Talk:First Conte government/Archive 1

Three issues on the government
I appreciate what User:Nick.mon and others are doing to update this article and Government of Change. Before editing, I would like to raise three issues:
 * 1) Populism. I am not sure it is a correct description: history will tell us. The government's key positions are held by liberals or people with a liberal background. I am referring to indepedents (Moavero, Tria and Savona—all three previously connected with centrist parties), but also to the M5S-proposed Prime Minister (Conte), as well as LN's number two (Giorgetti). I would make a distinction between coalition and government. The former is definitely populist (it is a syllogism as the two parties forming the coalition are described as populist in en.Wikipedia), the latter is not. It is not a big deal, but more clarity would definitely help.
 * 2) Duplicates. Let me also add that "Governent of Change" is a confusing name: what about moving Government of Change to "Yellow-green coalition" and mentioning "Government of Change" as a nickname of "Conte Cabinet"? Consequently, consistently with the need to better distinguish the subject of this article from that of Government of Change, I would remove the list of ministers from the latter: that is a redundant duplicate and has nothing to do with the coalition itself.
 * Independents. Finally, let me write again on this. As far as I understand, the government includes only three full-fledged independents: Moavero Milanesi, Tria and Savona. All the other "independents", including Prime Minister Conte, are actually connected to one of the two parties: Conte, Trenta, Bonisoli and Costa to the M5S (all of them endorsed the M5S before the election and actively participated in the electoral campaign), Bussetti to the LN.

Bold editing is always fine, but an understanding on these issues would save us a lot of energies. --Checco (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Populism. Ok, even if it is widely considered abroad as a “fully populist government”, there are ministers like Moavero, Tria, etc. who can’t be labeled as populist. So we can remove it from the beginning of this article.
 * Duplicate Well, the official name of the government alliance is “Government of Change”, as we can see from the contract, however we can start a discussion and listening to other users, but I would remain with “Government of Change”.
 * Indipendents. Yes, this is a main problem. Conte, Trenta, Costa and Bonisoli are de facto members of the M5S, but we will never have a clear proof of it. We have to decide if consider them M5S members or not. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a big deal: history will tell.
 * "Government of Change" is the nickname of the cabinet, not the coalition! The "contract" is named "Contract for the Government of Change". That "Government" is now the Conte Cabinet. Anyway, most of the infos currently included in Government of Change should be moved to this article.
 * We have a very big evidence on Conte, Trenta, Costa and Bonisoli: they officially endorsed the M5S before the election and took part to the party's electoral campaign, thus they were practically candidates of the party. To be sure, also Bongiorno is an independent of the LN, but her election makes her connection with the LN more official. --Checco (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In my view, we can consider them members of the M5S. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I edited the list as Trenta and Bonisoli actually ran as candidates for the Parliament, so they can be considered full members of M5S. About Conte and Costa, I think for now we should stick only considering if they will officially join the party or not. --Broncoviz (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Government composition discrepancy
According to The Local, the composition of the cabinet is 9 M5S, 6 League, and 3 Independent: This does not match with this article, so we should look into this discrepancy. As an aside, this article might also be useful: --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The three ministers independent-like are Bussetti (near to Lega), Costa (M5S) and Conte (M5S), but the latter is not counted by The Local while en.Wikipedia does. The problem is, we don't know if they are members of their respective parties, because they did not run on the latest general election as candidates but they gave only an endorsement (Bussetti) or were part of the initial cabinet proposed (and led) by Di Maio during the political campaign. --Broncoviz (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Non-party independents... really?
Several members of this government, notably including Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, will be formally non-party indepdents. But will this be really accurate? I have some doubts. In fact, some of those would-be independent ministers have actually endorsed the Five Star Movement (M5S) before the election and have been proposed by that party. A large chunk of M5S-proposed ministers will be "independents", while the Lega Nord (LN) will fill its posts only with party members, most of whom are long-time politicians. If several or most of M5S-proposed ministers will be classified as "independent", it might be that the plurality of ministers will be affiliated with the LN, while the government's real weights will be approximately 2 (M5S) to 1 (LN). The government has not been formed yet, but I think it is better to start discussing about this now. I am going to "ping" this discussion also at Talk:Giuseppe Conte, so that we can discuss also about his party affiliation here. --Checco (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right, probably some members of the “Di Maio Cabinet”, presented before the election, will be selected as ministers. They are formally independent, but they are de facto very close to the M5S. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Are we going to classify them as M5S or "independent"? What do you think? --Checco (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Other countries' cabinet entries (Czech Republic comes to mind) puts them as, for example, 'Independent (nominated by M5S)'. That might be a solution. JackWilfred (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Can We find the right Source for the Breakdown of the Chamber of Deputies?
They have approved the measure. However, the nos and abstentions seem to lack party identification2601:447:4101:41F9:7DFE:911D:2FB2:135E (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As for the Senate, the official report of the assembly containing the vote breakdown name by name is published on the website of the Chamber of Deputies. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but look at the Chamber, 220+124+1+6 = 351 (not 350) and 111+104+14+4+3+3 = 239 (not 236). You rightly insert the groups which support the cabinet, not the ones who have voted the confidence vote today. We must correct it. -- Nick.mon (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yesterday, I personally checked all the votes for the Senate from the official transcription. Today I checked most of the votes for the Chamber from the transcription, except for the votes of members of League, M5S, PD and FI. Tomorrow I will do it: there surely was 1 absent from the League or M5S; 3 absent deputies from FI or PD. All the numbers of other parties (Leu, FdI, and others) are already been checked. ᚪᛋᚦᚩᚾᛏ (Asþont) 📯 22:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your great job, but if 350 Deputies voted in favor of the government, the sum of the single parties cannot be 351, and the same for the ones who voted against it. I simply said this, we should check and correct it :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I do not know yet if the ”missing” vote is a 5Star deputy or a League one. I can only tell that one deputy from 5Star didn’t vote as he is the acting president Roberto Fico, and another one (Paola Carinelli) didn’t vote as she was on “Parliamentary mission”: so, even if the 5Star has 222 deputies, only 219–220 actually voted. Same goes for FdI: they have 32 deputies, but one (Edmondo Cirielli) was on Parliamentary mission and another one was absent, so only 30 of them actually voted. ᚪᛋᚦᚩᚾᛏ (Asþont) 📯 22:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, a real mess... however if we will not find a solution, we can keep the current version. -- Nick.mon (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We could also show something like this:
 * {|class="wikitable" style="font-size:85%;"


 * colspan="4"| 5–6 June 2018 Investiture votes for Conte Cabinet
 * width=120px|'''House of Parliament
 * width=60px|Vote
 * width=300px|Parties
 * width=80px align="center"|Votes
 * rowspan="3"|Senate of the Republic
 * ✅ Yes || M5S (109), League (58), MAIE (2), Independents (2) ||
 * No || FI (57), PD (52), LeU (4), AUT. (2), PSI (1), +E (1) ||
 * Abstension || FdI (18), AUT. (5), Independents (2) ||
 * rowspan="3"|Chamber of Deputies
 * ✅ Yes || M5S (219-220), League (123-124), MAIE (6), FI (1) ||
 * No || PD (108-111), FI (101-104), LeU (14), CP-AP-PSI-AC (4), NcI (3), +E-CD (3) ||
 * Abstension || FdI (30), SVP-PATT (4), USEI (1) ||
 * }
 * ᚪᛋᚦᚩᚾᛏ (Asþont) 📯 23:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * rowspan="3"|Chamber of Deputies
 * ✅ Yes || M5S (219-220), League (123-124), MAIE (6), FI (1) ||
 * No || PD (108-111), FI (101-104), LeU (14), CP-AP-PSI-AC (4), NcI (3), +E-CD (3) ||
 * Abstension || FdI (30), SVP-PATT (4), USEI (1) ||
 * }
 * ᚪᛋᚦᚩᚾᛏ (Asþont) 📯 23:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * }
 * ᚪᛋᚦᚩᚾᛏ (Asþont) 📯 23:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, I sincerely prefer your previous version :) Anyway I found article (in Italian) which proves what you said. The 6 members of MAIE and Sgarbi voted in favor of the government, so 3 members of the majority didn’t vote (Fico, Carinelli, ??). -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like the missing vote in the majority is that of League’s deputy Fedriga who resigned after being elected President of F.-V.G. and whose substitute is yet to be named. ᚪᛋᚦᚩᚾᛏ (Asþont) 📯 23:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Great! Now we should find the three missing votes in the opposition, and I think they belong to PD or FI, because I didn’t heard of any absence in LeU or in the other small centrist parties. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

League vs. Northern League
I cannot find any source that confirms that the official name of the Northern League party has been changed to just League. As far as I know, the party only changed the name in the symbol they presented for the 2018 General Election. Also, their website is still leganord.org and their valid Statute still refers to "Lega Nord". On the other hand the official name of their Parliamentary group is "Lega - Salvini premier". In any case I wouldn't use the abbreviation "L" for the Northern League but still "LN", and I would refer to it as such in all the articles involving the last elections. But I might be wrong. Ritchie92 (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Leg Nord's current name is a real mess. As you said, they are using "Lega" symbol (the old one is completely disappear), they call themselves simply "Lega" on the social networks and even their parliamentary group is named "Lega", but officially the party's name is still Lega Nord. However, yesterday I heard an Italian journalist saying that SkyTG24 had been "reproached" by LN's deputies because the channel still called the party "Lega Nord" and not just "Lega". I personally think that according to Salvini (and his fellows) the party's name is now "Lega", but officially it isn't. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly what Nick.mon said. And if there was an official name change, of course it would be covered by reliable sources. So, the official name still is LN, regardless of what the Deputy PM thinks. &mdash; Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 13:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The official name is still Lega Nord, while the "officious" name is Lega. Probably the name will be officially changed in the future in a congress, but already now the name used for the party is only Lega, therefore it is correct to use this name.--Wololoo (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Merger
I support the proposed merger of the articles Government of Change and Conte Cabinet. The alliance of 5 Stars and Lega is obviously just an ad-hoc coalition, concluded merely to bring this current government into office, not a long-term one. Therefore, at present, there is no difference between this government coalition and the current cabinet. So far, it is impossible to tell how long this alliance will survive and if the coalition of the two parties may outlive the tenure of the Conte cabinet (or vice versa?), extend to the regional levels or continue during/after the next election. Moreover, neither of the articles is so long that the creation of two articles would be necessary. Also, the content is largely (and necessarily) redundant. --RJFF (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I also support a merger. No point having two virtually identical articles. There does not appear to be a political alliance here that would warrant two separate articles.--Jay942942 (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose merging the two articles, as I explained on the talk page of the Government of Change article. These two articles are not duplicates, as this one discusses Conte's cabinet (a narrower topic, almost like a list), while the other one takes a broader look at the coalition government and approaches it as a unique period in Italian political history. As an analogy, these two articles are comparable to differences between the Cabinet of Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump articles -- they are both about Trump's presidency, but one takes a much broader approach to the historical era. I think the Government of Change article could be improved to make the distinction in its purpose clearer, but they should remain separate articles. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I oppose a merger, as well. The two entities are, of course, separate and different insofar as the Government of Change is, more or less, the coalition which runs the government (a legislative entity altogether, if I may); while the Conte Cabinet is the Prime Minister and the Italian Ministries acting as an executive body. Put plainly, the Government of Change is not the Cabinet, and vice-versa. In short, I agree with 1990&#39;sguy: while a greater distinction can be made between the two, they are not one body by any means. &mdash; Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 03:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I oppose the merger, but the two articles should contain different infos: one should cover the coalition and should be moved to "Yellow-green coalition" as "Government of Change" is the nickname of "Conte Cabinet", the other just the cabinet. Having "Government of Change" as the title of an article on a coalition is quite confusing and having a duplicate list of ministers makes no sense–at all. --Checco (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I oppose the merger and agree with (Checco). "Government of Change" should be moved to "Yellow-green coalition" and cover the coalition, while "Conte Cabinet" should only give infos about the cabinet itself. -- Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC
 * I also oppose a merger of the articles, and support retitling as per Checco. (IMO we should leave it open for possible future eventualities, such as a second Conte cabinet, or the M5S/LN coalition continuing under a different premier.)--Autospark (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would only support renaming the "Government of Change" article if it can be shown that the proposed name is the WP:COMMONTERM used for the coalition, since I don't have any problem with the current name in and of itself.
