Talk:2022 Italian general election

RFC: outgoing and elected MPs in the Infobox legislative election

A Request for comments is being held, which concerns the inclusion of the lists about outgoing and elected MPs in the {{Infobox legislative election}}. Your input would be appreciated. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox for elections up to 1992

I report this discussion: Talk:1992 Italian general election#Infobox. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

New talks on infobox

Can we finally decide on what infobox to utilize to avoid endless edit wars? Thanks VosleCap (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Support. I'm tired of the edit wars. River10000 (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@VosleCap Support. The infobox currently on the page is less visually appealing. The one that was there before was far easier to read. Benpiano800 (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Support Consesus can change and, even if it was caused by extra-Wikipedian reasons, it happened, it doesn’t make sense to simply ignore that. All this said, I still don’t understand why the info box which was used until the 2013 elections can’t be used in 2018 and 2022 as well. Siglæ (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Extremely Strongly Very Support

Too many edit wars with people that have too much time. The old edit box is objectively better in all facets. The only case where the proposed legislative box is useful is when there are a lot of parties, like 10 or more. This is just simply not the case. TheYeetedMeme (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Qualified Support: For what it's worth, I'm leaning on my three years of active contributions and many more years as a reader when I type this out. As someone who has an invested interest in Politics Wiki and this article in particular (because those maps are mine), I feel as if I have something to say. I believe, as many others do that the events of the last few days ruptured open the way in which editors find consensus. For those of us who are actively interested in this niche of Wikipedia, we take great care in presenting the best possible articles we can so the broader public might be able to enjoy them. As more people become active within this community, I believe that their voices should be heard. Old consensuses should not be maintained only on the ground that they were previously established. Healthy and constructive debates are welcomed on Wikipedia, so why shouldn't we keep an open mind and consider the possibility that a community's consensus might change as the community changes? As such, I believe that there should be the possibility for the community to reconsider the old consensus. Stifling the community with unintentionally reactionary opposition to these constructive debates would be unwise. However, I will qualify this to say that reconsidering the RFC at this moment would also be unwise. Tensions are clearly inflamed. Dealing with only the ancillary issue while the cause of these tensions is unsolved would not benefit the reconciliation of the community. Charity with the goal of reconciliation is what we ought to strive for. Certainly, these edit disputes were caused by a complicated assortment of reasons. Deal with those first, then return to the RFC. I do not believe that enabling these tensions to fuel the RFC would be wise. The result, whether or not I would agree with it, would be tainted by those tensions. True consensus comes after we reconcile differences. This should not be an opportunity to seek vengeance or to impose one will or another. I hope the result brings about reconciliation. There have been many aspersions to individual editor's characters. This is unhealthy for the community. I sincerely hope we can reconcile. Best, Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose In principle; asking for a new settlement to avoid an edit war, while participating in one is a little bit ironic. There was an extended RfC that settled in favour of this box, that took over a year, and was settled a year ago. The only reason I can foresee this coming up again is spill over from separate edit wars/discussions on the 2024 South African Election and other Election pages that have moved to a legislative box. I actually don't like the transition to a legislative box in most cases, but this issue, on this page, was settled quite a while ago. Caelem (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

yeah gotta agree here. right now the consensus for election pages is a to build consensus page by page. consensus is settled on italian election pages, and particularly this one. happy to be in any discussion that changes that consensus. Carlp941 (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the RFC was open for over a year, and being a less detailed summary of the article is the purpose of an infobox. Have to agree Rowei99 (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rowei99: Something like this could be done. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The issue with a box like this, is that much of what led to the discussion of this off-site, especially on Twitter, was rage over the removal of leader portraits. People seem very sensitive about them, and in my opinion that's what this discussion is really about, the necessity of leader portraits in legislative elections. CaelemSG (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

No, not really, the issue is also that TILE isn’t intuitive, even if it is an introduction it expands excessively into useless details (parties that got 0,1% and 1 seat aren’t necessary) while removing importnat infos (turnout) all while being both aesthetically unpleasing and most importantly not rapidly conveying the important results (way more easier to understand the winner-second place-third place with TIE than TILE). Siglæ (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

