Talk:2022 Italian general election/Archive 2

Main ideology of Us Moderates
Assuming that in some cases it is extremely difficult to determine a single main ideology in the composite lists (for example in the previous joint list "CI-UDC"), I think that the main ideology of Us Moderates in the table should be Centrism, as for Civic Commitment: both represent the centrist component of their respective coalitions, furthermore Us Moderates is practically always described as the "centrist" list of the centre-right coalition. I am aware that Centrism is not a true ideology, but it would surely be much more descriptive than Liberal conservatism in this case. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, 3 parties out of the main 4 composing Us Moderates are labelled as liberal-conservative, so in my opinion the current category seems correct. This seems confirmed by external sources (like this one, which adds "Christian democracy", too). I'd rather follow the external source. P1221 (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Three parties out of four are liberal-conservative, the fourth (the UdC) is mainly Christian-democratic but also liberal-conservative. The list's main ideology is thus liberal conservatism. It would be better to have a more specific ideology also for IC, but there is hardly one, apart from a generic centrism or a generic progressivism. --Checco (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Comparing voter turnout to the previous election
I think it could be of interest to have a form of percent change in turnout based on data from the last election. Unfortunately I am not an expert when it comes to tables on Wikipedia, so would love assistance if anyone can spare it. LocalWonk (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "We" instead of "Us"?
The Italian political party whose name, in Italian, is "Noi moderati" has its name translated into English in this article as "Us Moderates." The correct translation, however, preserving proper grammar, is "We Moderates," because the use of "noi" in the party name is in the subjective (or nominative), not in the objective (or oblique), case.

It also appears that the more common translation of the party name is, indeed, "We Moderates": https://www.google.com/search?q=%22noi+moderati%22+%22we+moderates%22&gl=us&hl=en&pws=0&ei=k9QxY9y2Iq2RwbkPlpC80Aw&ved=0ahUKEwiczKLP8bL6AhWtSDABHRYID8oQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=%22noi+moderati%22+%22we+moderates%22&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBQghEKABMgUIIRCgATIFCCEQoAE6CggAEEcQ1gQQsAM6BQgAEIAEOgUIABCGAzoFCAAQxAI6BggAEB4QFjoICCEQHhAWEB06BwghEKABEApKBAhBGABKBAhGGABQ1QhY8BlgpxtoAXABeACAAYgBiAGXDJIBBDEuMTOYAQCgAQHIAQjAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz

Among the sources translating the party name to "We Moderates" are the following: https://www.unionesarda.it/en/we-moderates-tunis-quot-young-people-and-the-environment-our-projects-for-sardiniaquot-tz4mqf1l

https://atalayar.com/en/content/radical-right-wins-italian-elections-meloni-helm

https://www.thelocal.it/20220817/explained-why-does-italy-have-so-many-political-parties/

https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/movies/italy-goes-polls-far-candidate-050000631.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK-qQOOPwrlxm5kx539b4m-6wF11bzSmfLSjXZ6mFZo8dC0Jk9vQS71aG7Katv6-lbeKsHKLiIBiJyxAH1nluuJVRYBEc5nLYRz61HyudKniE2wjx_laHVOb8Zknatqt2XG71aPzbsxGaQ5UXTcd2RQ6lkFfwH8kcMuSVz9pZ-XG

https://www.imago-images.com/st/0169867981

https://schoolmovie.one/actors-school/school-family-work-and-sustainable-development-the-priorities-of-we-moderates/#

https://www.gettyimages.pt/detail/fotografia-de-not%C3%ADcias/maurizio-lupi-leader-of-the-noi-moderati-party-fotografia-de-not%C3%ADcias/1243439302

https://europe-cities.com/2022/09/26/we-moderati-brugnaro-list-above-3-only-in-venice-flop-in-veneto-and-friuli/

I think that "Noi moderati" should be known as "We Moderates" in English-language Wikipedia, not only in this article, but in the other articles in which the name is mentioned. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Mother-tongue speakers have advised in favour of "us" instead of "we", thus we have Us Moderates, Us with Salvini, etc. --Checco (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

