Talk:Second Conte government

Article One, not LeU
Consistently with all articles on Italian governments, political parties, not parliamentary groups, should be mentioned. Thus, we should barely mention Free and Equal (LeU). Speranza is Article One's leader and should be classified as such. Probably, there will be under-secretaries of Italian Left too. --Checco (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Parliamentary groups, not parties, participate in talks with the President and other parliamentary groups in order to form a government, but governments are made up of parties. We always list parties, not parliamentary groups, therefore also this edit is not acceptable to me. Otherwise, the Conte I Cabinet would have been formed by the Five Star Movement and the League–Salvini Premier–Sardinian Action Party, not the League. --Checco (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * governments are made up of parties I don't think this is a general statement. Governments can be made of independents. Otherwise, the Conte I Cabinet would have been formed by the Five Star Movement and the League–Salvini Premier–Sardinian Action Party, not the League Governments are made by whatever makes them: in this case (Conte II) the LeU as a united group has been participating to the talks and the construction of the government, so I think it would not be fair to only list Article One just because of some made-up "rule" on WP. Also most sources (newspapers) in the last days refer to LeU rather than Art.1, and WP should report what sources say. Regarding the Conte I, the Sardinian Action Party entered in the Lega group (in the Senate) only later; furthermore, we usually shorten "Lega Nord" with "Lega" which is already not the proper name of the party. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The "Conte II Cabinet" is substantially a M5S-PD-LeU government, Roberto Speranza has been appointed minister as member of LeU, therefore it is the entire LeU that is part of the government, not just Art.1.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * All this is a big mistake and an outrage to consistency. Parliamentary groups are never mentioned in the articles on Italian governments. Speranza was appointed minister specifically beacuse he is the leader of Art.1, which is part of the LeU parliamentary group. Likely, there will be under-secretaries of Art.1, SI and possibly other LeU members. I would love to see LeU becoming a joint party (and, maybe, being part of the government will lead its members to join forces again), but that is not the case yet. There is no reason for treating this government differently from others. --Checco (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this edit by User:Ritchie92 (summary: "LeU is not a political party"), thus I am a little bit confused by what he wrote above. I disagree with just one thing: "social democracy", not "democratic socialism", is the main ideology of both Art.1 and Art.1-dominated LeU. Of course, I disagree with this edit by User:SDC. --Checco (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think wherever it's written "Party" we should put the actual party name (Article One), so in the tables and in the infobox (Member parties). In the lead sentence (so in the text) I think LeU is appropriate because it is what most sources say. I will try to reach a compromise for the lead. --Ritchie92 (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a very strange situation, because almost every sources cite LeU and no one mentions Article One, but technically LeU was disbanded as a political alliance in November 2018 and it only survives as a parliamentary group. Maybe we could find a compromise indicating both. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I like both proposals, User:Ritchie92's and User:Nick.mon's! --Checco (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I like the solution for the table on the composition of the government proposed by User:Nick.mon, the problem is the infobox and the section "Supporting parties": above all the Conte II Cabinet is universally considered as a M5S-PD / M5S-PD-LeU government, not a M5S-PD-Art.1 government, we cannot to not take into consideration that Roberto was appointed as a minister mainly as a member of LeU and not as a member of Art.1 (also Pietro Grasso and Loredana De Petris had been taken into consideration as possible ministers: in the case of Grasso, which party would have been indicated?) Then, the section "Supporting parties" is strongly wrong: M5S, Pd and Art.1 are not the only supporting parties of this government, in this case it is even more misleading to indicate Art.1. I would like to underline that LeU is not just a parliamentary group, but a federation of parties that ran in the last general election as a unitary political subject, and in the same way it has been considered as a unitary subject for the composition of this government. @User:Ritchie92 @User:Nick.mon @Checco I think that the indication of the specific party should be made in the general table, both for ministers and for undersecretaries, like the example above, but in the other sections LeU should be indicated, since it is the latter that is a founding member of the government. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Real quick. Grasso would have been listed as an independent. "Supporting parties" is wrong, per se: it should be "Member parties"; otherwise, we should include also external supporters. Everything will be clearer when under-secretaries will be appointed. --Checco (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Am I wrong, or were you the one who claimed the existence of the so-called "parliamentary parties"? While now LeU, that ran with its list in the last general election, it must be considered a mere parliamentary group... but Speranza has been appointed Minister as member of Leu and not as member of Art.1, and anyone can't deny this, and in the same way Grasso would not have been appointed Minister as a simple independent, like Luciana Lamorgese, but as a member of Leu, so there is a certain difference. Leaving out the fact that the "Supporting Parties" section seems to me totally useless, it seems important to me to indicate LEU as a member of this government. Anyway I did not understand the position of User:Nick.mon in this regard, since I would have preferred his initial version, which was later modified...