No, not really, the issue is that TIE is deceptive, while TILE is accurate and appropriate for a parliamentary election. --Checco (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Is even too accurate for an introduction, but isn’t clear at a first glance, so I wouldn’t say deceptive but you get what I mean. Siglæ (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it may have been more about how it was done, essentially trying to sneak it through by stealth, and rolling back disagreement rather than seeking a compromise iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 04:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Support The original infobox is far superior to the new "legislative" infobox, and should be reinstated wherever possible. The new legislative infobox provides less information, is less visually appealing, and is merely a less detailed copy of the full results table further down in the article. We do not need a less informative duplicate of the full results table pasted at the top of the article. Then we could frankly just as well remove the infobox altogether. The original infobox, on the other hand, displays images not found elsewhere in the article, which is both appealing and helpful for the casual reader, and it provides a deeper summary of the results. It is therefore a more purposeful and appropriate alternative. If a new discussion is required to reinstate the original infobox, then let us have one. Μαρκος Δ 22:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. The fact this debate has even gotten to this point is astounding.

On another note: let’s all be really serious about the how much weight a “consensus” holds in these situations. One guy making an edit he likes and a couple people happening to swing by the talk page around that same time and backing him up is far from ironclad. Yes, this debate is being brought back up after a “consensus” was reached because quite frankly we do not spend every waking moment of our lives poring over every election page on Wikipedia. I’ve been an active editor for well over a year and I’m not ashamed to say I had no clue this was happening at this scale until I saw the Tweets and YouTube videos about it. A consensus is not a consensus if the majority are not even involved in the discussion. PequodOnStationAtLZ (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The reason we declare there was a consensus reached isn't because of one editor making one edit, it's the year and a half long discussion above us, that raged from October 2022, just a month after the election when eyes should have still been on the page if Wikipedians wanted to have input, until 6 May 2023, where an RfC was finalized with a ruling of consensus.

To be clear, the only reason there are so many eyes back on the page, right now, today, a year after that RfC was finalized, is because of the storm created on third-party websites over entirely different articles. CaelemSG (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It could also be an hint that consensus may have changed, thus needing to reopen the discussion Siglæ (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The "storm" on third-party websites is being created by the width and breadth of people that actually use this site. In all honesty I value their opinions more than any editor here, myself included. PequodOnStationAtLZ (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is getting external scrutiny on something, it is very much worth looking into. I think we should have a proper new RfC, and tag all the users here in it. Maybe consensus has changed. Carlp941 (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey guys, I am NOT a wikipedia editor. Just a frequest user (as, I assume, 99% of all people in countries with access to the internet). I just wanted to give my 2c good faith comment and say that the new infoboxes are clearly a visual and informational downgrade to the old style. I am sure there is some reasoning somewhere about why they should be prefered over the older style, but I just can't stand them on a personal level. And from the controversy, I think I am not the only one. I know my voice isn't as important as veteran wikipedia editors, but you should seriously consider revisiting this 'concensus'. Kind regards.91.140.29.44 (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

As a fellow non-edditor I second this. 82.69.30.161 (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

These two comments by non-editors show the amount of passion people have for the seeing this information presented in a user-friendly way. They are basically providing a free UX focus group. NotBartEhrman (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Support in principle, but procedural close. On the one hand, Wikipedia:Consensus can change, and the fact that the old infobox was clearly more visually appealing makes me support going back to it. On the other hand, this discussion is obviously extremely tainted by recent Twitter threads and less-than-natural participation, and any consensus we might achieve here would not be representative of the community. It would be best to close this discussion, and to maybe reopen one at a time when there aren't outside factors influencing its outcome. (Amended 21:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC), see next comment below) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

