Talk:1992 Italian general election

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

---

PCI disbanded in 1989 or 1991?

This article claims that the Italian Communist Party was disbanded in 1989, but the article on PCI says 1991, what is correct?? --Oddeivind (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Image

The electoral map shows results for the wrong year Bergmanucsd (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2016

I believe @Nick.mon: uploaded that map. Is it the right map with the wrong label, or completely the wrong map? Number 57 10:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You are perfectly right, the date is the one of the previous election, but the map should be correct. I will correct it as soon as I can. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I think Nick.mon is correct. I checked the ministry website and the Lega Lombarda did win in Belluno in 1992, but not 1987 Bergmanucsd (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2016

Election maps

Hi, I'd like to start a discussion regarding the electoral maps uploaded by Erinthecute. In my view they're very good maps, which emphasize the territorial strenght of the parties. So, even if I'm the uploader of the currently used maps, I think we should use Erinthecute's ones. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I think they are totally unclear. Why did the user make a map that has the same black for all parties (when they have results higher than 45-50%)? Please go check the color scheme and tell me it's not confusing. Also, there is basically no difference between the PSI and PCI colors in the maps for older elections. I find it very hard to read, if one does not know anything about Italian politics: for example, the black (or dark grey) of the SVP could be one of the dark shades of red or blue used for the PCI and DC, it's indistinguishable! Only by knowing that the SVP always had majority in Südtyrol one can recognize that that's black SVP and not black DC or black PCI. I strongly suggest Erinthecute, if he/she can do it, to revise his/her color scheme to a clearer one. There's no need to go to pitch black for all parties. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I also support using Erinthecute's maps. On the issues exposed by Ritchie92, I think these are minor ones, though I understand their concerns. If required, I think Erinthecute could just remove the last column for >55% and simply use the color for >50%, which is not so dark and more distinguishable, as they did for the Spanish election maps. On the issue of there being basically no difference between the PSI and PCI colors in the maps for older elections, well, this already happens for the old version of the 1946 map and it doesn't seem to be an issue (in fact, I would say Erinthecute's map actually helps establishing a more clearer difference). Overall, I don't think these are issues that justify scrapping the whole maps. Impru20^talk 10:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

It's anyway bad practice to revert a motivated edit without giving an explanation. The maps are fine, regarding the structure. But the color scheme is the worst I could have imagined, defeating the main purpose of the map itself, that is: clearly distinguishing party pluralities on a geographical map (with possibly adjacent regions with totally different results). So I just suggest to update the maps with a better color scheme, and then we can keep them on the pages. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree on Ritchie92's issue. Maybe Erinthecute should change colors' shades in order to distinguish them. When he/she'll do it, I strongly support the use of his/her maps (which are far better than mine). Anyway, I think he/she could also remove the seats distribution by region and province, maybe having only two maps (one for the Chamber and one for the Senate) would be enough. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding what Impru20 was saying about PCI vs PSI. I think the former map is way clearer simply because there's only one shade of red associated to PSI and one associated to PCI. Instead in the new one, there are nine shades of red per each party, with a total of 18 possible shades of red, of which 4 are basically black/dark brown. That makes definitely difficult to distinguish PCI vs PSI. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, two shades that are almost indistinguishable, compared to nine shades where there are more clearer differences (the shade for PSI's is more orange-like in Erinthecute's map, which makes it much more visible). Considering that PSI only came out as the most voted force in four provinces, I see Erinthecute's shades standing out very well in those provinces compared to PCI. I may see a more logical concern on the issue of the dark shades but there are no grounds for an alleged PSI/PCI confusion on this one, really. Impru20^talk 11:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Impru20: "standing out very well" is a far stretch... I'm sorry but you might have a biased view on this because you already know the results of the election, comparing to the previous map. I'll give you a few examples, but this is general, an it must be avoided. First rule of these maps is not to use similar shades for opposing parties. And this should be it. I really cannot see clearly, for example, whether the light-red province in the Marche region (Ancona, I guess) is the second-lightest shade of PCI red or PSI red. The effect that you mention, i.e. the four PSI provinces standing out, is due just to the random happening that all four PSI provinces have the same range of vote percentage for the socialists. If we had more shades of PSI red in the actual map, we would not be able to distinguish them from PCI. Also, another example, how can you be sure that the province of Reggio Emilia is not PSI brown-red instead of PCI brown-red? I challenge you and other viewers to discern all shades without checking back with the previous map! --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

