Talk:2022 Italian general election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Description of parties

I find the description of the parties' ideologies is not clear. Most particularly, there are two examples of ideologies being mentioned twice for quite different parties: Free and Equal is described as 'social democrcy' like the Democrats and 5 Star is labelled 'populist' like the League. The second is worse because the two parties have ruled out an alliance. So the description gives the impression they are similar when they are in fact very different. I suggest calling Free and Equal 'eco-socialist', 5 Star 'degrowth' and the League 'anti-immigration'. Munci (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I simply used the main ideologies used in their articles. If we want to distinguish them we could use democratic socialism for LeU, but social democracy is still their main ideology. M5S and Lega are both populist parties without any doubt, but the M5S is a big tent party, while Lega is now increasingly a right-wing one. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, these are common descriptions of these parties. My contention is that they are not clear descriptions. An additional element is that, while 'populist' is a term used to describe various political movements, it does not, in my eye, constitute an ideology as such, as it has nothing really in the way of common goals or ideals. 'democratic socialism' would distinguish better the two main left-wing parties. Another idea would be to include at least two ideologies, which I have seen on other articles about modern Italian political parties. Munci (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I quite support the use of two ideologies, but I was in minority when we discussed about that, because other users thought that one ideology was enough :) Regarding populism, I personally think that it's the ideology that can better represent the M5S, as well as anti-establishment, but sincerely "degrowth" isn't a real ideology, in my personal view. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I suppose 'degrowth' could be described as a goal, rather than an ideology. What about taking an ideological term from the five stars? i.e. environmentalism Munci (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I really do not see the problem. Parties with similar or identical ideologies can be in alliance or not. The ideologies of the PD and LeU are very similar, but the two parties are riven by personal differences. Sometimes, power counts more tha ideology. Both the M5S and the LN are populist, but their voting base is quite different. Just think of two nationalist parties: they might support a different kind of nationalism (think of Romanian nationalism and Hungarian nationalism in Romania!) and thus be on opposite sides. The ideology of a single party should be discussed in its article's talk page. In my view, the LN is primarily regionalist and liberal-conservative, but the current consensus is for "populism". I oppose using multiple ideologies in this article's template. --Checco (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, power and personal differences can theoretically be important in having two parties separate that don't work together. But this is not what distinguishes LN from M5S. They are fundamentally very different parties, especially with the current incarnation of the LN. And that is why I find it is misleading to present them both as 'populist'. At least if we say 'Romanian nationalism' and 'Hungarian nationalism' in Romania, the two will be distinguished. But here people unfamiliar with the parties will get the inappopriate impression that they are potential allies. May I enquire as to what might be objectionable about including multiple ideologies? Munci (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

What about "northern populism" and "southern populism"? The LN and northerners are more libertarian, the M5S and southerners are more statist: that's the main difference between the two parties! Of course, I am joking, but I probably have a point. Moreover, the LN and the M5S are potential allies! For now, they share just common interests, but they might end up together in government or might want to re-organise the institutional and party systems together.

Please consider that sometimes similar parties, which are competing for the same voters, are staunch enemies. In this case, the LN and M5S do not compete for the same votes due to their different geographical bases: this might led them into an alliance or be the main source of their rivalry. We will see.

The more ideologies we add, the more we will discuss on them and that is just a summary of parties! --Checco (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course, the voter bases are different between LN and M5S not just due to their geographical distribution, but also pretty much every measure: whether it's employment, education, religion or more or less anything else, LN have wildly different demographic support. Which common interests do you consider them to share? Certainly the leader of at least one of the parties announced just two weeks that he would not go into an alliance with the other, a reiteration of a previously established position. Munci (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Apart from the multiple issues on which they agree (social security, EU, etc.), the two parties might soon agree on leadership posts in Parliament. More important, Salvini no longer rejects some sort of pact with the M5S. The pair might favour a transitory government and a new electoral law, in order to shape the Italian party system as a duopoly between them (in an early election the LN hopes to absorb most of FI's vote, the M5S most of the PD's vote). We will see whether they will agree only on short-term strategy or on a longer-term alliance. --Checco (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest Nationalism for Lega Nord. Rather than mere "populism".Irishpolitical (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the League's recent move to focus on italian sovereignty against Brussel and on "Italian First" claims make it closer to nationalism than populism nowadays. The article's description is meant for the party's position over decades of political life and elections, imo, while this one should reflect the position in the electoral campaign.--Aréat (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I propose a system like the one used on Government of Change : the mention of the party's position on the left-right axis, and one or two ideologies, as only one sometimes isn't enough. What do you think of it?

Regionalism can be a form of nationalism and it is interesting how the LN does not talk of "Italy first", but of "Italians first", thus the citizens, encompassing its regional base. However, I would not change anything on the description of the party, which is nowadays primarily populist. So, thanks to User:JDuggan101 for restoring "populism" over "nationalism". I also think that "main ideology" means "main ideology": only one ideology has to be mentioned, for more infos readers can go to the article on the party. --Checco (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

What's the arguments against adding a column with the left-right position and simply changing the other column title to "Ideologies". There's place in term of width and it add more useful informations to the readers. Parties often simply can't be summed up in one word. --Aréat (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Then two would not be enough, then why not a third one, then why not a fourth one, etc. One can always go to the parties' articles. My argument is simplicity, readability, consistency. --Checco (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Then what if there is several? If they're added it will because they're needed to accurately portray the position of a political party. The very fact there has been this many editing wars over the word to use on this page like on the previous one is proof that you can't sum them up in one words. Having two or three is no less readable, the readers here aren't three years old. Look up the way it's done on the french page, for example.--Aréat (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Saying the party talks of "Italians first", not "Italy first" is mere semantics. Especially given we're translating this into English from Italian. The label of Nationalism is far more applicable, as to be differentiated from Italian nationalism which is a different concept - albeit related. Populism is too vague and broad. The focus of Lega Nord recently has been very overt nationalism, especially given this is an article on the (forthcoming) election and not an overview of the party's entire ideological history. I think it's very consistent and applicable to use the label nationalism, it's consistent with WP:V. Irishpolitical (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedians should avoid making decisions like this based on our own analyses: that's WP:OR. How do reliable secondary sources describe these parties? That's what we should be using. This discussion should entirely consist of quoting what citations say. Bondegezou (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

