Talk:2018 Italian general election

Message for Nick.mon

Hello, Nick! I am much appreciating what you are doing with this article. However, I do not understand why you include some opinion polls and not others. In particular, I have noticed that the table (and, consequently, the chart) does not include the last Tecnè polls (here is a list of them). Possibly, other polls are missing; my advice is to include in the table those tracked on this website or the official one. Many thanks! --Checco (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Good job. Thanks! --Checco (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't take lots to comprehend why Nick.mon uses only certain polls. As self declared he's a left leaning guy, a nostalgic of the old communist party; nothing wrong with that, but he used to take only the polls directed towards the left political side. After your remarks the table has been adjusted, nevertheless consider also that the graph showing the polls takes into consideration only the above mentioned polls; therefore you have a PD which seems to be well managing the political scene since the last election, which possibly doesn't give a real picture of what goes on. IMHO, this page risks to lose its neutrality easily, continue keeping an eye on it! Torne (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Am I a nostalgic of the Communist Party? Yes I appreciate Berlinguer, but also people like Bossi and Maroni (who are not consider properly communists now) liked him and I have never voted for his party! Anyway I have wrote the polls that I found and if you find other ones, nobody forbid you to insert them in the box! Torne, excuse me, but I really don't understand your complains... -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Hey Nick, please insert ALL opinion polls, not just SOME. I would follow constantly this website, which is readable and usually up-to-date. I know you already use it as a primary source, but I noticed that several pre-Piepoli 11/20 opinion polls are missing from the table: Datamedia 11/20, Euromedia 11/19, Ipsos 11/19, FerrariNasi 11/17, Ixè 11/15, Swg 11/15, Demopolis 11/14, Ipr 11/11, Ixè 11/08, Tecnè 11/08, Demopolis 11/08, Swg 11/08, Lorien 11/06, Datamedia 11/06, Ipsos 11/05, etc. I suspect the list is much longer. A list of opinion polls makes sense only if it is complete, otherwise we have to delete it altogether. I perfectly know that such a list needs a lot of work, thus take your time and decide whether you want to do it or not. Many thanks, --Checco (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You are completely right, but I think that, maybe, you or some others could help me in doing it. Thank you. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of having all the opinion polls listed, but I'm not interested in heavily contributing to the article, mainly due to lack of time. Sorry about that. The election is far from now, thus the list is far from necessary. If no-one were to help you or you were not ablte to fully update the list, we would need to delete it altogether. An incomplete list is not compatible with Wikipedia. --Checco (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Every week at least eight opinion polls on the next Italian general election are conducted. In the table there are barely two or three polls per week, in some cases none. Once again, I have to say that, if no-one is willing to include all the opinion polls conducted, I will have to delete the table altogether. As it is now, the list is highly arbitrary and does not comply to Wikipedia rules. --Checco (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

We can't have an incomplete list of polls, let alone an incomplete graph. I haven't removed the polls yet because I have been hoping that someone would complete it, but I will soon remove the graph because it is patently arbitrary. I'm very sorry, but partial infos are not acceptable in our encyclopedia. Unless the list is completed with all the missing polls, I will be compelled to remove it too. --Checco (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

How many polls lack? Anyway the graph is made by Impru20, maybe if you tell to him, we will have a correct graph. Nick.mon (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Several polls are missing: in 15 days in November I counted 15 (see above). As said, every week at least 8 opinion polls are conducted, but in the table there are far less than that figure per week. We will have a "correct" (i.e. complete) graph only when the list will be complete. I perfectly know that it would require a lot of time or the contribution of many users, but if you don't have the time and no other users want to contribute, we will be compelled to delete the list. My advice is: do not start any effort you are not able to bring forward. --Checco (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion is to stop updating the table, delete it and re-insert it in the article only when you are able to guarantee that all opinion polls are included. We can probably wait until the next electoral campaign (2015? 2018?) to have a list of opinion polls. Having it before that is good, only provided that it is complete and not arbitrarily composed as it is now. --Checco (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If you tell me which poll are being missed I can insert it. But we must say to Impru20 to correct the graph. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Dozens of polls are missing and I don't have time to list them all. --Checco (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyway excuse me, but I think that in this page there are more polls than in the other next election of other countries. I know, there are something that were missed, but there are really a lot compared to other pages. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter. Other articles include the polls by a couple of pollsters, but at least all the polls by that pollster are included! That's not our case. And, anyway, other article's flaws are not a reason for having a flawed list here.

Huh? The table I added a while ago DOES include all opinion polls (and so does the graph). At least all those appearing in the ScenariPolitici page. Impru20 (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If you use the polls form Scenaripolitici it is ok! Maybe Checco said that in the graph of the polls lack some polls if you just copied the one that there were before, but if you added all the polls that you find in Scenaripolitici, I think it is ok. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The table is entirely new; I made it from scratch adding every poll I could find in ScenariPolitici. Impru20 (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Good! According to me, we can re-insert the graph with the polls. Maybe you can uploaded it at the end of January or you can do it now, with the polls of the first part of the month, I don't know how you are wont. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Impru20 can you do the same graph also for the Italian general election 2013? -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ooops I had just answered this question in your talk page. Impru20 (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Impru20 says that "the table I added a while ago DOES include all opinion polls (and so does the graph)", but that's not true: the table DOES NOT include all opinion polls, thus also the graph DOES NOT include all them. Such an incomplete graph is severly arbitrary (as also the table is): it's like giving the totals for an Italian general election without including the returns from Tuscany or Sicily. It's simply POV. --Checco (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the graph, re-inserted the "incomplete" tag and inserted the POV tag. I'm very sorry for Nick.mon, who is a friend, and for Impru20, who did a wonderful graph. However, we can't have a incomplete list, including only some opinion polls (the choice is not made according to any pattern, and it is thus arbitrary and POV), let alone a graph based on such an incomplete list (that would be even more POV). If any of you wants to check all the opinion polls taken since 1 March 2013 from Scenaripolitici.com (which lists them by pollster) and to include all those missing in the list, I won't have anything more to say about it. Such a list requires constant updating and no opinion poll should be left aside. --Checco (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but I don't understand why lack some polls, if Impru20 said that he added all the polls that he found on Scenaripolitici.com. We know that in the previous one there were not some ones, anyway, now I try to insert some of them. Nick.mon (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I could bet I had added those Tecne polls since they DO appear in the Excel file in which I made the graph (thus, they ARE included in the graph). Anyway, I will check again all polls in my file one by one to see if any of them is missing and re-update the graph accordingly (which I had to anyway since I had to fix some color schemes), but right now I can assure you they are there. However, Checco, next time instead of just removing the graph and arguing against the neutrality of everyone here, please say which polls are missing. From what I can read in this talk page, you've been constanly complaining about the supposed "arbitrary" nature of the graphs, yet I have seen little on your part when it comes to add those missing polls to the table; instead you keep removing the graph because you say there are missing polls. However, isn't this fact in itself, of complaining yet not telling which polls are missing, arbitrary? From my point of view, you could still be saying there are polls missing even if all of them were there, and no one would know because you don't say which ones are lacking. This is an article which can be edited by anyone, after all. You would be more helpful by completing those parts of the table you think are wrong and even uploading a graph of your own than just suggesting that some other one should do it or the deletion of all of it altogether. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

As you can see I insert the polls that lacked form 1 March to 3 September, I think that some other polls of Tecne should be insert in the next months, but I have not time to do it today, and I am not sure of that! But if you think that you inserted it, no problem, just upload a new version of the graph (if there are not already in it). Anyway if I were you, I would control another time if there are all the polls (as you said that you will do). -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Nick.mon's wonderful work, 99% of the polls taken after the 2013 election are now included in the list. As far as I understand, there are just 6 Tecnè polls, 2 IPR, 1 SWG and 1 Lorien still missing. I would ask Nick.mon to find them and insert them (when he has time, of course!). After he does that, I will ask Impru20 to update the graph. I hope Nick.mon and Impru20 will continue to update the table with all the opinion polls which are taken and the graph accordingly. I hope for them the next election is near because it's hard enough to do all that editing and updating for four years (unless a snap election is called, the next one will be in 2018).

