Talk:Draghi government

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Cristina Messa (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Investiture

What was the investiture/confidence vote? We have this chart on the article for the 2021 Italian government crisis among other such cabinet articles:

18–19 January 2021 Confidence votes for Conte II Cabinet
House of Parliament	Vote	Parties	Votes
Chamber of Deputies (Voting: 607 of 630, Majority: 316)	Y Yes	M5S (188), PD (93), LeU (12), CD (11), Mixed Group–Ind. (8), SVP–PATT (4), MAIE (3), IV (1), FI (1)	321 / 607
	N No	Lega (125), FI (85), FdI (31), NcI–USEI–C! (9), +EU–Action (4), Mixed Group–Ind. (3), AP–PSI (2)	259 / 607
	Abstention	IV (27)	27 / 607
Senate of the Republic (Voting: 312 of 321, Majority: 161)	Y Yes	M5S (91), PD (35), Aut (8), Mixed Group–Ind. (8), LeU (6), MAIE (4), FI (2), PSI (1), +EU–Action (1)	156 / 312
	N No	Lega (62), FI–UDC (49), FdI (19), Mixed Group–Ind. (5), IdeA–C! (3), +EU–Action (2)	140 / 312
	Abstention	IV (16)	16 / 312

Can someone add the Draghi cabinet's version of this table? --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

There has not been the confidence vote yet. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

New format for "Composition of the Government"

I saw User:Nick.mon implementing this new, very ugly version of the "Composition of the Government" section in this article, as well as in some articles of previous governments. Where was that decision taken? I totally oppose it and I am asking other editors to re-think it, as it is so pejorative. The worst thing, of course, is downgrading the Secretary of the Council, but generally speaking I do not see why we should hide infos, moreover under bold names which are more visible than more important information of the table. It is really terrible, not to mention some translations that I did not see before as "delegation"... --Checco (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, of course. I think that this version is quite better than the previous one, but this is my personal opinion, so I'm totally open to improvements, like the ones Ritchie92 did some days ago. The new version does not "dowgrade" the Secretary of the Council, which is in the same exact position of the previous one. Moreover, the word "delegation" was already in the articles before, I didn't add anything... -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Checco. I totally like the new version by Nick.mon, instead! He was WP:BOLD and that is fine on Wikipedia, so there is no need of any authorization (he also had implicit approval by other editors like myself who also edited on the new template). The table now is much more compact, it does not show information that are usually not needed to read the list unless you click on it (like the long list of undersecretaries that was always making the table bigger than needed, for example), and IMHO is actually much more elegant. Almost all of your objections can be solved by discussing here and modifying the template accordingly, not by completely returning to the very sad table that was there before. Also you say that the table is downgrading the Secretary of the Council, but it's not true! The secretary has its own row in the table exactly like before, and also appears in the list of undersecretaries of the PM (exactly like before). If you want to move the secretary up on the list, I'm also for it, but that was the order also in the previous format. You also say moreover under bold names which are more visible than more important information of the table: I think only the names of the ministers are in bold, so I don't understand this point. Also: not to mention some translations that I did not see before as "delegation" yes those can be corrected with the proper English term (which I do not know). --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

A short add: My edits on Nick.mon's original format basically removed the "undersecretaries" section if it's empty (not the case in this article because we are waiting for the nominees, but see other articles like Conte II Cabinet). This saves a lot of space that was wasted before in the previous table, where for example the space for the ministers without portfolio was almost always left empty. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I totally oppose the new version and I consider the previous one virtually perfect. It did not need any improvement and, in fact, this new version is very pejorative. Those big, bold titles for "Undersecretaries" etc. are very bad because they are more evident than the names of ministries, which are bold too, but quite smaller. As it is now, I would remove it altogether and leave just the "Council of Ministers" section, as I argued in the past. I am sure you are totally in good faith, but, if it is just you who like the new version, there is no consensus for it. I am sorry for having misrepresented two issues (Secretary of the Council and "delegations"), but my point is clear and quite supported by Wikipedia rules. You can be bold in Wikipedia as long as other users do not oppose what your doing. There is an old consensual version and that version should stay, while looking for a new consensus. As Wikipedia:Consensus tells us, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". Thus, we should first revert the edits, then start a proper discussion as there is no consensus yet. You know I am a very consensual editor (and I usually wait a lot before implementing changes decided through consensus). Again, boldness is OK only as long as there is no opposition to bold edits. There are only three editors involved here: two in favour and one against. Let's start it all over again. --Checco (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Ahem, no it does not work like that. You are obviously refusing to discuss based on zero facts. Otherwise any edit with one random "oppose" would be reverted. I would suggest you to calm down, breathe, and try to evaluate the new format with an open mind. You failed to mention even one single real and objective downside of the new format, so try again. You also say: Those big, bold titles for "Undersecretaries" etc. are very bad because they are more evident than the names of ministries, which are bold too, but quite smaller: I don't see any big bold "undersecretaries" title, and actually the names of the ministries are much larger than those titles you refer to. So this point is still not clear and not valid. As you said, the other two points you brought forward were also misrepresentations of reality. So I insist that this is an improved version and should be kept. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not know if my computer gives me a different view of the template from yours, but I surely see those titles larger and bolder than the others. Anyway, I totally dislike the new template. I really dislike just everything about it, starting from the show/hide function, which you probably like a lot.

We are discussing stylistic changes and there is nothing rational about it, so yes, a "random oppose" is valuable as your "random support" (it would be different if I were the only one defending the consensual version in presence of ten users supporting the changes). Anyone is free to support the version he/she likes. I like the consensual version, you like a new one which is not supported by consensus yet. If other users agree with you in a broad discussion and a new consensus is formed, that will be OK. There is no such consensus: there are just two users who prefer a new version based on their stylistic preferences. You can be bold until you are challenged. Wikipedia:Consensus is quite clear: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". The main point is that there was a bold edit, that edit was challenged, thus that edit should be rollbacked and a discussion should start.

I would suggest you to calm down, breathe, and try to evaluate what happened with an open mind. --Checco (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, I've tried to visit the page from different computers and even from my tablet and smarphone, but I don't see any huge bold title which "overshades" the names of the ministers. We can think about some improvements, but IMHO this table is more compact and less long and "dispersive" than the previous one. I think the improvement are quite evident, but this is my view. -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Just one thing: being compact is not better, in my view. I am sure you both will be intellectually honest as I know you are: please revert the edits, start a discussion somewhere else, invite editors to have their say. If your new version is liked, it will be surely implemented. I will still dislike it, but at least there will be consensus. --Checco (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I surely do not see those titles larger than the titles of the ministries. The titles of the ministries have the same font size as the names of the ministers, in my case. I am using Firefox, and I tested also on Google Chrome and Opera, and I get the same result. It is very weird that you get the switched font size, since the Template:Hidden is purposefully done so that the title shows smaller than the outer environment font.

My support is not a "random support". I am not just saying that "I like" or "I dislike" the new format (like you are doing). I actually explained to you why it is much better with facts, so that my opinion was a consequence of the facts. This is a correct discussion for consensus on Wikipedia. Just repeating a thousand times how you very very very much dislike this does not change the irrelevance of this opinion if it is not supported by a real motivation. Also, why a majority of 10 vs 1 is better than 2 vs 1? On Wikipedia there is no majority rule, see WP:VOTE. On WP there is the rule of discussion and editing through consensus, which is not what is happening here since you are just giving your subjective opinion. Wikipedia:Consensus says: "Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns." I don't see any of that. You say: The main point is that there was a bold edit, that edit was challenged, thus that edit should be rollbacked and a discussion should start but actually the bold edit of User:Nick.mon was approved by other editors, so there was an implicit consensus. Again from WP:Consensus: "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." and that was the case until you reverted everything apparently at random (including unrelated edits) without giving any valid reason, and as always WP:Consensus says: "All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious) [...] Edit summaries are especially important when reverting another editor's good faith work."