There's three discussion on here : whether we could add the left/right axis position, whether we could use more than one ideology to describe the parties, and whether the League is mostly populist or nationalist. Here are some source from today on it being called nationalist : [1], [2], [3]. I'm sure a lot others can be found on it being called populist. Now, havin to chose one over the other would be a moot point if we simply add more than one ideology, as proposed.--Aréat (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's my proposal :

Party		Position	Ideology	Leader
	Five Star Movement (M5S)	Big tent	Populism, Direct democracy	Luigi Di Maio
	Democratic Party (PD)	Centre-left	Social democracy	Maurizio Martina
	League (L)	Right-wing to far-right	Populism, Nationalism	Matteo Salvini
	Forza Italia (FI)	Centre-right	Liberal conservatism	Silvio Berlusconi
	Brothers of Italy (FdI)	Right-wing to far-right	National conservatism	Giorgia Meloni
	Free and Equal (LeU)	Left-wing	Social democracy	Pietro Grasso
	More Europe (+E)	Centre to centre-left	Liberalism, Pro-Europeanism	Emma Bonino
	Us with Italy (NcI)	Centre-right	Christian democracy	Raffaele Fitto

--Aréat (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

With respect, Aréat, that is far too messy and needlessly complicated. Reduce down to one Ideology and one political Position per party, one is enough. In addition, as a preference, I'd prefer "Coalition" over "Position", listing the coalitions (centre-right coalition, centre-left coalition, etc) rather than positions on the political spectrum.--Autospark (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought Aréat's table was fine in terms of layout/size etc. I defer to others on the details. Bondegezou (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

My sincere apologies to Aréat! The table is perfect in terms of layout and size.--Autospark (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, thank you. I merely added a column to the existing one, though. Now, I've submitted my proposal on what would be the most informative yet concise table, in my opinion, and will let the others users here decide.--Aréat (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the first comment by User:Autospark: the table "is far too messy and needlessly complicated. Reduce down to one Ideology and one political Position per party, one is enough". This said, I also agree on deferring to parties' talks on the details. --Checco (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Aréat: You are just restarting this discussion again now. There was a consensus on a single ideology for each party, why would you push again the same edit after a year, and edit war over it? By the way in some cases you even added ideologies just for the sake of putting at least two per party: a generic "pro-Europeanism" for PD and EV, a generic "progressivism" for The Left that honestly doesn't make me feel informed more in detail than with just "democratic socialism", fo example. Please try to change consensus on the talk page before edit warring. --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

the above discussion had more people in favor of a change than against it. The table as it is is quite small, adding a word or two isn't a problem, and is clearly justified for several of these parties. You can't sum up a party with just one word. And the argument that the reader can go to the party's page doesn't hold, as then it isn't justified to even have one word, or state the current leader, or the number of seats.--Aréat (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion ended with the current status quo, which by definition defines the current consensus. Let's be reasonable: the table is needed as a summary, a scheme, of the current parties with their seats in the Parliament. It's not meant to contain an exhaustive amount of information. Also, you don't need two ideologies for each party, just the generic one is sufficient to localize the parties, in the purpose of this article. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. One certainly isn't enough for several of these, giving no clues as to their positions. Most others elections tables either have more description, or larger tables. Again, if the only argument against it is that it take a few more place in a tiny table, then the need to inform the reader certainly come first. --Aréat (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I propose using the table above. There clearly was no consensus against it, with less people disagreeing than agreeing. --Aréat (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The table above is incomplete and names both Lega and M5S equally "populist" which is very misleading. I stand by the need of only one identifier for the generic ideology of each party. There is no need of more detail, it goes against the scope of the table which is just a summary overview of the Parliament composition at the moment. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Then the table above, except with "Right wing populism" for Lega. Your comment alone show that there is indeed a need for more precise description of the parties. There is nothing forcing us to have a tiny table restricted to one words summary.--Aréat (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok we disagree, I don't think there is a way to convince you that there's no need for more detail in a summary table, since you are repeating yourself at every comment. Fair enough, let's wait for other editors' opinions. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree with User:Ritchie92. --Checco (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm not a political scientist, but the infobox should surely either show the entire centre-right coalition rather than just Salvini's League or it should show the Forza Italia as well in a separate column if the entire coalition is not displayed in place of the League. 42.111.28.240 (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, I have made the edit that you specified. JackWilfred (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

And didn't we decide to have just two or three parties in the infoboxes about Italian general elections? --Checco (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Lega Nord and right-wing populism

