Template talk:Italian elections

Elections and Referendums Template‑class

This template 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 Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Italy Template‑class

This template 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 Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I would like to push forward my proposal of grouping the by-election row inside the general election row, which was reverted in this edit by

Hello. By non-standard, I mean in other cases where we have by-elections in the national election template, they are not put into a sub-group. See {{Gibraltar elections}}, {{Singaporean elections}}, {{South Korean elections}}, {{Thai elections}}.

Having said that, I'm not even sure it's a good idea to have individual years for by-elections on here at all. They are not included on most countries' templates at all, although some have a single link to a main article on by-elections in the country in question. Would that make more sense here, as at the moment it looks woefully incomplete? Cheers, Number 57 01:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

Ritchie92: I would like to point out that in almost all the templates of other countries, as Number 57 has written, the by-elections are not indicated (or rather, they are indicated in separate templates). Furthermore, this addition was done in a decidedly approximate way, since that the by-elections in Italy were many more, and the red links of these elections have not been included. I propose to remove them from this template, for consistency with the templates of all other countries.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree that it is probably best to remove them completely. The row is woefully incomplete, and they are not really relevant to a national elections template. Number 57 12:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's just add them with all the relevant missing years in red (not all years, since by-elections have not always been there in Italian politics). "Consistency" with other articles is not a thing on Wikipedia, unless there are policies or regulations that specifically say that all the "[country] elections" templates have to have the same structure and content (which is impossible anyway since each country has its own system). But anyway, I see a lot of difference also on other levels among the various templates, so the by-elections are not the only "consistency" issue, if that was important. Instead it's far more important, I think, that the template includes as much articles as possible, that are related to the subject "Italian elections". That's why I support the inclusion of the by-elections. --

talk) 15:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I disagree. There's way too many by-elections going on all the time in countries with such systems. It would be misleading to have them as years on these templates in the General election line, as the sheer number of them would make it appear like there were a General election every year. They're not the renewal of the legislature, so I tend to agree with not showing them there too. A link in each corresponding GE page would be enough.--Aréat (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can compromise and put a link to a "list of Italian by-elections" or to the category page at the bottom of the template. --

talk) 09:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Sounds like a sensible solution.In the absence of an article (which would be preferable), I've added the category as a see also. Number 57 16:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]