Talk:2018 Italian general election/Archives/2021/November

Proposal of change of maps

I have recently uploaded two maps to represent the 2018 italian general election. I think that these should be used because they give a more complete vision of the election giving apart from the FPTP winner, the PR results.--Basque mapping (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• 
• 

I think the current maps (see below) are clearer, even though they are not as complete at the moment (but I plan to work on it, to add at least the FPTP vs PR results for the coalitions). I see many problems in the maps that are proposed here: (1) They have an unreadable color palette, for example most colors above 70-80% are indistinguishable from one another. The M5S colors are too faint to be read (I cannot even read the words "Five Star Movement" on my screen). There are all possible shades of blue on the palette, which makes it impossible to decide if a province is e.g. 60% centre-right or FI or UDC. Similar situation for many overlapping shades of red. (2) It's not clear what the "M5S-LN government" banner stands for in the election results map. (3) There are complete color palettes for MAIE and USEI which are never used, and they only add confusion to the legend. (4) In general, if one really wants to have this amount of detail on the election results, one goes to the "Results" section in this article, where there is a full table. There is no need to copy all this data on a map, which makes it very heavy to be read. (4) Why is Naples metro map so much more enlarged than other cities (Rome and Milan are much larger than Naples). (5) The inner-ring, outer-ring scheme is also not very easy to read, both in the inner circle, which has a lot of colors – which are not easy to read given the legend, and in the turnout, which is somehow on top of the results, so it looks like the centre-left votes are all from non-voters (?) (6) There is a mistake in the Aosta Valley PR winners.

In general the election result maps should be complementary to a more detailed result table/section, we should try to fit all information (% results, total seats, seats per constituency, etc) onto one single picture. I think the maps below are much easier to read, at least there is no confusion possible from the colors. Possibly I would only add the FPTP/PR results (and try to add the little circles with the seats won in PR), but I cannot do it now. --Yakme (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 

@Yakme: I have removed the "M5S-LN government" banner. A possible solution could be to put my maps in te section of reults and leave your maps at the infobox. What do you think?--Basque mapping (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)--Basque mapping (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Without that banner for me it is ok. Anyway, I would personally prefer your maps (containing both party and coalition results) in the infobox and the Yakme's tables in the sections of results.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme and Basque mapping: Why not use both? I mean, I think near to the election results table there should be a map, but Yakme has reverted my edit. We could use a map type near to the tables and a map at the bottom of the page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This is about the maps in the infobox. --Yakme (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that the maps proposed by User:Basque mapping for the infobox are ok,* but that even the maps currently in the infobox should have greater visibility. The maps proposed by Basque mapping are more complete, therefore they are more suitable for the infobox. The current maps are more specific but clearer, I think they should stay close to the tables and not be relegated at the bottom of the page. Ps. I also point out that the current infobox setting should still be discussed a bit in the previous thread.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

*Anyway, they should be corrected, for example the "M5S-LN government" banner has nothing to do with the map.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You still want to re-discuss the infobox, again? --Yakme (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme yes, because it is objectively wrong, but not in this thread, here we are talking about the maps.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but we are just discussing above how it is incorrect to say that e.g. +Eu gained 2 seats, because they are actually generically centre-left seats. So why should it be correct in the maps? --Yakme (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme Maybe I misread the map: are parties like +Eu represented on the map? Or are you referring to the summary to the side? The first case would obviously not be correct...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I am referring to the summary on the side, which is not much different from the current table in the infobox that you are criticizing in the discussion above. --Yakme (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme Effectively you're right, furthermore those results in the maps are not necessary. In those maps I like the double presence of the parties' and coalitions' results. But what do you think about my proposal above? (the answer in the other thread, of course).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Basque mapping Could you remove the electoral results form the maps? Additionally, I point out that the Northern League ran in these elections as just "League".--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: what do you think now about the maps?--Basque mapping (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Now they seem ok to me.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but now what is the conceptual difference from the current maps? (Except from the seats little circles for each region) (1) I think the current ones are still much better in terms of color palette clarity, and also in terms of detail (they are subdivided by constituency). (2) I still don't understand why we need a color palette for 70 or 80+ results (which never happened – actually almost no party or coalition won anything above 60%), that is only confusing to the person looking at the legend. (3) Why is Forza Italia written as "Forward Italy"?? (4) Why FI, FdI and Leu are single-color and only 70-80%? They never got such percentage! (5) The Aosta Valley is still wrong. (6) I still don't get why Naples metro is larger than Rome or Milan (which are larger cities). At least they should be the same size. Conclusion: I really don't think the situation now is any clearer or better.--Yakme (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I had not noticed some issues: larger dimension for Naples metro makes little sense, FI should be written Forza Italia, even the color palettes for FI, FdI and Leu should be corrected.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I really do not see how the updated new maps are an improvement with respect to the current ones. --Yakme (talk) 11:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme: I have change the colour palette of my maps to the one of your maps to harmonize the format, I have removed the 70 and 80+ colours, I have corected the name of FI, I have corrected the name of VdA coalition and I have fixed the size of the cities. What do you think now?--Basque mapping (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

With the necessary corrections, the idea of ​​Basque mapping is very good, as it allows both proportional result maps and FPTP maps to be shown in the infobox. I believe that the purpose of the infobox is to make the reader understand the result of the elections in a summary but clear way: the current infobox does not meet either of the two criteria (at least the previous infobox was a summary). The double map (inserted in a smart way) serves to make the reader understand the Italian electoral system.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Also with the current maps one can show both PR and FPTP in the infobox... I really do not see any large difference between the current and new maps, except that the new ones are wrong in many places and have really unclear color palettes. --Yakme (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

If there are errors, the maps cannot be entered on the page, but the idea of Basque mapping is very good: the representation of the distribution of seats with the proportional system is very interesting.

However, if I don't get replies in the thread above, I assume silence assent to remove the second table. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I still think the current maps are more detailed and better balanced. Otherwise the new ones are exactly the same so at this point I do not see any improvement in replacing the current maps with the new ones. if I don't get replies in the thread above, I assume silence assent You should not require users to reply in a few hours to every question you have; moreover you are not allowed to "assume silent consensus" after 24 hours of no reply. People have other stuff to do in their lives. --Yakme (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

A user may have other stuff, but you have intervened to reply in a thread (this one) on the same page, at this point giving an answer (even just "I have to think about it") is simple courtesy.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, the distribution of seats with the proportional system in the new maps seem to me very clear.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for an updated infobox

Hi everyone. Filling an infobox for Italian elections is a quite complicated task, because Italy is the only major country I know that has parallel direct elections in two Houses of Parliament (difficult to show in a nice compact form in the currently existing templates) and has always complicated electoral laws (often mixing proportional and first-past-the-post systems). I have prepared a proposed new application of the Template:Infobox election used in the Italian general elections. We should discuss this in general, also for past and future elections (or also for some of the past election, for example backwards until the start of the Second Republic; but I would really use it as a general template for all Republican elections). The main reason for this proposal is that the current infoboxes are a bit reductive, since they only show the results of electoral coalitions, while there is no information for each of the single parties forming the coalitions. Indeed the details of each of the party's results (for example think about the percentage result of Lega vs Forza Italia) are very important to Italian politics, and are continuously mentioned by media, analysts, politicians, therefore it is weird that these numbers do not show up (even in a summarized form) in the election infobox. It is true that the coalitions are a very important subject in recent Italian politics, and that is why I would keep them as the main result, at the beginning of the infobox: after all, usually winning coalitions (especially for elections in the 90s and 00s) are the ones that after the election get to form the government; however this is not always the case, and should not be taken as implicit. So, since the Italian electoral system is inherently legislative (and not presidential) I think that a list of the weight of each single party, summarized via the Template:Infobox legislative election at the end of the full infobox would be very useful (also given the high number of parties that usually enter the Italian Parliament at each election). I had also noticed some smaller things missing from the current infoboxes (incomplete turnout, missing change in percentage points, etc), so my proposal includes both some major changes and some smaller-level changes. I am not fully decided on all of them but I wanted to gather other users' opinions here (tagging some of the users usually involved and interested in Italian elections Nick.mon, Checco, Scia Della Cometa, Impru20, Autospark, Braganza, Aréat). My proposal is currently in one of my sandbox subpages, and I transclude it here. If you would like to play with it and try changes, you can do it at User:Ritchie92/sandbox/Italian general election infobox. There you can also find a list of changes I made with respect to the current infoboxes used in Italian election articles (also transcluded here).

