Talk:2022 Italian general election

1994 Italian general election
	Chamber of Deputies
	All 630 seats in the Chamber of Deputies
Proportional
First-past-the-post
	Senate
	All 315 elective seats in the Senate of the Republic
	Maps
	Results of the single-member constituencies in the Chamber of Deputies (left) and Senate (right)
Carlo Azeglio Ciampi; Independent	Silvio Berlusconi; Forza Italia

1994 Italian general election
	Chamber of Deputies
	All 630 seats in the Chamber of Deputies; 163 seats needed for a majority
PdL–PDG led by Silvio Berlusconi (366 seats)
Alliance of Progressives led by Achille Occhetto (213 seats)
Pact for Italy led by Mario Segni (46 seats)
Other parties
	Senate
	All 315 elective seats in the Senate of the Republic
	Maps
	Results of the single-member constituencies in the Chamber of Deputies (left) and Senate (right)
Carlo Azeglio Ciampi; Independent	Silvio Berlusconi; Forza Italia

2022 Italian general election
	Chamber of Deputies
	All 400 seats in the Chamber of Deputies
Turnout	29,355,592 · 63.8% (9.1 pp)
Centre-right coalition (237 seats)
Centre-left coalition (85 seats)
Parties not in coaltions
	Results for the Chamber of Deputies (FPTP on the left, PR on the right)
	Senate
	All 200 elective seats in the Senate
Turnout	28,795,727 · 63.7% (9.3 pp)
Centre-right coalition (115 seats)
Centre-left coalition (44 seats)
Parties not in coaltions
	Results for the Senate of the Republic (FPTP on the left, PR on the right)

A news item involving 2022 Italian general election was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 28 September 2022.

Wikipedia

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Italy High‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

September 25 to October 1, 2022

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Giorgia Meloni Premier (cropped 2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox format

I am totally aware that this topic has been widely addressed in the past, and that I strongly supported the current format, however, following the result of the last elections and following the reasoning above by User:Chuborno, I realize that the current infobox is too complex and specifically designed on the basis of the 2018 election. I know that I am changing my mind, and this may not "please" someone, but now I believe that the format with the results of coalition and coalition leader is preferable to the current one. In 2018 the problem was the absence of a clear leader in the center-right coalition, but it is clear that the leadership was contested only by Salvini and Berlusconi (Giorgia Meloni, at the time, obtained only 4% of the votes and was out of contention from the beginning). On the contrary, in the elections of 2022, it was immediately evident that the natural candidate for premier of the coalition was only her (and the results proved it). The current format also has the defect of not showing a distribution of seats to parties based on the votes they have obtained (in fact they include the seats obtained thanks to the support of the entire coalition in the single-member constituencies). In conclusion, I realize that the current format is too complex and would need a simplification, on this I backtrack and I admit that I focused too much on the 2018 result alone, IMHO it would be preferable to go back to the previous format: the problem of the 2018 coalition would be easily solved by indicating Salvini and Berlusconi as co-leaders of the coalition, we would not invent anything since the same sources claimed that they were competing for leadership (moreover, the co-presence of two leaders is already present in other infoboxes). I await comments on it. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC) (all this in the awareness that the current electoral law does not provide for official coalition leaders, but only party leaders)[reply]

Strongly disagree. The current format has been decided after a VERY long discussion, and is the outcome of the community consensus (consensus also supported by Scia Della Cometa) regarding the change in the Italian electoral law and the adaptation of the election infoboxes. So, the decision was not made because of an a posteriori determination based on the results of the election, but instead because of an a priori analysis of the Italian electoral law. This electoral law (the current one) gives more seats to party lists than to coalitions, hence it was decided to give more importance to the parties in the infobox (i.e. showing them first) and then adding the total (parties + coalition) results in the bottom. Given that the electoral law of the 2018 and 2022 general elections is exactly the same (only the number of seats changed), I do not see any reason to have a different rule for this election. Also, I strongly agree with the concept that the format of election infoboxes should not depend on the results (and on their political interpretation), but on the electoral system – this is the rational way to go. Yakme (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current infobox is a good compromise, but, as the debate was re-opened, I would still replace it with the one used for Israeli elections. --Checco (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest a slightly different take on {{Infobox legislative election}}, as shown to the right, which combines coalitions and parties, but is a lot less complex to look at? Cheers, Number 5 7 20:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, we've been discussed it for a long time, and the current format isn't wrong, I supported it myself, but ... I realize it's too bulky. I have not changed my mind simply following the result of the last election. Personally I believe that the infobox would be more pleasant if it contained only the results of the coalitions or only of the parties (ie the first part of the current infobox). If the first case, I would be in favor of both the infobox proposed by Checco and Number 57, and the infobox used until 2013 (in this case, however, it would be necessary to take into account the disputed leadership in the centre-right coalition).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like the format presented here by User:Number 57 so much! It has my vote and wholehearted support. I hope we can go ahead with it. --Checco (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this works! Appropriately uses the "Legislative infobox" format for a multi-party election. Visually represents the structure of the Rosatellum well, in that parties are the basic units while coalitions "group" them. Could be retroactively applied to 2018 as well, showing Lega and Forza as parties of roughly equal size in an alliance. (Ideally there'd be a way of representing Camera and Senate results in one table — the % column says "26.00 / 26.01", header says "% (C/S)", and same with the seats column — but I tried and the infobox format wasn't flexible enough for that, so that's fine.) Chuborno (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't participate in previous discussion that led to the current support it but I'm fine with the current status quo. 'Parties not in coalitions' look really awkward and I agree with Yakme that we must follow "the electoral system – this is the rational way to go". I may add reliable sources as well, as they clearly empashized the differences and divide among the right-wing alliance, not just as parties but as leaders too (Berlusconi and Salvini with Russian ties and Meloni's Atlanticism), as well as FI and Lega losses. Perhaps with a new electoral law emphasizing coalitions rather than parties, that infobox will be fine but as things stands both 2018 and 2022 are fine, like 1994–2013. Davide King (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, even the "Legislative infobox" as set up on the right would not lead to great differences compared to maintaining only the first part of the current infobox (which IMHO would be visually better). The current infobox was designed to indicate both the results of parties and coalitions, it certainly fulfills this function, but the aspect is that of a chimera: the double infobox is used in other cases only where there are simultaneous legislative and presidential elections , but never to indicate the result of the elections in two different ways, this is the aspect that convinces me less. Surely the "Legislative infobox" would be easily applicable to elections up to 1992, being designed for exactly that type of electoral system.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose the proposal on the right with all my strength. "Parties not in coalitions" is so ugly and meaningless with respect to the electoral system, I can't even find words. It's simply terrible to look at and to understand. It duplicates numbers and results actually making this version so much bulkier and uselessly long because stuff appears twice, once for the Chamber, once for the Senate. The current version is the best compromise we could have reached, and I stand by it (as it follows the need for single party results, it shows the coalition results, and it shows leaders, which are important in Italian elections, and are also shown in multiple election infoboxes in many other main countries in the world on WP). Also, again, the format of the infobox should depend on the system, not on the results: therefore if we ever decide to change the format for the 2022 election, we are going to use the same for the 2018 election. Yakme (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise "Parties not in coalitions" is just words I added to the infobox. It can be changed to whatever people think is a more suitable form of words. Number 5 7 08:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, what I am saying is that it's just plain wrong to separate "coalitions" and "non-coalitions". And I do not see how to use that format (limited to legislative elections with separate lists) in a way that reproduces this concept. Yakme (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the same format of 2022 would be used for 2018, indeed the focus is on an infobox suitable for the current electoral system. This discussion must be approached with serenity, it only serves to understand if another infobox, alternative in whole or in part to the current one, is possible. If we do not find an overall agreement, the current infobox obviously remains. I fully understand Yakme's observations. The results of the parties, like those of the coalitions, are very important: the only thing that does not convince me is the great size of the current infobox, which would lead me to choose only one of the two results (parties or coalition). Let's not forget that there are already tables that faithfully represent both the results, IMHO the infobox could be more synthetic. And unlike what I argued above, perhaps it would be effective if it included only the first part of the current infobox (after all, there are no coalition leaders). The infobox would still be substantially complete and the tables would still include all the information.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, as it was already said in the last discussion, the "Legislative infobox" would be designed for parties, not coalitions. Now I realize the effect is a bit "strange"...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion recovery