 * Also, as I mentioned elsewhere, I strongly recommend that we use the "Government of Change" article to add/expand information about the government's agenda, actions taken, and legacy/achievements, when we are able to. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is no source about the coalition being named "Government of Change": that is the cabinet's nickname. Moreover, "government's agenda, actions taken, and legacy/achievements" have to do with the government, not the coalition. --Checco (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the merger is a good idea, particularly when there seems to be a 'distinction without the difference' between the "Government for change" and the "Conte Cabinet". Alssa1 (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I support a merger, since "Governo del Cambiamento" is simply the name that the M5S-Lega coalition gave to the Conte government. Eccekevin (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Right now we are in a ridiculous condition where we have two separate, mostly redundant, articles on exactly the same subject - that is, the current Italian government. If someone wants to create an article about the "alliance" (which is so far a one-off thing happening only at the national government level), they can do so - in fact, we already have articles such as Jamaica coalition (politics) - but they should be a totally different article covering a different subject (Yellow-green coalition (Italy) ?), whereas Government of Change should be merely a redirect to Conte Cabinet. If nobody objects such a move under a proper rationale, I can do that move as well. Angelo (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The agenda, positions, legacy, etc., have to do with the coalition and should be added to the "Government of Change" article. Remember, the coalition published their agenda even before choosing the government and prime minister, and it's the coalition (League/M5S) that have the real power. The government and its agenda stand on the coalition, and not the other way around. Besides, this article (Conte Cabinet) is narrow in focus (only on Conte's cabinet, and it's almost a "list" article), while the other article is and should be broader in focus and focus on more than simply naming ministers. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody is blocking you from expanding Conte Cabinet, namely. Right now it's just a larger version of Government of Change. And no, the government agenda stand on the government: coalition platforms may change and evolve, and even differ on whichever level they are about, in fact. If tomorrow, hypotetically, Lega and M5S decide to contest together a regional election, then their platform would necessarily be different than the nationwide contract. Also, we have no article for each contract agreement between CDU and SPD in German elections; those belong to the normal government negotiation part, in fact. Angelo (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * oppose a coalition is not a government. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Both articles are about governments (Conte Cabinet vs. Government of Change, as words say), so I don't really get your point here. There's no article about the coalition really... Angelo (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It was the coalition (League and M5S) that created the term "Government of Change", and they did so even before choosing any of the ministers. Besides, the government is technically a part of the broader coalition. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not correct. The name "government of change" comes from the "Contract for the government of change" (Italian: Contratto per il governo di cambiamento) and how the party leaders started referring to the government afterwards. There is no such alliance in formal terms, as M5S and Lega have never contested a single election together, are not contesting any of them presently (we have local elections in Italy on June 10, namely), are not governing together anywhere else, neither they have publicly stated any plans to do so. I would be fine to have a separate article about the coalition, even though it hperspectiveas been a one-off event so far, but it has to have a separate title than "Government of Change" - again, a government and a coalition are two entirely different words, with entirely different meanings. Angelo (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I perfectly agree with User:Angelo.romano's two comments, especially when he writes that if we want to keep the two articles, they should be totally different and cover different subjects. Additionally, let me say again that the fact that the article on the coalition is named "Government of Change" is confusing and inaccurate. @User:1990&: What do you mean with "It was the coalition (League and M5S) that created the term "Government of Change""? Of course, the two parties wanted to form a government and eventually that would-be government (nicknamed "Government of Change") became the Conte Cabinet. --Checco (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Government of Change" is a nickname of the Conte Cabinet, I support the merger. A page on the coalition M5S-Lega would be interesting if the coalition existed. But currently, the coalition is limited only to this cabinet. I see no reason to keep two pages dealing with the same subject...--Wololoo (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said in my second comment in this section, I can and will support changing the article's name if the proposed title does not violate WP:COMMONTERM. However, I really don't care what we call it, as long as we have two separate articles, one giving the list of ministers and the other giving a wider approach of the entire coalition agreement (which would obviously include the list of ministers as one small part of it). But deleting the "Government of Change" article simply because of the title is absurd. If the article clearly discusses this coalition agreement as an era of Italian political history and discusses its agenda/effects/etc., rather than simply listing ministers like here, I don't see how the title makes any difference. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I see a general trend in favour of merging, also due to WP:COMMON, so I would be turning Government of Change as a redirect before it's too late (we've been waiting and discussing for way too long on this subject, and WP:BOLD). Any coalition-related discussion should go to a separate article (in case it's worth it), whereas the common platform of the government should simply go into this article as separate paragraph (even though I don't see much value of having that information here so early). Angelo (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you actually count the supports/opposes? I did (twice, for certainty), and there are six editors on both sides. There's no consensus for merging, and I WP:BOLDly reverted. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks, I was going to say the same. There is no consensus for such move and I definitely think we should keep two articles: one for the cabinet and one for the "coalition". Actually, the movement and the league like to call it "contract", which is unique in the history of the republic, and the movement in particular does not like it to be called "coalition" (as a forming a coalition is against what they had always told to people who voted them). Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are saying you want two different articles, then you are supporting having two equivalent articles here. If you want two different articles, just create the missing one, I see no point here really. Plus: WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. There is a clear consensus on not having two exact same articles, which is the current statu quo! Angelo (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Currently, the article named "Government of Change" not only has an inappropriate, deceptive and confusing name, but is full of content which has nothing to do with the coalition. Most of its content should be wiped out and the article should be rewritten. I totally oppose the current content of the article, thus, as the lesser of two evils, I am going to support the transformation of the article into a redirect, per User:Angelo.romano and User:Wololoo. --Checco (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Also supporting the merger, "Government of Change" is just the self-declared propagandistic nickname given by the governing coalition. While this can be mentioned in the article on the government, by no means it fulfills any encyclopedic criteria to deserve a separate article.--Desyman (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * support huge overlap, and also "Government of Change" is a largely meaningless name from a world-wide context. Batternut (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose While there may be some overlap, the Cabinet doesn't include the Legislature. Furthermore, if Comte is reelected and/or the cabinet is reshuffled, or Conte somehow loses power and someone else steps up to form a cabinet formed of the same parties, the Government of Change continues while the Comte Cabinet ends or reiterates (Comte II?). If a merge does occur, I would prefer that the name would be "Government of Change", not "Comte Cabinet".&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 18:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Deputy ministers and undersecrateries
Apparently, while Conte's cabinet has been finalized, the undersecretaries and deputy ministers have yet to be chosen: I recommend that we include them either in this article or the Government of Change article when they are chosen. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is an ongoing discussion at it:Discussione:Governo Conte. --Checco (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Merger, pt. 2
I think it is time to fix the situation. This article and Government of Change clearly overlap and the latter's name is controversial, as it refers to the cabinet, not the coalition. My second thoughts on the issue are that the two articles should be merged into one and, in case, a new article on the coalition can be created (another option would be moving "Government of Change" to "Yellow-green coalition", "Populist coalition", or something like that). @RJFF, Jay942942, 1990&#39;sguy, Javert2113, talk, Autospark, Alssa1, Eccekevin, Angelo.romano, Panam2014, Wololoo, Desyman, Batternut, Mr. Guye and everyone concerned: please have a say. Do you support merger and/or renaming of "Government of Change"? --Checco (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Checco, sincerly I remain by my opinion, the “contract” on which the coalition is based on, is named “Contract for the Government of Change”. The government is also known as “Yellow-green Government”, but this is only a name invented by journalists, while the most prominent member of the government, Salvini, prefers “Yellow-blue government”. Outside Italy the government is widely known simply as “Populist government/coalition”, so I think that this could be a good solution too, if we want to move the page and remove “Government of Change”. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Following your reasoning, we should move "Government of Change" to "Contract for the Government of Change"! But neither that nor "Government of Change" is the coalitions's name. Whatever option (even a plain "M5S–Lega coalition") would be more accurate—and a joint article would be a good solution too. Of course, the coalition has no official name, but "Government of Change" clearly refers to the "Conte Cabinet". --Checco (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support "M5S–Lega coalition", which is accurate.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 13:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, maybe you’re right, but I’m still not complitley convinced. However, I support “M5S–Lega Coaltion”. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I stick to the opinion of merging, as I keep seeing way too many things in common between those two articles and no decent rationale for having separate ones. Also, a coalition-related article would open doors for articles regarding every single coalition happening in Italy, which would be a giant Pandora's box. Just to remind you: the Letta Cabinet was a coalition with PD, Forza Italia and some other minor parties; the Renzi Cabinet and Gentiloni Cabinet were as a coalition with PD, Alfano's party (which changed names and had some splinters in the meantime, and now basically disappeared) and minor parties too. Not to mention the huge coalition supporting the last Prodi Cabinet, or the coalition changed in the last Berlusconi cabinet, etc, and I am not even mentioning all many other coalitions/alliances happening at regional or local level... --Angelo (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I also think that a merger would be a good idea, but I could live also with a separate article with a different name. Articles on coalitions are useful mainly when a coalition has formed more governments, like Organic Centre-left ("organic" is a little bit confusing, btw), Pentapartito, Centre-right coalition, Centre-left coalition, etc. @User:Angelo.romano: You mentioned the Letta Cabinet... you might then be interested in knowing that there is also an article on Grand coalition (Italy)! I would merge also those two articles into one. --Checco (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I think having two separate articles is still the best choice. The Conte Cabinet article lists the members of his cabinet, and the Government of Change article discusses the broader coalition, including the coalition's agenda (both on paper and in practice). I would only tolerate a merge if we include all of the info about the actions the government has taken along with its original on-paper agenda. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As I have stated previously, I support a merger between the two topics under the title "Conte Cabinet". Having it merged under the title of "Government of Change" sounds a like a support for political branding which I don't think should be the title in a objective encyclopedia. Alssa1 (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I am still in favour of the merger. As of now, the Conte Cabinet is the only case of an M5S-Lega coalition (correct me if I am wrong), so a separate article is redundant. We may re-create an article about the coalition if and when the two parties continue their coalition under a different prime minister or if they start to coalise on the regional level or run as an electoral alliance. But none of these cases is imminent so far. --RJFF (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of merge the page "Government of Change" to "Conte Cabinet", while I'm against renaming the page into "M5S–Lega coalition", which as a title would be even worse than the current one, in my view--Wololoo (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I support merging Government of Change with the Conte Cabinet article under the latter's name. If further cabinet and coalitions between M5S and Lega emerge we should make a separate M5S–Lega coalition article, but in my opinion not before.--Autospark (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure why there is another discussion, it seemed to me the consensus was to merge already. I remain of my opinion to merge the two and see no meaningful reason why the coalition that forms a cabinet should deserve a separate article from the cabinet itself. It would be like having a page for a minister and a page for the person... the coalition is the government and the government is the coalition. All relevant information can be consolidated in the Conte government page, avoiding hair-splitting, as well as creative and sensationalistic titles on which an agreement will be hard to reach.--Desyman (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@RJFF, Jay942942, 1990&#39;sguy, Javert2113, talk, Autospark, Alssa1, Eccekevin, Angelo.romano, Panam2014, Wololoo, Desyman, Batternut and Mr. Guye: Whether you did participate in this second discussion or not, I think it is clear to everyone that there is a large consensus on merging the two articles. That was the outcome of the first discussion, as Desyman pointed out, and also of the second one. The merger can be esaily implemented by adding the "Electoral program and implementation" section of the other article to this article (the section's name should be changed as "electoral program" is not accurate). Is there anyone who wants to go ahead with the merger? --Checco (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Ps: I will propose also the merger of Grand coalition (Italy) into Letta Cabinet.
