Talk:Opinion polling for the 2018 Italian general election

Graph

Will someone please fix the graph? It doesn't seem right, it extends down to May 2018 but the election is on March 4. 42.111.9.213 (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Missing polls

The are some polls, published by 16 February, that are not included in the list. Please check scenaripolitici.com. --Checco (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Italian laws are prohibiting the release of any new polls in the final 2 weeks of the campaign.80.131.54.6 (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I said by 16 February, indeed. Several polls are missing. --Checco (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If you know which polls are missing, it would be useful for you to add them to the table yourself. The "needs updating" notice is likely to create confusion, as it suggests more recent polls are missing, and it is unlikely to result in any other editor adding the missing polls. Speed74 (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I replaced the "update" tag with the "incomplete" tag. --Checco (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Split

@Ritchie92: The majority of article splits like these aren't contested or even discussed, but I'm happy to go over it. It seems like the best and only good way to split the article, and it certainly needs splitting. I performed a split with essentially the same circumstances on another polling series and there was no response to it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know honestly it looks to me like a drastic change in the page and I think it should be discussed. Also I found that for lists and summaries the split is not automatically the best thing to do (see WP:SPLITLIST). In the case of these opinion pollings the split already happened when separating the opinion polls from the main 2013 Italian general election article. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It's the third largest article we have, per Special:LongPages. I haven't altered the content in any way, I'm just spreading it over two articles since it's very lengthy, both in the amount of entries and in technical considerations. Our guidelines do allow lists to be larger than 100,000 bytes, but this article is close to 500,000. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no actual reason to do it. What's the problem of a heavy list? It is lengthy but most of the tables are collapsed so it does not look that long. Also why did you split at 2015 and not somewhere else? It's completely arbitrary and it doesn't make much sense, since there is no substantial difference between the polls before and after 2015. I really don't think this is a rational thing to do and it's very disruptive for a reader.

Other users involved in this are User:Nick.mon, User:Checco, User:Braganza, User:Speed74, and others, that maybe will agree with me on this. --Ritchie92 (talk)

I do not see any reason for splitting this article. --Checco (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I split 2013-15 out because that's half of the list, with the other half being 2016-18. The problem with the large list is the technical issue, particularly on slower internet connections and on mobile devices. I think you will agree that splitting something in half is not arbitrary, it's the most logical place to split it. This is all in line with our general size principles, WP:SIZE, WP:SPLITLIST and so on. I can quote if necessary but I think the point has been established. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason to split the article, all the content in this article pertains to the same topic – I know it's what you focus on on Wikipedia but there's no inherent issue with lengthy lists as long as the content remains reasonably navigable to readers, and in this case, a substantial part of the byte-size simply comes from URLs (which are themselves not directly visible to readers). Mélencron (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree that there is no reason for split, and that this should have indeed been discussed before such a huge change was conducted. The same was done at Opinion polling for the 2019 Spanish local elections, splitting a random section of the article and causing some disruption along the way as a result (since the split resulted in the removal of named references that were used throughout the article). Impru20^talk 14:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

As Ritchie92, Checco, Melencron and Impru20, I sincerely don't see any reason to split the article. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

URLs are still part of the size of the page and impact slower connections and mobile devices, and given that it is five years worth of polling data this makes it a very long list. There are natural ways to split the article, since the article already breaks it down into years, and this makes it easy to split a five year list in half since it spans across six calendar years. The most relevant part of the polling for readers, the period before the election, is entirely preserved on this page. I don't know why you would bring up that the content is all the same topic, we surely have many articles that are about the same topic.

These splits really aren't disruptive, the retrieval and repair of references is usually automated. This is really just a minor change like any other change so it's not necessary to discuss it prior, but of course I accept that we should discuss it if people disagree. There hasn't been any alteration of the any content here. Per the Spanish local elections article, I didn't split a random section of the article, I split the largest section into a new article as is appropriate in these cases.

I say to everyone that if I thought there would be any disagreement over this, I would most certainly have brought it to discussion first. I appeal to everyone to consider principles such as WP:SIZE and particularly WP:SPLITLIST and WP:TOOBIG, but overall it's in the interests of the reader and also editors that the page be smaller. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I would have certainly thought that the removal of tens of thousands kB from an article is not "minor" and could be controversial, specially when it was not that clear what were you splitting and for which reason (despite its name, the new article, Opinion polling for the 2018 Italian general election (2013-15), also included the Coalition vote for 2017 and 2018 as well as the seat projections). For the Spanish local elections article, you basically cherry-picked yourself the section that should be split, which happened to be the first one in the article, just based on size criteria.

