Talk:2019 European Parliament election in Italy

List of parties and opinion polling
Should we eliminate some minor parties like NcI, which I'm not even sure if it's going to run for the election? Also, some pollsters list the new De Magistris coalition (Civic Coalition) which comes from the list DemA, and in some polls it also has relatively big numbers around 4%. It should be mentioned probably. However there is no article about this new coalition, not even in the it.wiki. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * We can surely eliminate parties/lists which will never run in the election (e.g. NcI). Several new lists will come out (e.g. the Greens joining forces with Green Italy and Italy in Common) and pollsters will sometime list them in their surveys. Can't wait to see what happens! --Checco (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * CP will not participate in the election, thus I restored PaP in the tables.
 * What I foresaw in January is happening. There will be a left-wing (SI–)PRC–PCI joint list and, possibly, a much minor PaP list. All those polls tracking PaP are not asking about the PRC and the PCI, which have definitely more clout than PaP. The same polls tend to track SI and the MDP together. Things will become clearer in the next months and pollsters will abide. In the meantime, please take a look to this article from La Repubblica: as of now, there can be up to six centre-left to left-wing lists other than that of the (relatively) mighty PD, namely +E (ALDE), MDP (PES?), FdV–IiC-GI (EGP), SI–LeU (Diem25, PES or EL?), PRC–PCI–AET (EL) and PaP (Diem25 or EL?). PaP is clearly the weakest. I would reflect some of this, especially news of the green list, in the article.
 * This said, let's wait and see... --Checco (talk) 08:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * From the article you cited, it sounds like the Greens are looking for an alliance with SI and the left. I don't think these are official statements by the parties, but more of the usual political maneuvers of Italian small parties before election day, to check how to form the various coalitions and how to place the candidates. In the meantime I would eliminate PaP from the "list of parties that will likely participate" because at this point it is totally unclear whether it will run or not (however it is still being counted in many polls so I would keep it in the opinion polls table). I also noticed some polls (also SWG but for the general election) started listing the Greens, so I wouldn't be strongly opposed to add a column for them, however it is probably premature. Anyway, just a few weeks and the final lists will be officially out, let's be patient and not try to predict Italian politics. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on principle. In fact, adding CP was trying to "predict Italian politics". And what about MDP or SI? They will not present stand-alone lists, thus this is another prediction and might confuse readers. What about removing the "parties and leaders" section altogether?
 * PaP: I agree that we should remove it from the "parties and leaders" section and leave it in the "opinion polling" section. However, in my view, it would be important to explain that, in most cases, those poll numbers included also PRC, PCI, etc.
 * Greens: The FdV–IiC–GI is a fact. Pollsters track it. I would add it in both sections. --Checco (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ps: I added a source for CP's departure, but there is a technical problem. Can you please fix it?


 * I think it's very likely that MDP and/or SI will take part in the European election, under one list or another. So it makes sense to leave them in the parties' list. I wouldn't remove the table because there are the current numbers of MEPs for the major parties which are very important. About the PaP polls counting also PRC, I don't know where you take this information actually. The polls I saw all list "PaP" and never "PRC" or "PCI" if not long time ago. The internal methods used by pollsters are probably using old PRC data to weigh their samples, but this level of inside knowledge is beyond WP scope. Feel free to add the Greens section.
 * About the technical problem I'll try to see what can be done. Apparently one cannot add a citation in a citation, I didn't know :D --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * "Very likely" sounds like a crystal ball. However, it is also very likely that the PRC and Possible, which have one MEP each, will take part in the EP election, so, following your reasoning, why should we exclude them from the "parties and elections" table?