 * Fully agree with Checco. --Desyman (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. --Angelo (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m all for merging into Conte Cabinet.--Jay942942 (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose (as proposed) If merge, then I support merging from the other direction: Conte Cabinet → Government of Change / M5S–Lega Coalition [I don't care which title]. I still prefer having two separate articles, but if consensus is in favor of merging, then so be it. The only result I object to is having a single article called "Conte Cabinet". A cabinet is not synonymous with "parliamentary government", nor is it synonymous with "coalition government". It would be misleading. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 22:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understood your objection. "Government" would be a better translation of governo than "Cabinet", but, as of today, all Italian governments are referred as "Cabinet" in en.Wikipedia. The unified article has to be "Conte Cabinet" for now, but of course you can lobby for the move of all the articles to the "XXXXX Government" format. In the meantime, there is a clear consensus for this merger. --Checco (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Conditional oppose: I will repeat my previous comment in this discussion, above. We should keep both articles, as I think that remains the best option -- the Conte Cabinet article lists the members of his cabinet, and the Government of Change article discusses the broader coalition, including the coalition's agenda (both on paper and in practice). The only way I won't oppose a merger is if we include all of the info about the actions the government has taken (along with its original on-paper agenda) in the merged article. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@RJFF, Jay942942, 1990&#39;sguy, Javert2113, talk, Autospark, Alssa1, Eccekevin, Angelo.romano, Panam2014, Wololoo, Desyman, Batternut and Mr. Guye: Per consensus, I finally merged the two articles. --Checco (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Prime Minister
@User:Wololoo: The Italian "President of the Council of Ministers" is universally known as "Prime Minister of Italy" in English-language sources, including en.Wiki. Moreover, he is usually counted as one of the ministers, the Prime Minister indeed. In fact, also Deputy Prime Ministers without portfolios are counted as ministers. Once again, please seek consensus before editing dozens of articles! I am getting very tired of your modus operandi. Please rollback all your edits that are not consistent with this. By seeking consensus first, you might even convince others that your ideas are good or, in case you do not, you would spare energies. Other users involved in those articles, including User:Nick.mon and User:Ritchie92, might have a say too. --Checco (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, the Prime Minister is a member of the Council of Ministers, so I think he should be included in the number of ministers; he's a primus inter pares. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Checco on the modus operandi, however Wololoo might have a point on this. If we consider the total count of Ministers as the number of members of the Council of Ministers, then we should note that the Italian Council of Ministers includes also the Secretary, for example, who's not a Minister. Also technically in the Constitution the Prime Minister is separated from the other Ministers and is not referred to as a Minister but always with a separate attribute. However, the point of the infobox is not to be too technical about these peculiarities of Italian politics, so I guess a reader would expect to have the total number of ministers forming the government including the Head of the government. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that "a reader would expect to have the total number of ministers forming the government including the Head of the government". The Prime Minister (Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri) should be definitely counted. Regarding the Secretary of the Council of Ministers, he/she is not a voting member (am I correct?), thus I would continue to exclude it from the count. --Checco (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Italian President of the Council of Ministers is known as "Prime Minister in English-language sources, it is right, but Prime Minister remains a journalistic term. However, the problem is not this. A minister is the head of a ministry, the Prime Minister or President of Council is not the head of a ministry, but the head of the cabinet. The infobox explicitly indicates "ministers", not "members of the Cabinet", the number of ministers of the Conte Cabinet is 18. @Checco: you say that the Prime Minister/Head of the government is usually counted as one of the ministers, but many tables of the governments of the other countries don't even indicates the number of ministers. (ps. You are very tired, I have edited dozens of articles, but I'm trying to improve and complete the very bad state of most of the pages on Italian governments; instead, what are you doing to improve the these pages?). @Ritchie92 @Nick.mon too: In my view, the two possible solutions could be the total deletion of the number of ministers (like as for german or UK governments) or the model adopted for the Portuguese governments, that rightly specifies the presence of the head of the cabinet (see XXI Constitutional Government of Portugal), because it is not correct to count the President of the Council simply as a minister.--Wololoo (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If we don't agree on the number of ministers, I think we could remove it, as Wololoo suggested. It's not a fundamental information, which must be included in the infobox and it's easily knowable in the rest of the article. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think we should keep the number as the number of "members of the government cabinet", which includes the Ministers and the Prime Minister. This is useful and in my opinion not unclear. It's true that UK and Germany do not have the total number at all, but there are also examples of the contrary (Ireland, Spain, Canada for example). Probably the best thing to do would be to change the infobox template and have it write "No. of gov't members" instead of "No. of ministers" but I don't know how simple would that be. In the meantime I would not delete the total number of members (very useful information). A middle-ground solution would be the Portuguese one. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * What about changing the infobox from "No. of ministers" to "No. of Cabinet members" (Prime Minister + ministers)? I think we can all agree that is the relevant piece of information, we just need to find the correct name for it. 82.52.94.210 (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It does not seem to me that the number of ministers in the infobox is very useful, I personally would prefer its deletion. I'm not very practical about editing infoboxes, but the "Infobox government cabinet" doesn't concern the only italian cabinets, therefore this kind of decisions can not be taken here. However, if here it is decided to maintain the number of ministers, it must be specified that one of them is the prime minister.
 * @Ritchie92 I know that the topic in another one, but the matter concerning the translation of ministers of Transport, Infrastructure, Finance etc. is the same as the President of Council/Prime Minister: the plural for these ministries is almost never used in English-language sources, if we use the more common term for the head of government (Prime Minister), we should use the most common term for ministries too.--Wololoo (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Nick.mon on potentially removing the count. However, as now, only one user has challenged a long-held compromise to count the Prime Minister among ministers. User:Wololoo: Contributing to Wikipedia is free and there is no competition among users. I contributed a lot to this Wikipedia, but that does not mean that I have to edit each and every page or correct each and every mistake. Everyone does what he wants to or can. Seeking consensus first would help you to waste less energies. --Checco (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not challenged a compromise, I simply noticed that the count is formally wrong, the current version provides an incorrect informaton. It seems to me that here we are almost all in agreement that this data can be deleted from the infobox, however, alternatively, I also agree to specify the presence of the prime minister in the count (as in the pages on the Portuguese governments).--Wololoo (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @Checco at least the only edit rollbacked by the user Ritchie92 was the number of ministers in the infobox, your rollbacks for the sections "Party breakdown" seem to me specious and in contrast with the reality of the facts, it seems to me that you are trying again in every way to start a new edit war (you really should explain me the sense of indicating the prime minister among the ministers also in that section, in the absence of the technical limits of the infobox it's nonsense). --Wololoo (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * For now the best option would be in my opinion to keep the total number and specify 1 Prime Minister in brackets. Or to write e.g. 18 + 1 PM to keep it short.
