Talk:2015 Italian regional elections

Repetitions

@Yakme: Ehm, why does these pages must repeat tables that are already contained in the appropriate pages? These should be summary pages, they seem useless repetitions to me. You also removed the links from the tables, which seemed much more useful to me than the repetitions below ...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, this is a summary page, so it must contain the summary of the election results, as it does now.--Yakme (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme: this setting is inspired by the pages on the French and Spanish regional elections, but there are two big differences:

• in the French regional election page it is essential to report the precise results, because there are no specific pages for the election in each region;
• on both the Spanish and French elections pages, the tables are short but complete: the vote to the party corresponds to the vote to the candidate; using the same setting for the Italian regional elections is wrong, because the party vote and the candidate vote are separate (and a candidate can be supported by several lists); practically these tables are suitable for the Spanish and French systems but unsuitable for the Italian system. The purpose of this page should be summary and general, linking directly to the detailed results on the specific pages. The current setting, more than a summary, seems incomplete to me...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The current setting is fine, it can be improved to be more similar to the Spanish one graphically, but it is a good summary of the election results (of course only for the coalition votes, because it would be too detailed to show all parties: this is a summary page). --Yakme (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme: If you want to keep some tables I can see if I can make more suitable tables (without the minor candidates and with the coalition results), but first let me restore the previous versions. Do not roll back, I have some free time, I will re-enter them as soon as possible.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Do not edit war, Scia Della Cometa. The tables are fine, they can stay. --Yakme (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme: I have already told you that I am correcting them, with your rollbacks you also undo the other changes.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

You really need to stop with this habit of yours to edit against consensus and keep edit warring even while discussions are still ongoing. Please look for consensus first, and then proceed with your edits. --Yakme (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

How do you evaluate something before letting me finish the changes? Can you explain it to me?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

As I already said, the tables that are now there are fine. Instead you are insisting on removing them and adding weird "details details details" columns to the result section. You can easily proceed your work in progress in your personal sandbox, without disrupting the public article pages. --Yakme (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme the columns on details are not weird, and the infobox must be corrected until proven otherwise, the regions are not seats.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. Now you have no reason to remove the whole article just for this. --Yakme (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme This rollback is also absolutely unjustified! And the colors of the coalitions must be indicated below the map, not above.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme Why more confusing? But you do it in contempt??? I added coalition results and tables, removed uncorrect and misleading swings, give me a good reason for your rollbacks or I will restore the previous version. You cannot delete the work of other users without explanation.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

As I said, the new tables are more confusing. There are two votes columns so one does not understand which is which, the tables overall are now bloated and huge (unreadable on a small screen), there is a "list" column without any colours and with confusing names and acronyms (iRS - SN, PC, Pos) which nobody gets (especially for small regional parties coalitions)... All in all the new tables add more confusion than clarity. I say let's keep the current tables style, I don't see a reason why we have to change it. --Yakme (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme The reasons are there and how, the current tables are extremely misleading: 1) listing only the results of the candidates, they are absolutely incomplete; 2) electoral swings do not make sense, it seems that they concern the same candidates, but this is absolutely not the case (on several occasions, the same candidates have applied for different parties, see Spacca, candidate in Marche for PD and ther for FI); 3) this is a summary page, it makes no sense to indicate the results of candidates of microscopic parties. In practice, the current tables have been copied from other countries (France, Spain) which have different electoral systems and are not good for the Italian system. If the tables are to remain these, it is better to remove them.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

(1) this is a summary page, so no need to be complete; (2) electoral swings are relative to the party/list in all electoral tables all over Wikipedia, so no confusion there; (3) then just remove the microscopic parties from the current tables. --Yakme (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme You have removed information for no reason, applying tables from other electoral systems, if you don't give a valid explanation I will restore those tables. And the electoral swings of the candidates create ridiculous situations such as the one of Marche between 2010 and 2015.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

You don't do WP:ULTIMATUMs on Wikipedia. You are the one who changed the previous status quo, not I who introduced the current tables. And I am telling you that your proposal is confusing, and I explained you why. Cheers, Yakme (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yakme You have removed useful information without giving a valid reason, I invite you to read the rules on rollback. At the same time you do not demonstrate the clarity of the candidates' electoral swings. Yours rollbacks seem disruptive to me. Your only reasons are that there aren't enough colors? Or that a reader might not understand an acronym? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aréat if you want you can participate in this discussion.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I have not removed any information, I have restored the established previous consensus on the tables. The new tables proposed by you are confusing for the reasons I already gave above. There is nothing more to be added. You instead have not explained what is the reason why it is needed to change completely the tables' style as you did. If you could calmly explain what is needed that is not there at the moment (without bloating this page with lots more data, remember that this is a summary page), we might find a nice solution that does not involve an unnecessarily huge table with confusing lines and columns. (PS: Aréat if you want you can participate in this discussion I think every editor here is perfectly capable to reply if they want to, they don't need Scia Della Cometa's invitation or permission) --Yakme (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I invited the user Aréat because might be interested in the topic and because he surely doesn't know about this thread! The user is free to intervene as well as not to. You removed a lot of information: coalition results and also overall results tables. You have restored misleading swing results (it seems that Gian Mario Spacca's result of 2015 is compared to his result in 2010, instead it is compared with the result of another candidate!). Also with these tables it seems that some users are supported by only one party. Your rollbacks just seem disruptive to me.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)