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In my view, the parliamentary majority is clearly composed by PD, M5S and LeU, thus I'd support the use of Free and Equal, but if there isn't consensus, I think we could insert both, as I said before. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since there is no clear agreement on either Art.1 or LeU, I believe you are right and that for now both must be indicated.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The Liberal Popular Alliance or the Federalists and Liberal Democrats were mainly parliamentary parties. That is not the case of Free and Equal for the specific fact that it is composed of parties (mainly Article One and Italian Left), as well as independents. Speranza was appointed minister on behalf of LeU, but he was chosen among others specifically because he is a member of the largest party within LeU, Article One. I would correct User:Nick.mon's proposal in the following way: Party means inequivocally "party". --Checco (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I can live both with the two versions, but I would keep LeU in the section "Supporting parties". -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably Speranza was really chosen as Minister because he is the leader of Leu's biggest component, but this remains a personal opinion. And anyway he was chosen in the first instance as a member of Leu, and only later as a member of Art.1, therefore the indication of his membership to Leu should have a prevalence over that to Art.1. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We should stick to facts. Speranza's party is Art.1, not LeU and the latter is not a party. --Checco (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For those who speak (or, at least, read) Italian, there is a similar discussion in it.Wiki: see here. I am not fond of it.Wiki, but in this particular case I was happy, delighted indeed, to see that authoritative editors there agree with me. --Checco (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's fair to other users to use Italian-language WP discussions to prove a point here. But as I said before I agree with using LeU in the text and Article One wherever the word "party" appears, so like for Independent (M5S) we could do Article One (LeU). --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. However, it would be contrary to WP rules to use it.Wiki as a source, but there is nothing unfair in linking opinions that represent my opinion better that what I could do with my own words. This said, I agree with using LeU in the text (possibly mentioning LeU members in brackets) and Art.1 wherever the word 'party' appears" (possibly with LeU in brackets). --Checco (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that the discussion in Itwiki is not totally superimposable to this one, since the discussion started from Leu's external support, and that the setup of the Italian page is a few different from the English one. Anyway, I would prefer write LeU with Art.1 in brackets, for the reasons already explained above, and also because it would be more practical if there were also undersecretaries of SI, for example. However, I would expect the appointment of the undersecretaries to see which is the best approach.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Sergio Costa as M5S member
According to news sources from Corriere, Repubblica, il Fatto Quotidiano, and even Politico, Sergio Costa is listed as a Five Star Movement member. Politico even says "Former general, Sergio Costa of the 5Stars, remains environment minister". Should it be listed as such in the tables and in the minister-party count? --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Found one more putting Costa in the M5S: The Local. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think so. That should be done also in Conte I Cabinet, both for Costa (M5S) and Bussetti (LN). --Checco (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, especially for Bussetti, but I think we could say the same for Costa too. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Giuseppe Conte, Sergio Costa and Marco Bussetti are independents of area (Conte and Costa of "M5S area" and Bussetti of "League area"), but however they remain independents. Their reference area may be indicated in brackets, but they should continue to be referred to as independents.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In English "area" means nothing in this context. Let's go back to the previous version, replace it with "M5S-proposed") or with "M5S independent". Any of the three options I proposed is OK with me, while I prefer the third one. --Checco (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see sourced statements here. On the other hand I presented many sources stating that Costa is M5S, I will revert back to sourced information. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

More sources: Il Messaggero stating he is "one of the members of the Five Star Movement", and ANSA calling him "pentastellato", i.e. five-starred. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There are many sources that affirm that Sergio Costa is a Independent of the M5S (,, , , etc.). Some sources describe him generically as a member of the Five Star Movement (simply by writing M5S in brackets to indicate its membership), but in reality it is an independent close to the M5S. Honestly I don't know how this situation can be effectively translated into English, for me also the "M5S independent" proposed by Checco is ok.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Two of your sources are old. Please acknowledge that, we're talking about the Conte II, not the Conte I. All the other sources say "independent of the M5S" which is a very weird statement. I think that there is no reason to discard the sources I gave (they are all reliable) and therefore the sum of the sources should lead us to put him in the circle of the M5S. That is why I would put the yellow color, the party name "Five Star Movement", and a note saying he's likely not a member of the party. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But there is no source that states that he fully joined the M5S, the generic indication in some newspapers of the M5S in brackets cannot be a proof of his adhesion to the party. I agree to use the color of the party and to indicate his closeness to the party in the same box, but he must still be indicated as an independent (and however the same criterion should also apply to Bussetti and Conte).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a tendency of most Italian and foreign newspapers to portray him as M5S. This is what sources say. We have no way, for now, to check if he has a membership, but this is not the point in this table, I think. Anyway, more newspapers were considering him as an Independent during the Conte I cabinet formation, with respect to now. This means that he got probably closer to the M5S during the year in the Conte I government, so that now the newspapers feel confident to bracket him as M5S, and not Ind (like they do for Lamorgese, instead). So the fact that he's yellow here does not necessarily mean he (and Conte) must be yellow also in Conte I Cabinet. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The situation does not seem to have changed much: both Conte and Costa were close to M5s also last year (like Bussetti was close to the League), since they had already been proposed by Di Maio during the electoral campaign as ministers of his hypothetical government. I do not see sufficient evidence to establish whether Costa fully adhered to the M5S (while Conte has already claimed to have remained an independent). And however, the difference between Conte/Costa and Lamorgese is the closeness to a party of the first two, while the last one is a "technical" minister.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly aware of the difference with Lamorgese, that's exactly the point! We should not use the same colors and classify them in the same "Independents" group, because one is an actual independent, the other is a M5S aficionado, just without the official membership of the party, and should be counted as M5S. It looks very weird at the moment that the minority parties in the government have in total more places than the main party... And in fact this is not the case, since they in practice have the Prime Minister and another one of the "independents". --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed I proposed to list Conte and Costa as independents of the M5S (in the most correct form, perhaps "M5s area" in English means nothing), and possibly also using the color of the reference party. Same speech for the previous cabinet. But to simply indicate them as members of the M5s would not be substantially correct.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I missed something in the talk. Possibly, something happened during Conte I Cabinet. People like Conte, Costa and Bussetti became increasingly close to the parties which appointed them. Actually, both Conte and Costa had endorsed the M5S before the election, thus they can be considered "M5S independents" also in Conte I Cabinet. And what about Bussetti who takes part to LN's rallies and usually sports the LN's logo on his suits? I would personally adopt for each of them party colours and the "XXX Independent" or "Independent (XXX)" format. --Checco (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I like the format "Independent (XXX)" better because the official party is actually "Independent". The next question is now: what do we do with the party count in Conte II Cabinet? --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I also like the "Independent (XXX)" format better. I would count those independents among party members. --Checco (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I have to say that this edit comment made me have second thoughts, I am actually not sure if this is clear enough. We should find a better wording or make a different decision. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

In my view we should insert him as an "independent" with the note "Proposed by the M5S" (as for Conte), or we should consider him a member of the M5S. I don't like so much the format: "Independent (M5S)" with Five Star's color. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We can also keep the color for the independent politicians, but I think it would be necessary to make explicit that Conte and Costa are "expression of the M5S", even if they remain independent, but I don't know what the most correct formula could be.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right, anyway, they're officially independent politicians, backed by the M5S, so INMHO the best alternative is keep the independent color and use a note to express their link with the M5S. -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Italia Viva
This party (whose article should be named in English, btw) was launched after the birth of the government. This article should reflect this. In previous cases, we have different sections for "beginning of term" and "end of term". Also the "Council of Ministers" table should reflect that Bellanova and Bonetti were originally appointed as PD members, as we did in Gentiloni Cabinet. Having no time now, I am going to simply rollback User:Nick.mon's latest edits, which are partial and inconsistent with other articles. @User:Nick.mon: Do you have the time to fix this? --Checco (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Checco, yes, you're right. I will fix it! -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that was a work in progress, there was indeed a section for beginning of term and current composition. And I think Italia Viva should appear in the first sentences too. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Nick.mon for your great job done! As IV's date of formation, we can either adopt 16 September (announcement) or the day when the parliamentary groups will be formed, as they could be formed on different days. I support 16 September. --Checco (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, but I think the announcement was yesterday, wasn't it? -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The news filtered on 16 September and Renzi was interviewed on that day.