"Coalition" vs "Electoral coalition" on results infobox
I'm of the belief that the insertion of the word "electoral" is beneficial to distinguish it from a governing coalition — while supporting 'uninominale' candidates together is a good sign that parties will coalesce into a coalition, it is not a guarantee. I prefer to err on the side of descriptive language. Has a discussion happened on this before, and if so, where? Tagging @Davide King as they reverted my edit on the matter. LocalWonk (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't have any particular preference but the article must be consistent; we either use 'electoral' in all tables, including the infobox, or we don't. Your edits were not being consistent. I thought it would makes more sense to use 'Electoral' in the infobox, I see no use of it in the 'Results' table, which has nothing to with a governing coalition, they simply ran as a single coalition, and I assume it is a given that 'Coalition' is for '(Electoral) coalition', which may likely become also a governing coalition. Or maybe I didn't understand what you brought up. Davide King (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Third Pole
Should we create a new article for them? and if so we should move Third Pole, Third Pole (Italy) and For the Third Pole Braganza (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I would not, but in case I would name it in a different way (either a combination of the two party names or "Renew Europe (Italy)". I am not sure there is a most common name, differently from "Democratic and Progressive Italy", that is also how Letta refers to the electoral list. --Checco (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * so Action – Italia Viva? Braganza (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * oh it already exists Braganza (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Parliamentary seats
I was wondering if it would be possible to calculate the numbers of seats won/lost not only in mere numbers, as it is done in the infobox, but also in proportion and taking in consideration the reduced numbers of seats overall from 2018, and additionally in comparison to seats won in 2018 and the same seats at dissolution, since there were significant changes. If so, I think it would be an interesting and hopefully useful table, if not for this article, then perhaps for the one about the legislature. @Autospark @Checco, @Nick.mon, @Scia Della Cometa, @Yakme, et al. Davide King (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely one can compare the seats shares between last election and this one. However this article already has too many tables, in my opinion. Yakme (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought about that too and I can agree it would be too much for this but could be useful for Legislature XIX of Italy. Davide King (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be an interesting data, usefull for example for Legislature XIX of Italy, but to be avoided in the infobox of the election. To be honest, I would completely avoid the change in seats when there is also a change in the total number of seats in the assembly: the final result is a wrong and misleading comparison, I would remove it at all.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree it could be useful for that future article. Regarding this article, I also see your point about it being misleading but I think it is necessary. What has been done in a situation like this before? Davide King (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried something like this here. Yakme (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please do it for the Senate too? Davide King (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

"Contested constituencies"
Can there be made on articles dealing with the county's electoral system the difference between the use and composition of the "constituencies" and "districts"? Because I'm not sure I understand, and on the table about current representation, constituencies seems to be used for the party list districts whereas the single-member FPTP constituencies are also referred to as districts. Criticalthinker (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, in the Italian language article it:Elezioni politiche in Italia del 2022 they are both called "collegio": 1) Collegio plurinominale and 2) it:Collegio uninominale (that is Single-member district). Meridiana solare (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Criticalthinker, reading the article about the electoral law it:Legge Rosato, I found out that there are larger territorial division, "circoscrizione", it:Legge Rosato). But actually I can't understand what they are for, save they are split in many "collegio". Both uninomilan and plurinomilan seat are from "collegio". Meridiana solare (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking the more I'm reading it that the circoscrizioni are used for the party list seats and the collegio for the single-and-multimember FPTP seats? That would make the most sense, but I'm still not entirely sure, and I'd really like to see these terms better differentiated in the English language articles dealing with the election districts in Italy. In the "Electoral List" section of this article, you have the tables listed "Contested constiuencies" which appears to be talking about the list seats, but I'm not sure that's made clear. If we're going to use "constituencies" for the translation for "circoscrizioni", I'd like to see that in parenthesis the first time they are mentioned, and then we need a different translation for the "collegio." Criticalthinker (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And a related question, which is the constituency in which the left coalition ran, but that the right coalition did not? This page says that for the Chamber that the right contested 27 constituencies and the left 28. --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Can anyone figure this out? I thought this may have to something to do with Valle d'Aosta, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Even in the case where it'd be about individual parties in a coaltion putting foward in a list, neither the individual major parties in the center right and center left coalitions ran individual party lists in this region. So, which constituency didn't the individual center-right coalition parties run lists that the center left parties did? --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Many tables in this article
Hi all. Currently this article is full of tables, which is good on one hand because it's an article about election results. However I think that the ratio tables / text should be more balanced, so I would like to gather opinions about whether to reduce the number of tables (remove unnecessary ones) or at least hide / default-collapse a few of them. The tables currently are: So this is a summary on the grand total of 23 tables in this article + one large figure. What do you think? Can we reduce the space left to tables and have more visible prose? Yakme (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * main parties' slogans – it's nice but not really the most important table
 * electoral debates – they are not a thing in Italy like in the US, so I would collapse this one of just list the debates in the prose
 * 3 electoral lists tables – I would keep them
 * opinion polling graph – can it be made smaller and/or put it on the left or right-hand side?
 * voter turnout by regions – I would definitely collapse it
 * Chamber & Senate: overall results – I would keep them
 * Chamber & Senate: 4 voting shares bar charts – I would probably condense them somehow (at least show them in parallel)?
 * Chamber & Senate: proportional results – I would keep them
 * Chamber & Senate: FPTP (with exceptions) – I would keep them
 * Chamber & Senate: Aosta Valley – currently collapsed, and I agree
 * Chamber & Senate: overseas – currently collapsed, and I agree
 * Senate: Trentino Alto Adige – currently collapsed, and I agree
 * leaders' races – currently confusing as it merges together FPTP and PR results, can it be improved?
 * Gallagher index – why do we need to show how the calculation is performed? we can definitely just mention the index itself in a line somewhere in the results paragraphs
 * We could collapse the turnout's and move at least some tables, such as the leaders' and Gallagher's, to Results of the 2022 Italian general election, where we would also put the other results like is done for the Results of the 2022 Swedish general election. Davide King (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would keep the current tables. Collapsing tables is never a good idea, removing tables is even worse. To be clear, I would immediately revert the collapsing of the tables on voter turnout by region, electoral results in Aosta Valley and electoral results in overseas constituencies. Otherwise, we could delete the histograms on popular vote and seat distribution, as well as the completely irrelevant table on leaders' races. --Checco (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea to move most tables to Results of the 2022 Italian general election and keep only the essential ones in this article. Yakme (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The leaders' races is definitely one that can be moved. It seems excessive, and most of them, in simpler "where they are running and if they won" terms, are already covered by the infobox. The Gallagher table can probably be moved and changed to a line of text in the main article. JackWilfred (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

