Talk:2019 Piedmontese regional election

Difference
The section on the electoral system and the table of results don't seem to match. Is it maybe outdated?--Aréat (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Parties and Candidates tables
Since User:Scia Della Cometa feels so strongly about it to start and edit war, but I don't want to bring it to the extremes, I will start this discussion for them. The topic is whether the party and candidates table should be kept, here and in other pages like 2019 Sardinian regional election, 2019 Abruzzo regional election, 2019 Basilicata regional election (these are the ones the user pushed their edits), but of course also in other Italian election pages like 2018 Italian general election, 2013 Italian general election, 2019 Calabrian regional election, and so on and so forth. The user's point of view is that the party tables are just a repetition of the table in the Results section. I think this is not true: the two tables are conceptually different, one has the electoral lists and the parties (with party coalitions) that filed in their candidates, the other table (Results) is only meant to be a summary of the results, i.e. after the election. In principle the two could be different: for example one in the future could decide to add the names of the leaders, or the ideologies, or other political details to the "Parties and Candidates" table, while this would not be possible in the "Results" table. Also, one could think of expanding the Parties and Candidates section with more details about each party and candidate. That's why I would keep both tables (and relative sections), since the two have two different purposes and meanings. Another problem: removing that table, the editor removed all the definitions of the short-names (Lega, PD, M5S), that now would appear in the Results section without any previous mention, because they would not be defined somewhere else in the article. I ping other interested editors:, , , ,. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "One in the future could decide to add the names of the leaders...", now those tables are a photocopy of the results table... without results, I have only removed an useless repetition. Where are the leaders? And the ideologies? Who will include local party secretaries, civic list leaders and their ideologies? Those tables don't add anything, they just fill the page by moving the election results further down, so I have not removed data or informations, but fixed a redundant repetition. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They are still conceptually two different lists. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is facts that count, not intentions, those tables are only redundant repetitions.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. You can see it like this: without presenting the full list of candidates and parties before the Results, the consistency of the article is broken. It's not clear in fact who are the people listed in the Debates (that is, which parties and lists support them), and also in the opinion polls list. One has to scroll down to the Results table to understand who supports who, which is very bad for an encyclopaedic article. It just happens that, of course, 99.9% of the times all parties that present a list appear in the Results, but this is not a conceptual repetition. And not useless at all. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Which debates and opinion polls? There are 2 identical tables, with the only difference that the results are missing in the first one! It's a fact, the same candidates and parties are repeated immediately afterwards in the results table, it's very redundant.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you care to read the article we are talking about, you will find that between the section you removed and the Results section, there are two more sections: on TV debates and on opinion polls. Reading the article, without the table you removed, means that I will read a table with a name "Boero" and not know who he or she is, because nobody mentioned their name before. Similarly for the opinion polls I would struggle to understand because I would not know exactly which parties support each candidate. The table is there to make all these things clear, and introduce all candidates and parties. Then, the Results table obviously have to repeat some names, but it's not a problem at all. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten the opinion polls and the debates on the page, but this changes nothing: Most candidates are presented befor the results, and anyway the results are shown immediately after the polls, the tables is totally useless in any case.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Most candidates are presented" but not all, and not with all their support parties. You know what would present all candidates and all parties? A table! Anyway, you are repeating yourself over and over without trying to compromise, so I would say let's wait for other users' opinions. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm repeating myself but you're creating a non-existent problem. It takes a certain amount of imagination to imagine confused readers because they can't understand who a candidate is, when they can just look down. And if this should be really a problem, it's enough introducing all the candidates first, rather than repeating the same table several times! --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not the same table, and the "non-existent problem" is called text-cohesion. One cannot name a person in a place and then have to look two sections later to probably understand (reading between results numbers) which party is this person from, and who supports them. It's just wrong, we need a sketch of all candidates and their supporters before the Results table. And anyway the same, even worse, happens for 2019 Sardinian regional election, 2019 Abruzzo regional election and 2019 Basilicata regional election. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not a sketch, but the exact same results table, with no results. The solution to this problem is an introduction such as in iwiki, not these redundant tables.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The pages seem fine to me as they are. I've read the discussion and the problem mentioned seem a bit far stretched, if you ask me. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * About the far stretched problem you are right. But in my view the problem raised by Ritchie92 can be simply solved by listing candidates and supporting parties as in it.wikipedia, without without tables-photocopy.