Talk:Brothers of Italy#rfc B722042

{{Edit semi-protected|Brothers of Italy|answered=yes}}

it says post-fascism and is wrong. Ignaciovnz (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

::I agree with User:Ignaciovnz that "post-fascism" is inappropriate, but having it in the infobox is a compromise. I am open to rediscussing it, of course. --Checco (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

:::{{Ping|Checco}} I also agree with User:Ignaciovnz, it's not a precise definition. JacktheBrown (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I would love to remove it, but we need a broad consensus, as "post-fascism" was added after a long discussion. --Checco (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{Ping|Checco}} why don't we start a new discussion about it? JacktheBrown (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::My position is abundantly clear. As I explained multiple times in the past, neither "post-fascism" nor "neo-fascism" should be mentioned in the infobox. The majority of sources do not describe the party as neo-fascist, even though several of them state that it has neo-fascist roots. The party is thus not neo-fascist, but post-post-post-post-fascist (also its direct predecessors were not neo-fascist, indeed). However, post-fascism is not an ideology and should not be included in the infobox as such. This said, the current settlement of "ideology" in the infobox was reached through long disucssions, multiple RfCs and a broad consensus. In my view, the only thing you can do is to start a new RfC. Probably, the current consensus will not change a lot, though. I have nothing more to add, but, in case you start a new RfC, I will definitely participate. --Checco (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:::{{Ping|Checco}} I'll think about it, usually my RFCs and title change requests go very well (except the ones lost at the start), but I don't want to be overconfident. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Why are we using post-fascism instead of neo-fascism in the infobox when neo-fascism is much better cited with twice as many sources as post-fascism? I can see there have been multiple very long discussions over this so can someone please give me an answer, as I don't really have time to go through all those discussions. Helper201 (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Helper201}}, we don’t assess this sort of thing by counting sources in the article (WP:SOURCECOUNTING, you should know this since it was discussed at an RfC you started at Talk:Reform), see the survey I did at Talk:Brothers of Italy/Archive 3#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2). Basically recent scholarly sources don’t call them neo-fascist, a plurality call them post-fascist. It was also a compromise between editors wanting neo-fascist, and editors wanting nothing at all. I’m going to change the infobox note to cite 2 sources for each so it doesn’t imply anything about due. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:FWIW, post-fascism is cited by four sources in the body. Sources included in an article are practically never exhaustive Kowal2701 (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{U|Kowal2701}} also remember WP:DUE. If something has more weight by being backed by more sources than something else then it does not make sense to give something with less weight more prominence (i.e. WP:UNDUE weight). The rest of your explanation helps to explain the why it’s understandable in this case but alone stating WP:SOURCECOUNTING would not be justifiable reasoning. Helper201 (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|Helper201}}, that's true, but in future please have a quick look through search engines as DUE is relative to the total amount of sources, and a survey of even the first 5 sources would usually give you an idea of NPOV. FWIW if the RfC at Reform had just listed sources supporting it (making clear which ones were media and which ones were scholarly), my !vote would have been more difficult (but probably would've ended up deferring to the BBC due to their high standards for neutrality and authority re UK politics). Kowal2701 (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@User:Julius Schwarz: The party has now 116 seats in the Chamber. How do I update that figure through Template:Political party data? -- Checco (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for your message, @Checco. As indicated in the documentation, the template is updated directly from Wikidata, and the link to the relevant Wikidata page for Brothers of Italy should be added as a comment in the infobox. There, look for "number of seats in assembly" and add a new entry, marking it as preferred (and the current value as normal). Either you do it directly or, if you have a source, I am happy to do it for you! Julius Schwarz (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:FYI I added information in the module/template on how to update data, see Template:EUPP data/doc#Updating the template. Julius Schwarz (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hi @Checco, I see that you made the change on Wikidata, thanks! However, I note that you just edited the current value. Is there a reason you did not create a new value with a source for the change? This would be preferable to track the evolution of parties' representation. All I am finding is [https://www.camera.it/leg19/46 this] and [https://www.camera.it/leg19/1083 this] for a list of changes but it actually shows a decrease of 1 occurring on 14 May. Julius Schwarz (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I have not understood well how Wikidata works. Could you please fix it? --Checco (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::No problem at all, of course. Do you have a source for the change in seats? Or can you give me more details about what happened? Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::[https://www.camera.it/leg19/1083 This] is the main source, but there are others as well. Thanks, --Checco (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Are we sure the parliamentary group matches the party membership? Because that link is not for the party itself. Julius Schwarz (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)