In the past month I have become an editor, before that I was an avid user. Why should my opinion now be more important than it was then? No one likes these changes, no one. Maybe max 5-10% is in favor of it and it clearly caused an outrage. It caused an outrage because the changes are so abhorrently bad and illogical. I think this massacring of articles should stop. If the information is wrong, change it to the correct one, not delete the more visually appealing and easily understandable info box for this. Zlad! (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with a procedural close, mainly since there is broad uproar from the fact that the changes are so egregious and a showing of what's been happening on other articles. Also I think that in the previous RfC that WP:GAME was violated, as they had a editor base of only 6 users, yet proceeded to declare it as "Italy's new election format". This kind of behaviour is extremely out of line, and a new RfC should be looked into, partially because of WP:Consensus can change, but also on the basis that the last consensus seemingly was tainted by a WP:GAME violation in terms of the low count and that one of the editors who is quite known for this, has a track record of using small RfCs to game the system into changing major articles. They've previously tried several times to remove the outgoing members articles from the infobox altogether and there have been several issues with this in the past with them. CIN I&II (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree Siglæ (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think it's such a bad thing that this is getting some attention from outside Wikipedia. It's very hard for us editors to understand, but readers are Wikipedia users too and have preferences. Sometimes their preferences are revealed through viral posts on social media. There's no reason to procedurally close this just because a lot of non-editing readers have expressed their opinions elsewhere. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

This is definitely a good point, although the way the posts have been circulating could also be seen as canvassing. This is really a situation where there is no good option, as having a RfC now would obviously not be representative because of the Twitter outcry, but having it later means we risk cutting off a large number of readers.

All in all, given how many people appear to support reverting back to the old infobox, I think their voices should definitely be heard. The previous consensus is clearly not representative anymore, and a new discussion needs to be held, that can take into account the voices of everyone from regular editors to casual readers. Yes, the current situation might be seen as WP:CANVASS, but I would also understand someone (not me) making the decision to WP:IAR and still hold a discussion to establish a new consensus. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

+1 to this. Wikipedia arguably should benefit the wider internet, not merely the preferences of the most active iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 04:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Support I've been a Wikipedia editor for many years now, I've seen various things change and come back, but in this specific case I never understood the idea of replacing the old infobox with the new table version. It doesn't really matter if the discussion over this topic was sparked by external comments, the feedbacks of general users about the accessibility of the website is something we should always take into account. Furthermore, if there's indeed a shift in consensus I think it would be worth to open this dicussion on a general level, and not just restricted to Italian elections, since the same logic should apply everywhere, and it's time that the whole Elections wikiproject starts having some written, well defined standards for issues which are usually matters of discussion.Fm3dici97 (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support The previous infobox looked better while also summarising the materials the same. The previous RfC on this exact topic had very few users and was a decently clear violation of WP:GAME, as with only 4 users in favour, they proceeded to declar it "Italy's new election format". I think this should be looked at as a situation of a WP:GAME violation by a user who has done this kind of behaviour extremely prolifically. They have a track record of having changed these same things on other articles. I am extremely concerned with how this trend is occuring. CIN I&II (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

+1 to this, and this has it all in a nutshell (though not pointing names in that comment) iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 04:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Support because, as others have already said, WP:Consensus can change and the last "consensus" was a WP:GAME violation. Many Wikipedians, but also a lot of internet users are rightfully outraged not just by evidently bad changes, but also by the behavior of an admin who is pushing this change, and we all now who I'm talking about.
Of course I don't support disruptive editing and edit wars and I'm not happy about there being so many tensions, but in a situation where a small minority is agressively pushing their own agenda, led by an admin who is abusing authority to vandalize articles, I understand why people are resisting. Number 57 and others give very unconvincing arguments for reducing infobox content or switching to a boring, less informative and visually appealing html box and those arguments vary depending on the article in question. They're inconsistent as sometimes the reason cited is just "better format" which is very subjective & is not smth they can decide themselves, reasons like 1-seat parties or independent candidates having to be represented (which completely misses the point of an infobox), sometimes it's "to be in line with the series" when they're the ones that have changed the rest of the series themselves, sometimes the reason are illegitimate RfCs.
I hope a new, different consensus can be reached at least for Italian elections, with much more people participating. That's a good thing that can come from the war and Twitter attention, as these discussions sometimes end without people even knowing they existed. Also, it's important to hear Wikipedia readers after all, bcs Wikipedia is there for everyone, not just a few editors. CroatiaElects (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Support for the above reasons. — Watercheetah99 (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I strongly support maintaining the current "legislative" infobox, which better suits parliamentary elections. --Checco (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment - Having participated in the previous RfC and all the related discussions, I'd rather avoid restarting all over again... Anyway, considering that almost all the editors writing in this section didn't contribute to the previous discussion and, as many already pointed out, consensus can change, I'm open to reopening that discussion. P1221 (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Scia Della Cometa, Number 57, ValenciaThunderbolt, Yakme, Vacant0, Braganza, Kawnhr, Chuborno, Davide King, Nick.mon, and Bondegezou:, who participated in the previous RFC and discussions. P1221 (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I'd rather keep TILE for elections since 2018, as using TIE is very messy when you have to consider two houses being voted, rather than just one. With that, I hate the inconsistency of TIE when it relates to two voting systems and parliaments. With that, I feel there should be an RfC to improve TIE, so that it can better represent two voting systems, and two house being voted. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Conditional support If we were to adopt TIE for this election, please consider the Scottish election. They present their constituency and PR seats in TIE in a matter I think is the best, compared to a lot of elections that are two rounds/two systems. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