My proposal is the following: [see here] --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: The infobox seems a bit long, but overall it's not a problem. The pictures of the Prime Minister before and after the election don't seem to me necessary. Anyway, I see some problems, more precisely:

• it is not possible to calculate a variation of votes and seats for coalitions: each time the coalitions are composed differently and calculating the swing becomes impossible.
• the infobox you proposed is suitable for elections from 2006 to 2013, that is, the elections that took place with the Calderoli law, but a different electoral law was used on other occasions. With the Mattarella law, voting with the proportional system and voting with the uninominal system were separate, this infobox would take into consideration only the voting with the proportional system. This problem does not exist with the Rosato law, but there is another problem: the coalition leaders do not exist, party leaders are competing with each other, also and above all within a coalition. For example, as I have said in the past, indicating Salvini as the leader of the centre-right coalition is incorrect information, even if there is a note of explanation.

For these reasons, I agree to apply the infobox you proposed for the elections of 2006, 2008 and 2013 (with how many coalition leaders?), while a different solution should be thought for the other elections, especially for the elections of 2018. I don't like the solution found in itwikipedia (the removal of leaders from the infobox). For the 2018 elections I would have thought of an inverse solution: indicating at the top of the infobox the parties, with their respective leaders and coalition to which they belong (I would indicate the first 6 parties), inserting the results of the coalitions in the table below. Example: indicating in the infobox the first 6 parties by order of seats or votes, that is M5S, leader: Di Maio, coalition: none; Lega, leader: Salvini, colaition: centre-right, etc. Below the table indicating the result of the coalitions instead of the result of the parties. Personally this is my idea for the 2018 elections. What would you think? For the elections from 1994 to 2001, I don't know, it is more complicated, since the parties did not win seats only thanks to the results obtained with the proportional system ...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I add a further consideration: in my proposal about the 2018 elections, the maps should be inserted under the table with the results of the coalitions.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: Thanks for the reply. Regarding your objections:

• it is not possible to calculate a variation of votes and seats for coalitions: each time the coalitions are composed differently and calculating the swing becomes impossible I don't think so, I think one can define the swings and seat changes based on the definition of centre-left and centre-right coalitions from each election year. If a coalition commonly known as "A" loses party "P" from one election to the other, then also the seats associated to party "P" will look as lost seats in the infobox count. I think this is a nice feature.
• This can be solved by having multiple leaders in the infobox, as in some parties in the 2021 German federal election. Anyway one does not need to actually define a "leader" in the first part of the infobox: in principle we can also just show the coalition names and results. But anyway in general I agree that this template form cannot be applied to all Italian elections, so we might change something for older/newer elections.

So yes generally I agree to use this straight away for the 2006 to 2013 elections (and probably also 2018 with some slight modifications). Regarding your proposals, I think that the list of parties is better in the table format; so in case your inverted order is implemented, I would have the Template:Infobox legislative election on top and the other one on the bottom. Maps at the bottom.

I am waiting for more inputs also from others, of course, before doing anything. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: I too had initially thought of a "German solution" (multiple leaders in the infobox) when there was the discussion on the itwikipedia infobox, but the final result would not be graphically acceptable: there would be 4 small photos of the center-right leaders, 4 small photos of the center-left leaders and a large photo of Di Maio ...

However I think that indicating party leaders would be important, since the current electoral law provides for the indication of party leaders and not coalition leaders (this means that there is a competition between coalitions in the majority system, but a competition between parties, also within the same coalition, in the proportional system. The case of the center-right was emblematic. I tried to insert the table at the top of the infobox but I didn't succeed, is it possible to do so? I would like to see what the look of the infobox with that setting.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest three main changes: (1) Delete the leader's seat/leader since/seat change/popular vote/percentage/swing from the top infobox (as much of it is duplicated below and the other bits are not really key info), (2) move the registered/turnout to the respective sections, and (3) move the map to the bottom infobox. The result is this, which I think is more compact and readable.

Re Scia Della Cometa's comments, you cannot calculate a vote swing for coalitions, but you can calculate seat changes if you know the breakdown of seats within a coalition at each election, so we could retain the seat change in the lower infobox, but deleting the swing from the top one. Cheers, Number 57 18:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57: What do you think about my proposal on the infobox of the 2018 elections (parties and their leaders instead of the coalition at the top of the infobox and a table with coalition results below)?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you mock up a version of what you mean as I'm not entirely sure I understand. Another option would to be entirely use the table format, but use headings to denote alliances, as is done at 2009 Albanian parliamentary election (for parties outside an alliance, another heading could be used to separate them. Cheers, Number 57 18:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi everybody! IMHO Ritchie's version is good but frankly a bit long. I sincerely like the current version (or the top of Ritchie's version). I think leaders' portraits are necessary and we need to represent the coalitions, which are a fundamental part of the current electoral law. Anyway, if you think that parties' votes are necessary even in the infobox (how about a collapsible list?), I support Ritchie's version: coalitions/leaders first and then, parties. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I made some changes to Ritchie92's version here: User:Nick.mon/sandbox/Italian general election infobox. I'd like to know your opinions about them. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57 and Nick.mon: I meant an infobox like this above [see here]. The current infobox necessarily needs to be changed, because it provides a distorted view of the election result, it seems that the elections were won by Salvini leading a center-right coalition, but the reality is much more complex.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Personally I would enter the first 6 parties, in line with the inboboxes of the elections in other countries, therefore also Forza Italia, Brothers of Italy and LeU. In this way the infobox would give an overview of the elections, showing the results of the parties and those of the coalitions.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I have noticed that the table is designed specifically for parties, so it is not suitable for listing election results alone. We could set the table as for the 2009 Albanian parliamentary election, as suggested by Number 57.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not so complex IMO. Salvini was the de facto leader of the coalition and the candidate for the premiership, as he won more seats than Meloni and Berlusconi. Moreover, if we're creating a new infobox model for Italian elections, we can't refer to this election only: how about 2006, or 2008 or even 2013? It was quite clear who the leaders were and I strongly support to show them in the infobox, just as for the vast majority of elections all around the world. In 1996, Prodi didn't have his own party, so he would be removed from the infobox, but he was the leader of the coalition. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

As this page is getting a bit complicated with all the infoboxes, I have moved all the proposals to User:Ritchie92/sandbox/Italian general election infobox.

I am not a fan of any of 1, 3 or 4 as they are all too complex in the display of votes/seats.

The issue about who 'won' the election can be dealt with by changing which party appears as party1, can't it?

Could someone mock up a version of the Albanian infobox? I am not sure which parties are part of which coalition... Cheers, Number 57 20:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: It is not so, Salvini was not the de facto leader of the coalition, he ran at the helm of his party, not of the entire coalition. In the elections from 2006 to 2013 the infobox rightly shows the coalition leaders because the Calderoli law provided for the indication of the coalition leader, not of the party. The Rosato law expressly provides for the indication of party leaders and not coalition leaders, and this is no coincidence: the law was written like this because the center-right coalition no longer had a single leader. The Mattarella law did not provide for the indication of leaders, but in the elections from 1994 to 2001 there were natural and recognized coalition leaders, so this problem was not there. The infobox shows a non-existent situation, which should be absolutely corrected: either by inserting only the table, or by removing the coalition leaders or by adopting the solution I have proposed. And if there are other proposals, let's evaluate them, but the infobox cannot give a distorted representation of the elections.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57: I'm working on it, for now I'll explain to you briefly the situation: in 2018 a new electoral law was adopted, which provides for the possibility of forming pre-electoral coalitions. The party that got the most votes was the Five Star Movement, but the coalition that got the most votes was the center-right coalition. The problem is that the center-right coalition did not have a single leader, in this infobox it seems that the elections were won by Salvini at the head of the center-right coalition, but he only led the Lega, part of the center-right coalition. right. This is a very complex topic, since that victory was the subject of much debate after the elections (the M5S claimed the victory as the most voted party, the center-right claimed the victory as the most voted coalition).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57: the table and the infobox are the following: User:Ritchie92/sandbox/Italian general election infobox #Proposal 4-bis.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I was expecting something like this. Cheers, Number 57 22:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the inputs! It is indeed a difficult decision. Let me try to make some general points:

• A single template solution is not going to be valid for all past elections: something that would work for the 2006–2013 elections can also not be the best for the latest one (as SDC was pointing out, this might depend also on the electoral law). Let's keep this in mind when discussing.
• In general, a legislative parliamentary election does not need to have a single winner, and the infobox does not provide a winner by default, if enough detail about the results is shown. Obviously in an election where you have two different Houses, and coalitions as well as parties running, you can have in principle 4 different winners claiming victory, one for each category. But on Wikipedia we should not care about who is claiming victory, but just show the results in a comprehensive manner.
• Keep in mind that some elections in Italy (including the 2018 one) include seats coming from a proportional vote, and some coming from a first-past-the-post vote. But I think we do not need to make such distinction in the infobox (see the German case). So we can probably discard this issue.
• The Template:Infobox legislative election is best used for lists of more than 6-7 parties, since it is gives less detail (for each of the party entries) than the Template:Infobox election.
• More specifically, I would also make an aut-aut: either we show coalitions first, and parties in the tables, or we show parties first (with the coalitions to which they belong), and nothing else below. Indeed if in the first half of the template we show the main parties, I would say we do not need to add the parties again in the tables below (so for example I would already discard Proposal 4-bis, where the details of the main parties are repeated twice, wasting space). The parties-only option means discarding the coalitions results (or at least most of the details about them – 4-bis only contains the total seats in the table headers, no +/- change, no percentage, etc), which I think is a bad idea. On the contrary, a repetition of the coalition details is done in Proposal 4, which is a coalitions-only option. In both of these cases (4 and 4-bis), I would avoid doubling the same data in the infobox.
• Let's try to find a solution that is also nice in the code implementation: so even though Nick.mon has a point with their Proposal 3, I think that "hiding" the table with all results in the map caption is a very not-elegant solution (and in principle also dangerous if the template source is modified in an unpredictable way in the future). Let's try to put things were they should belong, in terms of code, and not "hack" it too blatantly. --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: I don't think the current infobox gives a distorted representation, this is quite debatable: Salvini was declared leader as the winner of the majority of votes in the centre-right coalition. This is well sourced in the media, and is what the infobox provides as main information. Actually, to be more precise, the infobox also has a note explaining the whole centre-right leader situation. Anyway, I would keep a discussion regarding who is the leader of the centre-right coalition as a separate discussion to this topic, which is more general (and remember, also regarding older elections). --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: There was a little misunderstanding, I had already corrected my proposal 4 on this page, replacing the results of the coalitions with those of the parties in the infobox, probably Number 57 copied the "old version". As I have already stated, your proposal is perfectly applicable to the elections from 2006 to 2013. I have some doubts about the elections from 1994 to 2001. But I disagree with your statement about centre-right leadership in 2018: leadership must be declared before the elections, not after. Salvini was only formally proposed as PM by the centre-right, then he carried out the negotiations only on behalf of his party. In the previous elections the coalition leadership was official (2006–2013) or at least unofficial (1994–2001). In the 2018 elections, Renzi was the official leader of the PD and the unofficial leader of the centre-left coalition, but the centre-right coalition was not led by one leader: the parties within it were (and are) competing with each other. So the current infobox really gives a distorted vision of reality, a note doesn't seem enough to me, that is not the space for candidates for Prime Minister after the elections, that is the space dedicated to those who led a coalition or a party before the elections. Salvini led the League, not the centre-right coalition. So my preferred option is definitely option 4bis (with or without table) but option 5 proposed by Number 57 also seems to me a good compromise.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

One can also leave the centre-right leadership blank (no picture, and Several leaders), and fill all the others. It's a specific issue of the 2018 elections that the centre-right was divided and not able to express a clear leadership. Regarding the specific proposals, I think 4-bis is very repetitive, and actually also too long (much longer than my first proposal, which you all described as "too long"), so I would exclude it. Option 5 has nothing wrong in itself, the only "bad" thing is that the coalitions are left behind (their importance is not stressed as much as in other proposals) and there are no photos of the leaders. Anyway in general I would also change the maps: I would use File:Italian_2018_elections_Chamber_of_Deputies_constituencies.svg and File:Italian 2018 elections Senate constituencies.svg because they are the correct ones showing constituencies instead of provinces/regions. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

In reality, for me the ideal solution would be the proposal 4 tris, the leadership problem does not only concern the 2018 elections, but the current electoral law, therefore also hypothetical future elections with this law. Leaving the blank space only for the center-right leader seems to me aesthetically unpleasant, then it would be better to set the infobox as in itwikipedia, without leaders.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

So, in case we decide to put parties in the first half instead of coalitions, I think the only feasible solution is 4-quater at this point (Proposal 4-ter removes the existence of coalitions completely, therefore it is wrong in my opinion). However I still think coalitions-first is the best option. Probably Proposal 1-bis is an idea that can be improved (although it is a big ugly in the first part). --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 4-quater is not technically perfect (the table would be designed for parties) but I would definitely support it. Alternatively, Proposal 5 and Proposal 1-bis are both formally correct.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I re-inserted my second proposal, not because it's so different from Scia Della Cometa's one, but I sincerly prefer the use of brackets for C and S, the % instead of pp and + and − instead of or , just to be more "consistent" and visually more "homogeneous" with the second table about coalitions. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, I agree with Ritchie when he says not to re-add parties in the second table. If we use leaders and parties in the first one, if we add a second (and third) table, we should use coalitions. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: Now we have 10 proposals on my sandbox, and we really need to remove some of them before beginning to decide which one is the best. Regarding the specific details you mentioned: (1) brackets around C or S are fine for me but note that they take more space, (2) % instead of pp in percent changes is factually wrong: a change from 70.0% to 72.0% is indeed +2.0pp, but it's not +2.0% (it's actually +2.9% = 0.72/0.70 - 1.0): so pp is the correct unit; (3) colored numbers are fine for me. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Another proposal: how about removing the "popular vote" entries from the first half, so the infobox would be a bit lighter? --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: Ok, I'd prefer % instead of pp just to take less space but ok you're right. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: Excuse me Ritchie, but why should we remove the popular vote? Isn't it quite useful? I mean, ok, it's a parliamentary election, so number of seats are more important than votes, but I think votes are quite important and useful too. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: Ok we should then use the correct unit pp throughout all election infoboxes. Re the popular vote: I'm just trying to make the table as easy to read as possible. At the moment the fact that each entry has (C) and (S) results is very heavy on the infobox. So if I had to remove a heavy line I would remove the popular vote one (in the end, given the percent, and the total number of voters, one could easily obtain the popular vote number with a multiplication; or just by going to the detailed results table in the text). --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we should reduce the infobox, but I don't know, popular vote is used almost everywhere in Wikipedia's articles about elections, I'd keep it, anyway if the majority wants to remove it, ok, no problems. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I see some good in each proposal. At this point I have no preference and I would probably keep the current one. --Checco (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I would keep the popular vote, it is a very useful data and is present in all the infoboxes. There are many proposals in the sandbox for the 2018 general election, in my opinion we should start discarding some. in my opinion the choice should be made between Proposal 1-bis, Proposal 4-quater / Proposal 6 and Proposal 5. My personal preference surely goes to Proposal 4/6.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: the problem with the current one is that there is no indication whatsoever of the party results; since Italian elections are legislative elections with numerous parties, and these parties (also taken singularly) play a huge role in the subsequent processes of government formation, it is important to have such single-party data somewhere evident in the summary infobox. --Ritchie92 (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

How do we decide to change the infobox of the 2018 general elections?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