So I reverted your revert because a valid explanation for it was not given in the first place (except for "I oppose", which is obviously not valid – it's quite redundant to state "I oppose" in a revert edit comment). Now that we are here discussing about it, you could have expanded on why you don't like this new format, but after four iterations of replies, you added no factual details about your motivation, so I am assuming that there are really no valid reasons. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You are not the one who decides which reasons are valid or not. Indeed, also your reasons are not particularly valid or convincing, in my view. My explanation is quite simple: the previous template was clearer, more readable and more user-friendly. You surely disagree, but that is exactly the point I am making. We like different templates, but our reasons are not objective and cannot be based on facts for the simple fact that style is neither factual nor objective. You are actually making my point with your arguments, so thank you:

• On Wikipedia there is no majority rule, see WP:VOTE. On WP there is the rule of discussion and editing through consensus, which is not what is happening here since you are just giving your subjective opinion. — Exactly! All of us are giving just our subjective opinion, thus the fact that two users hold the same opinion and another one holds a different opinion has no relevance: in Wikipedia there is no majority vote! Of course, as we are discussing a merely stylistic issue, at some point the will of the majority will prevail, but you are no such majority yet.
• Wikipedia:Consensus says: "Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. — Again, there is nothing in you stylistical preferences that is based on policy, sources or common sense. Of course, we can try to find a compromise.
• the bold edit of User:Nick.mon was approved by other editors, so there was an implicit consensus. — Are you kidding? Those edits were uploaded for two days or less. There might have been some implicit consensus, but that is OK until there is no explicit opposition!
• Again from WP:Consensus: "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." and that was the case until you reverted everything apparently at random (including unrelated edits) without giving any valid reason — Indeed, there is no longer or, bettere, there has never been consensus precisely because I expressed my opposition. By the way, that could have happened also two weeks from now as we are not mandated to spend all of our time here! I usually propose big changes through dicussion and wait weeks before editing. Of course, sometimes I am bold, but I am quite open to see my edits challenged. You are now acting like those edits had been there for years, which is not the case.
• "All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious) [...] Edit summaries are especially important when reverting another editor's good faith work. — I did not see any explanation for User:Nick.mon's original edits in edit summaries, but that is fine: I do not see any problem with that. He could have written "improvement" as I could have reverted with "better before" as edit summary. Remember: there is nothing factual here! What is an improvement for some people can be pejorative for others. And that is our case.

At the end of the day, here is the only objective fact: a bold edit was challenged, thus the previous consensual version should come back before any consensus is reached though discussion (and that consensus should well be: no new consensus, meaning that the established version is kept). I hope at least User:Nick.mon will understand this point and rollback his edits. --Checco (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's try not to dramatize too much, please... we can simply ping other users, asking for their opinions. So, Autospark, Broncoviz, Impru20, AleCapHollywood, Braganza, Scia Della Cometa, (I hope I've not forgotten anyone...) what do you think of the new format for the "Composition of of the Government" (A)? Do you think we should use it, or do you prefer a rollback to the previous version (B) the version used in the Italian Wikipedia (it:Governo Conte II#Composizione - C)? -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

A

Office	Portrait	Name	Term of office	Party
Prime Minister		Giuseppe Conte	5 September 2019 – 13 February 2021		Independent
	Secretary of the Council of Ministers Riccardo Fraccaro (M5S) Undersecretaries Mario Turco (M5S) – with delegation to economic planning and investment Andrea Martella (PD) – with delegation to publishing and information Pietro Benassi (Ind.) – with delegation to information and security (since 22 January 2021)

B

Portrait	Office	Name	Term	Party		Deputy Ministers Undersecretaries
	Prime Minister	Giuseppe Conte	5 September 2019 – 13 February 2021		Independent	Undersecretaries: Riccardo Fraccaro (M5S) Mario Turco (M5S) Andrea Martella (PD) Pietro Benassi (ind.) (since 22 January 2021)

C

Office	Name			Undersecretaries
Presidency of the Council of Ministers				Secretaries of the Council of Ministers
Prime Minister			Giuseppe Conte (Independent)	Riccardo Fraccaro (M5S) Secretaries of the Council of Ministers Andrea Martella (PD) Mario Turco (M5S) Pietro Benassi (Ind.) (since 21 January 2021)

I prefer A Braganza (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, @User:Nick.mon, sure, but first let's rollback all the edits in this and other articles that are not supported by consensus.

Wait a sec, @User:Braganza. My compromise version is... the template used it it.Wikipedia! For instance, see the one on Conte II Cabinet. It is so simple, clear, clever, readable, user-friendly, linear, consistent... just about perfect! It is often said that Italians have great style. Surely, the it.Wikipedia template is quite more stilish also of the consensual version and it is also more similar to it. But, again, if there is no new consensus, the old version should stay.

I am thus asking all the editors pinged by User:Nick.mon to express their preference on:

• the new format proposed by Nick, see Conte II Cabinet#Composition of the Government;
• the format adopted in it.Wikipedia, see it:Governo Conte II#Composizione.

The Draghi Cabint has not been completed with deputy ministers and undersecretaries yet, thus it is better to compare these two.

My personal preference thus goes for the latter option, not option B and of course not option A.

Can you re-formulate the question, @User:Nick.mon? Thanks, --Checco (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, --Checco (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

That's fine Braganza (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Fine! Let's wait for the new question by User:Nick.mon. One more thing: I prefer "option it.Wikipedia", but I could accept option A if the titles "Secretary of the Council of Ministers", "Deputy Ministers" and "Undersecretaries" are not in bold. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the version in the Italian Wikipedia, since it misses the dates and the full party names, which are very important since are the only detail added with respect to the table in the Council of Ministers section. I prefer version A, with possible improvements through discussion. --Ritchie92 (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that the lack of the full party names is disappointing too, but this is how it has been decided (a further demonstration of the stubbornness of us Italians 😅). Regarding the dates, I think it's more appropriate to add them only in the event of an early end of office (resignation or death): the beginning and the end of the government are already written on the page, so it's implicit information. That's only my opinion, of course. AleCapHollywood (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

With version C we also lose the visual distinction between "regular" undersecretaries and deputy ministers, or between regular undersecretaries and the Secretary of the Council of Ministers. In this example it looks like all the undersecretaries to the president of the Council are secretaries of the Council, which is not true. --Ritchie92 (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I prefer A too. AleCapHollywood (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The new format (version "A") seems to me very well done, so I am in favor of keeping it. Since I am on the subject, I believe instead that the "Council of Ministers" section is totally useless and redundant, it only repeats informations that are better explained in the next table, in my opinion it should be removed. Ps. I point out that the custom is to indicate first the component that expresses the Premier (in this case the Independents), even more so if it is also the largest component of the government.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I add one more consideration: both in the old and in the new format the secretary of the council of ministers is repeated 2 times, so a choice should be made. I would leave it under the premier and remove it from the bottom of the table.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

My preference would currently be for "C", the compromise option, if I'm being honest.--Autospark (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think "C" is a compromise option. Which compromise? I think it's just another option different from "A" and "B", proposed without any discussion about its features. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Option C is not the same as that of it.Wikipedia. I would adopt that, possibly with more visibility for "Secretary of the Council of Ministers". As said, I would also accept option A, provided that the titles "Secretary of the Council of Ministers", "Deputy Ministers" and "Undersecretaries" are not in bold: would this be acceptable?

