Talk:Legislature XII of Italy

Italy Mid‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Composition in the infobox[edit]

User:Barlafus, in all other pages about recent Italian legislatures, as well as the current one, Legislature XVIII of Italy, the graphs show obviously the latest composition. Revert your edit please. --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see anything of obvious. The page about the current legislature is about a current event, while we are speaking about history. And it is obvious that the relevant historical composition, which justifies the government, the leaderships, the presidencies of the houses, is the initial one.--Barlafus (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the infobox is kept up-to-date with the latest composition. That's the most logical thing to do, and by the way it was the standard before you decided by yourself that it was not ok. I ask other users like User:Nick.mon, who also take part in the making of these graphs, to also share their opinion. Before you reach consensus, I will revert again to the situation that was before your edits. --Ritchie92 (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your “logic” is funny. I don’t say the final composition of a legislature is irrelevant, but it is obviously less important than the initial composition. Other users must give you thousand of sources, you can speak ex cathedra and everybody must obey you. Your words are de jure the consensus? I don’t think so. --Barlafus (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with you, and since you came in second, you should find consensus first before editing again. Especially since this is not about what is true and what is not, but this is about the style of the page. I never said I'm speaking from a higher position, I'm just saying I'm against your point of view, and only consensus can determine what is right to write here. I think that the pictures and data that you're adding to the infobox should not stay there since they're not about the parliamentary groups, but instead they're about the election results. We know that the parliamentary groups do not correspond to the electoral lists, so that is wrong. I think that the infobox about a legislature has to show the latest composition, simply because of consistency with other pages, and also because that is the most up-to-date composition of that legislature. The initial one is just the composition right after the election, and it usually already changes after a few months into the legislative period. --Ritchie92 (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary group vs electoral list[edit]

User:Barlafus, the MP Lazzarini was in the League parliamentary group, as the sources report: here and here. We follow what reliable sources say, not what some user thinks. Revert your edit please. --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie, the sources can be wrong. You must know the basics of an argument, if you want to write about it in an encyclopedia. If you want to write about astronomy and you find a reliable source saying the sun runs around the Earth, you must immediately understand that the source is wrong. If you want to write about the Italian politics and you find a source speaking about the League in Latium in 1994 and you don’t understand that it is a wrong source, it’s better you write about astronomy and not about politics. More, if a user shows you a reliable source that demonstrates that there were no League in Latium in 1994 and you remove it twice, you makes a WP:VANDALISM. --Barlafus (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there are no reliable sources saying that the Sun goes around the Earth: that's the point of deciding what is reliable! Here, you fail to distinguish between the electoral list in Lazio (yes, I can read there was no Lega Nord in the list) and the fact that this guy Lazzarini entered the Lega parliamentary group in the Chamber. This can happen!! It happens a lot of times in Italian politics, it's an historical tradition since the times of trasformismo, and people can decide to take part to any group after being elected. Apparently Lazzarini decided to enter the Lega group even if he was not elected with Lega. It's funny that you know this, because you added comments about this situation for a guy elected in the PDS list in 1994 and immediately switching to Rifondazione, but here you don't accept this possibility! So, in the end what I'm saying is what the official sources say, and that's what we report. --Ritchie92 (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richie, I repeat, stop editing about Italian politics, you demonstrated you don’t know about it, as you don’t know anything about Italian geography... You should be immediately suspicious about a source speaking about politicians of Latium in the Northern League.... Find the error.... Do not write about things you don’t know....--Barlafus (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I must warn you that on WP it's not allowed to make personal attacks and edit warring like you're doing here. This is a warning, meaning next time I'm gonna report. If you want to put forward an edit and some user is against it, you should discuss it first, and reach consensus before publishing. Now, in the official sources Lazzarini is in the Lega group of the Chamber of Deputies. I also find it odd, but Wikipedia cannot cite a source and then change the numbers based on some user's original research. Since you think that the official website of camera.it is wrong, you should send an email to its admins and ask what is happening with Lazzarini's group. If the numbers on that website are such, I'm sorry but as much as your logic can be right, we shouldn't trust one single user's feeling for it to change the results. --Ritchie92 (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave you the site of the Senate showing Lazzarini belonging to FI. If you ignore it, I must remember you that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Removing sources is a vandalism, I warns you. --Barlafus (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my last edits there's an attempt to compromise: keep the note you wrote about Lazzarini as a warning (with slightly different wording), but also keep official data in the table. Also, could you explain why the rest of changes in numbers (apart from Lazzarini between Lega and FI)? In your edits you also change data for the Socialist Party and Democratic Alliance. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]