More tables have been added: So at the moment we have 26 tables. The Gallagher index table was removed by an IP. Yakme (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Chamber & Senate: FPTP results by constituency
 * Chamber & Senate: PR results by constituency
 * The more tables, the better. However, I just proposed some tables that could easily be removed as they are redundant or quite irrelevant. --Checco (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Generalized sentences like "The more tables, the better" or "Collapsing tables is never a good idea" are just your opinion, and certainly are not universally true. Who said that? Actually MOS:COLLAPSE states: "Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if they simply repeat information covered in the main text." We can definitely collapse the turnout and/or other tables if we already cover their main message in a nice paragraph of text. Text is nice, in an encyclopedia. Yakme (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm all for WP:PRESERVE, so I would like to keep all the tables on Wikipedia like Checco, but they would be on the other article about the results because I also think Yakme's concerns are legitimate and they can improve readability and have the page be less heavy; the other tables will be easily accessable through a 'Main link' template. I'll try to work on the full results article and start move tables there, while keeping prose, for exable about the leaders' race, in this article. This should be a nice compromise that I hope will make everyone happy. Davide King (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should also include the charts with % and seats by party and coalition, as for all the other Italian elections since 1861. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, and also the table about sociology of the elctorate. I think we've reduced enough of them and are now also using the template of both Chamber and Senate results that we can afford to keep at least these two. Davide King (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The template is just for ease of editing, it does not change how cluttered this article will look like. I think that the sociology of the results can definitely be left in the detailed results article. We can add the % and seats bar charts, but they look really heavy: is there a way to make them more condensed? Yakme (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I sincerly don't know, I could try. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * this has been done already, see the Overall results tables. Yakme (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Horrible left-wing smear framing
"radical right with fascist roots"