To answer to Impru20, I think I did the right thing to remove the graph as it was not complete, which was true as Nick.mon showed when he added all those polls last week. One more thing: I'm not mandated to conribute to this article, especially to the table of polls which is good but not necessary in my view. As said, I'm not interested in editing the table, but I ask those who are interested in it to do so, without leaving any poll out. As Nick.mon and Impru20 are interested in having the table and the graph in the article (your choice!), they (not me) should make sure they are constantly updated. This said, I duly appreciate Nick.mon's and Impru20's work, and I thank Nick.mon in advance for when he will find and add the 9 polls which are still missing. --Checco (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Errata corrige: No IPR, SWG and Lorien polls are missing; just 6 Tecnè polls are still to be included in the list (and, possibly, in the graph), and I'm sure that Nick.mon perfectly knows about them. Thanks again. --Checco (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I just pointed out that it would be more helpful to state which polls are missing instead of just removing the graph. That said, today I have just noticed there is a complication about Tecnè polls: not all of them are shown in the ScenariPolitici Tecnè page, but they DO appear in the table shown in each of Tecné articles. This happens for the poll of 15/11/13. Another issue is that some of Tecnè polls include data just at the coalition level and not at the party one. This happens for polls 05/04/13, 12/04/13 and 19/04/13. Also I have detected one issue with polls 23/04/13 and 10/05/13; they had only shown party results in the table shown in recent polls, but they seemingly didn't when they were released (you can check it here and here). 15/11/13, 23/04/13 and 10/05/13 will be added now. The other three polls can't be added because of lack of data. Cheers! Impru20 (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for your contribution! --Checco (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Opinion polls for each region

Would it be interesting in your opinion to do a section with opinion polls for each Italian region? It could help to get an idea how the Italian upper house would look like! I'm only gonna do it, if someone agrees!Olliyeah (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for making and updating this page! I just want to point out that the "moving average" used to create the graph provides wrong results. For instance, it cannot be possible that the present (16/Oct/2013) average of the PD is nearly 31% when only two values of the last eight are above 30%. The same thing can be said about the average value of SEL, which is overestimated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxema (talk • contribs) 21:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree Pushdefyer (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Question to User:Impru20

@User:Impru20:
By chance did you insert the latest SP poll in the graph's calculations?
And, more important, do you use the whole table when updating the graph? I'm asking you this because I would like to know whether the correction of the data or the order of old polls or the inclusion of old missing polls are incorporated in the graph during the updates or not.
Many thanks, --Checco (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the latest SP poll was not in the table when I last updated the graph, so it probably doesn't include it yet (it will when I next update it). And about older polls, as long as they are on the table they are all included in the chart (checked it several times and they are all there). Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your outstanding work. Cheers to you! --Checco (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

PRC's polling

The Communist Refoundation Party (PRC) is not included in the table containing poll results, despite polling between 1.0 and 2.5%, above the UdC and SC. I think it should be included. Does anyone agree with me? Is there anyone who wants to do the job of adding the party? User:Impru20? User:Nick.mon? User:4idaho? User:Autospark? User:RJFF? I'm very sorry, but I have no time for it. Many thanks, --Checco (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know there's no clear rule for this, but my rule of thumb has always been to include parties that either have seats or are polling high enough to obtain seats. I'm not totally opposed, and there are exceptions I've supported, such as on the Danish polling article for the Christian Democrats (who poll sub 1%.) That's because of the more vague threshold of "notability" (the Danish CDs are polled by every company, and are discussed along side the other parties.)

Therefore, I think the PRC straddles this line, but I would say they fall on the side of not notable enough. They do have a few local seats, and recently won a seat in Emilia-Romanga (although it was in coalition and not under the name PRC.) However, they are polling nowhere near the threshold for seats nationally, have not won seats nationally in either recent national election, and it is my impression that they do not get as much attention as the other small parties who do have parliamentary representation (SC, SEL, NDC, ect.) However, you are Italian and I am not, and if you think PRC does receive equivalent attention (or is equally notable for some other reason) I'll defer to you.--4idaho (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it does, but, as said, I don't have the time to upload its results. Side note: I'm an Italian citizen, but I'm not an Italian. :) --Checco (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ps: I noticed that, in Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election, polls are organized in separate sections by year and there is no overflow. What do you, guys, think about doing the same to this article? Wouldn't it be better? --Checco (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you clarify what that means? Sorry, I don't understand... --4idaho (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Just compare the table here and those at Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election... Polls are divided in sections by year and there is no overflow. --Checco (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)--Checco (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that PRC should been inserted in the polls and sometimes I thought to do it by muself, anyway, as Checco, sorry but I don't think to have the time to do it. And I think that Checco's proposal is a good idea.-- Nick.mon (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing against adding PRC, but there is one issue, and it is that most pollsters do not include data for them but have them in the "Others" section. So, despite it polling at 1.5-2.0%, it could result in many rows being left empty. I'd rather wait until they do poll higher and most polls do actually include them.

About separating polls by year, it doesn't make much sense with the current scrolling box in place. Removing the scrolling box in order to justify separating by year would not be a good solution, either, since we have just two years of polling (2013 and 2014) and it already would make the article so long that it hinders any possible search of individual polls (no talk about how much it would do it if no election is held until 2018; that would be five years worth of polls). While the UK polling article do separate polls by year, in that case it is a system thought for less parties and more polls, which still allows for a relatively easy search of polls. Impru20 (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I definitely prefer the version I uploaded (without the scrolling box) than Impru20's. We surely need to find a broad consensus, but does Impru20's version have it? I don't think so. Impru20 introduced the scrolling box without seeking consensus some time ago and, in this page, both Nick.mon and I have supported the other option. Moreover, having polls divided in sections by year is quite useful in order to reflect the changes in the party system: new parties (the "southern" League, a new left-wing party, etc.) will probably come out in 2015 and including SC will become worthless. --Checco (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I introduced the entire table back on its day alongside the scrolling box, I should note. It is not something I added without consensus; there was no one editing the opinion polling section back then. Having polls divided by years, at least in the way you put them, is not useful at all. You would just make the article unbearably long for readers, and with so many parties in the tables, trying to search for individual polls will be a nightmare, specially if the election is held in 2018 as scheduled (which would result in incredibly long separate tables for each year between 2013 and 2018). Besides, you have asked for separating the polls by years, not about removing the scrolling box (which you did). And changes in the party system should be discussed as they happen, not on the basis that "there is the probability that party X will come out in 2015". WP:CRYSTAL. First, let that party actually get created; second, let that party actually get some support in opinion polls before we can even pass to consider any kind of change to accommodate that party (btw, there's still space for more parties to be added in the tables, so it is not a pressing matter right now). Impru20 (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a few precisations:

• I was editing the article back then, but, even though I disagreed with your change, I said nothing, that's why I started this discussion two days ago.
• When I said "overflow", I intended "scrolling box", but I'm sure Nick.mon understood what I intended to say.
• I think it is better to have polls divided in sections by year because, in case of changes to the party's system (some will surely happen, thus I don't see any need of recalling WP:CRYSTAL, a principle I obviously agree with, and, as I said, I think it would be worthless to include SC in 2015), we won't need to add long columns. I also think that it is quite better to have long tables like in Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election than the scrolling box.

