User talk:Checco/Archive 7 (January 2010 – December 2014)

Unreferenced BLPs Hello Checco! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 20 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 938 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list: Alfredo Biondi - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Giorgio La Malfa - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Gian Carlo Abelli - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Franco Rocchetta - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Stefano Stefani - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Luciano Gasperini - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Gian Paolo Gobbo - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Fabrizio Comencini - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Fabio Padovan - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Manuela Dal Lago - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL More... 11. Gianpaolo Dozzo 12. Giancarlo Giorgetti 13. Giorgio Vido 14. Jorge Bornhausen 15. Giuseppe Pericu 16. Valdo Spini 17. Ugo Intini 18. Margherita Boniver 19. Mario Segni 20. Remo Sernagiotto Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC) modifica da rivedere su lega nord Su diff hai aggiunto un sondaggio riguardo l'indipendenza della Padania da Il Liberale. Se capisco bene il sito si tratta di sondaggi raccolti con una pagina web la cui attendibilita' puo' essere falsata facilmente, anche se e' possibile sia stato fatto in buona fede. Suggerisco di controllare ed eventualmente rimuovere questa informazione che non mi pare sufficientemente di buona qualita' per wikipedia. Nozdreff (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC). Starting an article Hi Checco, I can't start a new article called Members of the Regional Council of Lombardy, 2005–2010: can you help me? NumberOne --79.24.129.86 (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC) In order to start your own articles, you should have an account and log in. --Checco (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Talk:Municipal elections in Veneto Guarda per piacere questa pagina. Ciao. --Giornada (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Hello Checco. You misunderstood sources about Italian Regions electoral law. To receive extra-seats, the winning coalition must had won less than 60% of total seats. The regional list covering 20% of total seats, less than 40% of total seats under PR must had been won (60-20=40). Proportional seats distributed under PR being the 80% of total seats, this means the coalition must have received less of 50% of votes (50%=half; half of 80%=40%; 40:80=50:100). Hello Checco. The sources you found are correct and say (under a different mathematical point of view) the same as I said: they are only (especially Repubblica) too much simplified. Rep says "...whether the lists associated with him have received less than 40 percent of the seats...": the problem is that Rep forgets to say it is speaking about the 40% of the TOTAL seats. How can you win the 40 of total seats, if PR seats cover the 80% of the total? Obviously, with the 50% of votes. Lombardy's pdf (your second source) is more precise: probably you have been deceived by that "40%" the source speaks about, but it's completely a different problem (it is about the number of extraseats, which must be sufficient to reach a 55% of Council seats majority if the President wins with less than 40% (a situation which never realized in all Italy in every election from 1999, if I well remember), or sufficient to reach a 60% majority if the President wins with more than 40%). Take a look to the ordinary situation, a President with more than 40% of votes (the situation on the right in the pdf): the winning coalition must reach 60% of TOTAL seats; 20% of seats being covered by the regioanal presidential list, seats won with provincial proportional representation must be at least the 40% (60-20) of TOTAL seats, and 40% of TOTAL seats are the 50% of PROPORTIONAL seats. Surely it's a bit difficult, but I hope you understood. Take a look to 1995 Lombard results: they are an exemple of application of this situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.33.4 (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Hey Checco! Since you created all the other articles about the regional sections of Lega Nord, do you feel like writing something about the two newest and most southerly (yet) regions of the north, Lega Nord Abruzzo and Lega Nord Sardegna?[1] I hope you do. Cheers, 93.45.134.164 (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I won't do that since the two parties did not reach any interesting electoral result yet and they are not national sections of Lega Nord either. When they will become electorally relevant or national sections of Lega Nord I will start those articles. --Checco (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Fini So, what will happen? Will he form his own party again? Just form his own faction to counteract LN's influence? I've read rumours that he might form a new party with Montezemolo, the UdC and the ApI... —Nightstallion 21:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Dear Nighstallion, sorry for the delay with which I'm answering to you. I will write more on Fini and his moves in the article about Generation Italy tonight. You are right. There are strong rumors that Fini might form a brand new centrist party with Casini's UDC/UdC and Rutelli's ApI. Montezemolo continues to deny any interest in politics, but few people trust him when he says that sort of things! For now Fini will exert his influence over a bunch of deputies and senators through a faction they are about to organize. He says that he will remain loyal to Berlusconi, the party and the government, but most political analysts foresee an early election by the end of 2011 basically because it will be in Berlusconi's interest and Bossi's, if he's able to get fiscal federalism by May 2011, when the government's mandate to implement that reform expires. At this point Fini and the Democrats would be the main losers in a general election according to opinion polls. The next years will be intriguing, that's sure! --Checco (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Libertarian Movement (Italy) Hi Checco, I refer you to insert page Libertarian Movement (Italy) within the WikiProject on Libertarianism and Liberalism in Italy. Thank, goodbye. Lib3rtarian (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC) You are now a Reviewer Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC). Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here. If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Likely developments So, as it seems we'll be seeing early elections in Italy in November 2010 or thereabouts – what do you think will happen? Formation of a Berlusconi-led right-wing alliance (without Lega Nord, I'd assume?), a centrist alliance of Fini, UdC and ApI and a left-wing alliance of PD (incl. SEL and FdS?)? And would the Fini-centre be more likely to support Berlusconi or the PD? —Nightstallion 17:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Dear Nightstallion, I'm not so sure that there will be a snap election in November. Three scenarios are foreseeable: Berlusconi and Fini find a way to cooperate and the former stays on as Prime Minister; the government falls down and it is replaced by a new one (led by Tremonti?); the government falls down and early elections are called. At this point it seems that the third option may please only Berlusconi (and Di Pietro of course!) as LN aims at the approval of fiscal federalism and the PD, UDC and Fini would all perform badly in an election. If Berlusconi resigns, however, also LN, IdV and SEL, that is to say the parties performing better in opinion polls, would be interested in an early election. If this is the case, PdL and LN would run together (even if LN would do far better alone), while the PD will find very difficult to build a broad coalition in order to defeat Berlusconi. The PD may either join forces with IdV-SEL or with UDC-FLI, while a coalition combining PD, IdV, SEL and UDC is very unlikely. There is a wing of the newly formed FLI (Granata, Bocchino) which would like to form an alliance with the PD, but the majority of FLI deputies and senators come from the right-wing of the former MSI/AN and reject any collaboration with the left. FLI is a very strange outfit indeed. Similarily to Fini (both a vocal social-liberal with innovative ideas and an old-style conservative with statist and centralist instincts), it has two faces: one one side it presents itself as a moderate liberal-conservative force, on the other side it is primarily composed by hard right Southern conservatives. One of my colleagues described FLI as a liberal-fascist party: this is not a correct definition of course, but very effective though. Many FLI members reject the notion of centrist coalition and the internal divisions of FLI may again favour Berlusconi, whose power is anyway diminished by the growing influence of LN, Tremonti and other PdL bigwigs. --Checco (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC) I updated The People of Freedom and Generation Italy and, more important, I wrote the brand new Future and Freedom article (that is definitely the most correct title for it!). In the next days I will fix again those article if it is needed. --Checco (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC) AN Hi Checco, I was a bit surprised by this edit. Clearly they were right wing – we are not talking about Gianfranco Fini today! – and I would have thought they were pretty populist. Or perhaps I am missing something obvious. Best wishes, Ian Spackman (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC) PCIVG Hi. Do you have time to have a look at the article Italian Communist Party of the Julian March? I found some sources, but I'm restricted by language barrier. http://www.openstarts.units.it/dspace/bitstream/10077/3129/1/Tesi%20dottorato.pdf and http://www.irsml.it/testi/qs_2-08.pdf seems to have more material on the PCIVG and PCIVG-PCI-PCRG relations, but I can't dechiffer the exact details. Another question, was the Sindacati Giuliani launched by the PCIVG group (see http://books.google.com/books?id=qD1uFIUDzEgC&pg=PA427) or was the split in the trade union movement something different? --Soman (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Hello, Checco. You have new messages at Soman's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. --Soman (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Loghi Ciao, hai perfettamente ragione, correggerò quanto prima (intanto, ti parlo in italiano onde evitare errori di sintassi...). Ciao.