Talk:Minister of Defence (Italy)

Table
I am not sure that I understand why you are removing both sources and Time in office. How does that improve the article in any way? The table I'm implementing are far superior in most aspects and is widely used throughout all of the English Wikipedia. Skjoldbro (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I'm not sure they're "far superior". We have many and many articles about Italian ministers, all with the same layout, which has been used for years. Per consistency, I think we should keep this version, or at least, we should discuss the one you proposed, along with the other users, usually involved in articles about Italian politics. If you want to add sources and the time in office, we can do that, but keeping the same layout of the table. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well there are many other articles throughout all of Wikipedia that use the layout that I have proposed, so if it is good enough for the rest of Wikipedia it should be good enough for the Italian lists. So if we should focus on consistency maybe we should bring the Italian lists in line with the rest of Wikipedia. Additionally, apart from sources, this table also has time in office, something that yours lack. Also why do you keep the Ministers of War on the list for Ministers of Defence? Even the Italian Wikipedia gives them their own page. Skjoldbro (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Lists about Italian ministers are based on British ones, which (IMHO) are probably the best ones here on Wikipedia. As I said, we can add sources and time in office, but, I'm against your layout, which do not represent the "customary color" of coalitions. I also agree with you in splitting the articles. My only purpose is to keep the current layout on parties and governments' colors. Then I will add the "time in office" in the other articles too. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

What do you think? -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I made some few changes to mine and made it a bit more like the British, with the added feature of numbering. How is that?
 * Well, IMHO I would keep the background color for the governments, moreover, I’m quite against the ministers’ order which isn’t used in Italy (no one even knows that Conte is the 58th PM...) Anyway I’d like to have the opinion of users mainly involved in Italian politics like Checco, Autospark, Ritchie92, Impru20, AleCapHollywood and Scia Della Cometa. -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposals

 * Nick.mon A


 * Skjoldbro

I favor the version by, which is clearer, better formatted, and comprehensive. However I saw that earlier they were using the Officeholder template, which should be the standardized template for these lists on Wikipedia, am I wrong? In this case we should probably consider switching to the standard template for all these lists. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

If we want to include the order, I'd use these layouts. Sorry but I totally dislike the background color for the ministers' order, while I support its use for governments (as in List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom or List of prime ministers of Spain), in fact the layout proposed for governments isn't used at all. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Nick.mon B


 * Nick.mon C

I would use the version of Skjoldbro, but with the background color also for the government (as in the current version).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * However, I do not consider initial numbering indispensable. Instead, the ministers of war should be listed on another page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree on the splitting of the article, but I have to insist on the layout. IMHO with a background for the numbers we would alternatively use black or white to distinguish the numbers and it's not the best from an aesthetic point of view. Moreover, the background for the numbers is not so used here on Wikipedia: as I said, I would keep inspiration from List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. Excuse me if I insist, we are all equal here, but I'm basically the only one who have created and edited these articles, so I'm feeling quite involved :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My preference goes for "Nick.mon C", with name first (as in "Nick.mon A"). --Checco (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So this is Checco 's proposal: -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, very nice! --Checco (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The name before the picture looks terrible, so that would be my last choice. Even in Italian cabinets pages we have the picture always before the name, which is much better because we use Latin alphabet and read from left to right and not the other way around. Sorry but on Wikipedia nobody WP:OWNs any article, so the argument that you created these articles is not valid at all, and I would have preferred not to have read something like this on a talk page. You basically confessed to an OWNish behaviour that cannot be allowed. Anyway I don't see what is the matter with the color behind the numbers, as a matter of fact it makes it much clearer when scrolling through the list if there were periods with alternate government types or period with "stable" politics. I also approve the background color for the government party in the table, exactly as in version. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Ritchie92, I didn't say that I must be the one who decides for everyone, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned you here to discuss, knowing that we often disagree. I've only said that I'm quite involved in these lists, because I strongly contributed in creating these articles and I could bet that, if we choose a new layout, I would be the one who will update all these articles. Anyway, the color behind the number is quite "terrible", as you said for the "name before the picture". IMHO, it's more consistent to link the color to the party, in the appropriate column: -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you were the only one to update these articles, but against consensus, it's still not good enough. Anyway this last one is Skjoldbro version with the party color moved in the middle the table, and I think it's better, so it's also fine for me. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Definetly, as I've always done, you surely remember our last discussion on the graphs for the COVID pandemic :) Anyway let's wait for Skjoldbro's opinion on this last version. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)