--Checco (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If we talk about additional columns, I would consider it much more important to add undecided voters and those who intend to abstain. According to recent EMG polls, nearly 20% are undecided and more than 40% say they would abstain in the next election. So the share of those expressing their preference for any party is just around 40% which is very low for Italian standards and a substantial change compared to the last elections.
Apart from this, I do like the version with scrolling function. As a compromise, we could still divide the table into several tables with scrolling function. But instead of cutting it at the turn of each year, I would just cut it at the time of a significant party splitting, collapsing or emerging (e.g. the time of the FI/NCD split in November 2013 — so we would have a pre-FI/NCD table that includes PdL and a post-FI/NCD table that includes FI and NCD). --RJFF (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Other than the PRC, we could definitely add undecided voters and would be-abstentions, even though their numbers usually decrease when the election is near. Also RJFF's compromise solution looks quite sensible to me, but I stick to my proposal, mainly because not all the pollsters adapt to changes in the party system at the same time, but also for aesthetical reasons. What is more important to me is to avoid scrolling boxes: what is the problem with having long tables like those at Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election? --Checco (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm recalling WP:CRYSTAL because you have defended a change on the assumption of a future event (a party being created somewhere in 2015) which is not even 100% sure to happen, and even if it does, it is not even guaranteed to have a serious impact on opinion polls.

The problem with having long tables (I already stated it, but I will repeat it) is that they ocuppy far too much space in the article when it is not needed. But not only that, also for practical issues: having several long tables makes searching for individual polls very problematic (you would have to scroll the entire article, instead of just a part of it) and in extreme cases, it can cause load issues with the page if tables are too long and there are too many of them. You can't obviously compare with the Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election because they use a different system to present opinion polls (precisely because of a different political system; in the UK only 4 or 5 parties are relevant, which makes tables simpler to look at). In that article, consensus is against the inclusion of new columns unless very necessary, while here we are talking of adding even more (with the subsequent confusion issues arising from very long tables with many colums). I had a discussion with a guy some time ago, with which I disagreed with the way he used to solve an issue, but where I agreed with his premise. That is, that for very long tables, if you are looking for a specific party's figure, you must have to memorize the order of the individual parties, then scroll down and check the figure. If you lose track of the column order, you have to scroll all the way up again and then all the way down again. Making that for excessively long tables is quite painful. The current scrolling box solves that issue pretty well, because it places party names at the head of the scrolling box. Is not only aesthetics what matter, but also usefulness.

Btw, you know that I could make the very same argument other way 'round: what is the problem with having scrolling boxes like those at Opinion polling for the Spanish general election, 2015, Next Portuguese legislative election, Polish parliamentary election, 2015, Swedish general election, 2014, Opinion polling for the next Danish general election, etc?

Also, with the scrolling box present, it makes no sense to divide poll by year. But that is one thing, and another one is RJFF's solution, which seems reasonable to me: split the table just when important events result in major changes in the political landscape. A party split could be one reason; a new party being created and rising dramatically in opinion polls could be another. Though I would limit that table splitting to those situations where space comes as an issue.

I have no objection over adding abstentions and undecided vote.

Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

There was no need of recalling WP:CRYSTAL again (that SC has eclipsed and that LN will launch its sister party in the South are facts, but I did not mention them in my latest comment), but you almost convinced me. I would keep years separate and I would also add to the header of the table the 2013 election's results (so that readers can compare the parties' most recent ratings with 2013), but I won't oppose a different outcome. --Checco (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not recall it again. I only explained why I did recall it in the first place. That LN will launch its sister party in the South may be a fact; that it'll get enough support in opinion polls, or that it'll even be shown separately to LN (because, as a sister party, opinion polls could just group both parties' results together, just as it's done to PSOE/PSC in Spain or to CDU/CSU in Germany), are NOT facts.

I'm rather undoing your edits until consensus can be reached about everything (since it's not polite to change things unilaterally in the middle of a discussion about those, specially if alternative proposals have been exposed). Just to keep the page neutral, to the latest undisputed version, so that changes, if done, can be agreed and discussed upon and done at once, instead of by bits.

Btw, I see you keep changing the fieldwork dates for the two latest Ixè polls. I would suggest you to look at the slideshare links (the main source of those polls), which clearly state that fieldwork dates are 26–27 Nov (see here, page 13) and 3–4 Dec (see here, page 17). www.sondaggipoliticoelettorali.it should only be used in case no other link or source is available, since it sometimes tends to have incomplete data. Impru20 (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that I broadly agree with you now. Having only one table makes sense as this is an article on an election and not one on the opinion polls for an election. Moreover, if new parties will arise, we would better treat them as we treated the NCD (rowspan="???", did not exist). Let me be bold on just one thing: adding the 2013 results to the header. --Checco (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Civic Choice

Good morning! My question is why Civic Choice should be in the polls? By now its percentage are around 0.5 or less and lot of pollsters do not insert SC in their researches. What do you think, SC could be deleted from polls and graphs? -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

We could leave it in the 2013 and 2014 polls, while removing it from the 2015 polls. Sounds good? --Checco (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is exactly what I proposed! -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

For now, it is still appearing in some polls as of early 2015. As of currently, with the current table design, it presents absolutely no problem of space (in the event that new columns needed to be added for new parties), so I can't see a reason for removing it for 2015. Keep in mind that while you may remove it from the table, its trend line still shows for them in 2015, and still counts 2015 polls in showing SC data. Thus, it would make no sense to remove them from the table unless it is absolutely needed, and unless you want to remove it altogether from the chart too. Impru20 (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I frankly do not understand your arguments. The trend lines should be based on the tables, thus, if we remove a party from the 2015 table, it can be easily removed from the chart. SC's pollings are negligible now, while they weren't in 2013 and early 2014. --Checco (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I completly agree with Checco, there are no reasons to include in the polls a party which does not appear anymore in them. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

SC still has 23 seats in the Chamber and is part of the government, so I believe it has enough significance to appear in the tables, so long as it does not dissolve, does not create a space problem or disappears from polls completely (yet, as of early 2015, it still appears).

Also, it is me the one that don't understand your arguments. So, you suggest removing the entire party trend line? Or are you suggesting removing it from the chart from 2015 onwards (and thus, having an incomplete trend line for that party)? Impru20 (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Since it may eventually disappear from opinion polls, a solution could be splitting the table from the point SC ceases to appear in the polls. As of currently, the last opinion polls showing SC is dated on 18 February. If this keeps consistent, then obviously the table trend line would have to stop there as a result of lack of data, but the data previous to 18 February I can't see why it couldn't be maintained. Impru20 (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion is precisely to remove SC from the chart from 2015 onwards and, consequently, have an incomplete trend line for the party, whose numbers are already negligible, close to zero. However, if there is no consensus on the "Nick.mon–Checco" proposal, I can live with SC remaining in the table and the chart until it eventually disappears, while I oppose any splitting of the table from the point SC ceases to appear in the polls. My model is still and always Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election. --Checco (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

As it seems to be, SC is not going to last much longer in opinion polls, but that doesn't mean we can just remove existing data altogether. It will probably not even last until mid-2015, so by 2016 it should surely be removed outright from the table, unless a miraclous revival happens. But that leaves us with the issue of the early 2015 polls, which still show data for SC as high as 1%. I don't think it is fair to just remove those data just because those had the 'bad luck' of being registered in 2015 and not in 2014. As I said, SC it's a government party as of currently, and has also relevance in the sense it polled 8% in 2013, so it may attract the attention of people looking for the party's downfall into irrelevance in opinion polls.

For now, I really don't think it is a serious issue for the table to leave SC there in order to preserve the 2015 data. The current table format allows for a few more parties to be added without causing any conflict with the page's width, even if SC remains. Impru20 (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. This said, is there anyone now willing to introduce the polling results of the PRC? --Checco (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok I think we could remove it from 2016, even if we are only in March. And I agree with Checco in introducing the results of PRC. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Since as of currently there is space for it, I also agree with having PRC (or any other party with a consistently significant relevance in opinion polls) in. Impru20 (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there anyone willing to do it? --Checco (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The main "problem" is that in the tables on the website scenaripolitici, PRC is not included... -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Polls' section needs constant update

As observed before, the section on opinion polls and the related graph need constant update, and all the polls should be included. I expressed my concern on this many times and I have also candidly admitted that, while loving the idea, I was not interested in doing such work. User:Nick.mon, who strongly wanted the section, and User:Impru20, who constantly updated the section until a month ago, are no longer updating the article on a regular basis. A little bit against my own will, I have been fixing the dates of the polls, adding the missing polls and adding some results, while User:El Duende and others have done a great job in filling the results. Editing is free, thus, if there is not an adequate number of editors willing to update the section, we should delete it. --Checco (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm as of currently very busy with the Spanish elections section (due to the incoming 24 May municipal and regional elections), and I've little time as of now to dedicate it to other pages.

