Talk:2013 Italian general election

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dngvandaele.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

I added three new sections, corruption within, Electoral system brief history, Dngvandaele (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Last edits by Nick.mon

Regarding this edit by Nick.mon, which I rollbacked already once, I have to explain a couple of things:

• it is better to edit the metacolors and not the template in order to have the same colors for each party everywhere;
• the colors have to be at least close to those the parties use in real life (e.g. The Right never uses black!);
• Marco Staderini is the secretary of the Italian Radicals and Massimo Rossi is the coordinator of the Federation of the Left; it is true however that the informal leaders of the Radicals are Marco Pannella and Emma Bonino, while Paolo Ferrero and Oliviero Diliberto are the leaders of the Left.

This said, I will revert Nick.mon's changes on the colors (by reintroducing metacolors) and I will insert Pannella-Bonino and Ferrero-Diliberto. I hope Nick.mon will stop rollbacking without reason my edits and will appreciate the compromise. Everyone is free to edit metacolors, provided that they are appropriate.

Regards, --Checco (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok I think that use metacolors and insert Pannella-Bonino and Ferrero-Deiliberto is a good thing.

User:Nick.mon

OK, great! I will do the changes. Feel free to change metacolors through their templates (you'll find most of them at Category:Italy political party colour templates, but beaware that there are others, e.g. Template:Federation of the Greens/meta/color, which are not categorized). --Checco (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

2013 set

see bloomberg source, "at least 2 months of campaigning" so if it has to happen before April and with 2 months thne you cant have an election in the next 3 weeks(Lihaas (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)).

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved by Nightstallion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Next Italian general election → Italian general election, 2013 – There is surely no way this election can take place in 2012. PatGallacher (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support baring a power grab or major disaster the election will take place next year. I think we did the same for an article about a previous UK election disregarding arguments regarding the possibility that the election could have been hypothetically postponed since that had not happen in decades. Also as mentioned this year is out of the question.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Note - Date has been confirmed as 24–25 February 2013 so I have asked an admin to move page.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incorrect date for Berlusconi

The People of Freedom party has only been around since the late 2000s, so Berlusconi couldn't have been the leader since 1994. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

He is leader of the center-right coalition since 1994, if the party changed the name (Forza Italia, Polo delle Libertà, Popolo delle Libertà) it does'n change its leader; so we can consider Berlusconi leader since 1994. Stigni (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Grillo not running

Hi, I do not understand why does Beppe Grillo appear at Italian Elections 2013, since he is not running at these elections as a candidate to deputy, nor to President of the goverment, nor is the leader of the 5 Star Movement. As the Movement statues say, he is not the leader but just a speaker of the movement.

Cheers!

He is the founder and de facto leader of the 5 Star Movement. In public he is perceived as the movement's leader even if he does not officially hold this post. --RJFF (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the general impression can be that he is the leader of M5S, evendough in reality he is not. However, even if he was understood to be the leader, he is not running in these elections, in the same way that Umberto Bossi is the leader of the Lega Nord, but he does not appear at the 2013 elections becouse he is not running them. Usuario anonimo1234 (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

References

RC/FdS

Hm. Can someone explain to me what the situation is? I was under the impression that both PRC and PdCI supported the RC/Quarto Polo, so who exactly will be standing as FdS? Just Socialismo 2000 and Lavoro–Solidarietà? —Nightstallion 14:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

… apart from the fact that, apparently, after disunity regarding the position for the centre-left primary (three parties supported Vendola/Bersani, one opposed participation), FdS was dissolved more or less … —Nightstallion 18:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Merging the polling tables

Alright, it's time to discuss potentially merging the polling tables to something akin to the "Israeli legislative election, 2013" page.

The original rationale for a new table was the new parties, but new parties keep forming and dissolving, and we can't have a new table each time we want to add one in. Everything would be much more simple and clear if we had one big table. --4idaho (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Nick.mon/polling table

Nick, you can't keep reinserting that table. It violates wikipedia's objective positioning to highlight any one poll over another, and it's also unscientific to say that one poll means any more than any other. Polling derives its strength from averages; the more polls we have on this page, the more accurate it is.

Also, for some reason you included Civil Revolution in that polling table, when Civil Revolution is a coalition and not a party... but the other parties in the table were, well, parties. If the pollsters have been polling the coalitions then please, create a new polling table (without deleting the old one) and show Civil Revolution polled along side the other coalitions, such as "Monti's Agenda for Italy", "Italy. Common Good", ect.

I love what you did with the "Coalitions" section though. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4idaho (talk • contribs) 13:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Problem with leaders

The table of "Political forces or alliances" includes on the right a column entitled "leader". I think this is misleading. While each single party within a coalition (or on its own) may have a leader, the coalitions are obliged by law to present a candidate for Prime Minister (who may be said to be the "leader" of the coalition). I would suggest perhaps changing "Leader" into "Candidate for Prime Minister". This would reflect the true situation (the leaders of the individual parties would still appear in the following table). The only problem is that both Beppe Grillo and Berlusconi would have to be removed as neither are candidates for premier by their coalition or list. At the moment, anyway. Nestor.mcnab (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The coalitions are not obliged to present a candidate for prime minister, but a "leader of the political force/alliance". Often they are mistaken as official candidates for prime minister, but this is inexact. E.g. Lega Nord accepts Berlusconi as leader of the coalition, but not as prime minister candidate. And, as far as I know, Beppe Grillo is only "leader of the political force" Five Star Movement, but not prime minister candidate. --RJFF (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, thanks. Berlusconi is the head of the coalition, with Alfano as the PdL's candidate for PM and Tremonti as the Lega's.Nestor.mcnab (talk) 09:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

PD colour

For this election Bersani use the colour red for his campaign! P.S.: Orange is not a PD colour, but only the coulor used during the Foundation in 2006! --Cucchiaroni (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Photos?

Ehm... Can't the Berlusconi photo look less happy and the Bersani one less evil looking? Looks like a political message to me ( and I am not even italian...)

--Starmir (talk) 14:28, 07 Feb 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.232.110 (talk)

I'm not Italian either, but I see it differently. I don't think Bersani looks evil-looking. I think he has a more serious look, while Berlusconi's clownish joviality makes him look unsuited to the gravity of the economic situation that the country finds itself in. 86.129.251.254 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"Leader's seat": constituency where they are contesting?