@Yakme, Number 57, Checco, and Nick.mon: and everyone interested in the topic: I know the discussion is likely to get boring, but I really think we should do something with the 2018 and 2022 election infoboxes. I realize that the current format (Infobox election/Infobox legislative election) is always used in completely different contexts from the Italian one: that is, it is used in the case of contemporary presidential and legislative elections. The fact that the results of the same election are reported in two different ways in the same infobox is redundant, I admit I was wrong to propose and support this solution. The infobox of these two elections is a unique case, I think it should be fixed. That is, I think we should choose which of the two infoboxes to keep: I would prefer to keep only the election Infobox, but I would eventually be open to keeping only the legislative election Infobox (although it is graphically much poorer and more sparse). Probably everyone has already expressed about it, but can we find a solution? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning! In my opinion, after the long discussion that we had almost a year ago, I think we've found a good solution. The Italian electoral law is different from any other, we have a mixed electoral system, with a PR system and FPTP, not by party but by coalition (I think it's an unicum), so in my view it's useful to have two different representations. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning to you! I see ypur point, after all it was for this reason that I supported the current format. The main problem, in my view, concerns the consistency and the purpose of this format, that in the other cases is meant to represent presidential and legislative election at the same time, and not the same election result in two different ways. Unfortunately, it doesn't exist a perfect infobox for the current Italian electoral system, but I think it would be useful having an infobox used consistently with all the other infoboxes structured in the same way...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the diagnosis, but have different suggestions for the cure. The infobox is overly large and complicated, but I think we should also consider other ways to simplify it. The maps are literally unreadable. They have text that cannot be read when they are in the infobox, on a computer screen or a phone. Those graphs should be moved into the main article text, where they can be bigger. The little pictures of the outgoing and incoming politicians at the bottom break MOS:DECORATION and should not be used. Let's make something where people can actually see what is going on. Bondegezou (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like the proposal put forward in this thread. Both parties and coalitions should be mentioned. The table would be long, but more accurate than the one currently used. I would adopt this solution for each and every election in Italy, supplanting the current infoboxes. --Checco (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco: Are you in favor of the legislative infobox shown at the beginning of this thread, right? Answering to Bondegezou, you are right, based on the infobox shown above (not my proposal) the maps would be quite illegible, (while the photos of the outgoing and outgoing Prime Minister are not necessary), for this reason I would personally prefer only the first one part of the infobox currently used on the page but larger, with more large maps.

I would like to add a consideration on the layout of the infobox: as it was already pointed out to me in the past, the legislative infobox is not intended to show only the coalition results, but mainly the results of the parties,so currently there is an objectively wrong use of this infobox on the page...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 2018 and 2022 infoboxes are perfect as they are now. I really do not understand why should we resume a decision taken so recently, just because apparently Scia Della Cometa doesn't like it anymore. I don't think anyone could care less – of course apart from the usual editors who like to come here every day and look for a new reason to fight between them. The decision was taken after long months of discussion and mediation between various parties, and with the participation of many editors. Now I would be strongly against staging an overthrow of the outcome of that discussion, which would be started by Scia Della Cometa pinging 3-4 selected editors (see canvassing). I do not see any compelling reason or anything novel that motivates re-opening that discussion. Yakme (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yakme caustic tone as usual, but actually I don't expect kind answers from you anymore. That said, I prefer to answer you point by point: first of all, I haven't "selected" some editors, but I've called all the users who participated in the previous discussion (even you), I think it's a fair behavior, so don't launch accuses randomly; after that, I didn't re-open the discussion simply because I "don't like the infobox anymore", but because I realized that this layout is used in completely different contexts from the Italian one and the legislative election infobox is meant for the parties and not just for the coalitions. You are free to support the current layout, but you cannot deny these two objective facts by disparaging whoever raised these issues, please.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC) I also add that the consensus for this layout, with me as first supporter at that time, was not so strong at all...[reply]

You probably have not realized yet how much resources all these discussions take – accidentally all quarrels that involve always the same editors. While it is true that editing and discussing on Wikipedia is not mandatory, nonetheless please realize that people actually put some personal time and effort into it, hoping that it is for something useful. In fact it is quite depressing and somehow infuriating to see that months of discussion to reach a weak consensus, after re-iterated trials, proposals, mediation, compromising (see the selection of 19 possible infobox formats from last time) are now going to trash and have no value anymore. And just because of one user who did not pay enough attention during the first long months of discussions and now actually really gave the whole matter a deep thought. In the beginning of the infobox discussion I was not even for the current infobox organization, this was just the result of months of negotiation, so I'm not defending the current infobox on some principle – I'm just very disappointed that all that precious editors' time turned out to be useless. Yakme (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, the disappointment is mine too, since I admit that I realized that I was very wrong in that discussion. That discussion was tackled in a decidedly wrong way, we shouldn't get to formulating an exorbitant number of proposals and we shouldn't have wasted all that energy unnecessarily (I for one): we wasted too much time drawing new formulas when we had to stick to the few that already existed. Furthermore I re-read that discussion, and I saw that eventually I was the only one (perhaps together with you) to support this layout. I don't think we can consider it a real compromise, even if this has become the consolidated version. The purpose of this discussion is not the invention of new formulas, but understanding if the current layout of the infobox on the page (which is unique in its kind, with a rather improper use of the legislative election infobox) is acceptable , or if instead it is better to keep only the "infobox election" (the first part of the infobox on the page) or only the "infobox legislative election (like the one drawn above). I want to know if it's just my impression or not that the current infobox of the last two Italian elections is strange. Nothing more.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the dalay in answering! First of all, thanks to User:SDC for re-opening this discussion: I hope we will be able to replace the infoboxes of all Italian elections. Yes, I am in favour of the legislative infobox shown in this thread. A more simplified version could be even better (and that would be obviously the case for pre-1994 elections), but I do not think that small maps are a problem (anyone can click and enlarge them) and, really, the proposed new infobox is a very nice solution, both stylistically and for its contents. --Checco (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the legislative infobox would be suitable for the "first republic" and the 19th century elections, while the election infobox would be more suitable for elections from 1994 to 2013 (there were coalitions' leaders). We are in a stalemate, because no form of infobox is supported by effective consensus, the current infobox itself never was. For the moment propose a small change such as introducing parties in the second infobox, I hope there are no objections to it (but if you are against it, revert it and please let me know the reason). However, in my view, it would be better to make a clear choice between the two types of infoboxes, for reasons of consistency with the other Wikipedia pages: I am not against the legislative infobox, although I would be more in favor of the election infobox. However, the discussion should be concise, a dead-end discussion as happened in other situations should not be repeated...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will be very concise. For parliamentary/legislative elections, like this and each and every for the Italian Parliament, I support the "legislative infobox", while I strongly oppose the "election infobox". The latter should be used only for presidential or direct elections. --Checco (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the same view. {{Infobox election}} was clearly designed for presidential elections – hence why the details about the person (leader) come first. It is not right, that when used for parliamentary elections, the party name is the third/fourth/fifth thing listed after a picture of the leader, the leader's name, their seat and leader since (if the latter two parameters are reinstated). If any pictures were in the infobox, it should be the party logos, as that is what voters are voting for in parliamentary elections. I've never really understood the desire to have large photos of party leaders in an infobox about elections where people do not vote directly for those individuals, although I suspect it is simply about resistance to change, as that's how it was on Wikipedia for a long time (similar to how many editors opposed changing the article naming convention from "Italian general election, 2022" to "2022 Italian general election" despite the latter clearly being better and in line with Wikipedia guidelines etc). Number 5 7 21:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your quick replies; I understand your reasons, which certainly justify the use of the legislative infobox, even if not all electoral contexts are the same: currently in Italy, for example, most parties are mirrored in their leader and in these cases voters choose a party on the basis of the ideas and proposals of those who lead it, in practice in Italy leadership plays a main role. Instead, it wasn't like that in the past. In my opinion, the choice of the infobox also depends on the context: for the elections up to 1921 and for those from 1946 to 1992, the legislative infobox is in my opinion surely the best solution, for the other elections I'm not sure.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with User:Number 57 and I do not think we should make any difference among Italian elections from 1861 to our day. The fact that leaders play an important role, not less than in other parliamentary democracy, is a perception, but parliamentary/legislative elections are quintessentially centred on political parties. The only real peculiarity of Italian elections since 1994 is the presence of coalitions and the proposal above correctly acknowledges their formal existance. --Checco (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no form of infobox is supported by effective consensus, the current infobox itself never was again, this is entirely not true, given that the current infobox was the conclusion of months of discussion between multiple editors (not like now, where it looks like a simple agreement between 3 editors is going to be called "consensus"). Yakme (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco: It's not really so, the importance of the leadership of the Italian parties is not just a perception, but it is ratified in the current electoral law and the personalization of the Italian parties is a subject matter of the research. Anyway, this doesn't exclude the use of the infobox legislative election, of course. @Yakme: I don't know which current agreement you are referring to, but how many users supported the current format at the end of the past discussion? Just me, you and the user GoodDay. Considering the number of users initially involved and length of that discussion, it was not a strong consensus. And the discussion was long because we dwelt on wrong aspects (and the responsibility was largely mine, I admit it). I didn't start this thread with a precise infobox in mind, but rather with the intention of simplifying it, since the current one really fails MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE (in this regard, in fact, I would agree to use the infobox election with parties, the infobox election with coalitions or the infobox legislative election).