IMHO we should keep Proposal 1, 4-quater/6 and 5. As I said, in each proposal I'd insert brackets for C and S and + / − instead of / . -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I would also keep Proposal 1-bis. Proposal 1 is definitely to be taken into consideration for older elections (2006–2013). @Nick.mon: could you please implement the brackets and colors modifications in the 1, 1-bis etc? So we can have a uniform view. Thank you. --Ritchie92 (talk)

Ok! Proposals 4-quater and 6 are basically the same, so I should add MAIE, USEI and Aosta Valley to mine, keeping only one among them. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: I think that maps showing constituencies would be better than those with provinces. However I'd like to have a map like those used from 1946 to 1992, with parties' (and coalitions') strength. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I will do it as soon as I have time in the next days. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much!! And do you think that a border around the map is necessary? I don’t know, maybe it’s just my opinion, but I like maps without a border, but well, as I said, it’s only my view :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I made the party list map following the already existing maps of the coalition winners, and those have a border. I don't think it's too much of a problem to produce another one without borders though. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, maybe you could produce something like this one (File:2001 Italian general election - Vote Strength.svg), if you like. But well, it's up to you. Thanks again. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

So the choice is between options A, B and C, which were objectively the three most correct versions. As already stated, I give my preference to Proposal B, which seems to me the aesthetically best one. Which version do you prefer?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

If that is the choice, my preference goes for option A. Italian legislative elections are primarily about coalitions, even though in Italy's parliamentary system, after each election, coalitions may be forgotten and the parties are the only relevant actors in the government's formation. --Checco (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

With the Rosato law it does not seem to me that coalitions are exactly prevalent over parties, honestly it seems to me the opposite ...Only 37% of the seats are attributed to coalitions with an uninominal system, while as many as 61% of the seats are attributed to parties with a proportional system. Furthermore, this law provides for the indication of the leader by the parties, and not by the coalitions. Even the electoral program of parties within a coalition, unlike in the past, can be different. From 1994 to 2013, coalitions were certainly more important than parties, but since 2018, despite having survived (for the uninominal system), the importance of parties has returned to prevail.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon, Ritchie92, and Number 57: Which version would you choose instead? Proposal A, B or C?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

No opinion? Are we again only two users to express two different opinions?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I would have C as first choice and A as second (although if we used A, I would recommend only having the seats won figure in the top part of the ifnobox, not the votes/swings/changes etc) to make it simpler to read). B is a clear last choice. Cheers, Number 57 11:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I would say A, then B. For option A, I would actually keep all the detail of the coalition results, with the votes, seat change, swing, etc. and also the leaders' names, pictures and seats. I don't think there is a problem in having Salvini showing as centre-right leader since this is what he has been called by all media when this election took place. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: Are you so sure that all the media have described Salvini as the leader of the centre-right? I do not think so. However, Wikipedia remains an encyclopedia, it cannot contain invented/misleading information or original research. Version A is fine to me, but obviously without coalition leaders.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

IMHO I'd keep coalitions and Salvini as the leader of centre-right, because, as I said before, he was the candidate to the premiership (even if after the election). I quite dislike an infobox without leaders to be honest, and I would vote for A only with coalitions' leaders. However, Rosatellum is (by 3/4) a proportional representation system, so, if we want to enphasize parties (and I understand this point of view), I'd vote for B. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, everyone has expressed their opinion, now we have to choose a version. @Ritchie92 and Nick.mon:: But first I would like to clarify one thing: if Forza Italia had prevailed in the centre-right, do you think the leader of the center-right would have been Tajani? I find it hard to imagine this hypothesis, also because Tajani did not electoral campaign as he was indicated by Berlusconi a few days before the vote. Leadership and candidacy for prime minister are two different things.

However, no version prevailed from the discussion: 2 preferences for proposal A, 2 preferences for proposal B and one for proposal C. So we should consider the second and third choices. Personally I don't have a real preference between version A and version C (I would like to keep the leaders in the infobox, but only if they are actual leaders). Number 57 had expressed his preference in order for C, A and B. Ritchie92 for A, B and C. @Checco and Nick.mon: do you have a second choice?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, yes. The candidate to the premiership should be the "leader of the coalition", the problem here is that the leader was decided after the election results, but before the election there was a pact between parties regarding coalition's leader and we clearly expressed it in the infobox. In other articles (like the 2019 Polish parliamentary election) the candidate to the premiership is even prefereed to the leader of the party. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: But the candidacy for the premiership is clear even before the elections, the Italian elections of 2018 cannot objectively be compared to any other election. The candidacy for premiership of Salvini by the centre-right after the elections was a mere formality, as they already knew that he would not become prime minister. The field of the leader in the infobox is reserved for those who led a party or a coalition in the election campaign: in the election campaign Salvini led the League, not the coalition. How could we have indicated as a leader a person who was not really a leader and who did not even campaign? It would have been even more misleading. Please, let's not fall into the original research. Anyway, what would your preferences be in order?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not an original research, Salvini became the candidate for the premiership because his party won more seats than FI. I still don't understand why we can't consider him as the "candidate for the premiership". I'd just like to point out that three users out of five are in favor of considering him the "leader". Anyway, I'd vote for A as my second option, but, as Ritchie said, with all the details of the coalition results: votes, seat change, swing, leaders' names and pictures. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The outcome of this has to be decided by discussion and consensus, let's not just merely count !votes. Also, note that the previous consensus here was to have Salvini as leader of the centre-right coalition, with its photo, and with a big note explaining the situation. I don't know how we can have a clearer infobox, while also retaining the (very important) role of the leaders. After all, the 2018 election was also the one that gave Salvini a much larger power in the following years, so it makes a lot of sense to have him there as leader and not Tajani. Anyway there is another option, which however might be visually ugly: having the three main leaders of the centre-right listed, and a photo that graphically includes the three faces of Berlusconi, Salvini, Meloni. It might be that this can be done without reducing too much the size of the faces. --Ritchie92 (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: I know that there was that discussion, indeed I believe the wrong decision was made! In the infobox Salvini is indicated as the leader of the centre-right coalition (there is a note of explanation, but who actually goes to read it?), the only source I found is a statement by Salvini himself who proclaims himself leader of the coalition, nothing more. Leader is not the same as a candidate for premiership. In 2013 Berlusconi was not the candidate for prime minister of the centre-right coalition and Grillo was not the candidate for prime minister of the M5S, but they are indicated in the infobox because they were the leaders (indeed, the prime minister candidate of PDL was Alfano, should we indicate him in the infobox?) I don't know if I made myself clear, but the choice that was made for this infobox is also inconsistent with all the previous elections. As for the presence of the photos of three leaders in a very small field, it seems quite unaesthetic to me... however we agree on proposal B as the first choice, which seems aesthetically pleasing to me.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

ps. Anyway, thinking about it, as a second choice I prefer proposal A (obviously without photos).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: Just to clarify, Ritchie92 was referring to that discussion, he probably forgot to sign the comment :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: I thought it was another your comment! I didn't realize it was written by Ritchie92. Anyway I don't know if I explained myself in the last speech, that is not the simple space for the candidate for the premiership. The infobox shouldn't be misleading. I think we should choose one of the 3 proposals in the sandbox in their current form. What do we do?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon, Ritchie92, and Number 57: I made a further version of infobox, the proposal D, which includes all the center-right leaders. I still prefer Proposal B, but this could be a viable alternative. Try to take a look at it.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

That's great, for me now the two options are D or B, still quite undecided between the two. In the "D" I would probably remove "Party" from the leaders info and only show "Alliance" (parties results are shown in the table below). My indecision mostly depends on whether we want to focus on coalitions (which have been historically important, and an important focus of political analyses and government formation talks) or on the parties (the ratio of seats in the Parliament in 2018 is 2/3 to parties, 1/3 coalitions). For the 2006-2013 elections I would definitely do something like D (or A with single leader pictures). --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: For the 2006-2013 elections only one leader per coalition must be indicated, as the coalition leader was required by law. As I have already stated, with the Rosatellum law the importance of parties prevails over coalitions, because the law provides for the indication of party leaders (and not coalition leaders) and because only 1/3 of the seats are assigned to coalitions. For these reasons, I believe that proposal B is the optimal one. Obviously I think that the Proposal D is also a good compromise. As a third choice I would opt for the proposal A.