By any means, you should not remove the section: remember that in Wikipedia, perfection is not required. That is, quoting from the policy, "Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome". Translating this into this article, it would mean that, despite updating not being as frequent as before, by any means does it mean that it can't be updated or improved in the future. Removing the section with that justification would accomplish nothing, considering the evolving nature of Wikipedia. On my part, I will, as soon as I can spare time and feel like doing it. Anyway, you are free to update the section yourself if you feel like it; it's not like this is a job we are required or obliged to accomplish. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The polls' section would be quite POV if only some polls are included and others aren't. I'm not particularly interested in updating the section, but I'm interested in consistency and neutrality. As I said, a little bit against my will, I'm working on the section to some extent, but I will stop if I don't see others interested in updating it on a regular basis. Of course, I don't want to impose anything to anyone, but I think we should be careful when starting efforts we're not willing to sustain in the long run. I take this opportunity to remember everybody that the polls' dates come from here. --Checco (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding what POV means. WP:POV refers to those cases were articles or part of articles take one side instead of being neutral; that is, by explaining something in a biased way. The case here is that the article is outdated, and it lacks recent information. That's all. You can't consider as POV (since bias is something that requires intention) an unintentional absence of information resulting from an article not being updated. The opinion polling section is neutral as it is, as the data it includes is neither biased nor false nor trying to impose a particular point of view; it is just outdated. If we were to abide by your definition of POV, considering that the world is constantly evolving and generating information, and we were to apply your "proposal" of just deleting the parts that are not updated, we would have to blank most of Wikipedia articles, since nothing is never, ever, 100% updated. Again, WP:PERFECTION.

Anyway, instead of just removing it and complaining about others not updating it, be bold and update it yourself. I may understand your worries to try to keep the page updated, but you can't force others to do it for yourself, specially when you yourself are admitting that you don't want to update it. Furthermore, you have no right to force others to keep constantly updating an article by threatening them to delete entire sections of it otherwise (specially when they have not the time to update it as of currently). Wikipedia is a free project, and most contributors, such as you or me, do this in exchange of nothing and out of good will. Update it, or wait for others to update it, but don't force anyone to do so. I will update the article as soon as I can, but currently, I can't, at least until 24-25 May (and then, I will be busy completing the 2015 election articles with election results and finishing my exams). Patience. Impru20 (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I subscribe to your definition of POV and your thoughts on perfection and freedom, but I've nothing to add to what I already said. I don't want to force anyone to to do anything, but I think that we should be more careful before launching efforts we are not willing to keep up. User:Nick.mon is a friend of mine and a dedicated user, but he does that too often, as in this specific case. I'm just asking him to be more involved in the section. I much prefer a blank section instead of an out-of-date one and this opinion of mine is not less legitimate than yours. Cheers to you, --Checco (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

"we should be more careful before launching efforts we are not willing to keep up"

You do realise that Wikipedia evolves precisely by people launching efforts, right? Independently of if those people are able to keep up those efforts or not, eventually someone else will show up to improve on those efforts. That is what WP:PERFECTION is all about. Someone makes a contribution, then others go on an improve on it, so Wikipedia is actually never finished, and incomplete work can be completed later on. Furthermore, we are not saying here that we are not willing to keep up updating the page; in my case, what I'm saying is that I can't do it right now, but will be able to in the future.

"I much prefer a blank section instead of an out-of-date one"

Yes, well, but that's just an opinion. Very legitimate, of course, but keep in mind that not everything that is an opinion should be applied in reality. Take in mind also that, if we were to delete the section, in the case someone in the future wanted to keep updating the opinion polling section he/she would have to dig through the article's historial to recover the info, which is unnecessary and, looking at the amount of information, costly too. I would agree on deletion if someone had posted biased information or purposedly innacurate data, but it is not the case here. Take WP:PRESERVE into consideration; we are not before a case of inappropiate content. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Checco, as you said, I wanted the polls section and I still think that it is important for this page. The problem is that here in Italy we have more polls than in the other countries, that request a constant updating. Excuse me, by nowI haven't got so many time, as everyone I think, but I promise that I will be more involved in this section. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there any ways it could be updated? I understand it must be a lot of work, but to have it stop a few months before the elections with trends which obviously reversed seeing the results of Forza Italia and the League is kind of misleading. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Change title to Italian general election, 2018

I've created the new title Italian general election, 2018 which redirects here. I think we should consider moving the article to that page, and have a redirect from Next Italian general election to it, in keeping with the convention for all other 2018 elections around the world.--Gciriani (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes I support your proposal, there's no longer enough time for a snap election in 2017, so it will be held in 2018. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we should wait until it's legally impossible for an election to be held in 2017. We're still in August 2017, and given than, under Constitution provisions, an election will take place within 70 days from dissolution of the previous Parliament, that would still allow for an election to be held in 2017 if it was to be called before 22 October 2017 (70 days before 31 December 2017). So yes, there's still time.

Personally, I think it looks like it won't be held in 2017 as of now, but convention for election articles normally advices to wait for any doubts on election year to be cast off before moving the article, just to prevent WP:CRYSTALBALL. Impru20 (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Impru20 on this – unless we know 100% that it will be in 2018, the article shouldn't be moved. Number 57 16:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Impru20 and Number57. --Checco (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Update Opinion polling pic

hi can somebody update the polling pic thanks. Torygreen84 (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Impru20: Hi Impru! Could you update the graph? Thank you :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Democratic Party ideology

Renzi's Democratic Party isn't a centre-left party any more. It is closer to old Christian Democracy, the centrist party which ruled Italy for 40 years, especially in economy. 95.246.229.169 (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Centre-right leader

Even if the new electoral law does not require the indication of the PM candidate, we should select one among Berlusconi, Salvini and Meloni, or maybe another future candidate, to represent the Centre-right coalition in the infobox. Personally I would use the image and the name of the leader which represent the party that gained more votes among them, what do you think? Anyway, if the coalition will be confirmed, until the election day we should find another solution... -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Currently we have parties in the infobox—and I would keep them, while reducing their number. However, if coalitions are to be added, my suggestion is to use the photos of both Berlusconi and Salvini (as with the German Greens in German federal election, 2013). --Checco (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Your proposal is absolutely the more correct one, but I think it is bit "ugly" 😅 Anyway this is only my personal opinion, and "beauty" is not a needed characteristic in Wikipedia... For example in German federal election, 2017, even if many parties had two leaders, only one leader (maybe the most prominent one) was insert in the infobox. -- Nick.mon (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not think that having two photos would be "ugly", however I am fine with the current version (parties instead of coalitons) and I appreciated your latest edits (reduce the number of parties from nine to six: too many parties... that is "ugly"!). --Checco (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes we had to decide if it is more correct inserting all the main parties (for example 6) or the coalitions; and so if, for the infobox, it is more "important" the proportional part or the first-past-the-post one. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

You are right, indeed. That is a decision we have to take at some point. For the general elections from 1994 to 2013 we have coalitions in the infobox, and that is probably what we have to do for 2018. Let's wait a bit. --Checco (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Parties or Coalitions?