On the issue of WP:SIZE, WP:SPLITLIST and WP:TOOBIG I'll not go over the issue of "readable prose size" again (which would exclude URLs, which again is what consumes most of the wiki markup size in opinion polling articles), as this was already discussed in the past. However, I'd suggest you to consider WP:IAR: if such a harsh and restrictive adherence to Wikipedia principles is resulting in more issues than it may solve, even going against consensus, then maybe it's not that good.

Further, should size reduction be needed so badly, there are better ways to conduct it rather than a whole split off; i.e. transclusion. Transclusion would see most content in a section moved into a separate template, then allow the possibility for such content to still be shown transcluded in the main article without requiring readers to visit various articles to check the overall picture of what essentially constitutes the same topic. This, rather than mutilating articles beyond practical use. Impru20^talk 21:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not as if I removed the content from Wikipedia altogether, but what is considered minor is for individuals to determine. The inclusion of 2017 and 2018 data was an oversight and I have since removed that from the article, that clearly belongs in this article. I suppose I should have made a reference to the size of the article in the edit summary, I will agree there.

Yes, the largest section of the polling for Spanish local elections article happened to be the first section, which shouldn't be surprising since it was Andalusia. I checked which section was the largest before I made that split.

Readable prose size is only one measurement of the size of an article, and I agree that it's not applicable here. This is not at all about a strict adherence to Wikipedia policies, it just happens that these splits are backed by those principles. I maintain that the reason for them is to make it easier for the reader. URLs are included in the download size of the page, which shouldn't be necessary to download the entire set when people only want polling for the end of the parliamentary term or even just the graphical summary. To say this article has been mutilated I think is immature, there is still clearly practical use. That said, I'm not necessarily against transclusion or any other method that editors propose to reduce the page size instead of the split I performed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Precisely because of that "oversight" of over 40 kB, one would typically discuss such massive movements of information between articles, seeking consensus for it first.

You could have also cherry-picked a couple of other sections that, combined, would surpass the size of the Andalusia one. As said, this was a rather random move that would have inevitably led to controversy.

"Readable prose size" is the main masurement to consider for the Wikipedia principles you mentioned when it comes to article splitting. Here, your own argument can be turned against you: if the URLs did not happen to weight so much, one would see no issue at having all of these tables in one single article. Indeed, by splitting them into different articles, you would be forcing readers to go to each article to download the various sets that would typically be together. You're assuming people "only want polling for the end of the parliamentary term or even just the graphical summary", despite every other person in this discussion disagreeing with the split (so, who does actually want that?). And this happens because, basically, there's little point in splitting this information into various articles.

Now, let's see what others think of this. Impru20^talk 21:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Some brief points to that:

• It's better that content be accidentally duplicated than accidentally removed but yes sometimes mistakes happen.
• On the Spanish article, I am sure that the section for Andalusia was the largest, but that article is still a very large article and I only split out that section to begin with. I agree that other sections could be split.
• This article is not a prose article, so readable prose size is irrelevant in measuring if this article is too large. It may be the "main measurement" for other Wikipedia articles, but those articles are prose articles. The reason for the split is not because of prose being too lengthy, but the size of the page itself.
• The last parts of the term (such as including the election campaign) and the graphical summary are always highly relevant parts of the polling series, and they are rightfully kept at this article and at the top.
• If the URLs didn't weigh so much then there would be less of a need to split the article, absolutely. I don't think people universally only want polling for a given time, I'm talking about people who don't want or need to download the entire six calendar year series in order to see the most recent few months and/or the graph. I should have been clearer. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Mistakes wouldn't happen, or would happen less often, if consensus on the if and how was sought first. None of that was done, and indeed the consensus at this point is against the split, showing it was way premature.

I don't agree with any split either in that of this article, and you're clearly alone on this. You are not entitled to act against consensus merely based on a whimp.