A diagram on how to create a consensus

While it is evident that this discussion began because of something that started on Twitter, consensus can change, and so can this one that took a really long time to create. I took part in the previous discussions that began in 2022 and I think that it is evident to say that these discussions only included users that were actually interested in the area of Italian politics + Number57, who's an admin. While the number of users that participate in a RfC should generally be higher than just a few users, low participation in a RfC is not a problem; it is still a consensus, though a weak one. Besides the current consensus for this article, another example of this is the September 2022 RfC to include neo-fascism in FdI's infobox (this consensus was recently overriden!). Thus, these consensuses can be easilly overriden anytime in the future if there is enough opposition to a such change. Another problem with the previous RfC for this article is that it was not promoted on related WikiProjects (users that generally do not edit articles related to Italian politics could jump in the RfC and give their own opinion). There is clearly an ongoing dispute, so if anyone wants the previous consensus to get overriden, please follow the instructions that can be seen on the image. We're currently on "Seek a compromise". Keep in mind that "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." (see more on WP:CON). I'd support a new RfC. We'll just have to determine which infoboxes are the best for summarising results. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong support As the proponent of that RFC, I sincerely hoped for greater participation, but instead consensus occurred with the opinions of just four users. However, I am strongly in favor of using the infobox used in the Italian elections from 1994 to 2013, which is also the model used in the Polish elections. After all, the current infobox is a mere copy and paste of the election results table. I don't think a new RFC is necessary if we were to have a new clear consensus in this discussion. However, I had no idea that there might even be a YouTube video and a discussion on Twitter about that user's modus operandi.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Support for all of the aforementioned reasons. Impru20^talk 17:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Support: I've always been in favor of the "old" infobox. It was far better, with the leaders' pictures and not just a duplicate of the tables below. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that now there is a clear consensus in favor of changing the infobox of the latest Italian elections. However, I don't agree with the infobox restored by Smashedbandit and I would invite both him/her and Checco not to start an edit war. In particular, I do not agree with the simultaneous use of TIE and TILE to show the same electoral results. Instead, I think that only the TIE should be used, based on the model of the Polish and Italian elections from 1994 to 2013. Opinions?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Please do not confuse who is defending the status quo version with who is editing the article without waiting for the new consensus to be formed. --Checco (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It may be dumb, but can’t we simply use the infobox from the Italian Wikipedia (which conveys better the infos about both senate and chamber of deputies results) while also adding the images of the leaders? Siglæ (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, in this case the {{Infobox election}} should be modified: this would be useful for all those systems with two assemblies, such as Spain and Poland.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: However, you have to remember that for Italy, there would have to be a modified version of one for Spain and Poland, as you have two voting systems for both chambers here. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@ValenciaThunderbolt: I think I didn't understand well, how should the Italian version be modified?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: I'm saying that any alterations to TIE to fit Spain and Poland would have to be adapted to Italy, as they have constituency seats AND PR seats for both chambers, unlike Spain and Poland, who lonly have one voting system. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Even if there are constituency seats and PR seats for both chambers, I don't think there is any need to distinguish between them, and there is no need to distinguish the electoral results either, since they are the same. However, the TIE is already customizable, I honestly don't think the separation of the results of the two chambers is essential, even if it would still be useful. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: If we were to, say, keep the C and S that are currently used in Italian TIE infoboxes, people on mobiles may not know what they mean, as "tt" isn't visible on mobiles. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@ValenciaThunderbolt Are you sure? On my phone, for example, I can view their extension. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: For me, it doesn't. I click on the Cs and Ss and nothing shows up. I use Samsung Internet and Chrome, and nothing shows up. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Australia does use TIE, even while having two strong legislative houses. Then again, a caveat is that senate results aren't in the infobox, and unlike Italy, Australia's upper house doesn't decide government. I still think this would be a useful tidbit iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 03:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I am open to compromises, but having the pictures of leaders is highly deceptive because we are talking about a competition among parties not individuals. TIE is bloated and out of place, while TILE is specifically designed for parliamentary elections. Of course, TILE is also the best option for elections involving two chambers. Additionally, for elections that are both presidential and parliamentary like Italian regional elections, both TIE and TILE should be used. However, the discussion should not be done here and should cover all election articles at once. It is not reasonable to have parliamentary elections covered by TILE (like 2024 Belgian federal election and 2022 Israeli legislative election) and parliamentary election covered by TIE (like 2021 German federal election and 2019 United Kingdom general election). --Checco (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the main reason that the pictures of leaders are so prominent, it's because in a lot of parliamentary democracies, where you have 2, 3 strong major parties, the leader is effectively seen as the personification of the party. So, whilst yes, you're only voting for your local member, most people are also very aware of which party that member will be a part of, and thus which party leader will be leader of the country. CainNKalos (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I confirm that also in Italy there is a strong personification of the parties in their leader, furthermore, since 1994 the leader of the major coalition has become Prime Minister six out of eight times (with the only exceptions of 2013 and 2018). It seems to me that in this discussion the consensus of the previous RFC has been overturned, moreover I have seen that even in the elections before 1992 the TIE was restored, despite the fact that they were the only elections for which the TILE could have made sense (especially for the elections of 1992, with 12 national parties winning seats), so it no longer makes much sense to maintain TILE only for the last two Italian general elections. Do you agree?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I would see this from a different perspective: is Wikipedia supposed to show the election results objectively, basing on the applicable rules and laws (according to the Italian constitution, people choose the MPs in both the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate; the Prime Minister - or, more properly,the President of the Council of Ministers - is appointed by the President of the Republic) or show them, basing on people perceptions (party's leaders are considered the candidate Prime Minister and people vote for them, thinking they can so be "elected" for that office)?

Even though there is a strong personification of the parties in their leaders (not only in Italy but in many other countries), I would stick to present the results in the most objective way, avoiding creating the impression (very present in Italy, unfortunately) that people can directly elect the Prime Minister. P1221 (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia shows results precisely and objectively in the result section page. In the INTRODUCTORY infobox it is going to show simply what is necessary to understand how an election went just by rapidly skimming it. Images of leaders, increase or decrease of BOTH seats and percentages, infos on turnout etc. is what gives you this infos. Most of this are instead omitted in the TILE, which makes it impractical to use in the introductory infobox. Siglæ (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to User:P1221 for his thoughtful comment, with which I agree every step of the way. --Checco (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@P1221 Indeed, the infobox has always indicated the party/coalition leaders, not the candidate for prime minister (for example, Beppe Grillo as leader of the M5S in 2013, Berlusconi himself was not directly a candidate for prime minister). In your opinion, what would be the most objective way to represent results through an infobox?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa In my personal opinion, the very first table that appears in this page (that is similar to the result of the previous RfC). This table recaps immediately the results of each party and coalition (showing also the names of the party leaders, btw). In my opinion, the alternative focuses too much on the party leaders and less on the results: the first thing a casual reader sees is the faces of the party leaders, but the overall results might be easily overlooked (in addition, the results of the coalitions are omitted and this might be misleading - and no, putting a leader for the coalition would be wrong, since for example Giorgia Meloni was not the official leader of the centre-right coalition before the elections). P1221 (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, TILE is pretty bad at showing results, since it's a limited version of what a results table would look like in the body of the article, depriving readers of an easy glance at other aspects such as registered votes, actual votes casted, swings, etc. Plus, I have been in Wikipedia editing election articles for way over a decade and nowhere I have seen that overall results may be "easily overlooked" in TIE; they are actually much more visible and straightforward. Coalition results won't be ommitted as you can see in 2013 Italian general election: as a summary, it's coalitions and not actual parties that are shown in the infobox. As for coalition leaders, it's a non-issue, really: if a coalition does not have a clear leader, just don't add anyone and have a footnote explaining the situation, or whatever solution best fits the specific case. The use of TIE/TILE is one of will, actually: most of the opposition to TIE by TILE supporters is based on technical issues that are not actually unsolvable, whereas TILE presents many limitations and design flaws that are actually almost impossible to overcome.