As a suggestion to Erinthecute: do we actually need nine different shades for each party? I don't think we need to be this differential in the results. I think 3 or 4 groups should be fine, with >50% being the strongest party color (a tiny bit darker, but not black!) and below 50% maybe two or three subgroups (0 - 25%, 25 - 50% for example). --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi folks, sorry for the lateness. First off I apologise for my kneejerk reversal of Ritchie92's reversions, it was immature. I understand the criticism in regard to the colour scheme (although I'd request Ritchie92 please cut down language like "the worst [color scheme] I could have imagined", etc, it's unnecessary and combative.) In making the maps I had doubts about what shades to use exactly. I started with the 1992 election, which was an unusually multiparty one for the First Republic. I was unsure what to expect with the vote strength in each province/region, so the shades I picked for each value were darker than necessary, with the lightest shades going almost unused in earlier elections. After a few elections the sunk cost fallacy got to me. For the SVP and VU, I was partially relying on assumption that readers might have knowledge of where they would be winning, which was a mistake. As for solutions, I could make each colour a shade or two lighter and see if it helps (and maybe more for the 1948 election, though I'd rather keep the relationship between vote strength and intensity of the shades consistent across maps if possible.) As for cutting down on the number of shades, intervals of 5% in vote strength maps is pretty standard, and gives a good depth to the data displayed. Since there are rarely more than two parties winning multiple provinces/regions in any given election, and it's almost always blue vs red, it shouldn't be too much of a problem to differentiate between them even with a large number of shades. This is a minor note, but honestly, I'd ideally add another shade for >60% to better represent DC's strength in some regions in the earlier elections, but that is probably not practical for the reasons discussed. As for the 1946 election, I tried to get an inbetween shade of red/orange for PSI, but I could make it more orange to help differentiate. Thanks for the feedback all, I appreciate that there's a general consensus on using my maps in the article. I'll make some variations later and hopefully we can come to an agreement on what to do. Erinthecute (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I could also try including just one shade for regional parties (SVP/VU) in the key, so it's harder to mistake it for one of the major parties. Regarding Nick.mon's suggestion of removing the seat distribution and just having vote strength for the two chambers, that would probably be for the best. I might make the seat distribution maps standalone and include them in the Results section separately. Erinthecute (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ritchie92: If you think that this is far stretched, I could equally argue that your complains are of an enormous exaggeration. All of them seem to refer to issues such as color formatting, rather than the map design itself. This is important because, aside from our personal views on the issue, I see that there are some flaws coming from the current PCI/PSI color scheme that are not Erinthecute's fault nor an intrinsic issue to the maps.

First rule of these maps is not to use similar shades for opposing parties I can't see how orange and red are "similar", because these two are pretty much discernible. However, under such a reasoning, then we have already an issue with the current 1946 map, because the two shades for PSI and PCI are already very similar due to both of them being red. The main issue here is that PCI and PSI colors are templated to be nearly similar, so they are obviously going to look similar in templates, diagrams, charts and maps if strict use of them is encouraged. To the extent that, for example, the 1946 parliament diagram uses a different, much darker shade for PCI because otherwise it would look almost undistinguishable to PSI's chunk. I think Erinthecute has done a fairly good job in showing these two parties different enough without deviating too much from the original colors.

