Talk:2015 Italian regional elections

Repetitions
Ehm, why does these pages must repeat tables that are already contained in the appropriate pages? These should be summary pages, they seem useless repetitions to me. You also removed the links from the tables, which seemed much more useful to me than the repetitions below ...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly, this is a summary page, so it must contain the summary of the election results, as it does now.--Yakme (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * this setting is inspired by the pages on the French and Spanish regional elections, but there are two big differences:
 * in the French regional election page it is essential to report the precise results, because there are no specific pages for the election in each region;
 * on both the Spanish and French elections pages, the tables are short but complete : the vote to the party corresponds to the vote to the candidate; using the same setting for the Italian regional elections is wrong, because the party vote and the candidate vote are separate (and a candidate can be supported by several lists); practically these tables are suitable for the Spanish and French systems but unsuitable for the Italian system. The purpose of this page should be summary and general, linking directly to the detailed results on the specific pages. The current setting, more than a summary, seems incomplete to me...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The current setting is fine, it can be improved to be more similar to the Spanish one graphically, but it is a good summary of the election results (of course only for the coalition votes, because it would be too detailed to show all parties: this is a summary page). --Yakme (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to keep some tables I can see if I can make more suitable tables (without the minor candidates and with the coalition results), but first let me restore the previous versions. Do not roll back, I have some free time, I will re-enter them as soon as possible.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Do not edit war, . The tables are fine, they can stay. --Yakme (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have already told you that I am correcting them, with your rollbacks you also undo the other changes.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You really need to stop with this habit of yours to edit against consensus and keep edit warring even while discussions are still ongoing. Please look for consensus first, and then proceed with your edits. --Yakme (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