I saw that many users edited the article reducing the number of parties/coalitions listed in the infobox, and according to me, that's a good idea. But we have a problem with the Centre-right: Berlusconi is considered by many as the "federator" or even the leader of the Centre-right coalition, but Salvini put in his electoral symbol the words "Salvini Premier", so I think that he wouldn't agree with us :) In my view we should insert the photo of the leader of the party that gained the most amount of votes; because, according to me, using two photos of both Salvini and Berlusconi, is quite complicated and less intuitive. Another solution would be keeping the infobox ordered by parties (remember that the electoral law is largely a proportional representation) and than insert under each one the respective coalition.
-- Nick.mon (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Having thought about it a bit, I have to say that, as a third of MPs will be elected in single-seat constituencies as coalition joint candidates, it is probably more correct to have coalitions rather than parties in the infobox. I would have no problem in having two leaders as well as two photos for the centre-right coalition, but, if I had to choose among Berlusconi and Salvini, I would select the former, who had been the centre-right's long-time leader and is still the leader of the centre-right's largest party, Forza Italia. If that changes in the election (i.e. Lega Nord obtains more votes than Forza Italia), we can always replace Berlusconi with Salvini—after the election.

--Checco (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, if we have to choose between Salvini and Berlusconi, I would "vote" for Silvio, because he is still the de facto leader of the coalition; and as you said, if Lega will become the most voted party in the Centre-right we will replace him with Salvini. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Parties are shown in the infobox for all elections since 1945, including those where coalitions were nearly a must, which include all elections since 1994. Typically, it's the coalition's leading party the one shown, or most specifically, the party from which the leading candidate is a member of. So, I don't understand this edit when it says parties are "deceptive". Specially considering such an edit implied removing colors and the such from the infobox. Impru20 (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Impru20: Thanks for be willing to discuss. From 1946 to 1992 only parties competed in elections, while since 1994 elections have been fought primarily by coalitions of parties. I do think that including the coalition leaders' parties in the infobox, let alone including them before coalitions (as the infobox mandates), is a little bit deceptive, especially this year with the centre-right coalition, as the latter is a joint venture of several parties and the two largest have an almost equal weight. However, it is not a big deal and what really bothered me was your total rollback: thanks for reverting that part and coming here. --Checco (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I didn't saw the other edits until re-checking the page's history, so I restored them before coming here to discuss the infobox issue. These were not an issue.

As far as I'm concerned, coalitions in Italy typically have a leader, and they usually show him/her in the ballot and in election posters and propaganda. I understand your point about the centre-right coalition, though. Once the election is held, it will probably become clear who'll be the leader within the centre-right alliance, but I see that would be a mess as of now. Anyway, your edit didn't fix that, since you preserved Berlusconi (and it's not the parties that really matter in determining the leader, but actually, the leader shown would have his party shown as a consequence too). If there's no clear leader I think there's no point in showing an actual leader for now. If both Berlusconi and Salvini are claiming leadership, we could either show them both or show none. I guess we would to have to figure it out which party to show, but this is not something that actually affects the other alliances, which do have a clear coalition leader. Impru20 (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You are right, but Berlusconi will be the de facto leader of the coalition, as always since 1994. According to opinion polls FI is now scoring higher than LN; moreover also the "fourth leg of the coalition", the minor NcI supports Berlusconi as coalition leader (and maybe as PM, even if he cannot be elected). So, in my view we should keep Silvio in the infobox. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

As the situation currently stands, for now, I support Nick.mon’s solution.--Autospark (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I also confirm my support to User:Nick.mon's solution. However, let me point out a few things. First of all, differently from what User:Impru20 wrote, coalition leaders have not usually been shown on the ballots, election posters and propaganda. Secondly, if we agree that "it's not the parties that really matter in determining the leader, but actually, the leader shown would have his party shown as a consequence too", that party should be shown in the "backseat", not before the coalition. Regarding 2018, one could even argue that it is the parties, or better the largest party, determining the leader, not the other way around, but... that has not been the case with the centre-left most of the times: in 1996, 2001 and 2006 the coalition leader did not come from the largest party of the coalition, that is why it is quite deceptive to include its party. Finally, not even the centre-left has a clear coalition leader: that is not how the PD and especially its allies will conduct the upcoming campaign... --Checco (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it will be a very confused campaign (as almost every campaigns in the world in this period). However as Checco said, even the Centre-left hasn't got an "official" leader, but I think we can consider Renzi as coalition leader, because he's the secretary of the largest party (by far) of the coalition; as Berlusconi was in almost every elections from 1994 until 2013. -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

UNDUE issue + consistency

I've been repeteadly reverted by Checco when trying to adapt the parties' table to previous article's standards (check Italian general election, 2013, Italian general election, 2008 and so on). More or less I did it by this version, until I noticed Checco was reverting most of my edits and I subsequently reverted myself to avoid dragging both of us into an edit war (somehow, I did not notice Checco's later edits until checking at the page's history. Sorry 'bout that).

Checco, you've also kept adding PaP and CPI in the table, despite 1) both parties polling insignificantly, below 1% and not even reported by all pollsters (indeed, CPI was only reported by one; its addition being justified by Checco in that "more polls will follow". Well, we don't know that. That's a WP:CRYSTAL assumption), and 2) both parties had no parliamentary representation whatsover, so it looks absolutely off to list them jointly with the "main parties and coalitions". Unless some sources are provided to justify those can be considered as "main", they should be removed from the table (unless otherwise shown in the election results). Under this, their current addition constitutes an issue of WP:UNDUE.

Then, the second "Coalitions and electoral lists" section was removed because "a complete list is not possible; several parties listed will not run". Well, previous articles do list all parties within a given coalition, and parties listed here were transcribed from the coalitions' articles. So, if some of these are not running, then surely the coalitions' pages should be fixed and those not running removed, right? Otherwise it's somewhat absurd to have non-running parties as part of a given coalition if they are not running at all!

Btw, it's weird that this was called redundant, yet yesterday I had to remove a literal transclusion of this page into Opinion polling for the Italian general election, 2018 (seemingly, that wasn't redundant?). I agree it is redundant and it's not my preferred way of showing parties and coalitions (I would prefer to have just one section showing everything in a single table) but this is how previous Italian general election articles work and I don't see the point in changing consistency here. If it's redundant here, it's redundant for these too, so either we update this to reflect previous articles, or we fix the other articles. Impru20 (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for be willing to discuss and sorry if I was a little bit rude with you this morning!

However, it seems to me that you are missing something or that I am missing some of your points. I will put it simply.

• The official list of running coalitions and parties is not available (and won't be until the end of January).
• Articles on coalitions should be fixed if they include incorrect infos, but here we are talking about this article and, more important, articles on coalitions may include more parties (e.g. those included in joint lists) depending on how those articles are organised.
• A list of "main parties and leaders" is useful when the election is some years away, but here it is better to have just a list of the main coalitions and parties.
• I would remove "main parties and leaders" also from the articles on previous Italian general elections, but there is no need of consistency between articles on elections with different electoral and party systems (1994's, 1996's, 2001's and 2008's were quite simple, 2006's and 2013's more fractured, 2018's will see).
• Most of the parties you included in the long list will not field lists in the 2018 election.
• The list of "main coalitions and parties" (which I favour) should include all notable parties (both PaP and CPI are frequently cited in Italian news sources) and I would personally enlarge it with all the parties fielding lists in at least 4-5 regions (let's wait the end of January for that). --Checco (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ps: Sorry for the techcnical problem with Opinion polling for the Italian general election, 2018. There was a problem with the transclusion. I wanted (and I would like) to transclude only the table on "main coalitions and parties": it worked fine until yesterday, I don't know what went wrong after that.