I understand User:Nick.mon's and other users' willingness to describe the Lega Nord / Lega as a right-wing populist party (see here), but still no consensus has been reached on right-wing populism. To me, it's not just about recentism, but accuracy. Recentism should always be avoided, otherwise, the recentist description of the party as right-wing populist has already been overcome by the more recent "moderate" or "majoritaian turn". --Checco (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we should always avoid recentism, but, in my opinion, I think that Lega has now all the features of other right-wing populist parties across Europe. I know that Lega has a very different story and background from many of these parties, and it has many prominent members who aren't populist at all (for example Zaia), but Salvini's strategy is quite clear and he is fully part of the right-wing populist wave which is shaking Europe in these years. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Nick.mon. Furthermore, Lega Nord has been a right-wing party for a long while (yes, Salvini was part of the so-called "Communist Padanian Party" in the "Padanian Parliament", but I wouldn't take this as a serious example), and almost all the policies put forward by Lega and its voter base can be described as right-wing. I cannot think of a non-right-wing claim characteristic of their manifesto. There are people in the voter base of LN that probably have some kind of links to the old anti-fascist tradition, but that does not cancel the fact that LN has represented in Italy a part of the right-wing from the mid '90s until today. In the coalition governments with PdL, LN always was the right-wing fraction of the coalition, and its ministers the most right-wing in recent history. --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not a balanced picture. The party, which was to the left of the PdL, is practically centrist (as its policies, including both right- and left-wing itemes, just think of pension reform) and it is no surprise that it was able to forge an alliance with the M5S. Its current success with voters is the result of its big tent, not ideology. None of the so-called right-wing populist parties has achieved LN's electoral strength, especially in highly developed areas such as Lombardy and Veneto. The LN is entirely different. It is a stable government party, not an insurgent populist one. --Checco (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry Checco, but I do not agree with anything you said. I think your view might be biased on this. LN a stable government party? I don't think so! Not for the current government and not even for the old ones since it made Berlusconi fall the first time they were together. Also, seriously to the left of PdL? Lega is a party which is born out of Northern separatism, which is based on racial slurs against southern Italians emigrating to the North. More right-wing than this I don't know what can be. On all social issues is right-wing: immigration, abortion, divorce, same-sex marriage, religion in schools, and many others. The pension reform is not in principle a "leftist" thing only because it says "pension" in it, and by the way social reforms can also be part of right-wing policies (even fascism made pension reforms, does this mean it is a centrist ideology?) --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

This discussion would reach a conclusion quicker if it were based on what reliable sources say. Wikipedia is based on those, not our opinions. What do RS say about Lega Nord?

Here are some academic sources that do support describing the party as to the right: [4], [5]. And here's a journalistic piece: [6] Bondegezou (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no broad consensus on that. In most cases, users are relying on recentism. That is a pity, but history will tell.

I am particularly sorry to read so many inaccurate comments by such a good user as Ritchie92.

• The LN has been in goverment many times (1994–1995, 2001–2006, 2008–2011 and 2018–present) and, while being in government, it always increased its poll ratings: just this is an evidence that it is not a right-wing populist party, as the so-called right-wing populist parties usually do not take part to governments or those governments are not stable. This is just a detail by the way. The following issues are more relevant.
• At its beginnings, when the party was more separatist than today, it was clearly on the left, so what? Most Catalan and Scottish separatists are leftists! "More right-wing than this I don't know what can be" is thus a very inaccurate opinion.
• It is true that the party has moved to the right in recent years. However, it does not oppose legal abortion and divorce (only individual members do, like in each and every party): where did you read that? That is totally inaccurate. In fact, it was once in favour of same-sex marriage (the only party at the time), but of course that is no longer the case. It was once very anti-clerical too. Anyway, no major political party in Italy supports same-sex marriage and opposes religion in schools. Again, so what? Is the Democratic Party, which does not support same-sex marriage and does not oppose religion in schools (churchgoers are more likely to vote Democrat, according to Ipsos), a right-wing populist party too?
• Finally, immigration. While Salvini speaks tough on illegal immigrants, he is very friendly with regular ones, whome he frequently calls his "brothers". It is no suprise that Italy has only one African-born black senator and he is a member of the LN. More interestingly, Salvini's policies on illegal immigrants are not particularly different from those of the PD and its latest ministry of the Interior, Minniti.

The LN, especially under Salvini, is popular with voters because it has a very broad, "ecumenical" appeal. It defintely turns down far less voters than under Bossi "the rib of the left" and Maroni "the moderate". Again, history will tell. --Checco (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Ps: Before someone raises the issue of Euroscepticism, please remind that the LN is one of the few parties in Europe supporting the direct election of the President of the European Commission, as well as more powers for the European Parliament.

Checco, again, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Do you have reliable sources supporting your position? We do have RS saying the party as to the right. RS >> editors' opinions. Bondegezou (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course, everything is already sourced in the article. --Checco (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I have few things to say about what my friend Checco wrote:

• Ok, Lega is a stable "government party", but I sinclery don't understand why this should prevent it to be considered a right-wing populist party. The Austrian FPÖ, the Hungarian Fidesz, the True Finns party, or the Norway's Progress Party had governed their respective countries for many years, but they are still considered right-wing populist parties.
• Yes, I mostly agree on this second point. At its beginning, LN wasn't a right-wing party (for example Lega supported the technocratic government of Lamberto Dini along with the PDS) and Bossi was a strong anti-fascist but his views on Southern Italians cannot be properly considered progressive ideas. Probably in many other countries they would be labeled as racist statements at all.
• Regarding party's recent views on religion, well I think it's too soon to discuss about them. Yes, it seems that Salvini always has a rosary in his pocket and Fontana is, without any doubt, one of the most ultra-Catholic minister in the recent history of this Republic, but I think that we would fall into recentism, in labeling Lega about its new religious view.
• Sorry but, I don't agree with what you've said about immigration. Which party, a part the Nazi ones, are against legal immigration? Who can be so biased to be against regular immigrants (maybe even with a degree) in its own country? Is Trump against legal migrants? Probably not. But is Trump against undocumented migrants? Yes, in fact he is considered a right-wing populist, as Salvini. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, also progressive parties are "against" undocumented migrants. More important, also progressive parties can be separatist. Regarding Bossi, I do not think he was ever racist with southern Italians, but definitely the LN under Salvini has actually moderated its rethoric. --Checco (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Lega’s abbreviation

We all agreed that the name of Salvini’s party is still Lega Nord, however have you ever seen it abbreviated with the letters “LN”? The party has been always shortened “Lega” so, why souldn’t we use it? Something similar happens to German Greens (Grüne) and The Left (Linke). -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I thought the rule was to take the initials of the party's official name. If this is not the case, and we are taking the rule of the most common short-name for the party, then it is true that Lega Nord is commonly known as "Lega" (and it has been called Lega also in the past decades) so, if we decide to do so, I would change it in all opinion polling lists of Italian elections, also the old ones. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course, the new abbreviation should be inserted in all the articles, and so this one isn't the most appropriate talk page to discuss about it. However, I'd wait for other opinions. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I am confused. However, in the party's article I would continue to use the LN abbreviation, while in articles on elections the Lega abbreviation might be more correct. In fact, electorally speaking, we are not talking about the LN (which is active only north of Rome), but about a larger list including also Us with Salvini and/or Lega Salvini Premier and minor parties. In this context, Lega might be better. --Checco (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok I think we could use "Lega" abbreviation for 2018 election and also for the next one. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