Hello, as I understand the political system, candidates, both for the Chambre and the Senate, can only be voted for in specific regions of the country. Does "Leader's seat" mean that they were elected from that part last time? If so, then I am confused because for Bersani, it says "Milan-Rome-Palermo". Also, the article does not mention what the leaders are in fact campaigning for (a seat in the Chambre or the Senate)? I suspect that Monti himself cannot be on any list as he is a senator for life anyway, but I can't read Italian so it's hard for me to give reliable sources. Evilbu (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Evilbu. According to the Italian electoral law (porcellum, latin for "big pig" as called by its detractors) candidates run in regional or sub-regional constituencies (while parties run at-large for the House and in regional constituencies for the Senate). More, each candidate can run in many constituencies. Effectively the law does not allow the choise of a MP by his electors, and this is the major critic to the electoral law. --Barlafus (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

I think that until the election is over and the results are known, the infobox should only include the four major parties/political blocs that will enter the parliament for sure (Berlusconi's coalition, Centre-left, Monti's coalition and Five Star Movement). We should not include other parties that are uncertain to enter the parliament, unless we know the actual outcome of the election. The parties should be sorted by their numbers of seats in the outgoing parliament, not acording to scores in latest opinion polls, because opinion polls don't have the same value as actual elections and representation in parliament. --RJFF (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we could insert all the parties which entered in the parliament after the election. Between Monday and Tuesday we will know it.--Nick.mon (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Something wrong about the infobox: it says "first/second party", but it means "coalition". How to fix it?--Dans (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

camera :

PIER LUIGI BERSANI coalitie 340 SILVIO BERLUSCONI coalitie 124 GIUSEPPE PIERO GRILLO 108 MARIO MONTII coalitie 45

Senato :

SILVIO BERLUSCONI coalitie 116 PIER LUIGI BERSANI coalitie 113 GIUSEPPE PIERO GRILLO 54 MARIO MONTII coalitie 18

http://elezioni.interno.it/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.58.144.30 (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Provisional final results of Ministry

chamber:

Center Left 340 center right 124 M5S/Grillo 108 Monti 45 Other (Valle d'Aosta) 1 Foreign offices (tba) 12 Total: 630

Senate:

Centre Left 113 + 6 seats from Trentino / Alto Adige = 119 Center right116 + 1 seat Trentino / Alto Adige = 117 M5S/Grillo 54 Monti 18 Other (Valle d'Aosta) 1 Foreign offices (tba) 6 Total: 31581.58.144.30 (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.58.144.30 (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Party != Coalition

There's a major issue for me with the article, namely the fact that the infobox refers to party but instead gives data for the coalition. As there's quite a difference in the results between parties, it should absolutely be named "Majority coalition", etc. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree it would be nice to have it changed. In order to do so, we need one to update the infobox template itself as it has been hardcoded into that file. Danish Expert (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The first party is movimento cinque stelle of beppe grillo. pd with s.e.l and other parties are the first coalition, not the first parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.95.62.109 (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

How to display Coalition swing ?

Along the same lines, we right now also have to decide: How do we want to display electional swing? Currently we show the total "coallition seats" and not the "party seats". One should however keep in mind, that the "coalition sests won in the last election" were granted to different "coalition compositions" compared to the the "coalitions in todays election". In example Union of the Centre in 2008 participated as a stand-alone party, but in 2013 was a part of the "Monti coalition". Strictly speaking the "Monti coallition" is thus not a completely new structure, as it builded on the previous seats both in the House and Senate held by "Union of the Centre". In the infobox we however right now list the gained seats or gained vote percentages only according to the coalition, and as the coalition is new then all votes and seats are treated as being new. The Berlusconi coalition also had changes to its composition when comparing 2008 with 2013. In my point of view the unexplained swing data cause excessive confusion towards the casual reader. One option could be not to show swing data at all. Another option could be only to display "party swings" and not the "aggregated coalition swings". A third option is, that we could also continue the current practice to show "coalition swings", but then add a small note to the figures that the swing is calculated on basis of the seats+votes for the comparative (but not identical) coalition in the last election that supported the same "coalition leader in the list". My opinion is we need to implement one of these 3 solutions, but I will leave it up for you to decide which one of them is the best. Danish Expert (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't display them at all. The coalitions this time are not the same as in 2008. The centre-left alliance in 2008 included PD and IdV, which is part of Civil revolution (not part of the centre-left alliance) this time. The main components of the centre-left alliance this time are PD and SEL, which was still part of the Rainbow Left (not part of the centre-left alliance) last time. Therefore it is incorrect to just compare the numbers of seats and votes of the two, in fact different, coalitions. Same with Monti's coalition, which is just not the same as UdC in 2008. UdC is not even the main component of Monti's coalition this year. Civic Choice didn't even exist in 2008. FLI was still part of PdL and therefore of the centre-right alliance. So, it would be very inaccurate to equal the two groupings. With Italian fluctuating party system and parties crossing the aisle from one election to the next, it is just impossible to simply compare the two results. --RJFF (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

PATT-SVP and UPT are still independent parties?

In Trentino-Alto Adige (South Tyrol) we had the somewhat confusing alliance named SVP - PATT - PD - UPT. In the articles alliance chapter, UPT had been incorrectly listed as a Monti supporter, which I however now has corrected. This correction was supported by the fact, that the same chapter had listed a reference that referred to this SVP-PATT-PD alliance as being a signed pledge by SVP-PATT + possibly UPT elected candidates subsequently to support PD in all policy matters (with only autonomy questions being a matter of a possible third opinion). I also found another Italian article, that described the 3 elected candidates from within this aliance to belong to respectively SVP-PATT, PD and UPT. As I only have very limited knowledge about Italian politics, the small detail that I still seek an answer for, is whether or not it is true that PATT today is an integrated part of SVP? Or if it would be more correct still to list PATT as an independent party? If you look at the "party logo" on the Ministry of Interior's election result page, they have displayed almost identical logos for SVP and SVP-PATT, with the only difference being the bottom text of the logo saying respectively SVP and SVP-PATT. But does this reflect they have completely merged? Or is it just a logo-reflection to display they have a past habbit of forming an electoral alliance? Danish Expert (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

After reading the Wikipedia articles for the two parties (incl. the Italian Wikipedia), it appear that the SVP and PATT indeed still are two independent parties. So I have now also listed them as such in our election article. I have likewise now also corrected the "PD total" of senators downwards with two, and then instead added a seperate senator line for the eleceted PATT senator and UPT senator. Again I am not a sepcialist into Italian politics, so feel free to correct me if I did something wrong. Danish Expert (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Phew, this starts to become increasingly complicated. I did not know this was possible, but I just found out after reading the Italian Wikipedia, that UPT in the "Chamber of Deputies election" was part of the Monti-coallition but in the "Senate election" was part of the Bersani-coallition (as part of the SVP-PD-PATT-UPT alliance). Ultimately UPT both had a senator elected (Vittorio Fravezzi) supporting Bersani, and a deputy elected (Lorenzo Dellai -the UPT party leader) supporting Monti. In our election article, I will now note that the UPT party belong to two different coalitions in respectively the Senate and Chamber of Deputies. Quiet interesting, that this is indeed possible in Italian politics! :-) Danish Expert (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Bersani's photo

I think we should use the photo File:Bersani cropped.png what do you think about it? I don't think that the others are better. Nick.mon (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The photo File:Pier Luigi Bersani 2009.jpg is more big and more clear, is not discolored and is not overly broad.--EeuHP (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that File:Pier Luigi Bersani 2009.jpg is discolored not the other one...Nick.mon (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

What about the size, width and proportion? You are a nuisance. You delete my work. You do not plead. You use (supposedly) ips to clear my work too. But if what you want is to battle eternally, ok.--EeuHP (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to battle eternally..but we use it for months and I think it is better...and I also can say that you delete my works... And also others users has tried to change your image but you've immediatly reverted it...Nick.mon (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