Most important of all, I am for keeping the "Council of Ministers" section. If I were to choose, as I explained several times in the past, I would keep only that. It includes the infos most readers want to read. Only pro readers take a look to undersecretaries. --Checco (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I see that option C is not exactly the same as it.wiki. But it is also not a "compromise option". It is just a third option, different from A and B. It is important to state this otherwise it looks like the proposal of option C was a form of compromise.

Regarding the titles in bold, this unfortunately cannot be changed, since it's hard-coded in the Template:Hidden. What we can do is change the font size such that those titles are smaller, or we can change it such that the names of the ministers and the ministries look larger. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me but, which titles are larger than the names of the ministers? Sincerely, I still don't understand this problem :) The title "Secretary of the Council of Ministers" is smaller than "Giuseppe Conte". -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

“It includes the infos most readers want to read. Only pro readers take a look to undersecretaries”: even if this is not the encyclopedia Treccani or Britannica, it does not mean that it should be intentionally written in a approximate way (as well as being a personal point of view on what readers want to read). A government is composed of President, ministers, deputy ministers and undersecretaries, a page can be incomplete, but explicitly preferring an incomplete page to a complete one doesn't seem logical to me. It is also true that the pages on Italian governments are entitled "cabinet" and not "government" (for this reason I would prefer the second term for the titles). Anyway, repeating the same information only has the effect of unnecessarily burdening the page. @Nick.mon: the Secretary of the Council of Ministers is repeated twice in the table, on my view he should be removed from the botton of the table. I noticed another thing that should be corrected if this format is maintained: in the event of a replacement of ministers in the same government, the drop-down menu with the undersecretaries should be indicated only once per ministry (for example the Undersecretary for Family and Disability in Conte I government Vincenzo Zoccano: he is repeated twice, but it is sufficient to indicate him only once under the latest Minister).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: I agree with: in the event of a replacement of ministers in the same government, the drop-down menu with the undersecretaries should be indicated only once per ministry. The rest of your proposals, I think it's better to discuss them in a separate section, because they are not strictly related to the style of the table, but to the content of the article. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: The repetition of the secretary of the council of minister is strictly related to the style of the table...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Not really, it's a matter of deciding whether to single out the Secretary of the Council at the level of the other ministers or not. Anyway, even if it's just a style issue for you, it's not the issue which is discussed here, so I ask you to please start a separate discussion about it. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It concerns the setting of the table, so it should be discussed here. The secretary is entered twice, under the the Prime Minister and on the bottom of the table, it is a repetition. However the Secretary is not at the same level of the other ministers, but an udersecretary more important than others. Anyway, he should be removed from one of two places (and for the reason explained, I would prefer remove him from the bottom of the table).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:Ritchie92: "Regarding the titles in bold, this unfortunately cannot be changed, since it's hard-coded in the Template:Hidden" (cit.). Exactly, that is why having bold on bold was not OK with me. I edited the table accordingly. Please take a look. That is what I was proposing.

I also think that "Secretary of the Council" should be mentioned only once at the bottom of the table.

Finally, I understand different views, but still I think that the "Council of Ministers" section is worth, especially when there are changes during the term and we split it into "Beginning of term" and "Current" / "End of term". --Checco (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

In my browser I don't see any difference in the table after your edit. It's because, as I said, the Template:Hidden does not care about the bold in the entries, it shows the title in bold anyway. So if for you it's better, for me it's fine because there is zero difference.

Regarding the "Secretary of the Council", isn't he/she also an undersecretary to the President of the Council? I don't see any problem in having him/her twice in the table. We can have a note corresponding to the undersecretaries of the President that explains this. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Checco (OT): the table of that section (Council of Ministers) is unique, exactly like the one below, there is not one for the initial composition and one for the final composition. Only that the second table is aesthetically better. @Ritchie92: The Secretary of the Council of Ministers is not also an undersecretary to the President of the Council, but he is an undersecretary to the President of the Council, he has only a more important function than the other undersecretaries. The Council of Ministers or Cabinet is composed of the President of the Council of Ministers (or Prime Minister) and of the Miniters, STOP. The Secretary of the Council of Ministers, who is an undersecretary, is not a member of the cabinet, therefore in the current tables, in addition to being repeated twice, he enjoys an unfair prominence, because he is shown at the same level as the ministers. For me, his perfect placement is under the Prime minister, in the drop down section. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

So, as far as I understand, option A is currently the preferred one, and with the modifications done by Checco I think that it includes him in the supporters of option A. If this is true, we can close this discussion, in my opinion. Is that correct? --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, even in my browser I don't see any difference. Anyway, it's important to decide which version is the "definitive" one. If I understand well, I don't have to insert the bold in the title of the sortable lists. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Secretary of the Council of Ministers

I move here the discussion about the secretary of the Council of Ministers (SCoM). As far as I understand there are three possibilities, and I would ask the participants to motivate their choice with sourced facts, instead of stylistic preferences. The position of the SCoM is actually a content matter, not a style matter, because it depends on whether we consider the SCoM a (less or more important) part of the CoM or not. The options, in the table in the section Draghi Cabinet#Composition of the Government, are:

• option A: Keep the SCoM where they are now: both in the list of undersecretaries to the President of the CoM, and at the end of the table.
  • option A1: Also move the SCoM row to the top, directly after the President of the CoM.
• option B: Keep the SCoM only in the list of undersecretaries to the President, remove their own row in the table. This is the choice if we recognize that the SCoM is not a member of the CoM. In this case it would be consistent to also remove the SCoM from the table in Draghi Cabinet#Council of Ministers.
• option C: Remove the SCoM from the list of undersecretaries to the President, keep their own row in the table. This is the choice if we consider the SCoM as a member of the CoM. In this case we should keep it in the CoM table too, per consistency within the article.

I am willing to be neutral on this matter, so I let other editors discuss. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The option A is the most wrong, as I already said I am against repetition. But "option C" is also wrong. Article 92 of the Italian Constitution is very clear: "The Government of the Republic is composed of the President of the Council and the ministers, who together constitute the Council of Ministers." We don't have to decide whether the Secretary is a member of the Council of Ministers, it is the Constitution itself that excludes it. The "Secretary of the Council of Ministers" is one of the Undersecretaries of State to the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, even if he has a much more important role than the other undersecretaries and participates in the meetings of the Council of Ministers (of which, however, he is not a member). If he is not a member of the cabinet, it is not right to list him as the other ministers: for this reason the most correct option is B, keeping for him an apposite section, separate from that of the other undersecretaries. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I am for option A. As the title suggests, the Secretary of the Council takes part to the meetings of the Council. He/she is appointed together with ministers, differently from other undersecretaries, is a central figure and tends to be more influent than most ministers. --Checco (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The Undersecretary of State with the role of Secretary of the Council of Ministers is a decidedly important figure, but the fact of attending the sessions of the cabinet does not make him on the same level as the ministers. @Checco: furthermore, your affirmation ("He/she is appointed together with ministers") is wrong: he is announced to the President of the Republic and attends the oath to the government (however he/she's not even featured in the government photo), but he/she is appointed only at the first meeting of the cabinet. Listing him/her as the other ministers makes his/her office look like theirs, when in reality he/she is undersecretary anyway.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I wrote "appointed" not "sworn in", indeed. --Checco (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It's true, they are appointed with different appointment decrees but together, in the first meeting of the cabinet there is the oath of the Secretary. However, even if he is appointed at the same time as the ministers he/she is not a member of the cabinet. Listing the secretary with the ministers generates misunderstandings, because he/she is however an undersecretary.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