People vote for parties not for leaders, who are not even mentioned on the ballot! This said, thanks again for re-opening this thread. --Checco (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I take this opportunity to draw the attention of GoodDay and Aréat, if they would like to participate in this thread (I checked the old threads again and they took part too, therefore it seems to me correct to make them aware of this discussion).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we already have an RFC on this topic? GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but with a very low participation (Talk:2018 Italian general election/Archives/2021/December)... Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: yes, but apparently whenever Scia Della Cometa does not like the result of the RfC anymore, this stuff has to be put again under discussion, so that we can waste another 4-5 months of our time on this. Yakme (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yakme Since you keep claiming that this version had received community support, tell me which users supported this infobox in that Rfc! Show me that there was consensus as you keep telling, if there really was. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter which particular editors participated in the discussion. The point is that there was a very long discussion, actually multiple threads, at the end of which there was an agreement between the interested participants. This is a quote from yourself at the end of it: It seems to me that there is a slight consensus to use an infobox like the one proposed. Now you are saying that there was no consensus instead. Fine, but do not blame me for pointing this out. Yakme (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instead it matters who supported that version: I have stated several times that I was very wrong in that discussion (starting from having forced its conclusion). You are currently stating that at the end of that long discussion there was an agreement among the participants on the current infobox: I ask you to prove this statement. And I don't think there is a need for another endless discussion: maybe the consensus is already forming on the legislative infobox. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who is challenging the status quo, it is you who abruptly changed their mind, it is you who needs to prove anything really. I do not need to prove that there was consensus, given that you had already admitted there was a consensus with your own words. Also, I do not care which editors supported what: there was a (weak) consensus by the WP community that was interested in this matter, and it was established via RfCs and months of discussions. If you want to challenge this decision (which is of course legitimate) I advise you to humbly ask for guidance, and to proceed very carefully, instead of just pinging a few editors that you think will agree with you and declare that a new consensus has formed. For example, another RfC (this time carefully worded and general enough so that multiple editors can understand it) would be an option to settle the matter once and for all. Yakme (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that I have invited users who I think agree with me is libelous and you should apologize for this absurd and nonsensical statement. I invited ALL the users who participated in the past discussion (including you, even though I knew that you would have restarted these useless controversies). This is demonstrated by the fact that nobody supported my initial proposal (keep only the election infobox). You don't want to indicate who supported the current infobox simply because you know the consensus wasn't there. And I am the first to believe that RFCs (well structured) are useful in solving certain problems, so I certainly agree with it. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this case where there was some form of consensus (admitted by you, see your own words: "It seems to me that there is a slight consensus to use an infobox like the one proposed") which is now challenged (also by you), you can't just overthrow that result by pinging the editors that already participated in the previous discussion. Given that the previous result was obtained via an RfC (i.e. a request to the attention of the whole community, potentially), I think it's not crazy to ask that the same path is taken in this case. Yakme (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that more editors have participated in this discussion than in the RfC, I'm not sure that's the case. Being very blunt, it just looks like you are trying to block any change to the status quo because you don't like the alternative proposal. Your unnecessarily unpleasant and combative tone is not really endearing you to anyone here. Number 5 7 22:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: OK fine. Probably seeing that that specific (and stressful) discussion who took months of my personal time and energy has been thrown to trash somehow triggered me. Anyway for the current discussion I would still like to see a clear list of options from which one can decide. Yakme (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are four options: the current version, the {{Infobox legislative election}} only, the {{Infobox election}} only (by party or by coalition). Honestly, the infoboxes from 1994 to 2013 general election already look very good to me, I personally wouldn't modify them. Anyway: a general election like the one in 2018, with a party (M5S) between two coalitions (centre-right and centre-left), how would it be represented by the {{Infobox legislative election}}? @Number 57 and Checco: some idea about this? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support the change to {{Infobox legislative election}}. --Vacant0 (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't my first choice, but I would ok to use the legislative infobox for the general election (excluding the elections from 1994 to 2013, where effectively there were official coalition leaders).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would apply the {{Infobox legislative election}} to all Italian elections from 1861, including the regional ones which have not featured the direct election of the regional President. The above proposed infobox, which already includes the possibility that some parties are not affiliated to coalitions, is the best solution for the general elections since 1994. The only tweak I am proposing is to replace "Parties not in coalitions" with "Other political parties". --Checco (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also asked how to represent the 2018 general election with the infobox legislative election. ps. (Furthermore, it would be very problematic to use the legislative infobox for the elections from 1994 to 2001, where coalitions were represented by their leaders and where thanks to the FPTP some parties won some seats without taking part in the elections). Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A solution for the 2018 election could be to use the heading for the M5S too, like a proposal of the user Number 57 in the past discussion. Anyway, the infobox also depends from the electoral system, and IMHO the infobox legislative election doesn't fit elections from 1994 to 2013 (especially elections from 1994 to 2001). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the infobox proposed above, with slight accomodations, is perfectly suitable for all general elections, including 1994–2001. --Checco (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show me a practical representation of an infobox of 1994 election? The legislative election infobox is not meant for elections of that type, with proportional and FPTP results totally unrelated to each other. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In such elections, the results of the proportional vote are used for the percentage column, as they reflect the national vote total, with the total number of seats in the seat column. See, for example, 2003 Russian legislative election. Cheers, Number 5 7 01:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The electoral system for the elections from 1994 to 2001 is far more complex than that of Russia or Germany: the FPTP is clearly prevalent in the Chamber and exclusive in the Senate. This means that in the Senate most of the parties did not participate in the elections getting seats. Also from 1994 to 2013 there were coalition leaders (official as of 2006 to 2013) which make this type of infobox even more unsuitable, in my view. I am open to the hypothesis of the legislative election infobox for the elections since 2018, but leaving the elections from 1994 to 2013 aside for now (I would certainly apply it to the general elections up to 1992 and to the European elections). I restarted this thread to make things easier and not to make the same mistakes of the past: IMHO, using the legislative election infobox would be a complication and not a simplification. That's why I asked for practical representation for the elections from 1994 to 2001, which seems hardly feasible to me. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it makes little sense to have a single discussion for all elections, characterized by very different electoral systems and political contexts. The discussion must be divided according to the type of election (general, European, regional) and the electoral system in force, otherwise the result will be another endless discussion without positive results. For example:

I am absolutely in favor of using the infobox for regional elections before 1995, for all European elections and for general elections before 1994. Who agrees on this?
I am in favor of keeping the current infobox for the general elections from 1994 to 2013, anyone who would like to change it is requested to give a practical representation of their proposal.
I would modify the 2018 and 2022 general election infobox, keeping only the "infobox election" or the "infobox legislative election". In this case I am open to both options. Of course, due to the complex electoral law, the solutions are multiple (infobox election by coalition, infobox election by party, infobox legislative election organized only by coalition, infobox legislative election organized both by coalition and by party). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated several times, I would adopt the "Infobox legislative election" for each and every legislative election. For general elections since I would adopt the infobox as it is proposed at the beginning of this thread and/or with further adaptions—as explained by User:Number 57, the template is viable, with adaptions, for each election. For regional elections with the direct election of the President, there should be both infoboxes as they are two elections in one (President and Regional Council). --Checco (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You had already said this, but always repeating the same things the discussion will remain blocked... and I would like to move this discussion forward. I asked for a practical representation of the use of the legislative infobox for the elections from 1994 to 2001, not only if you are in favor or against. If you think that infobox could be applied to that election, you should explain how you want to apply it, because to support this infobox for that general election, I need to know how it can be structured. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is quite clear consensus to use the legislative infobox for pre-1994 and post-2013 elections (everyone seems to agree with this apart from Yakme).