First, sign your comment. Second, why is better? Your picture is too wide. Your photo has a different color than the other photos. In your photo Bersani has angry face and glasses hide their face (and recently he has not been seen with glasses).--EeuHP (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me if I forgot to sing my comment...I don't think we should use your image just because you have uploaded it on wikicommons...what does it mean "different color than the other pohots"? And in your photo it seems sad and absent-minded...Nick.mon (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I mean the tone of the picture. Bersluconi, Grillo and Monti seem to have been photographed in open places, while Bersani has been in a closed place and no flash on the camera.--EeuHP (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Berlusconi isn't in an open place...it's the official photo..it is in a closed place. And also Monti's one. Nick.mon (talk) 15.29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Then it is the flash of the camera.--EeuHP (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't know...the result is that we are been both reported as edit-warring...patience...--Nick.mon (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Bersani cropped.png is broader and less illuminated than all the other files in the infobox. Moreover, Bersani looks even more grumpy in it than he ususally does. Therefore I would prefer File:Pier Luigi Bersani 2009.jpg. --RJFF (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok we can use it. No problema but at least we have discussed. --Nick.mon (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Next time, better opt to use the talk page first instead of edit-warring and risking to get blocked. --RJFF (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are right but we are talking about it since 1 March. But I must say, as Italian, that Bersani is not usually sad and absent-minded as he seems in the photo that we have chosen.--Nick.mon (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

While the discussion is going on, you have to stop editing the article and revert again and again. You have to patiently wait for the discussion to come to a result. --RJFF (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are right, I was wrong, but I was not the only one. Of course if some others will partecipate to this discussione we will decide the picture. .--Nick.mon (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you all know, I have responded to the 3RR report here. I have decided not to block anyone, but advice both editors involved to read what I said there. If discussion about this issue begins again, no one involved should edit the article until a consensus is reached. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I admit that I have not acted properly, but the firsts days my edition was deleted by differents IP addresses (not by registred user) and this situation made me nervous. Next time I will be more attentive.--EeuHP (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you think about it? I am not saying that it is better than your, I only asket you if you think that it could fit. (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe too lopsided. Maybe too lopsided. His face looks too aside. --EeuHP (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Okok. There are not many good images of Bersani. (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

What about this image that I posted on the page: File:Pier Luigi Bersani official.png If you don't like we can edit it. (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I definately prefer this new version and will !vote we indeed use it, instead of the previous picture. Danish Expert (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You can crop the image down and left?--EeuHP (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Pier Luigi Bersani, PD.jpg

The photo needs a little trimming in down, I think. By the way, a red cross in the "License" is a bad sign?--EeuHP (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

When I posted my !vote support above, it was before the picture had been negatively tagged by the automatic FlickreviewR bot. The bot could not determine what the source image from Flickr was. When the photo is not own work, we also need to link to a specified free use license, or in the alternative acquire an emailed "free use" permission by the copyright holder. It is not enough just to write/claim it has been approved by "PD staff". If Nick.mon (or any of you) can do that, then we will succeed to remove the red tag, otherwise the picture will be deleted again. After a quick search in the Flickr database, I only managed to find this high quality Bersani photo with a free use license. If you think it is better, then feel free to use it by uploading a cropped version of it. Personally I have no opinion whether it is better or worse than the one we use now. I will leave that decision to you. Danish Expert (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

And what do you think about this one: Bersani photo on Flickr?? Nick.mon (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you think about this image, I think we could use this one. Nick.mon (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC) File:Bersani 2013.jpg

I do not like. Bersani's face is too big. Would not share with other photographs. And stop once proposing photos. You have proposed five photos in one day. When you think to stop?--EeuHP (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not like your one, but ok...And I can proposed all the images that I want, who are you to say me what I can't do? Anyway it's all ok, I am not editing your images. --Nick.mon (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You have proposed five photos in 27 hours. Equivalent to a photo after five hours. Why can not you let Pier Luigi Bersani 2009.jpg be quiet if only a week? And who are Nick.dallo and Dallo.95?--EeuHP (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who are...Now let's stop arguing...--Nick.mon (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

How to list the two Future and Freedom senators?

The party ran the Chamber of Deputies election as an independent party in coalition with Monti (and had no candidates elected), but for the Senate's election it did not participate with its own party list but had two party soldiers (Aldo Di Biagio and Benedetto Della Vedova) on the "Monti list" getting elected. This raise the question how we now should list those two senators in the table summarizing the distribution of seats? As the party is still independent, and also supported by the fact that the party's Wikipedia article claim it had 2 senators elected, I think we should also extract in the table that 2 of the 19 monti coalition senators are actually belonging to the Future and Freedom (FLI) party. Do you agree? Or should we declare the FLI party completly dead? Danish Expert (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

After looking-up the past political orientation on all 19 elected Monti senators, I managed also to find a third one being described pre-election as representing the FLI party in the Monti-coalition: Lucio Romano. I however right now wonder if this is correct, as the Italian wikipedia page for FLI still do not mention him as one of their elected birds for the Senate? This same Italian wikipedia page by the way also currently display this unsourced sentence (that I would really appreciate if some of you perhaps can confirm with a source): "On 1 March 2013 Fini decides to close the national headquarters of the party, that could lead to the dissolution of FLI." Danish Expert (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Here an article in italian that said that FLI is vary nearly to be closed. [1] Stigni (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. According to the article, FLI is expected to close its headquarters and professional organisation next week. I assume the 2 or 3 elected FLI-monti senators when being elected on the same monti-list can get unlimited help/assistance whenever needed by the monti-list staff. So probably their communication with the FLI party would anyway be very limited. Beside of that, we still also have a handfull of UDC senators also being elected on the With Monti for Italy coalition list - and not from a seperate party list. Sorry for asking again, but do we have precedence for how the parties are handling these kind of special situations (where certain party members are not elected on a party list but on a coalition list)? Or to rephrase my question: Will it in this situation be the senators party telling him what to vote (in this example UDC), or will he in such situations be within total vote control for the coalition leader (in this example Monti)? Danish Expert (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Map

What does the map show? It does not have a caption. Does it show the region's strongest coalition or party? For the Chamber or for Senate? Some explanation would be helpful. --RJFF (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Regions of Italy election 2013.png does not reflect the official data. Removed because of WP:CON.--VanDerHaart (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The image reflect the official data. Nick.mon (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Because none of the parties have absolute majority. If you want to make a map, make a map which shows each party like this.--VanDerHaart (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the map like the "Leading parties" on your example map, without the different shade grades? –HTD 10:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Bersani's image

The following discussion 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.