How do we solve the problem of the secretary of the council of ministers? @Ritchie92: you said that by listing him that way, the secretary is considered part of the CDM, but the secretary is not member of the CDM. Here there is a double problem, one is formal (the useless repetition), the other is substantial (the inclusion of an undersecretary among the effective members of the cabinet). These problems should be solved. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes, formality is less important than substance. I would leave everything as it is, possibly with a note saying that the Secretary is not a member of the Council of Ministers, but takes part to all the meetings of the Council of Ministers. --Checco (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed the problem concerns both the form and the substance: the secretary is repeated twice and he is not a member of the cabinet, the current setting of the table generates misunderstandings.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

So the discussion did not lead to anything, but the problems exposed remain and are objective. If no one has anything else to say I will correct this repetition, which gives a wrong representation of the cabinet.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that two opposite opinions were brought forward, and no consensus has been reached. So the current situation should be preserved, until a consensus is reached. Let's wait for other editors to get a better picture of a possible consensus. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92 You don't have your own opinion? Why does an office have to be repeated twice in the same table? And why should an undersecretary be listed as a cabinet member? Attending councils of ministers does not make him a cabinet member and the repetiton makes non sense. The discussion has been going on for several days and these problems need to be solved. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: You have repeated your point more than four times in this discussion alone. It's clear enough. However Checco is contrasting your position with another valid point, basically stating that the list in the table is not only including the members of the Council of Ministers, but also its Secretary which has a prominent role in Italian politics. So the point of discussion is not whether te SoCM is a member or the CM; he/she is not. The point is (and the question of this discussion): Should it stay in the table, even if it is not a member of the CM? Both your and Checco's positions are valid, so let's wait for other editors.

I am neutral on this point. I also do not see a problem in the "repetition". There is no repetition: the SoCM is both an undersecretary to the PM and the secretary of the Council. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92 It is not so. The Secretary is not both an undersecretary and the secretary of the Council, the office of secretary is related to that of Undersecretary of State to the Presidency of the Council. Furthermore, even if this were the case (two distinct offices) the repetition is the same, because the secretary (in this case Roberto Garofoli) is not listed first as Undersecretary and then as Secretary, but both times as secretary in a dedicated space. This makes no sense at all.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

This time, I totally agree with User:Ritchie92 and I much appreciate his intellectual honesty.

Hopefully, other contributors will express their views. --Checco (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Checco and Ritchie92: I will also be repetitive, you have not yet answered my question: why does the same office have to be repeated twice? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The title of the job in Italian is "Sottosegretario di Stato con funzioni di Segretario del Consiglio dei Ministri" so he is both a sottosegretario di stato (undersecretary) and has the role of segretario del Consiglio dei Ministri (secretary of the Council of Ministers). So it is not wrong – that's what I deduce from the job title – to list him/her both in the list of undersecretaries of State, and separately as the person who has the role of Secretary of the Council. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: each undersecretary has a delegation: one of them acts as secretary of the Council of ministers, but the two offices coincide if the undersecretary has no further delegations. And I repeat, "Secretary of the Council of Ministers" is repeated twice, he is not even listed under two different offices (which however, in this case there are not), but under the same office. The repetition is objective, therefore useless. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The other delegations do not correspond to roles as important as the Secretary of the Council. Also it's not true that the two offices coincide if the undersecretary has no further delegations. No undersecretary has no further delegations. Also, actually the SoCM can have more delegations to other subjects. We can include the SCoM together with the other Undersecretaries below the Prime Minister row, so the title "Secretary of the Council of Ministers" is not repeated. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: I know very well that the Secretary of the Council of ministers is more important than other Undersecretaries of State, but the two offices coincide: an undersecretary must necessarily have a task, otherwise what is his role? One undersecretary performs the office of secretary of the council of ministers, another undersecretary is responsible for publishing etc. An undersecretary without a post cannot exist, he must be assignee of the office of secretary or of another delegation, the "Undersecretary os State to the Presidency of the Council acting as Secretary of the Council of Ministers" is one only office, we need to be clear about this point. He may have other delegations, but not in the case of the Draghi government, so he cannot be repeated twice, the repetition there would be also including him among the undersecretaries (since his specific delegation must be indicated, and if he is indicated as Secretary, the repetition is still there, even if less noticeable). If he is listed together with the other undersecretaries he must be removed from the bottom of the table (hypothesis which I would prefer), or vice versa. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Some amount of repetition is going to be there at the moment since we have an office that is both one of the undersecretaries and the secretary of the council. And I see no problem with that: the SCoM is an undersecretary so it would be inconsistent to remove it from the list of undersecretaries: this would cause incompleteness, and completeness is more important than avoiding redundancies. On the other hand the role of this special undersecretary is to act as the secretary of the CoM – a predominant role – and for this reason it is currently kept in the government composition with its own row in the table (as is done in all articles about Italian governments). Again, let's wait for the opinion of other users, since it looks like we are far away from reaching a consensus about removing the SCoM row from the table. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: "we have an office that is both one of the undersecretaries and the secretary of the council": but is not so. He's an undersecretary, but undersecretary for what? Garofoli does not hold two offices. "It would be inconsistent to remove it from the list of undersecretaries": for this reason I would prefer keep him among the other Undersecretaries, specifying his role like the others. If, on the other hand, he is listed together with the other ministers, the problem for me is that he enjoys unfair prominence (he's not a member of the cabinet), but there is no omission or incompleteness, since his office is included in the table. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise, explain to me exactly what Garofoli's two assignments consist of...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This is my last reply, because you (and unfortunately I, too) are repeating the same things over and over and it's really not interesting anymore. My view about this discussion is expressed in the following.

Garofoli is an undersecretary to the PM, and therefore it makes perfect sense that he should be in the list of all undersecretaries together with the others. This is called "completeness": if we have a place where we list all undersecretaries to the PM (as is the case in the table), it would be incomplete to remove only one of them from it; either we list all undersecretaries, or we don't list them at all. That is why I feel that the need for completeness removes the option C from the feasible options. (And after all, you and Checco opted for either option A or B, so excluding C is not something that goes against your main choice)

Garofoli is a special undersecretary and that is the reason he has its own row in the table, like it is for all other Italian governments articles. You disagree with this choice, and we all understood that. I read very carefully your replies, but I am begging you to wait for other users' opinions on the matter, since you and Checco have given two different reasons supporting two different choices, and a consensus has not been reached. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: After my last question, you changed your reasoning in your answer: before you continued to argue that Garofoli is both an undersecretary and the secretary of the council of ministers, therefore that he carried out two tasks. Anyway, I challenge to find another government table (of another country) where the same office is repeated twice, it is a very bad solution, and I would also like to know from User:Nick.mon, who created the table, because he chose this useless repetition. I don't understand why you want to make the page so redundant. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I don't have a preferred opinion. I agree that this format is quite redundat, because we cite the Secretary of the Council twice, but the Secretary of the Council is an undersecrtary more important than the others, in fact it's the only one to be listed in the goverment's webiste along with the ministers. At the same time, it's close to the PM and I think it wouldn't be correct to remove it from the sortable list "under" the PM. So I don't know, I agree that this is a repetion and it's quite redundant, but I think we should list the Secretary of the Council in the table too. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: Ok, but let's make a choice, if you also agree that repetition is redundant. I have expressed my opinion about it (i.e. list him as in the itwiki table, on the top of the other Undersecretaries of State), if the prevailing opinion is to list him together with the other ministers, then let's just keep him there, even under the Prime Minister (even if, to be consistent, then we should also list the Ministers without portfolio before the other Ministers). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's redundant, but I also think that this format is the more "correct" one, due to what I said before, the Secretary of the Council isn't a minister, but it's more important than the other undersecretaries. Anyway, if we have to remove one of the two, I'd remove the Secretary from the list of ministers and keep it under the PM. But, as I said, even if it's a repetition, I would keep the current format. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: Is it possible that a compromise version cannot be found to eliminate a useless and redundant repetition? I don't understand, why do you think it is better to repeat this office twice in the same table? As a reader, I look at the table and the first thing I think about is a compilation error. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