 * A third would be to have the day in which the symbol will be unveiled. --Checco (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Split of Ministry of Education, University and Research
I am not sure that the solution proposed by in this edit is the best to represent the continuity between the former Ministry of Education, University and Research (with Fioramonti) and the two "new" ministries. It looks like there are duplicate ministries, while instead it's just a replacement and split. I think we could put both in the same row and have a note or a small-print specifying that Azzolina is for Public Education and Manfredi for University and Research. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

In my view, there are three options:

1)

2)

3)

We had to decide which one would be the best solution. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support either number 1) or number 3), prefer number 1). Number 2) looks like the three are separate ministries. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My preferred option is n. 2 (Azzolina should be mentioned once, btw). However, as you know, I am not particularly interested in that table. I am far more interested in the sections above. I would like to split the "Council of Ministers" section in two ("Beginning of term" and "Current"), similarly to what we had once in Renzi Cabinet and Gentiloni Cabinet. Additionally, we have to split the "Geographical breakdown" section. --Checco (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization in title
I just realized that all titles of Italian governments are capitalized in the wrong way. For example for this article, the title should be Conte II cabinet instead of Conte II Cabinet. This is according to WP:NCCAPS and WP:LOWERCASE: indeed the word "cabinet" is not a proper name, and also in Italian one would write il governo Conte II. Indeed the very first sentence of MOS:CAPS also states: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." There are also examples from other countries' governments articles: First Merkel cabinet, First Philippe government, First Rutte cabinet, First Johnson ministry. There are examples of the opposite, like the Spanish Sánchez Government, but I think this is also wrong according to Wikipedia style guidelines. If no one is against this change I would move all Italian government articles to the correct spelling. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It's been almost two weeks, so I would take the absence of replies as consent to be WP:BOLD in the next days! --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It would be event better to move this article from "Conte II Cabinet" to "Conte second government", per consistency. --Checco (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Probably Second Conte cabinet would be better (see other countries' examples). "Cabinet" is more appropriate than "government" because the page is merely about the composition of the office and its history, not about governmental issues, I would say. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just spotted this. I was recently thinking about this, but I'm not sure that the lower-case version should be used. Firstly, because this is a proper noun, as it refers to a specific and single entity, just as the Democratic Party is not dubbed the "Democratic party". I wouldn't trust examples of other countries that much, because this is very disorderly done: you'd also have Second Morrison Ministry, 31st Government of Ireland, Cabinet of Donald Trump, Sixth Labour Government of New Zealand, 29th Canadian Ministry, Fourth Abe Cabinet and so on. There is no naming convention on this issue and this is causing a lot of chaos, because essentially some articles try to copy others. To complicate things further, there is some situations were the "government/cabinet" word is intended to be used generically in the title: for example, Cameron–Clegg coalition rather than "First Cameron ministry", which would lead us to think that in UK these are not proper nouns (but this does not mean they are not treated as proper names elsewhere).
 * Nonetheless, I guess that using the full ordinal number could possibly go against WP:CONCISE, particularly when the Roman numerals are used anyway when linking the articles in templates and the such.
 * Sources help little on this, though I may say that in Spain these are commonly capitalized by the media when referring to the particular cabinet; not sure what is done for other countries.
 * On the "Cabinet/Government" preference, I would make this dependent on the actual usage in the country. In Spain, these are commonly referred to as "Government", whereas "Cabinet" could lead to confusion because the common usage in Spain of "cabinet" to refer to the prime minister and ministers' office staffs (for example, Cabinet Office (Spain)). Impru 20  talk 20:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Just a comment on User:Impru20's reply. The name Conte cabinet is not a proper name. Conte is a proper name, but the expression "Conte cabinet" is not the proper name of any entity. This differs from the Democratic Party, which is indeed the proper name of the party. Also, the example that Impru20 mentions of Cabinet of Donald Trump really is not valid because the first noun in the title is anyway always capitalized.