---

What about this image? File:PierLuigiBersaniPD.jpg Nick.mon(talk) 11:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It's all the same to me. I don't prefer the one or the other. Please talk to User:EeuHP and find a solution with him/her. By the way, I don't agree with EeuHP's justification of his preferrence saying that Bersani's "presidential aspirations are destroyed" and Berlusconi "is alive (in policy)". The pictures should not convey any political message. They should only portray the leaders in a well-recognisable manner. Both proposed portrays of Bersani fulfil this function. --RJFF (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

My words weren't a justification. My words were only words. Nick.moon said that he considers "Pier Luigi Bersani 2009.jpg" inappropiate because Bersani's face is "sad" and Berlusconi is smiling and I respond "is normal, he is a serious man... and he won the elections and lost the presidence". I believe that photography is appropriate for other reasons which I explained when he and I had this same discussion in March.--EeuHP (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Until we will be in two in discussing we will never make an arrengment! I made ​​to you my proposal, what fo you think? -- Nick.mon User talk:Nick.mon 17:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC

I don't understand your words. This is the article of the elections and you are modificate this article. ¿What is the problem? And what is the photo that you propose?--EeuHP (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The photo is PierLuigiBersaniPD.jpg and I have posted it some hours ago. I proposed to use your photo in an article and my on in another one, you can read also what I have write some lines down... -- Nick.mon User talk:Nick.mon 17:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you, photo must not be biased; I have a question for User:EeuHP, what about devided our images into the pages? Yes I know that we have just reached an arrangement, but what do you think to use, your one in a page, and my one in the other? The two pages are Pier Luigi Bersani and Italian general election, 2013. And maybe also Italian centre-left primary election, 2012 -- Nick.mon User talk:Nick.mon 15:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Propose

Italian general election 2013 __ Pier Luigi Bersani 2009.jpg

Pier Luigi Bersani __ PierLuigi Bersani.png

Italian centre-left primary election, 2012 __ PierLuigiBersaniPD.jpg & Matteo Renzi (2010).jpg

--EeuHP (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I can do this arrengement, but what about the image of Renzi, I think that the other one (which is not my) is good? What do you think? I repet, I like your propose, but maybe, change the two of Bersani? You will take the Primary election and his page and PierLuigiBersaniPD.jpg will be on Italian general election, 2013, maybe you will not accept... -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I prefer "Pier Luigi Bersani 2009.jpg" in Italian general elections 2013. "PierLuigi Bersani.png" is similar to the photo of Letta. And I think that "PierLuigiBersaniPD.jpg" and "Matteo Renzi (2010).jpg" are a good couple (background color red, front face...).--EeuHP (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think that it is a good arrengement, after moths of edits and reverted edits, we finally arrive at a solution. Goodbye, and maybe the next time we will edit something, I hope that we will be of the same opinion. Kind regars. Bye! -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I am having great difficulty following this discussion, not to mention the discussions on Nick.mon's and EeuHP's talk pages. If I understand the above, the agreement for Pier Luigi Bersani was "PierLuigi Bersani.png". There is no such image file. Instead the battle has been back and forth between File:Pier Luigi Bersani 2009.jpg (EeuHP's preference) and File:Bersani cropped.png (was Nick.mon's preference). Then, just as I was writing this, Nick.mon changed the image to File:Bersani - Festa Nazionale SL.jpg, I have no idea why. Unless something is worked out very soon, I am going to lock the article, and I don't care which image it is unless it's a copyright violation. I haven't even looked at the other articles as I'd like to proceed one step at a time, and my patience for this is almost gone.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have reverted Nick.mon's latest edit because the picture they just added is a dupe of what's in the body.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

We decided to insert one image of him and a my one, but, my one was deleted (excuse me, I was wrong) and some other users changed the deleted image with Bersani cropped.png (another picture of Bersani uploaded by me) and EeuHP as soon as he saw it, he suddenly change it with Pier Luigi Bersani 2009.jpg (his image) going against our pact. That is all. He want only his image, even when some others user insert Bersani cropped.png. He said that my one is used in too many articles, that is not an excuse to change it ever! If it is used it will mean that it is the best. In my "career" in Wikipedia I have made a lot of mistake, this is a fact. But maybe EeuHP doesn't know that a given word is ever important, and who breaks it, he is wrong. Wikipedia is not a place to make war. I want to stop this stupid edit warring. It was closed, but he is going to re-open it. -- Nick.mon talk 12:37 26 April 2013

Talking with you is impossible. This situation is not "one for you, one for me". Bersani cropped.png is present in eight articles and Pier Luigi Bersani 2009.jpg is only in two articles. Ten articles. Five for you and five for me? Otherwise, let you that there is minimum range.--EeuHP (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes in fact talk to you is so simple! We are talking about Bersani's page, Italian election and Primary election, not all the pages! I don't want to argue with you anymore! Keep up your image of Bersani and the two article so you will fell superior, ok? Are you happy? With people as you is impossible to talk. I suggest to you to insert one of me and one of you, to use "neutral" images, but you want the page of the general election with your image of Bersani, and also his Bersani's page? What's wrong in Bersani cropped.png to be use in Bersani's page?? It is used in many article, there will be a reason....it is simply better. Do you want to upload a new version of Bersani cropped.png so you will say "Yes this is my picture!"? What do you want? Personally, I want to stop this stupid arguing. Please, find a solution soon, continuing arguing is so stupid. --Nick.mon talk 13:34 26 April 2013

Your photo (because the autor was your puppet Nick.dallo) was used because it was the only Bersani's face photo. Your photo is present is the 80% of the articles. Is your photo so important that you can't consent other photos? Are you happy with 90% and you're sad with 80%? Your motto is "my things are mine and your things are negotiable"? Sorry, but resigned to continue talking to you.--EeuHP (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The photo of Bersani that you cropped, to form Pier Luigi Bersani 2009.jpg existed existed for more time than Bersani cropped.png but no one used it because it is an unclear image. Every image that you upload you immediatly inser in articles and you fight with everyone who revert them! Ahahaha This is not the Wikipedia that we want. I don't want to continuing arguing with a person who don't undestrand or, more probably, you do not want to understand....I will leave your lovely image in the pages that you want...are you happy EeuHP? --Nick.mon talk 14:07 26 April 2013

@Nick.mon, putting aside the back-and-forth childish sniping, please confirm that you will cease changing the images in the three articles at issue. That's what you appear to be saying, but I'd like it clear.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, Bbb23, maybe, I let myself into a rage, but are days and days that EeuHP are continuing to pretend not to understand, make funny of my English (beacuse he is the best in speaking English) and change the subject not to change is image. Because he is so selfish and e do not want to compromise, I have decide to stop this stupid thing caused by his ego (for anything)...Talk to him is impossible! I promise, once and for all, that if he doesn't want to change his image with another one (for unknown reasons) I will stop this stupid arguing. We can not go on like this, like children. -- Nick.mon talk 14:22 26 April 2013

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.