Re the 1994–2013 period, I don't understand why SCD thinks it is to complex to show the result using the legislative infobox. I've done an example to the right of how the 1994 one could look. Cheers, Number 5 7 21:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree with the legislative infobox, I disagree with the method used to change a previously established consensus. Anyway, if we want to go with the legislative infobox we need to get rid of the coalitions, because the current proposal is inconsistent, as it shows coalitions with a header, and then "other parties", as if they were forming a separate object. Also isn't it better to show the parties in order of results? In the example above Northern League with 8% is above the PDS that gained 20%. Yakme (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "need to" get rid of the headings. And I don't think it's inconsistent – they are simply parties outside a coalition. The heading can be changed to 'Parties not in coalitions' if it needs to be made clearer. Cheers, Number 5 7 13:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using the same heading style for single coalitions and for a generalized "group" of non-coalitioned parties is indeed inconsistent, and a possible cause of confusion. Yakme (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like the proposal put forward by User:Number 57 for the 1994–2001 general elections. A slight improvement would be to have also the percentages of the coalitions in the Chamber of Deputies' first-past-the-post constituencies, as voters had two votes and could well split their tickets. --Checco (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a way to represent both the coalition and parties, it could be the last one. Another solution would be to list only parties by number of seats won, without the percentage results. Anyway, the Infobox legislative for that election doesn't fully convince me, honestly, also because it seems to me more of a complication than a simplification.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the way below (splitting it into PR and FPTP) is a good use of the infobox. I think the parties should be either broken into coalitions like the one to the right, or just listed and ranked by proportional vote, perhaps with their coalition in brackets like Forza Italia (PdL–PDG). However, I think the former is preferable, and has been used for other countries without any issues. I do think you're making this much more complicated than it needs to be. IMO, the main things an election infobox for this type of election needs to show are the number of seats won by coalitions and individual parties, and the leaders of each. The one to the right delivers all this in what I think is the most efficient way. Cheers, Number 5 7 21:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mine was an answer to Checco's statement, however I think that perhaps we should focus above all on the infobox of the last two elections, and then discuss the elections from 1994 to 2001 (or rather, from 1994 to 2013). Otherwise we risk digressing once more...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to bother again, but I think that deciding on the infoboxes of all Italian election is not a small issue. I have not seen any prominent example of the usage of the legislative infobox in the way that was proposed here, that is with the headings used to separate the main coalitions, and one final heading for the minor parties. But it might be that I am missing something, so I would like to see some of these practical examples if possible. In the places where I have seen the headings used, they were mostly used to separate Chamber and Senate elections or to separate results in special regions. In this case I would actually rather just forget about the coalitions (and refer to detailed results in the tables section of the article) and have a simplified infobox only with parties, PR percentages, and seats gained (with notes explaining exceptional cases). Yakme (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like the infobox proposed by Number57, but I concur with Yakme's concerns regarding the coalitions. In some occasions (notably the 2013 and 2018 elections), coalitions immediately split up and parties belonging to the same coalition ended up in opposite positions for supporting the government. I fear therefore that such representation might be misleading for the readers, who aren't very savvy of the dynamics of Italian politics. P1221 (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For this reason my first choice for the 2018 and 2022 elections remains the normal infobox, which includes only the results of the parties (basically the first half of the current infobox), while I would keep the current infoboxes for the elections from 1994 to 2013 and I would use the "infobox legislative election" for the elections before 1994 (and for all European elections). For example: do you all agree on the use of the infobox legislative election for the European elections and for the general elections prior 1994?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In order to get a picture with actual examples, I checked the usage of the election infoboxes among some of the major Western countries and the G20 "democratic" members. I guess these are countries that we can compare to Italy. For the results of parliamentary elections this is what I found:

FPTP:
- {{Infobox election}}: Canada, France, India, United Kingdom, United States
- {{Infobox legislative election}}: South Korea, Russia
PR / mixed:
- {{Infobox election}}: Austria, Germany, Greece, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Turkey
- {{Infobox legislative election}}: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Switzerland
ranked voting:
- {{Infobox election}}: Australia, Ireland

Note that in none of these examples I have found the {{Infobox legislative election}} used with coalitions as headings. I might be wrong, so if you are interested please double-check.
Anyway, it seems that in the case of PR or mixed systems (which is related to the Italian case) there is no standard choice among the WP elections articles, as they look more or less split in half between the two templates. However I agree that in principle we should use the legislative infobox given that this is a legislative election. Still, I would not misuse the "headings" parameters to show the major coalitions, this would be an improper usage of the infobox template. Yakme (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox election is meant for all types of elections, including legislative ones. The infobox legislative election, on the other hand, is only meant for legislative elections with many parties. It is not easy to compare the current Italian electoral system with others, since it has its own uniqueness. However, I think applying one of the existing templates is the best solution; indeed, no legislative election infobox uses the heading for coalitions, but the aspect that convinces me the least is its use for the Five Star Movement in 2018, to list it between two coalitions. In my view, the first part of the current infobox, with all the parties that have fulfilled the threshold (indicating for each one which coalition they belong to), is the most effective solution for the last two elections. However, I'm open to other solutions that effectively represent the results of the election.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that my priority is to have the "legislative infobox" adopted in all the articles on Italian elections (including regional ones), I would accept both proposals, while favouring the latter (crafted by User:SDC). --Checco (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that for the last two elections a RFC could be really useful to test the various opinions, however the proposed options should be few and well defined.I imagined various versions of the legislative infobox election, but almost none of them fit the 2018 elections (with the 2023 elections the proposal could go well, but with the 2018 elections, with the M5S between centre-right and centre-left, IMHO, it doesn't work). The only version that might work would be the current second half of the infobox (indicating the coalition and not individual parties), but I'm not convinced about it. Instead, I believe that to build the infobox it would be useful to also take into account the perception of these elections in the English-speaking press. There are few doubts about the 2022 elections: Giorgia Meloni was clearly the leader in pectore of the centre-right coalition (The Guardian, Reuters). The well-known issues concerned the 2018 election: before the election, the leadership was contended between Salvini and Berlusconi (The Guardian), some sources indicated Salvini as leader of the centre-right coalition after the election (BBC). I am inclined not only to keep only the infobox election, but also to restore a version similar to the previous one (the problem of the centre-right leadership exists, but it would be enough to indicate Salvini as leader of the first party of the coalition, like this example: User:Scia Della Cometa/sandbox#C). Personally, I think this would be the simplest solution to solve the problem of the last two elections. I wait for your opinion on how to reach the consensus on the infobox.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three versions in your sandbox, I would say A is clearly the best and B2 and C are the worst. Anything that involves having massive pictures of party leaders in the infobox is a no from me. Cheers, Number 5 7 21:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the last version is the worst one (the former C, now D: I corrected the titles of the version since B was repeated twice).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with User:Number 57. In the context of legislative elections, any infobox involving pictures of party leaders is a NO for me. Of the four infoboxes proposed by User:SDC, I support only A. I also like his proposal for the 1994 general election. --Checco (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Version A is definitely the worst of all of them, since it groups some parties in an arbitrary way. Why does the M5S get a separate "heading" while other single-parties do not? What is the criterion by which some parties go inside the "Other parties" coalition? Also, I do not see an infobox proposal using the legislative election infobox with just the list of parties without coalitions. That would be a better version, since at the moment version A is not an improvement with respect to the current infobox. Yakme (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not the worst version but I agree that the heading for the M5S is definitely out of place. However, without headings, keeping the M5S separate between two coalitions seems impossible. The only possible version of the legislative infobox for the 2018 election would be version B (which honestly looks a bit poor to me). On the other hand, listing only the parties that won seats without their coalitions would not be a correct representation of the election result, indeed, it would appear that each party ran alone in the election. For all these reasons, my first choice would be the versione C in my sandbox, then version B. Sincet e opinions hhere are so divided, I think we should decide whic version of the infobox to propose in an eventual RFC. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option B is absolutely not the only possible version – all of them are possible. If anyone is really that bothered about the M5S heading, then M5S can be moved into a "Parties not in coalitions" (or any other worded heading) section with all the other parties not in coalitions. An RfC is not worthwhile. I propose someone just implement some version of {{Infobox legislative election}} on the articles in question and then others edit it as they see fit, rather than yet more fruitless discussion. Number 5 7 20:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is undue to give more relevance/emphasis to parties that are in coalition vs parties that are not in coalitions. See the example of the M5S. I !vote for a simple list without coalitions, if we must have the legislative infobox. Yakme (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to any compromise, also this, provided that the "legislative" infobox is impelmented in all the articles on Italian general elections, European Parliament elections in Italy and, possibly, Italian regional elections (below the other template in the case of direct elections of the president). --Checco (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Italian general election

← 2018

25 September 2022

Next →

Chamber of Deputies

All 400 seats in the Chamber of Deputies

Turnout

29,355,592 · 63.8% (

9.1 pp)

Party	Leader	Vote %	Seats	+/–
Brothers of Italy	Giorgia Meloni	26.00	119	+87
Democratic Party	Enrico Letta	19.07	69	−43
Lega	Matteo Salvini	8.77	66	−59
Five Star Movement	Giuseppe Conte	15.43	52	−175
Forza Italia	Silvio Berlusconi	8.11	45	−59
Action – Italia Viva	Carlo Calenda	7.79	21	New
Greens and Left	Angelo Bonelli	3.63	12	New
Us Moderates	Maurizio Lupi	0.91	7	+3
SVP–PATT	Philipp Achammer	0.42	3	−1
More Europe	Emma Bonino	2.83	2	−1
South calls North	Cateno De Luca	0.76	1	New
Civic Commitment	Luigi Di Maio	0.60	1	New
Aosta Valley	Franco Manes	–	1	+1
MAIE	Ricardo Merlo	–	1	0

This lists parties that won seats. See the complete results below.