--Pelusu (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC) WikiProject United States Government Greetings. I noticed that you are one of the few members of WikiProject United States Government that are still active so I wanted to ask you a question. It appears that this project is mostly inactive aside from what the members might be doing independently. I was considering suggesting that this project be pulled in under WikiProject United States and wanted to solicit comments from some of this projects members before doing so. As with Washington DC and the others the project would for the most part maintain its own independence but I believe this would benefit both projects. What do you think about this? --Kumioko (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC) ]] I am active, but I have never been active on the WikiProject United States Government, despite having put my signature there. I agree with you on everything, but I'm afraid that my opinion is not so relevant for I am not an active user of the project. --Checco (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks that seems to be the recurring answer. Users have an interest in the articles themselves and have affiliated to the project but the project itself isn't really very productive from a project standpoint. Many of the editors such as yourself though are very active though. I am going to continue to gather comments and work with the other members of the project to determine the best course for the project so please let me know if you have any questions, comments or concerns. --Kumioko (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Alto Adige/South Tyrol Hi Checco, it is pretty sad to see what those editors are trying to do. I understand you not wanting to have anything more to do with that farce. I just posted a bunch of search results, which I'm sure will be summarily ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Yes it is more than pretty sad: it’s ugly. But you do understand which editor has done most to poison that talk page? Ian Spackman (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC) A true pleasure to "see" you again Ian. 76.89.129.139 (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Hallo Checco! I am trying to keep the present version province of Bolzano-Bozen, as it is described in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Mai-Sachme does not want to accept that this is the name according to the convention, so it cannot be changed so easily. Maybe you want to give a contribution.--Patavium (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC) You arguments are spot on Patavium. In fact, it is a good point that all the town names should be moved to the Italian names, because that is what is used in primary citations like English encyclopedias or atlases. I saw Mai-Sachme's argument that a couple atlases don't mean anything. But that is simply not the case. By far the common population will spend more time looking at atlases than reading a book on a small province. I really don't mind though, the method that has been used for the city names. English usage (like for Ortisei or Merano) should trump though. Main thing is it is shocking that they treat Wikipedia like a democracy.. this goes on forever if it just becomes a game of mustering up enough editors to come in and vote. No matter how a few of them try to discredit the original solution, or blame me (or a few others) of "trickery", those were compromise that did satisfy a lot of editors and brought peace to the page. A particular editor seems to consider that just one battle in a war, and that is just sad. It truly makes me wonder why others on here try to compromise when others have a all-or-nothing mentality. LN If you want to report me, do it for Etiquette. What do you did is vile [2], is a rascally attitude. You are not being able to answer with argument to the weight of references, but discredit those who presented it. Complimenti. No matter what claims to be or not, you act as a partisan editor of Lega Nord. How is so difficult to recognize that LN is populist and right-wing party?, please, there is a lot of references and evidences.--GiovBag (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC) What about you? Didn't you accuse respected editors of being partisan in Wifione's talk page? --Checco (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Regional election 2003 and 2008 Hi Checco, I saw that you created the articles Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol regional election, 2003 and Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol regional election, 2008. Well, as you know yourself, since 2001 there are no regional elections anymore, so I'd propose to split the content over four articles (Trentino provincial election, 2003...). Here is a test version of the elections template. What do you think? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Hi Mai-Sachme! First of all, thank you for all the changes you made in articles about politics and elections in Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol: as I find difficult to keep updated all the pages I created, I would be very glad if you will become a sort of unofficial "project administrator" for Politics of Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol and related pages. Your proposal makes some sense, but I disagree with it. In my view it is better to have single pages including both the information about Trentino and Alto Adige/Südtirol. It is true that since 2001 there are no regional totals of election results and, more important, the two provinces adopted different electoral systems, but also before 2001 elections were fought only at the provincial level. In fact, also before 2001 there were no truly "regional" elections. What happened in 2001 was a big change for us (and that is reflected in the article about 2003), but it is not from an outsider's (and encyclopedic) point of view. --Checco (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Regarding the updates: I'll see what i can do :-) Well, you are right that the region has been politically dead since the early 70ies, but at least there were still technically regional elections, i.e. the candidates on your ballot paper were de jure primarily voted as members of the regional council. But since 2001 there is simply no such thing as regional election, so I think it's quite odd that we have regional elections in Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol on Wikipedia, when there are no regional elections in the real world, neither de facto nor de jure. With other words: We are making things up, the current article titles pretend the existence of elections which don't exist. I doubt that there are any advantages from an outsider's point of view. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Ok, at some extent you convinced me, but, as I still don't see any good reason for splitting the articles, look at my proposal. I propose to move Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol regional election, 2003 to Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol provincial elections, 2003 and Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol regional election, 2008 to Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol provincial elections, 2008 (consistent with Sardinian provincial elections, 2010). The template would be like this: What do you think? --Checco (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Yes, this sounds reasonable to me. I'll move the articles according to your proposal. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC) French parties Ciao Checco, I am sorry to disappoint you, but all I know about French politics is from the newspaper and Wikipedia. I guess, I am as much an interested layman in this field as you are ;-) Best wishes to you -- RJFF (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Re: Unprintworthy redirects Last time, someone raised an issue about it. Just thought I'd let you know. --Σ talkcontribs 17:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC) And I completely forgot to do Christian Democracy for the Autonomies... thanks for reminding me. --Σ talkcontribs 17:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC) And you'll have to be more specific than putting a pile of links on my talk page. What do I replace them with? --Σ talkcontribs 17:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Christian Democracy for the Autonomies got moved from (or to) Christian Democracy for the Autonomies? --Σ talkcontribs 20:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)  Done, as it was mainly templates that were the problem. --Σ talkcontribs 05:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Amaiur I just wanted to let you know that I took a look at your recently created article Amaiur-- The citations and references seem to abide to Wikipedia's referencing guidelines. However, I noticed there are some holes that may need filling: the references in the article do not follow Wikipedia guidelines. There is a tutorial on formatting citations at Wikipedia:Referencing. It would be great if you could also upload another picture for the related article Sortu. Jipinghe (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC) I don't understand what you wanted to say: do the references follow or not Wiki guidelines? However, I started the article by collecting information from the es.Wiki article. If your knowledge is better than mine, feel free to improve the article! --Checco (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Lodovico Pizzati Ok, I've undeleted the article on Pizzati and left it at User:Checco/Lodovico Pizzati. As you can see it is currently unsourced but feel free to move it back into article space once you've added the appropriate sources. Also take a look at the article history — it seems another Wikipedia editor did not feel that what you had added as sources before met Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing of a living person. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC) New Pole for Italy Hello Checco, I have seen your change to New Pole for Italy. Could you please provide a source for Casini being the only leader of the Pole? Thank you. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Amaiur Hello Checco, This source explicitly states "Izquierda abertzale, EA, Alternatiba y Aralar (...) Las cuatro fuerzas políticas vascas abertzales y de izquierdas que concurrirán juntas (...)". So "Izquierda abertzale" is one of four groups, just like EA, Alternatiba, and Aralar. It cannot be meant in the generic sense, because in the generic sense EA, Alternatiba and Aralar are left-wing abertzale as well (as they are left-wing and nationalist/independentist). There are four "political forces", just one of them is legally not a party, because the authorities refuse to legalize them. Four parties have signed the manifesto of Amaiur,[3] all of which are abertzale and left-wing, but only one is actually called "izquerda abertzale". According to the source, this group has spokesmen (Rufi Etxeberria y Txelui Moreno), so it cannot be abertzale left in the generic sense. Therefore the information you tagged with is already pretty much sourced, don't you think? Best thing would be if we could find someone who actually has knowledge about Basque politics... (I have just interpreted the sources, but actually I don't know...) --RJFF (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC) My concern is that the source may be isolated. In fact, there is no mention about Izquierda abertzale as a de facto party in es.Wiki. However, I agree with your point. Why don't you write an article on Izquierda abertzale as such and then edit the other articles accordingly? Many thanks! --Checco (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Ps: Next time, could you write in the articles' talks so that other people might have their say? Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't think I can do such a thing. My knowledge on this is too slight, and I don't want to misinform people, just because I might have misinterpreted some Spanish news articles. Maybe it is not a "de facto party" but rather a loose group of former Batasuna members with two spokesmen... I don't really know. They seem to have a website, but for someone who cannot read any Basque it is not really informative... --RJFF (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Nordsieck/parties-and-elections.de Hello Checco, I'm afraid that you are mistaken. Wolfram Nordsieck is a German lawyer who collects data about European parties and elections as his hobby (just like you and I do). He is neither a political scientist nor any other kind of scholar in this field. Whereas I value this site for its comprehensiveness, painstakingness, and in most cases up-to-dateness and accurateness, it is not to be considered a reliable source according to the criteria of Wikipedia. Problematic is that Mr. Nordsieck does not reference to the sources of his assessments and categorisations, and in the past I have had the impression that he labels some parties by instinct in some cases. I would not object to using parties-and-elections.de as a source for minor parties, parties from smaller countries, or very new parties, where there is little, or no academic literature. However we should avoid it, where there are sufficient scholarly sources (as it is the case with French UMP). Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC) I perfectly know who Nordsieck is. He has studied comparative politics and history, and as such he has an incedible knowledge about parties and elections. Sometimes, I have to admit, I disagree with some of his conclusions/classifications. By the way, I disagree much more with some professors who are biased by their political views. I consider Nordsieck a scholar and his work as extremely valuable. He doesn't need sources, he is a source, and a much better one than out-of-the-context scholarly studies and, of course, journalistic sources. I have a job at the university, but this doesn't make my views more relevant than Nordsieck's or yours, and you can fairly disagree with me and my scholarly views. I understand your interpretation of Wikipedia rules, I admit that you are partly right and I consider your remarks, as always, very sensible, but on the whole I disagree. Next time, please, start any discussion that might be interesting for others in the article's talk. If you want to attract my attention through my talkpage, you can still do that, but, if you don't mind, I will answer in the article's talk by default. --Checco (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Vasco Errani Ciao Checco, The article Vasco Errani is in danger of being deleted for the lack of sources. As I think the article on a longstanding president of an Italian region is notable enough for Wikipedia, would you - as en.wiki's leading pundit on Italian politics - like to rescue the article? I think that you know best where to look for relevant and reliable sources. Thank you. Take care. --RJFF (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Citazioni Per favore utilizza i template 'cite' quando inserisci una reference come in Five Star Movement, invece del "bare" link. Grazie, ciao! --Ita140188 (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Help with an article? Hi! I found you through WP:BRAZIL. I'm currently trying to save the article A Sucessora from deletion. (It's a novel by Carolina Nabuco that was adapted into a telenovela in the 70s.) One of the biggest obstacles I've come across is that most of the sources are in Spanish and my comprehension of it is on a 101 level at best. There's also sources in Portuguese, so if you can speak either than I'd be much obliged if you could help out. I can do some things via Google translate and get the gist of others, but to really get an in-depth look at many of the sources I would need to be more fluent. Could you help out in this? I'd really appreciate it since the book is notable but the article needs more sources and fleshing out in general. I don't want it to get deleted!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Interlibertarians.... again It's returned... Would you help me to clean the mess?--Louisbeta (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Conservative liberalism AFD Looks like a user's had the conservative liberalism article lined up for for deletion again...--Autospark (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Veneto Please take a look at Help:IPA for English, Help:IPA for Italian, and take a look at the vowels used in the IPA transcription of Veneto. You'll see that the vowels used for such a transcription are not reflected as part of English phonology. To be explicit, English does not have a long [ɛː], as Italian does. The English transcription used at Wikipedia also does not utilize a short [e], or [o]. I understand that English speakers may often attempt an Italian pronunciation (and the more sophisticated speakers can pull it off), but this is not the same thing as an English pronunciation. TBH, I'm not sure what the English pronunciation is, otherwise I'd put it. I've heard something like /vɨˈniːtoʊ/ as well as /ˈvɛnɨˌtoʊ/, but both of these are original research; my normal reference, dictionary.com, doesn't include the term and howjsay fails to provide an English pronunciation. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 17:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC) OK, but let's write "Venetian pronunciation" (only Venetians pronounce the the long [ɛː], Italians use the short [e]). --Checco (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC) Hmm, according to the World English dictionary, (see here) it's pronounced with a long [ɛː]. Italian phonology also says that "vowels in stressed open syllables are long (except when word-final)." Still, though, I'm wondering about how we reflect the transcription of Venetian words. I think that technically that template doesn't cover Venetian pronunciation. However, in the same way that we have Help:IPA for Portuguese and Galician, we may want to add Venetian to the Italian pronunciation guide. At the very least, we should have a {{IPA-vec}} that either duplicates the function of {{IPA-all}} (which is a good idea to measure if a new IPA for X page is needed) or links to the IPA for Italian page. I've gone ahead and new discussion regarding the matter. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 18:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC) OK and many thanks for your intervention! Regards. --Checco (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC) Here we are again... [4]--Patavium (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Question … … regarding RC and FdS, maybe you can help? Thanks! —Nightstallion 14:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Follow-up question: I think I know where all the major and minor parties are headed, except for Italian Radicals and Movement for Autonomies. What are their plans? MpA to join Great South or Brothers of Italy? RI in RC? Also: Are the Ecologists and Civic Networks defunct now that the Greens are participating in the Civil Revolution? Or is ERC participating instead of the Federation of the Greens on their own? Thanks! —Nightstallion 17:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Follow-up again: Is the Federation of the Left now dissolved and PdCI and PRC are participating in RC on their own? —Nightstallion 18:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Hi Nightstallion, I re-emerged from a period of vacation just to answer to your questions. Unfortunately I'm not fully updated on the last political news and many things will change in the next two weeks. From what I know or I have understood, the FdS and ERC are not disbanded, but their member parties will take part to the Civil Revolution list: the two facts are not in contradiction. The MpA and GS will probably form a joint list in coalition with the PdL, but I wouldn't rule out that the MpA could support Monti's coalition instead. FdI will form its own list list. The Radicals say the want to form a list named "Amnesty, Justice, Freedom", but they will definitely try to close a deal with one of the major coalitions until the very last moment. This election will be chaotic and we will see fragmentation as never before. Happy new year! --Checco (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Interesting, thanks! —Nightstallion 19:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Monti's new party Please, you must correct the color of Monti's new party / coalition: the correct color is gray (or white), not blue.--151.67.122.213 (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC) And the colour of UDC is white: please correct (on Italian election page and party page).--151.67.122.213 (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC) I won't because I disagree with you. Monti's new party has not a color yet and I wouldn't suggest gray or white (blue would be better in fact). UDC's party color is blue and by the way few Italian parties have official colors. We need colors only to distinguish parties in templates. --Checco (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Autonomist Union Hello, I am Mazuritz, a french user. I'm sorry, I don't speak english fluently. Thank you for your article Autonomist Union, what I translated in french Union autonomiste. But other french users (I don't know why !) want to delete this french article. To save it, I need help to find references, external, bibliography and to translate this article in italian and eventually in other languages. Thank you. Mazuritz (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Hello! I don't have more sources than those you inserted in the fr.Wiki article. I would suggest that you might add them into the en.Wiki article too. I've written it a long time ago and it clearly lacks sources. I'm sorry about the proposed deletion in fr.Wiki (and I don't know how to help you): I know that some Wikis, including fr.Wiki and it.Wiki, have stricter rules that en.Wiki and are less inclusionist. That is why I prefer en.Wiki. --Checco (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your answer. I will make what you suggest. Mazuritz (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC) So, I inserted new links on english article and created italian article about this political party. But I'm not a fluent english or italian speaker. If you want, you can correct this two versions. After this, I search more informations about the internal link Alpina League : on the actual page of Autonomist Union, we are redirected to Lega Alleanza Lombarda, but it seems that existed too a Lega Alpina Piemont what participated at the Elezioni politiche italiane del 1992. I mean contact the italian wikipedists who redacted the italian articles Roberto Gremmo and Union Piemontèisa to obtain more information. I write italian worst than english. I hope that they will give me an answer. Mazuritz (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC) it's useless for the italian article, it was deleted. Mazuritz (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Democratic Centre (Italy) Hi there Checco. Just wondering, it CD a merger of ApI and DL, or an electoral list for containing both ApI and DL members, or a new standalone party that happens to contain (former?) ApI and DL politicians?Autospark (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC) CD is an electoral list containing both ApI and DL members. It may become an unitary party in the future, but for now it is just a coalition. Rutelli, leader of ApI, attended to the founding of the list, but the party has not yet formally endorsed it. A week ago it seemed likely that Rutelli would head the list of CD in Lazio, but he seems undecided now. We'll see, even though I don't see where he could go otherwise. --Checco (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Thank you. I note there are still even at this stage there are some elements to the upcoming election that are still 'wait and see'.