 * @Wololoo: On the other topic, I think we should keep the translation used in the title of the WP pages referring to those Ministers, like Italian Minister of Economy and Finances and Italian Minister of Infrastructures and Transports, for the sake of coherence. Otherwise these pages should be moved. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it's the best compromise for now (but the edits of the section "Party breakdown", incomprehensibly annulled by Checco, must be restored!). About the other topic, I see your reasoning, but the pages of the Ministries are titled Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport (Italy) and Ministry of Economy and Finance (Italy) (indeed, in the English language, these terms are used above all in their singular form). If you agree, I would move the pages of the ministers.--Wololoo (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * On the main issue (Prime Minister as minister) no changes were needed, in ny view. In Wikipedia no user bears the truth: we discuss, find compromise, discuss again, find a new compromise. When an edit to a long-standing version is challenged, the previous consensus must be upheld. Edits to other articles on Italian cabinats should be rollbacked too. --Checco (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are good at rollback the contributions of other users, but less to improve these pages. However, on factual data there is always a truth, the head of government is not a minister, this is a fact, not an opinion. And the modification of the section "Party breakdown" has been contested only by you, it seems to me...--Wololoo (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It's already been enough time, if I do not receive other answers, I will proceed to the compromise found in this talk (specification of the premier in the infobox) and consequently to the logical correction of the section "Party breakdown". ps. I have corrected the names of the pages of the ministers consistently with the title of the page of ministries and the most common use in English language. --Wololoo (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, then I proceed to the changes as agreed with Ritchie92--Wololoo (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You should be more patient while seeking consensus. I still prefer the former version, as User:Nick.mon possibly does. However, I can live with it: it is not a big deal. Your comments on my Wikipedia record are so ridiculous that need no answer. --Checco (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This edit on Gentiloni Cabinet is more problematic. I think the infobox should reflect that some ministers have been replaced or have resigned. Ideas? Ideally, there should be the initial number, the final number and the number of resignations. --Checco (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree at all with your statements about Checco, and I I don't think they should even be commented. Regarding this discussion, despite preferring the former version with the total number of members of the Council of Ministers, if Ritchie92 and you think that this one is better, I can absolutely accept it. About Checco's question, I think we should insert the number of removed ministers (as in Renzi's article). -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I only said that it would have been a middle-ground compromise. I also would have not actively changed the former situation. But anyway the specification of PM + rest of Ministers does not hurt too much.


 * I already made a series of edits to other cabinet pages in order to use the entries members_number, former_members_number, and total_number correctly (see the template page). First of all, the entry current_number is old and misleading since it prints "No. of ministers": let's just use members_number instead. In my interpretation, total_number is the total number of people who had a Ministerial position during the government (therefore without double-counting if there were switches of positions or if the Prime Minister took a Ministry ad interim). The former_members_number is the number of people who left the government (so without counting cases in which they were appointed to another Ministry). The members_number is the trickier one because it's not well defined at which point in time should we define the number of Ministers: in my interpretation, again, this should be the maximum number of Ministries activated by the government.


 * In the case of this edit on Gentiloni Cabinet, for example, the correct entries in my opinion are: members_number = 19 (because there are 18 Ministries + 1 PM), former_members_number = 2 (because Martina and Costa left, and Gentiloni took over ad interim), total_number = 19 again because the 2 who left were not substituted with new people. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It is interesting to know that only one user out of four wanted the change and the change was implemented!
 * By the way, as User:Ritchie92 correctly observed, also the previous version was not without faults. I like his/her latest proposal. Another solution would be to indicate the number at the beginning of term and the number at the end of term also in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Obviously I was not looking for an answer, but nevertheless I confirm the concept already expressed: most of the pages on governments are in a painful condition, nobody did anything to improve them, when I began to try to improve them, at the same time correcting the minor errors of the pages about most recent governments, I was also hindered by meaningless rollback (like for the section "Party breakdown") by a certain user, nobody is destined to improve the pages, but at least those who do not intend to correct them do not even obstruct those who are trying to do it. Having said this, I am not here to argue but to try to improve the status of these pages. I proposed two solutions as compromises, I would have deleted the number directly, but since the solution that prefigured the specification of the prime minister has not received the opposition of anyone, I have adopted this last way, it is simply a compromise!
 * Anyway, the infobox it's definitely set up wrong, because, as Ritchie92 said, the entry "current_number" prints "No. of ministers", and the Head of the government is not a minister (except in the case of the PM who is also minister ad interim), for this reason the specification is at least indispensable. The setting "No. of ministers" and "Total no. of ministers", in my view, is quite misleading: I think that the number of ministers indicated should only referred to a given time, so in this case I agree with the Checco's proposal, that is, it would be useful the indication of the initial and the final number of ministers. There are governments in which new ministries were formed during his term, like the Fourth Berlusconi Cabinet, in cases like this it would be more interesting to see how many ministers were at the beginning and how many were at the end. The indications in the infobox as in the Renzi Cabinet page are not wrong, but they leave me a little perplexed. However, the most important thing for me is that there are no wrong informations in the pages, until the infobox indicates "No. of ministers", the President of Council can not be included without any specification.--Wololoo (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The entry "current_number" in the infobox (again see the template page) is not present in its documentation and is a remnant of an old version of the infobox, so it should not be inserted and, when noticed, eliminated because misleading. The equivalent one is "members_number" and I don't agree that it should specify beginning and end of term: in principle there could be many configurations of the cabinet even in the middle of the term, and specifying the ones at the start and at the end is totally arbitrary and does not necessarily produce complete information. The number of activated Ministries is instead constant, except in some extremely rare cases, like the one Wololoo cited. In my opinion, writing as the No. of Ministers the maximum number of activated Ministries should suffice. --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not sure of having properly understood all of what User:Wololoo wrote as neither he/she nor I are English native speakers. However, everyone is entitled to edit pages, but also to seek consensus when needed: he/she started to edit those articles and User:Ritchie92 to rollback (it was not me at the beginning!). When edits are rollbacked, it means that a consensus might be achieved through discussion. I also think that those articles can improved. Multiple times I told User:Nick.mon, who did most of the work on them, that they needed to have historical perspective, that is tracking the governments' composition from beginning to end. I hope this is something we can agree on. On the infoboxes, I still think the version before User:Wololoo's edits (supported by three users, including me) is better. However, what matters to me is the historical perspective. That should be reflected also by the infobox. The solution adopted on Renzi Cabinet is OK with me (except that it does not include new ministers at the head of new ministries, e.g. Enrico Costa), but I would not give the numbers of ministers per party (which number, by the way? beginnging? end? total? too confusing, in my view!) --Checco (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly I don't understand how a version with an obviously inexact information can be preferable to a detailed and corrected one. However I totally agree to delete the number of ministers for each party in the infobox, since it can change during the term. The same information is already provided within the page in a detailed manner.--Wololoo (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am glad you agree with me on this. What do other users think? --Checco (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ps: Thanks for what your are doing to each and every article on Italian governments. You deserve the "consistency barnstar".


 * I agree with taking away the number of Ministers for each party in the Infobox. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, if we all agree, I will proceed to remove the numbers of ministries per party from the infobox. --Wololoo (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am very happy when we can agree. Thanks for your devoted work. --Checco (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I like the solution implemented by Wololoo in the page Berlusconi II Cabinet. I think it should be applied everywhere: it's shorter and more readable to write "(incl. Prime Minister)" than to write "(Prime Minister + 15 Ministers)". --Ritchie92 (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I like it too! I still have some doubts on "Total no. of ministers", but I can live with it. --Checco (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Minister lists reordering
There have been again multiple major changes done by User:Wololoo on many pages of Italian government cabinets, including this one, in which the lists of Ministers have been reordered to show the Ministers without Portfolio before the other Ministers. I do not understand why they were reordered in this way, and would like to return to the normal ordering in which the more important Ministries appear first (Interior, Foreign Affairs, Economy, etc) and then the ones without Portfolio, but it might be that I am just confused. Can the user explain the reason why he did all those major edits? Do other users agree? --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Ritchie92 Obviously I did not reordered the ministries randomly, I followed the order used in the website of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers : usually, in the praxis, the ministers without a portfolio are listed first, even in the oath to the Quirinal, they swear first, it is not an order of importance. --Wololoo (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What User:Wololoo says is correct, but, of course, I agree with User:Ritchie92. In this case, it is obviously more important to be consistent with several other articles on cabinets: important ministers first. Before embarking in major changes to countless articles, seek consensus first! All those changes should be reverted. To be precise, I have no problem instead with having the Secretary of the Council after the prime minister and the deputy prime ministers and before ministers: that is a powerful job; it can stay there, in my view, but I wouldn't oppose to have it as the last entry too. --Checco (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They are not major changes, the order can be quickly reversed. Logically the ministries, being more importants, could be listed before the ministers without portfolio; however, I would like to point out that the Deputy ministers (listed only on some pages) should be more logically listed after the ministries, and not after the ministers without portfolio. Although I must say that, in the absence of the indicationn of the undersecretaries, also the presence of the deputy ministers is not so important. @User:Ritchie92 I'm not so sure of your change in the infobox of Berlusconi II Cabinet : we said to include in the n° the members who have the right to vote in the council of ministers, but has the Deputy Prime Minister (not head of a ministry) the right of vote in the Council of Ministers? I didn't find information about it, but I don't think. Furthermore, specifying "+ 1 Deputy prime minister" is misleading, because the Deputy Prime Ministers were two. --Wololoo (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Well here I only counted Follini because Fini was already counted as Foreign Minister. We could write Deputy Prime Ministers if you like. I think they belong to the total count because many times the Deputy PM are also Ministers, and when not they should still be included in the total count because ideally when the PM is not there they take their position as voting members of the cabinet. --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I favour the following order: Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers, ministers with portfolio, ministers without portfolio. As I said the Secretary of the Council can be listed after Deputy Prime Ministers or at the bottom. Deputy Prime Ministers (also when they do not lead a ministry with portfolio) are effectively ministers (also the Prime Minister is a minister, after all) and they vote. --Checco (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * @Ritchie92 Honestly I did not understand your reasoning well when you say "We could write Deputy Prime Ministers if you like". Normally the Deputy Prime Ministers are ministers too; however, if they are not ministers, they are not even normal voting members, if not in the absence of the PM. Anyway the total no. "30 (Prime Minister + Deputy Prime Minister + 28 Ministers)" lets assume that there is only one Deputy PM, this misunderstanding must be clarified.--Wololoo (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Checco But in Italy there is not a "Prime Minister", but a "President of Council", as I said before the Prime Minister is only a journalistic term with reference to Italy, and however is not a minister, also if he is a primus inter pares.