This said, I think this discussion is revolving too much on the actual issue rather than on whether to reopen talks on TIE/TILE, which was the original topic of discussion. Impru20^talk 10:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Support For all previously listed reasons. --PubleyPetit (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

2022 Italian general election

25 September 2022
400 seats in the Chamber (C) · 200 seats in the Senate (S) 201 seats needed for a majority in the Chamber  · 104 seats needed for a majority in the Senate
Opinion polls
Registered	46,021,956 (C) · 45,210,950 (S)
Turnout	33,923,321 (C) · 63.8% ( 9.1 pp) 31,231,814 (S) · 63.7% ( 9.3 pp)
First party Second party   Leader Giorgia Meloni Enrico Letta Party Brothers of Italy Democratic Party Alliance Centre-right coalition Centre-left coalition Leader's seat L'Aquila (C) Lombardy 1 (C) Seats won 237 (C) · 115 (S) 84 (C) · 44 (S) Popular vote 12,305,014 (C) 12,135,847 (S) 7,340,096 (C) 7,161,688 (S) Percentage 43.8% (C) · 44.0% (S) 26.1% (C) · 26.0% (S) Swing 6.8 pp (C) · 6.5 pp (S) 3.2 pp (C) · 3.0 pp (S)   Third party Fourth party   Leader Giuseppe Conte Carlo Calenda Party Five Star Movement Action – Italia Viva Alliance – – Leader's seat Lombardy 1 (C) Lazio (S) Seats won 52 (C) · 28 (S) 21 (C) · 9 (S) Popular vote 4,333,972 (C) 4,285,894 (S) 2,186,669 (C) 2,131,310 (S) Percentage 15.4% (C) · 15.6% (S) 7.8% (C) · 7.7% (S) Swing 17.3 pp (C) · 16.6 pp (S) New
Election results maps by constituencies for the Chamber of Deputies (on the left) and for the Senate (on the right).
Prime Minister before election Mario Draghi Independent Prime Minister after the election Giorgia Meloni Brothers of Italy

@VosleCap, River10000, Benpiano800, Siglæ, TheYeetedMeme, Talleyrand6, CaelemSG, Carlp941, Rowei99, ValenciaThunderbolt, Checco, Iamthinking2202, Μαρκος Δ, PequodOnStationAtLZ, NotBartEhrman, Chaotic Enby, Zlad!, CIN I&II, Ganesha811, Fm3dici97, CroatiaElects, Watercheetah99, P1221, Vacant0, Impru20, Nick.mon, CainNKalos, and PubleyPetit: Sorry if I'm annoying you all, but now it seems right to me to also make a decision on the infobox of the Italian elections. It is true that there has been an RFC on this topic, but it is also true that the consensus can change and here I saw a large participation in support of a change of infobox. My question is the following: do we proceed to replace the current TILE with the TIE or with a new RFC? And in case of replacing TILE with TIE, should we use a format like that of the Polish elections and the Italian elections from 1994 to 2013 (with coalition leaders in the infobox)? Let me know what you think.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely would like to have the same box as of the 1994 election. Every other nations elections have this box and I don't know why we need to have the current ugly and small box which does not give the viewer basic information necessary to have a quick look on political parties. VosleCap (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I would also support having the TIE with the proposed formats, although I wouldn't be opposed to a new RfC for procedural reasons. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I am all in favour for TIE, however I don’t really like the 1994 etc. format. the division among Chamber and Senate isn’t done very well IMO. Can’t we simply use the format used on the Italian Wikipedia while adding the images of the leaders? Siglæ (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd need to see what version of a TIE box we'd be putting up first - the old one on this page was very clunky and ugly. TILE seems purpose built for these kinds of elections, where there's a lot of parties forming alliances and the individual vote totals of those parties are important. Could we put a version in here to see what we'd be discussing? Carlp941 (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

