Talk:2020 Italian regional elections

Rfc: Set up of the page

{{rfc|pol|soc}} How should the pages of the Italian regional elections be set up?

• Option A: current set up (see 2020 Italian regional elections);
• Option B: current set up, but the summary tables should only show the coalitions/parties that have won seats;
• Option C: set up similar to that one of local elections, i.e. summary table with outgoing president, new president, electoral result and seats won, with links to specific results at the bottom of the page (see 2020 Italian local elections);
• Option C: new suggestion.

Please choose one of the options and possibly provide an order of preference of the various options. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Scia Della Cometa - Why have you been playing with the RFC banner? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "playing with the RFC banner", my intention to carry on the RFC was serious. I withdrew it after I was asked to do so.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Option C: the page should be summary, for the specific results there are pages for each regional election, it doesn't matter to repeat all the results on a page which should purpose to show the most important information. I disagree with the current set up, which includes some coalitions / parties in the tables that have not won seats and excludes others on the basis of an arbitrary criterion, i.e. a 1% threshold (this threshold must be exceeded by the candidate, the party, or both? It is not clear). For this reason option B would be preferable to option A, but both have the inconvenience of repeating unnecessary information.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

• I would like to ask OP Scia Della Cometa to consider withdrawing this RfC, as it is extremely premature, see WP:RFCBEFORE. No attempt whatsoever to a resolution or discussion of the issue has been made before resorting to RfC (and by the way this is not the first time that OP uses RfC so lightly). Yakme (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia: Reverting? Did you give a reason for the rollbacks? Did you at least open a discussion after undoing my edits? It doesn't seem like a collaborative behavior to me. A preventive discussion is recommended for Rfc, but it is not necessarily mandatory.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Asking through Rfc to a wider audience of users which set up to use for a page is not a disruptive behavior, but it just helps to form consensus.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

And did you read WP:BRD? Anyone could have reverted that, even without any reason, this does not give you the permission to start an RfC without even trying to solve the issue first. So if you are kind enough, please withdraw the RfC and let's try to solve the issue here before involving the whole WP community on this little problem. By the way, from WP:RFC: Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC. This sounds like much more than just a "recommendation". Yakme (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:BRD states: "Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed." I have not seen any specific reason in the edit summary. And, honestly, I didn't even see those revertions as necessary...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you explain instead why results above 1% in the tables are ok and the others can be excluded? where is the objectivity of this criterion?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Getting reverted is no reason to start an RfC, period. Could you please withdraw this RfC first, and then start a discussion regarding why you want to change the current criterion for inclusion in these tables? Thanks. Yakme (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

When you restore another user's edit (activity that should be minimized without vandalism), you should also provide a clear reason. Anyway, since you want to start a discussion first, I withdraw the RFC for now. My idea has already been exposed: these pages must provide a summary of the most important information, while now it also shows parties that have not won seats. The 1% threshold, in addition to being not very objective, is problematic: in some cases the party does not exceed the threshold while the candidate does, and vice versa. In my wiew, the ideal solution would be to standardize local and regional elections.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It's confusing to discuss something that is not an RfC below an RfC section. Could you please start a new section explaining why you want to change (again) the regional results tables? Yakme (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this could really do with some RFCBEFORE discussion. Coming to this discussion after getting a bot notice I see no discussion, no analysis of sources, no arguments on the merits of proposals, or even anything about what the actual conflict is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

Set up of regional elections' pages

@User:Yakme if you have read what I wrote, I have already explained the reason: 1. a summary page should not repeat all the results already specified on its pages; 2. the 1% threshold does not objectively make sense; 3. a single table satisfies the summary purpose of the page much more. Could you explain why you prefer the current set up? A page set up in this way does not seem to me practical for the reader. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to remind everyone that we just had a similar discussion about the tables in Italian regional elections articles in Talk:2015 Italian regional elections just less than a year ago, and in this discussion Scia Della Cometa was supporting tables like the ones that appear now. The discussion (as usual, difficult, harsh, time- and mind-consuming) finally ended with a consensus on how the tables should look, which was approved by Scia. My question is: Should we have a complete do-over of these articles multiple times a year, and every time Scia changes their mind on some small detail and decides they do not like the previous consensus anymore?