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There are two issues here: merit and method. On the merit of the issue, I think that the table with parties and candidates, while slightly redundant, is useful and helps readers to better understand the below sections. On method, I totally agree with User:Ritchie92 (see also User talk:Ritchie92). Since User:SDC aka User:Wololoo came to en.Wikipedia, there has been no peace in articles on Italian politics. His/her modus operandi is constant edit war. While debate, plurality of views and disagreements are a good thing, edit war is not. As User:Ritchie92 wrote, "The principle is that if another editor disagrees with you, you should stop immediately and discuss, period". When a bold edit is opposed even by only one user, the status quo ante should be back and a discussion should start. Consensus-building takes time and, here in Wikipedia, there is no deadline. Once again, I think that User:SDC is quite a knowledgeable editor and, even if his/her arrival has multiplied discussions, that is a good thing. However, I still hope that he/she will be able to understand Wikipedia rules and learn how to discuss and cooperate with other editors, who might disagree with him/her. --Checco (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see users who are good at blaming others but who do not realize they are making the same mistakes, if not even worse: it is a bit strange to be accused of certain behaviors by a user who began an edit wars by removing an ideology and a political position from a page (supported by authoritative sources) for three months, without any consent, just because he didn' agree with them personally (a behavior decidedly contrary to the wikipedia rules); or by a user who rollbacks the edits with incredible lightness, even when one user tries to fix your mistakes. Therefore it is easy to accuse others, but it is difficult to see that you yourself are co-protagonists of these edit wars. @Checco and Ritchie92: I have already proposed a solution to solve this repetition, it is sufficient to list them without making a (redundant) table identical to that one of the results, but none of you answered me...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I still don't see any repetition: the tables are different (why do you keep saying they are identical?), they have a different purpose, and they are both useful. If – as it looks – there is consensus to keep the status quo and User:Scia Della Cometa is the only one who thinks that they should be removed, I think we shouldn't discuss further modifications. If a user comes up with another extremely nice and schematic way to present the candidates and the parties, then they can propose it and we will see. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @User:SDC: There was never consensus on adding that ideology and that political position in that article. In some cases (like that) I have backed down and that was never a good thing because your authoritarian and edit-warring modus operandi has worsened. That is really a pity: you are a knowledgeable, well-informed and talented editor, thus it is so sad that have not understood yet how Wikipedia works, that it is all about sources and consensus, that it is a wonderful cooperative effort. --Checco (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Checco Please, don't joke... that ideology and that political position are supported by more academic texts, if you knew the rules of Wikipedia (and I suppose you know them) you would know that you could not absolutely remove those informations and those sources, without any consensus from the community, it is not that consensus serves to add or remove information depending on your pernsonal opinion. I was defending the page from your actions dictated exclusively by personal opinions, without consensus and in contrast to authoritative sources, this is the truth. And anyway, unfortunately, I have not yet seen any response to my proposal from you and Ritchie92, it seems to me that it is quite difficult for you to answer my direct question...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I already replied to your question: the scheme of the parties and leaders should stay because it's a different table and it's actually useful. The list that appears in the Italian WP is very much confusing, tables are neat and more clear. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I also had already explained my view on the table.
 * On the bigger picture, sources are countless. It is up to editors to decide which sources and information are to be added to articles. The problem was (and often is) that you, User:SDC, were continuously adding and removing infos and sources without consensus. You are not the one who decides what is authoritative or not. Consensus decides it. --Checco (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We are completely OT but... was I the one to remove infos and sources without consensus? You were the one who repeatedly removed those infos, you have removed an ideology and a political position (based on books and academic texts) from the page of the LN for months, without any consensus and only for personal opinions: who gave you permission to do this? I would like to remind you that in wikipedia books and academic texts are much more important than your personal opinions. Subsequently you removed an ideology from the NPSI page that had been there for years, still without consensus... And then I'm the one who causes the edit wars? on the fact that I need permission to enter information based on academic texts, I don't even comment. Anyway, this discussion has continued even too long, the table of leaders and parties is clearly the reflection in the mirror of the election results table (without the results), therefore I had practically not removed any relevant data from the pages, for me a simple list would be more effective, but if the community prefers the current version then that's okay.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * YOU was the one to add infos and sources without any consensus. Being bold is OK, but, when a bold edit is opposed even by only one user, the status quo ante should be back and a discussion should start. Yes, it was always YOU who started edit wars beacuse you are not capabale of understanding this simple logic, well explained by User:Ritchie92: "The principle is that if another editor disagrees with you, you should stop immediately and discuss, period". Period. --Checco (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is evident that you don't know the wp rules, or at least you pretend not to know them: YOU were removing infos based on multiple sources just because you had the presumption that your opinion was more important than academic texts, this is contrary to all the principles of wikipedia. I don't need YOUR authorization to improve the pages with infos based on the sources, but you must look for the consensus to remove them! In this page, all this discussion was born because I only removed a repetitve table, while do YOU have permission to remove important informations at your pleasure? All those removals have been done in total violation of the Wikpedia rules, so it is better not to continue to shift your responsabilities onto others.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * and could you please move this discussion somewhere else? Nobody understands what you are talking about. You are referring to something that only you know, without giving links, without even clarifying if there is a connection to what the discussion on this article is about. This actually looks like a reprise of an old discussion between you two, but then why don't you do it on your user talk pages? --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Theoretically you would be right, but I would like to remember that you were the one to mention these discussions (to criticize me, quoting Checco). Maybe you have mentioned discussions that you don't know. Anyway, as I have already said, for me the discussion is finished.