My compromise version is to delete it from the "list of ministers", but as I said I think it wouldn't be so correct, because the Secretary of the Council is even listed in the list of ministers on the government's website. I understand that mentioning it twice is quite redundant, but it's not such a tragedy. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: I must warn you that the government website is not updated yet, it will soon list all the undersecretaries. You shouldn't base your judgment on the site's current list. Just as it was wrong to express a judgment starting from the wrong assumption that Garfoli held two offices. Unnecessary repetitions are always redundant and are always an error, especially if the error is voluntary and does not want to be corrected.if almost anyone gives a clear-cut judgment on this thing, I find myself forced to be bold and remove the repetition myself. But I preferred the deal to be made here. Your "compromise version" is my preferred one, but it is in contrast with the opinion of Checco and perhaps with that of Ritchie92, who said he was neutral, but in his comments it did not seem so to me. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The redundancy is not an error, nor a tragedy. Unnecessary repetitions are not always an error, I don't know where SdC took that idea from. Anyway, Nick.mon also has clearly stated that he prefers to keep it in the table, as Checco. So I don't see how Scia Della Cometa could ever be bold and push their version against consensus. He will be reverted until a compromise is agreed onto. Regarding my neutrality, I am indeed neutral since I am not pushing for one of the two versions A or B. For me both have their justifications. However I realized, during the discussion, that option C would be unacceptable because it would cause incompleteness in the list of Undersecretaries. I am sorry this realization came later, I would not have put it as a possible option if I had realized this earlier. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: Nothing is a tragedy, but "redundancy" has a negative meaning (or not?) and the "unnecessary repetitions" are precisely unnecessary. The option A is undoubtedly the worst option, you all have given wrong reasons to justify the double presence of the same office: the non-existent coexistence of two offices, the government website (which is not yet updated). It is incomprehensible how you want to maintain a blatant repetition, at the cost of doing an edit war. There is no table regarding governments of other countries that repeat the same office twice (for no reason). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I did never say that the SCoM has two offices, I said two roles, meaning that he/she has two titles: an undersecretary, and the secretary of the council. Garofoli cannot be removed from the list of undersecretaries, because he is one of them. The question is whether to keep the "secretary of the Council" row. This is a redundancy, but I don't see why it is so negative. Or why you cannot wait (or have respect) for other users opinions and ideas. Apparently you have not convinced anyone (yet) of the paramount necessity of removing that row. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: Well, Garofoli has one only role (otherwise, explain to me which is his other role as undersecretary, please), then, I wann you that Garofoli is never listed among the Undersecretaries. He is listed as Secretary of the Council in two different ways. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, his job full title is "Undersecretary to the Presidency of the Council with the role of Secretary of the Council of Ministers". So he is an undersecretary. And if you had paid attention, I had proposed a few replies above – as a compromise – to put his name inside the list of "Undersecretaries" below the PM row, removing the "secretary of the council" section there. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I have little to add to what User:Ritchie92 has consistently argued in this talk. The current status quo is OK to me. --Checco (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: it was you who talked about "two roles", the role / office is only one and that's what you wrote yourself. But since you all don't want to remove in any way this senseless repetition (removal that would have been logical and elementary for the table of a government of any other country) I give up and pull myself out of the pages on Italian governments.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I just said, please wait for other editors to reply. This repetition – as was explained to you many times – is not "senseless", it has its reasons. It is a big ugly, I agree – no big deal, but for now no consensus about how to solve this has been reached. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I even proposed a middle-ground temporary solution, which is to remove the "Secretary of the Council of Ministers" from below the PM row, and include the Secretary into the list of all Undersecretaries to the PM. But none of you even commented on this. It looks reasonable to me, and it removes part of the repetition. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean. Can you explain it to me? --Checco (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Something like this. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Office	Portrait	Name	Term of office	Party
Prime Minister		Mario Draghi	13 February 2021 – present		Independent
	Undersecretaries Roberto Garofoli (Ind.) – with the role of Secretary of the Council of Ministers Vincenzo Amendola (PD) – Delegated to European Affairs Franco Gabrielli (Ind.) – Delegated to the Authority for the Security of the Republic Giuseppe Moles (FI) – Delegated to Information and Publishing Bruno Tabacci (CD) – Delegated to the Coordination of Economic Policy

I prefer the current situation, but I would accept also that, provided that the Secretary is mentioned also below. --Checco (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Level of detail in Timeline

I think we are going out of context in the Timeline section of this article. Some editors (usually IP editors) are adding tons of minor events involving Draghi or government members, that have really little interest in the big picture of the purpose of this article. What can we do about it? I already had to remove stuff like a bilateral meeting with the Holy See (something soooo unusual in Italian politics), or a private meeting between Draghi and Di Maio after the killing of the Italian ambassador to the DRC. Now someone added a ceremony at the Chigi Palace "for the Pact for the innovation of public work and social cohesion"... I don't know, it feels like really too much. Ideas? Can we decide which events go into the timeline? --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the issue to the table! I am quite radical on this: there should be NO timeline. Background and a short history should be enough. Any proposal that would reduce or, better, delete the "Timeline" section gets my full approval. --Checco (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Placement of the Secretary of the Council of Ministers

I know that the topic will seem repetitive and that perhaps my new proposal will be rejected (even if I don't understand the reason), but however, not sharing the useless repetitions (and the office of the Secretary of the Council of Ministers is unnecessarily repeated in the table), I will do it anyway, hoping for the intervention of other users: Why don't we keep the autonomous row for the Secretary at the bottom of the table (preferably writing "Undersecretary of State acting as Secretary of the Council of Ministers, rather than only "Secretary of the Council of Ministers") and place it together with the other undersecretaries only when he/she has other assignments (for example Giorgetti in the Conte I government or Letta in Berlusconi IV government)? In this way the repetition would be justified only in case of double assignment. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• As of signature time, this is not a properly formatted RfC. Scia Della Cometa, the RfC should be a short and neutral question (or statement) per WP:RFCBRIEF. You own thoughts and ideas have to be written below it, separately. JBchrch (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I rephrase the question. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Rfc: Placement of the Secretary of the Council of Ministers in the table

Can't we keep the autonomous row for the Secretary at the bottom of the table (preferably writing "Undersecretary of State acting as Secretary of the Council of Ministers", rather than only "Secretary of the Council of Ministers") and list him/her also together with the other Undersecretaries to the Presidency of the Council only when he/she has other assignments (for example Giorgetti in the Conte I government or Letta in Berlusconi IV government) in order to avoid the repetition of the same office in the table? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the current version. --Checco (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I must say that this resistance to a simple and basic modification is quite incomprehensible. Between those who argue that the secretary of the council of ministers and the undersecretary are two distinct positions, those who have supported the current setting on the basis of an outdated website and those who have not provided any justification for the repetition, it is difficult to understand the defense of a table evidently redundant...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

As I did in a previous discussion, I propose a compromise solution: keep the "Secretary of the Council of Ministers" row at the end of the table, and remove its collapsible item below the President of the Council. The first row would then include the Secretary together with the other "undersecretaries" adding a sentence: "with the role of Secretary of the Council of Ministers". This might be useful because sometimes the Secretary of the Council also has other specific "jobs" assigned, like the other undersecretaries to the Presidency. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, this way the repetition that Scia Della Cometa is worried about is going to be "hidden" inside the generic "Undersecretaries" collapsed list, so hopefully it is not going to be so harmful. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Office	Portrait	Name	Term of office	Party
Prime Minister		Mario Draghi	13 February 2021 – present		Independent
	Undersecretaries Roberto Garofoli (Ind.) – with the role of Secretary of the Council of Ministers Vincenzo Amendola (PD) – Delegated to European Affairs Franco Gabrielli (Ind.) – Delegated to the Authority for the Security of the Republic Giuseppe Moles (FI) – Delegated to Information and Publishing Bruno Tabacci (CD) – Delegated to the Coordination of Economic Policy