So, to establish a rule, where do we use "LN" and where "Lega"? I think it's better to make a decision valid also for all the past governments and elections, and for the near future. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

In my view, "Lega" should be used only in articles on elections, governments, etc. since 2018. Possibly, one day we will have an article on the new League and this new party will encompass or replace the current LN (we do not know yet). In that case, the "Lega" links should be redirected to the new article. Nothing is certain at this point. What is sure is that, while the LN is still formally active only in northern and central Italy (not including Lazio) and most Lega MPs hail from the LN—and the Centre-North, Lega is basically an electoral list, including also Us with Salvini / Lega Salvini Premier and minor parties, notably including the Sardinian Action Party, whose leader is running for President of Sardinia, and the Italian Liberal Party. As of now, I do not support the creation of a new article on such "Lega". --Checco (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes I don't think Lega needs a different article distinguished from Lega Nord (unless Lega Nord dissolves, but we cannot predict the future, can we?). I actually do not agree entirely with your view on the satellite parties. Lega Salvini Premier is just the electoral logo of Lega Nord in the last election, and in the 2018 elections the party ran its candidates in Southern regions with the same symbol as in the North, that is "Lega Salvini Premier". If the rationale here is to use the party's nickname in the opinion polling lists and wherever the abbreviations are needed, then I would use "Lega" in all abbreviations, even before 2018 (because it has been called "Lega" always, like the Democratic Party has been called "PD" always) and use the full "Lega Nord" in the normal text. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

In Parliament records Lega Nord has always been shortened to LN (sometimes, LNP from "Lega Nord Padania"). Moreover, I think it is useful to differentiate the pre-2018 LN from the 2018-onwards electoral list. I insist on calling "Lega" an electoral list. To be more precise, the list was named "Lega Salvini Premier" (while being registered at the ministry of the Interior as Lega Nord) and the new parliamentary groups were named accordingly. What is happening now is that the larger Lega (that is LN+NcS) is recruiting members as "Lega Nord (per l'indipendenza della Padania)" in the Centre-North and as "Lega per Salvini Premier" (that is not the same as "Lega Salvini Premier") in the Centre-South. It is a complicate, ongoing, intriguing, uncertain evolution. --Checco (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of the fact that the "new" Lega is not the "old" Lega Nord but honestly the various list alliances and endorsements are not relevant here. The point here is how to abbreviate the official party name "Lega Nord per l'indipendenza della Padania" and "Lega con Salvini Premier". As far as I understand you want to distinguish the two, branding the first as "LN" and the second as "Lega". But nobody ever called the Lega Nord "LN", while on the contrary "FI", "PD", "M5S" are all commonly used abbreviations. My proposal (and I think also Nick.mon's original idea if I understood correctly) is to use the common "journalistic" nickname for Lega Nord, that is "Lega", for all abbreviations of Lega Nord throughout the last 20+ years. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I strongly oppose that for several reasons, including consistency. --Checco (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this was exactly my original idea. Even when it was named Lega Nord, no one abbreviated it LN, even if per consistency we should use LN. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I am absolutely against using the abbreviation "Lega" before 2018, it is not true that the acronym LN was not used. The only acronym widely used for current parties is PD, but the acronyms are also used for the other parties, Northern League included. A quick search on the web is enough to see that LN has been frequently used for this party. Instead the abbreviation "L" is really bad, I am in favor of replacing it with "LEGA". --Wololoo (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

"LEGA" (in uppercase) is quite horrible (as well as "L"). In any case, "LN" was very rare but we can keep it from 1992 until 2014 (EP election). -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I strongly agree with User:Wololoo: The LN acronym has been used a lot! In my view, the LN should be used always and everywhere, except for elections, Parliament and governments since 2018. In regional elections, the local "national" sections of the LN should be mentioned too. --Checco (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

PaP ideology

There is a user (User:Helper201) who's engaging in an edit war (see [7]) about PaP's political ideology. Some of his/her comments are also plainly wrong since in their manifesto it is indeed mentioned the word "communist" (comunista in Italian). While it is almost sure that PaP is not a big tent party, however I think for now communism can be acceptable, even though probably far-left or left-wing populism could be better. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, in regard to the manifesto I was reading the English version, which does not mention communism. However, communism is still listed as one of many ideologies. It is not listed as the main or primary ideology of the coalition. In regards to an ideology I added big tent as it contains a range of ideologies from the left and far-left. I don't think adding left-wing or far-left politics pages would be helpful as these are positions, not ideologies. As also stated many of the communist parties within the coalition have recently left according to its Wikipedia page. Helper201 (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