I see that both shades you point out look different enough to be able to distinguish them, but nonetheless, you yourself come up to acknowledge that you are able to distinguish the PSI in Erinthecute's map: the four PSI provinces standing out, is due just to the random happening that all four PSI provinces have the same range of vote percentage for the socialists. If we had more shades of PSI red in the actual map, we would not be able to distinguish them from PCI. So, what's the issue with this? 1) If the current scheme allows PSI's provinces to stand out above the rest, then that's all for it. 2) I could understand the "more shades of PSI red in the actual map"-issue if this was of actual application. The fact is, it isn't. 1946 was the only election in which the PSI came out as the most voted party in any province, and the only one in which such a differentiation between PSI and PCI would be of relevance (also considering that it is already stated, both in the map legend and in the infobox, which parties did come out at top for each election; so, for instance, no one would be looking for a PSI win in other elections because it won't be shown as a winning party). Neither the PSI nor the PCI do exist anymore, so it's impossible for other such configurations to happen in the future. Thus, we should worry about the 1946 election based on its actual conditions, rather than make it depend on now impossible "what ifs" by worrying about non-existant problems. The only major problems here can come not with lighter shades but with darker ones, but I think that there is at least an implicit consensus to correct this.

So far, the main issue here comes because of the PSI and PCI's intrinsic similarity of colors (obviously, because both of them had red as their main color). Further, the arguments you present here would be in favour of adjusting the shades so as to make them stand out more clearly, rather than for scrapping the whole map's design. Impru20^talk 13:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

As a general comment both to Erinthecute and Impru20: (1) I never said nor thought that there were zero problems with the previous maps, I just saw more problems with the new maps, and (2) I do not disapprove of the map layout, but – as I already specified multiple times – I am complaining about the color-scheme choice, which is objectively poor. It happens that some parties have similar official colors (like PSI and PCI) and here there's little one can do, and we can discuss solutions. But this was never my main issue, and you seem to have stuck on this little PSI detail. Instead, choosing black to be the same color for all parties is objectively a map crime! That's why I removed the maps from the pages. However let me stress that I appreciate the work done by Erin here, I'm just saying that it could be modified a bit in order to make it clear to everyone.

@Erinthecute: I am all for adapting the color scheme to each election, however I wouldn't use different result categories for different parties in the legend. As an example I would not have PSI and DC span with three colors from 0 to 50, and instead SVP and VU (only because they're regional) have only one color. Either all have three colors or all one color. The legend should be consistent, for each map. Then it obviously can change from election to election: so if in an election no party gets more than 40% anywhere, then one can also scrap the >40% section, and use less colors, for example. Regarding the referendums, I would use green/red for Yes/No (light colors for ~50% results, and a bit darker for the extrema (~70-80-90%), also here, depending on the rest of the results (some referendums have similar results >80% Yes or No everywhere, so in that case one can just adapt).

Suggestion for PSI: why don't we pick a more yellowish orange for it? It doesn't matter it's not exactly the party color, I think.

@Impru20: All of them seem to refer to issues such as color formatting, rather than the map design itself. Color formatting is everything when analyzing a color-coded map. Otherwise let's just write a table with results. I can't see how orange and red are "similar" Really? Well, orange is close to red, red + yellow usually, and the orange in the maps is dark orange, closer to red than to yellow. Thus, we should worry about the 1946 election based on its actual conditions, rather than make it depend on now impossible "what ifs" by worrying about non-existant problems. These are not "whatifs". Of course one can adapt the color sceme to the actual results (but keeping consistency within the same map, as I said before). The issue, however, is that there is a legend on that map, and the legend reports 18 shades of red, and based on that legend I (and I don't think I am the only one) cannot distinguish the other provinces if I don't know already which party won where. I think you are failing to assume the point-of-view of a person who doesn't know how votes are distributed in Italy. You are reasoning in the opposite way by saying: "given that PSI won only there, and I can distinguish these four provinces from the rest, then these are fairly distinguished colors from the rest". However the thing goes in another way: "given this legend that guides me through the map, can I associate each province to a certain shade in the legend without a doubt?". I think not at all. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Color formatting is everything when analyzing a color-coded map. The point was about color formatting of one map over the other, considering that the two of them present the same shade-similarity issue.

Really? Well, orange is close to red, red + yellow usually, and the orange in the maps is dark orange, closer to red than to yellow. Define close. I am fairly sure red is closer to red than orange, as happens with the current 1946 map. It doesn't matter how close to redness you try to depict orange: red will always be closer. And unless you wish to have the PSI painted in yellow or green, I think orange is much more distinguishable from red than red itself. You have to either give priority to accuracy or give it to notoriety. What you can't do is to maintain the current red shades for each party and then pretend for them to stand out nicely in maps, charts and such.