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you point me to the place in this thread where I mentioned the discussions between you and Checco, please? As I said, you can discuss about it somewhere else, where users do not get bored reading stuff that is not pertinent. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Here you have attacked me forthe disagreements and edit wars with Checco, recalling intentionally this last one, knowing that he would have answered here... I repeat, before accusing others, one should look at oneself first, and before commenting on discussions among other users, it would be necessary first to know how things actually went...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if the more correct term would be "to allude" and not "to mention", but despite the use of a not exactly correct term, due to my partial mastery of the English language, the underlying meaning remains the same.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How dishonest... That was a discussion on my talk page, not here, first of all. I did absolutely not mention any exact discussion you were having with Checco (both because I am not interested and because I actually lost track of all of those). What is still true, is that you're talking about a specific discussion here and keeping debating without caring to explain to other editors (who might be reading without any clue of what's happening) if it matters for this article, or it's just a reprise of an unknown old discussion between you two. I think it's the latter, and I think you just accused me for the sake of it. And making up excuses like "the partial mastery of English"... English language is not the point here: I made no mention at all and no allusion at all to any specific discussion between you guys. My sentence was it's been ages that me and other editors like User:Checco have to deal with your way of reacting to disagreement, and I really hoped that you read the WP rules, period. I had no part in the reprise of that discussion between you two here, and in any case I'm not responsible for your actions. Anyway, I don't want to keep discussing about nothingness, so let's stop it here. The table stays unless there is a new awesome restyling that still keeps it schematic and clear. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Dishonest? In your talk page, while I wanted to talk only about this specific case, did you call or not Checco? Did you allude or not to other discussions??? The partial mastery of English is not an "excuse", I meant allusion and not mention, but I confirm the whole concept of my speech: you voluntarily called another user and alluded to other arguments to attack me, knowing that he too would have intervened here criticizing my "modus operandi", when in reality in these edit wars you two are protagonists. Rather than answering my questions on this topic, you have thought well of alluding to discussions that you did not know and calling another user to assist you: Am I the dishonest? If you alluded to those edit war you should know the reasons, otherwise avoid "to allude" to them!--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that I never alluded to any specific discussion, and you voluntarily started one here with Checco, not me! I pinged Checco on my talk page because I always ping other editors who might be interested when I can, and in this case obviously Checco was interested. By the way I didn't call Checco cause I don't have his number, I swear. The following sentence, that I wrote on my talk page: it's been ages that me and other editors like User:Checco have to deal with your way of reacting to disagreement, and I really hoped that you read the WP rules, is not an "allusion" to other specific discussions. And no, I can mention these things also without knowing any specifics about your discussions, I just noted a behaviour. So English is not the issue here. I just mentioned a certain behaviour, and I did so in a discussion that was exactly about that because we were discussing edit warring. But I did not in any way push you to start a discussion here about something completely different from the point. Anyway this is enough. I'm not going to reply on this topic, on this talk page, anymore. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * you are free not to answer me, but it is clear that in that sentence you allude to two particular contrasts, that is those concerning the pages of LN and NPSI (since the main edit wars have concerned these two pages), do not throw the stone and then hide the hand. All this discussion started because you started criticizing me for past events, don't expect that I don't respond to your unilateral accusations. You talk about "my way of reacting to disagreement", having pinged/called (and you know that in wp other users are called with the "ping") Checco and alluding to those edit wars, when I restored informations based on multiple sources unilaterally removed by him: pratically, you take for example a user that removed arbitrarily for months informations from the pages, while do you attack me because I have removed some useless tables 2/3 times? It's nonsensical. And your impulsive rollbacks are just as objectionable, you often delete the edits of other users without even making sure they are really wrong. before criticizing others, you should reflect on your attitudes. Otherwise, expect answers too.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see that you don't want to end this discussion. I sincerely had no memory of the exact discussions because I was not involved, feel free to believe me or not. I don't take Checco as an example, I just remembered that there were many discussions and many edit wars in the past involving you and him, that's all. Finally, I am actually free to criticize whatever I want, regardless of what I do or not do: there is no "moral obligation" to what I criticize, and I don't need to be (and I am not) the example of the perfect editor in order to be able to criticize others. I just wanted to make sure that this was clear. Cheers. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you just remember the edit wars, before alluding to them to criticize me, shouldn't you have seen the reasons for them? the many edit wars you're referring to are about 4 pages, at least which I remember. Anyway, it is not at all constructive to criticize other users if then the same user who criticizes behaved in exactly the same way. Cheers.