 * When I will have time, I will include the Green list in both sections. Thank you so much. --Checco (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ps / "Citation in citation": I sensed that, that is why I did not include the source in the first place. However, the absence of the source is not a big deal. That de Magistris retired the list is a news that anyone can check: he is now even approaching the PD


 * Ok then since the "likelihood" evaluation is something very subjective, let's establish a rule such that we don't have to renounce to put the major parties in the list (I think it's far beyond any reasonable doubt that PD, M5S and Lega will run at the election, right?). I would say the parties in the list should: 1) have expressed explicitly the will to run at the election or campaigned already, 2) be active at a non-local level, 3) have at least one MEP and/or two or more MPs. Then, when the lists are out, I think we could simply list all of them if they're not too many. Other ideas? --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% with you on this! --Checco (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Distinguish general election polls vs European election polls
I understand that there is some uncertainty on how to consider certain polls, that is whether they are polls for possible general elections or for the upcoming European election. I think that there is a difference, starting from the fact that the estimated turnout could be totally different in the two cases, thus the party breakdown too. Also, the number and composition of the parties running at the EE are usually different from the ones present in the Parliament or running for the national election. Some pollsters reflect this in their polls (see Bidimedia, Piepoli/Euromedia where they have different tables for different polls).

I admit that I also have added polls without actually being sure they're European election polls (I'm referring to Noto polls). However other polls listed (especially Bidimedia, TP, Quorum, and some Piepoli/Euromedia) are specifically for European election (see the sources cited) and in the same poll have different results even for major parties. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It is not up to us to decide. Definitely, pollsters in Italy are less precise than those of other countries. Of course, I agree that some polls for the EP election should be listed also at Opinion polling for the next Italian general election, but how can we exclude them from this list? Just think of:
 * EMG ("Intenzioni di voto per le Europee");
 * SWG ("Se dovesse votare oggi alle elezioni Europee, a quale dei seguenti partiti darebbe il suo voto più probabilmente?").
 * Piepoli, Euromedia and others do the same. Interestingly enough, SWG polls cite FdV–IiC, which is a list for the EP election. For its part, Euromedia acknowledges the alliance between FI and the UdC. In most cases the SVP, which always participates in EP elections and usually obtains one MEP, is included. In other cases (like Index), polls are not specifically for general or EP election. The more I think about it, the more I feel that we should have a joint list. --Checco (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok I see your point. I also don't really think we should delete polls from the other page. Let me check in the next days from the official website SondaggiPoliticoElettorali.it, and I'll add to this article all the recent polls that mention "European" in the questions or title. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * We now agree 100% also on this. I will try to help a little bit. --Checco (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ps: I added SWG polls for the entire period.

The Left's alliance
Hi, I have question regarding the new coalition The Left. Yes, it's true, a member of Italian Left (Sergio Cofferati) seats within the S&D group, however the new alliance is clearly part of GUE/NGL group, so which "alliance" should we insert in the table? -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What about continuing to have both? --Checco (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, we can leave both, but I think it's quite clear which is the EP group linked to this alliance. In fact, the online vote to decide list's symbol was held on the official Italian website of the Party of European Left. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would leave both, but I do not oppose your proposed simplification. --Checco (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Current MEPs
@Checco I believe that in the "Parties and leaders" section the political affiliation of the various MEPs should be based on the information reported on the website of the European Parliament and not on the choices concerning individual MEPs regarding the 2019 elections.--Facquis (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Uhm no, we never do that. Unfortunately, party affiliations are rarely up-to-date in the EP website. --Checco (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Different number of seats for Italy with and without UK
While other countries have contingency plans for the additional seats they are entitled to when/if the UK will/would leave the EU, I have no idea what's the fate of the 3 seats (73->76) Italy will/would get. In the decree apportioning the Italian seats over the 5 districts, the president aimed at a total of 76 seats, while there will be only 73 seats as the UK is still in the EU.Bancki (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Parties in infobox
We do not know yet the election results, however on the number of parties in the opening infobox I would stick with what we did for other elections in Italy. It is probably better to discuss it now, before results come in. I believe it was having only parties with at least 10%. This said, I would have no more than three parties in the infobox, as we have at 2014 European Parliament election in Italy, 2018 Italian general election and all previous EP/general elections in Italy. --Checco (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Main candidate?