"Big tent" is not a definitory term for "a range of ideologies from the left and far-left", and if little doubt arises on whether the coalition is indeed a left-wing party then the issue is over. There are plenty of sources at Power to the People (Italy) describing the coalition as either left-wing or far-left, but none that describes it as "big tent". In my view, either communism, democratic socialism, left-wing populism or libertarian socialism could be used, but definitely not "big tent". Impru20^talk 12:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware that big tent was never a perfect solution. However it must be remembered this is a political coalition containing multiple parties and ideologies. I'm not pushing for this, I just thought of it as an encompassing compromise, as I could see potential future dispute regarding what its primary ideology is, as it doesn't seem to have specified one. Out of the options listed I'd probably go with left-wing populism as its the most encompassing of many ideologies. Helper201 (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, big tent has been used to effectively describe parties on the left that encompass a range of ideologies and positions across the left (from centre-left, to left-wing, to far-left) as seen on the page Syriza, which has been cited in each of those three political position categories. You could potentially use the same descriptor here (big tent of the left) although this is in regards to a political position on the political spectrum, not ideally something for an ideology section. Helper201 (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not rely on speculation. You do not have to justify why do you see the party as a big tent one, but rather, to provide a reliable source that describes the party as big tent. Otherwise, this is original research territory. Impru20^talk 12:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I was attempting to simply add something that encompassed what was cited, based off of long standing consensus on other pages. Although I can see why you label this as original research, that was not my intent, I was simply attempting a compromise that would not result in constant dispute and editing warring regard the coalition's main ideology. However, keeping the main ideology as communism is little more justifiable than big tent, because likewise a reliable source is needed that this is the coalition's main ideology. This has simply been plucked out of a list of ideologies from the coalition's page and is no more justifiable than any other listed there. It too is original research because it is based purely on an editors perspective of what the main ideology is. Helper201 (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I can see it debatable whether communism should be shown as the main ideology; however, it is indeed better than big tent. Communism has at least one source at the coalition's article and we know that at least some of its constituent parties share this ideology or some elements of it. Original research refers to material for which no reliable, published sources exist, which is the case for "big tent" but not for "communism". As said, debatable, but surely not at the same level. Impru20^talk 13:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I can your point, that's why I stated 'little more justifiable'. However, is still weighted without any justification. How about, either leave the section blank (with a note on the editing page that it is a coalition with multiple ideologies), or state clearly in italics something along the following lines - coalition with multiple ideologies, coalition, or no primary ideology? Helper201 (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Impru20, User:Ritchie92, User:Nick.mon, and any and all others, I have listed some alternative options in the above post due to the reasons I have outlined throughout the discussion. Attempting a resolution by listing a range of options, as there are recognised issues with what is currently stated, as stated by editors other than myself (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party, Wikipedia:Negotiation). Helper201 (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to leave it empty, because ultimately one could end up arguing this for every other party in the list. I think we could use the left-wing populism label shown at Power to the People (Italy). It is a somewhat less specific label than others such as communism or democratic socialism, and it also uses a secondary source, which has more value and is opposed to other ideologies using a primary source. Impru20^talk 14:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree and would support that over what is currently listed. I'd advocate we change it to that unless anyone else advocates any of the other options I have listed above, or have any other alternatives of their own. Helper201 (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

PaP is definitely and predominantly communist, but my question is: is it relevant here? Its main members quit. --Checco (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@User:Checco, could you please provide some evidence that the coalition is - in its current form now that most of its communist member parties have left - as you say, "definitely and predominantly communist"? Otherwise this is original research. Its relevance is debatable. Should we include coalitions and/or parties that do not currently hold any elected office? The only reason why it may be acceptable to list them is because they are included in opinion polls. Helper201 (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I know that I cannot easily get away with it, but PaP's communism is quite self-evident: most of its members are communists. Its main member parties, the PRC and the PCI, have left, but what remains is probably even more radical than those two parties. --Checco (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem is you have provided no evidence whatsoever for these claims. I see absolutely no evidence that communism is currently the coalitions main and primary ideology. Also, just because the party may be more radical now than previously has nothing to do with the question of whether or not its main ideology is communism. Helper201 (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Let alone its former members PRC and PCI, also PaP leader describes PaP as communist (see here. What would be your classification? "Left-wing populism"? "Socialism"? It is not such a big deal to me. --Checco (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I was going to say that source helps but the problem is the source is from August 2018. That is after the PCI split from the coalition but while the PRC was still a member at that time. Ideally we need a source that talks about the ideology of the party between November 2018 and now. As by that point all its current splits had occurred. I don't have any specific classification I'm pushing for, just one that is up to date and most representative of the coalition as a whole. This appears to need more discussion and views, but crucially more recent sources. Helper201 (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You are right on this. However, let me tell you, PaP will be so irrelevant in the next election (it will either be merged with other parties or will get a fraction of its former share, that was primarily the result of the presence of structured parties, mainly the PRC), that nobody will care about it! I am quite sure that it will no longer be mentioned in opinion polls after the EP election. Thus, if you find newer sources, that is great; if not, time will tell us! Let's see if my prediction is correct. --Checco (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Section about 2019 Italian government crisis

Since the 2019 Italian government crisis ended with the formation of a new government, I think it's superfluous to tell the story of the crisis in this page, since it won't bring to the next election. @Aréat: saying that something should stay because we're not sure it won't happen would justify the addition of almost anything on Wikipedia, like an alien invasion or the end of civilization. I think this constitutes WP:CRYSTAL. Furthermore, the whole section is copy-pasted from an already-existing article, i.e. 2019 Italian government crisis. So I could agree to just leave the "see also" link. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you should rather sum up the section and leave the "See also" link than delete everything. The informations are important for the context of the next election, for example to understand the polls. They are the infos we always bring up whenever we do make a Context section in an election page : "What important coalition events happened since the last one". --Aréat (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

A short "background" section should be part of the article. Let's have it as short as possibile, for now. --Checco (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Parties in infobox

I think six parties in the infobox are a bit too much, what was the decision about this? Also what is the order they are shown? I would keep ordering them basen on the result of the last election. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I would have just three: M5S, PD and LN. --Checco (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, in my view three are correct, but if we decide to order them basing on MPs, FI should be put in the infobox instead of PD and it would be a bit wrong, considering that the PD is the second party in polls. If we had to put three parties, I'd order them on the last electoral result, so: M5S, PD, Lega -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's use share of vote, indeed. Otherwise, also the LN would be larger than the PD. --Checco (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Elections are about winning seats, not vote share. Consensus from previous infobox discussions on election articles is that we order by seats. Bondegezou (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Bondegezou, let's just use the number of seats won in the previous election. That would leave M5S, then LN, then PD. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Let's go with that. What is most important is not to move parties according to their current number of seats, which is always variable, especially in Italy, especially these days. --Checco (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Results of RfC

