Talk:1996 Italian general election

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Italian general election, 1996. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051018143246/http://politiche.interno.it/dati/camera/21aprile1996.zip to http://politiche.interno.it/dati/camera/21aprile1996.zip

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Moving election results to a separate article

@Davide King: honestly, I don't agree with the move of the election results to a separate page, the remaining tables were designed only to give a general summary of the parties that have won seats. I think we need a discussion on this topic... Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

"... the remaining tables were designed only to give a general summary of the parties that have won seats", but don't they two tables I left already do that? They include all parties that won seats and both FPTP and PR. What did I miss? What tables do you think should be added back? I removed the 'Detailed results' because one (for the Chamber) was two tables for FPTP and PR, while the other is a single one (for the Senate) including both FPTP and PR; if you can do for the Chamber what was done for a Senate (single table), that can certainly be put back. We should focus to improve and expand the article with references. Davide King (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Davide King: Do you mean one unique table (like those on the page) including results of all parties for each chamber? It seems quite complicated to me. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. See this and this. One table in 'Detailed results' (the Chamber) is in fact two tables (one for FPTP and one for PR), the other 'Detailed results' table (the Senate) is in fact one table (includes both FTPT and PR). If we change it be consistent and make the the two tables into a single one ... never mind, I just realized there may be a reason it's like that, perhaps because of the electoral law. Anyway, if we can get those two tables the same structure, they can be re-added. If they're structured like this due to soomthing beyond them like the electoral law and can't be simplified into a single one like the other, they can be re-added, while the others remain at the main article and we can use the saved space to expand the article in prose. Davide King (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Davide King: The different structure is due to the different electoral system envisaged for the Chamber and Senate by the Mattarellum law. With the Mattarellum law, the voter voted the deputies both with the proportional and with the FPTP system (in two separate ballots), while voted the senators exclusively with the FPTP system (in this case the proportional distribution took place automatically among the defeated candidates in the FPTP challenges). Did you mean this matter?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, thank you! In light of those, these two tables should probably be added here if you want to, while keeping the rest in the main article about the results. I hope this would be a nice compromise. Davide King (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Davide King So, we could restore on this page the two detailed tables of the Chamber and unify the results of the Senate in a single table (in the latter case, the presence of both overall results and detailed results effectively makes little sense).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)