 * The policy WP:CONCISE does not apply here. It states: "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic". It only would apply for unnecessarily long titles, but I don't see any problems with the length of something like "Second Conte cabinet". The problem is instead with the usual English reading and spelling of ordinal numbers, by which one would prefer "second" or "2nd" instead of "II".
 * should we open a more global thread about this (since it's a general issue to many communities on WP) on some higher-level discussion page? If so, which one? --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Conte cabinet as a generic noun, meaning "Conte's cabinet" or "the cabinet of Conte", is indeed not a proper name. The Conte II Cabinet/Second Conte Cabinet/whatever-the-name when referring to this specific government as a singular entity is a proper name. Just the same as you can say "the Five Star and Democratic parties" where "parties" is used generically, but the "Party" in "Democratic Party" is a proper noun because it is part of the name of the single entity it is mean to denote.
 * Take the sentence in the lead of the article: The Conte II Cabinet is the 66th cabinet of the Italian Republic and the second cabinet led by Giuseppe Conte. If Conte II Cabinet wasn't a proper name, and under the proposed alternative, the sentence would be redundant: The second Conte cabinet is the 66th cabinet of the Italian Republic and the second cabinet led by Giuseppe Conte. In the first example, you are denoting a single, specific entity. In the second example, you are not denoting anything: merely pointing out that this is a cabinet and that it is Conte's second, something you end up repeating at the end of the sentence anyway.
 * The closest to a naming convention that we have on this issue is WP:NCGAL I guess. And it does not specifically cover government cabinets, just departments.
 * I think that, by order of importance, the issues at hand can be sorted starting with the capitalization issue, then the numbering, and finally the "Cabinet/Government/Ministry"-usage. On the last one, I'd say to use the one most commonly used for that country in reliable sources. For the numbering, you should note that WP:CONCISE means that when you have two titles that are both precise and unambiguous, you must use the most concise one. Here, both "Conte II Cabinet" and "Second Conte Cabinet" would be equally precise and unambiguous, so when it comes to choose, Conte II Cabinet would win the day unless you can provide a more pressing reason requiring for the full "Second" to be spelled out. Plus the fact that, while the usage of Roman numerals for titles of cabinet articles is mixed in Wikipedia, it is very widely extended in templates and such anyway, so its usage in the titles also help simplification and consistency there.
 * I don't know if it's exactly the same, but a similar debate on the capitalization has been going on for some time on the issue of MOS:JOBTITLES, i.e. when to capitalize titles such as "Prime Minister" and when to use them uncapitalized. Possibly, a naming convention should be established on this issue. Impru 20  talk 00:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * the sentence "the Five Star and Democratic parties" would be a confusing and badly written one, so I wouldn't use it as an example of correct spelling. Regarding the two versions of the lead sentence of this article I would pick the second you wrote, and I insist that "Conte cabinet" is not a proper name of any named institution in Italy, unlike the Democratic Party. The fact that the 2nd Conte cabinet is a unique and precise thing does not make its name a proper name. Finally, in general I disagree with you point of view on CONCISE (the title must also follow WP:COMMON first, and the version with "second" is surely not "un-concise", so there is no need to exclude it per WP:CONCISE if it's clearer and better in English). When and if I have time I will try to raise the point in some more generic discussion page. --Ritchie92 (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that the M5S is typically nor referred as such in a sentence but it was a quick example. "The Communist and Socialist parties" if you like then. The point has been made perfectly clear. Regarding the two versions of the lead sentence of this article I would pick the second you wrote. This was not a choice for you to pick, but anyway, you'd be arguing in favour of a choice that comes to the extreme of redundancy. Why?
 * I insist that "Conte cabinet" is not a proper name of any named institution in Italy, unlike the Democratic Party. The fact that the 2nd Conte cabinet is a unique and precise thing does not make its name a proper name. The Democratic Party is not any named "institution of Italy" for that case, either. Further, for it to not be a "proper name", the official website of the government does seem to disagree with you, as well as the Senate one, both using capitalization and Roman numerals.