Another fundamental element which we will have to discuss is the number of parties / coalitions to be included in the infobox in the elections. All the other pages that use this type of infobox insert all the parties that have obtained seats up to a maximum of 6 parties. I think, for example, that the infoboxes of the 2008 and 2013 elections should be implemented respectively with the third and fourth place (Casini and UDC in 2008, Monti and his coalition in 2013).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Not a fan of option D – a clear failure of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Infoboxes should be kept as small as possible. Number 57 17:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It is effectively quite a long version. One solution (for both proposal B and proposal D) could be to include the table in a drop-down menu, as Nick.mon had proposed... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The drop-down menu cannot be inserted in a good way. The only way (Nick.mon's way) was to have the tables coded in the map caption of the infobox, which is a terrible thing to do. So I'm against it. If length is an issue, then only options A and C are left, of which I'm not a fan either. --Ritchie92 (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually version B doesn't seem larger than average to me, most infoboxes have six parties with leaders and the map. The only additions on this version are the two tables with coalition results, which, however, have quite small dimensions. I remain of the opinion that version B is the much better solution for 2018. For the previous elections, however, the situation is a bit different, the addition of the table with the results of the parties risks enlarging the infoboxes (btw, I don't think I understand why it's a terrible thing to insert drop-down menus). However, long infoboxes are only not recommended. At the moment let's try to make a decision at least for the infobox of 2018 election, it seems to me that there is a slight preference for proposal B.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that we cannot hack the code of the infobox and "cheat" by putting important data like the whole party table in the map caption. This is a horrible work-around fix that will only cause problems in the future. Also, there is no point in having half of the infobox hidden in a drop-down menu: that defeats the purpose of having that information in the infobox. --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

My order of preference is: 1) leaving as it is now; 2) A; 3) B; 4) D; 5) C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checco (talk • contribs)

So what do we do? For this infobox we have to keep in mind numerous assumptions (a greater importance of the parties over the coalition, the fact that we have never indicated the simple candidate for the premiership in the infobox). @Ritchie92 and Nick.mon: I don't know if I misunderstood, are you in favor of proposal B? I believe that in one way or another the infobox on this page should be replaced with another one.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, B is quite good for me. -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92 I didn't understand what your first choice is and if you agree with version B.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Version B is not bad, even though like Checco I would have preferred something with the coalitions first and the parties below, because of the traditional media view on Italian elections. Let me make a summary:

• Current infobox: I think it is important to have an infobox that emphasizes the "legislative" nature of Italian elections, so the current version is too reductive IMHO.
• Proposal A: Probably partly because the first draft of this one was made by myself, I support the idea and structure of version A (the fact that there are coalitions first, and then the correct usage of the Template:Infobox legislative election with all parties who gained seats). The only main issue I see, that makes me doubt about a possible application of this one, is the missing coalition leaders. Note that this one can be shortened further by removing the maps with the parties' strength.
• Proposal B: Graphically speaking this is a good one (I would use different portraits of the leaders, some pictures are not the best looking photos of them), however it is a bit weird to use the part above (made for few-parties systems) to list parties, and the tables below (made for many-parties systems) to list coalitions. I agree that somehow it makes sense that with the new electoral law parties can be listed before coalitions; however the results tables below are improperly used, and it looks like we are grouping parties together in a section (the tables) where more parties could be easily inserted (as in version A) – basically it looks like we are using the wrong templates both above and below.
• Proposal C: This one is also too reductive like the current infobox, but in the other sense, namely that it ignores the coalition results.
• Proposal D: The solution for the leaders is not too bad (although it takes some more horizontal space), and at the moment I am writing this, I made it a bit shorter so that for me it becomes a very viable option. It is basically an upgrade of proposal A with all negative things about it eliminated. The larger horizontal space makes it also easier to visualize the coalition results for (S) and (C), so it does not look as packed and confusing as proposal A.

So in the end I'm going mainly for the current version of proposal D, then A without the party maps, and finally B. --Ritchie92 (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I know it is not the ideal method, but the only solution now seems to be a ranking. @Nick.mon and Number 57: Your final ranking (including the proposal D) would be necessary, so we can decide which proposal is the most appreciated. Thanks. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Voting is not the correct way to achieve consensus. I think that a compromise solution has to be found, and a simple ranking based on personal taste without any explanation to why something should be better than something else is not a good way to do this. Scia Della Cometa do you only "like" option B? What about the new option D? --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

IMHO we have to ways: 1) If we agree that with this electoral law parties are "more important" than coalitions, we should use proposal B which is quite similar to the ones used in proportional representation systems; 2) If we want to emphasize the idea (supported by media and newspapers as Ritchie says) that coalitions still matter more than parties, we'll have to choose option A or the current (maybe a bit improved) version. Moreover, as I said, IMHO leaders are quite important in an infobox, so if we decide for coalitions and if we cannot agree on Salvini as the candidate for the premiership after the election (maybe we chould even clearly write these words under his name, please take a look at Proposal E), we could put three leaders in the same pic like for leaders of Alternative for Germany or The Left. Proposal D it's not so great IMHO, I think that images like those in a infobox are quite unaesthetic. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

If we agree that parties are more important, then something like option C should be chosen for a legislative election. Option B uses the wrong scheme for the tables, it is a bit weird to use the tables to list the global results of the coalitions. Regarding your proposal, if you can make a picture with three leaders, please add it to option A. Proposal E is also fine for me, except that it's a bit weird to state "PM candidate" since there is no official PM candidate, so I would just say "leader of the centre-right after the election results", or put a picture with the three leaders. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

My final ranking is C, A, E, D, B. Cheers, Number 57 11:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's the pic: File:Salvini Berlusconi Meloni.jpg. Anyway I think that if we prefer parties over coalitions, I re-affirm my preference for the format with leaders, which is the most used one (see 2021 German federal election, the 2019 United Kingdom general election, the November 2019 Spanish general election and so on...). -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Those examples you gave are for systems with a little number of parties (around 6 or less). Italy has more than 6 parties usually in every elections, so it should be more similar to 2021 Dutch general election. PS: why is the picture of Salvini so bad quality? --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I know that voting is not the correct procedure, but it does not seem easy to me to find an agreed solution. I had already expressed my preferences: B, D, A, C. For me the tables in proposal B could also be removed. Proposal E is pratically the same as the current infobox, so I disagree with it. I also dislike the portrait with the three centre-right leaders proposed by Nick.mon, after all, there is a big difference from the examples cited: in those examples there is a shared party leadership, in Italy every party has one leader. Furthermore, in 2018 only six parties exceeded the threshold, the others obtained coalition seats or parties representing linguistic or Italian minorities abroad. The version C could be suitable for the elections until 1992.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, in the Spanish election, a lot of parties entered in the parliament (probably even more than those which entered in the Italian one). And IMHO, I simply don't like a table like C (or the Dutch version), I find it quite redundant and a rough copy of the more-detailed tables which we can find the article. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: For me the tables in proposal B could also be removed so you would remove completely the existence of coalitions. This I oppose strongly, coalitions are a central point of Italian politics and elections from the 90's until today, and have to be in the infobox. Proposal A or E might be the best options we have. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, as a general remark, please let's stop using "I like", "I dislike", "I don't like" to justify your choice. In Wikipedia these are not valid discussion points, there must be a valid justification to take a decision by consensus. Again, this is not a vote or a beauty contest. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

You're right, but infoboxes should summarize elections and give synthetic informations to a reader and in my view, leaders' portraits are a useful information. Putting a simple table with parties and seats in the infobox is quite useless in my view, so that's why I'm personally against a "Dutch version". -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand how having a summary table of the overall results of the election is "quite useless", really... That is exactly the point of the infobox! And Italian elections are a good example of a possible application of the legislative-election infobox. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