These are not "whatifs" You argued that "If we had more shades of PSI red in the actual map, we would not be able to distinguish them from PCI". This is (quite literally) a "what if". We consider established facts, not unforeseeable chances of something happening. On the legend, it is pretty much distinguishable. I don't see the issue you see there, aside from the darker shades, which I again have to remind you there is an increasingly explicit consensus for its correction. Lighter shades are very easily identifiable.

I (and I don't think I am the only one) cannot distinguish the other provinces if I don't know already which party won where. So far you are the only one in this regard, yes.

I think you are failing to assume the point-of-view of a person who doesn't know how votes are distributed in Italy. Like, dunno, myself? I'm an expert in Spanish politics, not so much about Italian ones. And I must tell you that Erinthecute's maps help my comprehension of Italy's distribution of vote by a much greater deal than the current versions of the map (and I don't think this is anything subjective, because Erinthecute's maps show parties' vote strenght by province, whereas the current maps only show a plain view of provincial winners. And this is something objective).

You are reasoning in the opposite way by saying: "given that PSI won only there, and I can distinguish these four provinces from the rest, then these are fairly distinguished colors from the rest" No, this was my reasoning replying to your "what if"-argument, not my overall reasoning for defending the use of the map. As said, Erinthecute has done their best to combine both accurate shades of the PSI color with those being able to stand out on their own from the PCI's shades. "given this legend that guides me through the map, can I associate each province to a certain shade in the legend without a doubt?". I think not at all. And I say yes indeed. But I think it is an error to make the new maps' use dependant on whether some people like them or not. So far, I think there is a clear consensus for using the new maps and to implement some corrections to these, but that overall these provide a great improvement over the previous maps. Why are not we using them already? Impru20^talk 14:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless. Let's just repair the maps and make them readable, and of course they are going to be better than the ones before.

What you can't do is to maintain the current red shades for each party and then pretend for them to stand out nicely in maps, charts and such. Well, actually the current map is much clearer than Erin's maps. And I'm speaking about clarity, not detail. There are just two shades of red, and they are rather distinguishable on that map. This does not happen with the 18 shades on the new maps.

On the legend, it is pretty much distinguishable. This is false. Please have a nice look at this new map again. Of course you can distinguish the colors from each other when they're close to each other on the legend. The issue is what happens when they're scattered on the map, where you can't see the exact shade by comparing to the legend from a close point? Let's take the colors denoting 40-45%: the two reds can be slightly distinguished on the legend because they are close to one another. Now can you say for sure to which party the province of Bologna belongs. without looking at older maps?

So far you are the only one in this regard, yes. And so far you are the only one that thinks that all those 18 shades of red are "pretty much distinguishable". I don't know if Nick.mon with me. Let's see what other users think about this, then. @Checco, Facquis, and Autospark:, Scia Della Cometa.

And I must tell you that Erinthecute's maps help my comprehension of Italy's distribution of vote by a much greater deal than the current versions of the map So you're telling me that by looking at this map without looking first at this map, you understood all the shades of red in the central regions of Italy? Allow me to say you have a special ability that I don't. I agree with having more details on the map, but in a readable way.

But I think it is an error to make the new maps' use dependant on whether some people like them or not. I did not make it a discussion about whether I like the map or not. The fact that for your use the maps are fine is not enough, since MOS:CONTRAST is important for accessibility. So I strongly suggest that the maps get a better contrast among the various shades otherwise they are confusing and risk to convey wrong or no information at all. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

According to me, if it's possible, Erinthecute should reduce colors' shades to make them more understandable, or he should use a lighter color for >50/60% which create some confusion between DC and SVP. Moreover, as I said before, I'd keep only two maps, one for the Chamber and one for the Senate, inserting in the article those about the seats' distribution. Anyway, I think that Erinthecute's maps are a very good solution, because they enphasize parties' strongholds, so I strongly support them (with these small corrections, to make them clearer). -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Clarity is what I've been speaking all about. For the current map you need a greater degree of effort than other maps to differentiate PSI areas from PCI ones. Just as I need an even greater effort to differentiate PCI and PSI's templates in Italian election articles because they are very close! There is no discussion that red is closer to red than orange. It was you who brought the 1946 example into question, when it is precisely an example of what should be changed/improved, not what should be preserved.