--Wololoo (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I also could not find more information on the voting system in the Council of Ministers. However Checco says that also Deputy PMs can vote (or at least they vote when the PoC is not present), so they are part of the total count. Regarding the example Wololoo was mentioning, we could add the plural to Deputy Prime Minister so that it is included that during the Berlusconi II cabinet there were two different Deputy PMs. However I think we're going towards paranoid precision here... I think it's perfectly clear and if a reader wants to understand more or needs all the details, he or she should not expect to get them all from the infobox but read the article. --Ritchie92 (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "Paranoid precision"... yes, it is! That is why I generally prefer to have fewer infos... I am quite sure that the Deputy Prime Minister can vote, even though he does not hold portfolio ministry responibility. No matter the names, both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Ministers are effectively ministers, otherwise how could they be part of a Council of Ministers? All the members of the Council are Ministers. The only exception is the Secretary of the Council and, indeed, he/she does not vote. --Checco (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You're right, I like precision too, but the infobox is meant to be a general scheme valid for all government cabinets around the world, it can't possibly be tailored onto each different system. That's why I totally agree with you Checco, and in the adaptation of the infobox to the Italian political system the total no. of ministers includes the PM and the Deputy PM(s). --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I want repeat a thing: the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister (or President and Vice-President of the Council) are not ministers! A minister is the head of a Ministry, a minister without portfolio is a member of the government equated to a Minister. The head of the governemnt is a voting member because is the head, even if his vote has the same value as that of the other ministers (he is a primus inter pares), but he is not a minister. @Checco I would not be too sure the Deputy PM is a voting member, without sources... usually the Deputy PM is also minister, rarely does not hold any ministerial duties, I have not found sources to say if in these cases he is a voting member. Voting or not voting member, we can also include them in the count, but it must be specified, it's not "Paranoid precision", if we have to write misleading data, it is better not to write them (also because I don't see great utility in these data...) --Wololoo (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I disagree on PM and Deputy PM not being ministers or not voting, but our disagreement has no real effect to the template. Instead, we should fix the listing order: in my view, it should be PM, Deputy PM(s), portfolio ministers and no-portfolio ministers; Secretary of the Council wherever you want. --Checco (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * @Checco It's true that this matter has no real effect to the template, but the discussion must be based on correct assumptions: President and Vice-presidents of Council (if they are not already ministers) are not ministers, it is not an opinion, but a fact. About the order: I am not against the list of ministers before ministers without a portfolio, but I am not convinced by the deputy ministers after the ministers without portfolio (however, in the absence of the undersecretaries, I would be in favor of removing the deputy ministers). --Wololoo (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

In my view Ministers without Portfolio must be listed after all the other ministers. So my favorite (and in my view more correct) order is the following: I think that this list should reflect an order of importance (except for the Secretary of the Council, but it's not a minister so it should be listed a part). However, regarding deputy ministers I agree with Wololoo, in absence of secretaries, we can remove them. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Prime Minister
 * Deputy Prime Minister(s)
 * Ministers with Portfolio (and then we'll decide their order)
 * Ministers without Portfolio
 * Secretary of the Council
 * Deputy Ministers
 * Moreover I prefer this order because is the one that I used in creating articles about governments of the Kingdom of Italy (I almost complete all 67 cabinets) and, believe me, it was a real mess. I tried to link each minister to a party (and it was quite difficult because references were very very few). So, if we don't want to change everything, let's use this order :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As I already said, I am in favor of this order up to the secretary of the council, but the deputy ministers after the ministers without portfolio and the Secrretary are quite out of place (being directly connected to the ministers). Furthermore, the deputy ministers are listed only in 3 pages. An excellent solution (for both English and Italian pages) would be a setting like that of the Fourth Merkel cabinet. @Nick.mon @Checco @Ritchie92 if we all agree, I would remove the ministers, using the proposed order. --Wololoo (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I support User:Nick.mon's order. The only change its that, if I were to decide, I would move the secretary up, between deputy prime minister(s) and ministers: not a big deal, though. I strongly oppose removing deputy ministers. Finally, the fact is that the prime minister and the deputy prime minister(s) are ministers! The prime minister is a member of the council of minsters, thus he/she is a minister. The deputy prime minister is practically a minister without portfolio (I perfectly know that it is not an authoritative source, but it.Wiki says just that). --Checco (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem, we can move the Secretary up, after the deputy prime ministers. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nick.mon on the ordering. The Secretary (or officially the Undersecretary) is just one of the many Undersecretaries of each Ministry, only this one is the Undersecretary of the President, so he/she sits in the Council. Therefore in my opinion the Secretary should be at the end of the list, after all Ministers. By the way, he/she does not even appear in the official Italian order of precedence. Regarding Deputies, I don't think Deputy Ministers are strongly necessary. But if we insert some, we should insert all of them. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * @Checco: the President of Council in not a minister, personal opinions and the reality of facts are different, the Constitution expressly distinguishes the President of the Council and the Ministers. Instead, about the Vice-president, itwiki is effectively right, he is equivalent to a minister without portfolio, the President of the Republic named Follini as Minister without portfolio in 2004 (source: Gazzetta Ufficiale), so he is almost certainly a voting member (as already said I was not very informed about the vice-president's figure). @Ritchie92 The Secretary is just one of the many Undersecretaries of the Presidency of the Council, not of each Ministry.
 * However, the indication of the deputy ministers may be interesting, but if indicated in the right place. If they are listed after the ministers without portfolio, then they are out of place, because they should be listed after the ministers. Furthermore the undersecretaries are not present, so, on which criteria are the deputy ministers indicated in the page? The optimal solution would be a page setup like Fourth Merkel cabinet, with deputy ministers and undersecretaries indicated on the right. --Wololoo (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * @Wololoo I like the setting of Fourth Merkel cabinet, that could be a nice solution. We only need to make sure to have the full list of Undersecretaries and Deputy Ministers for each cabinet. However the Secretary of the Council should have a distinguished place from the other Undersecretaries. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a good table, that could also be used in itwiki (in this type of table the secretary would not have a specific place). Honestly I would also delete the simplified tables that precede the table with the photos, in my view it is a useless repetition.--Wololoo (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the fact that the table of vice-ministers was wrong even following the sources, but officially it does not results to me that in this government Castelli and Garavaglia are deputy ministers. However, I have prepared two complete table drafts for this government, one table with deputy ministers and undersecretaries separated, another one with undersecretaries and deputy ministers in the same place (with the needeed specifications). The table with deputy ministers and secretaries separated would be more precise, but it seems to me "too charged", maybe it's better to keep them in the same place. I think this kind of table would be good for itwiki too.--Wololoo (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I tried to edit the pages Berlusconi IV Cabinet and Conte Cabinet with the two types of table. Which one looks better?--Wololoo (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The table proposed by me is already sufficiently charged, the colors inserted in the middle are unnecessary. Since this type of table needs enough time of work, if the colors are considered indispensable, we can go back to the previous version without the undersecretaries. However I think that the tables of all governments should be standardized--Wololoo (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the colors are necessary and they do not overcharge the table at all. Instead they make it simpler to read! I really insist on keeping the colors and the Undersecretaries. If I have a little time I can make the table more compact later and also align the columns of the Ministers with the one of the Secretary and the Deputy PMs (the last tables don't contain the Undersecretaries column, so they are automatically enlarged when rendered). --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * As an example, I rewrote the table with px so that one can standardise the widths and align the Deputy PM tables. Feel free to test here below. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Wrapping up my opinions after some days away from Wikipedia!
 * The Prime Minister of Italy is "first among equals", thus he is a minister.
 * Short list. I oppose removing the short table: I would actually have only it and remove the "detailed" one altogether. I am happy that the Secretary is still listed after deputy prime ministers. But how was the order of ministers, especially of ministers without portfolio, chosen?
 * Detailed composition. I oppose including under-secretaries. All this is becoming too complicate! Adding all under-secretaries (including resignations and new appointments) to all governments (some had more than 80 of them) is not necessary, in my view. It is big burden for current editors and and a high standard for future editors. However, deputy ministers should be listed (and I prefer the former format of the "detailed composition") because they have more important role than under-secretaries: notably, the can take part to meetings of the Council of ministers. To be clear, I oppose both proposals. --Checco (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In my view it's better having, for all the articles, the same list, which includes only Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers, Ministers (whit and without portfolio) and Secretary of the Council. If we had to include all undersecretaries and deputy ministers for all the cabinets, it will be a huge job. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Surely the page, without undersecretaries, remains incomplete and therefore of inferior quality. For me it is not a big problem, but the exclusion of the undersecretaries also involves the exclusion of the deputy-ministers, this is obvious: or all members of the government are listed, or only the full members of the council of ministers, for consistency. If we decide to keep only the list of ministers, we should choose whether to keep the one with or without a photo (however, the changesduring the term of office should be specified). For the moment I do not touch anymore the pages on the governments, I would like to know which standard model to use for all pages. ps. I do not want to repeat myself, the President of Council is not a minister, "primus inter pares" means having equal dignity and importance, not the same title, please to do not insist on this thing. --Wololoo (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * However, regardless of which version will be chosen, I find it wrong to exclude information from a page only because they involve more work, after all, no one is obliged to edit these pages. --Wololoo (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, I think the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Ministers cannot go in the same box as if they were of the same category. Prime Minister should be separated (in a box by him/herself) and Deputy PMs in another section of the table, like Ministers and Segretary. Even before, in User:Wololoo's proposals, there were different tables with the title of Prime Minister and Deputy PMs repeated, I don't see the problem. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally like the current version of Wololoo, but we can insert some titles to separate Prime Minister from his deputies, as I did this morning. However, I think that having a single table for all the Council of Ministers is the best idea. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Ritchie92: I reverted you edit for two reasons: because, without the section, there was a useless repetition of the office and also for a matter of appearance. Anyway PM, Deputy PM and ministers without portfolio are part of the Presidency of the council of ministers, so they would practically belong to the same structure, but moving down the ministers without portfolio, the subdivision according to this category can not be done. However I would also like to know whether or not to include the undersecretaries, from what I understood, in the absence of them, the majority of us are in favor of the exclusion also of the deputy ministers; however I think they are both important informations. -Wololoo (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok fair enough. --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding the general issue, I have to say I agree with User:Wololoo here. It's true that, as User:Checco says, it's not a necessary effort, but as long as each page remains self-consistent (i.e. has no partial data) and there are users willing to do the research to implement all these details, that's ok for me. I'm not going to be against a reasonable expansion of these pages, if the data inserted are correct, sourced, and consistent. That said, regarding the issue of which tables to insert: if I have to choose between the short and the long tables, I would rather have the long one, i.e. a table with pictures of the Ministers equivalent to the old or the new detailed table. However I have no strong opinion on whether we really need to remove one of the two tables. In cases in which there are three tables (two short tables for initial and final composition + one long table, see e.g. Berlusconi IV Cabinet) I would hope for a collective decision to keep two of them max. In this case I would keep the final composition (the most recent one) and for more details refer to the long table. --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not particularly fond with this discussion. My argument was that, before adding a large amount of information to alla Italian governments since 1861, we should agree on a lowest common denominator. More specifically, here are the points I would like to make:
 * Deputy ministers are something different from under-secretary, they are nearly ministers and they have been included in governments only since 2001. They should be treated differently from under-secretaries. They should be definitely mentioned in the articles.