But having an infobox which shows leaders (with their portraits, constituencies and time in office), swing in % and seats from the previous election and so on, is quite better in my view. It's a more complete summary and not a mere shortned copy of tables that you can find in the article. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, regarding this election, I agree with Ritchie when he says that coalitions are a fundamental part of Italian politics, moreover, Rosatellum is a parallel voting system, different but in some ways similar to Mattarellum. So, in my view, if we "use" coalitions for elections from 1994 to 2001, we should use them here too. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The infobox should not add information to the article, it should summarize information that are already in the article. So a shortened copy of the results in the article is a good idea for an infobox. And by the way my original proposal and the reason why I started this discussion was to include also the party results in the infobox (because including only coalitions gives a partial picture, especially for the 2018 election). Anyway, I think at this point the first issue to settle is whether to give more emphasis to parties or coalitions. I say coalitions are still very important even in the Rosatellum, because one cannot vote for a party and for a separate coalition. So I would have coalitions in the current format, parties in the legislative-infobox format. This means one between A, D (I don't understand what's wrong with D), or E. Regarding B, I am a bit skeptical because the legislative-infobox table does not make much sense if we only use it to show the coalition results. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, I understand your point of view and I support the use of E and, then, D and A. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92 I stated that I would be willing to remove the table from version B precisely because you said you were skeptical about it. I know it's not a beauty contest, but the graphic result is important, the infobox shouldn't be unaesthetic. The portrait with the three centre-right leaders, in addition to being really unaesthetic, is also inappropriate: they are leaders of parties with a specific strength, with a similar photo their importance would be diminished. The cases of the German or British parties are different, because there are parties with a dual leadership (I don't know if I have made myself clear). As I have already said, for me with the Rosatellum law parties prevail over coalitions, for this reason I prefer proposal B. Proposals A, C and D are also ok for me, but please avoid proposal E, which maintains the same inaccuracies as the current infobox.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I did not understand how to proceed to modify the infobox.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Neither do I... maybe it would be better if other users join the discussion. How can we achieve a compromise? -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion the only solution was through the ranking. I admit it is a bad solution, but it would have led to a result. Users had expressed themselves as follows:

• Scia della Cometa: 1) B; 2) D; 3) A; 4) C; 5) E
• Nick.mon: 1) B; 2) E; 3) D; 4) A; 5) C
• Checco: 1) E (?); 2) A; 3) B; 4) D; 5) C
• Number 57: 1) C; 2) A; 3) E; 4) D; 5) B
• Ritchie92: 1) D; 2) A; 3) E; 4) B; 5) C (?)

If I got something wrong let me know. It is an extremely complicated situation, everyone has different preferences, the slightly more popular version seems to be Proposal A (preferred by very little) while the least popular is Proposal C. What do we do? As I said, none of the first four proposals are a problem for me, but please, let's not adopt the proposal E, which is as misleading as the current infobox.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon, Ritchie92, Number 57, and Checco: Anyway, the more we continue this discussion, the more I understand that there are major divisions regarding any profound changes on the infobox. Ritchie92 is right when he says the table (Infobox legislative election) is meant for parties and Nick.mon is right when he says having an infobox with photos would be preferable. Furthermore, the table in versions A, C and D would not be very clear, because some parties did not get seats due to their electoral result (+ EU, NCI etc.). However, the infobox cannot be misleading at all, it must be as clear as possible. I think that at the moment there are no conditions to make radical changes, but I believe it is essential to change the current infobox of the 2018 general elections. I also think that the purpose of the infobox is to synthetically represent the result of the elections, in the most complete way possible. So it should indicate the main parties / coalitions that have won seats, such as the infoboxes used for other countries. What would you say if at the moment we replaced the current infobox with proposal F (which would be a revision of proposal B)? What if we added to the infobox the parties / coalitions that obtained seats in the elections from 2006 to 2013 (i.e. the UDC in 2008 and the Monti coalition in 2013)? Surely the infoboxes would be more complete than the current ones.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: I've updated Proposal F, with new pictures of the same size, tell me what you think about. By the way, I support your proposal of using it, at least for now, as a good compromise. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon For me it's ok (the four parties version). I have only made a few slight changes. We could use the maps of parties strength by constituency (which are well done) within the body of the page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: Ok, I've repleaced the image of the three leaders with a collage, which (IMHO) looks better... but well, if you prefer the other image, no problems, but I think it looks quite good. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon Let's keep both versions in sandbox, but personally I prefer the photo at the Quirinal Palace, the collage has an unnatural look in my view ... a collage like for Korwin in the 2019 Polish elections would already be nicer, but since we have a photo with the three leaders I think we should use that, without any forced montage.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but to be honest, in that picture you can barely see Meloni's face, but ok, let' see what other users think. A collage like the Polish one would be good if we reduce the size of the other images (maybe it could be a good thing...). We can do it of course, but with that size, I think that putting three leaders in a row is a good solution for a collage. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon On the web there are many photos with Salvini, Berlusconi and Meloni together, they were photographed together several times. In this case the collage does not seem necessary to me. Couldn't we upload another photo?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure, if they can be used on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I'll try to find something tomorrow -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Good!.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi (I changed username) I don't see version F as a huge improvement, since it goes against the main reason why we needed to change the infobox: Italian elections are legislative elections, and the Template:Infobox legislative election is the one to be used. Scia Della Cometa moved the discussion in order to create a new consensus regarding the removal of Salvini as leader of the centre-right. This was not the point of the discussion I started, and sadly now it became only about the centre-right and its leader... Anyway, if you wanted to add the three centre-right leaders, then let's keep the current version with a Polish collage of the three. This can be done immediately IMHO, and outside the plan to change the infobox style. If it's possible, now I would like to discuss about the structural changes to the infobox, and the addition of parties to it, possibly through the legislative-election tables. --Yakme (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

If we can find a single photo of the three centre-right leaders it would be much better than the collage. I know what the purpose of the discussion was, but honestly I don't see consensus for any solution, I don't know how it can be unlocked... but at least let's correct the issues in the current infobox. For me, versions A, B, C, D and F are fine, even if the "double" infobox is effectively not used on any other page (the insersion of Template:Infobox legislative election into Template:Infobox election would still be a forcing of the infobox, even if it's not a big deal for me). Unfortunately, the perfect infobox doesn't exist in this case.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the collage to the photo with the three leaders together. would still be a forcing of the infobox no it's not a forcing of the infobox. The parameter "module=" is present in both infoboxes and serves exactly this purpose. See 2018 Mexican general election. --Yakme (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme Do you mean something like this version? It seems a bit huge to me... I had never seen the Mexican infobox, even if we must consider that those are real general elections (parliamentary and presidential), the Italian elections are only parliamentary (indeed I don't understand why they have this title).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The pictures can be shrunk more, I don't know why you are putting pictures with the whole upper torso of the politician. There is also a lot of wasted space in showing the picture background, like in Di Maio's picture! We just need their face, so the pics can be much smaller. I am not sure about the difference between Four Parties (I) and (II), what is it? Also the hidden list of parties below the leader of the coalition looks like the leader is relative to all parties: we can also just show "Alliance" and not "Party" since LeU is indeed an alliance, and M5S can be written with something like "(not in a coalition)" in parenthesis. We can also remove "leader since" and "leader's seat", they would be useful in a version B, not in a version with coalitions (also they take too much space to no real advantage), IMHO. --Yakme (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I've a question... if Salvini wasn't the leader of the coalition, why his pic is larger than the other two? If we insert the three leaders, IMHO their pics should be of the same size. Moreover, the vaste majority of pictures of the three leaders aren't free, the only one we can use is from the website of the Quirinal Palace. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme and Nick.mon: What do you think of this version? It is compact and also quite complete, it contains the results of the coalitions and also the results of the parties that have passed the threshold.

Answer to Yakme: indeed this is the problem of collage: with small images, the faces in the collage disappear.