Of course you can distinguish the colors from each other when they're close to each other on the legend. No, I can distinguish them because I can distinguish red from orange. As Erinthecute points out, there was an explicit effort to make it specifically distinguishable from PCI's red. I do see the distinction, and you yourself have acknowledged the PSI's color stands out in the new 1946 map where applied. I think there are no grounds for saying that it can't be distinguished. A different thing is whether it can be made even more orange to make it even more visually distinguishable, to which Erinthecute has shown a willingness to. All in all, I don't think this is even close to a reason for removing the map as you did.

And so far you are the only one that thinks that all those 18 shades of red are "pretty much distinguishable". Poor Erinthecute, who despite having explicitly acknowledged to have used orange to make it distinguishable is not even being considered by you here... xD Now in all seriousness, I'd say this is at least a 2-1 against you, so at the very least I'd ask you to stop basing most of your arguments in a "I don't like it"-stance because this is exactly what it seems. I'm not saying the proposed maps can't be improved, but I remind you that you have removed them from the articles just based on your own, personal appreciations on them. Appreciations which have been clearly shown to not be universal nor shared by others.

So you're telling me that by looking at this map without looking first at this map, you understood all the shades of red in the central regions of Italy? Huh... yeah? I am saying exactly that. The lighter shades show a clearly pinkish hue for PCI's scheme which the PSI's is lacking. As you go darker, the PSI's orange is even more evident. Only the darkest shades may show some conflict, precisely because they are devoid of most differentiating color hues. Allow me to say you have a special ability that I don't. Having the ability to distinguish red from orange doesn't seem like a so special superpower to me. But let's keep this discussion on-topic.

MOS:CONTRAST is a very different thing to speak about, but I don't think the intent to abide to that MOS here is real: otherwise, we wouldn't be using nigh to equal shades for the PCI and PSI in their color templates, which in turn require for us to be creative in maps and charts in order to help visibility and readability. I remember there was a time where salmon/pink was used for the PSI (indeed, the reference to it still remains at the map field of the 1946 election infobox). As you yourself stated, the color-scheme choice "is objectively poor": this, however, comes as a result of the PSI/PCI template color shades currently in use and which seem to constitute the basis for the palettes used in the maps, not the other way around.

Commenting on Nick.mon's proposal, I tend to agree with him that it would be best if the maps for the vote strength and for the seat regional distribution were made separately. I'd also leave it so that all >50% areas are colored the same way; while I think it can be interesting to show >55% or >60% areas, this is seemingly very difficult to properly represent without a lot of confusion, and all in all it is not so common for a party to score >55/60% in any given province. >50% would already show a province or area being a stronghold; something like what Erinthecute did to Spanish election maps, i.e. the 1982 or 2011 elections, where PSOE/PP scored >55/60% in many provinces, yet they are shown as >50%. I also agree that DC's shades should be lighter in general, considering the party is typically represented under white/light gray/light blue shades. Impru20^talk 16:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Impru20: You keep talking about red and orange to justify your claims, but that color is in fact not orange at all! That is just a slightly orange-ish shade of red, but it's still red! I mean, in this map the PSI regions are effectively red... We have to be reasonable here and you can't call that color simply "orange", like you can't say that it can be easily distinguished from that "red", and these are facts.

I think there are no grounds for saying that it can't be distinguished. I am saying that it can't be distinguished if one does not know the map already. I can't say from that map who won in Bologna, for example. I don't think this is even close to a reason for removing the map as you did. I think it's a very good reason instead, clarity is the main purpose of these maps, and the new ones are missing this feature.

I'd ask you to stop basing most of your arguments in a "I don't like it"-stance because this is exactly what it seems. Again, I am not basing my arguments on what I like. As a matter of fact, I like the new maps, but their colors are simply not good for an explanatory map. It's nothing subjective, it's a readability issue.