So far, the only reason you bring for split if your own point of view. You're assuming what others would wish or want without anyone actually backing you; in fact, an analysis of discussions throughout opinion polling articles in Wikipedia would reveal that the issue of "seeing the most recent months/chart" is hardly brought to discussion. So, in the name of whom are you speaking on this? Here, you acknowledge that the issue comes basically because of the URLs wiki markup size. Outside that, you are basically aiming for splitting just for the sake of splitting based on sheer wiki size, not weighting the pros and cons of such an action. Impru20^talk 22:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

And it's not necessary to seek consensus for every edit. I'm surprised that you would disagree that opinion polling data towards the end of the term generally has more interest than at any other point. I'm happy to weigh the positives and negatives of such an action. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a very good reason to split the article - i.e. that it is 457,907 bytes of wiki-code - and splitting it in two is a start, but not enough. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Splitting the article would be inconsistent with hundreds of articles on opinion polling.

Please delete Opinion polling for the 2018 Italian general election (2013-15), now a worthless redirect. Speedy? --Checco (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Italian elections are inconsistent with other countries in being every five years, but more importantly the size of this article is inconsistent with not only our guidelines on size, but with the vast majority of all our other articles since this is the second largest article in all of English Wikipedia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, there has to be a largest article on Wikipedia, and therefore also a second-largest article. I don't understand what's the problem with the size? And by the way here is also one image to download, which itself weighs 474 kB, so if you want to reduce the "download" size you should remove the image first (and I am strongly against that, obviously). The WP:SPLITLIST explicitly excludes lists from the "normal" page-size count and guidelines, so I think there is no rule forcing us to split the article in two. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The image is an integral part of the article and I agree it does put more pressure on the rest of the article being reduced in size, but images are compressed when displayed in articles so it's not as if the entire image is downloaded when someone opens the page. WP:SPLITLIST certainly does exclude lists being considered on size based on prose size, but it doesn't exclude it from guidelines on size, and hence the name is talks about how and why list articles should be split. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay let's analyze the guidelines. From WP:SPLITLIST: "Lists, tables, and other material that is already in summary form may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing further by the summary style method. If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact [...]". Also, the rules in WP:TOOBIG only apply to readable prose. I copy: "These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose and not to wiki markup size [...] The rules of thumb apply somewhat less to disambiguation pages and naturally do not apply to redirects. They also apply less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table". I would also suggest you to read WP:HASTE. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Please don't cherry-pick from Wikipedia:Article size, of which WP:TOOBIG, WP:SPLITLIST and WP:HASTE are but small parts. It also says:

"There are three related measures of an article's size:

• "Readable-prose size [...]
• "Wiki markup size [...]
• "Browser-page size [...]"

Note that "readable-prose size" is only one of three criteria. The Wiki markup size is currently 457,907 bytes. The Pingdom tool reports the browser page size as 701.4 KB.

WP:SPLITLIST also says "Too much statistical data is against policy". Not to mention that WP:Article size also says Very large articles should be split into logically separate articles.. By an sane measure, this is a "very large article". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we need a WP:LAWYER here... It's true that there are three different sizes, but the guideline explicitly says that the size guidelines apply only to the readable prose size.

About your last paragraph, this would suggest that the entire purpose of the articles on opinion pollings is against policy, right? Because there is no way one can decide to insert only some polls and not others in order to reduce the "statistics". Anyway WP:NOTSTATS at point 3. says Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. (e.g., statistics from the main article United States presidential election, 2012 have been moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012). I think this is exactly what has been done here with 2018 Italian general election and this article: no need of splitting again. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

No bit of those WP:SPLITLIST requires splitting to be conducted forcefully. As you yourself quoted, Very large articles should be split into logically separate articles. To interpret it as an encouragement that articles in Wikipedia should not be too large whenever possible would be correct. To forcefully interpret it as if no large article must exist and that every article must be mutilated at some point is insane. As per WP:HASTE, "sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage". Clearly, the principles of the splitting policies are not those you are interpreting.

Here, you are aiming to split already logically separate articles (let's not forget that opinion polling articles already constitute split articles by themselves) into smaller, illogically separate articles, just out of a groundless splitting frenzy, even if going against WP:CONSENSUS (which is the core policy of Wikipedia by far). And this without even entering discussing the issue of what constitutes the actual size of reference for splitting, of which there could be also a very intense discussion (though I largely agree with Ritchie92's stance).