If you need to see it just go, as stated, on the Italian page of this very same election (?) Siglæ (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

mixed up my acronyms. i just would like to see a version of the box they are proposing Carlp941 (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

As you know, I am all opposed to TIE and all in favour of TILE for parliamentary elections. I see that a new consensus is emerging here now and that is OK. However, we should find a consensus on all elections, not just this. I especially ask User:Number 57 on where that broad discussion could take place. --Checco (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Checco: Hear, hear! The best place is on here. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It should not be about a single country... --Checco (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This place then. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Siglæ: I agree that the division of results between the Chamber and Senate could be better formatted, however I think this change should be discussed on the Template:Infobox election talk page. @Checco: electoral systems are extremely different from one country to another, I don't think it is possible to have a single discussion for all countries but only for those that have a similar electoral system. @Carlp941: of course, the infobox I mean is something like this one on the side, which is the same format used for example for the Polish elections or the Italian elections from 1994 to 2013.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: I don't think you can even use that, as it excludes one set of results for each chamber. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@ValenciaThunderbolt: What results does it exclude?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Siglæ (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I think he was referring to the distinction in results between proportional and FPTP, but in Italy there is a single vote and this distinction does not exist. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: Sorry, I was mixing up coalitions and parties in my head. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with that idea, since I think that that should definitely be a discussion. I especially think that this kind of infobox here though has clearly been shown through consensus, though we have not had a new RfC, we should have one. CIN I&II (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: Actually, it doesn't matter, as they are coalition percentages. Anyway, I'm for Scottish TIE for all the Italian elections ValenciaThunderbolt (talk)

I'm personally in favor of replacing TILE with TIE using the 1994 format, and also in favor of opening a broader discussion about all elections as @Checco and @ValenciaThunderbolt discussed. Fm3dici97 (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. P1221 (talk) 09:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fm3dici97: A mix of Scottish TIE, and Polish elections, for for elections before 2018, with a wider conversation for elections since. What do you think?ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think that the Scottish TIE is necessary. There isn’t any perceived difference between the seats assigned with FPTP and the constituency, see German TIE as well Siglæ (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Siglæ: As coalitions only existed in FPTP seats, I agree with not using Scottish TILE (if there are only coalitions in TILE). However, it will include M5S, so I'm for it. In regards to Germany, I believe Scottish TILE should be used, as it doesn't sum up an election, and make one set of results superior to another. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Siglæ: This is what the 2021 German election would look like under Scottish TIE. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I definitely support the Scottish TIE for German elections and for all mixed electoral systems, I don't think anyone would revert an edit of this type. As regards the Italian elections, I saw that the consensus has changed and that there is now a convergence on the use of the TIE. If there are no further developments or objections I will implement the page with the infobox here on the side.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: I feel this discussion is best being moved to this page, so a consensus can be made to change page that are relevant, rather than just one (in this case, the 2022 election). ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that on this page there is a consistent consensus to use the TIE also in the last two elections, therefore at the moment the TIE should be replaced by the TILE also for 2018 and 2022 (otherwise all the opinions expressed up to now would be lost). However, if you deem it necessary, you can open a new discussion on the indicated page to discuss all the elections, I am available. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)