As you yourself stated, the color-scheme choice "is objectively poor": this, however, comes as a result of the PSI/PCI template color shades currently in use and which seem to constitute the basis for the palettes used in the maps, not the other way around. Then let's just use another color for the PSI, I don't think one has to use the official colors.

For the rest, I agree with Nick.mon and Impru's last paragraph. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

You now: You keep talking about red and orange to justify your claims, but that color is in fact not orange at all! You several comments earlier: Well, orange is close to red, red + yellow usually, and the orange in the maps is dark orange, closer to red than to yellow. We have come to the absurd situation where you discuss whether that is orange, contesting me about the color being orange despite you yourself acknowledging the orange nature of the color (and Erinthecute having acknowledge it being orangish). I don't care what shade of orange it is, the point I wanted to make is that pure red will always be closer to red than orange, and the red shade currently in use for PSI (in templates, charts and in the current map) is closer to PCI's red that any orangish-like red or any reddish-like orange, which leads to inherent confusion and which, ultimately, has led to the current situation due to it constituting the basis for Erinthecute's palette.

you can't say that it can be easily distinguished from that "red", and these are facts You are denying me what you attribute to yourself, i.e. that your opinions must be regarded by others as undisputed facts, whereas those of anyone else should be disputed. I said I can distinguish them, why is this so difficult to accept for you? As said this is pointless, because the discussion is not about this: the maps's use is not dependant on whether you or me like them more or less, or whether we can distinguish them or not, so what you think about that only makes this discussion to deviate from the actual topic at hand which would, if anything, revolve on improving the new maps which seem to be unanimously favoured (the only question is how).

My proposal would be:

• Removing the <20% and >55% shades and leaving palettes similar to Spanish election articles (allowing up to >50% and down to <25%), because 1) lighter and darker shades can be more easily confused; 2) the more color shades, the more chances for confusion. By doing this we'd be removing two shades per party, thus decreasing chances for confusion; 3) it is not very frequent for parties coming out in first place to score below 20% or above 55% anyway, and when they do they can be assigned the corresponding color shade (<25% or >50%).
• For the PSI's color in the 1946 map, we have two choices if we want to keep consistency: we could increase the orange hue of the shades (though I fear this may end up being inconsistent with the party's actual colors if too much orange is used) or maybe a palette of pure pink could be used instead (as used in this map).
• Making DC shades lighter in general, as it is currently too blue I think. Maybe using the more light/sky blue palette shown in this map? (as a suggestion)
• Separating the vote strength maps from the seat distribution maps, so they can be used separately (the "vote strength" maps are nice for the infobox, the "seat distribution" ones can be used in the "Results" sections of articles).

What do you think? Impru20^talk 17:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree on Impru20's proposals. DC's color is quite darker than #87CEFA and the "Spanish maps" are a good benchmark. Regarding the PSI, a meta-color (#ED1B34) already exists, maybe we should use a lighter shade of it. -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Impru20: You are taking my words out of context. Once I was referring to the color palette of the PSI in the new maps, which is dark-orange. Now I was referring to the color in the four provinces in that 1946 map, which is very far from being orange, or am I color-blind? Now, the older 1946 map was obviously clearer than the new one, simply because of the smaller number of keys in the legend: if one has 18 different colors, even if they are completely distinguished, the map is going to be harder to discern than a map with only two colors (red and not-so-red). It's just simpler for the eye. Now, there is a middle-point, in order to make a map that is both clear and easy to read, that is what we are trying to discuss here.