--Autospark (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Hyphen on five-star Hello, I noticed you had not replied my question posted on [5] so far. I report the whole discussion here for your convenience: Shouldn't the proper translation be "Five stars movement"? "Stelle" is plural. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.63.166.124 (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC) I agree --Twilight 19:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC) No, that would not be proper English. Examples? "Five-star hotel", "three-way race", "four-night stay", etc. --Checco (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC) So, why not Five-Star Movement, with the hyphen? --LNCSRG (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Regards LNCSRG (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC) M5S support patterns Hi Checco- Do you happen to know anything I don't know which could explain M5S' particular success in Sicily (especially) but also Sardinia, parts of the Lazio and a weird strip of coastal provinces in Marche/Abruzzo (in general, his support is surprisingly 'coastal' in nature). Is it due to a regional factor/local social movement, like the anti-TAV in the Val di Susa in Torino province? I found it interesting that M5S' support was highest in those suburban communes outside major cities, seemingly forming some kind of halo around major urban areas. It is quite perceptible both in the north and the south. Did they appeal to a working-class base or lower middle-classes, young adults? Given you're from Veneto, I was wondering why the Lega Nord lost so much ground there when compared to Lombardy where they held up much better. M5S and Monti also did well up there. Any ideas? Thanks for any help! As always, let me know if you know of any articles on French politics (or even South Africa or Spain) which might need some help and if there's anything I could try to contribute. --Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Hello Petrovic-Njegos, it's so nice to hear from you! It is quite difficult to find general patters in the vote for M5S and I have few evidence for what I'm going to say. For sure, Grillo's support was very heterogeneous: he garnered votes both from middle-class and working-class voters, among religious and non-religious people, among right-wingers and left-wingers, etc. According to a survey by Istituto Demopolis, 32% of M5S supporters voted for the PdL in 2008, 23% for the PD, 12% for the League, 11% for IdV, 9% for other parties and 13% did not vote at all. Young educated voters, who live disproportionately in cities and suburban areas, represented a big share of Grillo's vote and form a big chunk of the newly elected MPs. Also regional factors played a big role. In Liguria Grillo did so well because of his favorite-son status, in Piedmont he gathered anti-TAV protesters but also many disgruntled voters of the PD (same as in Marche and everywhere else), in the whole North he absorbed up to 50% of the League's support, in the South (especially in Sicily) he did well probably because of his personality (voters have a strong taste for populism and strong leaders there), and so on. While southern voters tend to be emotional and volatile, northern ones tend to be rational and consistent. How on earth so many people voted for Grillo in Veneto and Lombardy (where he had his worst result anyway)? My answer is that many people in the Lombardo-Veneto have perfectly understood that no-one can get anything done in Rome and many of them thus voted for Grillo. Many people simply don't care about Rome. You may find that very strange as the League is at one its lowest points ever, but also the vote for the League confirms that: in Lombardy the party took 12.9% for the Chamber and the 23.2% (including Maroni's personal list) in the regional election, on the very same day! My impression is that some people voted consciusly for Maroni and the League in the election that mattered most, which was not the general one, as everyone was saying, but the regional one. Piedmont, Lombardy and Veneto are now governed by a leghista. It is not easy to explain Monti's support too. The power base of his allies, Casini and Fini, is in the South, not in the North. My impression is that Monti got the result he expected in the North, while southern voters gave him, Casini and Fini a bad surprise. The alliance with Monti was congenial with UdC voters in the North, while it was not in the South: they very same people who voted for UdC and FLI in the 2012 Sicilian regional election (and who would vote again for those parties in case of another local election) deserted Monti and voted Grillo or Berlusconi instead. Monti was maybe too European and elitist for a rather populist electorate. --Checco (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC) [Ps: If I need any help with French or Spanish politics, I will let you know! Many thanks!] Much obliged for these explanations! The M5S is a fascinating case to study, and I hope that serious academic research is done on the topic because there are a number of interesting and new avenues to explore on that topic. Italian voting patterns are tough to understand at times, but really nothing beats it. I have done lots of work on the UMP and UDI pages, adding to some of your stuff and creating new pages for UMP factions. Whenever you have a second, let me know what you think and if any pages/parties are in dire need of attention.--Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC) I'm very curious to see whether the M5S will become a stable political force or it will end being just a flash in the pan. There are some signals that the second scenario is more likely. Moreover a fresh election might be soon called, in a year or maybe even less than that. You did a great job with the articles on UDI, UMP and UMP factions! I can't wait to read all of them. What about an update on the MoDem article? --Checco (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Padanian nationalism Hi Checco, I am Nick.mon, I think that we could insert in Lega Nord's ideology, Padanian Nationalism. What do you think? Regards. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2013 I am not Checco, but I think that, first, you have to find a reliable source verifying it. But if Checco knows where to find one, it will be fine, too. --RJFF (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC) National Conservatism The reason because I had removed that "source" from the article is because the source is a book published in 2007, using almost exactly the same words that are in the article at least since...2006. These mean that the book (or at least the article) is, almost certainly, a copy of wikipedia, and I think that does not make sense to use as a source from an article a book that is itself a copy of wikipedia; this is like using the wikipedia as a source from itself.--MiguelMadeira (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Lega Nord political position Hi Checco, I am Nick.mon, I have started a new discussion in Lega Nord's talk page about Lega political position. Can you participate to it? Thank you. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC) I saw now that you have just edit it. Thank you. Indepence referendum Hi Checco. I agree with you wholeheartedly on "consistency: all or none..." - that is what I thought I was doing, taking my cue from the entry on Norwegian referendum just above that, which I read with my mind's eye and not my bodily eyes - i.e., I read what I know to be correct and not the wording on the page; turns out that the wording is wrong: "Norwegian union dissolution referendum – led to independence of Sweden". Sweden was the dominant partner in the union, so it was Norway that broke away/ gained independence. So I subconciously read it as "Norwegian union dissolution referendum – led to independence FROM Sweden". So I aligned the Icelandic referendum to that, which I felt made mode sense. I said I felt it made more sense, yes, I think it makes sense to change them all to the way I did it, which in one info bit tells you the two sides involved - the part that breaks away and the part from which it breaks away. Right now, they all say "A's referendum, which led to independence of A". It would make more sense to change them all to "A's referendum, which led to independence from B". What do you think? Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC) Sure, Norway is a little bit of an exception. Please feel free to edit the article in the following way: {{flagicon|Country A}} [[Link to Referendum page]] – led to independence of [[Country]] A from [[Country B]]. What looks important to me is just consistency. Thank you so much for your help! --Checco (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC) Forza Italia refoundation Hi Checco. Just wondering what your thoughts are on how to treat the article for Forza Italia ahead of the party's supposed refoundation. Should the existing page be expanded upon or a new one (called Forza Italia (2013), for example) created? Or is this 'new' party merely a rebranding of PdL, and the article for PdL should be adjusted accordingly in due course? I'm very interested in your ideas.--Autospark (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Hello! I would create a new article for the forthcoming party. Legally speaking, FI, the PdL and the would-be FI are in fact three distinct entities. Even more important in my mind, having three pages is the best solution for readers. What do you think? --Checco (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC) I agree that starting a new, separate article for the revived Forza Italia is the best and most logical way to go (e.g. just as the article about the modern-day Italian Socialist Party is a separate from the article about its historical predecessor).--Autospark (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Good! Let's just wait for the official launch of the new party, then.--Checco (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Union of Christian and Centre Democrats Hi Checco, the UDC is not active anymore! Now there is only the Union of the Centre. [6] -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Other Wikipedias may not be sources for en.Wiki, and it.Wiki is at most a bad source. No congress has ever dissolved UDC, thus both UdC and UDC are active parties. If you want, take a look to this discussion. Thanks! --Checco (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, but what about Lega Nord? Why do you delete all my edits? Why don't you want that the words right-wing populism appear in LN page? Also you said that in Lega Nord there are many factions! Why don't you want to insert them! You talk every time of social democratic positions in LN but I have yet to see them in a party who call a black person a bingo bongo or an orangutan! This is not properly social democratic position, is it? This is a xenophobic and racist one! Right-wing populist parties all over the world do this! Why don't you want to call Lega Nord with his exact ideology? This are my views and I am not the only one, in fact other users had edit LN ideology with far-right. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC) It seems to me that you are still confusing personal views, gaffes and mistakes with the official positions of the party. Anyway if you have any new arguments, feel free to bring them to Talk:Lega Nord. --Checco (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC) No you do a mistake every time when you defend Lega Nord from the "accuses" of right-wing populism! Are not these personal views? And tell me, what gaffes and mistakes have I done? Are you confuse? Maybe I am not very good in speaking English but I am not stupid. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I think the main problem here is that you don't speak English well enough. In fact, I was not referring to you! I was referring to the personal views, gaffes and mistakes of Lega Nord members, who don't represent the official positions of the party. Confusing them is not correct, in my view. You're just a great guy and, even though we often disagree, I appreciate your work on Wikipedia. --Checco (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Oh well, excuse me, you are right I didn't understand very well what you have said. Thank you for your good words, of course you are more expert than me in Wikipedia, and also in speaking English. Yes we disagree especially when we talk about Lega Nord's position, but it is normal, the party is a Big tent, as you said, and different positions about this are common. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, great. One more thing: Let's use articles' talk pages when possible; I think it's better to have more public discussions so that other users may tell us their opinion (Wikipedia is all about consensus and sources). I'm going to write something in Talk:Lega Nord soon. --Checco (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Ok I will do it the next time, discuss about it in the talk page is better, as you said. Bye! -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Forza Italia (2013) Hi, I'm Catverine. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Forza Italia (2013), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Catverine (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Hello Checco, it would be great if you could check the article on Forza Italia (2013). Some editors seemingly got very excited by the launch of the new party. I cannot verify whether or not the information added by User:Sonny1998 is correct. Hopefully you know some Italian-language sources to back up the information. You might want to advise and counsel this new user a little, but of course I understand if you don't have sufficient time. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Hello RJFF, I had problems with Sonny1998 before, but he's improving. I have little patience with users who care a lot about infoboxes and nothing with articles themselves, but I'm happy that new users (Nick.mon, Sonny1998, etc.) are contributing to articles on Italian politics. This said, there are two possible interpretations on the ideology of new Forza Italia, depending on how we consider the party: a) the re-edition of the old one? then, it is a broadly liberal-conservative party, with liberal, Christian-democratic and even social-democratic factions; b) a totally new party? then, it is too early to classify it. In any case the Financial Times is correct when it says that "Berlusconi seeks return to liberal roots" and his last actions are markedly liberal indeed; for instance, he recently spoke in favour of gay marriage and signed twelve referenda proposed by the Italian Radicals, including abolition of life imprisonment, decriminalization of soft drugs, liberalization of immigration, reduction of public funds to religious communities, introduction of a quicker path toward divorce, and abolition of public funding for parties (see here). In this Berlusconi was supported by many Freedomites. When I have time, I will check Sonny1998's sources, start a discussion on Forza Italia (2013)'s talk page, and take care of inviting Sonny1998 to discuss. --Checco (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Valdotanian? Hello Checco, perhaps you have seen it already from your watchlist: I have moved some articles (mostly created by you) which contain the word "Valdotanian" to "Valdostan". If you search for the word "Valdotanian", you will only find Wikipedia articles, pages and books that mirror Wikipedia. This word seems not to exist in English. To my knowledge, the correct form is "Valdostan", while some also use "Valdostian" (not sure if this is a facultative variant or simply a mistake). I hope that you understand that I could not move all articles that contain the word "Valdotanian" and amend all links pointing to these articles in one session. They are simply too many! So, for now, there is some inconsistency: some articles are still titled (or contain) the word "Valdotanian", while some are already changed to "Valdostan". If you would like, we could work together to correct all the remaining mentions of "Valdotanian" in the next days (weeks? months?...) Kind regards, --RJFF (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC) Hello! "Valdotanian" seems to me the Anglicization of the French term (valdôtaine), while "Valdostan" the Anglicization of the Italian term (valdostano). I would suggest that the first term is more correct as the main language in Aosta Valley is French, but I may be just used at it (that's the term that renowned editor Wilfried Derksen adotpted when he created the Valdotanian Union article on 10 May 2005). I'm not sure on either term in fact I don't even know if there's a correct English term for valdôtaine/valdostano. If I were you I would have opened a debate among users before moving dozens of pages. I like consistency and I would be happy to help you in moving more articles, but let's discuss first. I will start a thread at Talk:Valdostan Union and maybe ask an opinion to some English native users: see you there! --Checco (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC) I am sorry that I did this move single-handed and without discussion with other users. To me it seemed so obvious that "Valdotanian" must be wrong that I thought it would be an uncontroversial move that could be done without discussion. I have answered your arguments at Talk:Valdostan_Union#Valdotanian → Valdostan. No harm meant! Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC) No big deal! You might be right, but let's see what other users say. In the meantime, take a look at this. --Checco (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC) arbitrary translations Checco, you shouldn't invent english names for proper nouns. Leave that to mainstream media. We may only cite, what's out there. "We South Tyroleans" is your invention. You should at least discuss it with others. Wikipedia is not a one-man-show.--Sajoch (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC) New Centre-Right Hello Checco, would you consider revising your "vote" for "New Centre-right" with a lower-case 'r' given that reputable English-language media (The Independent, Financial Times, Reuters, The Guardian) all write "New Centre-Right" with a capital 'R'? I would like to avoid moving the article back and forth without consensus, so I want to establish universal agreement of all involved users before moving it back. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC) And would you consider revising you "vote" on The Libertarians/Freedomites? Beside jokes, I totally agree that New Centre-right should be moved back to New Centre-Right until consensus is formed, while I continue to prefer the New Centre-right option. --Checco (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC) Oh, I didn't notice that you already wrote something new at Talk:The Libertarians. Here is my edit at Talk:New Centre-right, but let me be clear: I would have done it anyway. I hope my intellectual honesty speaks for me, as yours speaks for you. --Checco (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC) PD or M5S? Hi Checco, you are right when you said the in Italy the M5S gain more votes than PD, but with the support of Italians abroad the PD becomes the first party, and also for number of deputies the PD is the major party. What do you think? -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC) Forza Italia (2013) Hi Checco, I have wrote something in Forza Italia (2013) talk page about the new FI's ideologies. Can you give your opinion about it? Thanks. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC) PD primary Ciao Checco, I hope that you do not mind if I abuse this talk page for a question unrelated to work on Wikipedia. I wonder why Renzi (a former Christian democrat) performed strongest in the so-called Zone rosse, while the ex-communist Cuperlo (who is also a Northerner, according to his bio) had his best ratings in the rural south. Do you have any explanation for this ostensively paradox distribution? I undertand that Tuscans vote for their "compatriot", but why has Cuperlo his "strongholds" in Calabria and Basilicata, of all regions? I would love to know your thoughts, even if they may be speculative (no need to cite sources ;-)) --RJFF (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Hello RJFF, You're more than welcome to ask questions like this! There are probably more possible answers, but I will reduce them into three (and I believe they are more than merely speculative): The Southern electorate is slow in adapting to political realignments and accepting what is new. As a result, new ideas/parties usually struggle for a while before taking root in the South. That has been the case of the Italian Socialist Party, Christian Democracy, the Greens, and, lately, the Five Star Movement. Then, when they are established and start declining in the Centre-North, parties continue to resist in the South. That was the case of the 1992 election (the Pentapartito parties were crumbling in the North, but they got their best combined result ever in the South), of nostalgic Christian-democratic parties, the Greens, the current Italian Socialist Party, etc. Possibly that will be the fate also of Lega Nord at some point... Well, probably not. ;-) The primary's turnout was much lower in the South than in the North (just compare Veneto and Sicily, two regions with similar populations and a weak PD in general elections), meaning that a smaller number of independents voted—of course more rank-and-file Democrats tended to vote for Cuperlo. The "red regions" (Emilia-Romagna, Tuscany, Umbria and, to some extent, Marche), especially Emilia-Romagna (which is fully "Padanian" in character), share many things with Piedmont, Lombardy and Veneto. Moreover, the Emilian PD or the Tuscan PD are used at governing, picking winners and making pragmatic choices. Leaving aside Tuscany (where the favorite-son element played a lot), my main point here is that the typical Emilian voter of the PD is very similar on many respects to the standard Venetian/Lombard LN or PdL/FI voter, while he/she shares little with a PD voter from Naples or Sicily. I hope my arguments are clear enough. If they are not, feel free to ask more... --Checco (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Very illuminating indeed. Thanks a lot! Another question, this time relating to improvement of articles: In Civic Choice, it is said that after the election, they had 37 deputies and 15 senators. Now, 20 deputies and 12 senators left, and 26 deputies and 8 senators remain. This does not add up. Maybe I have overlooked the relevant sentence, but as far as I see the article does not explain where the 9 extra deputies and 5 senators come from. (I could have asked this at the article's talk page, but as I was already here, and you are the main author, and the one most likely to solve this...) Best regards! --RJFF (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Liberal conservatism Hi Checco, seems like someone has unfortunately deleted the liberal conservatism article are set a redirect to "moderate conservatism". This affects many articles on political parties that we have both editted.