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes! Consensus is needed when one edit, no matter whether it is an addition or a removal, is challenged. If no new consensus is achieved, the established version, or status quo ante if you will, should be upheld. It is so simple! User:SDC should come to terms with it. --Checco (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To add information based on academic texts, prior consensus is not required, and certainly cannot be removed simply for the personal opinion of a user, such a thing is not established anywhere. Following your reasoning, a user, for reasons of vandalism or even simply to impose one's non-neutral view on the page (like your case), may feel entitled to challenge any edit, but that's not how it works. And in any case, you contradict yourself, since you also wanted to remove an ideology from the NPSI page that had been there for years. It seems to me that you interpret consensus in personal terms, but continuing to talk about it here would not lead anywhere...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of sources and editors decide, through consensus, which sources have to be included. That is true especially for infoboxes. The infobox is a summary of the article. Of course, the article can include more infos, but possibly some of those infos are not to be included in the infobox because editors, through consensus, have decided that. Finally, it was you to add a controversial ideology to the NPSI: it was not there for years and all the sources you provided (articles from Il Giornale, party documents, etc.) were hardly authoritative. --Checco (talk) 07:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The editors decide, through consensus, which sources have to be included or excluded, but only one user cannot remove information based on authoritative sources for personal reasons: Checco's personal opinion (even if legitimate) is NOT more authoritative than books and specialized magazines. Don't try to reverse the reasoning, because it doesn't work. If you don't know them, I invite you again to read Reliable sources (Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered) and the second pillar (Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong). "It was you to add a controversial ideology to the NPSI: it was not there for years": checking the chronology, that ideology was indicated on the NPSI page from 2015, you are the one who suddenly (still) arbitrarily decided to remove it without consensus in 2018 - 3 years later - ; and I never said that the sources concerning the ideology of the NPSI are authoritative, but that they are more than one, including the very statute of the party (making it de facto an official ideology of the party). However, it would also be time to end this discussion, at least here, since we are definitely OT.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There was never consensus in LN's article's talk page prior to your edits.
 * There were never (and there will never be) authoritative sources for "liberal socialism" regarding the NPSI.
 * Quite simple, indeed. --Checco (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is useless to continue to explain how consensus works, I already wrote what I had to say. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is really useless, indeed: you keep ignoring basic rules and basic facts. --Checco (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I ignore the basic rules, it is a pity though that you were not able to tell me which specific rule I violated in those cases, while the rules that you have repeatedly violated are extremely evident (Wikipedia:Reliable sources and second pillar in the only case of LN, for example). XD --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you really want to be told again? From Consensus: "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". Status quo ante, indeed! And, by the way, you are not particularly good at picking reliable sources, from what I have seen in the NPSI's article. --Checco (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point it's evident that you refuse to understand basic principles, in addition to continuing to contradict yourself: if you remove an information present on the page for years it's ok, you don't need consensus. If a user add an information based on reliable sources, you are free to remove it because you don't personally agree with an academic text / magazine. Pratically the complete opposite of the principles of wp, since the consesus is "the best method to achieve wikipedia's goals, i.e. the five pillars". It is easy to consider just a single rule inserted in a much wider context... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No contradiction. Every editor can be bold whenever he/she wants. However, when (and just when), one edit is opposed by someone else (as happened in this article), the status quo ante should come back. --Checco (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Previous results in table
I don't think that the previous result column is so relevant in the table about the current parties and candidates for this election. That table is only meant to list the candidates running for President and the parties that support them. Having the numbers you added there creates a false perspective in the reader, because most of the times, especially for regional elections in Italy, many seats are dispersed between temporary civic list or President-list parties which of course change in time and therefore one cannot really see the weight and power of that coalition or candidate in the "previous" round. It would be much clearer to just have a link at the page of the previous election, where a full picture can be better achieved. Anyway in this case I would rather add a column with the +- change in the Result section, where one can see how many seats did a party gain or lose. This I think makes more sense. You made this same edit serially in many other pages (2018 Lombard regional election, 2019 Basilicata regional election, 2019 Umbrian regional election etc) without looking for consensus first – for such an extended series of changes on so many pages, which is a bold move. However I disagree with your current set up and would like to hear the opinion of other editors too. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do I also have to ask for permission to make simple improvements? But please ... I reiterate my previous position: those tables, in the previous set up, were useless, because equal to the election tables, the only weak justification was the polls. On all similar pages, the section "Parties" (where it is present) includes previous election results, ideology and local leader (for example 2020 Hamburg state election or 2019 Aragonese regional election). the purpose of this section should be to give an exhaustive picture of the parties participating in the electoral competition, instead it was only a copy of the table of the election results without the same results. These tables, so that they make sense, must be expanded, not curtailed ... Obviously the column with the +- change in the table of election results would still be very useful. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just saw this, and guess I could give my 2 cents: I think showing previous results is cool. In fact, those are shown in the infobox and, as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). So past results should ideally be shown somewhere.
