Talk:Tambroni government
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Monocolour government
[edit]@Wololoo: The common English word to be put in the infobox is "single-party government" or "one-party government". In the cases in which the DC was the only party and it was not the majority then we should put "minority government". The expression "monocolor government" does not add anything to the meaning, and it's proper of Italian and Spanish politics: the term "monocolour" is not a common English term since it's a literal translation from the Italian or Spanish languages. It's quite a weird word and I would use the most general word "single-party". There are sources for both expressions by the way, I found more with "single-party" since it's English language. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Ritchie92: I know that "single-party" is correct, but you can't begin to revert my edits claiming that "Monocolor government" doesn't exist in English, at least it must be discussed first. I am not against "single-party government", also if I prefer Monocolor government, but I am against to the revert of my correct edits without valid reasons. --Wololoo (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Wololoo: The reason was that "monocolor" is not a common English word. The term can be in the text, but the infobox entry is "Status in legislature" and that should be a general statement: therefore something like "coalition government", "minority government", "majority government", "technocratic government". "Monocolor" is the Italian journalistic term and can be added in parentheses and in italic (like it should also be done for Pentapartito etc where it appears). About your reverts of my reverts: if you do a WP:BOLD edit and then someone reverts (especially with an edit comment message), you should start discussion in the talk page because your edit is controversial, not the one of the editor that reverted. Read WP:BRD. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Ritchie92: The "comment message" was wrong, "monocolor government" exists in English (also if "sigle-party government" could be more diffused), therefore I don't have to defend a term that can be easily found on the web. If an edit of mine is reverted, I want that the motivation is valid, otherwise I restore my version, since I have already experienced similar situations. If you want to replace "Monocolor" with "single-party", go ahead, but before reverting the edits of other users you must have a valid motivation. --Wololoo (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Wololoo: I'm sorry but what you write doesn't make much sense. Replacing "monocolor" is exactly what I did, and now you say that's what I should have done! The valid motivation is English language, and I stay by this statement. The fact that a word exists does not mean it's the correct word to put in the infobox. So if by "valid arguments" to start an edit war you mean the ones that you understand or like, then I don't think yours is a good criteria. I will modify all "monocolor" and add "single-party" to make it clear to the reader, if you agree. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Ritchie92: You did not understand, I said that I prefer "Monocolor government", and that this one is correct and exists in the English language (it is used by many sources), but I have no intention of further opposing to "Single-party" because it is only a formal change. But I have also invited you to give valid reasons when you revert an edit, otherwise I restore my version.--Wololoo (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Wololoo: Your behaviour would then be called "disruptive": you are basically invoking and threatening an edit war if you don't agree with my comment messages. I repeat my point. There are many valid reasons: one is that "monocolor" is a rare word in English and it would be better to use common words like "single-party"; another reason is that "monocolor government" is not a general status in legislature, the status can be "majority"-"minority", "coalition"-"single-party" etc. "Monocolor government" is a literal translation from the Italian press of the time, and there are well-sourced examples of the use of "single-party government" or "one-party government" (actually more). But in the end, the entry "Status in legislature" in this infobox should contain just a short, general description of the status of that government. A mysterious expression that would only trigger a further research to understand its meaning goes outside the scope of that entry. Is this a valid motivation? Do you withdraw your threat of edit war? --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Ritchie92: I have the doubt that you don't read what I wrote: where is the problem on the sentence I have no intention of further opposing to "Single-party" because it is only a formal change? And however I think it's more disruptive to delete other users' edits without giving valid reasons.--Wololoo (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Wololoo: Your behaviour would then be called "disruptive": you are basically invoking and threatening an edit war if you don't agree with my comment messages. I repeat my point. There are many valid reasons: one is that "monocolor" is a rare word in English and it would be better to use common words like "single-party"; another reason is that "monocolor government" is not a general status in legislature, the status can be "majority"-"minority", "coalition"-"single-party" etc. "Monocolor government" is a literal translation from the Italian press of the time, and there are well-sourced examples of the use of "single-party government" or "one-party government" (actually more). But in the end, the entry "Status in legislature" in this infobox should contain just a short, general description of the status of that government. A mysterious expression that would only trigger a further research to understand its meaning goes outside the scope of that entry. Is this a valid motivation? Do you withdraw your threat of edit war? --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Ritchie92: You did not understand, I said that I prefer "Monocolor government", and that this one is correct and exists in the English language (it is used by many sources), but I have no intention of further opposing to "Single-party" because it is only a formal change. But I have also invited you to give valid reasons when you revert an edit, otherwise I restore my version.--Wololoo (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Wololoo: I'm sorry but what you write doesn't make much sense. Replacing "monocolor" is exactly what I did, and now you say that's what I should have done! The valid motivation is English language, and I stay by this statement. The fact that a word exists does not mean it's the correct word to put in the infobox. So if by "valid arguments" to start an edit war you mean the ones that you understand or like, then I don't think yours is a good criteria. I will modify all "monocolor" and add "single-party" to make it clear to the reader, if you agree. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Ritchie92: The "comment message" was wrong, "monocolor government" exists in English (also if "sigle-party government" could be more diffused), therefore I don't have to defend a term that can be easily found on the web. If an edit of mine is reverted, I want that the motivation is valid, otherwise I restore my version, since I have already experienced similar situations. If you want to replace "Monocolor" with "single-party", go ahead, but before reverting the edits of other users you must have a valid motivation. --Wololoo (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Wololoo: The reason was that "monocolor" is not a common English word. The term can be in the text, but the infobox entry is "Status in legislature" and that should be a general statement: therefore something like "coalition government", "minority government", "majority government", "technocratic government". "Monocolor" is the Italian journalistic term and can be added in parentheses and in italic (like it should also be done for Pentapartito etc where it appears). About your reverts of my reverts: if you do a WP:BOLD edit and then someone reverts (especially with an edit comment message), you should start discussion in the talk page because your edit is controversial, not the one of the editor that reverted. Read WP:BRD. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
[edit]There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Meloni Cabinet which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)