Talk:2022 Italian general election/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

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)

---

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

1. an {{Infobox election}} (see by way of example Option A or Option B);
2. an {{Infobox legislative election}} (see by way of example Option C or Option D);
3. 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)

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 57 20:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Option 2C I second what Checco said. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1B Braganza (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

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 57 11:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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 57 11:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

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 57 18:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 57 18:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

I don't support adding the incoming/outgoing MP links – it's unnecessary clutter and can be linked somewhere else in the article. Number 57 18:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

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 57 19:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

I wasn't referring to you. Number 57 20:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

It doesn't add any information though – it's simply a link, and so fails MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Number 57 20:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

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 57 20:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

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 57 20:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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 57 20:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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 57 12:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

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