Coming to the points raised now:

1. Why shouldn't a summary page have a bit more information, if is it presented in a compact way? These are past elections, so these results won't change in the future, and it has no maintenance to be done. So I don't see why we should hide or remove information, if having it does not cause any possible confusion or adds future work. By the way, the tables in these summary articles are not at all the same as in the single elections' articles, the first ones are a more compact version of the latter, showing only the candidates and the coalition results (so, no party results for example).
2. The 1% threshold is indeed arbitrary, but it is reasonable in order to limit the length of these tables. However, if you do not like arbitrariness, I would support removing the threshold, and having all the candidates also in these tables. The option proposed by Scia in their edit summaries (but not replicated here) is to only list coalitions that won seats, however I think that this is very limiting: for example for the 2020 Calabria election we would exclude important candidates who got more than 7% of the vote, which is wrong in my opinion.
3. a single table satisfies the summary purpose of the page much more. This is your personal opinion, and I do not see a single reason why. Regional elections are not like local (municipal) elections, in the sense that the final composition of the regional council has quite some relevance, unlike the composition of municipal councils. This is why it is more important to show the complete results including the seats composition like it is done now, on top of the regional president election results. Also, a single summary table comes handy for municipal elections because every year there are tens of such elections in Italian larger cities; on the other hand for regional elections we usually do not have more than 10, and there is no big issue in having less than 10 somewhat detailed result tables in this page. Yakme (talk) 06:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Yakme Claiming that I supported the current tables is not entirely correct: the party column has never convinced me; I have always found it unsightly to have many tables of different widths; the 1% threshold has never convinced me (for the aforementioned reasons), least of all I would agree to list parties and candidates with 0.1% of the votes. It is more correct to say that I contented myself with correcting the previous defects. There is nothing wrong with proposing something that I think is an improvement for the page.

Answering the several points:

1. Because the current layout seems to me anything but compact. The pages on regional elections from other countries that list the results region by region have no articles for each regional election.
2. I am aware of cases like Sardinia and Calabria, but listing parties and candidates with 0.1% of the votes would be even worse.
3. Even your statements and preferences are personal opinions. You affirm that "the final composition of the regional council has quite some relevance, unlike the composition of municipal councils": for this reason we have an article for each regional election, if a reader wants to have the detailed results, he can easily consult these pages.

For these reasons I think the best solution is to have a single table, like in the pages on local elections or like the pages on regional elections of it.wikipedia.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

What you are describing is a WP consensus-building procedure, that was what took place less than a year ago regarding these same tables, and that involves compromising. It is a bit against WP principles to insist over and over discussing the same things until you get exactly what you want. I think the current status quo of the page is quite satisfactory, and extremely clear for any reader interested in a broad summary of yearly Italian regional elections. What you are proposing is a down-grade of these pages to a single table with winners only, for which I do not see any valid reason. Yakme (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposing an RFC to editors is not an insistence, I have expressed my personal points of view exactly as you did. I had already guessed that the space for dialogue on this topic would be minimal, so I had started the Rfc: what for you is a downgrade for me is an improvement. You made me withdraw the RFC, but if this is your position, mine is different. There has never been an effective community decision on the layout of these pages, but only a discussion between two people without even a definitive agreement, therefore, unlike what you would like me to believe, it is absolutely legitimate to propose changes. If you have nothing else to add, I will restore a new Rfc to have the consensus on one of the versions, it seems to me the only thing to do.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree in having an RfC to solve such a silly issue. Nobody in the WP community cares so much about this, so it will just be an incredible waste of time. The question is just a matter of your personal taste and you wanting to have everything on WP exactly as you picture it in your mind, and not being able to compromise. Indeed in this discussion you did not even try to discuss: you just stated your new idea (the second one in less than a year, after a consensus reached on a similar page, involving also you), and did not move from there. I just explained to you why the current consensus is a good-enough compromise, with reasonable arguments, and you just sticked to your original position. I would just suggest you to drop the stick every once in a while (given that you have the same behaviour on all Italian politics talk pages). Yakme (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Yakme It's quite ironic, because it seems to me that you're describing your own behavior. Rather than accusing as you usually do, you should also look at your attitude a bit. If it's a silly problem, why do you care so much?? For me it is not a silly problem, I have expressed my point of view (legitimately), it seems to me that you are the one who refuses the dialogue to keep the version you like best (as your rollbacks with no explanation alsodemonstrate). If that's your attitude, I'll start an RFC tomorrow, I am not afraid to ask the opinion of other users. That's all.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The difference is that I am arguing for keeping the current consensus (and therefore I am allowed to revert your bold edits – you are the one who should convince others to change the current consensus), and most importantly I am bringing forward rational arguments as to why the tables are fine as they are now (see my replies above). However, I am nonetheless open to modifications of the tables, if they are meant to improve the article, without removing information from it. But you just want to push either your complete point of view, or nothing. This is what I call lack of compromise from your side, but this is like always, so I am not surprised at all. Yakme (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