Probably I was the one who "invented" the format used for the previous elections; I did it, because until 1994 we had a proportional representation, and the table regarding parties and their leaders was fundamental; but from 1994 to 2013 the coalitions were much more important than parties, however I couldn't simply remove the table about parties so I kept two different tables, one for parties and one for coalitions (but I admit that two different tables aren't so useful...) Maybe I can rewrite the previous articles with the new format and keep the sections regarding coalitions' leaders only for the elections from 1994 to 2013 (because with the current electoral law it isn't necessary). -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

PaP ideology

Hello, Nick. I owe you an apology: I had no idea this page was your personal playground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.39.118 (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@151.30.39.118: LOL, yes this is exactly my personal playground :) I reverted your edit because the ideology Anti-capitalism wasn't even indicated in PaP's article; however if you really think that Anti-capitalism is the main ideology of that movement, we can discuss about it. In my view, communism is more correct, but this is only my personal opinion. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

If you want my opinion, as PaP is an electoral alliance headed by two communist parties, it is not inaccurate to describe its ideology as communism.--Autospark (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, the other members are very tiny parties or social centers. -- Nick.mon (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

And those social centres are communist too! Communism is definitely PaP's main ideology. --Checco (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Northern League

I've completed Lega Nord's full name which is Northern League in english, per its own page, and changed the ideology displayed. If we're going to have only one, it should be the main ideology per the party own page too.--Aréat (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

In this election, party's official name will be only "League", and under Salvini the main ideology is, without any doubt, populism. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You may be right, but you have to source such an claim.--Aréat (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, you can find some sources on LN article, but if you want, there are also these ones: 1, 2, 3 4, 5. Moreover, a website which is used by Salvini to promote his policies (similar to Breitbart for Trump) is named "Il Populista" (The Populist). -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Further, the very fact of the name change (running just as "League") backs the claims in these sources, as LN has, under Salvini, moved away from regionalist stances in this election, focusing more in populist messages. Impru20 (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Minor lists

Both The People of Family and Italian Republican Party will run in all the electoral districts, as Casapound and Power to the People, I think it would be fair to include also PdF and PRI in the table. --Jamala (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

In my view we shouldn't insert neither CasaPound and Power to the People nor the Communist Party and New Force; that table is about the main parties and coalitions, not lists that will gain few votes. -- Nick.mon (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

According to me we should insert in the table all those lists that will appear on all regions and electoral districts, so those that have collect signatures everywhere (PaP, Cpi, PDF) and those who will appear as parties yet represented in parliament (the two coalitions, M5S, LeU, PRI) --Jamala (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

New Force and Communist Party will only appear in some districts, so I would not insert them, but it is fair to include all those who will appear in all the districts --Jamala (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I would include all the parties running in the majority of multi-member constituencies. --Checco (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Italy to Italians does not run for the majority of multi-member constituencies, as far as I know. --Jamala (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

While the infobox should be a summary, I believe it is appropriate for the content of the article to go for completeness. That is, this table shouldn't just be for the main parties and coalitions. Or, at least, we should include these small groups somewhere.

Compare United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017#Overall: there is a summary table that includes every party that won seats, and that includes parties with <1% of the national vote share who only stood in a minority of regions. The full results then list numerous tiny parties. The full results for Italian general election, 2013 list many tiny parties too. Bondegezou (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

"Campaign" section

I am quite dubious on the relevance of parts of the "Campaign" section, especially that on the "Macerata attack". I would barely mention it, as for instance the murder of Jo Cox, an event directly connected with the campaign, in United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. The Macerata attack is hardly connected with the campaign. Of course it has been commented by several politicians, but that happens with most news during the campaign. Additionally, I am not sure about having a sub-section named "Electoral programmes" and, more generally, English should be improved all over the place. --Checco (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

In my view we can remove the section "Macerata attack", even if it was an event that occurred during the campaign and "occupied" all the political debate for days; but, according to me, the section regarding parties' programmes should remain in the article. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Macerata case

The Mastropietro murder and Traini's attack certainly have a bearing on the upcoming election, but the case is both complex and extremely notable (relative to the type of "attacks" that usually get their own Wikipedia entries). The national election page is hardly the place to treat this.

Also, I cannot help but wonder who gets to select the soundbites reported in an encyclopedic article. I find it quite suggestive that

• the Mastropietro murder is of unspeakable cruelty, apparently the girl was stabbed, raped, tortured and flayed alive
• this caused extreme outrage among the population, to the point where Traini's lawyers cites overwhelming solidarity with his client, the victim's mother publicly thanking Traini and Traini being given a hero's reception in jail
• the soundbites selected are limited to the immediate political exploitation of the case by Lega Nord's opponents trying to shift blame for this entire sickening business on Matteo Salvini.

At least try to be neutral. If there is a dedicated page on the case, sure there can be bland politician soundbites like "hate and violence will not divide Italy", but it will certainly be more informative to cite the actual case details [1][2] to exlpain all the "hate and violence" than to just give cynical partyline bickering like "xenophobic comments by my opponent caused this". --dab (𒁳) 11:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

As above. I do not think the case should be mentioned in the article. If so, it should take just a sentence. --Checco (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok if you think that it's irrelevant we can remove it :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

A line is OK and would be enough. --Checco (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

John Oliver

Should we mention John Oliver as a candidate for the Italian Prime Ministerial election? I mean, he /has/ filed the paperwork and everything. ~Skylar (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice joke, but it is probably out-of-scope here. --Checco (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Leaders

I think that Tajani should not be considered the leader of Forza Italia. The leader is still Berlusconi. Even if Berlusconi is suggesting that Tajani would be his choice as prime minister, Tajani did not participate in the electoral campaign at all. Moreover, for the Italian system this is not an election to decide the prime minister (which is decided by the President of the Republic), but only the parliament. That's why in the page relative to the 2013 elections, neither Letta, nor Renzi or Gentiloni are appointed as leaders but only Bersani is.

In addition, I think that in the top table the League and Brothers of Italy should be added too somehow, since Free and Equals, which is in the table, has much less votes than the League and comparable with Brothers of Italy. Massa88 (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I perfectly agree on Tajani and Berlusconi. On coalitions and parties, I would stick the current version for now, at least: it is better to have the coalitions in the infobox instead of the single parties (and both the M5S and LeU are practically speaking coalitions). --Checco (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox would be more clear with less entries, but right now it is showing the parties and not the coalitions. Moreover, if it is showing the coalition, then Berlusconi is not the leader of the coalition since it is known that the leader of the centre-right coalition will depend on the result of the vote. Massa88 (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Right now the infobox features coalitions, but the fact that also the coalition leaders' parties are mentioned is effectively confusing. I agree with User:Massa88! As I wrote above, "I do think that including the coalition leaders' parties in the infobox, let alone including them before coalitions (as the infobox mandates), is a little bit deceptive, especially this year with the centre-right coalition, as the latter is a joint venture of several parties and the two largest have an almost equal weight". We should remove the coalition leaders' parties in this article and in all the articles on Italian elections since 1994. --Checco (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this year it is a bit deceptive. In the past (1994-2013) the coalition leader was much more clear and actually in the electoral law valid from 2006 to 2013, a formal leader of the coalition had to be appointed. In the new electoral, such feature is not present and the clear example of that is the centre-right coalition. Massa88 (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Breakdown of Vote by Age

Can we include this survey posted on Tecne EuropeElects (https://twitter.com/EuropeElects) which breaks down the vote by age Guyb123321 (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Renzi and the "center-left"?

