For older talks see:

• Archive 1 (January-December 2006)
• Archive 2 (January-April 2007)
• Archive 3 (May-August 2007)
• Archive 4 (September-December 2007)
• Archive 5 (January-March 2008)
• Archive 6 (April-June 2008)
• Archive 7 (July-September 2008)
• Archive 8 (October-December 2008)
• Archive 9 (January-June 2009)
• Archive 10 (July-December 2009)
• Archive 11 (January-December 2010)
• Archive 12 (January-December 2011)
• Archive 13 (January-December 2012)
• Archive 14 (January-December 2013)
• Archive 15 (January-December 2014)
• Archive 16 (January-December 2015)

Hi there, I thought it would be a good idea to contact you as you seem not to have taken too strong a side on the Talk:Labour Party (UK) debate as to whether Labour is centre-left or something else. I thought that you may be able to calm things down (I'm trying to moderate the amount of edits I do but I can see temperatures rising. As you also seem not to be a UK resident you are probably not affected by the sheer emotion that the current leadership seems to bring in the UK.

My argument is as follows:

• The "consensus" that Labour is centre-left is actually a consensus that the 1995-2010 leadership was centre-left. In my opinion this was certainly a reasonable conclusion (in fact I'd go further and say that the John Smith and the post 87 Kinnock leadership were more or less centre-left).
• Due to the relatively long lived control over the upper (and some of the middle and lower) reaches of the party this was seen to be the same as the party being centre left. There was no such consensus (the amount of active members and MPs saying that they "wanted their party back" was a testament to this).
• However it did not really matter so no one worried too much.
• Jeremy Corbyn (and particularly his very high vote) has provided a shock to perceptions. To say that Labour is centre-left was always inaccurate, now it's just absurd.
• So I'm not saying that Labour is not centre-left because of Corbyn, but that Labour was never centre-left across the board. Corbyn (and more importantly his election victory) is the symptom rather than the source.

Longer than expected, but I hope that this sorts this out. I will patiently marshall decent sources for this argument.

JASpencer (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for sharing your views with me. As your recognised, I'm neither a UK resident nor a UK politics expert, thus I duly respect your opinion. We probably have different views on what "centre-left" means, though. In fact, I do think that the Labour Party has been a centre-left and social-democratic party for most of its history, similarly to the German SPD and differently from the French SFIO/PS, the Spanish PSOE and the Italian PSI. Corbyn's election as party leader and its high vote are definitely a rupture, whose consequences are far from certain. It might even cause a split. In a nutshell, it is too early to say anything more than what has been written or said over the last decades. In my view, as of today, the Labour Party is still centre-left and social-democratic. --Checco (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the following ongoing discussion. --Robertiki (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Checco, how are you? I saw you have moved the page about the Liberal Democratic Party (Italy), but which is the correct transaltion for Partito Liberale Democratico? There are many parties translated "Liberal Democratic" like the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan). What do you think? -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usually English translations of Romance-language names invert words. What is the main adjective in Partito Liberale Democratico? Liberale, then the name will be translated into "Democratic Liberal Party". The only exceptions are those names which are consistently translated in a different ways; just think of Partito Nazionale Fascista: the correct translation would be "Fascist National Party", but, as there are several publications citing the "National Fascist Party", the Wikipedia page is named "National Fascist Party" (I would, however, support any proposal to move the article to "National Fascist Party"). --Checco (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you so much! I will change the name in the pages where it has been cited. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Checco, I have a question for you, which is the correct transaltion for Sottosegretario di Stato alla Presidenza del Consiglio? Because I saw that in some articles it is translated "State Secretary to the Prime Ministers", in other pages "Undersecretary to the Presidency of the Council" and also "State Secretary of the Council"... which is the correct one? I ask you this question because I would create an article about this office. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the most correct translation of Sottosegretario (di Stato) alla Presidenza del Consiglio is "Undersecretary to the Presidency of the Council". However, I imagine you want to create an article on the specific office of Segretario del Consiglio (held succesively by Enrico Letta, Gianni Letta, Antonio Catricalà, Filippo Patroni Griffi, Graziano Delrio, Claudio De Vincenti and Maria Elena Boschi); its translation would be "Secretary of the Council". --Checco (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like to creare an article about that office, from Cappa and Andreotti in 1940s to the ones in 2000s. So te correct translation would be "Secretary of the Council", thank you so much -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Checco, I would like to ask you something. Do you think that the governments led by Renzi and Gentiloni are "mixed coalition" cabinets or two centre-left cabinets? Because the "Grand coalition" ended with the born of Forza Italia in 2013, and maybe PD and Popular Area will be ally in the next election. So, should we considered them "broad agreement governments" (as we do now in the page List of Prime Ministers of Italy) or two centre-left governments? Thank you and happy holidays -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I would ask you some more. In this period I'm improving articles about Italian ministers like the Interior Ministers, Foreign Affairs Ministers ecc.. and I would like to known your opinion about the column "Ministry": do you think that the most correct setting is the current one, that I created, or the one which use the name of the Prime Ministers instead of their cabinets, as for the page List of Italian Ministers of Economy and Finances? -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let me ask you to open discussions like these on talk pages (for instance Talk:Gentiloni Cabinet and Talk:Italian Minister of the Interior), so that other people can see those threads and have a say. I'm sure I told you this before. It doesn't matter whether I have a talk and its related article in my watchlist or not, you can always "call" me writing [[User:Checco]] in your text. Please, do this for me. This said, let's go to your questions...