"Main candidate" is not correct. I propose to replace it with "Most voted candidate" or, better, remove the entire column. --Checco (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree on replacing it with "Most voted candidate". - TommasoM (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Acronym for The Left
Not a big deal, but what should be the abbreviation for La Sinistra? LS has been the established version and is consistent with LD for La Destra, but a new consensus on this little issue might be formed (Sin?), thus I ask users their opinion. --Checco (talk) 05:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The issue of More Europe's acronym was settled at Talk:More Europe. Hopefully, we will settle also this one. --Checco (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that on this matter the consensus is needed,the problem is that LS is not used anywhere, while Sin has been used sometimes, for example by Youtrend. The correct abbreviation is not always the acronym of the name.--Wololoo (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am very tired of your modus operandi: you do not understand that, when a long-established and/or customary information is boldly changed and that change is opposed by someone, there should be a debate, not an edit war. From Wikipedia:Consensus: "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". Additionally, from Article titles: "Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title. If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub". This said, even though this may embolden you in your stubborn way of editing (being bold even after opposition, never seeking consensus first), I am giving up on the isse because it is of little importance. --Checco (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm tired of your modus operandi: Was "LS" a long-established and/or customary abbreviation just because it had been on the page for a month? Your reasons of rollbacks were "abbreviated by none that way" (and it isn't true) and "La Sinistra more commonly abbreviated to LS" (have you ever shown that this is not a falsehood?), I have never seen valid reasons nor the consensus to keep LS.--Wololoo (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I won't repeat myself. I'm sorry you don't understand how WP and consensus work. --Checco (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of hemicycle
Why would you edit-war on something like this? Please restore the image, since it is a very nice depiction of the result. Obviously it doesn't represent an actual Parliament, but nor does the hemicycle in 2018 Italian general election for the Senate, given that the Senate is composed only partly by elected officials. The hemicycle is a very good representation of the election results, and I would strongly encourage to keep it there. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The hemicycle diagram is not random, it is intended to represent an assembly. It's not enough that is is a very good representation, it must have a real meaning, indeed the other pages on the European elections do not use it. I am aware that even the Senate diagram is not entirely true, but in this case it is completely out of place. --Wololoo (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I know what is intended to represent. But it just happens that it is also a very nice representation of election results. And it is currently used improperly also in the case of Senate elections. So I don't see any problem with the diagram, I only see an additional feature. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the diagram is not used correctly for the Senate (that is not composed of only 315 senators), but the use of the hemicycle for the Senate is in any case right, since the election concerns the assembly (senators for life are "additional"). Instead, in this case, the aesthetic factor alone cannot justify a completely improper use of this diagram, which serves mainly to represent the composition of a parliament, and not only the results of an election. The use of that diagram here is simply wrong and misleading... --Wololoo (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not more misleading than the Senate diagram, they both show part of an assembly, the only difference being that for the Senate you accept it because it's 96-98% of the seats while for the EU Parliament Italian seats is less, but that's just an arbitrary criteria. Either we only show parliamentary compositions, therefore eliminating the Senate diagram, or we allow the diagram to show electoral results, therefore retaining the EU Italian seats diagram. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is much more misleading than the Senate diagram, this latter shows the entire elective assembly, it is not a matter of percentage: the Senate is composed of 315 elective MPs, according to article 57 of the constitution, the other senators for life are additional. It is not perfect, because it doesn't show the entire actual assembly, but however shows the entire elective assembly. It is a completely different case from the one in question, since the purpose of the diagram is not to show the election results (clearly already shown on the page), but to show the composition of the assembly.--Wololoo (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Number of parties in the infobox