--Autospark (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Lega Nord Piemont Hey Checco. I noticed you reverted my edit on Lega Nord Piemont. My point to replace the phrasing -"national" (hence regional)- was not to dispute the idea that Lega Nord's statutes describe these sections as "national". My point is that it is NPOV - "national" hence regional as a statement implies that the Gallo-Italic peoples of the North of Italy are not nations - that is a totally reasonable stance to take, but it is a POV that should not be pushed by Wikipedia. Note that I am not a Padanist or a Lega supporter either. Do you have any better suggestion, where we keep the descriptor "national" without entering into NPOV? saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 12:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Hello Saimdusan, it's nice to hear from you. In fact, as a proud Venetian and Venetist, I do believe that Padanian or Gallo-Italic peoples (Venetians, Lombards, Emilians, Piedmontese, etc.) are nations in all respects, but I don't think that "national" (hence regional) is a POV sentence as it simply means that what the League and the Leagues call "national" is actually referred to one of the regions of Italy. Would you like "national" (that is regional) or "national" (meaning regional)? Do you have any other suggestion? Why don't we discuss it at Talk:Lega Nord? --Checco (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Bersani's image Hi Checco, I would like to ask you something...what do you think about the image of Pier Luigi Bersani in Italian general election, 2013? I think that it is not so good, and there are many who are better; in fact the image is not clear and Bersani had a sad face. I know that there were a discussion some months ago, but maybe we can re-discuss it, and change it, if the majority think that it's less good than another one. Bye -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Hello Nick, I'm not particularly interested in the issue, but yes, there are definitely better images of Bersani. If you start a new discussion on the issue, please let me know and I will tell my opinion in the article's talk page. --Checco (talk) 10:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC) Ok I have started a new discussion, thank you for your support. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC) About my edits Hello checco, I here to talk about the changes. I do these because I want the most accurate descriptions possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemitreusFrontwest (talk • contribs) 14:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Can we have your opinion here? Hi Checco, you are an expert of the Italian politics, and we are deciding which image should be better, for Matteo Renzi. Can you give us your opinion about it? Thank you. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Hello Nick, the two images are both OK with me and I have no preference. As I already told you, please don't ask me such questions through my user talk anyomre. Sorry if I'm rough, but I already explained to you why it is better to avoid such talks. Thanks! --Checco (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Number of Italian senators Hi Checco, I have a question for you. I know that the number of Senators in the Italian Senate is 315, but when I searched on the official site of the Senate to do a graph about the composition of the groups, I saw that the number of Senators (except for the Senators for Life) was 320. Do you know why the number of Senators has changed? -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Hello Nick! The number of elected senators has not changed. 320 includes also the five senators for life. Two of them (Ciampi and Piano) sit in the Mixed Group, other two (Cattaneo and Rubbia) in the Autonomies Group, a fifth (Monti) with Civic Choice. --Checco (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Ok thank you very much! So I misunderstood the composition of the group. Do you think I should upload another version of this file with 315 senators? -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Do what you want. In the infoboxes on parties we usually include only the elected senators, but it is not a mistake to include senators for life in the the graph. BTW what do you mean with "recomposition"? Bye, --Checco (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Ok I will decide. No sorry is a mistake, I would say "composition". Anyway I will wait if other Five Star senators will leave their party. Than I will upload it correctly. Bye -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Italian parties Siccome immagino che tu sia italiano ritengo inutile parlarti in inglese: ci sono alcune tue modifiche a mio avviso sono prive di fondamento! Ti ostini a dire che Gragani è dell'Udc e che Popolari per l'Europa comprende la stessa Udc, appare evidente che tu sia rimasto indietro con le notizie, se tu guardassi il sito del Partito Popolare Europeo ti accorgeresti che la delegazione Popolari per l'Europa comprende solo Gargani e Potito Salatto: Popolari per l'Europa è solo un'associazione ma i suoi due aderenti hanno aderito a Popolari per l'Italia, in quanto entrambi hanno partecipato al congresso ed espresso la loro adesione al partito, Gargani ha aderito solo tempreaneamente all'Udc. In Forza Italia ho capito che consideri anche Mastella e Antinoro europarlametari di quel partito, ma sempre nello stesso sito vedresti che entrambi non fanno parte della delegazione di FI e si dichiarano il primo dell'Udeur e il secondo ancora dell'Udc. In pratica nell'Europarlamento sono in 15 a dichiararsi rappresentanti di Forza Italia, 14 nel Ppe e una nei conservatori europei. Prima l'Italia di Alemanno non è un partito, il sito stesso dice che si tratta di un'associazione politica, è un termine più ampio rispetto al partito in senso stretto. Ancora: dici che Autonomia Sud è compresa in Realtà Italia, invece sono due sono partiti distinti che hanno stipulato un patto federativo ([7]). Io invece mi sono sbagliato a dire che sono partiti regionali esclusivi di Campania e Basilicata perché sono presenti anche in altre regioni meridionali. Infine: Per l'Italia NON è assolutamente un partito: Come fai a dire che un mero gruppo parlamentare è un partito??? Quest'ultimo è sicuramente l'errore più grave, sono 2 cose diverse, non puoi non saperlo, quello è un template solo per partiti in quanto tali! Ti sarei grato se abbandonassi un attimo questo tuo atteggiamento sulle pagine di politica italiana in inglese ed avere un atteggiamento un po' più collaborativo con gli altri utenti che cercano di collaborare, non puoi annullare tutte le modifiche degli altri per partito preso, ok?--Maremmano (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Hello Maremmano, I'm going to answer to you in English because this is en.Wikipedia and we need to use English for the sake of other users, who might be interested in our talks. Secondly, it is better to raise these issues in the article's talks, so that other users can say their opinion too (as they had already done in some cases, including the issue you raised on PpI's MEPs). I did not rollback each and every edit you did (I even thanked you for one of them), but only those I did not agree with, those which were misguided and those lacking consensus. Please be careful with moves, take care of all the double redirects generated by your moves (if those moves are accepted by other users), restrain from repeating edits over and over and, more important, seek consensus through article's talks (not user's talks). In short: Populars for Europe is a grouping within the EPP group including UdC, PpI (fomerly FLI) and SVP MEPs (there are sources for that, there was even a talk on that in the PpI article's talk, Italian MEPs' pages are not always updated for several reasons, etc.). Gargani is definitely a member of the UdC (read the above mentioned PpI article's talk). Please do not confuse Italian journalistic/political terms (like movimento or associazione) with political science—and please consider that parliamentary groups are by definition political parties, as parties can be only parliamentary (I understand that having For Italy in the parties' template could be redundant or even wrong for you, but I think it is useful for readers to know that the UdC and the PpI are in close relationship in the Italian Parliament). Reality Italy is a minor national party as it is active in more than three regions; it's OK to classify Autonomy South as a Campania-only party. Please do not answer to me here, but in article's talks. I will discuss with you only there for the sake of other users. --Checco (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Regional Council Hi Checco, I know that you talked about it many months ago (maybe years), but I really don't understand why we should not insert the seats of each parties in the Regional Councils as all other parties all over the world here in en.Wiki. Thank you for your attention. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC) I was just writing to you. You know why I oppose the thing, and I explained it to you again in your talk page. --Checco (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Ok you are right, probably you have just told me some months ago, but I think it is still a good thing. I took that data from it.Wiki I don't invent anything. I hope that data from it.Wiki are correct. Anyway I will not do it again, but I remain by my ideas, no to insert the seats of Regional Councils is a mistake. Parties from France, Spain, UK, Brazil, from all over the world have the Regional Councils' seats, I don't understand why Italian ones must not have it. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC) It.Wiki is not a reliable source and, in fact, there is no official source tracking all the movements of regional councillors (it is already difficult to do it with MPs and MEPs!). However, as I told you many times, the main reason why I think the number of regional councillors is a redundant, unrelevant and deceptive information is that their number is quite disproportionate among regions. Thanks for your honesty. Good night, --Checco (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Ok but the last one according to me, is not a good reason. In every country there are regions with more councilors than other ones, or maybe I think so. I still don't understand. Anyway I will not insert anymore the seats. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Lega Nord Hi Checco, I have a question for you: What do you think about the new "trend" that Salvini is giving to Lega Nord? Do you think that LN will do well in the European election? I would like to listen to your opinion about that, because I saw that LN is growing in the polls, and I think that they will probably do better than in the general election of the past year. What do you think? Thanks for you attention. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC) I agree. Salvini's "movimentism", his participation to several talk shows, new communication techniques, the big issue of basta Euro (30-40% of Italians oppose the Euro and LN is basically the only mainstream party clearly against it) and low turnout will all contribute to a strong showing of LN in the election. Thanks to the "anti-Euro" vote and the referendums the party is proposing, LN might even take more votes than usual in the South. It is too early to make predictions, but I'm quite sure the party will pass the 4% threshold and could even reach 6% of the vote. Salvini's new course, including the new alliance the party will form in the European Parliament, has a lot to do with the EP election, less with a durable change in the party's ideology. More generally, I think that LN has saved itself once again from political death (for reasons which are a bit obscure to me) and its nature of catch-all party has been re-launched. --Checco (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, after all the scandals of the Bossi's family and the "magic circle" Salvini succeeded in giving to LN a new style, and you know, in Italy people quickly forgotten. Anyway I think that LN will enter in the European Parliament and I think that it can regain lot of votes that it had lost in February elections in favor of the M5S, especially in the North-East. And Salvini is also very active in the affair of the Venetian secessionists who had been arrested a week ago. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Two questions If the article is a little bit awkward in English, Democrats of the Left must be moved to Democrats of Left and Federation of the Greens to Federation of Greens. You created the page Socialist Party (Italy, 2007–08) but this party doesn't exist. This page regards The New PSI and The Italian Socialist Party (2007), It should be deleted--Maremmano (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC) I shared your doubts seven or eight years ago, but it seems that terms like "Centre", "Left", etc. are always preceded by articles in English. Anyway, I don't think it would be wise to move articles with such established titles, unless those titles are completely wrong. The party was a split from the New PSI and was active between 2007 and 2008, thus why should we delete it? As I told you before, please edit articles' talk pages and, in case, link here just the threads you opened. Thanks, --Checco (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC) There is a source about the existence of this Socialist Party? I know that De Michelis joined directly to Socialist Party (Italy, 2007). I haven't found sources about this party. However the discussion is there (Talk:Socialist Party (Italy, 2007–08))--Maremmano (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Hi, I think you understand that a party without any source cannot be considered encyclopedic, therefore I have required a speedy deletion for this page--Maremmano (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Other questions about the italian parties Hi, I have to say/ask you other things about the italian parties: You said that "it seems that terms like Centre, Left, etc. are always preceded by articles in English", but can be moved Federation of the Greens to Federation of Greens? I've seen that you write only "Lega" in the template for the regional sections of the Lega Nord, but "Lega Nord+region" isn't a long name therefore it is correct, in the same template there are more longer names of parties. The only word "Lega" can be confusing. I've also seen that you moved League for Autonomy - Lombard Alliance to Lega Alpina Lumbarda, but the Lega Alpina is a former party, these parties require two different pages...--Maremmano (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC) As I told you before, I would like you to open similar threads directly at the articles' talks. However, here are my answers: "Federation of the Greens" is the literal translation of Federazione dei Verdi and is perfectly OK in English, thus why should we move it? As we have "Lega Lombarda" and "Liga Veneta", we could easily have "Lega Piemont", "Lega Liguria", etc. I know that the template includes longer names for some parties, but not everyone of them can be easily shortened. The party's original and most recent name is Lega Alpina Lumbarda, that is why I moved the article (you had moved without consensus to "League for Autonomy - Lombard Alliance") to that name. We could have two different pages (Lega Alpina Lumbarda and Lega Alleanza Lombarda or Lega per l'Autonomia), but I'm not sure it would be a good idea as we're talking about the same party, which merely changed its name. --Checco (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Also Movement for Autonomies is the literal translation of Movimento per le Autonomie. Lega Lombarda and Liga Veneta are correct, but the others regional sections have also the word Nord in their name, these names aren't long and the name Lega Nord is yet written in the template, the names with only the word "Lega" are wrong and unused. Finally, the "League for Autonomy - Lombard Alliance" was the result of the fusion between "Lega Alpina Lumbarda" and "Autonomia Alleanza Lombarda". The name Lega Alpina Limbarda is only used in 2009 by LAL, but the actual name remains "Lega per l'Autonomia-Alleanza Lombarda-Lega Pensionati". I have written in your talk page because it is more practical for some things--Maremmano (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC) I know there are some inconstincies in articles' names. Some names have been adopted or moved without my consensus (that's the case of "Movement for Autonomies"). Please open threads in the articles' talk pages and, if you want my comment there, just link those talks here. --Checco (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC) About the template, where is established that the Lega Nord's regional sections have to be written without the word "Nord"? If there isn't a discussion, these names are your inventions. If you don't show me the discussion that establishes these names, the more correct names are the original ones!--Maremmano (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "Established version" means that it has been that way for a long time. I already told you why I support that version. --Checco (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry but you can not decide all by yourself, these names are invented, I have to cancel your last edit, the original names prevail on short invented names--Maremmano (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC) The discussion about the name of the Mpa is here--Maremmano (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Have you the consensus to enter invented names in the template? It isn't important if it is an "Established version" but the names are wrong. Your edits are not better than my, you have to require the consensus in the talk page for these invented names, otherwise the original names have to prevail--Maremmano (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC) If you disagree, open a thread in the related talk page. Thanks, --Checco (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC) You know that no one will act in a discussion in the Talk page, but the invencted names can't be remain in the template!!--Maremmano (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC) DC color Hi Checco, I would ask you something; do you know why and who decided the color for the Christian Democracy? I know, white which is the "official color" (Balena bianca), is not possible, but maybe a lightskyblue should be better than yellow. I just like to know why they chose that color. Thank you very much! -- Nick.mon (talk), 13 May 2014, 19:03 (UTC) I have no idea and I agree with you: lightskyblue (or, better, a darker blue as that of DC's last symbol) would be much better than yellow. If there is a place where people are discussing on this or you open a discussion, please let me know. --Checco (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Yes I think that or lightskyblue or the blue also used for Italian People's Party (1919) is the best one. Maybe I can edit it and than if someone doesn't agree we will discuss about it. -- Nick.mon (talk), 14 May 2014, 15:39 (UTC) Sure. The PPI 1919's color is the best and I would use it also for the PPI 1994. --Checco (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I tried many times which color, in my view should be the best one, and I chose at the end, the lightskyblue, even if I think that also the one of the PPI was very good, but it make confusion with the one of the PLI, and so I decided to use the lightskyblue. Of course if you and other users think that PPI's color is better we will change it even if I have already edit all the elections maps and parliament diagrams with the new color! -- Nick.mon (talk), 15 May 2014, 19:57 (UTC) Ma che fai? Checco, ma perchè fai così? Io a questo punto sto cominciando a chiedermi se ci sei o ci fai! Questa volta voglio parlarti in italiano, tanto è una talk page personale e possiamo parlare in che lingua ci pare, nessuno ci viene a dire nulla, ormai è chiaro che in inglese non riusciamo proprio a capirci. Sono davvero stupefatto dai tuoi ultimi interventi, un utente con la tua esperienza dovrebbe conoscerle bene le regole di wikipedia, dovresti sapere che le ricerche originali sono proibite e che le informazioni inserite devono essere dimostrate dalle fonti. Ho come l'idea che tu ormai ti senta un pò il padrone delle pagine sulla politica italiana. Sostieni delle fantasiose teorie ma quando ti chiedo di dimostrarle con le fonti tu non lo fai. Parli di "scienza politica", dici che en.Wikipedia aderisce a stantard europei/internazionale (come se l'Italia ne fosse esclusa), ma è la stessa en.Wikipedia a distingure tra Political party e Parliamentary group/Parliamentari party!!! Tu ti basi solo su una teoria dottrinale, ma dove sta scritto che Wikipedia deve basarsi sulle teorie dottrinali? Da nessuna parte, perché Wikipedia distingue giustamente tra gruppi parlamentari e partiti politici, come ti ho già dimostrato. Ti ho anche dimostrato che questi "parliamentary party" sono considerati solo gruppi parlamentari da Wikipedia, prova tangibile che Wikipedia non aderisce alle teorie dottrinali che tu hai citato! E soprattutto tu non ti puoi ostinare a dire che i Federalisti e Liberaldemocratici erano un partito se questa cosa non c'è scritta da nessuna parte, LE RICERCHE ORIGINALI SU WIKIPEDIA SONO VIETATE, tu dovresti saperlo! Al contrario io ho dimostrato con le fonti che erano solo un gruppo parlamentare (al quale aderivano partiti come Unione di Centro e Federalisti Liberali). Te ne approfitti perchè non c'è nessuno che controlla queste pagine, ma se tu non mi dimostri con le fonti quello che dici io ho tutto il diritto di annullare questi tuoi interventi, perchè se un utente non ha le fonti e uno le ha, prevale per forza quest'ultimo, queste sono le regole basilari di Wikipedia, non fingere di non saperlo, un utente esperto come te lo sa per forza! Continui a ripetere che non ho il consenso per fare certe