PS: You should at least as a bare minimum wait enough time to see whether other users reply to this discussion before opening yet another RfC for the whole WP community to participate in (for example you can advertise this issue on other articles' pages, or on the WP project pages, or by involving other potentially interested users). Also please avoid these unpleasant ultimatums you often like to make ("either you comply with my timing, and my rules, or I do this and that"), it's very frustrating to discuss like this. Yakme (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

It is equally frustrating to discuss with a user who begins to make freewheeling accusations, trust me. My points of view are as legitimate as yours, if I have reservations I am free to express them, just as I am free to propose changes. Rollbacks must always be motivated, if there is no vandalism. And to say that there was consensus on the current layout is not entirely correct (since the discussion was only between two users, and I have never really agreed on the current version, in the previous discussion I had simply given up). If you prefer I can report this discussion in other projects and wait a week before starting an RFC, but usually simple reporting almost never works.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I have never really agreed on the current version, in the previous discussion I had simply given up I really don't recall you stating that you wanted a single table, or a limit on coalitions with seats, last time we discussed... Please read Talk:2015 Italian regional elections if you do not believe me. So this is blatantly false, you just changed your mind now (I don't know why) and decided that you do not like these articles anymore. And now you demand a free pass for changing completely the set up of these pages? I don't understand, really. Anyway, since I am really tired of discussing, and I want to save other fellow Wikipedians the hassle and embarrassment of yet another RfC on "setting up the tables" or "how to structure the lists", I hereby leave the discussion about this topic, I will revert my reverts, and leave you to do whatever you like with these pages. Cheers, Yakme (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Yakme You leave after having unnecessarily raised the tone of this discussion. If this is an embarrassing discussion and the matter is silly for you, you might not have discussed it at all, or not? When did I ever state that in the previous discussion I supported the single table? I have never stated this, also because I had this idea after your rollbacks. I stated that I did not support the tables set up like this, and it is true: in that discussion I never said that they convinced me. Simply, after yet another rollback, I realized that perhaps the page would be better set up totally in another way. And also for compliance reasons, the model for local elections seems to me to be effective.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

...but above all: since when a Request for comment is a "free pass" for changing completely the set up of the pages?? It is exactly the opposite.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

As I said already, I left this discussion. Yakme (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

As you want... anyway, I will wait for a week, if there are no other opinions I will start an Rfc, since I am not going to modify the page without first having consulted other users.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Yakme This discussion hasn't been closed yet, but I'd like to create a standard format for regional election pages. Would you agree to replace the tables that repeat the results of the candidates with a general table including the results and seats of the main parties for each region?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Regional elections in Italy are another example of articles in which the "legislative infobox" should be implemented. For direct elections or, better, the simultaneous direct election of presidents and the election of legislative bodies, since 1995, both the "election infobox" and the "legislative infobox" should be implemented. --Checco (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

In this case I was referring to the general pages, if nobody is against it I will remove the tables in the second half of the page, which could be replaced with a table with the seats of the parties.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I actually like the current set-up, as well as that of 2023 Spanish regional elections. --Checco (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Checco I personally don't like that format, because the specific results should stay in the specific pages only, but at least let's set up the tables at the same size (like in the Spanish model), it's bad to see all those tables with different size from each other.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I really do not see the point, even though I think that the Spanish model would be quite an improvement. --Checco (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)