I honestly disagree with Yakme's edit on the limit of parties in the infobox: the infobox is not a podium, why should it only list three parties? Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we should adopt the "legislative election" infobox, per consensus. Otherwise, three parties are OK. --Checco (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The consensus was only on the general elections of 2018 and 2022. I start by saying that I agree to use the legislative infobox for the European elections until 2004 (I have aready prepared them), while in my opinion we don't need it with the current electoral law. This is something we will have to talk about. In any case, the infobox is not a podium: listing the first three parties is useless, it is the same thing as listing only three parties with the legislative infobox. Why 3 parties? The normal election infobox is intended to list up to nine parties that have won seats, not just three! Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * My edit was just restoring the status quo before someone else added two parties to the infobox, making it 5 parties instead of 3. I think the legislative one is fine, however for other European countries I noticed that most of them use the standard infobox. If we want to add more parties to the current one, we either do 4 or 6 parties – we cannot do 5 because it looks really bad. Yakme (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Yakme No problem, we can add the SVP (that won one seat), would you agree? Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the consensus was only on 2018 and 2022 general elections. I would ask User:Number 57 to verify that. I think that the "legislative infobox" should be implemented in all the articles about Italian elections. In the meantime, three parties are more than enough in this article's infobox and adding such a minor party like the SVP looks particularly controversial to me. --Checco (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Technically the RfC was just about those two elections, so it doesn't extend here. However, SDC did say that in the discussion prior to the RfC they were "absolutely in favor of using the infobox for regional elections before 1995, for all European elections" and they "would use the "infobox legislative election" for the elections before 1994 (and for all European elections)", so not sure why they are now opposing its use here. Cheers, Number   5  7  20:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your clarification. However, the "legislative infobox" could be clearly adopted for all Italian general elections, all European Parliament elections in Italy and all regional elections (I would have both the "election infobox" and the "legislative infobox" for those in which both the president and the regional assembly are elected). This said, more parties were added to this article's infobox without consensus. --Checco (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree – I don't see what was so different about the 1994–2013 elections that means it can't be used for them, and I think everyone seems to agree it should be used for all pre-1994 elections anyway. Cheers, Number   5  7  21:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * a deeper knowledge of the Italian electoral systems would be needed to understand this difference. In reality, the reasons are simple: the different electoral systems. Anyway, I confirm what I've already said: if you give me permission, I'll start replacing the infoboxes for that election myself, as soon as the outgoung and elected MPs parameter is implemented. But doing so effectively with the 1994-2001 election, for example, would be quite impossible. In these cases the "Infobox election" is the most effective. @Checco: keeping 3 parties in this infobox is equivalent to having 3 parties in the legislative infobox: an infobox is not a podium, it serves to show the parties that have won seats. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I oppose the "election infobox" altogether. I would keep only three parties until when the "election infobox" is replaced with the "legislative infobox".
 * I clearly know something about elections and electoral systems in Italy, but I would argue that a lesser knowledge and a more neutral point of view would help even more in our case. The basic fact about all legislative elections is that parties and, as of late in Italy, coalitions are running. That is different from presidential elections, in which individuals compete. --Checco (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The election infobox is expressly intended for any type of election, without exception. If it includes a limited number of parties without a valid reason, it does not represent the result objectively. Furthermore, the electoral law of the Italian general elections expressly provides for the presence of party/coalition leaders, which makes them extremely important. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox for the 1979-2004 elections
following the premise in the previous discussion, if nobody has anything against it, I would start introducing the legislative infobox in the pages where it seems that there is consensus (1979-2004 elections, but also to the general elections up to 1994). Needless to discuss every election in a single thread, if no one objects I will start editing those pages. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * As I have argued here and elsewhere, the "legislative infobox" is OK for all elections in Italy, including general elections since 1994 and regional elections since 1995 (on the latter, both the "election infobox" and the "legislative infobox" should be implemented because each article is about two intertwined elections: the election of the president and that of the regional council). This said, I thank you so much for what you are going to do for European Parliament elections and pre-1994 general elections. A great step forward! --Checco (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I am going to replace the infoboxes until 2004, if someone is against the edit we can discuss it here.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)