 * Seriously, this is not the point I wanted to make; we can have a discussion on the linguistics of a proper name but it is pointless, because it is a fact that "Conte II Cabinet" is an entity, referred to as such by sources and shown capitalized in many sources. The choice is not on whether it is a name or not, but on whether it should be shown capitalized or not in the title. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, including CONCISE but also WP:COMMONNAME, still apply in the absence of a naming convention on the issue. Impru 20  talk 00:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources you cite are very well known to me and they are in Italian; we're talking about English titles here, per WP:ENGLISH.
 * The lead sentence is not mine to pick, but also not yours to pick, so I don't see why using this tone, since you were giving the two options as an example and I said which one would be my preferred spelling. My pick was because I don't see there any more redundancies than in the version 1 (current one).
 * My comment about the sentence "the Five Star and Democratic parties" was not related to the politics of the M5S. As a matter of fact, also the one about the Communist and Socialist parties is not the best example: indeed I would probably rather write "the Communist Party and the Socialist Party", since both are proper names of institutions (yes, a party is a political institution, actually a linkage institution to be precise, in a democratic country). --Ritchie92 (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * When I brought the two sentences to you, I did it so as to compare how the current lead sentence would look with both versions of the title: with yours, you'd have to rewrite it to, at least, amend the second half of it to avoid the redundancy of saying that "the second cabinet of Conte is the second cabinet of Giuseppe Conte" (this is what sentence 2 says, quite literally). When I say "the Communist and Socialist parties" I am not saying you have to pick it up as your best preferred choice, just that it's one out of many; and one where "parties" is used as a common noun not part of the proper names (precisely in contrast to "the Communist Party and the Socialist Party" you bring up). That's exactly the difference. On the "institution" issue, this is being brought to really absurd extremes: the Cabinet of Italy is obviously an institution, something made even more obvious if you consider the PD an institution because of linkage institution.
 * On the issue of WP:ENGLISH: a proper name is a proper name, no matter the language, so that's why I am not understanding the "it's not a proper name" thing. If anything, what you may be intending to argue is that you don't think it should be capitalized based on X reasons, but not that "Conte II Cabinet" is not being used as a proper name, because it is. Nonetheless, ENGLISH establishes that the title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources. It is a mere extention of WP:COMMONNAME, appliable when the issue arises on whether to use the native name or the English translation, to be decided in favour of the name most used in English reliable sources. It is not of application here because I don't think anyone is arguing for using "Governo Conte II" as the article's title (nonetheless, even if you intended to applicate it here, the mostly divided use in sources when referring to Conte's cabinet would bring us to WP:DIVIDEDUSE: this is, the deadlock again).
 * Btw, I did not properly address the WP:COMMON issue earlier on: no, the title must not use COMMON first (which btw is part of WP:IAR, a separate guideline). The naming criteria exist for something, so you can't just wrap them up because of IAR. CONCISE means exactly what it means: that when there is conflict between two or more equallyprecise and unambiguous titles, the most concise one is preferred. Both "Second Conte" and "Conte II" are equally precise, but Conte II is more concise. Impru 20  talk 01:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence "The second Conte cabinet ... is the second cabinet of (or lead by) Giuseppe Conte" contains no repetition, but instead it adds information for a first reader who doesn't know what "Conte" is or means in Italian. And anyway, if there is a repetition as you say, than the problem is the same as for the sentence "The Conte II cabinet is ... the second cabinet of Giuseppe Conte" since you would read it the same way, just with the first "second" after "Conte" instead of before.
 * I think we disagree on what a proper noun is. I say and insist that "Conte cabinet" is not the proper noun of the cabinet, nor of any institution. The Government is an institution with its proper name, and still Conte's government is not the official name of the current one. In institutional files the current government is always referred to as "the Government", not as "Conte Government", because indeed is not an official name of anything but just a way to call the current government headed by Conte.