Sounds like the article has been written by a communist. Partico Democratico also has soviet-marxist roots. Why dont you mention that fact? 93.206.51.127 (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The PD is the merger of the PCI (Communists) and the DC (Christian Democrats) and has dropped the hammer and sickle since 1996, while FdI still has in its logo the neo-fascist tricolour flame symbol. All in all, we go by what reliable sources say, and if you think "mainstream media" is "fake news", you're not going to like Wikipedia. Davide King (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * By what means is FdI a "radical" party?
 * It's a bit ironic to describe something with "fascist roots" as "radical right", when the very etymology of the left-right paradigm comes from republicans (left) vs. monarchists (right), of which Italian fascism belonged to the republican side. The most used left-right paradigm is the economic spectrum, with communism on the left and capitalism on the right. Here, again, Italian fascism was not on the right, since a welfare state has always been a part of that ideology, which belongs on the left, not the right. A third left-right paradigm could be the progressive (left) vs. conservative (right) spectrum, where FdI would clearly better fit into the "right", yet it's hard to claim that a party commanding the largest share of voters and over a quarter of the support in all can be called "radical" in any logical or principled sense.
 * The tricolor flame symbol is from the M.S.I. which even Wikipedia now describes as "post-fascist", that is, a movement that rejects the authoritarianism of fascism. This would be akin to describing socialist parties founded upon a platform of rejecting communist authoritarianism as having "communist roots".
 * Objective terms to use for FdI: nationalist, national conservative, conservative, populist. The editors of the Political Compass website have rated FdI as more to the left than Joe Biden, so to maintain a "radical right" label on FdI is obviously nothing more than a smear, and does not properly communicate to the reader what that party is about. With all the competing left-right paradigms in politics, it's a service to the reader to communicate accurately and precisely rather than using crude labels.
 * If Wikipedia exists purely to parrot whatever journalists wake up in the morning and decide is true, then there really is no point in having Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia is where journalists should be going to find the truth, not the other way around. GeorgeKGooding (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:GeorgeKGooding: I agree with most of what you wrote. It is so unfortunate that to see this bias in en.Wikipedia. --Checco (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to ruin the party, but Wikipedia should absolutely not be the place where journalists [...] find the truth. The process is quite the opposite, please read carefully core policies like WP:OR and WP:V, together with WP:FORUM and WP:NOTNEWS. Yakme (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact is that, despite several biased users cherrypicking sources, FdI is not a radical party, but a mainstream conservative one. I like basically nothing of that party, but surely it is now depicted not in a neutral way in en.Wikipedia and that is so disappointing. --Checco (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The party is described according to what the majority of the most reliable sources state. Why should we cherry-pick sources in order to tone down the statements, and not be as neutral as possible in the choice of sources? If anyone can objectively prove that a vast majority of highly reliable sources state that FdI is "mainstream conservative" as opposed to radical right-wing, then we will change what we report on WP. At the moment I tried and tried to find a way to "moderate down" the descriptor, but believe me, the consensus among specialists and academics is that FdI is a right-wing party, full member of the European radical right. Yakme (talk) 05:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll try to assume good faith and go point by point:
 * "when the very etymology of the left-right paradigm comes from republicans (left) vs. monarchists (right), of which Italian fascism belonged to the republican side." I guess you missed the years from 1922 to 1943 where fascism and monarchy were holding their hands together. Or was that "not real fascism"? 'Neo-fascism' is a more accurate label for the MSI and 'post-fascist' for the national-conservative AN. Remember that the MSI didn't become truly post-fascist until the 1990s, when it dissolved. Either way, we go with reliable, preferibly academic sources, and that is what they say, as concisely pointed out by Yakme.
 * "it's hard to claim that a party commanding the largest share of voters and over a quarter of the support in all can be called 'radical' in any logical or principled sense." I guess the Nazis weren't radical after all *sarcasm*. Trump won 47% (very right-wing) against Biden (moderate, centre-left) in 2020 and he's pretty radical even by U.S. standards, though that may be due to the majoritarian system. Either way, that's not really a good argument, considering that centrists have historically allied with the far right in both Italy and Germany, so it's not surprising that a number of former more moderate votes of Forza Italia and Lega voted for Brothers of Italy in 2022. Indeed, both Forza Italia and Lega's vote shares were halved in 2022 and went to Brothers of Italy, plus much less turnout than in 2018.
 * "this would be akin to describing socialist parties founded upon a platform of rejecting communist authoritarianism as having 'communist roots'." No, it wouldn't be because most socialist parties have been social-democratic and centre-left in practice, and rejected authoritarian Communism from the beginning, not like the MSI, which rejected the authoritarianism of fascism after the war and in fact didn't really reject it in full until its dissolution in the 1990s. Italy didn't go under a Communist disctorship but a Fascist dictatorship, so I'm not surprised at all that reliable sources are citing the fact this would be the first government to be headed by a party with literal neo-fascist roots as relevant and due. If the reverse was true, we'd be saying the same thing, if reliable sources did so as in this case.
 * As for "mainstream conservative", Meloni said her examples are the Conservatives (UK), Likud (Israel), and Republicans (US), which are among the most right-wing mainstream parties (more right-wing than most centre-right parties) and with more significant far-right factions or ties than more moderate right-wing parties. Let's just say those aren't the best examples to cite when claiming to be a moderate, mainstream party.
 * What the Political Compass probably mean is that FdI is to the left of Joe Biden on economics. Guess what? Most radical-right parties are centrist to centre-left and most European parties are to the left of the United States on economics, that doesn't mean they're leftists when their economics are marred by welfare chauvinism, anti-immigration rhetoric, and authoritarian social policies; they don't support left economic policies for egalitarianism but for their right-wing nationalism, which isn't the same thing and doesn't make fascism or Nazism leftist. I hope you can agree with me on this.
 * As for "whatever journalists wake up in the morning and decide is true", one of the sources used in support of 'radical right' is an academic journal. Do you believe that leftists control the press, even though most of the press is owned by corporations and don't really advance leftist, anti-capitalist economic views? If you think so, you're probably not going to like WP:SOURCES and the way Wikipedia works, which if anything merely reflects the generally liberal (as in centrist liberal) bias of the Western world (what a Marxist would call bourgeois culture), not an alleged anti-capitalist leftist bias, which is overblown. The best news sources like the Associated Press (one of the sources used that explicitily calls Brothers of Italy a radical-right party with neo-fascist roots), BBC, Reuters, and newspapers of record are centrist; others may lean to the centre-left on socio-cultural issues but are more right-leaning on economics.
 * Perhaps many editors are closer to the centre-left than the centre-right but that may come down to age, education, and other demographic polarization where there simply are more left-leaning people in a certain demographic group but rest assured that we take WP:NPOV very seriously. Unfortunately, it's often conflated with false balance, where we must present majority and minority views as if they were equal, or that sources must be unbiased (there're no unbiased sources but there're ones more reliable than others and most of them are closer to the centre; it's not our fault if so many right-wing sources have engaged in misinformation and conspiracy theories, while some more left-wing sources, which are best used carefully, at least get the facts straight, and we've listed as 'Unreliable' several left-wing sources, it just happens there're way more right-wing sources who are unreliable and can't get basic facts right).
 * In the end, please rest assured that if a majority of reliable sources will say the party is a more moderate, mainstream right-wing party, we would indeed reflect that. By the looks of it, it doesn't seem like it's going to change anytime soon, but never say never. Davide King (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @GeorgeKGooding, here I reverted an IP using 'far-right'. While their edit summary is correct and it's not a big deal to me, I prefer we use 'radical right' because that's the term used by the given RS and is the consensus of academics as reported in the infobox's footnote at Brothers of Italy. Besides, 'far-right' is cited later on. The fact we're accused of going too far and not far enough is in fact a sign we're following RS and being neutral. Davide King (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The infobox is all wrong
It seems quite clear to me that the current infobox is the worst of both worlds, misusing both the Template:Infobox election and Template:Infobox legislative election.