As Ritchie92 has correctly ascertained, you can't claim that "Too much statistical data is against policy" with opinion polling, unless you suggest that we should cherry-pick which statistical data should we show and which shouldn't, which would be overtly against WP:NPOV. Impru20^talk 18:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Please lets focus on the reasons for or against splitting the article or any alternative proposals, rather than the nature of the process. I would also be very interested in hearing other solutions at mitigating the size of the article. Nobody has argued that articles should be mutilated or that large articles should not exist. A split in half leaves two articles that are still large, and I am fine with that. I want to appeal again that arguments should address the actual reasons given for splitting or otherwise decreasing the size of the article, since neither I or anybody else has argued for "a groundless splitting frenzy" or going against consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The nature of the process is relevant because you keep bringing split proposals throughout a variety of articles in order to enforce a general application of your own interpretation of splitting guidelines, without addressing the specific configuration of each article or the actual split needs for each article. For example, you keep bringing the same "technical issues"-argument (i.e. slower internet connections and on mobile devices, etc) in each article you seek to split, despite no one else seemingly suffering such issues but (curiously) the ones trying to enforce the split, who also happen to keep bringing the same arguments and interpretations of policy into each large article-split discussions. Maybe the issue is a mentality aimed at thinking that articles' sizes "need" to be "mitigated", when it reality they don't always need to, and that is not the purpose of WP principles on article-splitting. Impru20^talk 15:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I propose reducing the size of this and other articles to improve the readability of articles. In every article that I have proposed to reduce in size, or have reduced in size myself, you will see that there are different ways of splitting or reducing these articles, so obviously I have considered each cases on their merits. As I outlined in my response to you on the Spanish article, you are pretending as if I believe that the only solution to very large articles is to split them, as if all of them have been split and as if I have not done anything but propose they be split. I happen to agree with your interpretation of WP:HASTE in that I don't think all large articles should be split or reduced, just the very large ones. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Split or reduce in size, however you want to name it, what you basically pretend is to do something in articles that, possibly, don't need for something to be done, and to establish an automatic manual for splitting/reduction for application in all articles rather than getting an analysis in a case-by-case basis. This said, you did not find consensus here for any of your actions, so that should solve the issue already. Impru20^talk 05:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I did not read all the discussion throughly and I have nothing more to add to what User:Ritchie92 and User:Impru20 already said and argued for. I thank them for their valuable arguments. This is a long article, for sure, but, for readers' sake, it is better to have one joint article rather than two. I also insist on the fact that Opinion polling for the 2018 Italian general election (2013-15) should be speedily deleted as it is a completely useless redirect. --Checco (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad that we agree what should or shouldn't be done to the article is for the sake of the readers. That is why I took the bold action of splitting the article in the way that I did, but this does not mean the problems relating to the length of the article cannot be solved in some other way, such as by some other split or another reduction of size. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Readers care nothing about size, especially with lists. --Checco (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Tag "too long"

Again, we have to lose our time with a few users who go against consensus and put me and others in the risk of violating the WP:3RR for nonsensical reasons. User:Impru20, User:Checco, User:Braganza, User:Nick.mon and others, do you know how can we close this discussion once and for all? There are no bases to say that the article is too long: the measure of length is not the total size in bytes but the readable-prose size, as I already motivated multiple times in this thread. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that this is the attitude you're taking. There is no reason we can't have a discussion about this. The total byte size and the readable prose size are both measures of length, but since this is a list article it's hard for the prose measurement to apply. It's not nonsensical to bring concerns about the size of the article to the talk page, but I do find it worrying that you would essentially canvas certain people who you believe agree with you to get some perceived advantage. As for 3RR, nobody forces anybody to violate edit warring rule.