Yes, I like this version, it could be a good compromise. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

As I have already said, the repetition could somehow be justified only in the case of other assignments for the "Undersecretary to the Presidency of the Council with the role of Secretary of the Council of Ministers", but Garofoli (like many others secretaries before him) has no other assignments, so the repetition remains unmotivated. A repetition should be justified by a double assignment, although for me the most sensible solution would be to always remove him/her from the bottom of the table, since he/she is not a member of the cabinet. And the name of the office itself is wrong and generic, even in Italy it is never called that way, it should be specified that he/she is an undersecretary. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Checco, Nick.mon, and Ritchie92: I know I am repetitive but I would like an answer to my proposal, at the moment I have not received any response (and so any opposition). @ Ritchie92: if you consider this matter repetitive, you are free not to intervene, but if you intend to intervene do it without criticizing: this is the proper thread. Checco said he would accept this change, if I understand correctly. However, I would like to clarify one thing once and for all: "Secretary of the CDM" and "Undersecretary of State" are not two different offices. It is also due to this interpretation that there is a repetition in the table. I repeat my proposal: if the Undersecretary acting as secretary of the CDM also has another task, he can be repeated twice, if he has no other tasks (therefore he has only one task), he is listed in the table only once, as is natural that it is.

Practical example

In the Berlusconi IV Cabinet, Gianni Letta was both "Undersecretary acting as Secretary of the CDM" and "Undersecretary delegated to the Authority for the Security of the Republic", so he can be listed twice:

Office	Portrait	Name	Term of office	Party
Prime Minister		Silvio Berlusconi	8 May 2008 – 16 November 2011		The People of Freedom
	Undersecretaries Gianni Letta (PdL) – Delegated to the Authority for the Security of the Republic Paolo Bonaiuti (PdL) – Delegated to Information, Communications and Publishing Carlo Giovanardi (PdL) – Delegated to Family Policies, the Fight Against Drugs, and the Civil Service Gianfranco Micciché (GS) – Delegated to the Inter-ministerial Committee for Economic Planning Rocco Crimi (PdL) – Delegated to Sport Michela Vittoria Brambilla (PdL) – Delegated to Tourism (until 8 May 2009) Guido Bertolaso (Ind.) – Delegated to the Solution of the Waste Management Crisis in Campania and to the Coordination of Civil Protection to a European and International Level (until 11 November 2010)
omissis (Ministers)
Secretary of the Council of Ministers (Undersecretary to the Presidency of the Council of Ministers)		Gianni Letta	8 May 2008 – 16 November 2011		The People of Freedom

Instead, in the Draghi Cabinet, Garofoli is only "Undersecretary acting as Secretary of the CDM", therefore repetition isn't necessary any more:

Office	Portrait	Name	Term of office	Party
Prime Minister		Mario Draghi	13 February 2021 – present		Independent
	Undersecretaries Vincenzo Amendola (PD) – Delegated to European Affairs Franco Gabrielli (Ind.) – Delegated to the Authority for the Security of the Republic Giuseppe Moles (FI) – Delegated to Information and Publishing Bruno Tabacci (CD) – Delegated to the Coordination of Economic Policy and to Space Valentina Vezzali (Ind.) – Delegated to Sport (since 16 March 2021)
omissis (Ministers)
Secretary of the Council of Ministers (Undersecretary to the Presidency of the Council of Ministers)		Roberto Garofoli	13 February 2021 – present		Independent

I would like to know if you are against this change, and if you are against you should also explain why. If you will refrain from commenting, it will mean that I can be bold and implement this change. Currently, I abstain from the discussion about repetition of tables, because my opinion is strongly influenced by the layout of the table. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain why your "opinion is strongly influenced by the layout of the table"? What would change if your proposal were to be accepted? Which position would you take that you are not able to take now? --Checco (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

As I have already stated above, I am against keeping this table in its current state, I cannot express myself in favor of keeping it, I would prefer to replace it with other solutions. If, on the other hand, the "defects" of this table were corrected, I would have no objection to keeping it (with or without the short table). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I think I could agree with your proposal, but I would like to have no Italics and, more important, the Secretary of the Council listed right after the President of the Council of Ministers and his Undersecretaries, thus before other ministers: this way, readers would easily connect the Secretary with the President and his/her Undersecretaries; this way, it would be clear that the Secretary is also an Undersecretary. --Checco (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. For italics there is no problem. Instead, to make it clear that the secretary is an undersecretary to the Prime Minister, I have explicitly written it (Undersecretary to the Presidency of the Council of Ministers). The point is that in the table the offices are listed in order by hierarchy, following your reasoning even the ministers without portfolios should be listed before the ministers ... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

That would be too complicate. What I am proposing is a logical middle ground that can help readers to understand. In order to clarify that the Secretary is not a minister we could try to use a different background colour or style—anything like that. --Checco (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: For this reason I have inserted "Undersecretary to the Presidency of the Council of Ministers" in brackets. After all, if it was decided to follow the hierarchical order, this is: Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Ministers, Ministers without portfolio, Secretary of the CDM, Deputy Ministers, Undersecretaries. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not convinced. Deputy ministers and undersecretaries are listed right after their ministers. I would do the same, but with photo and more infos, also for the secretary of the council. However, it is really no big deal. Provided that the small table stays, go ahead with what you want to do. This specific issue matters little to me. --Checco (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, then no problem.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this compromise: keep the secretary of the council in the hidden list only if he or she have also other tasks. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Good, then I can proceed.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Absurd duplication

The section "Council of Ministers" has 25 rows with the offices, names, parties, and terms. The section "Composition of the Government" also has 25 rows with the same offices, same names, same parties, and same terms. What the heck? Yes it also has portraits and collapsed boxes of undersecretaries, but rarely have I seen something here so ridiculously redundant. I see that recent cabinets have this duplication too, and it's just baffling to me. What in the world is the point of repeating these names and offices twice, with no benefit to readers? Reywas92^Talk 07:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts are that this has been inspired by my design of Second government of Pedro Sánchez#Departmental structure, in Spain (in fact, you would see that the table's design is fairly similar). The duplication there, however, has the purpose of showing the internal structure and composition of each ministry and its evolution during the government's tenure; having the ministers' portraits and ministerial names added there is a mere way to make it more visual, but it is secondary to the main content of the section. I agree that the duplication here is not well-thought and is redundant, since you could make a simple list of undersecretaries and deputy ministers. Impru20^talk 07:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer to have only the "Council of Ministers" table because it is more immediate and readable for readers. As other users wanted also the longer list, the compromise was to have two tables. Whatever is OK with me, as long as the first table is kept. --Checco (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm still bewildered. It's the same list. What makes the "Composition of the Government" table less "readable"? What is "immediate" supposed to mean and why is that needed here? It's vertically longer because of the images but that's no reason to duplicate the same thing without images. As sort of a comparison Presidency_of_Joe_Biden#Administration has the concise image-free list, while Cabinet_of_Joe_Biden#Cabinet_members has the bigger version with images and other details, but these are on separate articles, not right on top of each other. I suppose the former is more "immediate", allowing it to fit as a sidebar next to text, but you don't need that in the main article for which it's the key topic and has its own section. Reywas92^Talk 20:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

If it comes to choosing between which of the two tables to keep, I think it would be best to keep the full detailed table, i.e. the large one with pictures. It contains the full dates of start-end of each minister's office, and the full list of undersecretaries, which I would not remove from these articles.