A legislative infobox with only parties would be like the one shown here, but it is not really representative of the electoral result: parties like More Europe and Us Moderates did not directly win seats, but they got some seats in the FPTP thanks to the votes of larger parties (therefore within coalitions). In this infobox, however, it appears that they won seats on their own. However, if it were possible to edit the legislative infobox as Number 57 suggested, I would be interested. I'm still inclined to use the infobox election (especially, I can't imagine a decent legislative infobox for elections from 1994 to 2001), but I'm open to any proposal to modify the legislative infobox that could make it suitable for the latest Italian elections.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that parties should be organised by coalitions. --Checco (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57, Checco, Nick.mon, Yakme, P1221, Vacant0, and Davide King: It is evident that we are at a dead end: which versions could we propose in an eventual RFC? Should we first propose a choice between the {{Infobox legislative election}} and the {{Infobox election}}, or should we immediately propose some pre-drawn options?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that a RfC is the appropriate way forward. This said, the main question is whether adopting the {{Infobox legislative election}} or the {{Infobox election}}. --Checco (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I don't think an RfC is necessary. There seems to be general consensus that the legislative infobox is preferable, but just quibbling over exactly how to use it. Again, I suggest someone just implements some version of it, and then we see where we end up with successive editing. Cheers, Number 5 7 22:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what Checco and Number 57 said. Vacant0 (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Number 57 is right that there is consensus on the {{Infobox legislative election}}. Of course, the template should be adapted to the different electoral systems adopted in Italian general elections, as well as European Parliament and regional ones. --Checco (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the {{Infobox legislative election}} is not really adaptable to the current electoral system (for the matter parties/coalitions), which is why I asked if it was possible to make changes to the same template. And anyway, I think a consensus building RFC on which template to adopt would be useful, but, in any case, we need to understand if the {{Infobox legislative election}} can be really adapted to the last two general elections in Italy.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite literally an example of the legislative election infobox being adapted to the current electoral system at the top of this section. This discussion has had more participants that the previous RfC – I'm increasingly thinking calling for another RfC is simply another delaying/impeding tactic, as consensus is already clear. Number 5 7 13:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: It has already been pointed out that in that example there is an improper use of the heading, which becomes more evident than ever with the Five Star Movement in 2018. There is no tactic, but an observation of an objective structural problem.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "improper" use of the heading because there is nothing in the template documentation that says it can't be used for things like this. Can people please stop making up rules that don't exist. You don't need to ping me either, as I have this page on my watchlist. Number 5 7 13:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway I'm not referring to coalitions, but to the Five Star Movement: the heading for a single party honestly seems to me improper, regardless of the rules. What justifies the heading for the Five Star Movement unlike other parties? Only an objective technical limitation of the infobox. After all, the purpose of this thread was to replace an unusual infobox with an ordinary one.For this reason I think it is necessary to carefully weigh each decision, this time. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Listing the Five Star Movement as a standalone coalition (as in this case A), when other parties not running in coalition are grouped all together under "Other Parties", seems a bit improper to me, too. However, I don't find improper listing Five Star Movement under the header "Other Parties" (that can be renamed as "Parties not running in coalitions" or any other similar name). P1221 (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the 2018 election remains: it would be incorrect to list the Five Star Movement under the centre-left coalition, which won less votes and less seats than it. Listing autonomous parties after coalitions, under a special header, has the implicit assumption that they obtain less votes/seats than coalitions, but in 2018 this was not the case. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We could list coalitions by % of the vote. Single-party coalitions are coalitions too. --Checco (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I have not understood your reasoning, could you make an example? Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the current electoral law, coalitions can be formed also by a single party. The centre-right and the centre-left are usually formed by several parties each, but the M5S in 2018 and 2022 and Az/IV in 2022 were coalitions too. --Checco (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely wrong. By definition, a coalition is formed by more than one party, so M5S can't be considered a coalition in its own. AZ/IV is a federation of parties and, according to the electoral law, it should be considered as a single party. Please note that the electoral law provides different rules for coalitions and parties running on their own, most notably the threshold for being elected: 3% for single parties, 10% for coalitions. Had AZ/IV been a coalition, it wouldn't have elected any MP in either chamber. P1221 (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you can even think that a party and a coalition can be the same thing....--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this discussion is bound to remain inconclusive if it continues like this. IMHO, it hasn't been explained why the Five Star Movement deserves an autonomous heading in the {{Infobox legislative election}}, I think an RFC is inevitable. In fact, it doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus on a specific version yet and I see a lot of confusing ideas, honestly. In particular, I would be inclined to start an RFC for the choice of the infobox for the Italian general elections of 2018 and 2022: {{Infobox legislative election}} or {{Infobox election}}. Again in the RFC, I would show an example of a {{Infobox legislative election}} and an example of a {{Infobox election}}. If anyone has any other ideas let me know in the next few days, otherwise I will start this RFC.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the RfC you propose is unnecessary as there is pretty clear consensus to use {{Infobox legislative election}}. If you insist on an RfC, it should be between different layouts of {{Infobox legislative election}} to try and reach consensus on how to organise it – that is the only thing that we do not have a clear consensus on. Including {{Infobox election}} in the RfC would just look like an attempt to game the outcome of this long and painful discussion and I beg you to stop doing that. Alternatively, as I have suggested several times, someone should just implement some version of it, and then others can tinker with it until people are happy. Anything to put an end to this... Number 5 7 15:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I don't see this consensus on the legislative infobox at all: only half of the users who intervened have openly supported this type of infobox and without even a clear idea on how to structure the infobox. Honestly, it seems to me that consensus on anything is still very far from being reached.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I totally agree with User:Number 57. --Checco (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that you agree with him we already know. But it remains clear that there is no consensus on any version, legislative infobox or non-legislative infobox. I have repeatedly ask for clarifications on some problems, but I have never received any answer. If the premises remain these, it will be inevitable to ask the opinion of other users. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is a clear consensus on implementing the legislative infobox, which can easily adapted to any electoral system adopoted in Italy in parliamentary and regional elections. Each problem was met with a solution, just think of the issue on the M5S above. --Checco (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is not enough to state that there is a clear consensus, this must also be demonstrated (half users, until proven otherwise, does not mean consensus). Furthermore, it is not enought saying that a solution must be found for the Five Star Movement if after months you have not been able to find it. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to navigate this very long discussion, and sincerely I'm not even sure that there is a consensus for changing the current structure of the template... Before opening an RfC for selecting the type of template to be used, I would verify beforehand if there is agreement for changing the template. P1221 (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I only see a lot of uncertainty: it seems to me that manu users are in favor of a "change", the problem is the type of change: only half have supported a legislative infobox, without even having a clear idea of how to implement it, this it's definitely not a consensus. If we have to do another badly set RFC (so an arbitrary RFC that expects an opinion only on one type of infobox, like last time) it's much better to do nothing. Since currently the only evident thing is that there is no consensus on anything, an RFC should keep all possible ways open. I started this discussion just to avoid making the mistakes of the last time. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is evident that the discussion is objectively paralysed, currently there is no consensus for any of the proposed versions. I have prepared a draft for the RFC, I will start it in the next few days. it is necessary to formalize a consensual version of the infobox for these pages.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not paralysed – you are the only one continuing to object to implementing some form of legislative election infobox. The proposed RfC is a waste of everyone's time and I urge you not to proceed and instead to work with editors in this discussion to agree how best to lay out the legislative election infobox. Can someone not just bloody well implement it? Unfortunately I am too busy IRL at the moment.

Also, you cannot tell editors not to respond to each other in the survey.

If you insist on an RfC then it should be between different versions of the legislative infobox, which is the actual issue there still does not appear to be consensus on. So the RfC could be between having all parties listed individually as Yakme suggests, or grouped by coalitions, or simply use the coalitions + parties not in coalitions. Number 5 7 13:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Basically you want to prevent users from expressing themselves in favor of the {{Infobox election}} (or of the status quo), this seems to me the truth. Here only half of the users expressed their preference for the {{Infobox legislative election}} (without even a clear idea of how to implement it), when I asked you to demonstrate consensus you did not: proposing the RFC only on the legislative infobox makes no sense. If there is already consensus on the legislative infobox, you shouldn't fear the possibility for users to vote in favor of the {{Infobox election}} as well. If in months of discussions you still haven't managed to resolve the issues of your proposal, it's not my fault. In the next few days I will launch the RFC so that users can express themselves freely, whether someone likes it or not. Because the consensus is built by giving users the opportunity to freely express their preferences.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also invite you to read the Draft better: I can surely invite users not to discuss with each other in the Survey, since they are invited to do so in the "Discussion" subsection. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to prevent users expressing an opinion – we have reams of opinions being expressed on this page. What we need is a way to actually move forwards and reach an outcome. What you are proposing is going right back to the start, ignoring all of the discussion to date; it's an absolute waste of time. Number 5 7 14:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion started on 29 October 2022 and no progress has been made since then. On the contrary, all my requests to move the discussion forward have been useless. I myself had not expressed my opposition to a legislative infobox if well done. But no progress has been made since then and no agreement has been reached on any type of infobox. At this point the RFC is inevitable: if the legislative infobox (in one of its possible versions) receives greater consensus, it will be the one used in these pages. But it is right to consult other users and formalize a consensus, the real waste of time has been in recent months, now there is no more time to lose. The RFC is an acknowledgment that five months of discussions have been useless to reach any kind of agreement. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Number 57 that a RfC would be a waste of time, especially if it involves again the election infobox. We need to decide how to implement the legislative infobox to the elections ran held with different electoral systems (not only general elections, but also European Parliament and regional ones). --Checco (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are trying to apply at all costs a sort of infobox on which (after months of discussion) there is still neither consensus nor a clear idea on how to implement it. Whether the RFC will be a waste of time or not we will know after its conclusion. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However, I personally have no problem to use the legislative infobox for regional elections until 1995, general elections until 1994 and also for European elections. The legislative infobox is meant precisely for that type of election (proportional system with many parties).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC about the infobox of the last two general elections in Italy