 * Definitely more important to me, I think that short lists for the beginning and the end of term are to be retained, for users' sake. They are so clear and intuitive that they are really necessary for the sake of clarity and simplicity.
 * This said (giving the subject a historical perspective, with beginning/end pictures of ministers breakdown, geographical breakdown and "short lists", is essential to me), if we were to continue to have a table on the detailed composition of the government, the current version is likeable. I like the current version here than the one previously uploaded in Berlusconi IV Cabinet. --Checco (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I also think this discussion is going on for too long. However, to reply to your points:
 * I have no strong preference on this topic. I guess the situation is that User:Wololoo says Undersecretaries are at the same level of Deputy Ministers, you say they are not. I haven't found any sources to confirm any of the options.
 * As I already said I have no strong opinion on how many tables we need, that was just an idea. If all of you want to keep both short tables it's ok.
 * So your idea is to keep the current version on this page without undersecretaries, correct? --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is my idea. What is really important to me is keeping beginning/end party breakdown, geographical breakdown and "short lists" composition (that is what I meant earlier). Also, please me ask again: how was the order of ministers, especially ministers without portfolio, chosen? Many thanks. --Checco (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * @Ritchie92 I never said that the deputy ministers are at the same level as the undersecretaries, obviously they are more important, I said that it is inconsistent to list them in the absence of the undersecretaries. Since they are not part of the council of ministers, the page must contain all the members or only the most important ones, ie PM, Deputy PM, Ministers and Secretary. the two lists of ministers are decidedly useless if they contain the same identical information, it is a redundant repetition. The two tables make sense only if one indicates the main components and the other one all the components. In en.wikipedia unnecessary pages were created, like micro parties never presented in the elections or about personal currents in the parties written in 2 lines, I think that deliberately excluding a relevant information like the list of the undersecretaries is quite inconsistent, as well as counterproductive. However, even completing all the pages of Italian governments even with ministers alone would be a big step forward.
 * @Checco the order of the ministers is taken by the website www.governo.it .--Wololoo (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Despite my position on deputy ministers and under-secretaries, I have to say that I much appreciate what User:Wololoo is doing to improve articles and make them consistent with each other. Cheers! --Checco (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sergio Costa carabiniere (cropped).jpg

Opposition parties
@User:Ritchie92: Sorry about 1 and 2. I though "opposition parties" was a very redundant and likely inaccurate: in certain periods of time, there have been 30+ parties in Parliament. My edits were bold, but unfortunately they are not supported by consensus—yet. --Checco (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No problem. For brevity we could put the acronym of the parties and exclude the very minor ones from the list in the Infobox, but I still think it is a useful historical information tracking the history of party allegiances in Italy. After all, if the infobox contains that entry, and the content can be well-defined, why not use it? --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No problem, too! Let's leave as it is! --Checco (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The indication in the infobox of the parties of the majority, like those of the opposition, is a very useful information (obviously only the most important parties and the acronym is sufficient); however, I am dubious about the infoboxes of the technical governments (Monti e Dini cabinets), in these cases only the opposition parties are indicated in the infobox, while the majority parties, not participating in the government, are excluded. @Ritchie92 for this reason I removed the opposition parties from the infobox of Monti Cabinet. After all, in my view, it would not even be correct to indicate the majority parties, since they are not part of the government. These sections of the infobox have not been designed for specific cases like technical governments, maybe it would be better to also remove the opposition parties, only in these cases..--Wololoo (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that whether a government is technical or not, it still can have (and usually has) a parliamentary opposition. In the case of Monti and Dini the opposition parliamentary groups exist and are clear, so why not add them to the table? --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Ritchie92 because they are the only parties included in the infobox...--Wololoo (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is why I thought it was problematic to list opposition parties, not to mentions external supporters or abstainers! The more I think about it, the more I would prefer to remove opposition parties from the infobox. --Checco (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand what's the problem you have with opposition parties. Each government has a parliamentary opposition, why is it so difficult to determine it and write it in the infobox? I think the whole infobox should be filled as much as possible with consistent information, and adding the opposition parties does not generate any chaos or confusion. External supporters or abstainers are not part of the opposition, that is simple. Parliamentary opposition means groups voting against in the confidence vote(s) and/or the investiture vote. --Ritchie92 (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * First, we should distinguish between member parties of the government and external supporters. Currently, in the infobox we list only member parties. I would exclude from the infobox esternal supporters, abstainers and opposition parties. Having member parties and opposition ones, and not the others (we would need more infobox parameters and that would become very complicate), is not a good solution to me. The more I think about it, the more I oppose the inclusion of opposition parties. --Checco (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's see what other users think about it too, then. Even though it would be more complete, I don't think it's necessary that the infobox contains all parties in each legislature. It's totally fine for me to have member parties (not including external supporters, who by the way are also rare because any party who supports a government would like to be included in the positions of power in exchange) and opposition parties (meaning the consistnt opposition parties). I don't feel the need to include all the other parties in the infobox since this is a government cabinet page, not a legislature page. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Unlike the number of ministers, I think that the indication of opposition parties is quite interesting.However, I also understand Checco's reasoning, who is effectively right. Since we indicate opposition parties, there is a risk of excluding certain parties: @Ritchie92 it is not a legislature page, but the cabinet gets confidence inthe Parliament. Firstly, wich are the member parties? Only those parties with representation in the council of ministers, or even those represented by deputy ministers or undersecretaries? If we indicate the opposition parties, where can we indicate the parties that externally support the government? I think of the technical governments, but also of the Andreotti IV Cabinet. A solution could be to specify the external support of the party in the infobox, for example...--Wololoo (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting thoughts... I would prefer having only effective member parties (not external supporters) and no opposition parties. Member parties are those parties having at least an under-secretary. --Checco (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * @Wololoo: of course the cabinet gets confidence in the Parliament, that's why there is a section regarding the investiture vote with all details, but the infobox is not meant to contain all possible information contained in the page, it's just a sketch. I support including the member parties in the whole government (up to the under-secretaries, so for example in this page also MAIE), and including the major opposition parties. The parties voting for the government and which are not part of it can be included in the "Status in legislature" entry, which is exactly meant to describe the Parliamentary support for the government. If the Parliamentary support is a coalition, more detail should be contained in the corresponding article or section linked. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Ritchie92: I think the problem is another: the opposite of the opposition parties are the majority parties, the infobox was designed on the assumption that all the majority parties are in the government. The two data (Member parties and Opposition parties) are not very compatible. I think that the big parties that externally support the government are more interesting of the micro-parties with an undersecretary, like the MAIE. I would exclude the micro-parties from the infobox, while I would specify the main parties that support the government externally. --Wololoo (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this reasoning, but my conclusion is different: in infoboxes I would include only member parties of the governments, not the external supporters and not opposition parties. --Checco (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * @Wololoo No, I don't think we should put the major external supporting parties in the list of Member parties. As I said, there is another entry called "Status in legislature" which can be used to specify if there is a major party in the Parliament giving external support to the government. This is true for example for technical governments (see Monti Cabinet), where one has to put "Independent" as Member party and one could put all the supporting parties in the "Status in legislature" entry (alongside "national unity government" in the example of Monti Cabinet). I think this way there will be no confusion when including also the opposition parties. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think so a little differently. However, it is evident that at the moment there is no consensus neither to insert the external supporters nor to remove the opposition parties. --Wololoo (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Opposition parties were included without consensus, thus they should be removed before any consensus is achieved. There is no consensus also on external supporters. --Checco (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Opposition parties were included months ago and nobody of the active users protested. Now there is no consensus on removing them. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Checco @Ritchie92 @Nick.mon: I think that maybe it would be better to keep only the government parties in the infobox, looking back on it, it seems to me the most consistent solution. Opposition and majority parties are elements that concern parliamentary dynamics, I would avoid specifying the parties of majority in the entry "Status in legislature" as suggested by Ritchie92. The parties of the majority (members of the government or external supporters) and the opposition parties should be indicated into the page, leaving in the infobox only the data directly concerning the government.--Wololoo (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * But the "Opposition parties" and the "Status in legislature" entries in the infobox are meant exactly for this purpose! In my opinion the infobox should be filled as much as possible. Please have a look at how the infobox is used in the cases of other Parliamentary countries. Here are a few examples: Fourth Merkel cabinet, Rajoy government (here they even only put the PSOE!), Second May ministry (only Labour), Löfven I Cabinet (details in Status in legislature + all opposition parties), Second Cabinet of Alexis Tsipras, Fourth Orbán Government, 29th Canadian Ministry, Fourth Abe Cabinet, and many more... Are all of the communities managing those pages wrong? --Ritchie92 (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Wololoo: only government parties in the infobox! --Checco (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * ... and more: Modi ministry, Dmitry Medvedev's Second Cabinet, First Cabinet of Jacob Zuma, XXI Constitutional Government of Portugal, Government of the 32nd Dáil, Lars Løkke Rasmussen III Cabinet, First Rutte cabinet. I can go on if you want. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * @Ritchie92 I see that each page is compiled differently: In the page First Rutte cabinet the external supporters have been inserted in "Member party", Second Cabinet of Alexis Tsipras seems wrong to me (ANEL is not indicated as member party), the page XXI Constitutional Government of Portugal doesn't indicate "Member parties" (indicated in "Status in legislature" together with external supporters) and I do not agree with the setting of Rajoy government (Podemos was not even mentioned among the opposition parties). As you can see each page is different from the other, there is no a standard setting valid for all pages..--Wololoo (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course I am not saying that all these pages are perfect... My point is that the cabinet pages of all the major (and others) Parliamentary countries on Earth all make use (as it should be) of all the entries in the infobox, as much as possible. I don't see a reason why Italy should be treated differently in this regard, as it were a special country. The government approval and Parliamentary relations in Italy are not that different from what happens in many other democracies. For any democratic government, the relations with Parliament are essential, and knowing whether it's a minority, majority, coalition government is essential to the nature of the government, as well as which are the parties supporting the government in Parliament and the ones opposing it. I very strongly oppose the deletion of this content in the infobox. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Ritchie92 But in this case also the external supporters have to been indicated in the infobox, as I had already proposed. And I would avoid pointing them in "Status of legislature", the solution would be to indicate them as external supporters in "Member party".--Wololoo (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Wololoo and Checco, opposition parties to a coalition government is pretty much "all the others" and adding this info is more misleading than else. First, because not all parties that are not in government are in the opposition, and this is a shifting situation that is not apt to be captured in a template. Second, because there are a lot of other parties not represented in Parliament that oppose the government, the list is potentially unmanageable. The fact that there is a field in the template (which I think is weird and I would recommend to remove it) does not mean that it should be used, especially if several users are casting reasonable doubts about its actual usefulness.