I realize this discussion has been had on multiple occasions (and reading through all of that was quite honestly a terrible decision on my part). Also I can't help noticing that the consensus was very much *not* for the current infobox: you all argued for two weeks, came to some sort of compromise solution, then a user opened up the debate a bit later, with much less participation, then used that "consensus" to revert to an infobox that had been comprehensively ruled out during the much more substantive first debate. (Look at the list of proposed alternatives, then look at the first discussion; the present infobox, Proposal B, was the last-ranked for multiple users.) I don't know what the Wikipedia norms are on how long it takes to call a consensus, but this wasn't a good way to go about it.

Apparently I discussed this in the previous election page as well, which I'd forgotten; I argued for the primacy of parties then but was swayed by other users to prioritizing coalitions, so long as Salvini was not the depicted as the sole face atop his coalition. This concern was dealt with in the product that emerged from the very long debate (latest version here).

I vastly prefer that over the present version, for much of the same reasons that were raised in the discussion. Coalitions are the primary actors in each election and are covered as such; districts may account for a minority of seats but (by design!) shape the election results to a disproportionate degree; the fact that the law does not technically allow for formally-designated coalition leaders is irrelevant, since the point of the infobox is to provide a brief overview. (But I'd prefer a coalition-first infobox with no leaders at all over the present infobox.) And Template:Infobox election is suited for lists with fewer items than Template:Infobox legislative election.