 * However, I agree that doing so in a list-by-list basis is just inoperative, because the electoral & political systems in Italy do not allow for the commodities that other systems such as the German or Spanish ones do. There are just so many ad hoc lists that cannot be directly comparable, and having a bunch of "n/a" would not add any meaningful information. Could I suggest to make the comparison with the overall bloc results instead (which is what is shown in the infobox anyway)? Something like this:
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left"

!colspan=2 rowspan="2"|Political party or alliance !colspan=2 rowspan="2"|Constituent lists !colspan="2"|Previous result !colspan="2" rowspan="2"|Candidate !Votes !Seats
 * rowspan="7" bgcolor=""|
 * rowspan="7"| Centre-left coalition
 * bgcolor="" |
 * style="text-align:left;"| Democratic Party (PD)
 * rowspan="7"| 47.8%
 * rowspan="7"| 33
 * rowspan="7" style="text-align:center"| Sergio Chiamparino
 * style="background-color:"|
 * Italy in Common (IiC)
 * style="background-color:"|
 * More Europe (+Eu)
 * bgcolor="" |
 * style="text-align:left;"| Free, Equal, Greens (incl. MDP, SI, Pos and FdV)
 * style="background-color:#EC5C39"|
 * Chiamparino for Piedmont of Yes
 * bgcolor="" |
 * Yes Chiamparino - Demo.S
 * style="background-color:#008ECE" |
 * Moderates for Chiamparino
 * rowspan="5" style="background:;"|
 * rowspan="5"| Centre-right coalition
 * bgcolor="" |
 * style="text-align:left;"| Forza Italia (FI)
 * rowspan="5"| 28.3%
 * rowspan="5"| 10
 * rowspan="5" style="text-align:center"| Alberto Cirio
 * bgcolor="" |
 * style="text-align:left;"| League (Lega)
 * bgcolor="" |
 * style="text-align:left;"| Brothers of Italy (FdI)
 * bgcolor="" |
 * style="text-align:left;"| Union of the Centre (UdC)
 * bgcolor="#2E3D9A"|
 * style="text-align:left;"| Yes TAV Yes Work for Piedmont in the Heart (incl. EpI and MNS)
 * style="background-color:"|
 * colspan="3"|Five Star Movement (M5S)
 * 20.3%
 * 8
 * style="text-align:center"| Giorgio Bertola
 * style="background-color:"|
 * colspan="3"|The People of Family (PdF)
 * colspan="2" N/A
 * style="text-align:center"| Valter Boero
 * }
 * Cheers.  Impru 20 talk 20:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:left;"| Yes TAV Yes Work for Piedmont in the Heart (incl. EpI and MNS)
 * style="background-color:"|
 * colspan="3"|Five Star Movement (M5S)
 * 20.3%
 * 8
 * style="text-align:center"| Giorgio Bertola
 * style="background-color:"|
 * colspan="3"|The People of Family (PdF)
 * colspan="2" N/A
 * style="text-align:center"| Valter Boero
 * }
 * Cheers.  Impru 20 talk 20:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * }
 * Cheers.  Impru 20 talk 20:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Personally I am not convinced of this solution, this type of table could be good without the costituent lists. If the coalition parties in the previous election were largely different, the comparison with the previous result becomes misleading.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * We could have both the "exhaustive" column with the previous result for the coalitions, and a column which will be only partially filled in, with the previous results for each party or list. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)