--Desyman (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Not only the field is in a template which was established since 2011 and nobody has ever changed those entries, but also, and I am getting tired of repeating myself, all the major parliamentary democracies on Earth are using the template with all the complete set of entries!!! If these users think that those entries are misleading, then they should discuss about them in the proper place, which is the template talk page, since their point would be not only valid for the case of the Italian cabinet but for all cabinets ever existed. I still believe in any case that this point is not well-founded, because it is obvious that the template does not have to contain all the tiniest parties in the Parliament, since this is a Cabinet infobox, not a Parliament composition infobox! It suffices to report the parties relevant to the existence of the cabinet itself, therefore: the parties forming the cabinet, the relevant parties (in case there are) giving an external support and the relevant opposition parties. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Desyman, but let me clarify my position. I am not against the "opposition parties" parameter in the infobox (it may be relevant for some countries). I just oppose its completion in the Italian case. --Checco (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed the problem is not the template. That one is supposed to have all possible entries that one could possibly need, but in no way this means that all should always be used. It may make sense in a case where there are few parties and the distinction between opposition and government is clear cut, but this definitely is not the case in the Italian scenario. Hence my support to the idea of simply leaving this out, as it has very limited value and over-simplifies the situation.--Desyman (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what I meant to say. Thanks for clarifying my opinion much better! --Checco (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I totally disagree with you. Why do you say that in the Italian scenario the distinction between government and opposition is not clear? Do you have sources that prove that? Do you think that in other parliamentary democracies the situation is different? I think in the Italian case as in other cases, it is very clear and well-defined, maybe excluding a handful of cases when one party changes allegiance and ceases to support a government, but again, this can be added to the infobox as it is already done for the Gentiloni Cabinet for example. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "It may make sense in a case where there are few parties and the distinction between opposition and government is clear cut, but this definitely is not the case in the Italian scenario" (cit. User:Desyman). Abstentions, external supports, a large number of parties, party changes, transformism, etc. are sometimes found also in other partliamentary democracies, but all together they are usually not. The Italian party system is (and, especially, has been) too complicate for simplifying it that why in an infobox. A template "is supposed to have all possible entries that one could possibly need, but in no way this means that all should always be used" (cit. User:Desyman). --Checco (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Well I don't think this is proving anything, this is your view. I think we are very biased on this and think that somehow Italian politics is messier than in other countries, while it isn't necessarily so. You cited Desyman who said that "this definitely is not the case in the Italian scenario" and I still am not convinced that this is true. See what's happening in the UK for example and how groups inside parties are changing their position on the Brexit-based May cabinet (which by definition should have Tory support and Labour opposition). Or see what happened in Germany with the refugee policies and the CSU (part of the majority). Or in Spain about Catalonia. Each and every government has its problems with its majority during its life, especially on some crucial policies; but this does not mean that there is no such a thing as a defined and consistent parliamentary opposition to the government. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * In fact, we do not need sources here. We need consensus. Some users like me, probably the majority on this issue, think that mentioning opposition parties in the infobox is redundant and may be even misleading. That is what I think. I add also that, when infoboxes become too long, it is not a good thing. --Checco (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, to reply to each of your issues. First of all, these happen and can happen every once in a while and are not a constant trait. But still. "Abstentions" are never so (no party has abstentions throughout the whole duration of the government), "external supports" can be pointed out in the infobox, "large number of parties" can be solved e.g. by removing parties with less than a few MPs, "party changes" are easy to include, "transformism" (of entire parties) is already included when it happened. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * And... the template becomes to long: that is what I oppose. To be sure, that is not a big issue to me and I can live with any outcome, differently from the two "little" issues that I mentioned below (they are little, but much more important to me than opposition parties). However, that is what I think: not having opposition parties in the infobox would be much better in the Italian cases and arguably in most cases, except the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Austria and a few other countries. --Checco (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Also you are not replying to any of my comments regarding the comparison with other countries, but okay. Anyway I don't think there is a limit on the infobox length, who said that it can't be too long? My view is that excluding relevant and consistent data from the infobox is a damage to the clarity of the article and readers will have to dig the government majority and opposition inside the article, instead of having a clear view immediately when they open the page. The opposition parties and the majority parties can be easily included without being incorrect or incomplete. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Ps: It is not the answer you would like, but I was doing just that... --Checco (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course everybody has and must have his/her own opinion! ;) Anyway, as you said, this is not a big issue for you, while I feel instead this is very important for the quality of the Italian governments articles, for the reasons I explained above. However I don't know honestly how you picked the exception countries who you think are allowed to have a well-defined opposition. Instead in the examples of pages I gave many replies above there is a very representative set of all most different major countries around the world and all use the opposition and status in legislature entries in the infobox. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Fair enough! However, the majority of users here oppose having opposition parties in the infobox... I would leave them the change to respond and argue again. --Checco (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The dinstiction between opposition and government parties is obviously not clear: in most cases the government and majority parties coincide, but in some cases there are parties that support the government externally. It's not just an Italian situation. My proposal to include external support in the infobox was initially rejected, so I proposed to include only the governing parties in the infobox, to make the situation clearer and simpler. However, I have included anyway the external supporters in the infoboxes. In my view the opposition parties in the infobox are not really essential, but the current situation is fine for me.--Wololoo (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is dragging beyond a reasonable length. But let me clarify - also as a political scientist - that the concept of "transformismo" is a very Italian one and does not exist in other countries (English academic literature generally uses the Italian term). Does this mean that the political sides in other democracies are clear cut and this is only an Italian phenomenon? Of course not. But it is much more typical in Italy (initially due to its electoral law and more recently for reasons more related to political culture) than elsewhere. The cases mentioned above, like Brexit, refugees or Catalonia, have little relevance here. They are issues that divide ruling parties across internal cleavages (in the Italian case you could use the TAV example), but they do not affect the opposition-government dynamics. This said, the opposition Italy-vs-Rest of the World is misleading and is not the point. In any country in any circumstance where the political situation is similar to the one under discussion now, it makes equally sense not to use the opposition parties field. Let's not forget that those fields are meant to facilitate understanding at glance, but when they can be misleading, better to avoid. This said, I think that a sufficient number of users have expressed at length their views. I do not want to give too much relevance to a fairly minor issue, but if consensus cannot be reached, I guess the next step is a vote? --Desyman (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I still have not read any practical example of recent governments in which a party's membership to the majority or opposition is unclear. Unless they change it during the government's life, but that's something that can be easily reported in the infobox. Of course parties can change their allegiances, I am not saying the opposite. I'm saying that all these changes (the relevant ones) are not impossible to fit in the infobox where needed. As in fact they're fitting now, and there is no lack of information. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Once again, User:Desyman explained my point of view better than I could. --Checco (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Two little issues
Recently two new differences have arisen between me and User:Wololoo. That is why I am welcoming all the users interested in Italian politics (and espcially, by order of appearance, User:Autospark, User:Nick.mon, User:Ritchie92 and User:Desyman) to have a say.
 * 1. Direct links. Take a look to this succession of edits and edit summaries on Prodi II Cabinet. Consistently to what we have done until today in the articles about Italian politics, parties and elections, I believe that direct links should always be used, also when a name of a party has changed. Of course extended names and acronyms should be the ones used at the time, but they should point to the current articles' names.
 * 2. Lega Nord. Similarly to "Forza Italia", the article on "Lega Nord" is named with its Italian original name. We discussed about this many times and there was never a consensus to move the article to "Northern League (Italy)". Consistently with that and, again, similarly to "Forza Italia", I think that the party should always be referred to as "Lega Nord" (before 2018) in articles on elections, governments, etc. --Checco (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a few tired of having to discuss every detail, since I am the only user who is trying to edit the pages on the italian governments. In a page on a 2006 government, it is in the readers' interest to see the names used by the parties that year, it's obvious, the links of the old names also exist for this reason! If these links can not be used, then they should be deleted. The name "Lega Nord" has been maintained, despite the wikipedia conventions suggest the most common name in English language, it's not a great problem, but the most common name of this party remains Northern League/League, even in this case it is in the interest of readers to read the most common name on the page. The names of FI and Lega are two completely different cases. Honestly, these discussions on everything seem to me incomprehensible... --Wololoo (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Even though some of your edits are not necessary or even redundant, I really appreciate what you do in most cases. Sometimes, however, what you miss is the consistency factor: we always use direct links when possible and "Lega Nord", the actual most common name, is the name we have chosen to use here. I am also tired of discussion, but what would happen if I were to correct the pages on governments, replacing "Northern League" with "Lega Nord"? You would rollback me, as you did with Prodi II Cabinet. That is why I am seeking consensus before editing (again). --Checco (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Redundant edits... when I was the one who had tried in vain to eliminate useless or redundant repetitions.... and I do not know what English sources you read, but Northern League is the most common name in english language (also used by official sources), the page name is the Italian one simply because of the opposition of three users. Also with the links, I do not see where is the problem, if in 2006 a party is called by a name, that name must be used, it's just common sense. It would be more constructive to try to improve the nasty state of several pages rather than waste time in these discussions...--Wololoo (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @User:Autospark, User:Nick.mon, User:Braganza (sorry for not including you in the first place!), User:Ritchie92, User:Desyman and all users concerned: Could you say something on my two points? Otherwise, the current consensus on Italian politics' articles, that is always direct links and always Lega Nord (before 2018), should be upheld. Both my opinion and User:Wololoo's are quite clear. In my view, the current consensus is OK. --Checco (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I have to say I don't have strong opinions and preferences on both issues, but I'll share my research.
 * 1. Direct links I think that the redirects can be also useful because in case a new article is created, which distinguishes between the two names of the party, the link will automatically point to the new article. There's no harm in letting the system figure out the redirects, if they have a meaning in the article and they're not redundant (e.g. when we are already redirecting to the "2019 European Parliament election" article linking to 2019 election and there's no point in piping like 2019 election). I think this also complies with the directives, as per WP:NOPIPE (I read "It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects", but in this case we are already piping because of the acronyms so I understand it might be confusing), and MOS:NOPIPE (where I read a similar advice "do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits well within the scope of the text"). I guess the discussion would be whether the old party's name fits well in the scope of the article.