@Ritchie92: I will not claim to be neutral, but the RfC has expired and by my count there was a consensus to expand the infobox to six parties, at least until coalitions form, as they did in the last election (even if/when that happens, my argument would be to keep an inclusive infobox with a new "alliance" field, like with Next Turkish parliamentary election, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it), with only 1 editor arguing to keep it to three, 2 at a stretch. If we wait for a purportedly neutral editor to come along, notice the talk page and implement the new consensus, we'll be waiting a long time. Claiming that my edit to reflect consensus is invalid because I'm not neutral is bonkers. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

First of all, consensus is not exactly a vote count. Also, there was a total of six editors involved in the RfC, including the OP. If the outcome is 3-2 (excluding the OP) I wouldn't say there is consensus even if we were based on the vote count. So there was no established consensus, also because the discussion seemed to die without an (even partial) agreement between the parties. Now, this edit that changed the previous status quo was the bold one, not based on a consensus; my revert was not bold, instead it can be considered the second step of WP:BRD. Instead you urged me to follow BRD as if my revert was the bold edit! This is a very imaginative interpretation of BRD. If we wait for a purportedly neutral editor to come along, notice the talk page and implement the new consensus, we'll be waiting a long time, yes that's the idea when one starts an RfC. In this case the discussion died, and the thing you could have done was to either restore the RfC tag on top and wait for more comments, or file a request for closure. Anyway since I am a neutral spectator of this, I was just interested in the method of resolving a dispute via RfC. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

In fact, results seem to be much more complicated than what Nevermore27 claims. Only the OP (and possibly Adoring nanny, though they stated at least six) expressed an unambiguous opinion in favour of the six party-version. Number57 and Bondegezou supported more parties being added, but also expressed support for {{Infobox legislative election}}. Checco and myself showed support for {{Infobox legislative election}} as well. Nick.mon commented in favour of three parties in {{Infobox election}} when the new election will be held, but did not voice an opinion in favour of either the six party-version or TILE. This would leave only 2 in favour of this edit to 4 that would see favourably the use of {{Infobox legislative election}} until the next election is held. If we consider inclusiveness and that only the OP did expressly oppose the use of TILE, this would leave a 5–1 result for a proposal other than theirs. Impru20^talk 12:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The vote count, as it were, was squarely against the status quo [up until the (hypothetical) point when coalitions form], so if I concede that I jumped the gun and there isn't a clear consensus for what to do, the next step would be to decide what the solution is, not go back to the flawed status quo. Nevermore27 (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why would "excluding the OP" be a valid way to interpret results? Does my voice count less for some reason? Nevermore27 (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Counting votes is the wrong way to interpret the results in any case. So including or excluding the OP doesn't matter. But anyway, with the RfC you requested the opinions of other editors to support/oppose your proposal, so I was counting the responders' opinions to have an idea of the popularity of your proposal. But again, we are talking about nothing because conflict resolution is not about counting votes. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with and thank User:Ritchie92 and User:Impru20. No new consensus was formed and, however, a more general discussion should in case be done, as there are several articles that should be consistent with each other. --Checco (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I only resorted to the status quo version because of WP:BRD, and because while there may be a consensus for a change to the current version, it does have an higher degree of consensus (if only under WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS) than the alternative.

@Checco: There is only one "Next Italian general election" article, so whatever format is used for this one does not necessarily affect other ones (indeed, another proposal which received some support is for one infobox style being using until the next election is held, then resort to the usual style of previous articles). Impru20^talk 14:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

And I oppose that. The same format should be adopted here and for past elections. --Checco (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with this, specially when a consensus for previous elections already exists on the current format. The issue only rose up for this article because no formal alliances are established yet (which is a circumstance only affecting this election because it has not been held yet), so you can't really arrange parties into two or three major poles as you could in earlier elections. Impru20^talk 14:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Temporary Infobox view

Since Italy currently clearly has more than three major political subjects in the both chambers, I suggest switch to an more appropriate and more more informative view, as an temporary pre-election infobox, modeled on the current Next United Kingdom general election article, 2021 Dutch general election, or on Next Danish general election article, for example. See my previous revision from 13 February 2021 at the article, as example. –WalterII (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with this. Number 57 18:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I am also interested, provided that we can add columns with 2018 percentage and 2018 seats too. --Checco (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
    • For future elections, the infobox only displays current seats, not the results of the previous election. Number 57 21:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I definitely agree with this. Italian general elections are legislative, so the appropriate infobox should be used. --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree too with these statements above. Vacant0 (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

That's OK. However, parties and seats should be the same of the "Parties and leaders" table. --Checco (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

A note about the maps.

Hello! If you look at the top of the page you will see a few maps. Two for each chamber. A FPTP map and a PR map. These maps will be done by coalition. Seeing as we are two months out, they will be updated as things develop but I thought the traditional groupings + SvP would be a good start. For the PR seats, I may add in individual parties or I may make that a separate map for that. If you have questions or suggestions, please give them to me. Best regards, Talleyrand6 (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, for the PR seats I think that individual parties should be shown rather than coalitions. Thanks, Yakme (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Talleyrand6: please keep in mind that, following the approval of Constitutional Law No. 1/2021, the minimum voting age for the Senate of the Republic will be the same as for the Chamber of Deputies (18 years old and no longer 25), so that for the first time the two Chambers will have identical electoral bodies and, for this reason, eventually the same political results/majorities. --Holapaco77 (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

for this reason, eventually the same political results/majorities This is not mathematically true, because there are two separate votes, one for the Chamber and one for the Senate. So in principle a voter can cast votes for two separate parties in the C and the S. Yakme (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Theoretically, yes. In practice, lol, no. The two results will be very similar. Talleyrand6 (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not so straightforward at all, and I am serious. Not only people can split the vote between S and C, but also the FPTP constituencies in the Senate and Chamber are completely different. So I am pretty sure that the majorities in the two houses will not be equal. Similar, sure, but not equal. Yakme (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