Bersani's image 2

I know that we discussed a lot about the image of Bersani, but I still think that there are better images than the one which we are using. What do you think to re-start the discussion? -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:11 26 December 2013

I don't think the image is so bad, but there could definitely be a better one. Which one are you proposing? --Checco (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, maybe we can choose these ones:

-- Nick.mon (talk) 18:29 4 January 2013

I say you the same things that I said you when you proposed the same images eight months ago.--EeuHP (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

EeuHP yes you are right, but re-discuss is not forbidden. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:23 5 January 2013

Any of the three images proposed by Nick.mon is better than the current one. I don't see what's the problem about that. Let's decide which one is best (I leave my choice to Nick.mon) and replace the current one. --Checco (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Checco, should we wait for other opinions or we change it right now? --Nick.mon (talk) 14:58 8 January 2013

I would wait a little bit and I would love to understand why EeuHP opposes the change. --Checco (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course. Let's wait for other opinions. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:08 8 January 2013

More slowly, gentlemen. Your intention is replaced the current image and I'm totally and absolutely against. I had this war many months ago and the conflict was finished by a pact, that Nick.mon has broken now. Sincerely, I'm tired of arguing and reasoning. Nick.mon said that his images are better because they are better. If I say that, in the two first images, Bersani seems very, very angry (too much) and the tone of the colors is too dark and off and that in the last image is in profile, with the mouth open and the Sun giving you in the face... Which utility would have? If I say that the current image make a very good composition with the image of Berlusconi and the other two images broken the harmony, his ears are deaf, sure.--EeuHP (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear EeuHP why are you so nervous? We are just talking about an image! I have not broken any pact, the image is still there. Can't we discuss politely about the image? And don't worry, my ears are perfect, I can listen to all what you said. The "talk pages" are made to discuss politely about what insert in the articles. I hope that we could do so, without arguing or warring. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:59 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You also changed the image here without discussing. Immediately I reverted it, but than I decided to leave it, just to make you understand that I don't want an edit warring. But you must understand that before editing images, without consensus, you have to discuss about it in the talk page. Anyway let's wait for other opinions about the images. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I am unclear why this has become such a contentious issue. The current image and the two replacements suggested are all OK. It really does not matter much which one is used. I would suggest that both Nick.mon and EeuHP might enjoy Wikipedia more if they both stepped away from these edits/discussion entirely.

Personally, I think the image currently used in the article is fine and marginally preferable to the alternatives proposed. Bondegezou (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes Bondegezou you are absolutely right, but I just proposed three images. Anyway thank you for your opinion. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Nick.mon. I'm nervous because we discussed during 2 months and when I think that we found an agreement, you reopen the discussion 8 months after.
I thought that my proposal was a reasonable agreement. You think that your picture is better and I think that my picture is better, nobody can change it, but your image appears in 10 articles of this wikipedia (some repeated twice) and my image appears only in 2 articles. 10 to 2. Why reopen the discussion? I didn't fight for the 9 to 3, why you want fight now for take 11 to 1?--EeuHP (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to break our agreement, I just wanted to discuss in a more polite way. Without arguing, as before. You are right, but your image, is used in fr.Wiki in de.Wiki and in all the "main Wikipedias". Anyway, I think that we could discuss in tranquility, without warring. Maybe with other users, not only our two. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that your argumentation is not exact. Determine what wikis are "important" and which "less important" is an arduous and unnecessary task, but in the french and german wiki your image is also present (in de.wiki in a most high place that mine). More to the point, your image appears in 29 articles in the wikis for all the world and my image appears in 19 articles. The general distance is very big and more, more bigger in this wiki (10 to 2) and more, more, more bigger if you count the repetitions. And I didn't expand the use of my image for not argue with you, because it's not nice and it's useless. This was the compromise. Re-open the discussion waiting to gain more ground is precisely to break the agreement.--EeuHP (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The lighting in both pics proposed by Nick.mon is indeed unfavourable. I am not convinced that they are better than the current one. --RJFF (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are right, but you did it. In fact you changed the image of Bersani in the page of the primary election. Can you revert it? Maybe we can remain as before if we decide not to change the image of this page. I just propose to rediscuss, I have not change any image. -- Nick.mon 18:22 11 January 2014

Do not try to reverse the situation. During these 8 months, I fulfilled with the agreed. You can't say "my intention is to change the agreement" and then blame the other for their reaction. Also, technically I didn't do anything. In April, we agree that the pictures of the article on the primaries of 2012 are: your photo of Bersani and my photo of Renzi. In September, you changed without notice the photo of Renzi by other (made by you). I saw the change recently, I located a photo of Bersani that makes best pair with new picture of Renzi and placed it in the article. The article is improved and the covenant is maintained.--EeuHP (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Am I changing the situation? Plaese EeuHP do not invent things...we cannot discuss politely if you do the victim, you are absolutley right when you said that we reached an agreement, but you can not say that I broken it, I just proposed a discussion. Nick.mon 20:26 11 January 2014

I don't play the victim role. Our agreement was to stop the arguing and keep things as they were at the time. And now you want a change. Is not that breaking the agreement? And a last thing: after discussing for two months about "this photo or this other", do you really think that something left to say?--EeuHP (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we have different ideas of what broken an agreement means. Anyway I know your opinion and know my one. My question was for the other users. And I am gratified that we are talking politely, without arguing. We have different opinions, and this si normal, why do not listen to other opinions as we are doing? Nick.mon 21:02 11 January 2014

The fact of reopen the discussion, having pledged to close it and not continue to insist, is to break the agreement. Although, given that in other case you replaced a photo that (in theory) should have respected... yes, indeed, we have different ideas of what broken an agreement means. But I will not continue this anymore.

As you know, the image you offer not seem appropriate to me. A face with an angry expression and spectacles hanging down from the nose, poor illumination and lesser harmony with the other photos (with the current photo, Bersani and Berlusconi -above- looking left with partial profile and Monti and Grillo -below- look to the center).

Now it is wait.--EeuHP (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

EeuHP and Nick.mon: I do not understand why you are both so invested in this issue. I again suggest you would both be happier stepping away from this discussion.

Apart from EeuHP and Nick.mon, after several weeks, Checco supports changing the image, while myself and RJFF oppose the change. It appears to me there is no consensus for a change and minimal interest in the discussion! Can we consider the matter closed and all move on? Bondegezou (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you.--EeuHP (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Despite agreeing with Nick.mon on the subject (why can't we choose one of his three proposed images?), I also agree with Bondegezou that it's not a good idea to waste time discussing about issues like this. --Checco (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Popular vote

I've noticedd that there aren't the numbers about the popular vote and that in the section about it the percentages refers only to the votes casted in the territories for the computation of the majority premium, which exclude Valle d'Aosta, Trentino alto adige (only for the senate) and the votes from abroad. Shouldn't the popular vote box include also those figures? Iluvatar85 (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

No reaction, I'm adding the info.Iluvatar85 (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Italian general election, 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121213045443/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com:80/world/europe/Monti-to-quit-post-budget-polls-in-Italy-likely-by-February/articleshow/17551908.cms to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/Monti-to-quit-post-budget-polls-in-Italy-likely-by-February/articleshow/17551908.cms

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

New map for electoral results

I created a new map for the electoral results because I find the previous one highly unsatisfactory.

First of all, the elections were to elect two different houses of parliaments, with different electoral laws and different electorates. So having one map for both is unsatisfactory.

Secondly, colors in the previous map represented parties, which I think is a poor choice. Coalitions have a much higher influence in the final composition of each house than single party results do.