I do think that, while Letta Cabinet was a grand coalition government (I would never use "broad agreement government", if not between inverted commas, because it doesn't mean much in English), both Renzi Cabinet and Gentiloni Cabinet have been centre-left governments. These are of course broad-based definitions: just think of the cabinets of Alexis Tsipras in Greece: they are definitely left-wing, even though the junior partner in the coalition is a right-wing one. In fact, some English-language sources use expressions like left-right governments, which is applicable both to grand coalition governments and the Tsipras cabinets. While I was at it, I noticed that in List of Prime Ministers of Italy several governments' member parties are not mentioned, including, in recent years, SC, the PpI, DeS, the PSI, etc.

Finally, I don't really have a strong opinion on the "ministry" issue, but I would probably have both the governments and the prime ministers. In case you have to decide between the former or the latter, I would prefereably omit the prime ministers, but it is totally up to you!

Happy new year, my dear Wiki-friend. Next year we will have a lot to do...

Cheers, --Checco (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right, I always forget to start the discussion in the apposite pages. Anyway thank you for your opinions, maybe we'll continue the discussion about the governments of Renzi and Gentiloni in their talk pages.

Thanks for your wishes and yes, I think that it will be a long year! -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Can you please read WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE as you are regularly incorrectly changing links which don't require it. Thanks you. Anglicanus (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the content of WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE. The latter does not apply to our case (or, better, it applies more to your conduct than mine: [[Protestant|Reformed]] is a good example of piped link), while on the former I have a few things to say.

I know that "there is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles", but can you tell me why, in your view, [[Roman Catholic Church]] would be better than [[Catholic Church|Roman Catholic Church]], [[Catholic]] than [[Catholicism|Catholic]], [[Protestant]] than [[Protestantism|Protestant]], [[Anglican]] than [[Anglicanism|Anglican]], [[Anglo-Catholic]] than [[Anglo-Catholicism|Anglo-Catholic]], [[continuing Anglican]] than [[Continuing Anglican movement|continuing Anglican]], and [[Primate of All England]] than [[Primates in the Anglican Communion|Primate of All England]]?

It is just your preference over mine, your interpretation of the guidelines over mine.

There was nothing detrimental in my edits. They might have been a wast of time, but not something bad for the encyclopedia. They created no problems. None the redirects you re-introduced indicate possible future articles, are "shortcuts or redirects to embedded anchors or sections of articles etc.", link intentionally to disambiguation pages, and so on, and non of "my links" introduced unnecessary invisible text.

Cheers, --Checco (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand on "redundant infos—in case, re-introduce with explanation"? I'm not clear what you mean. Furius (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Checco,

instead of just reverting the inclusion of File:Italy-2nd-rep-parties.svg, could you please give feedback as to why you think it is "not particularly clear, helpful and useful", and what one could do the remedy your concerns?

It may be that you, coming from Italy, have a very particular view on this. For someone from outside Italy, the italian political landscape with its dozens of parties is extremely confusing. The graphic aims at giving at least a rough overview of the parties, when they were active, and in which coalitions they took part in elections. For someone from outside Italy this information might be a crucial first step to navigating the complex of Italian politics.

Thanks, --Lommes (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity: How likely is it that these three will merge? —Nightstallion 08:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nightstallion, it has been a long time since our latest chat! I hope you are doing fine, like me.

Looking at my crystal ball, I guess there is a good chance that MDP, SI, CP and, possibly, Possible (almost a word game!) and the Federation of the Greens will form a joint list for the next general election, even though virtually half of MDP deputies are splinters from SI, there had been tense relations between the latter and those who remained in SI, and the split caused more damage to SI than the PD. Joint lists are definitely more common than full-flegded mergers in Italy, and the Italian left, at least that to the left of the PD, is endemically fragmented, not to mention the Communist parties and other minor outfits. For the joint list, much will depend on the electoral system and also on the oucome of the PD's leadership race. It is really hard to tell. Sorry for not being much helpful.

--Checco (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Rupert Loup (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rupert Loup (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]