In addition, the PR portion is calculated in two different ways: on regional level for the Senate, on national level for the Chamber. This doesn't guarantee same results in both chambers (probably similar, but different majorities might still be possible). P1221 (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Talleyrand6: can you make please also the maps of votes in the Overseas constituencies? (still missing those maps for the 2018 Italian general election). --Holapaco77 (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  This could easily be added, but we would need to know the apportionment in those constituencies for 2022. Gust Justice (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  Overseas constituencies are the same of 2018 election (just changed the numbet of MP elected).--Holapaco77 (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Italia Sovrana e Popolare

Hi everybody, I've a question about "Italia Sovrana e Popolare", the anti-establishment red-brown list. Do you think we could use the English translation? I mean, imho "Sovereign and People's Italy" is a good translation, but I prefer to have opinions by other users, maybe native ones like Autospark. Thank you! -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The order should be either "Popular and Sovereign Italy" or "People's and Sovereign Italy", according to what User:Autospark will tell us. --Checco (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I prefer "Popular and Sovereign Italy", which is a good translation, alluding to the concept of a popular front.--Autospark (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I think "Sovereign and Popular Italy" is more correct and respects the order of the words found in the Italian name. P1221 (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

In English language the order is the opposite. Just think of each and every political party's name. --Checco (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Not when there is a conjunction in the name. Example: Democratic and Progressive Italy (from Italian "Italia Democratica e Progressista"). P1221 (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

That is true. If our native English-speaker User:Autospark agrees, let's go with "Sovereign and Popular Italy". --Checco (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with "Sovereign and Popular Italy" as suggested by Checco, and thanks to P1221 for the clarification on Italian grammar.--Autospark (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

No Italian page?

It has been well over a week since parliament was dissolved and there is still no Italian language page for the 2022 election. Is there some legal reason for this? It seems bizarre. 2601:5C6:8180:BAD0:34DA:7232:769B:E4A2 (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

That's because it.Wiki is always dramatically slow in approving new pages and articles, even in cases like this one. -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

it.wiki enforces the WP:RECENTISM in a very, very strict way. It isn't almost possible to publish anything that is still covered by newspapers. As example, the italian article about the war in Ukraine was published in late March after very heated debates and I see it didn't get almost any update since then...

In fact, I see that the Italian page is still a draft, its publication rejected because too recent, and the main page was already deleted 9 times... :-) P1221 (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

But, luckily, there are good users like User:Nick.mon, User:P1221, etc., working here on en.Wiki, which is obviously the most-read and leading of Wikipedias... --Checco (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Threshold for coalitions still 10 percent, right?

Nothing in the article about the threshold for coalitions of multiple parties running together, only the 3 percent barrier for single parties or joint lists is mentioned. This source speaks about a 10 percent threshold for coalitions: https://www.coe.int/en/web/electoral-assistance/elecdata-italy -- 93.206.52.103 (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You are right. However, it is a quite complicate issue. Practically-speaking, when a coalition gains more than 10% of the vote, the votes obtained by the member-parties having obtained at least 1% of the vote go to the parties, within the coalition, having obatined at least 3%. I will simply mention the 10% threshold, but is there anyone capable of explaining it? Thanks, --Checco (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

About the leaders section of the Italian political parties

I feel we should add Matteo Renzi as leader alongside Carlo Calenda within the Italia Viva and Action alliance seeing as he is the leader of Italia Viva. 82.132.221.186 (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Calenda was designed as the joint list's leader, as well as Lupi was designed for Us Moderates. --Checco (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Symbols

Should we include the presented symbols? 2022 Slovenian parliamentary election, 2022 Latvian parliamentary election, 2022 French presidential election and the German wikipedia for the 2021 German federal election list all parties which had been registered, got sponsored and/or allowed to run.

@Checco, Scia Della Cometa, Nick.mon, and Broncoviz: what do you think? Braganza (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but I wouldn't include the symbols presented in these days at the Viminale since most of them won't get past the minimum signatures required. Broncoviz (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it is necessary. I believe that the presentation of the major lists is sufficient, while all the other lists that will participate in the elections will still be listed together with the election results. Instead, I do not think it is useful to list the parties that are presenting the symbol at the Interior Ministry these days, some of them are de facto non-existent.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer not to include symbols in the article. Party colours are fine. Thanks for asking! --Checco (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Parties in infobox, redux

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Peer Ritchie33, there's no strong consensus to show 6 parties here. If consensus changes, however, the approach Number57 demonstrated packs the most information in the most convenient area IHMO -- as much as an uninvolved drive-by opinion counts. Also closing related meta-discussion. -- llywrch (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

---

• Next Spanish general election
• Next German federal election
• Next Icelandic parliamentary election
• Next Irish general election
• Next Ukrainian parliamentary election
• 2019 Polish parliamentary election

All of these pages show the next elections in European countries with multiparty systems, all with more than three significant parties, to varying degrees. More than three, consequently, are shown. Italy should be no different, and personal opinions on which party(ies) are going to be "important" are irrelevant. Nevermore27 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

At this point, there is no consensus on your bold edit. We had discussions on the issue here and, especially, at Talk:2001 Italian general election. Of course, we can discuss again, but, until a new consensus is reached, the previous established, consensual version should stay. Per Wikipedia:Consensus, "in discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". I will rollback your bold and not consensual edit, but I am also ready to discuss. --Checco (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Checco: Ok so what are the arguments in favor of restricting the number of parties in the infobox, out of line with all other multiparty democracies, other than (as I can see above) "I don't want more than three"? Nevermore27 (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Should the infobox include the top six parties instead of restricting it to the top three? Nevermore27 (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Next Italian general election

No later than 1 June 2023

All 400 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and 200 seats in the Senate of the Republic

Party Leader Current seats Chamber of Deputies Five Star Movement Vito Crimi (acting) Lega Matteo Salvini Democratic Party Nicola Zingaretti Forza Italia Silvio Berlusconi Brothers of Italy Giorgia Meloni Italia Viva Matteo Renzi Free and Equal Collective leadership C!−NcI−AdC−USEI Giovanni Toti Azione–+Eu–RI Carlo Calenda MAIE–PSI Ricardo Antonio Merlo Europa Verde Collective leadership Senate Five Star Movement Vito Crimi (acting) Lega–PSd'Az Matteo Salvini Forza Italia–UDC Silvio Berlusconi Democratic Party Nicola Zingaretti Brothers of Italy Giorgia Meloni Italia Viva–PSI Matteo Renzi Eur–MAIE–CD Collective leadership For the Autonomies Julia Unterberger Free and Equal Collective leadership C!−IdeA Giovanni Toti Azione–+Eu Carlo Calenda Incumbent Prime Minister Mario Draghi Independent

