinion polls continue to use green, we can continue to use green on Wikipedia as well. However I would like to give my off topic opinion on one of the parties you mentioned: Coraggio Italia should be identified with the color fuchsia, I don't think that it is identified with the color blue anywhere.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah for Coraggio Italia we use indigo because fuchsia is already used for Italia Viva. IMHO Coraggio Italia will not last so long, but we can find a solution and maybe use fuchsia with a different shade. -- Nick.mon (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think that fuchsia with a different shade would be a better solution for CI.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I struggle to follow your discussion since you barely can keep WP:FOCUS for two consecutive replies... You discussed about LN/LSP, then went on a rant about FI (2013) vs FI, then about colors, and then you are even using this discussion to pick the new color of Coraggio Italia! This is unbelievable, please use Talk:Forza Italia (2013) or Talk:Coraggio Italia to discuss about those things! This is really confusing, and obviously calls for a separate discussion thread ONLY about the merge between LN and LSP. Now, on point, what are the arguments you are bringing for the separation of articles? I only see a lot of WP:OR by Scia Della Cometa, and no sources given about the historical and day-to-day difference between LN and LSP. I still have had no reply: What is the difference between the current LN and the current LSP? SDC even have their own theory about when LN has been replaced, based on what? Sentences like On the other hand, the current League is objectively a different party from the old Northern League, with a different founding ideology and different offices really make me shiver: Are we going to create new articles for parties every time they change policies? Is there a different Democratic Party (United States) article for the period when it was pro-slavery? Or your self-made "rule" is only valid when a party changes name (even slightly like in this case)? Also, do we really think that a party named with a slogan just for Salvini's leadership is going to stay there forever with that name? (see Wikipedia:Presentism) There are so many problems related to your choice of having a separation into two articles, I don't understand how you can support this. I repeat: the current League is the same party as the old Lega Nord, it simply switched some policies (like also 1994 LN did not have the same policies as 2014 LN), but it keeps exactly the same ruling class, structure, establishment, members (of course Lega being more popular now than 10 years ago, it has gained members in other regions, but this does not justify creating a new article). --Yakme (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme: I see so much lack of factual knowledge in your reasoning, I haven't done any original research. LN and LSP are two parties registered separately in the Italian party register. There has not been a simple change of strategy or policy, LN and LSP are two legally separated parties. In article 1 of the LN statute the main purposee of the party is secessionism, while in the statute of LSP there is no reference to it. The LN has not gained membersbin other regions, because according to its statute it is impossible, it is present only in Northern Italy. The Italian page of the LSP is fully supported by sources, I invite you to read them before hinting that I do original research.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The fact that they used a legal quibble as a strategy to avoid paying taxes/fines (and of course also to avoid scrapping the "old" LN statute with the word "secession" in it – so to keep the "old guard" inside the Lega sphere) does not mean that LN and LSP are factually two different separate parties. There is no way to distinguish them at the moment, even though they are both legally currently existing. In article 1 of the LN statute the main purposee of the party is secessionism in real life, LN abandoned secessionism much before the LpSP was born: the fact that something is written in a "statute" does not mean that the party is actually doing that in every-day life (by this argument, the Nazi party of Germany was a socialist party, from its statute). Indeed, a party's statute should count as a primary source (from WP policies: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them) and it's not enough to justify that in reality that party is following that ideology or policy. It looks like you people are only focused on formalism and legal cavils, and are not really getting the historical reality of what is Italian politics now. Do you understand my point? --Yakme (talk) 08:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme: I know that the current coexistence of the two Leagues is due to a legal quibble (which does not concern the payment of taxes, but the return of public funds), but the question is another: do we really care about the reason? My answer is no, we know that there are two different parties with two different basic ideologies. We know that LN has not been dissolved due to debt, but your other statement (to keep the "old guard" inside the Lega sphere) seems a supposition. The purpose is to report what the sources say. The political turning point and the legal separation of the two parties are objective and undeniable facts. As it is undeniable that continuing to make readers believe that the party currently operating in Italy is called Lega Nord is wrong.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I have lots of academic sources proving my point, though, which I will present with my merge proposal. --Yakme (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

At this point I think there is sufficient consensus to separate the topics into the two pages that currently exist. Yakme will propose the merger of the two pages and the title of the merged page: in the merger proposal we will analyze the sources of Yakme and those that support the theory of the two parties. This seems to me the only solution.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is a consensus to split the Lega party into two parties, hence my forthcoming merge proposal. --Yakme (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme Currently the only opposite opinion is yours. If you want to do a merger proposal, do it, otherwise the topics will have to be split between the two existing pages.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It makes no sense to split it now, and then merge it back later. So please wait a few days for my merger proposal. --Yakme (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Uhm, how do you already know the outcome of the proposal? You announced a merger proposal a week ago, if you already have the sources it doesn't take long to make a proposal. I advise you to make this proposal in a short time, because, at the moment, in this discussion there is a certain consensus for the split. It would make sense to postpone the split only since you make a merger proposal. But the announcement must be followed by a concrete proposal.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I announced my intention on 3 November, and confirmed it on 5 November, today is 8 November. So please wait. --Yakme (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to rush anyone, but from personal experience I see users who use the method of lengthening the discussion time to maintain the status quo. I don't want to presume bad faith, but for this reason I expect the merger proposal to be done in a reasonable time frame, otherwise we'll have to split the topics in the two existing pages...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no intention of maintaining the status quo, so that's not my plan. I'll try my best, my point is that it is going to be difficult to discuss a merge while at the same time many editors are personally involved in the un-merge. Instead I would like to achieve a discussion that is as rational, calm, open-minded as possible, and avoid a situation where editors take positions on principle, based on finding the "simplest" solutions, and not the "correct" ones, after a reflective thought. --Yakme (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Just one precisation: the "simplest" solution is the merger, the current LN page is de facto a merged page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I meant "simplest" in terms of logic: the parties legally are two, so we have two pages. --Yakme (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)