 * 2. Lega Nord I think this is not a "little issue" at all, since it has been topic of at least three move requests (in June 2017, March 2018 and April 2018) and one discussion thread. As far as I understand there is no obvious outcome, because there is a superposition of various directives. I found these which are relevant: the natural disambiguation argument which is in favour of keeping "Lega Nord", and the "use English" argument which would be in favour of Northern League (however here we are in the case of "divided usage in English", for which the directive is not super clear, but only says "Use what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. Whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title and mention both forms in the lead."). Anyway, for this discussion I would totally use the Lega Nord talk page and not this one. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. Direct links: I agree with Checco, where is possible, we should use direct links.
 * 2. Lega Nord: As Ritchie said, Lega's name has been discussed many many times and, if we want re-open the discussion, we should do it in the appropriate talk page, not here. As I always said, I personally prefer "League" (for party's current name) and "Northern League" (for the previous one), but as Checco stated many times, "Lega Nord" was also quite used and there'll be a problem with all the linked federal parties (Lega Lombarda, Lega Nord Emilia, Lega Piemont, ecc.) -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Starting from the assumption that discussion concerned only the title of the page, with the opposition of the usual users, here we are talking about another matter: The text of a page is much smoother if the english name of a party is used, which is also the most common name. About the Direct links, following the Checco's reasoning, the redirects should not exist! @Nick.mon: you say " where is possible", but if MpA in 2006 was called "Movement for Autonomy", the reader of the page behind the acronym must read "Movement for Autonomy", not ""Movement for the Autonomies", otherwise the name of the party in that year becomes incomprehensible. However, at the moment I stop editing these pages, at least if these 2 points should really pass, I would not waste any more time improving these pages..--Wololoo (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nick.mon as above – we should use direct links, and we should keep the use of "Lega Nord" (as is the title for article about the political party).--Autospark (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me all too highly inconsistent: we adopt translations of names of parties invented or never used, and when we have a party that is almost always called with its translation, some of you want to use its Italian name even in these pages, an evident contradiction. So, after 2018, the name used should always be "Lega Nord", because also "Lega" was rejected as title of the page. And I wonder why you consider direct links so indispensable, at the cost of using anachronistic names compared to the page, the redirects exist precisely to be used in these cases too. Honestly all these discussions bore me, I admit that I no longer intend to continue to write or improve the other pages if these two points are approved, which in my opinion worsen the overall quality, (even if at the point of the League I don't see here any consensus), and the thing that leaves me perplexed is that no one here even intends to do it...--Wololoo (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the brutal pragmatism, here my 2 cents:
 * 1. Direct links: I honestly think it is not a big deal, that's why we have redirects
 * 2. Lega Nord: The Italian name is better, many English speakers even use that. But I would not roll back anyone for using Northern League.
 * In a summary, let's focus on the content :) --Desyman (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I would love to focus only on content, but, as long as Wikipedia is a cooperative effort, we need to discuss when we disagree.
 * 1. Direct links: Some of us do not care, but, among those who care, a majority would like to continue the current consensus: always direct links.
 * 2. Lega Nord: This is the name of the article, thus that is how it should be mentioned, but I agree that this should be discussed at Talk:Lega Nord: see you there.

--Checco (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Checco @Nick.mon @User:Autospark: I would like to know which is the advantage of using the direct links rather than the redirects of the correct names: I see no advantage, on the contrary, an user reads a different name from what the party used in that particular year, so it is a choice decidedly against the interest of readers (for example, in 2017 French legislative election the name used in the page rightly "National Front", not National Rally"). Really, I would like to know from you what advantages you see in use the direct links, even under acronyms, if the name was different, I think that a preference should also be motivated--Wololoo (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @Checco @Nick.mon @User:Autospark how do you say: asking is licit, but replying is courtesy. It seems evident to me that you have no idea why direct links are preferable, well, congratulations for not even knowing how to justify your opinions...--Wololoo (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my delayed answer! Probably it will not go well with you, but here it is. I deeply love direct links and I strongly dislike redirects. Also you have a record of fixing redirects into direct links: I appreciate that. Of course, redirects are useful, but I always try not have them in the articles I work on. The name format is the most proper thing to use, in my view. It is a win-win situation. Take this example: Socialist Party . Direct link and former name, thus "kill two birds with one stone"! I also like idiomatic expressions, but let's avoid macaroni English. --Checco (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @Checco Leaving aside the fact that I would use the redirect directly for full names too (also because the direct links do not involve any particular advantage), this is not the problem and I have already widely explained it: you have reverted the current names under acronyms, so readers only see the name adopted after the reference period, in this way you don't "kill two birds with one stone", because the correct name is simply not shown. --Wololoo (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd rather direct links were used as often as possible, to be honest. Of course, there are legitimate exceptions (where as noted parties have changed official names), but otherwise, let's use direct links for clarity.--Autospark (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @Autospark here, not only are we talking about parties that have changed their official names, but even to use names adopted later by the parties under the acronyms : if a user reads under the acronym a name that had not yet been adopted in that year, where is the advantage? In these cases it does not seem possible to me to use the page name under the acronyms, for the readers' sake. --Wololoo (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * As I said I have no strong opinion but I am reading a certain amount of nonsense and free interpretation of WP rules here. For example, @User:Checco sorry but motivating policies by saying "I deeply love direct links and I strongly dislike redirects" does not constitute a logical argumentation. The only thing we should refer to are WP official policies, and the official policy of Wikipedia is to favor redirects over pipes (see WP:NOPIPE). So the simple "favor direct links over redirects" argument is not compliant with the WP rules. We can discuss now on the specific point, that is whether the acronyms should be piped onto the name of the page, or onto the full expression of the acronym (even if different from the direct name of the page). --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I read now WP:NOPIPE, the use of direct liks under the correct name, besides being contrary to common sense in some cases (like the changes of names), does not even respect the wikipedia rules. Furthermore, there is not even consensus in this talk for that edit, the same Autospark, that will never contradict directly Checco, has admitted that there are legitimate exceptions, like the change of names of the parties. I am not sure about the acronyms piped onto the name of the page (possible with MpA, not with UDC), but at the moment I revert the previous version of the Prodi II Cabinets' page, where the direct link are really unnecessary and counterproductive (and not supported by a real consensus).--Wololoo (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I add a personal consideration: I have no particular problems with the direct links under the old full names (also if it is contrary to WP:NOPIPE), but under the acronyms it is in contrast with the readers' sake. I would also use only acronyms, but in some cases (like for UDC) it is not possible. --Wololoo (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a different reading of WP:NOPIPE and, in our case, we are not talking about Easter eggs (the worst thing that can happen). This said, I agree with User:Ritchie92 that WP:NOPIPE has nothing to do with our "specific point". In my view, "acronyms should be piped onto the name of the page". It is interesting that User:Wololoo quickly rollbacked my edit on Prodi II Cabinet (with which I restored the established, consensual version), but the problem is always the same: before achieving consensus, the established version should stay: seek consensus first! This tactic is annoying me. I am giving up also this time, but I perfectly know that this will embolden User:Wololoo's aggressive approach once again.
 * However, I would still like to hear a final word on the specific point both by User:Autospark and User:Nick.mon: when referring to a party before a name change by its acronym (as UDC/UdC), is it better to write UDC (redirect, correct acronym of the time) or UDC (direct link, correct acronym)?
 * --Checco (talk) 07:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOPIPE concerns our "specific point", it only doesn't concern the page "Prodi II Cabinet", but in this case it does not seem to me that you have obtained the consensus and above all there was not an established consensual version. According to the wikipedia rule (and I agree with it), for example, before 2006 it's correct to write Union of Christian and Centre Democrats and not Union of Christian and Centre Democrats, but in the presence of acronyms, the final effect is even worse.--Wololoo (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer redirects to be in the style of " UDC " (direct link, correct acronym for the time).--Autospark (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @Autospark I am not surprised about your position, but previously you have cited the change of official names between the legitimate exceptions. Anyway, really can't you explain to me what the advantage for the readers with the direct link rather than redirects? Because, even after a motivation like the "deeply love" for the direct links, now it really seems to me that I am the only one to worry about making the pages fully understandable for the readers, while I always see personal motivations...--Wololoo (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems like we are close to achieve consensus on our "specific point". This is no big issue, but we have at least three users supporting my position and not more than two supporting the other position. As my position was the established version, we should go back to it immediately, but I will take more time before doing anyting, even though this may sound like a new consensus has been achieved. --Checco (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Separating list of ministers and presidency
About the last User:Wololoo's edits to the main table, I think it's ok to separate the presidency from the ministers (not completely sure about the two different columns for Deputy Ministers and Undersecretaries, because in the end the Deputy Ministers column only a few filled entries), however I wouldn't have the ministers without portfolio before the important ministers like Foreign Affairs, etc. This is confusing because it looks like the Minister for Family is more important (i.e. closer to the President) than the one for Foreign Affairs. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @Ritchie92 in my view that version was better, keeping deputy ministers and undersecretaries separated is evidently more clear. And the ministers without portfolio are really closer to the President, also if hierarchically less important than the ministers, because are heads of departments of the Presidency of the Council (for this reason they are always listed before the ministers). After all, also the Secretary of the Council is listed before the minister, but he is not more important than them. And also the Deputy PM is a minister without portfolio and so, less important than a minister (also if it sounds strange). User:Nick.mon has already restored the previous version, but the division of government by structures seems to me much clearer, the current version is badly set.--Wololoo (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I side with User:Nick.mon, who rollbacked the most recent edits. I also like the established version of the "Composition of the Government" section: Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers, Secretary of the Council, ministers with portfolio and ministers without portfolio. I have no problem with separating deputy ministers from under-secretaries, but I would not do it because I do not like the idea of having another column. --Checco (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that the current version (Prime Minister, Deputy PM, Secretary of the Council, Ministers and Minister without portfolio) is the best one. -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Secretary of the Council
The sections were originally named "Composition" and "Detailed composition" or something like that. That is why the Secretary of the Council was mentioned also in the short table, now named "Composition of the Council of Ministers". However the sections are named, I think it is useful to keep the Secretary there, possibly with a note saying that he/she participates, while not being a member. --Checco (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In my view it is the same section to be quite useless, in the presence of the section "Composition of the Government". After all the secretary remains an undersecretary, he is not a member of the cabinet and he is already (over) represented in the section "Composition of the Government". In this type of page setup, that section makes only minimal sense if it indicates only the effective members of the Council of Ministers.--Wololoo (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In my view, the short, compact and less detailed list is more useful than the second with photos and so on. However, I am not proposing to remove the second table, but just to keep the Secretary of the Council in the first one as well (possibly with a note). --Checco (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am going to restore the Secretart, removed without consensus, with a note. --Checco (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)