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Option 2, and specifically Option 2C for most Italian elections. There is a general consensus that with Italy's new election format, Option 2C is the best method for showing readers for most elections. Perhaps, using the words of Scia Della Cometa and Yakme, there is no perfect infobox for Italy's elections, though most editors suggest that Option 2C provides the necessary information in a format which is much easier to digest, mainly centering around its conciseness by omitting party leader portraits. Only one editor posed a staunch opposition to Option 2C, though most editors showed some willingness to further refine it out to remove any major objections or potential shortcomings of Option 2C by highlighting the specific issues with it. I would recommend that editors consider continuing the discussion on whether the Five Star Movement/M5S should be separated from the rest of the coalitions in the infobox, and whether any of the benefits of Option 2D can be weighed in, or if the choice on whether to use 2C or 2D should be determined on a case-by-case basis for each election. It's safe to say however though that the current consensus, unless and if so until it is successfully changed (ideally through another RFC), Options 1 and 3 are all off the table and should not be used for any Italian elections. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Option 2C for most infoboxes within the scope of the RFC, which are most Italian elections after 2018. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which type of infobox should be used for the last two general elections in Italy (held under a new voting system introduced in 2017)?

an {{Infobox election}} (see by way of example Option A or Option B);
an {{Infobox legislative election}} (see by way of example Option C or Option D);
a mixed infobox (the status quo, see Option E).

Each user is requested to express the order of his preferences (not just the preferred option), in order to facilitate the achievement of consensus.

Please do not respond to other editors in the Survey. You may respond to other editors in the Discussion section. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Option 1, more specifically option 1A. I premise that there is no perfect infobox for these elections. The new electoral system (a mix between proportional and FPTP) provides for the existence of coalitions, but, unlike in the past, provides for the obligation to indicate the leader of each party and no longer of the entire coalition. For this reason I think that "option 1A" is the option that comes closest to effectively representing the result of the elections: it shows the results of the main parties, but also their coalition affiliation. "Option 1B" is difficult to apply when there is no "de facto" leader of a coalition (like the centre-right coalition in 2018, where the leadership was contested between Salvini and Berlusconi). "Option 2C" shows the results quite effectively, but has technical limitations: for example, the "heading" of the Five Star Movement to separate it from the two coalitions is unjustified. My last choices are definitely the "option 2D" (not suitable for this voting system) and the "option 3E": the latter is meant to show of the results of simultaneous presidential and parliamentary elections, and the results of the same election in two different ways). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scia Della Cometa (talk • contribs)
Option 2 Typically, infobox legislative election is used where more than 9 parties win seats, which is the case here. Options 1(A) and 1(B) are far too complex to be an effective summary for readers. Comparing the options side-by-side (right), the legislative infobox presents more information (all rather than some parties are listed) in a far clearer manner. Number 5 7 20:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2, specifically Option C. It is closer to what I think is ideal for Italian elections. Personally, I would've been for Option D, but with coalitions and non-coalition parties. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2, specifically option 2C for general elections since 1994 and most regional elections since 1995, and option 2D for general elections until 1994, most regional elections until 1995 and European Parliament elections. --Checco (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All options have flaws and advantages, there is no perfect solution in my opinion. My order of preference is the following: option 2D, option 3E, option 1A, option 1B, and lastly option 2C, which I would have completely exclude from the RfC because it goes against logic (picking M5S as the only single party which has a coalition banner on top is simply wrong). Yakme (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, none of the proposed options. I'm leaning towards Option 2C, but I don't like how the headers are organized (why M5S shall have a separate header, like if it were a coalition? And why is it positioned before centre-left coalition in the Senate, even if it has less seats?). I would prefer that the table might be organized like in Option E, because in my opinion it shows the coalitions and the parties composing them in a clearer way. I would prefer not showing the name of the leaders and I'm pretty against showing their pictures: the prime minister in Italy is not elected by the people, so it can happen that none of the pictured leaders actually become prime minister (like after 2013 and 2018 elections). P1221 (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2C I second what Checco said. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1B Braganza (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Although I am very interested in this, I have not !voted yet because I am completely undecided. @Number 57: where can I find the reference regarding the {{Infobox legislative election}} being used for elections with more than 9 parties winning seats? Yakme (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by a reference. Infobox election can only accomodate nine parties, so cannot list all parties that win seats when there are more than nine. It was originally created for Israeli elections but then widened into more general usage. Number 5 7 11:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However, the Italian elections are a rather particular case: for example, parties such as More Europe and Us Moderates, in the general elections of 2022, did not independently win seats, but elected some MPs thanks to the votes given to larger parties (therefore, IMHO, they don't need to be represented in the infobox). In practice, it seems to me that this infobox works very well with proportional voting systems and many autonomous parties. It also seems to me that most of the infoboxes from major countries show the results of the main parties, excluding those that have won a seat in a constituency (see UK, for example). In 2018, in Italy, there were 4 blocs and 6 main parties that won seats; in 2022, seats were won by 4 electoral blocs and 7 major parties. In my opinion, under these conditions, the {{Infobox election}} is preferable to the {{Infobox legislative election}} (which has, as already mentioned, some limitations: impossibility of effectively separating coalitions and single parties; absence of links to the page of elected MPs).Although unique in its kind, the Italian electoral system is similar to the Malaysian one due to the presence of official coalitions (see 2022 Malaysian general election).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your information, I slightly modified proposal B based on how it was originally intended (it may take some time for the photo to update).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@P1221: The Five Star Movement listed before the centre-left coalition in the Senate was a mistake (I simply copied the infobox from the one previously drawn by Number57). Answering your last statement, I think that the infobox cannot ignore the leaders: they are figures established by law, regardless of who will be appointed PM. And being mandatory by law, they are very important figures in the election (for this reason, IMHO, they deserve prominence in the infobox). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not mandatory that the infobox shows every information. I think that "less is more" and, in my opinion, the infobox works well even without showing the pictures of the leaders (especially when they are not well defined, like centre-right coalition in 2018 elections). P1221 (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is a legitimate opinion, even if I don't agree with it: the infobox provides for the indication of the party leaders, not the PM candidates. And in Italy the role of leaders (who are front-runners in the elections) is objectively very important, so much so that it is also recognized by the electoral law (first as coalition leader, now as party leader). Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:P1221: To answer your question above, the M5S was a single-party coalition in 2013, 2018 and 2022. --Checco (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco: ...what is a "single-party coalition"?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A coalition formed by one list. Under the current electoral law, coalitions field joint candidates in single-seat constituencies, but, of course, a coalition can be formed also by a single party. The same happened with previous electoral laws. That is why option 2C is formally correct for general elections since 1994. --Checco (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is legitimate to support any version of infobox, also accepting its flaws, but please do not misrepresent the terms ([1]): "single-party coalition" is a contradiction in terms. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was not. Under the 1993 and 2017 electoral laws, a list could run both among coalitions (single-seat constituencies) and lists (multi-member constituencies). Under the 2005 electoral law, there could be multi-party coalitions and single-party ones. Especially under the 1993 electoral law, single-party coalitions adopted the very same symbol both in single-seat constituencies and multi-member constituencies. Option 2C is formally correct for general elections since 1994 and most regional elections since 1995, while option 2D is more suitable for general elections until 1994, most regional elections until 1995 and European Parliament elections. --Checco (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Checco: in which article do the law talk about single-party coalitions? I know of party coalitions, autonomous parties and about more parties running in elections under one symbol, but I don't think to have ever read anything about single-party coalitions (also because the ordinary meaning of coalition is the opposite). Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Scia Della Cometa, in this case. "Single-party coalition" is a nonsense, otherwise every party can be considered a "single-party coalition". P1221 (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not every party, only stand-alone lists. The latter are counted both as coalitions and lists. See [2] or [3]. --Checco (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A coalition is a group of parties, a stand-alone list is a list (or party), not a coalition. Following this logic, every stand-alone list (which can be also considered a "coalition") deserves a header, not only the M5S. I regret that someone is looking for escamotages to justify the headers rather than solutions to fix the infobox... Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in my view, every stand-alone list deserves a header. --Checco (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple: coalitions (i.e. with multiple parties) have a 10% threshold, single parties (including M5S) have a 3% threshold. So no, single-party coalitions are not a thing. Yakme (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the two links should prove... P1221 (talk) 08:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think using {{Infobox legislative election}} in some fashion (C or D) makes sense, but I'm concerned about the sheer length of the infobox. Can the coalitions be collapsed like in Option E? And do the maps absolutely have to be there? — Kawnhr (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About the maps, every election infobox has them. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't mean that every election infobox needs to have them. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This would require further discussion, but this is not the place to discuss it. At the moment there is no apparent reason to exclude the maps only from the Italian elections infobox and it is not the subject of discussion anyway (on the contrary, it would be an element that would entail a further element of distinction from all the other countries, when instead the aim should be uniformity, as far as possible). Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, am I alone in being concerned about SDC canvassing here? After refusing to accept that there was a consensus amongst editors in the discussion above to use the legislative infobox (and that if they did insist there was an RfC, it should be between the different legislative options), every single editor that was involved in the discussion apart from SDC has indicated in the RfC that (some form of) the legislative infobox is their first choice. Now with the RfC going nearly unanimously against them (7–1 including Kawnhr's comments in this section), they have started posting messages at various noticeboards. Whilst the messages themselves are neutral, this clearly looks like an attempt to sway the !vote. Number 5 7 11:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are an admin you should know better than me that I am absolutely authorized to publish the existence of the RFC in the interested projects. I have an obligation to be neutral in the RFC question and messages in the projects, not in this discussion. Like yourself, you are authorized to defend an infobox that you have personally designed. What is it, can't I express my opinion here? Let's not joke, please. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely you are entitled to advertise the RfC. The problem is when you have done it. You started an RfC to get consensus as you claimed there wasn't any. To date the view has been nearly unanimous. However, not in the way you want. So suddenly, despite a clear conensus having energed (which is what you claim you wanted), you try and get more contributors. The only possible reason for doing so at this point is to try and find people who agree with you, as no-one else has so far. Number 5 7 18:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions expressed in the RFC thus far were widely expected from me. Publicizing the RFC can drive opinions in any direction, there's nothing wrong with involving as many users as possible, the fact that I did it about three days after the RFC started has nothing to do with it. Your statement is just out of context, that's it.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow will the last day of the RFC, the participation has not been huge but the outcome is clear: the option 2C is the preferred one, so we will used it for the the 2018–2022 elections. Of course, I still think that this infobox was not designed for an electoral system like the current Italian one, however, since we will have to use it, I hope at least that User:Number 57 wants to make some changes that would be of help: 1. the insertion of the links of the outgoing MPs and the elected MPs (on this point a request has already been made by several users on the infobox talk page); 2. a more effective division system between coalitions and parties, because the header was not meant for this function. Unfortunately I don't have computer programming skills, but I believe that a solution is possible.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scia Della Cometa I strongly recommend to have an uninvoled editor to formally close the discussion and summarize the outcome, as per WP:RFCCLOSE. I think the subject of this RFC is pretty contentious and it is better that none of the involved editors closes the discussion and summarizes the outcome. P1221 (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to close the RFC myself, but I would to discuss now how to fix the limits of the legislative infobox, that could be the next infobox of this page. As regards the outcome, almost anyone respected complied with the directive of classifying the various options, that would have been surely helpful to establish the outcome of the Rfc. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@User:InvadingInvader just one consideration to your closing comment: the Rfc concerns only the elections since 2018. I'm personally fine with the use of the legislative infobox for the election until 1992, but the elections from 1994 to 2013 are completely a different matter, not involved in this Rfc. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; I've clarified that infoboxes within the scope of the RFC are the ones which are affected and should be changed. Thanks for your feedback! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I invite once again User:Number 57 to discuss how ro implement the legislative infobox, so to fix the issue about the Five Star Movement in the case of Option 2C.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Either we keep 2C as it is, or we move Five Star into the other parties section. I would prefer keeping it as it is. The last thing we need though is to have another round of delaying tactics. Number 5 7 18:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a tactic, for me you can insert the legislative infobox in these two pages right away, but we can still continue to try to find a better solution, since this is an artificial solution. Furthermore, you can already implement the infobox with the outgoing and elected MPS function as you have already been asked. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support adding the incoming/outgoing MP links – it's unnecessary clutter and can be linked somewhere else in the article. Number 5 7 18:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't support it, but even if you created this infobox, it doesn't mean that it automatically becomes your property: on the discussion page of it was asked by three users, it means that it is interesting information for more people. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the infobox. And I don't think two editors, one of whom has a long-term grudge against me, is a consensus (the original requestor appeared to accept my response that I thought it was clutter). Number 5 7 19:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have nothing against anyone, if someone feels resentment towards someone else it's certainly not me. And the claim that it's a clutter, honestly, makes no sense: it adds a single line to the infobox. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to you. Number 5 7 20:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better this way. However that proposal is common sense and discussing whether or not to implement it doesn't make much sense, IMHO: with just two links it adds very important information for the readers. I believe that at least this can be done before replacing the infoboxes. Other changes can be discussed later. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't add any information though – it's simply a link, and so fails MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Number 5 7 20:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I know why you are so contrary to two simple links? Are they so problematics? It doesn't seem to me. And, above all, they are not clutter. They are present in the main infobox (because, I remember, the infobox legislative election is an alternative version of the main one, the infobox election), why can't they be inserted in this infobox too? Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's just unnecessary. Infoboxes are meant to be minimalist and summarise key information in an article, and these links are not key information. They can easily go somewhere else in the article – there is absolutely no need whatsoever for them to be in the infobox. Number 5 7 20:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this is your point of view, because for example it is necessary for me. Do you really want to start a discussion on this topic? I don't think it's of any benefit to anyone, honestly... Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my view, it is a Wikipedia guideline:

When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.

And I didn't want to start a discussion on this topic – you are the one that brought it up! Happy to end it right now and just get on and implement the RfC outcome. Number 5 7 20:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the discussion about this topic wasn't even started by me, and three out of four users expressed themselves in favor, I don't think anyone can stop me from implementing the infobox, at this point. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57 Now I understand your security: I don't have permission to modify the infobox. But the fact remains that in Wikipedia there is no property: for correctness and fairness I think you should make the change requested by several users, otherwise I will follow other ways.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have consensus to add the parameters, which are clearly in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Consensus is not about counting !votes, it is about compliance with policy. 19:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Number 57 Which policy? This attitude is starting to tire me a bit ... I know that consensus is not a simple count, but if three users are in favor of one thing and only one is against it, what is the policy that makes the opinion of the only user against? A greater weight of his opinion? I see no justification for any of this.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The one I quoted above. And yes, if there is a debate on Wikipedia and one editor quotes policy/guidelines and three don't, the close should be in favour of the editor arguing in line with policy/guideline (see WP:DETCON: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."). Please stop pinging me. I have this page on my watchlist. Number 5 7 20:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments are quite obvious: the infobox concerns parliamentary elections, and the proposal concerns the insertion of only two links (also present in the main infobox, because I remember once again that the "infobox legislative election" is a backup solution and not the first choice for the normal elections) including exactly what the voters vote: the MPs! Now, if you want to prolong this discussion for a long time, at the cost of indefinitely postponing the use of this infobox on other pages, ok, I won't hold back, I'll start another Rfc if necessary. But, honestly, this quite unforbearing behavior towards other users' opinions doesn't do you honor; I suggest a more pragmatic approach, because nobody here is right in their pocket... Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Number57 I'm still waiting for your answer: how can it be superfluous and "unnecessary" to include the link to the list of MPs they are going to elect at the same election? And, above all, how can it be considered "clutter" if it consists of only 'two links? I will not back down on this matter. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, because it is not summarising key information from the article (because those lists are not in the article). It is clutter in my view because it is adding yet more rows to the infobox and unnecessarily expanding it. Personally I fail to understand why anyone would think such links are necessary in the infobox, particularly a link to the outgoing members. I can only say this so many times, so while you might not be backing down, I'm no longer going to respond to any follow ups here as it's getting tedious now. Number 5 7 12:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you are free not to answer anymore, because I start an RFC. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: outgoing and elected MPs in the Infobox legislative election

A Request for comments is being held, which concerns the inclusion of the lists about outgoing and elected MPs in the {{Infobox legislative election}}. Your input would be appreciated. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox for elections up to 1992

I report this discussion: Talk:1992 Italian general election#Infobox. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New talks on infobox

Can we finally decide on what infobox to utilize to avoid endless edit wars? Thanks VosleCap (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm tired of the edit wars. River10000 (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VosleCap Support. The infobox currently on the page is less visually appealing. The one that was there before was far easier to read. Benpiano800 (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Consesus can change and, even if it was caused by extra-Wikipedian reasons, it happened, it doesn’t make sense to simply ignore that. All this said, I still don’t understand why the info box which was used until the 2013 elections can’t be used in 2018 and 2022 as well. Siglæ (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Strongly Very Support

