This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
@Nick.mon: Let's discuss here about proposals and ideas to improve the tables in this and the other Italian constituencies articles. I did not appreciate so much your blind revert of everything I had done to improve the tables (I cannot believe nothing I did was good in your opinion), but for the future let's discuss first how to solve the main issues here. I see a few of them: (1) There are no sources for the multi-member table, except the one relative to the election; while for Abruzzo it is not the case, in general a multi-member seat can be vacated and re-filled also after the election: in order to know this (and source it properly) one needs a specific link to the deputy page in the camera.it website. (2) There are no "current" group memberships for the multi-member deputies: already for Abruzzo two of them have changed group, and here it looks like they are still members of the original groups. (3) There is a difference between a party, an electoral list and a group membership: e.g. in 2018 one can be a member of the party UDC (or an independent, even), be elected in the Senate within the "Noi con l'Italia – UDC" list, but then be in the "Forza Italia – UDC" group from the very beginning. (4) The tables are too large in space, I think we can go down to 60% from 75% without loss of clarity. These are some of the issues I see at the moment, and I had attempted to solve some of them with my edits. --Yakme (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've done some changes. I've reintroduced sources, reduced the size and added two columns for parliamentary groups in the multi-member districts (I wanted to do it before when I reverted your edits, but then I was a bit busy). -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The changes you have done are basically the same as I did before your revert, plus some minor modifications. Then why revert mine? Anyway, it looks good to me at the moment. (Small question: do we keep the red links of the MPs who do not have a WP page? I would suggest not to). When we have also the older legislatures members, we could also have a summary graph in the beginning like the one in Madrid (Congress of Deputies constituency). --Yakme (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second table looked definitely weird on my computer, maybe because of the words in bold, I don't know, it looked stretched and a bit confusing. Anyway, as I said, I reverted it to implement some changes, starting from the first version, but then I've been bit busy and I couldn't do them, anyway excuse me again. Regarding MPs without the WP page, I agree, we can remove the links; I agree on the summary graph too: I've already done some of them here a few years ago (but they need to be checked...). -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