Regarding the readability that Checco was mentioning, I think we can work towards a solution that makes the large table more compact: at the moment there is a lot of empty space in the table, I think we can find a way to condense information so that it is more "immediate". It has already been done recently by removing the undersecretaries column and using the collapsible lists. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree with Reywas92, I had already raised this issue in the previous talk! And the page is doubly redundant, because not only the tables are repeated, but the same information is absurdly repeated within the same table! (The secretary of the council of ministers is repeated twice for no reason in the second table). All this makes no sense. I had personally expressed myself in favor of the broader table, but not under these conditions. Rather than keeping the pages in their current state, it is better to delete the second table and keep only the first one. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Scia Della Cometa please do not add confusion by mixing two different topics. I think it would be totally unacceptable to remove important content (like the list of undersecretaries for each ministry) just because of an aesthetic reason. If one of the two tables must go, then it should be the one with less information, i.e. the first one. (Regarding the repetition of the secretary of the Council of Minister: this is currently under discussion in another section in this page. I had proposed a compromise solution but nobody seemed to be willing to move a bit from their positions.)--Ritchie92 (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: I am not mixing any topics, we are talking about useless duplications: I had already posed the problem of the double table as that of the repetition of the same office in the second table. Your proposal was not a compromise solution simply because the repetition remained all the same. My position is clear: I prefer to have only one table, the more complete the better. But if the table is to contain redundant repetitions, then I undoubtedly support the proposal to remove it and keep only the simplified version. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but yours sounds like an unacceptable petty position: you would rather remove the full detailed table that you prefer (I prefer to have only one table, the more complete the better), and keep a smaller un-detailed table (removing sourced and important content from Wikipedia), only because of a tiny invisible repetition. If you had replied once to my proposal above, we would have proceeded with your RfC above, but you are un-moveable from your position, to which nobody else has agreed up to now. With my proposal instead, the tiny repetition would be hidden in the collapsed list of undersecretaries, and yes it is indeed a compromise between your proposal and the positions of other editors. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: I don't impose anything, I only express my opinion, if you don't mind. Yes, I prefer a shorter table than a repetitive table, so? You proposed to hide the dust under the carpet, not to remove the repetition, that's not how problems are solved in my view. What is insignificant or invisible to you is simply not to me. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

That table is not a "repetitive table" by any measure that is reasonable. There is one little item that is repeated, it would not be that visible if not for you blocking this, and its presence surely does not cancel the meaningfulness of the whole table. So yes, I'm seeing a bit of pettiness in your argument. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: Sorry, what am I "blocking"? I'm not even editing the pages of the governments. I only said that I prefer the current shorter table to the current longer table, since the first one is at least more consistent. It is my legitimate opinion. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I would keep only the "Council of Ministers" table. This said, I do not see any problem of repetition. There are plenty of articles including a short summary table and a longer table below. The two tables have different purposes: the first one serves anyone who wants to read the list of mininisters with parties and little more, the second one serves anyone who is interested in watching the ministers' photos and read undersecretaries in detail. Personally, I usually take a look only to the first table in the articles on previous governments. I would be confused with having only the second one, which can be dispersive. --Checco (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I find this would not really be an improvement at all: some of you would rather remove important information like the undersecretaries table and the pictures of the ministers, rather than removing the less informative table (the first one). I don't think this is a good idea, unless we add another section with the images, and one with the undersecretaries list, which is also not the best solution in my opinion. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, indeed. Why not simply leaving both tables? --Checco (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe we should rename the sections. For examples "Summary" and "Detailed composition", I don't know. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Because it's incredibly poor organization and writing style, and honestly what's confusing is why it's listed again! When I first read the page I wasted time going through every item to try to figure out what the difference in the two tables was and I thought, "why the hell are these all dupliated, why would there be two tables listing the same thing if there's not actually a difference betweent them?" There's a huge difference between summarizing content in the lead and having the exact same thing twice in a row. I've written a number of featured lists that provided details about each item including images and descriptions, but I don't have another redundant table leaving out all the important information and just listing wikilinks. The folks at itwiki https://it.wiki.x.io/wiki/Governo_Draghi#Composizione are apparently able to read a single table with images without getting confused, so I have no idea what to say to you if you aren't, because it's the same thing as what's above it, but with pictures, and calling it "dispersive" confuses me. Is Amato_II_Cabinet#Composition_of_the_Government dispersive? If you want a basic list "and little more", maybe make that at https://simple.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draghi_Cabinet, but we don't go around having articles with a simple version followed immediately by the detailed version. Renaming the sections like that would make sense if there were legitimate differences between them, not just pictures, full dates, and collapsed secretaries. Or how about putting all the compact versions in one place at a List of Italian cabinets? Reywas92^Talk 01:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Reywas92: I basically agree with you; as I have already said, I like neither of the two tables. In my view, a solution could be to make separate lists for ministers, deputy ministers and undersecretaries, similarly to the French governments (see Castex government). In this way we would necessarily avoid the useless repetition of tables and offices.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree with Reywas92 and I would keep the more detailed table alone. I don't think it's dispersive, it is actually quite handy to read and use. It's also very useful that the deputy ministers and secretaries are listed together with the corresponding minister: so I disagree with the proposal of Scia Della Cometa of having three separate lists for the ministers, then the deputies and then the undersecretaries. This amounts to: (1) almost a "triplication" of information (I'm referring to the ministries names), it's much simpler to read to list each ministry with the corresponding minister, deputy (if there is one) and undersecretaries (if there are some); (2) additional confusion, since not all ministries have a deputy or undersecretary, so one would have a "list of ministers" listing all ministries, and then two "incomplete" lists just for the existing deputies/undersecretaries. It does not make logical sense: the category to group government members should be the ministry, not the rank. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any problem in the 2nd point. However (IMHO) my proposal makes more logical sense than repeating twice a same office in the same table...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, we are not talking about that here, there is another discussion section on this page about what you mention. Here we are talking about the duplication of the whole table, i.e. the fact that the entire list of ministers is repeated twice. The matter about the Secretary of the Council is more subtle and much less evident, so please do not involve it in this discussion, we're talking about something else. If we decide which table to include, we can then even decide to remove the duplicate Secretary from the second table. But that decision is non trivial and depends on considerations about the roles and titles of the Secretary, it's not about the plain repetition of the same table. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I am for keeping both tables, but I could agree with SDC about having "separate lists for ministers, deputy ministers and undersecretaries, similarly to the French governments". For instance, I like how Castex government is organised. One more thing would be to move the articles about Italian governments from the "XXXX Cabinet" format to the "XXXX government" one, but that is another story. --Checco (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

This matter should be discussed separately, but I absolutely agree with replacing the term "cabinet" with "government" in the title of the pages. However, the separation into different tables of the various offices would substantially solve the problems mentioned above.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess this format (see User:Scia Della Cometa/sandbox) won't find consensus, but it looks clear to me and would solve the problems raised above.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As I already said, you are adding more and more topics into this discussion, which do not belong to this thread. I started many months ago a discussion about the titles of the government pages, to no result. Such a discussion should be a well-posed RfC on the Wikipedia:Article titles talk page. Anyway. I totally disagree with Scia Della Cometa's proposal for the reason I stated above: (1) it adds duplication (or triplication) of lines for the same ministries, and (2) it adds confusion because the section about the deputy ministers or the section about the undersecretaries do not include all ministries, so they look incomplete. As I said above, the categorization should be done by Ministry, not by Rank. So I would keep the larger (second) table and remove the first "summary" table. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: 1st) the topic of the titles was not introduced by me, I only commented on the proposal of the user Checco; 2nd) you may disagree with my proposal, but currently the second table in the page is more confusing than my proposal; 3rd) it does not seem to me that there is a consensus to remove the first table in place of the second one. (I had misread)--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