Can the Renzi coalition in all seriousness be call "left" anything at all? He was basically the Merkel/Macron proxy cadidate in this election and is known as a centrist, a liberal within his party. This is an openly bourgeois liberal coalition. The fact that the Free and Equal (Italy) had to be founded to cater to the views of even mild social democrats outside of this coalition is quite telling. On the Italian Wikipedia, they do not even bother to use "red" for Merke.... Renzi's coalition, but stick to a more honest orange colour. Should we follow suit? Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The PD is definitely a centre-left party, with Communist roots, links with trade unions and PES membership, no matter the fact that Renzi is a centrist social-democrat and, to some extent, a social-liberal. Italian Wikipedia is an odd source. --Checco (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Salvini technically has roots in anarcho-communism, beginning his political life in Leoncavallo Spazio Pubblico Autogestito (which is associated with autonomism) but we would not say he was standing on a left platform in this election. PD may have very distant "communist" roots too (if we want to maintain a notion of Togliattian Revisionism and Berlinguerian Eurocommunism as anything more than warmed up social democracy) but that is not what they were standing for in this 2018 election, where they are far more to the right than that. There was a centre-left coalition standing to the left of them, placing them in the centre, as they were just standing as shills for the liberal EU (Angie-Macron). Emma Bonino was comfortable enough to get into bed with them. Claíomh Solais (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The PD is a centre-left party, probably to the left of the German SPD. All the European social-democratic parties have moved to the right in the last century or so. The PD is no exception. I really do not understand this discussion. --Checco (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Almost all of your rationale to not call the PD 'centre left' or 'social democratic' is based on your own opinion. I strongly advise you check out WP:NPOV. Wikipedia describes political parties and figures based on their own stated position or the overwhelming public view of their position, it does not comment on how their position should be seen, as that's not a neutral point of view and doesn't let readers make their own conclusions. JackWilfred (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The primary colour of the Partito Democratico is red, that's why the PD, and by extension the centre-left coalition, is red. The PD is nominally and regularly referred to as social democratic and centre-left, which is why they're referred to as such. I don't think your views on "Merkel/Macron proxies" are at all relevant to how we classify the PD. JackWilfred (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The PD is without any doubt a centre-left party: it's a member of the Party of European Socialists and a PD's politician (Gianni Pittella) is at the head of the S&D group in the EP Parliament. The PD's electoral basin is mainly social democratic (or at least progressive), as the majority of its national leading members. So the PD (as its alliance) is a centre-left movement. -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that parties on Wikipedia are (always?) depicted with the same colour over time. Labour remains red, under Blair or Corbyn. SPD under Schröder is also red. I'd personally find it informative if Renzi's PD was depicted Macronist yellow but this isn't common practice in Wikipedia. Chuborno (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Salvini Photo

Can someone please upload a professional, appropriate photo of Salvini comparable to those of Renzi and Di Maio, i.e. proper, official political portrait photo. Theirs have suits and ties and are official. Salvini is in a t-shirt looking angry. I don't know if that was intended to besmirch and portray him in a bad light, but this unprofessional. As is (with photos this way), this page is currently unprofessional, not commensurate, and looks childish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:6D0:1000:1D3:AE3D:7B5:4F (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe he just has a more casual style, and it's possible he has anger issues. --Holdek (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Actual answer: it's apparently the only decent quality freely-licensed image/portrait uploaded to Commons. If you can find a better one, then please do upload it. Mélencron (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

When the new legislature will begin, we'll have a new official portrait for all of them. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you happen to know where one could find them? I suppose they will soon be made by now.--Aréat (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a problem, photos from the Senate's website are usually not free, and both Salvini and Renzi had been elected in the Senate. However, maybe their license had been changed, I don't know. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Look like you found it. Nice addition, thanks, it look way more neutral not to have one politician singled out by a crappy photo. --Aréat (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that another user had already uploaded them on Commons, so I hope that their licenses are correct :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox - coalitions or parties?

I know it's been Wikipedia practice to put the coalitions in the infobox since 1994 - but, as has been established, coalitions in this election are but informal agreements between parties who want to maximize their seats, and don't play a role in determining the next government. I propose that, once we see signs that Lega and Forza are negotiating separately, they be separated in the infobox. Chuborno (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

This seems appropriate, especially given the way the election turned out. If a coalition had won, and formed government, that would be a different matter. I actually don't think we need to wait for divisions to emerge within the coalitions - it would be fine if someone wanted to be bold and split up the coalitions straight away. Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Right now the infobox gives the impression that the League won 263 seats in the lower house.

Also, is there a reason why Aosta Valley results are separated out further down in the article? Holdek (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Interior Ministry results show coalitions. Coalitions are also shown in other sources as a primary topic in their election coverage, and specifically, coalitions are very much relevant for single-member constituency results. That seems much more than just some "informal agreement", and unless you're suggesting the article should not reflect what reliable sources project, there's little controversy on this issue. Impru20 (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand anyone to be saying that coalitions are insignificant, and I don't take you to mean that the parties are insignificant. Since the media is already speculating on party to party talks for government formation, it seems likely that the electoral coalitions have less significance going forward. Ultimately, there is only one infobox, so a choice has to be made. The coalition results should be shown in the results section, of course, and reference should be made to the coalitions in the lede; but I do think the balance falls in favour of parties in the infobox. Gabrielthursday (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This article does not covers just events "going forward", but events leading to the election and the election itself as well. No one is saying parties are insignificant, but it's obvious that coalitions were very much relevant in the lead-up to the election as well in the election coverage itself; to make its presence in the infobox dependant on a "what if" that they may not be relevant for government formation is neither respectful to reality nor to what sources say (specially when it has been acknowledged that the use of coalitions is commonwide since 1994). Post-election events may happen that may result in a government formation not strictly dependant on coalitions, but the infobox is scheduled to report election results as they were, not to make them dependant on post-election events. Coalitions were formalized ahead of the election; they were very relevant when it comes to single-member district results; they were reported in opinion polls, and sources do highlight their relevance going into the election; it's significance in the election is not actually in question. Impru20 (talk) 08:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

As a side note, consider that, after the 2013 election, the resulting government was made up of parties from three different coalitions, yet coalitions are still shown in the infobox. We should separate the election itself from the government formation process, which comes only as a consequence of the election, not as a determining factor of it. Impru20 (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

In any event, I've added notes to the infobox clarifying this for the reader. Holdek (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I am for coalitions in the infobox and the removal of coalition leaders' parties from the infobox. See above. --Checco (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Impru, the point about the eventual coalition that came out of the 2013 election is well taken. I can see the benefits of using the electoral coalitions, given this is an election page - but the thing the bothers me is putting Salvini's face, and his alone, above the coalition's 37% score. Lega overtaking Forza was unforeseen (there's a reason it was Berlusconi's face there beforehand), and it's fair to say a significant proportion of those 37% didn't vote for the coalition with the intention of putting Salvini in the PM seat.

My understanding is that past coalitions had a common PM candidate that they collectively campaigned for, but this case is obviously different. Could we at least put both of their faces in the box, and put a note explaining the situation? It'll probably be quite ugly, and wouldn't really have precedent elsewhere on Wikipedia, but then again the coalition's arrangement didn't really have a ton of precedent (at least that I know of). Chuborno (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

A secondary question – if these are not formal agreements, why are the parties grouped together in the results table? I would only expected to see this in cases where there is a formal agreement, parties within the alliance did not run against each other, and the alliance were planning to act as a single faction once in parliament. Number 57 17:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"Informal agreements" was clearly overstating it on my part - they all did support one candidate in each constituency, who was, on the ballot, affiliated with the coalition rather than a particular party, and they did sign a document laying out common principles and their intention to govern together. As for "planning to act as a single faction", while the official line was "we'll get a majority and govern together", it was an open secret that the each party would be free to make other alliances if/when they didn't get a majority, which is now proving to be true. As mentioned above, I've come around to the other side (showing coalitions rather than parties in the infobox) but it's certainly a grey area. Chuborno (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Matteo Renzi leadership date

Hello, I edited the Renzi leadership date to his most recent election, April 30, 2017 (admittedly, it should have been May 7 but still 2017), but it was changed. My justification for the change: yes, he was first elected in 2013 as general secretary, but he resigned the position and ran again. On the Spanish election page, Pedro Sanchez's new leadership date is not the first one but rather the most recent one. It should be changed to May 7, 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSaint250 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Formal or substantial? I think that the substantial info is that Renzi has been first elected leader in 2013. --Checco (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I get that, but looking at tradition, as seen with Pedro Sanchez when you view the Spanish 2016 election page versus the next general election page, it seems as though the leadership election after Renzi's break should be considered when he became leader again. Leader since would imply that he had not ceased to be leader, but he had, and the 2017 election changed that. --TheSaint250 (User talk:TheSaint250) 06:42, 8 March 2018 (EST)

Support showing Renzi's leadership date as 7 May 2017. He was indeed first elected as PD's general secretary in 2013, but he resigned with full effect on 19 February 2017 (to the point he had to re-run for the post again, with a full leadership contest being triggered). There was a break in Renzi's leadership (a small one spanning three months, ok, but still a break), meaning he has not held the office continuously since his 2013 election. Showing the date of his last election would be the most accurate depiction of events.

