Talk:First Conte government/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Absences in investiture vote table

@Scia Della Cometa: I think adding the absences rows only adds noise and it's not really informative. Not all MPs are always present, so we should not worry about reaching the total number of MPs and counting who was present and so on. Furthermore this way it's clear what the majority is: the majority is calculated on the total of present MPs, not on the total MPs. So the bar should actually be measured on the total of voters. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: Often the absence of entire parties is stratetegic, especially in the Senate (the so called "minority governments"). With this setting, that shows the attitude taken by each party, the indication of absences is very important. If not it is better a table like the one used for the spanish government (see Sánchez government) (which in any case indicates the absentes). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

ps. Certain numbers indicated for each party, in some cases seem to me to be definitely wrong.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I would like to say first that when you push a controversial edit you should stop and seek discussion, possibly not through the edit comments. Now, I don't see any conceptual difference between the Spanish table and the one you propose, and I firmly disagree with counting the total number as the number of MPs. I know perfectly the strategic use of absences. However the table is about the vote result and the votes bar should report only the total votes, without the absences, because this way the majority is clear. If there are 630 deputies and 600 are absent, then 16 votes is the majority and this should be clear from the bars. By your principle, we should report the general election results weighting the percentages on the total number of people eligible to vote, also counting abstention (also abstention in popular vote is strategic)...

What I could accept is a small comment or note at the beginning of each row stating how many and who was absent that day. Specifically, below "Senate of the Republic" and "Chamber of Deputies". --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding what you say are "wrong numbers"... Please read the sources before. You will find out that in the Senate the M5S was present and voted against, check the names of the Senators in the official report. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: Ok about the numbers for the Gentiloni Cabinet, but the problem remains: the table gives an incomplete view of the overall situation, without absences, it would be better to avoid listing the parties.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: See, you should stop editing when something is controversial in any case, and I am still surprised that even after my warnings you kept edit warring. Do you like it? Anyway what you are saying makes zero sense: why should we remove the parties because of the absences? I just told you, we can add that detail, but in a note, or in the text, or in parentheses below "Senate" or "Chamber of Deputies". --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: Absolutely not, indeed I rarely revert the edits of other users. What I say makes absolutely sense: the table currently shows an incomplete situation and I still don't see any indication of the numbers on the absent parties/MPs, if you don't correct this situation the problem remains...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: You must be joking: you've been on an eternal edit war with User:Checco on Socialist Party (Italy, 2007, De Michelis), Italian Socialist Party (2007), and New Italian Socialist Party. You can't come here as a user who "rarely revert[s] the edits of other users", let's be honest. However, yes I will do that, but it's not a mistake nor an imprecision to not report the absences, so don't be impatient. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: I'm absolutely not joking: I don't revert his edits, I just restore mine! Before making certain statements, really check what happens! and it seems to me that here, the user that very often reverts the edits of the other one, are you. If you don't correct this point, on all the pages where the table is present, what I say makes absolutely sense, since you revert my edits.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: I don't revert his edits, I just restore mine! Haha, ok this is funny. Restoring your edits still counts as edit warring! You must know this! It's not like some God decided that your edits are the correct ones. I surely revert edits that I find not good, therefore I don't go around saying that I "rarely revert the edits of other users"... Reverting is not bad in itself, but if someone reverts your edit (and they are not vandals or trolls) one should not start an edit war like you often do, and "restore your edit" without even paying attention to the objection: that revert means that the other user does not agree with you! Ergo, discuss.

If you don't correct this point, on all the pages where the table is present, what I say makes absolutely sense, since you revert my edits. I don't understand a single word of what you said here. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: you can also continue to mock me, but I am speaking seriously and I invite you to do the same, because your attitude does not seem at all constructive. An edit was is an edit war, but there is a big difference between protecting one's own edit from often non-constructive total rollbacks and rollbacking the edit of others, remember it. I rollback the edits of other users only in the most serious cases, so I confirm everything I said. With all your rollbacks you don't seem to be in the right position to criticize others. And there is little to understand about that sentence, you stated that what I said makes zero sense: well, since you have rollback my edits, now it is up to you to integrate all the tables with the absent parties / MPs in the parliament.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I am serious but you appear to have no knowledge of how this works. You don't "protect" your edits by edit warring: you protect them by discussing in the talk page. And I claim most of my reverts, you are the one saying that you "rarely revert". I repent some of my reverts (I am not an angel and I am not perfect), but usually they are mostly well-motivated and anyway in general you should always assume good faith. Then you say: since you have rollback my edits, now it is up to you to integrate all the tables with the absent parties / MPs in the parliament What does this mean? Am I obligated now? Wikipedia is a work in progress, there is no rush. And by the way I proposed my solution to the problem, if you like it you can use it in the other articles, otherwise just be patient. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: I don't see all this seriousness in laughter, however I had already proposed my solutions, but you opposed them. So yes, Wp is a work in progress, but if you don't accept my edits to solve this problem, you should fix it yourself, also on the other pages. After all, the tables on the investiture votes are not present on many pages.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

This is becoming a meta-discussion and I am going to abandon it. I edit when I have time, I can revert once when I think that the edit is wrong, and then discussion should happen. There is no law forcing anyone to add a certain information immediately. Again, be patient. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Is or was ?

Conte has resigned, Mattarella has accepted that and asked him to ... (I don't know the technical term; in German: geschäftsführender Ministerpräsident). Is he / is his cabinet still in office ? --Neun-x (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Neun-x: Yes, Conte is still Prime Minister for the so-called "disbrigo degli affari correnti" (which means, de facto, ordinary administration), until a new government swears. -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Move to Conte I Cabinet?

Should we rename this page Conte I Cabinet, if tomorrow morning everything goes as planned and a new cabinet is formed? I think officially (see government's website) the name would still be Conte Cabinet (even though other official sources would name it with "I"), however per Wikipedia tradition (see Berlusconi I Cabinet, Prodi I Cabinet, Andreotti I Cabinet, etc) we should rename it to Conte I. (PS: for tomorrow, see Draft:Conte II Cabinet) Ritchie92 (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The government will be named "Conte I Cabinet" also according official sources only after the formal birth of the Conte II Cabinet. However, in my view, we can already move this article and start the new one on the Conte II Cabinet. --Checco (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation page?

Should this page: [1] be a disambiguation page? It would link to the Conte I Cabinet and the Conte II Cabinet articles. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Not necessary, in my view. It would also break many links. --Checco (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)