Most importantly, I want to stress that this is a separate discussion to the previous discussion about a particular split of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, if one has a look at the bigger picture, you and other users are consistently applying the same methods and unjustified arguments on many pages regarding opinion pollings, including this one and Opinion polling for the 2019 Spanish local elections, so you are just changing a detail to the point of discussion and pretending it's another different topic. This discussion is indeed not separate from the one about the split: unless I lost my mind I think that the split was made because the article was too long, is that right? Finally, I am not tagging "certain people", I'm tagging the people that work or worked the most on this page (some of them did not contribute to this discussion yet, so I would not even know what they think about it). Sorry for the attitude, but I feel this has been discussed already enough and there is no consensus on deeming this page and the Spanish page "too long" for WP guidelines (which by the way are not policies). --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree with User:Ritchie92. Discussions are always welcome, but this is really pointless. It is obvious that such an article should not be splitted in two or three. A list has to be kept together, even if it is long. For users' sake, how a splintered article would be better? I hope other users will come out, so that we can go on and get back to editing articles, instead of wasting time with dicussions like this. Sorry for my rudeness. --Checco (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Fully agree with Ritchie92. I did point it out already in the discussion above and in the discussion at Talk:Opinion polling for the 2019 Spanish local elections. So many others have done likewise at the discussion above as well. Worse of all is that no other argument is being brought on these articles in favour of the split other than the articles are long, and this keeps on even when arguments contrary to the split of the specific articles are presented. About this discussion, it merely brings the same concerns from the splitters as already pointed out above, so I can't understand this drama; this is splitting just for the sake of splitting, without any real purpose behind. Impru20^talk 13:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Every article has its own circumstances and considerations. This isn't the only article with length concerns of course, but how we deal with those concerns are specific to each article. The problems with large size are fairly simple, and while the guidelines can help explain this, the issue is not specifically the guidelines themselves.

That means the issues could be sorted out without splitting the article, so we don't need to simply repeat the previous discussion. In particular we should bring our attention to some of the excesses of some of the tables in the columns.

Most of all I hope that the bold split I performed does not prejudice people's attitudes here. That was a potential solution that was free to be challenged by anyone, but we do not necessarily have to split the article if we can find alternative solutions. This does not necessarily have to be seen as explicitly for the purposes of reducing the size, as improving the article in other ways often reduces the article size as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

For now I think it's best if we let the tag bring other editors who may not normally contribute to discussion. I certainly won't be splitting the article and I don't want to waste the time of myself and my fellow editors by repeating what has already been said when I think we all agree we do have better things to do. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, there are no excesses, there is not a problem. The article is just fine as it can be. --Checco (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

If you don't want to split, the only other option is to remove content. This I strongly oppose for various reasons: (1) again, I don't see the problem of a long article per se: the guideline about long articles concerns articles covering multiple sub-topics and therefore are too long and should be split; (2) as Checco said, nothing in this page is excessive; (3) in the extreme case, there still cannot be a consistent way to pick which part of the page should be removed. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Of course this article is too long, and of course size matters--not everyone is sitting somewhere with 5G or superfast internet. These articles are based on a faulty premise: that the numbers generated by all these polls are noteworthy and of encyclopedic value because they exist. The complete lack of any secondary sourcing makes this clear. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Good, then your solution would be to delete all opinion polling lists. Or, somehow, to find a secondary source for the numbers listed? --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This section was started five months ago, yet the article is currently 443,163 bytes (and the largest on Wikipedia). Please make a decision soon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The article is OK as it is. A decision was already taken: no consensus on reducing the article. --Checco (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

"No consensus" would be the opposite of a decision. Certainly this article should be reduced in size, even if we are unsure by what method that should be. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

443,163 bytes is far from "OK as it is"; hence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opinion polling for the 2018 Italian general election. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sincerely this must be a joke. Article size is not a valid reason for nominating an article for deletion, and looks more like an attempt to circumvent the lack of consensus here for splitting by just getting rid of the article altogether. This is openly disruptive, and I'll be outrightly requesting the article to be kept under WP:SNOW. This obsession with article sizes from a particular number of users is causing far more harm to Wikipedia that what it is purportedly aiming to solve. Impru20^talk 11:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree with User:Impru20. --Checco (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Columns merging

Hi Ritchie92, I merged the columns for Power to the People and CasaPound into the Other column as their presence makes the 2018 table too wide, especially for mobile devices. They were polling very infrequently and insignificantly, so there is no need for them to have separate columns. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Easy visualization of an already complicated and large table on mobile phones is not enough reason to remove data from the article. The two columns for PaP and CPI were added after consensus was reached, so I oppose their removal. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

That wasn't the consensus that was reached in a past talk page discussion. I didn't say it was only because of mobile devices, but the impact of excessively large tables is the greatest there. Those results are far too tenuous to have their own columns. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree on the "excessively large" tables. They are what they are because in Italy there are many political parties. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree with User:Ritchie92. There is no reason from deleting content. --Checco (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)