How do you evaluate something before letting me finish the changes? Can you explain it to me?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As I already said, the tables that are now there are fine. Instead you are insisting on removing them and adding weird "details details details" columns to the result section. You can easily proceed your work in progress in your personal sandbox, without disrupting the public article pages. --Yakme (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Yakme the columns on details are not weird, and the infobox must be corrected until proven otherwise, the regions are not seats.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Now you have no reason to remove the whole article just for this. --Yakme (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Yakme This rollback is also absolutely unjustified! And the colors of the coalitions must be indicated below the map, not above.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme Why more confusing? But you do it in contempt??? I added coalition results and tables, removed uncorrect and misleading swings, give me a good reason for your rollbacks or I will restore the previous version. You cannot delete the work of other users without explanation.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, the new tables are more confusing. There are two votes columns so one does not understand which is which, the tables overall are now bloated and huge (unreadable on a small screen), there is a "list" column without any colours and with confusing names and acronyms (iRS - SN, PC, Pos) which nobody gets (especially for small regional parties coalitions)... All in all the new tables add more confusion than clarity. I say let's keep the current tables style, I don't see a reason why we have to change it. --Yakme (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Yakme The reasons are there and how, the current tables are extremely misleading: 1) listing only the results of the candidates, they are absolutely incomplete; 2) electoral swings do not make sense, it seems that they concern the same candidates, but this is absolutely not the case (on several occasions, the same candidates have applied for different parties, see Spacca, candidate in Marche for PD and ther for FI); 3) this is a summary page, it makes no sense to indicate the results of candidates of microscopic parties. In practice, the current tables have been copied from other countries (France, Spain) which have different electoral systems and are not good for the Italian system. If the tables are to remain these, it is better to remove them .--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (1) this is a summary page, so no need to be complete; (2) electoral swings are relative to the party/list in all electoral tables all over Wikipedia, so no confusion there; (3) then just remove the microscopic parties from the current tables. --Yakme (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Yakme You have removed information for no reason, applying tables from other electoral systems, if you don't give a valid explanation I will restore those tables. And the electoral swings of the candidates create ridiculous situations such as the one of Marche between 2010 and 2015.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't do WP:ULTIMATUMs on Wikipedia. You are the one who changed the previous status quo, not I who introduced the current tables. And I am telling you that your proposal is confusing, and I explained you why. Cheers, Yakme (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Yakme You have removed useful information without giving a valid reason, I invite you to read the rules on rollback. At the same time you do not demonstrate the clarity of the candidates' electoral swings. Yours rollbacks seem disruptive to me. Your only reasons are that there aren't enough colors? Or that a reader might not understand an acronym? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Aréat if you want you can participate in this discussion.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not removed any information, I have restored the established previous consensus on the tables. The new tables proposed by you are confusing for the reasons I already gave above. There is nothing more to be added. You instead have not explained what is the reason why it is needed to change completely the tables' style as you did. If you could calmly explain what is needed that is not there at the moment (without bloating this page with lots more data, remember that this is a summary page), we might find a nice solution that does not involve an unnecessarily huge table with confusing lines and columns. (PS: Aréat if you want you can participate in this discussion I think every editor here is perfectly capable to reply if they want to, they don't need Scia Della Cometa's invitation or permission) --Yakme (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme I invited the user Aréat because might be interested in the topic and because he surely doesn't know about this thread! The user is free to intervene as well as not to. Anyone interested can intervene. You removed a lot of information : coalition results and also overall results tables. You have restored misleading swing results (it seems that Gian Mario Spacca's result of 2015 is compared to his result in 2010, instead it is compared with the result of another candidate!). Also with these tables it seems that some users are supported by only one party. Your rollbacks just seem disruptive to me.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I invited the user Aréat because might be interested in the topic and because he surely doesn't know about this thread! oh surely you did not invite them because they also just reverted me, so you hope they are going to support your point against me? This is called canvassing and is a disruptive behavior on Wikipedia. Anyone interested can intervene thank you a lot for allowing everyone to intervene!
 * it seems that Gian Mario Spacca's result of 2015 is compared to his result in 2010, instead it is compared with the result of another candidate! then just put a footnote there. No need to change the whole table layout for this reason. --Yakme (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Yakme Obviously I invited him/her for that, you yourself in the rollback stated that there is an ongoing discussion: why did you not indicate the place of the discussion to Aréat? Why don't you justify your mass removals? A note is not enough, coalitions are variable, even candidates change parties! Comparisons are made on stable data, not on unstable data. And useful information should not be removed.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously I invited him/her for that so you are admitting that you were canvassing, that's a disruption of the normal consensus-building process of Wikipedia!! And by the way I did actually already point Areat to the place of discussion, here! How can a balanced discussion be achieved with you when you use these tricks? Anyway regarding the Marche result, we always have established in virtually all electoral results articles that the swing is with respect to the coalition at the last election. I don't see why we should make an exception for regional elections. In special borderline cases like the Marche ones, a footnote is more than enough. --Yakme (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Yakme I'm not using any tricks, I invited the user because he has reverted your rollback and so he might be interested in the discussion. And your question leaves me quite perplexed, you should study in deep the voting systems before doing this type of question: one thing is the parliamentary elections (vote only to the party), another thing is the regional and municipal elections (vote to the party and to the candidate for mayor / president). Does it seem the same to you? I would like to remind you that Panachage is allowed in almost all regions, so votes for candidates and votes for parties are not necessarily linked between them. A candidate's result can be compared to the previous result of the same candidate, or at least to the previous result of another candidate supported by the same coalition (as long as the other candidate is not running for another party). The swings in the results of candidates in the Italian regional elections do not make very sense. Swings from coalition results would make more sense.You are comparing completely different things to each other.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ps. I did not see the link of the discussion in the rollback motivation.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And your question leaves me quite perplexed which question? I did not ask any question, because I know the difference between regional and parliamentary election. Nevertheless, I think that we should still show the swing in vote percentage between candidates of the same coalition in subsequent elections. I don't see any possible confusion in doing this consistently. --Yakme (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Yakme I don't see why we should make an exception for regional elections is an implicit question. all electoral results articles that the swing is with respect to the coalition at the last election: well, the swings in these tables are not about the results of the coalitions, but about the results of the candidates. And voting for candidates can be separated from voting for party / coalition. In practice you are comparing two different things, it is not possible to calculate swings about the candidates' results on the basis of these assumptions, because then there are paradoxical outcomes as for the Marche (but also for Liguria).
 * Ah, I forgot, you also removed the results of the regions that were missing, I don't know how to describe these rollbacks other than as disruptive.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm commenting here since I was reverted on 2020 Italian regional elections and told there is an ongoing discussion here. As I stated in my edit, the double votes colums tables are right : there's two votes in these regional election, one for the president and one for the list. If there is a need to have tables on there, those are the correct ones to use in my opinion. Now, this being said, if there is specific pages to each of those elections, and if we have a general result tables giving the overall results of those and linking clearly to them, I then agree that they could be removed from here. Have a good day.--Aréat (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If we remove the summary tables from this article, then what is the point of the article at all? Is it just a list of links to other Wikipedia articles? I would then ask for deletion. --Yakme (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Let me propose something more compact and (I think) that solves the issues brought up by SDC: --Yakme (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Etc. etc. would this work? --Yakme (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Yakme Indeed, to include also the summary tables, I had corrected them by including the important information (the results of the coalitions) and excluding the ambiguous data (the electoral swings of the candidates). Your last table example is formally correct, but who makes these complex tables? The tables that you have restored are incomplete and contain misleading data: in the meantime, which tables are kept on pages? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you are being slightly over-dramatic, there are no "misleading" data. Probably current tables are a bit imprecise, but no large misinformation is currently present so to justify a complete removal. This situation can be solved by implementing the new tables step by step. Whoever has time to do it can do it (and remember Wikipedia is a work in progress and there is no deadline). --Yakme (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Yakme: Wikipedia is a work in progress but many tables were already prepared and were better than the current ones, so there is no real reason to keep these tables in the meantime (where they had already been replaced). The table you proposed is much more similar to the tables I had prepared than the current tables. So I expect you will restore those tables, until the new tables are ready.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme: Checking them better, I would make some changes to the tables you proposed. One of the objections to my tables is that they were too wide, these tables are no less than the ones I created. For example, the column of the party to which the candidate belongs is absolutely avoidable, this is a summary page, it is sufficient to indicate which coalition he is supported by. I would also avoid the separation column between Candidate and Regional council, and I would like to avoid the names of civic lists, indicating them in the tables as civic lists or left-wing lists (names like "Terra" or "It depends on us" mean nothing to the reader).