modifiche, ma tu sei appoggiato solo da un tuo alleato virtuale non dimostrando però che Wikipedia aderisce a certe idee, io invece le mie ragioni te le ho dimostrato in tutti i modi. Le fonti su Wikipedia sono essenziali, su una fonte può prevalere solo un'altra fonte più affidabile, non puoi approfittarti del fatto che attualmente siamo solo in tre gatti a contribuire a queste pagine. A volte bisogna ammettere di sbagliare, io lo ammetto che certe volte ho sbagliato (per esempio sulla breve edit war della pagina Populars for Italy avevi ragione tu). Infine sono rimasto abbastanza stupito quando ho visto che hai spostato Fortza Paris a Fortza Paris - Partito del Popolo Sardo, un nome completamente sbagliato e senza mezza fonte. Ti invito al dialogo, ti prego questa volta di rispondermi in italiano sulla mia talk page, nelle nostre pagine di discussione personali si può fare, voglio chiarire con te una volta per tutte questa cosa e se continuiamo a parlarci in inglese sarebbe un dialogo tra sordi. Ciao--Maremmano (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC) I am very sorry to disappoint you, but I don't like the idea of using Italian in en.Wikipedia (everything we write here is public, otherewise you would have used personal email). I find a little bit difficult to comunicate with Italians—and language is not the problem. You know what, the main reason why I contribute to en.Wiki is that here there is a wider agreement on (and knowledge of) political/politological concepts, terms, standards, etc. Italians are usually very confused on these issues. Just think about all those people, including politicians and journalists, who keep saying that the M5S (or LN for that matter) is not a party, but a "movement"! On the "political party v. parliamentary group" issue, I continue to think that you don't understand the basic notions of political science. A Wikipedia article can never be a source for another Wikipedia article, but let's take for good the defintion of "political party" contained in the article on the subject: isn't "organization of people which seeks to achieve goals common to its members through the acquisition and exercise of political power" a definition which includes also the FLD? That's what I think and also Autospark tried to explain this to you. I'm sorry about that, but I can't appease you everytime. This said, I really appreciate your words and your new attitude to discussion. Pages on Italian politics are not my property, but I'm free to support my views and urge you to seek consensus through talk pages. On some issues I agree with you, on others I don't. Neither you nor I is the custodian or the depository of truth. I love to discuss, but I think we should spend more energies in improving pages instead of wasting them for technical issues (otherwise, en.Wiki would become the same as it.Wiki: that would be the best way for convincing me not to contribute anymore). Your knowledge and insights are exceptionally useful for en.Wiki and I'm happy that you are willing to share them, along with your time. Let's try to find common ground on the single issues, but please pay more attention to customs and European politological standards and be more respectful for established customs and the work other users have done. --Checco (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC) If we spoke in Italian it was better. Following your reasoning Popolo e Territorio, Coesione Nazionale, Sinistra Indipendente (I repeat: INDIPENDENTE), Per le Autonomie-SVP-MAIE are parties! You haven't understood the great difference between Parties and groups, the italian standards are identical to international standards, how can you not understand? Why makes Wikipedia a distinction between Political parties and political groups if they are the same thing?--Maremmano (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, but this is en.Wiki, thus English is used here. It seems like you are confusing political parties, which can be parliamentary-only (as in the case of the FLD) or, for that matter, extra-parliamentary (there are even parties which don't participate in elections), with parliamentary groups/parties. I perfectly understand your point, but I still think there is a difference from the FLD and the other cases you mentioned. Finally, let me tell you once again that this is not the place for such a discussion; please use Talk:List of political parties in Italy or other talk pages. See you there, --Checco (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC) The FLD is an identical case to the groups mentioned. Or we put all group (that for you are the same thing of parties) or we don't put anyone--Maremmano (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Saluti Ciao, sono momentaneamente tornato (in effetti solo sulla pagina per le elezioni europee), spero vada tutto bene, ovviamente parlo di qua visto che non avevamo rapporti personali e non mi vorrei fare i fatti tuoi. --Francomemoria (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Hello, it's great to hear from you! You disappeared from one day to another and I even thought something bad had happened to you... Welcome back. Everything is good and, as you see, I edit virtually only en.Wiki now. --Checco (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Democratic Party Scusa ma io credo che dovremmo inserire le ideologie third way e progressismo nella pagina del PD. Penso sia il tempo di parlare di questo almeno qui visto che l'ultima talk è stata a Gennaio e con poca gente. Dimmi un po' che ne pensi Barjimoa (Talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Please excuse me if I answer to you in English, but this is en.Wikipedia and all the public talks should be intelligible by English speakers. I disagree with you: I think that both "third way" and "progressivism" are generic terms, already included and implied by "social democracy". --Checco (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Venetismo Ciao Checco. Scusa se ti scrivo qui, e non sulla wiki italiana, ma c'è un problema riguardo alla possibile occultazione di questo messaggio. Mi sento più sicuro a scriverti qui. Posso chiederti cosa pensi riguardo a questo. Lo chiedo a te perchè ho visto che la pensi un po come me, e forse puoi fare qualcosa a riguardo. Il problema è che ci sono degli utenti (uno in particolare) che fanno di tutto per oscurare l'argomento lasciando la pagina in uno stato poco decoroso, anche utilizzando i poteri di cui sono stati investiti dalla comunità; Io ho già fatto più di una modifica a riguardo, tutte rollbackate da un solo utente, ed una volta ho scritto una pagina su un argomento collegato ad esso, ed è stata derisa e ridicolizzata da tutti (poi cancellata). grazie per l'attenzione, che spero tu voglia dare a cio.--79.45.209.27 (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC) E scusa se ti scrivo in italiano. Rispondimi pure in inglese, se vuoi, ma ti chiedo solo di farlo in questa pagina. --79.45.209.27 (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC) I fully agree with you and the next time I come to it.Wiki I will write something in your support. --Checco (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you very much. I begin to think that what you write is not highly regarded in the discussions, but that is just a voice which no one wants to give importance. I advised the Veneto and Politica projects, I also tried to start a Vaglio, but nothing. I'm glad that at least this version is cleaner than the Italian one, and that here we do not use the powers in an authoritarian manner (I refer to the admins). Ciao toso, te ringrassio. --79.40.155.61 (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC) NCD Veneto Autonomo Hi Checco, I don't really understand why you created the page New Centre-Right Autonomous Veneto, the sources say only that the party will add "Veneto Autonomo" in its name for the group in the regional council and for the regional election, but there isn't a real reason to create a page for this, it is a simple regional section of NCD... --Maremmano (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Hi, as usual I'm going to answer to you in the article's talk page. --Checco (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Do not invent translations of political party names Please do not invent english translations for party names in other languages. If mainstream media does not agree to use an english name, we are not allowed to invent one. Please read here. Thanks.--Sajoch (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC) Au contraire. The general principle is to translate all party names into English. An exception is done in cases when the native name is overwhelmingly used in English-language media (like Sinn Fein, BJP, etc). --Soman (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC) Big difference: we should not translate names, but only use the translations where they exist. In fact, for the party I referred to ("Die Freiheitlichen"), the english-language media always uses the native name.--Sajoch (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC) Fruili template I have already history-merged Template:Country data Friuli-Venezia Giulia (with hyphen) to Template:Country data Friuli–Venezia Giulia (with dash). If your computer is still showing "please delete" boxes in it, that is due to lag in flushing buffers in the system that handles buffering of pages which transclude templates. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC) No, you hadn't (hyphens!), but I was able to do it by myself a couple of minutes ago. --Checco (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC) A new group? Hi Checco, I saw in it.Wikipedia in the page about the XVII Legislatura that they wrote about a new parliamentary group in the two Houses, the Costituente Popolare, formed by NCD and For Italy, do you think it is correct? Or better, they have already founded it? And should we create a new page? Thank you -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC) Hello Nick, we surely need an article, but let's wait until the group is listed either in the Senate's website or the Chamber's website. Regarding the possible name for the article, I would choose between "Popular Constituent Assembly" or "People's Constituent Assembly". --Checco (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC) Ps: But will it be a gruppo in its own right or just an intergruppo? We need a new article only in the first case. Ok let's wait until the the group will be listed in the Senate's website. Sorry but I don't know, anyway ai think it wikl be a gruppo. When we will have the official name we will choose the translation and I will upload a new version of the Parliament's graph.-- Nick.mon (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC) Flag Hi, the Italian flag (which only a small proportion of users would ever be able to distinguish as such) comes directly after the word "Italy". It appears to be simply decorative, which the style guides discourage. Is there are reason to retain it? Tony (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Benečija" Slovenians had an influence on Veneto in ancient times, during the duchy of Carantania, so I suppose that for a respect to the history of Slovenia "Benečija" should be written back to the other names for the historical names of the region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristijan Đorđević (talk • contribs) 03:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)