Answer to Nick.mon: because in any case Salvini was the head of delegation as leader of the main party. Even in a possible collage with three photos, Salvini's photo should be a bit bigger (if instead it were a collage with two photos, the portraits of Salvini and Berlusconi could have the same size). Unfortunately, I imagined that most of the photos with the three centre-right leaders are not free, but in the light of the final graphic results, the photo of the Quirinal Palace seems better to me than the collages... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

In my view, leaders' pics should be headshots, so a collage would be the most preferable option, even in other articles when there are more than one leader, a collage is often the most used option. And to beh honest, if Salvini's pic would be larger, even Berlusconi's one should be larger than Meloni's one, so it would be quite awful... Anyway, in this case I think we could even "vote", it's not a great problem... -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, in my view, the version V is unsuitable. But even version III doesn't convince me aesthetically, the photos are too blurry in that collage. I believe that many infoboxes use collages because unique photos are not available. For example, in the infobox of the 2019 European elections in the UK, there is a unique photo for the leaders of the Green Party.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The infobox states, below the tables, "This lists parties that won seats." So it is wrong to select only some parties to show in the infobox, all of them who won seats must appear. I support the collage with Salvini larger than the other two, no big deal. The important thing is that we use headshots and not full-body pictures. Anyway I would take something better than the ones used in Proposal B (which are really sad and bad quality pictures). --Yakme (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

OK I'll try to upload another collage, with Salvini larger than the others. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Done: File:Salvini Berlusconi Meloni 2018 Collage.png -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

As a compromise version, I've uploaded proposal Four parties (VII). In my opinion is way too long (that' why I proposed the collapsible list some days ago and to list three parties/coalitions only on Saturday), but sincerely I don't know what we could do more to agree on another version. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems so long to me ... Even the heads of Berlusconi and Meloni, without a minimum part of the bust, convince me quite little (moreover, the photo of Pietro Grasso, who scored 3%, would be definitely over-represented compared to that of Berlusconi, who scored 14%).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but honestly I can't take it anymore. We decided to include Berlusconi and Meloni in the pictures, even if Salvini was the leader of the coalition (after the election). In the "Quirinal portrait" Berlusconi and Meloni were barely visible, so I uploaded a collage with all the three leaders of the centre-right with the same size and you told me to use a larger size for Salvini because he was the head of the delegation (ok, so why can't we use him only? We don't know...). Now, I upload a second collage, but Berlusconi is too small compared to Grasso. Ok, let's remove Grasso (No, we can't...). Dear sirs, believe me, let's keep the version as it's now and stop. This discussion is becoming abdurd.... -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Guys, you are really going too far now with the proposals and stuff. There are currently thirteen different proposals on my sandbox page, without counting the ones under "other proposals"... Please let's stop creating more and more noise, this discussion is becoming incomprehensible to any other user who might be interested. Could some of you please clean up the sandbox page so one can actually understand it? @Scia Della Cometa: we don't need to make the faces of the leaders proportional to the vote share that they won, this would be ridiculous and impossible to implement, and is of course not done anywhere, see also other election articles. (BTW I would have only the three main coalitions, i.e. remove LeU) --Yakme (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme: This is the final (and IMHO only possible) compromise. I'm not a great fan of it, as I said it seems a bit long to me and even quite complicated, but probably it's the best option if we want: 1) Use coalitions 2) Give a representation of parties' strenght 3) Use leaders' pics in the infobox. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

And let me conclude in Italian: Che Rosato possa essere maledetto. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but in my view, this is the worst version: the infobox is disproportionately large and long, it's practically huge. It is for this reason that I have proposed to include fourth place, to have a less large infobox. The matter of the size of the photos is not ridiculous, a problem about over-representation and under-representation of a leader can exists (you have to admit it's kinda weird to have a tiny picture of a 14% party leader and a big picture of a 3% party leader). Anyway, how long did Salvini remain "leader" of the centre-right coalition? For 2 weeks? Let's be serious, a leadership needs to be effective, therefore supported by authoritative sources or at least by a clear prevalence within the coalition (with the results of 2019 there would have been no problems). However, I had no real problem with the original 4 proposals (A, B, C and D), further versions have been proposed because everyone has different ideas ...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I've uploaded new portraits and a collage, and this is definitely my last proposal. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This is fine for me, just remove the "Party" entry, so it's clear that the first part is just coalitions, and the second part is just parties. --Yakme (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

At this point, with this setting, I believe that only Salvini and Berlusconi should be indicated as leaders of the centre-right: after all, in 2018, the real duel for the leadership of the coalition was between the two of them ([1], [2], [3]), at that time FdI and Meloni were de facto cut off from the dispute over the leadership of the coalition. Furthermore, a collage with three photos is too crowded and three lines to indicate the leaders are too many.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The three of them were the leaders of the centre-right coalition, there is no dispute on this. They were going together to the Quirinal, they were together on the election campaign, and so on. So the current setting is perfect in my opinion. @Scia Della Cometa: you hijacked the style discussion to your preferential points (the centre-right coalition), you obtained what you wanted (remove Salvini as the sole leader), now please stop with your requests. It's time to compromise, and you can accept this version that is objectively good, and has no mistakes in it. Furthermore, a collage with three photos is too crowded and three lines to indicate the leaders are too many. you are really trying to put obstacles to the end of this discussion. --Yakme (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, we can't continue to upload new collages and new versions. The leaders were three, Meloni was less "powerful" than the other two, but she clearly was one of the three leaders. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme: I sincerly prefer their complete names, without the collapsible list. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Ehm, no, I am not trying to obstruct the discussion, since I was the first to say that I was in favor of all the initial versions proposed (A, B, C and D). I have expressed my point of view, then do what you think is best.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok I'm going to implement this version in the article then. --Yakme (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I've removed the collapsible list -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon, Yakme, and Number 57: If you prefer the current infobox on the page, I will surely not object, however I still want to show the infobox I was talking about in my last post, since I hadn't. I just do it because in 2018, according to many sources ([4], [5], [6], [7]), the internal competition for leadership was between Berlusconi and Salvini, while Giorgia Meloni was one of the main leaders of the coalition, but objectively at that time she was cut off from internal competition (indeed, I supported the idea of also showing Giorgia Meloni in a different context). I just did it to show my idea, not to lengthen the discussion further. Obviously, if you prefer the current infobox, it doesn't matter, but I still wanted to show the final result.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean, there're no doubts that Meloni was the junior member of the coalition and that the two contenders for the leadership were de facto Salvini and Berlusconi, but Meloni was always regarded as one of the three leaders of the coalition. She never ran as a "potential PM" (until today), but she was among the leaders of the coalition. So, as I said, IMHO we should include Salvini as the "leader", due to the famous agreement among the centre-right leaders, but if we don't do that, I'd include all the three main leaders, even the junior partner Meloni. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know enough about Italian politics to have a view on this :) Cheers, Number 57 15:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Either Salvini alone, or the three main leaders: Salvini, Berlusconi, Meloni. (BTW Scia Della Cometa was the one proposing the Quirinale photo with three leaders, not two; so why this question now, if not to increase noise and confusion to a closed discussion?) To my understanding, it makes no sense to show only the two "runoff leaders": if there ever was a runoff then we could just show the final winner (i.e. Salvini). If there was no runoff, then we can show the main leaders of the three-pronged alliance. The sources say that Salvini and Berlusconi were competing for the first position, not that they were the two main leaders of the entire coalition. I can already foresee in the future other users and IPs protesting (correctly) the choice of having only Salvini and Berlusconi in the infobox. --Yakme (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme I know that I was the first to say that there were three leaders (excluding Fitto, otherwise they would be four). The problem is that my proposal was on the one hand to include all the leaders of the parties that won seats (more important in the initial part of the infobox than in the table, IMHO), on the other hand to keep the infobox more aesthetically pleasing as possible. In particular, I don't like that collage, showing only the head without a small part of the bust is unaesthetic from my point of view. A collage like File: M. Salvini, S. Berlusconi, G. Meloni.jpg would already be better, at least it does not give the effect of a severed head. Do not want to lengthen the discussion, but I thought it right to express my perplexity about that photo. But it is a matter of taste.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That picture is also fine for me, I don't see why complaining so much about a few pixels showing the bust or not. --Yakme (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon Is this photo ok for you? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, but IMHO the current collage is better and all the three pics have been taken in 2018, so I'm in favor of keeping the current one. Maybe I could change a little bit the current version. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon I don't think it would be a big deal if the photos were a little earlier than 2018 ... However, the problem in that collage are the photos of Berlusconi and Meloni, with the cutted head. I think that they should at least be re-proportioned as in the collage I proposed ...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I've re-proportioned the two images. -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