 * You are reading CONCISE as you wish, but actually it only applies when a name is not concise, which is really not the case here. And the conflict you mention should be between two equally natural names, but here I would say in English "second Conte cabinet" is far more natural than the current title. Anyway I think we agree to disagree, and I would like to have a more generic opinion regarding more than just the Italian government names, so I will bring it to some higher-level page. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The uncapitalized "the second Conte cabinet" is already explaining that it's Conte's second cabinet. It would be like saying "the 2018 Italian general election was the 2018 general election in Italy". It does not add any new information, just repeats the same one.
 * "The Conte II cabinet is ... the second cabinet of Giuseppe Conte" since you would read it the same way (I did not uncapitalize "cabinet") Since in that sentence you would be treating "Conte II Cabinet" as a proper name and subject on its own, you wouldn't be redundant if you merely explain what this thing is.
 * Proper noun is "a noun that identifies a single entity and is used to refer to that entity". "The cabinet" is a common noun, referring to one out of a class of entities. "The Cabinet" is a proper noun, as it relates to the government entity. In institutional files the current government is always referred to as "the Government", not as "Conte Government", because indeed is not an official name of anything but just a way to call the current government headed by Conte. Yes, but this is the point. Any given cabinet will always be "the Government" when it is at office. We just differentiate between governments headed by different people because of their name, but they were all "the Government" at some point; they were the institution when they held office. Nonetheless, sources do capitalize the "Government/Council"-bit so that's one of the points I was trying to make.
 * You are reading CONCISE as you wish, but actually it only applies when a name is not concise, which is really not the case here. Why not? A name is not concise when an even more concise version of it exists, which there is here. In the example given, Rhode Island is used because it is more concise than State of Rhode Island and State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Otherwise, how else do you establish when a name is "concise enough"?
 * here I would say in English "second Conte cabinet" is far more natural than the current title. "Conte II Cabinet" is so "unnatural" that it's the preferred style of cabinet-naming when linking to this (or any other government article) in templates, infoboxes and such, such as this or this (indeed, this is a main issue of cabinet naming, because some of these are titled "second [PM] cabinet/government" yet they end up using the "[PM] [Roman numeral]" format anyway when referring to it in other articles or templates). WP:NATURAL refers to avoiding additional details in the article title unless necessary for disambiguation: "The second cabinet of Giuseppe Conte" or "Conte II Cabinet (government of Italy)" would be unnatural. "Conte II Cabinet" is not unnatural, specially when it is reported to be used in sources (indeed, your interpretation of what NATURAL is would be against the guideline itself, as it would allow for longer names than strictly necessary, which is not what the guideline calls about).
 * In the end our disagreement comes because of us running around like a chicken with its head cut off on this issue. The absolute lack of naming conventions and specific rules on this makes all possible alternatives to be feasible, and I'm not sure that current Wikipedia guidelines do provide for filling up the gaps that are found in cabinet-naming situations. I agree that a community-wide discussion on the issue should take place and, if possible, lead to some basic convention on the issue. Impru 20  talk 11:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have few doubts on the fact that "cabinet" or "government" should not capitalised in this context. However, as I said before, it is much more important to replace "cabine" with "government", as the latter is the proper translation for governo. --Checco (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Section reordering
Hi. I think that the sectioning structure of this article is quite confusing and full of repetitions. My idea would be to unify all the composition-related tables below a single "Composition" section, with subsections. So for example I would have:


 * 1) Supporting parties (here some info currently in "party breakdown" could be filled in a single representation)
 * 2) History (as current)
 * 3) Composition
 * 4) Council of Ministers
 * 5) Government
 * 6) Composition breakdown (here either we put only the "geographical breakdown", or both the geographical and party breakdown)
 * 7) References

All instances where there is a "beginning of term" vs "current" could be unified in single tables with two macro-columns, if someone has the time. Ideas? --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * My view is that the current structure is perfect, while I consider the "Government" section a little bit redundant. "Beginning of term" and "Current / End of term" is the best solution I can imagine: accordingly, I would duplicate the "Council of Ministers" section too. I would keep only the "Council of Ministers" section, while others would keep the "Government" section alone, that is why a compromise is to keep both. --Checco (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not suggesting to remove any section. Just reorganize it so that Council of Ministers and Government would be under the same section Composition, because they are both about the detailed composition. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, thank you for clarifying and sorry for my misunderstanding! I have no opinion on the issue. --Checco (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Meloni Cabinet which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)