Too many edit wars with people that have too much time. The old edit box is objectively better in all facets. The only case where the proposed legislative box is useful is when there are a lot of parties, like 10 or more. This is just simply not the case. TheYeetedMeme (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified Support: For what its worth, I'm leaning on my three years of active contributions and many more years as a reader when I type this out. As someone who has an invested interest in Politics Wiki and this article in particular (because those maps are mine) I feel as if I have something to say. I believe, as many others do, that the events of the last few days ruptured open the way in which editors find consensus. For those of us who are actively interested in this niche of Wikipedia, we take great care in presenting the best possible articles we can so the broader public might be able to enjoy them. As more people become active within this community, I believe that their voices should be heard. Old consensuses should not be maintained only on the ground that they were previously established. Healthy and constructive debate are welcomed on Wikipedia, so why shouldn't we keep an open mind and consider the possibility that a community's consensus might change as the community changes. As such I believe that their should be the possibility for the community to reconsider old consensus. Stifling the community with unintentionally reactionary opposition to these constructive debates would be unwise. However, I will qualify this to say that reconsidering the RFC at this moment would also be unwise. Tensions are clearly enflamed. Dealing with only the ancillary issue while the cause of these tensions is unsolved would not benefit the reconciliation of the community. Charity with the goal of reconciliation is what we ought to strive for. Certainly these edit disputes were caused by a complicated assortment of reasons. Deal with those first, then return to the RFC. I do not believe that enabling these tensions to fuel the RFC would be wise. The result, whether or not I would agree with it, would be tainted by those tensions. True consensus comes after we reconcile differences. This should not be an opportunity to seek vengeance or to impose one will or another. I hope the result brings about reconciliation. There have been many aspersions to individual editor's characters. This is unhealthy for the community. I sincerely there will be reconciliation. Best, Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In principle; asking for a new settlement to avoid an edit war, while participating in one is a little bit ironic. There was an extended RfC that settled in favour of this box, that took over a year, and was settled a year ago. The only reason I can foresee this coming up again is spill over from separate edit wars/discussions on the 2024 South African Election and other Election pages that have moved to a legislative box. I actually don't like the transition to a legislative box in most cases, but this issue, on this page, was settled quite a while ago. Caelem (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah gotta agree here. right now the consensus for election pages is a to build consensus page by page. consensus is settled on italian election pages, and particularly this one. happy to be in any discussion that changes that consensus. Carlp941 (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the RFC was open for over a year, and being a less detailed summary of the article is the purpose of an infobox. Have to agree Rowei99 (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support The original infobox is far superior to the new "legislative" infobox, and should be reinstated wherever possible. The new legislative infobox provides less information, is less visually appealing, and is merely a less detailed copy of the full results table further down in the article. We do not need a less informative duplicate of the full results table pasted at the top of the article. Then we could frankly just as well remove the infobox altogether. The original infobox, on the other hand, displays images not found elsewhere in the article, which is both appealing and helpful for the casual reader, and it provides a deeper summary of the results. It is therefore a more purposeful and appropriate alternative. If a new discussion is required to reinstate the original infobox, then let us have one. Μαρκος Δ 22:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on all counts. The fact this debate has even gotten to this point is astounding.

On another note: let’s all be really serious about the how much weight a “consensus” holds in these situations. One guy making an edit he likes and a couple people happening to swing by the talk page around that same time and backing him up is far from ironclad. Yes, this debate is being brought back up after a “consensus” was reached because quite frankly we do not spend every waking moment of our lives poring over every election page on Wikipedia. I’ve been an active editor for well over a year and I’m not ashamed to say I had no clue this was happening at this scale until I saw the Tweets and YouTube videos about it. A consensus is not a consensus if the majority are not even involved in the discussion. PequodOnStationAtLZ (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we declare there was a consensus reached isn't because of one editor making one edit, it's the year and a half long discussion above us, that raged from October 2022, just a month after the election when eyes should have still been on the page if Wikipedians wanted to have input, until 6 May 2023, where an RfC was finalized with a ruling of consensus.

To be clear, the only reason there are so many eyes back on the page, right now, today, a year after that RfC was finalized, is because of the storm created on third-party websites over entirely different articles. CaelemSG (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could also be an hint that consensus may have changed, thus needing to reopen the discussion Siglæ (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "storm" on third-party websites is being created by the width and breadth of people that actually use this site. In all honesty I value their opinions more than any editor here, myself included. PequodOnStationAtLZ (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia is getting external scrutiny on something, it is very much worth looking into. I think we should have a proper new RfC, and tag all the users here in it. Maybe consensus has changed. Carlp941 (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I am NOT a wikipedia editor. Just a frequest user (as, I assume, 99% of all people in countries with access to the internet). I just wanted to give my 2c good faith comment and say that the new infoboxes are clearly a visual and informational downgrade to the old style. I am sure there is some reasoning somewhere about why they should be prefered over the older style, but I just can't stand them on a personal level. And from the controversy, I think I am not the only one. I know my voice isn't as important as veteran wikipedia editors, but you should seriously consider revisiting this 'concensus'. Kind regards.91.140.29.44 (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a fellow non-edditor I second this. 82.69.30.161 (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These two comments by non-editors show the amount of passion people have for the seeing this information presented in a user-friendly way. They are basically providing a free UX focus group. NotBartEhrman (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle~~, but procedural close~~. On the one hand, Wikipedia:Consensus can change, and the fact that the old infobox was clearly more visually appealing makes me support going back to it. On the other hand, this discussion is obviously extremely tainted by recent Twitter threads and less-than-natural participation, and any consensus we might achieve here would not be representative of the community. It would be best to close this discussion, and to maybe reopen one at a time when there aren't outside factors influencing its outcome. (Amended 21:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC), see next comment below) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the past month I have become an editor, before that I was an avid user. Why should my opinion now be more important than it was then? No one likes these changes, no one. Maybe max 5-10% is in favor of it and it clearly caused an outrage. It caused an outrage because the changes are so abhorrently bad and illogical. I think this massacring of articles should stop. If the information is wrong, change it to the correct one, not delete the more visually appealing and easily understandable info box for this. Zlad! (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with a procedural close, mainly since there is broad uproar from the fact that the changes are so egregious and a showing of what's been happening on other articles. Also I think that in the previous RfC that WP:GAME was violated, as they had a editor base of only 6 users, yet proceeded to declare it as "Italy's new election format". This kind of behaviour is extremely out of line, and a new RfC should be looked into, partially because of WP:Consensus can change, but also on the basis that the last consensus seemingly was tainted by a WP:GAME violation in terms of the low count and that one of the editors who is quite known for this, has a track record of using small RfCs to game the system into changing major articles. They've previously tried several times to remove the outgoing members articles from the infobox altogether and there have been several issues with this in the past with them. CIN I&II (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree Siglæ (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't think it's such a bad thing that this is getting some attention from outside Wikipedia. It's very hard for us editors to understand, but readers are Wikipedia users too and have preferences. Sometimes their preferences are revealed through viral posts on social media. There's no reason to procedurally close this just because a lot of non-editing readers have expressed their opinions elsewhere. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a good point, although the way the posts have been circulating could also be seen as canvassing. This is really a situation where there is no good option, as having a RfC now would obviously not be representative because of the Twitter outcry, but having it later means we risk cutting off a large number of readers.

All in all, given how many people appear to support reverting back to the old infobox, I think their voices should definitely be heard. The previous consensus is clearly not representative anymore, and a new discussion needs to be held, that can take into account the voices of everyone from regular editors to casual readers. Yes, the current situation might be seen as WP:CANVASS, but I would also understand someone (not me) making the decision to WP:IAR and still hold a discussion to establish a new consensus. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've been a Wikipedia editor for many years now, I've seen various things change and come back, but in this specific case I never understood the idea of replacing the old infobox with the new table version. It doesn't really matter if the discussion over this topic was sparked by external comments, the feedbacks of general users about the accessibility of the website is something we should always take into account. Furthermore, if there's indeed a shift in consensus I think it would be worth to open this dicussion on a general level, and not just restricted to Italian elections, since the same logic should apply everywhere, and it's time that the whole Elections wikiproject starts having some written, well defined standards for issues which are usually matters of discussion.Fm3dici97 (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support The previous infobox looked better while also summarising the materials the same. The previous RfC on this exact topic had very few users and was a decently clear violation of WP:GAME, as with only 4 users in favour, they proceeded to decalre it "Italy's new election format". I think this should be looked at as a situation of a WP:GAME violation by a user who has done this kind of behaviour extremely prolifically. They have a track record of having changed these same things on other articles. I am extremely concerned with how this trend is occuring. CIN I&II (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support because, as others have already said, WP:Consensus can change and the last "consensus" was a WP:GAME violation. Many Wikipedians, but also a lot of internet users are rightfully outraged not just by evidently bad changes, but also by the behavior of an admin who is pushing this change, and we all now who I'm talking about.
Of course I don't support disruptive editing and edit wars and I'm not happy about there being so many tensions, but in a situation where a small minority is agressively pushing their own agenda, led by an admin who is abusing authority to vandalize articles, I understand why people are resisting. Number 57 and others give very unconvincing arguments for reducing infobox content or switching to a boring, less informative and visually appealing html box and those arguments vary depending on the article in question. They're inconsistent as sometimes the reason cited is just "better format" which is very subjective & is not smth they can decide themselves, reasons like 1-seat parties or independent candidates having to be represented (which completely misses the point of an infobox), sometimes it's "to be in line with the series" when they're the ones that have changed the rest of the series themselves, sometimes the reason are illegitimate RfCs.
I hope a new, different consensus can be reached at least for Italian elections, with much more people participating. That's a good thing that can come from the war and Twitter attention, as these discussions sometimes end without people even knowing they existed. Also, it's important to hear Wikipedia readers after all, bcs Wikipedia is there for everyone, not just a few editors. CroatiaElects (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support maintaining the current "legislative" infobox, which better suits parliamentary elections. --Checco (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]