Talk:1924 Italian general election

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

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The remaining 35 percent

If the National Bloc received 65% of the seats in Parliament, how were the remaining seats divided? 216.99.201.154 (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing table

The table is unclear. It has to be clearly stated that the National List got 56,5% of the vote, but over 65% of the seats in parliament due to the Acerbo law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:C68A:47D0:E0F8:1814:3E0E:BDB (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Italian general election, 1924. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305031636/http://129.3.20.41/eps/eh/papers/0402/0402001.pdf to http://129.3.20.41/eps/eh/papers/0402/0402001.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Way too much background

It's an article about the 24 election. It goes too much into the 22 events (and does so poorly) - the background should be cut drastically, imho. Bazuz (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox portraits' size

Hi Checco, Scia Della Cometa, Impru20, Dave King, Autospark, sorry for pinging you here but, as users usally involved in Italian politics, I'd like to have your opinions about the current size of leaders' portraits in this infobox. Some years ago, Number 57 reduced their size to a mere 130x130px which made them barely visible and constanly reverted all the edits which slightly enlarged them to 150x150px (which in my view is a reasonable size, definitely not too large). No other infobox in en.Wiki has such tiny images and I don't know why we should keep such small photos. What do you think? -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you still claiming that "no other infobox... has such tiny images"? Do you not read edit summaries? This (which I included in my edit summary and either you have not bothered looking at or are conveniently ignoring) shows that hundreds of articles do. Claiming images are 'barely visible' at 130x130px but are fine at 150x150px is also somewhat laughable. By all means let's have a discussion about image size, but can we do it without resorting to untrue and ridculous claims?

Anyway, the reason I think 130x130px is better for infoboxes where there are three parties in a row is that it makes the infobox unnecessarily wide, creating lots of unused space. As can be seen on this article, sizing the images at 130x130px still allows the text to fit on a single line. Increasing the image size simply spaces out the text (unnecessarily IMO). It's also an issue when infoboxes have maps, as maps are autosized at 300px and having three 150x150px images leaves too much space (IMO) either side of the map. Number 5 7 00:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Templates with the photos of leaders are highly inappropriate for legislative elections. In my view the "infobox election" template should be replaced by the "legislative eletion infobox" template for each and every legislative elections. If that is not possible, let's have the photos smallest as possible. --Checco (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with this :) Number 5 7 15:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: excuse me but have you seen the link you posted? The first result is about an American election with 200x200px images, then we have German elections with a larger size and finally, yes, Indian and Pakistani’s elections with smaller portraits. Anyway I understand what you said, even if I quite disagree, with 150x150px infoboxes aren’t too large. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course I have looked at it, hence knowing how many articles the search picked up. It shows a list of all articles with {{Infobox election}} and using 130x130px. While the first five don't have 130x130 in the infobox, the vast majority do. Number 5 7 15:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]