The table should contain only the essential information and remain as compact as possible.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * We can remove the mid column, but the party of the president is very important, so it should stay. --Yakme (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You said a large table was a problem, that table is not smaller than the one I proposed. At most the party (which depends only on agreements within the coalition) could be indicated as an acronym in brackets, near the candidate, even if not even this solution is the best (there is still a repetition of the party that could be avoided).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The current table is smaller than the one you proposed, and I don't see any repetition of the party names. --Yakme (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

An example so it's clear who is right and who is wrong (these endless discussions and bickering about tiny things or just for the taste of discussing and fighting are really tiring...) --Yakme (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Scia Della Cometa's table:

My table

Comment: I guess the width really depends on the browser. I think my table looks nicer and has more information in a compact way. If you wish we can use abbreviations. --Yakme (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ehm, no, your version is larger ...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In my browsers (I tested Firefox and Chrome) your version looks double than mine. --Yakme (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is strange, on my desktop (browser: Chrome) your version is larger than mine. Anyway, I have poposed another version:


 * this version is certainly less large. The problem is that some coalition candidates are independent, other times they are leaders/members of irrelevant parties. It seems to me that these details are better suited to specific pages, not a summary page. The parties to which the elected presidents belong are already specified in the table of the overall results.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I think the party membership of the presidential candidates is essential to these tables. A reduced version:--Yakme (talk) 11:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Another thing we could remove is the number of votes, probably the percentage is enough in a summary table. --Yakme (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The number of votes is interesting information because it allows the comparison between the votes received by the candidate and the votes received by his party/coalition. Furthermore, the center-left candidate cannot be indicated with the color blue. On the other hand, the first row of the table (President / Council) seems to me avoidable.


 * With this setting, in my opinion, the table looks more compact (however the party column, if the parties are indicated only by the acronym, is not a big problem).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The President/Council first row is very important, because not everyone knows clearly and exactly how regional elections work in Italy, and it is helpful to understand which votes are which. So I would keep it, together with the party column. Please let's stop nitpicking on every small detail, my table was good enough and we are losing a lot of time discussing infinitesimal details. --Yakme (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Size of tables
I think the tables should all be the same size to give a better look to the page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not the case, each table can have different size given that the coalition names and candidate names can have different length. Let the browser pick the best size for each table. Anyway probably the best is to use max-width, please read Help:Table, in particular --Yakme (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)