I'll really take any of the proposed options over the current version:
 * Four coalitions is good (especially for 2022) but three is acceptable;
 * I'm partial to the wide photos that allow seats and percentages to be on one row, but that's a light preference;
 * Election maps should be coalition-based and be detailed (rather than per-region or per-province);
 * I can take or leave the coalition-leader photos.

Proposal A seems like a particularly good possibility, in that the table of parties takes up more space but the coalitions come *first*, as they should. (But we don't need two sets of maps.)

If you don't care to rehash this again, then whatever, I can live with that. But if at any point this does arise again, please consider this as my expression of preferences, since I'm unlikely to monitor this article often enough to be involved in any discussion live. Chuborno (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't part of those discussions and haven't really followed much but I think the current results are a good compromise. I'm open to new suggestions and improvement but I think the current general structure is the best one. For example, the 2018 infobox you think is the best for 2018, I disagree; indeed, it may have been the best solution heading into the election, but with the power of hindsight the current version is the better choice. Ultimately, parties were important as ever, since the first government after the election was the M5S and Lega; same thing for the Draghi government, where Lega and Forza Italia (FI) were united but not Brothers of Italy (FdI). As for 2022, a government hasn't been formed and this time there may be not issue as it would be formed by the whole centre-right coalition, but parties were important as ever, with FdI rising to 26% and Lega and FI collapsing to 8% each; I believe both of those things have been discussed and cited in reliable sources. I'd probably add back Greens and Left Alliance (AVS) and Us Moderates because they got a significant number of seats and we'd complete the centre-right and centre-left coalition's allies who got a decent amount of seats (7 and 12 in the Chamber, 2 and 4 in the Senate), or just AVS as the only other party to have reached the 3% threshold, but I'm not going to fight over it. Davide King (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the proposal of re-opening the Pandora's box of a new debate about this, as I am in deep fear of what will likely happen: weeks of discussion and bickering between the usual Italian politics fighters. But the main reason is that, like Davide, I also think the current state is a good compromise, and definitely not "all wrong": that is a bit exaggerated, isn't it? Currently parties are very important numerically and politically in the Rosatellum Parliament, first of all because they have a larger proportion of seats allocated for party lists. Also, the relevant election threshold is on parties: a party that belongs to a larger coalition may not enter the Parliament if it stands below 3% (see +Eu or IpF). So party results are very important, and the party composition will actually later shape the formation of governments, as also Davide was pointing out. News and media mostly point out the party results first, rather than the coalition results. All these make me quite confident that the current status is good enough to present a summary of the election results. Yakme (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Chuborno The discussion about the infobox was very long and I was an active part of that discussion (and supporter of the current version). The problem was due to the fact that the centre-right coalition in 2018 did not have a single leader. For example, the 2022 elections are very different from the previous ones in 2018, in this case an infobox like the one used for the elections from 1994 to 2013 would be easy to apply (there has never been a doubt that the "frontwoman" and natural "candidate for prime minister" of the centre-right coalition was Giorgia Meloni). The current infobox shows reality fairly faithfully, so it's pretty good. However, if there were better proposals, they are welcome on my part (for example, I would agree to only indicate the coalitions with the leader, as long as both Salvini and Berlusconi are indicated as centre-right coalition leaders in 2018 (they were two main contenders for the centre-right leaderhip, Giorgia Meloni was just a minor ally at the time). In my view, the current infobox is ok, but I would certainly agree to simplify everything (like the 1994-2013 elections) and keep only the coalitions (indicating a "dual leadership" of the centre-right in 2018).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

27 vs 28 constituencies
It appears from the "constested constituencies" chart in the article that the center-left coalition ran lists in 28 constituencies and the center-right ran lists in 27 constituencies. But even after reading through the Interior Ministry's webapge, I can not figure out which constituency the center-right did not run in that the center-left did. Can anyone figure this out? I thought it may have something to do with how they ran overseas, but it appears that the left ran in the same way (on one list)? Criticalthinker (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Got an answer back from the Ministry of the Interio, specifically the Dipartimento per gli Affari Interni e Territoriali. As their data shows, the center-right and center-left coalitions ran lists in all constituencies in both the Chamber (28) and the Senate (20) (plus the ovreseas constituency which is counted separately?), so that needs to be corrected in the chart. Perhaps no one had updated the data. Criticalthinker (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Giuseppe Conte 2 giugno 2020.jpg