So, in the end I agree with your proposal, with pink for PSI and maybe a brownish red for PCI (like in the Parliament map you showed). Light-blue for DC (probably not as greenish as in this map). But most importantly, by all means I would avoid using dark colors except for parties that have a dark color (like SVP). So SVP can and should go to black for >50%, with grey in the middle. Other parties should go to their true colors for >50%, probably just a tiny bit darker. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: Now I was referring to the color in the four provinces in that 1946 map, which is very far from being orange, or am I color-blind? Oh God, I am seriously starting to consider that the only explanation for your behaviour here is that you are indeed color-blind. I have never said that the PSI's color used in the newer map was that particular shade of orange. Plus, I am making the comparison with respect to the current map and the PCI's clearly more reddish style in both maps. Let us elaborate: Of these four provinces, three are colored in FF3D1A (255, 61, 26), a shade of orange which has a slightly darker hue than giants orange or a slightly modified vermillion's orange-red. The other one (Rovigo it seems) uses a more clearly reddish, scarlet hue (E62300 (230, 35, 0)). The lighter up you go in the palette, the more bittersweet it becomes (another shade of orange). As for the current map, it uses F7002B (247, 0, 43) for PSI, a slightly lightened version of Spanish red. In contrast, PCI's shades have much higher b values, giving them a much more proper reddish/brownish shading such as crimson, auburn, rufous or even amaranth. In conclusion, PSI's shades in Erinthecute's map use high levels of green and low levels blue (a characteristic of orangish shades), whereas for PCI's shades and PSI's shade in the current map is just to the contrary (more proper of dark red/pink shades).

Now, I please beg you for us to stop this issue on specific shades, lest we end up writing a "Fifty shades of orange" novel. I agree with your last paragraph, which is the truly relevant thing for the issue at hand I think. Impru20^talk 19:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

So I changed the colours for DC, PCI, and PSI, and applied the new schemes to three elections - 1946, because of the PSI issue; 1948, because of the issue with the darker shades; and 1992, because it has the widest range of colours and a large number of provinces with very weak vote strength (ie, the lightest shades). This way we can get a sense of how the colours work across different conditions. In general, I made all the colours lighter. DC is now a light sky blue. PCI hasn't changed much, but is a somewhat brighter red - I also applied its colour scheme to both the FDP in 1948 and PDS in 1992, for simplicity's sake. PSI is now pink. I didn't change the colours for VdA/VU, SVP, or LN, but I did adjust their lightness to be consistent with the rest of the new schemes. The scale now starts at <25% and ends at >50%, so there are seven shades for each party in total. I also removed the seat distribution, so it's just the vote strength for the two chambers (just the Constituent Assembly in 1946). Let me know what you think.

• 
  1946
• 
  1948
• 
  1992

Erinthecute (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you did a really good job! I like this version. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Beautiful. Thank you. Just one thing: there's a typo in the word "occupation" in the 1946 map. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree, it's wonderful and much better indeed. Impru20^talk 09:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful! I'll fix the typo, change the rest of the maps to the new colour scheme, and put them into the articles. Thanks everyone. Erinthecute (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Erinthecute, excuse me, one last thing! I don't want to be too finicky, but if you haven't already changed them, how about moving the writing "Senate" (or "Senate of the Republic") on the right? It would be more specular. As I said, only if you haven't already changed the maps, otherwise it's not a problem at all! -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: Certainly, not a problem at all. Erinthecute (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Erinthecute: Hi, I think there might be a mistake on the map of 1972 Senate seats distribution. In Sicily it looks like the PCI won more seats than the DC, which is not true. You might have switched the colors. Cheers. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

If no one is against it, I would use the legislative infobox for elections until 1992, since it was created exactly for this type of election. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure! And, as you know, I would adopt that infobox for all legislative elections, including all general, EP and regional ones in Italy (since 1995 regional elections have been two elections in one—a presidential one and a legislative one—, thus, in that case, we should have both infoboxes. --Checco (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

There was pretty clear consensus for this in previous discussions, so no need to start another one. Just be bold and go ahead. Cheers, Number 57 16:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

ok, then I'll proceed.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Why are we using the one for 2018 and 2022? I do not believe this template is the ideal one for the pre-1994 elections. VosleCap (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Because there was a (very long) discussion and clear consensus that the infobox now used on this page was the most suitable given the large number of parties winning seats. Number 57 17:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@VosleCap well, this type of infobox is much more suitable for the 1992 elections than the 2018 elections (see the M5S heading). Indeed this infobox is meant above all for elections with more than nine non-coalited parties winning seats, like the 1992 Italian general election.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I fear I'm the only one who completely dislikes the new infobox and thinks it's just a mere duplication of the tables below, but ok, there's a clear majority :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)