• Yes Italy clearly has more than three major parties and excluding Berlusconi's party is very odd. I would go even further and include all the parties currently holding seats, using {{Infobox legislative election}}. It could look something like the one to the right (although with the Senate leaders used for the second section rather than repeating the party leaders). Number 57 13:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Number 57's approach looks good. Most (but not all) infoboxes use a cut off of including everyone who's won a seat (or everyone who won a seat at the last election if for a forthcoming election). Another approach, which some articles have done, is to not use an infobox at all before the election because it's too complicated to work out in an unbiased way who to include. That said, there is some separation between the top 6 parties and everyone else, so the top 6 would be acceptable (and definitely better than just the top 3). Bondegezou (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I see justification for showing only three slots for Italian elections because of Italy's political & electoral system allowing for electoral coalitions to be formed without a need for full list merging (unlike Spain, Poland or such where electoral alliances imply joint lists). This typically leads to only two or three major "poles" being formed, in a similar fashion as the UK political system for most of the 1945–2015 period. However, I think there is some sense for not doing this until such alliances are confirmed, because in the inter-election period parties are shown separately, leading to the notable omission of relevant parties such as FI and FdI if the three-slot scheme is applied. Commenting on Number 57 and Bondegezou, I think a compromise similar to what was done for 2019 United Kingdom general election could be reached: use {{Infobox legislative election}} to show all parties before the election is held, then change it to {{Infobox election}} once detailed and final data is available. TIE is more informative when it comes to results, popular vote and the such, but I understand that, before we know the actual results, it is somewhat premature and discriminatory to make the infobox too restrictive, so TILE would better fit that purpose in such a case and until the election is held. What do you think? Impru20^talk 14:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that could work well. It is much easier after the election has actually happened to decide what makes sense in an infobox. Before the election has happened, it's difficult, which is why I generally favour erring on the side of inclusiveness or just not bothering with an infobox. (Wikipedia guidance is clear that infoboxes are entirely optional, not a necessity.) Bondegezou (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment While I don't have a problem in principal with the infobox type to the right, the fact that it's a dual-chamber election and the parties' leaders sit in either chamber make it a bit weird. My personal preference, were we to resolve to increase the number of parties in the infobox would be to use the generic {{Infobox election}} like in the examples above. Nevermore27 (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Infobox legislative election}}, which is extensively used only for Israeli elections (as far as I know), would be the best solution and, actually, I would make it the standard version in virtually parliamentary election articles, replacing {{Infobox election}}. However, as far as the latter is used here, no more than three parties should be shown, otherwise the infobox would be too long: for extensive infos, take a look at the article! There is no reason for having big infoboxes. --Checco (talk) 09:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

When the new election will be held, I strongly support the use of the current format, because is by far the most-used in Wikipedia. Regarding the number of parties included in it, I would keep three of them, or at least six, not more. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I suggest content is more important than format. Thus, I suggest deciding what parties to include and then picking the infobox format that displays those parties best (bearing in mind that MOS:INFOBOX does say, as Checco mentioned, that we should not have outsized infoboxes). Most Wikipedia election articles are more inclusive of parties. Bondegezou (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• At least six per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Italy has a lot of viable parties, so it is reasonable to consider them key facts, which is what the info box is supposed to show. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I would actually chose the template first. I would prefer {{Infobox legislative election}}, but, if {{Infobox election}} is confirmed, I would have no more than three parties or coalitions mentioned. As of today, the electoral law still has coalitions in it. --Checco (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

As I suggested, using TILE until the election is held, then TIE once results come out and we can determine the exact number of main poles at stake, could be a good compromise that would probably solve everyone's concerns. Impru20^talk 18:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Not a fan of different yardsticks being used for similar elections pages (as above) based on personal peccadilloes. We should use TIE everywhere (or TILE everywhere, but my preference is for the former). Nevermore27 (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, even countries have have defined coalitions/alliances can have more than three spots in the infobox, as with Next Turkish parliamentary election. Nevermore27 (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Leaders' portraits

Hi, can someone find better pictures for the leaders in the infobox? Pinging Nick.mon who is usually the one uploading pictures. I think that the customary Parliament portraits look really sad and "anonymous" even though they are official. Yakme (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Yeah, I agree. As of now, we have Lupi, Bonelli and Fratoianni with the official images from the Parliament’s website. I’ll try to find something as soon as I can but I don’t know if there’re some “free” pictures to use. -- Nick.mon (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Also Salvini's portrait is very old (2017) and not very good. Yakme (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyright of opinion polls

Is it legal to copy all the results of opinion polls conducted by private companies (published on their copyrighted sites or on the copyrighted site of the commissioner), and then to paste all these copyrighted data into the table of the Wikipedia entry? All regular? Just an example: in the table of Opinion polling for the 2022 Italian general election I see the results of the 8-11 August opinion poll made by Tecnè srl (whose site says "Copyright @ 2022 Tecnè Italia. All rights reserved") on behalf of the commissioner RTI spa-Mediaset (whose site used as the source of the poll expressly states: "Copyright © 1999-2022 RTI S.p.A. - All rights reserved"). How "copyrighted data" can be compatible with the free licence used by wikipedia? Holapaco77 (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not expert in US legal system, but probably this falls within the "fair use" concept, so data can be cited. Wikipedia has many articles regarding opinion polls full of data (see here and here, for instance), so I believe that this question was already sorted out somehow in the past. I can't find any past discussions though: if you are still curious, I suggest you to ask this question at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums talk page. P1221 (talk) 09:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)