So it is already better than before.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Revival: PR vs FPTP results

I don't understand one thing, we have been discussing for days about a general change to the infoboxes, in the end the change was only adopted in the 2018 elections and is not even suitable for the current electoral system (the Rosatellum). Parties like NCI and + EU won seats not thanks to their electoral results, but within coalitions. By analyzing it better, it can be understood that it does not fit the current electoral law. This type of infobox was to be adopted in the elections from 2006 to 2013, not on this page. I'm sorry to have to reopen the discussion, but I believe that the infobox on this page has been modified too hastily (nothing against changing the infoboxes from 2006 to 2013).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You must be joking... We all discussed this for weeks, and you agreed to the final result. Now after a couple weeks you say that it is completely wrong again. You just like to open discussions. --Yakme (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Yakme I'm not joking, in reality you two decided the current setting and I limited myself to not oppose it but ... if it's something it's wrong it's wrong. The second table is meaningless, parties like NCI, + EU and Together did not win seats thanks to their results with the proportional system. In the infoboxes where you could use this setting, you did not, while you used it where it is unsuitable. So yes, I strongly believe that the infobox on this page needs to be corrected.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Nothing in the infobox refers to the PR or FPTP, so there is no mistake. Parties like +Eu and NcI won seats in the Parliament (who cares how), and that is what it is reported (correctly) in the current infobox. There is no need to open the 18th discussion of the week. --Yakme (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

But this is not the case, these parties have not won seats. The centre-right or centre-left coalition won seats, not the parties. The parties win seats with the proportional system, and +Eu and NcI have not exceeded the threshold. In practice, some of their members have been elected within the coalitions, but the parties have not won seats. For this reason the second table is wrong.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

OK you are right. I have no clear idea how to solve this now: we could make the infobox such as it separates FPTP (above) and PR (below) results, or we could use the second part only for the cumulative coalition results (or at this point, remove it altogether, but then what about the parties results?). @Nick.mon: any ideas? --Yakme (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I would have a clear idea: I would use the current setting for the elections from 2006 to 2013 (see:User:Scia Della Cometa/sandbox#Proposal B) and the setting that I had proposed in the past partially revisited for 2018 (see:User:Scia Della Cometa/sandbox#Proposal A). The second table in the infobox is designed for parties, so these would be included in it by grouping them by coalition. The only alternative would be to remove the second table from the current infobox, but honestly I don't understand why my proposal couldn't be considered good, it seems to me quite suitable for the electoral law in force...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, maybe the "second part" of the current infobox could be a bit misleading, because there're parties which won seats within the FPTP but did not pass the threshold. However, I think that this is not a big problem, the two parts of our infobox aren't "FPTP and PR", but simply "coalitions and parties". Moreover, we agreed (after weeks of discussion) to put coalitions first and then parties. So I'm quite afraid of reopening the discussion. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon Honestly, the second table in the infobox seems very misleading to me. Even the order "coalitions first and then parties" does not convince me very much since most of the seats are assigned to parties and not to coalitions. I understand that you have adopted this setting because we could not find an agreement, but it does not seem suitable for the electoral system...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

So, what do you think about these proposals? I think that Proposal A (and in particular the Option II) is the most sutable infobox for the Rosato electoral law, it contains all important details: the results of all parties having overcome the threshold (with all informations about their leaders) and the results of coalitions in the second table, that contains also the parties that obtained seats, therefore is formally correct. While we could use the current setting for the 2006-2013 elections.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I reckon that there is a strong general consensus about showing the coalitions as the main contenders of the election in the infobox. So I would think proposal A goes against this general consensus. --Yakme (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme Where is the strong general consensus on having the coalitions above in the infobox with the Rosato law? We are discussing about which infobox is the most suitable with the current Italian electoral law, not about the electoral systems of the past. Please answer on this.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is 12,000+ words and it would take me ~40 minutes to read again completely. What I recall from the conclusion and the discussions within is that at least three users (myself, Checco, and Nick.mon) are inclined to show the coalitions as the main contenders in the election. There is no need to ping me every time, I have this page watchlisted. --Yakme (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you think three users are a "strong general consensus"?? This discussion was supposed to be about a general revision of the infoboxes, on the basis of the legislative nature of Italian elections, but the only thing we did is change (for the worse) only the 2018 infobox. Basically we have discussed in vain, I know that I initially abstained (not because I agreed), but you also admitted that the current setting is wrong, at this point I think the previous situation was better (which I did not agree with anyway ...) than the current one.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

You did not, in fact, "abstain". Or at least that is what was understood, when you picked your preferences, and proposal "D" (which is in spirit the same as the current one) was your second-best. Anyway, I agree that now the situation is not ideal, but I would not go back to the previous one – especially after so much time spent to find a new consensus among all of us. Let's try to solve this instead: the easiest thing to do would be to use coalitions in the tables instead of parties; the other option would be to remove the tables altogether from the infobox; finally the hard solution would be to separate FPTP and PR completely in the infobox. --Yakme (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I abstained from opposing to it, even if it didn't convince me. Repeating the results in the second table would be useless. The removal of the second table would make the infobox similiar to the previous one. I can't imagine the third option...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I still wait an answer, the current infobox should be corrected...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't be obnoxious, you wrote your opinion at 17:52, 10 November 2021, and then you already insist on a reply at 09:59, 11 November 2021. You should not demand meaningful and thoughtful replies after less than 24 hours have passed.

Anyway, I think that at this point a good option would be to remove the table – for the time being. In principle, I am not against changing the order and show parties in the infobox instead of coalitions (but only after consulting other users who disagreed before), but my problem is then we would be limited to the PR seats, how would we determine the FPTP seats for +Eu for example? To make an example, technically speaking, Bonino was the FPTP winner for the centre-left, and she is a member of +Eu, so can we state she has a +Eu seat? She won as centre-left, not as +Eu (as a matter of fact she could have changed party right after the election day and she would still have that seat). I don't know whether this was clear enough, probably someone else can explain better the problem in identifying the FPTP seat with a specific party and not with the full coalition, also given the nature of Italian politicians (one can never be 100% sure of their party membership, especially for smaller parties where sometimes independents or "sister-party" members run under similar symbols or coalitions). --Yakme (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not "obnoxious", you have intervened to reply in another thread on the same page, so giving an answer is a matter of courtesy. I have no objection to seeking the opinion of opposing users or other users through Rfc. However, I did not understand the problem of the seats assigned with the FPTP: the seats of parties such as +EU are nevertheless indicated in the table.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

At this point I think those might be technically wrong too. Is that right? --Yakme (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

In reality the tables seem technically correct to me: they simply show how many seats each party got from the overall result of the coalition in the FPTP. It is an important fact to show on the page, because after all the parties "got" those seats, but did not "win" them: indeed the table shows that those seats were won thanks to a coalition result.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Then if the tables are correct, why do you say that the same tables in the infobox are "wrong"? If you say that those seats were "got" by those parties, then it's good also in the infobox tables, I don't see why making the difference. Either both are wrong or both are acceptable. --Yakme (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Those tables are extremely different: the overall table clearly shows that those parties have not won a seat thanks to their election result. And it clearly shows that the result in the FPTP is attributed only to the coalition. The table in the infobox makes it appear that those parties won seats thanks to their electoral result, while in the overall table it is clear that it is a division of seats within the coalition. The difference is relevant.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme You have affirmed that technically you are not against my idea, and you also acknowledged that the second table (as it stands) could be removed. It seemed to me that in the first discussion not even the user Nick.mon was against the idea I have illustrated. At the moment I propose to remove the second table from the infobox and to submit these proposals to Wikipedia:Request for comment.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme: shall we proceed in this way? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Your impatience led you to already go ahead with the removal of the table in the infobox just 7 hours after your last post here, so I guess my reply is superfluous. --Yakme (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme: Not after "just 7 hours", but after more than a day from my proposal. If you don't answer me, I can't wait in vain for a reply.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)