Finally, considering the Senate is elected on a regional basis (and the winning coalition in each Region is guaranteed a majority of seats), it is clearly more appropriate to show the results on a regional, rather than provincial, basis for the Senate. In fact, a map in this particular case is even more appropriate, as results by province are useful as a visual representation for the Chamber, but actually bare no significance at all (the seats are allocated based on the national results). For the Senate, on the other hand, which coalition wins in which Region has an enormous importance. Loudo89 (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Loudo89, thanks for your contributions, and excuse me if I revert your edits but I didn't notice your comment in the talk page. Anyway in my personal view we should use only one map, which is the one of the Chamber of Deputies. As you said we could use the one that represented coalitions, but I repeat we could insert only the Chamber of Deputies map, because in the infobox, since 1946 general eelction, we insert only the result of the Chamber of Deputies, not the one of the Senate. This is my view, let's wait for other opinions. The map about the Senate should be insert anyway in the article, but not in the infobox. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I understand what you are saying, but the fact that a type of map has been used previously for other pages isn't a valid argument. Otherwise improvement to a page would be impossible. Anyway, as I am sure you have noticed, I am working to update the maps in the pages for the previous elections as well, so that should address your concern about consistency. It's just something I can't accomplish in a single day, but I am working on it.

Also, I cannot agree with your argument that the infobox should display only information about the election of the Chamber of Deputies because it's unsupported: we decided to go with one page for both elections, so both should be given equal importance. In fact, both actually are equally important, since government needs the confidence of both houses (incidentally, in the last decades the Senate has actually proved to be more important than the Chamber of Deputies).

I am going to wait before re-updating my version of the map because I don't want to start an edit war. However, I hope we can all agree that this isn't an matter of "Wikipedia tradition" or having a vote among editors. It should be a matter of what map actually best communicates the data visually.

I'm not necessarily saying that my map must be the definitive version. There is always room for improvement. But I think it is indisputable that my map is an improvement over the previous one, as are all three of my points above. Regards, Loudo89 (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes you are right, by now the Senate is even more important than the Chamber; but I personally think that we shouldn't insert too many informations in the infobox; but if other users think that we should insert also the results of the Senate I will obviously accept it. Anyway I repleaced my map with your one, because I agree with you that the one about coalitions is far better than the one which represents parties. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Not inserting too much information in the infobox is a good principle, but being sure that the information we actually insert there is clear and accurate I would argue is even more important. The thing is that not only do the elections for the two houses use different electoral laws (which means the same voting can bring to different results), not only are they separate (which means the same voters can tactically vote for different lists/parties in each); more importantly, they have different electorates, so representing both with one map is simply impossible. For example, the Five Movement is more popular among younger people (who can't vote for the Senate). Furthermore, because of how the electoral laws worked, it was pretty common for people to vote for the Five Star Movement in the Chamber of Deputies (where the winner is assured a majority no matter what), but for another of the two main parties in the Senate (where a majority is not assured). Both these factors mean that in the same province you can have the Five Star Movement as the most voted party for the the Chamber, and another party as the most voted for the Senate. So using one map for representing both is not feasible.

And you can't simply choose to represent one election and not the other, because that's completely arbitrary. The only other solutions would be to have no maps at all, or to have two different articles for the upper and lower house elections (which would probably be overkill).

Again, I am open to other opinions and suggestions, but we should be able to argue over which one is better. This isn't a matter of who gets the most votes. ;-) Loudo89 (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Lol, I know that this one is not an election, but we often choose the porposal which has more consensus :). Anyway I think that two maps are better than none, so I'm open to your proposal. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

To be honest even my proposal doesn't address all flaws of the previous map. The problem here is that we are trying to adapt an election map that is really conceived for first-past-the-post electoral systems (such as the UK or the US) and trying to make a proportional system fit into it. Let's compare how another country with a proportional system addresses the problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_general_election,_2016 As you can see, it uses more than two maps! Loudo89 (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, but I think that, due to the electoral laws used in Italy in the last 20 years, a map (or two maps) in which are represented the results for coalitions is the better option. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

As stated above, maps like this are difficult when you aren't working on a first-past-the-post system. Perhaps the answer is simply to have the seat diagrams (i.e. this) in place of the maps? This is done for a few countries. Number 57 19:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I know that creating a map for this kind of electoral law is difficult, but I think that we need a map in the infobox, or maybe two as Loudo89 proposed. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Having a map is undoubtedly useful to visualize how the vote is distributed. However, I think it is a fair point that maybe that/those map(s) need not be in the infobox. We could have the two seat diagrams of the houses in the infobox, and then some maps of the vote (one for each of the four main coalitions) in the body of the article. In fact, considering that results for each house are already nicely divided in the article, that would solve your concern of not overloading the page. By the way, there are a number of other problems with the article that I am going to list here for convenience. If anyone wants to address these, they are welcome:

• In the infobox, "seats won" refers to the coalitions, not the parties, but this is not made clear in the infobox.
• Still in the infobox, "popular vote" and "percentage" only refers to the Chamber of Deputies election. But again, this article is about both elections of the houses: we need to represent both. (If this is seen as too much, maybe we could have two infoboxes, one for each election?)
• Again about the infobox, I think we need to add the fourth main coalition: Monti's coalition. Not only was he the Prime Minister before the election, but he gained a respectable share of the vote. Not having the forth main coalition running in the election is pretty silly.
• The way the results are displayed in the body of the article is mess IMHO. For example, for the Chamber of Deputies you have a nice diagram showing the seat distribution in the whole chamber, linked to a table that only addresses a section of the seats/votes (it excludes seats/votes for the Aosta Valley and abroad). In my opinion, we should have general vote first, and then subsections of it.
• Something should be done to improve the readability of these tables, I think they are pretty confusing. I think the method used here is an interesting way to show seat distribution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014

Loudo89 (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Results and votes

Like I anticipated in the previous section, I am trying to correct some issues I have with the way the votes are displayed in this page. So far I have addressed the part about the Chamber of Deputies.

So, here's the deal. The Ministry of Interior's site gives no overall results of the elections. It instead gives it split in three: votes and seat for Aosta Valley; votes and seats for the rest of Italy; and votes and seats for overseas constituencies. There are very good reason for this of course: very different rules apply for those three categories of votes.

However this does not mean that we should not have some overall results in this article (for the most part, it's just a matter of doing some simple calcs). In doing so, I have noticed a worrying pattern. This article treats multiple time the results of "Italy, minus Aosta Valley" as if they were the totality of the votes/results. This needs to be addressed, and I have done so where I have found that problem.

There is one issue in particular that is pretty troublesome, however. Coalitions are treated separately in each of those three branches of votes. This is why I did not include a total of votes per coalition in the "Overall results" table: a vote cast for Lega Nord in Aosta Valley is technically not a vote cast for the Centre-right coalition, because Lega Nord was not in coalition in the Aosta Valley constituency. For this reason, I only included the totals of seats.

This however needs to be addressed in some way for the infobox. For example, Luigi Bersani / the Democratic Party / the Italy. Common Good coalition are reported to have received 10,047,507 of the votes, 29.5% of total votes, in the infobox. The first problem is that it is not clear whether they are votes for the party or the coalition (it's the latter). More importantly, however, that information is false, because it only accounts for the "Italy, minus Aosta Valley" results. Loudo89 (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Good job! As soon as I can, I will help you in editing the articles of the other elections. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

I made a few updates to the infobox.