Pedro Sánchez's example in Spain is a good one at this: he was first elected as PSOE leader in 2014, but there was a break in his leadership spanning from October 2016 to June 2017 (which was also a significant one, with strong implications in national politics). Impru20 (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I support using the 2013 date - the 2017 leadership election was one clearly triggered by Renzi himself with the purpose of reasserting his dominance within the party; the two-month gap in the middle was filled by an interim leader. To a reader looking at the election page and glancing at the infobox for the first time, in my opinion the most important info to be conveyed is that Renzi had led the party for (the vast majority of) four years, molded the party in his image, and cleared it of meaningful competitors - making him different from like Di Maio. No, this is not literally in keeping with what the phrase "leader since" means, and maybe it's hard to turn this into a consistent standard - but it's an infobox, simplifications have to be made, and I think it's be more informative to simplify in this direction. (Maybe using the new date makes more sense for the Sánchez case because of how tenuous his leadership of the party was, but similar cases are rare enough that I'm not sure I'd call it "precedent.") Chuborno (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The "leader since" field in the infobox means just "leader since", and trying to add different implications to it may be confusing (as you say, it'll be hard to turn this into a consistent standard). Also, having the 2017 date allows for a direct link to the 2017 Democratic Party contest to be easily available, which is useful because the Democratic Party (Italy) leadership election, 2017 provides background for Renzi's resignation after his failed 2016 referendum bid, which in turn also serves as the direct background for the election.

If I have to choose whether it is more relevant to point out that he was first elected in 2013, or that he resigned in 2017 as a result of major developments in Italian politics which also prove to be the immediate background to the general election that is the topic of this article, it's pretty much clear which one I'll stick to.

I acknowledge that there are not many precedents on this issue as it's not common for party leaders to be re-elected in different, non-consecutive terms, but this is what we have as of currently. And it'd be weird that we use different standards for what the "leader since" field means depending on the country and/or situation (i.e Sánchez's case). Impru20 (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Seat numbers don't add up

At the moment, the numbers for seats won in the Chamber of Deputies don't add up. For example, if the League won 73 proportional seats, 53 first-past-the-post seats, and 2 Italians-abroad seats, that would give them a total of 128, not 126; and in the Total Seats column, the numbers for the right wing coalition parties add up to 260, not 265. The Forza Italia numbers don't add up either. I haven't checked all the others, but someone ought to! Shasarak (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Seat numbers don't add up - more

Someone also should explain to me how there are only 626 seats in the Chamber of Deputies. Surely there should be 630 seats as the total shows, right? I noticed this stuff too in some other years. I just feel stupid. If there are 4 seats missing then surely there should be an explanation for that? According to this page Us with Italy should have had 4 seats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_with_Italy JurijFedorov (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems like the page will have to move soon

According to this article it seems that Italy will be having elections on the 8 July. Should we move the page to Italian general election, March 2018 due to this or wait until parliament is dissolved.JDuggan101 (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait until it actually happens to consider that it happens, as per WP:CRYSTAL. It wouldn't be the first time (nor surely the last) that a last-hour agreement may be reached at the last minute. Otherwise, should we move the page now, we could find ourselves on the situation that no new election is called for the remainder of 2018, in which case we would have to re-move this again back to its original location. Impru20 (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The snap elections on July 8 were proposed by Salvini and Di Maio, but the power of calling for a new election belongs only to the President of the Republic, who has now proposed a technocratic government. Let’s wait and see. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Italian prime minister is not elected.

I noticed the infobox says "elected prime minister". In Italy the prime minister is not elected, in keeping I believe with the definition of parliamentary democracy. Also, since the opposite side of the infobox says "Prime minister before the election", it seems that by symmetry one could just say "Prime minister after the election". It doesn't make a huge difference but avoids subtle misinformation about the Italian system of government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.162.178 (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I see this may be a problem with the election infobox template:

| title = Prime Minister | before_election = Tony Blair | before_party = Labour Party (UK) | after_election = Tony Blair | after_party = Labour Party (UK)

The infobox definition supports my view that the wording should be more generic but then it's rendered with completely different wording. I will report in the template page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.162.178 (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

This can be remedied by simply using another infobox. See for instance Dutch general election, 2017, which avoids the construction "elected prime minister". I won't make this change (yet) however in case there are any objections. KarlFrei (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

"Elected PM" is the correct wording, as someone does elect the PM as a consequence of election results (be it the President or the parliament, or a combination of both). "PM after election" (or such wordings), on the other hand, would be misleading, as Conte was not elected until 1 June, meaning the "PM after election" would still be Gentiloni. I see the "PM after election" useful in instances where no new PM is elected, though (i.e. because no government is formed and a new election is held). Impru20^talk 13:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

To use the word elect when one person (president, king, ...) does the electing stretches the meaning of the word beyond any recognition. Surely an election is done by multiple people? Otherwise it is an appointment.

This reminds me of the tyrant Vetinari in the Discworld series. They have the 'one man, one vote' system there. As one character says "Yes. I've met him. He definitely has the vote." KarlFrei (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

If a PM needs to get the confidence of the parliament (in turn elected in a general election) in an explicit voting, then I think it can be understood that the PM is elected. A different situation would be if the PM is just appointed once by the head of state, and does not need to re-obtain parliamentary confidence through an explicit vote to remain in the post, even after successive elections (this is the case for the UK or Norway, as examples). This is very clear in Spain, where the HoS just names a "PM candidate" that is to be submitted to Congress for voting, not becoming PM until after he or she succeeds in such a vote. For Italy I have some doubts, as a voting must take place to approve of the PM's appointment but he or she is already in office from the time the President of the Republic appoints them.

Nonetheless, this can be very well adapted to each case in the infobox through the use of the | posttitle = syntax, so it is not an actual template issue, which just provides "Elected [office]" as the default (but not immutable) wording. Impru20^talk 14:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I broadly agree with User:Impru20. In my view, "elected Prime Minister" is not controversial at all. Let's not be too literal. --Checco (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Which party won the most votes?

The text states, at the intro, that the "anti-establishment Five Star Movement led by Luigi Di Maio became the party with the largest number of votes." However, the tally at the infobox does not seem to support that description. -The Gnome (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@The Gnome: Yes, the Five Star Movement is the party with the largest number of votes (10,732,066). They ran the election alone, without forming coalitions. Matteo Salvini (League) led a coalition of four parties. The sum of their votes is 12,152,345. See the results here. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The M5S was the largest party, but the centre-right was the largest coalition. The infobox currently features coalitions, but also the coalition leaders' parties. Including the coalition leaders' parties in the infobox, let alone including them before coalitions (as the infobox mandates), is deceptive and confusing. We should remove the coalition leaders' parties in this article and in all the articles on Italian elections since 1994. --Checco (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for clearing this up. -The Gnome (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the indication of the parties in the inoboxex is misleading, since the results refer to the coalitions. They should be removed.--Wololoo (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the parties in the infobox of the general elections since 1994, I hope you agree with this change.--Wololoo (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

If I understood what you mean, yes and I thank you for that. --Checco (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• DIMAIO2 (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

N/A??

I had too google for the meaning of "N/A". It seems to mean "not applicable". Why not? Why aren´t the votes and percentages mentioned? Oddeivind (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)