• I added Mario Monti's coalition, because I think there is no reason not to have it. We are not limited to the three biggest parties for infobox. The next biggest coalition (Ingroia's) received no seats, so I guess we can stop at Monti's.
• Changed popular vote to coalition vote. Popular vote for coalitions is extremely difficult to determine, because coalitions don't need to be consistent for the whole electorate. Popular vote for parties would be easy to determine, but it's less significant to the outcome of the elections than the coalition vote. For this reason, the figures here only take into account coalition votes where the four main coalitions actually existed (that is Italy, excluding Aosta Valley, and Trentino-South Tyrol for the Senate). If someone has a different idea to resolve the problem, please speak up.
• Added a second map to represent the Senate results. Like discussed above, I think we can only have two maps or none in the infobox, considering the election were for electing two different bodies with different rules and electorates. If someone is unsatisfied with the maps themselves, please speak up.

Loudo89 (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Italian general election, 2013. 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/20131029223109/http://www.ladige.it/articoli/2013/01/09/lista-monti-trentino-dellai-capolista-societa-civile to http://www.ladige.it/articoli/2013/01/09/lista-monti-trentino-dellai-capolista-societa-civile

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) 22:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Overall results and organization of the page

@ Nick.mon: these pages are organized in a irregular and incomprehensible way, furtermore only the overall results for the Chamber include the number of votes, while the overall results for the Senate not! You indicate as source the Ministry of the Interior, but its website doesn't indicate this data. A page must be organized to be tidy immediately understandable by the readers, while currently it is organized confusely (Overall results with or without the votes, results by region, sources, etc). Sorry, but I have to restore the previous version, currently I have great difficulty understanding the results (And I do not only think of myself...)--Wololoo (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

However I am ready to redesign a better organization of these pages and make them more understandable for readers --Wololoo (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wololoo: Excuse me I didn't notice your discussion :) Anyway I wasn't the one who "created" the overall results table, Loudo89 did it, and I quite agree with him. The table regarding the results of 18 regions is absolutely too long, while the overall results one (which includes also Aosta Valley, Trentino and Italians Abroad) is clear and, in my view, symple. Moreover we had a clear indication of which parties entered in Parliament linked to a Parliament diagram. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

However you are right, in my view we should insert the votes also in the table of the Senate -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Wololoo, you can see a discussion regarding the overall results in the section "Results and votes". -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ Nick.mon Obviously the tables of Overall results for Chamber and Senate have to be organized in the same way, instead I disagree on the electoral results in these tables: the website of the Ministry doesn't indicate these data, furthermore, indicating two types of results in a page already full of tables, can create confusion. For this reason I would prefere to indicate only the seats. For the rest, I have just reorganized the page, before the page was organized in this way:

• CHAMBER: Overall results (with the votes) / Results for parties and lists and for coalitions (votes and seats) / Results of Italy (19 regions out of 20) / Results by Regions (19 regions out of 20) / Aosta Valley / Italians abroad
• SENATE: Overall results (without the votes) / Seat distribution for coalition / Results by Regions (20 regions + Italians abroad) / Italy (18 regions out of 20) / Results for parties and lists / Aosta Valley / Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol / Italians abroad

The page was confusingly organized, now I have reorganized the page with the same order for Chamber and Senate:

• CHAMBER: Results of Italy (19 regions out of 20) / Results by Regions (19 regions out of 20) / Aosta Valley / Italians abroad
• SENATE: Results of Italy (18 regions out of 20) / Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol / Aosta Valley / Italians abroad / Results by Regions (20 regions + Italians abroad)
• OVERALL RESULTS FOR CHAMBER AND SENATE (without votes)

However I'm undecided about where to put the Overall results, if in each section of Chamber and Senate (as I have made for the page on 2008 election) or in an independent section after the sections of results (as I have made in this page) --Wololoo (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@ Nick.mon Thanks for the reporting, that discussione confirms that for the overall results tables it is better to indicate only the seats --Wololoo (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wololoo: Yes I know that the Ministry did not reported this data, but this result was the "final" and more correct one (including also Aosta Valley and Italians Abroad). You have done a good job in reorganizing the article however I still think that having an overall results on the top of the two sections (with the global summary of votes and seats) could be a useful for readers, but maybe I'm the only one who thinks this :) I hope that other users will join the discussion :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the overall result should be before the other details. Having the first table be the electoral results in "19 regions out of 20" is incredibly confusing to me, and it was one of the main reason that motivated me to redesign the article.

The Ministry of Interior website does not show the overall results. However, they can be calculated based on the data provided on that site (which is what I did for the Chamber of Deputies) and this is not considered original research, as it's just mathematical operations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Counting_and_sorting_are_not_original_research

As for the reason why the information was presented in different ways, it's because the two Chambers use two different electoral laws. For the Chamber of Deputies, the overall number of votes tends to be way more significant, while in the Senate it is more important to understand who wins how many and which regions. Loudo89 (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

However the electoral results in "18/19 regions out of 20" are the results diffused by all the media, it is strange that they can look confusing... Furthermore, certainly it is important for the Senate to understand who wins how many and which regions, but for the rest the systems for Chamber and Senate are very similiar. Also if the overall electoral results are not original researches, they are however both based on different computing systems, so they are not so relevant, but on the contrary they can create confusion. Instead the overall results for the seats are really important, probably it is better to collocate them in each section for Chamber and Senate --Wololoo (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

They are confusing, both here and in other media, because I come here expecting to learn how Italians vote and instead I get a partial figure, which may not be understood as a partial figure.

The systems for Chamber and Senate are incredibly different. They do use similar formulas, but they are used very differently and bring different results.

Please explain "they are however both based on different computing systems, so they are not so relevant, but on the contrary they can create confusion". I believe the overall votes cast is the second most important piece of information people expect to learn when they read a piece about an election (after the results). If your criticism is that this figure was missing in the Senate section, why don't you help by calculating it, instead of removing important information from the article? Loudo89 (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I am going to wait before making any edits because I want to discuss it out. But you even removed Monti's coalition from the infobox... I get the impression your revert edits were very rushed and not very well thought-out. Loudo89 (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Loudo89 I have not removed Monti from the infobox, but I basically agree with Nick.mon that has made it (however I am not even contrary to re-inserting him). Instead, I disagree to make a sum of votes (it is a heterogeneous sum), while I would agree to distinguish the electoral results of the different computing systems in one table (so make a table with the the electoral results of Italy (18/19 regions), Aosta Valley, Trentino Aldo Adige, Italians abroad and the overall seats). It is a bit complicated, but it would be more correct and complete--Wololoo (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the mix-up. But I would ask both you and Nick.mon to refrain from removing information from the article without proper justification. "Only three main parties/coalitions" is not a justification, it's just enforcing an arbitrary POV.

Similarly, there is no justification for not having a sum of the votes. We can have one table with the different "categories" of votes, I'm fine with th→is suggestion, but that would beg the question of why we can't also have a total there.

Even in articles about elections that use the First-Past-The-Post system you will have the overall results. Even though elections in each constituency are technically independent of each other, and votes for non-winning candidates have no weight in the results.

I am open to any suggestion to improve the article, which may very well include removing stuff (I would tend to agree that there are too many tables in this article). But when you want to simplify an article, it's details you should be removing, not more general information. Loudo89 (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason of removal of the sum of votes is the fact that it is a heterogeneous sum (furthermore, it was made only for the Chamber). We have discordant opinions on this point, but in my view the sum of votes is a "detail", obviously not so for the sum of seats, that are the most important information. Finally, the table of the overall result can be revised, with the results of different Constituencies, but please don't make the sum of different computing systems, let's limit ourselves to the official data of the Ministry, this simplification can really create confusion, also if you don't think so...--Wololoo (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I widely agree with Loudo89 about the importance of an overall results of the election, and of course I think that it should be put on the top of the article and not in the bottom. In my view we should insert also the global amount of votes, not only the one of 18 regions; moreover we had some important differences between the overall and the partial results, for example, the M5S was the first party according to the results from 18 regions, but the PD arrived first considering the global results. I removed Monti from the infobox because in every election since 1861, we had only the three main parties/coalitions in the infobox, but if you want we can re-insert him. -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nick.mon & Loudo89: If you are consistent, you should enter the overall results also for the Senate and not only for the Chamber! However, I will revert the edits for the 1994,1996 and 2001 election, in those pages the table of overall results repeats the data of proportional election of Chamber --Wololoo (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes you are absolutely right, if we decide to keep the overall results tables, we must do it also for the Senate -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Then you should provide to make them as soon as possible, it is useless and inconsistent to hold the only overall result for the Chamber. However I strongly disagree, because they are misleading and not official results...--Wololoo (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The tables for the elections with the Mattarellum law contained the electoral results of the proportional constituencies, so they were useless and repetitive. About the 2006 election, the hemicycle of Senate on the top of the table regarding the electoral results of 18 regions is totally wrong... I'm sorry to have to say it, but the work done about these tables was partial and inaccurate...--Wololoo (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

However my proposal remains valid, a table of overall results on the top of the article that includes the results for constituency (for the 2006, 2008 and 2013 general elections) and a table that contains the both the "proportional" and "First-past-the-post" results (for the 1994, 1996 and 2001 general elections), but without aggregate the results and without providing data which are not specified anywhere--Wololoo (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, but in these days I'm a bit busy and I can't do that; however, Wololoo, could you create an example of your proposal, maybe without the real results and data, only an example to have a cleared idea of your proposal, that maybe can bee the best one :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: Pratically, the result would be this:

← Summary of the 24–25 February 2013 Chamber of Deputies election results

Coalition		Party		Results in Italy			Aosta Valley			Italians abroad			Total
				Votes	%	Seats	Votes	%	Seats	Votes	%	Seats
	Italy. Common Good		Democratic Party (PD)	8,646,034	25.43	292	20,430	30.75	0	287,975	29.30	5	297
			Left Ecology Freedom (SEL)	1,089,231	3.20	37				17,434	1.77	0	37
			Democratic Centre (CD)	167,328	0.49	6				-	-	-	6
			South Tyrolean People's Party (SVP)	146,800	0.43	5				-	-	-	5
		Total seats				345			0			5	345

It should be a table that contains all the results of the main parties with the overall seats --Wololoo (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a good compromise and a clear table. If we decide to keep the overall results, I approve your version. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

So, these should be our definitive Overal results tables:

Chamber of Deputies

← Summary of the 24–25 February 2013 Chamber of Deputies election results

Coalition		Party		Results in Italy			Aosta Valley			Italians abroad			Total
				Votes	%	Seats	Votes	%	Seats	Votes	%	Seats
	Italy. Common Good		Democratic Party (PD)	8,646,034	25.43	292	14,340	19.79	0	287,975	29.30	5	297
			Left Ecology Freedom (SEL)	1,089,231	3.20	37				17,434	1.77	0	37
			Democratic Centre (CD)	167,328	0.49	6				—	—	—	6
			South Tyrolean People's Party (SVP)	146,800	0.43	5				—	—	—	5
		Total seats				340			0			5	345
	Centre-right coalition		The People of Freedom (PdL)	7,332,134	21.56	97	—	—	—	145,751	14.83	1	98
			Lega Nord (LN)	1,390,534	4.09	18	2,384	3.29	0	—	—	—	18
			Brothers of Italy (FdI)	666,765	1.96	9	3,051	4.21	0	—	—	—	9
		Total seats				124			0			1	125
	Five Star Movement		Five Star Movement (M5S)	8,691,406	25.56	108	13,403	18.50	0	95,173	9.68	1	109
		Total seats				108			0			1	109
	With Monti for Italy		Civic Choice (SC)	2,823,842	8.30	37	—	—	—	181,041	18.42	2	39
			Union of the Centre (UdC)	608,321	1.79	8	1,355	1.87	0				8
		Total seats				45			0			1	47

Senate

← Summary of the 24–25 February 2013 Senate of the Republic election results

Coalition		Party		Results in Italy			Aosta Valley			Trentino-Alto Adige			Italians abroad			Total
				Votes	%	Seats	Votes	%	Seats	Votes	%	Seats	Votes	%	Seats
	Italy. Common Good		Democratic Party (PD)	8,400,255	27.43	105	20,430	30.75	0	294,025	53.94	6	274,732	30.70	4	105
			Left Ecology Freedom (SEL)	912,374	2.97	7							—	—	—	7
			The Megaphone – Crocetta List	138,581	0.45	1							—	—	—	1
		Total seats				113			0			6			4	123
	Centre-right coalition		The People of Freedom (PdL)	6,829,373	22.30	98	—	—	—	85,298	15.65	1	136,052	15.20	0	98
			Lega Nord (LN)	1,328,555	4.33	17	2,608	3.92	0				—	—	—	18
			Great South (GS)	122,100	0.39	1	—	—	—				—	—	—	1
		Total seats				116			0			1			0	117
	Five Star Movement		Five Star Movement (M5S)	7,285,850	23.79	54	13,760	20.71	0	82,499	15.14	0	89,562	10.10	0	54
		Total seats				54			0			0			0	54
	With Monti for Italy		With Monti for Italy	2,797,486	9.13	18	1,594	2.39	6,646	1.39	0	177,402	19.80	1	19
		Total seats				18			0			0			1	19

What do you think? -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Good work! ;-) --Wololoo (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Italian general election, 2013. 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/20130107023641/http://www.clandestinoweb.com/number-news/93246-elezioni-marco-pannella-presenta-il-simbolo-della-lista-amnistia-giustizia-e-liberta-foto/ to http://www.clandestinoweb.com/number-news/93246-elezioni-marco-pannella-presenta-il-simbolo-della-lista-amnistia-giustizia-e-liberta-foto/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20131023130149/http://www.partitosocialista.it/site/artId__5040/307/267-_DALLE_AGENZIE_DI_STAMPA__NENCINI-_I_SOCIALISTI_FORTI_COME_ALLE_ORIGINI__E%E2%80%99_NUOVO_INIZIO_.aspx to http://www.partitosocialista.it/site/artId__5040/307/267-_DALLE_AGENZIE_DI_STAMPA__NENCINI-_I_SOCIALISTI_FORTI_COME_ALLE_ORIGINI__E%E2%80%99_NUOVO_INIZIO_.aspx

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) 00:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)