In my view removing a more detailed table and keeping the shorter version is quite absurd. If we have to remove a table, I would definitely remove the shorter one. Anyway, as I said, we could keep them both, renaiming the sections "Summary" and "Detailed composition". -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: I reply to your points: 1) I did not accuse you specifically of starting the conversation, in English the word "you" is also plural, so I was referring to you and Checco discussing about completely different topics here; (2) how is the second table more confusing? It is categorized by Ministry and the only tiny bit of confusion is the (hidden) secretary mentioned twice (but that can be removed, if you paid attention to the other discussion!!!); and (3) I never said that there is a consensus about my proposal. But I still think it's the best solution, the one with most clarity, completeness, and visually the best at the moment. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You have not proposed to remove the repetition in the other discussion, you have proposed to hide it, and anyway the undersecretary at the bottom of the table is out of place. There is a table compiled quite well, it would be enough to copy the one in it.wikipedia, with the same order. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I had proposed a compromise between the various positions (and only for you, because you were and are the only one that is that much concerned about that small repetition). You never agreed to the compromise, so the current situation is the worse even for your reasoning, while we could have had my solution which is objectively less problematic (evident duplication is obviously worse than hidden duplication). Anyway. Now you are proposing even another table: the table in it.wiki [1] which is actually much worse! It has a lot of unused empty space (for each deputy minister that does not exist, or undersecretaries, there is a huge empty cell of the table with only "Carica non assegnata" written in it, which was similar to the problem we had before, and that was solved with the latest restyling and using the collapsed lists). So the it.wiki table is a complete waste of space. I really think our second table here is almost the best for the amount of information per space that is contained in it. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hiding a problem is simply the worst way to fix it... And the Italian table, in my view, is better than this one for many reasons: 1) the respect for the institutional order of offices 2) no repetitions 3) immediate display of deputy ministers and undersecretaries. The only worst aspect is the presence of empty spaces.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Replying: (1) The institutional order can be switched without changing the style of the table, if need be, so this point makes no sense (also: there were already other discussions about the ordering, and the consensus was to keep it like it is now, and not take the "official" one); (2) the famous repetitions (in reality: one small tiny one) you talk about 100% of the time can also be simply removed, if need be, still keeping the style of the table, so I really don't understand this point also; (3) the deputy ministers and secretaries lists can be made so that they are not automatically collapsed, if need be, and this would still amount to a net saving of a large amount of space with respect to the it.wiki table. So, I don't think that we have to copy the table from there, just for a few modifications that can be done keeping the overall en.wiki style. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I look at the current state of the tables and not how they will (not) be changed, and on the basis of this I express my preferences. I said that I would prefer to replace the two current tables on this page with tables of the various offices separated from each other or with the Italian table both because I agree with the order and because I agree with the format of this last one. However I know that it has already been decided in other discussions not to follow the institutional order of the ministers (positions of the Presidency of the Council of ministers and then the ministries) and to maintain the repetition of the Undersecretary to the Presidency of the Council. So, between the two current tables, as they are now, I would keep the first one, but it is only the simple opinion of one user.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Once again, I would keep both tables, per User:Nick.mon. That is still the best option, in my view.

However, User:Scia Della Cometa/sandbox is also an intriguing proposal and I would accept it 100% if photos were removed. Photos are specifically what makes the table too long, in my view, and hardly readable on smartphones. --Checco (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

If we remove the photos from the second table, then really what is the difference between the two tables? Anyway, I strongly oppose removing the photos, which are usually inserted also in government tables of other states. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a stylistic choice, some pages insert photos in the table, others don't. The French government pages put the photos of the ministers in the infobox, but I don't like this solution. About the readability on smartphones, in reality there is the possibility to convert the screen into the "Desktop" version. In any case, I also created the version without photos in my sandbox. As I repeat for the umpteenth time, I do not like repetitions at all if they are not motivated, whether they concern the tables or the offices in the tables themselves. In the current version of the page there are both types of repetion, difficult to understand: the first table, at first glance, is a photocopy of the second but without photos and without indicating the exact dates of the terms of office. Furthermore, the title of the first table is not 100% correct, the Council of Ministers does not include the Secretary of the Council of Ministers (he could be considered more generically a member of the "Cabinet"). On the other hand, at the moment I don't like the second table, since the repetition within the same section is IMHO worse than the repetitions. For this reason I don't understand why my proposal in the previous Rfc was not even taken into consideration (only Checco said he prefers the current situation, without explaining the reason). After all, I was proposing to keep the repetition only when the same person actually holds a double office (specifying that the secretary is an undersecretary). Therefore, summing up, I would say that at present the title of the first table is incorrect and that the second table, in addition to being very similar to the first, also contains repetitions. If we intend to solve these problems on the whole, ok, otherwise it will be difficult to end this discussion with a shared final solution. I think that correcting what is repeated in the second table would be enough to keep only this one, but before a redundant table a short and concise table is better. If the second table is perfectly compiled, then a sense must be found for the first. If we take the Spanish government page for example, there is a section called the Council of Ministers (for the summary table) and a section called Departmental structure (very well done). The secretary is not part of the council of ministers, he is not counted as a "member" in the infobox of the page, so I would remove him from the first table. In the second table there is the problem that I have already mentioned: in the previous Rfc I explicitly said that like any other exponent of the government, the repetition must be justified by a possible double assignment: if the secretary has another delegation (for example Gianni Letta ) we also list it together with the other undersecretaries to the presidency of the council, otherwise we have to indicate it only once: where? personally I would prefer the Collapsible section under the Prime Minister, but it could also be at the bottom of the table ( Secretary of the Council of Ministers
(Undersecretary to the Presidency of the Council) ?). If these problems were solved I could also be "in favor" of maintaining the two tables, otherwise I would honestly prefer the solution in my sandbox (with or without photos). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I like the first, short table ("Council of Ministers") beacuse is more readable. And I do not like photos in such tables. Without photos, User:Scia Della Cometa/sandbox would be OK, even though I still prefer the current status quo. It is a stylistic choice, indeed. However, I really do not see any problem about having two tables. There are plenty of articles with summaries or short tables at the beginning and then more detailed infos or tables. --Checco (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: you did not answer me yet regarding my proposal: for example, why did you say you prefer the status quo rather than my proposal in the previous Rfc? And the title of the first table is wrong if we also include the Secretary of the Council of ministers (it is no longer just "Council of ministers"). Furthermore it would take a reason to justify the presence of two tables, currently the difference is minimal... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but sometimes I find difficult to understand what you mean to say. Regarding the previous RfC, I definitely prefer the status quo, also on Secretay of the Council of Ministers. I generally like the status quo, featuring two tables: the first (section "Council of Ministers") including also the Secretary of the Council (for the reasons stated above) and the second (possibly renamed "Detailed composition", as the article's name is "Draghi Cabinet", per User:Nick.mon) as it is. Provided that I favour keeping the status quo, I could agree on your proposal, without photos. However, it seems there is no consensus on it either. As it is, the status quo will stay. Of course, we can re-discuss the issue of the Secretary (which was already decided once) and other issues (including the article's name) anytime, but we are now debating on tables. At least two uses favour the status quo, while the editors more open to changes do not agree on a shared version. --Checco (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: If you did not understand my proposal on the secretary, I will explain it better, for example, the Berlusconi IV Cabinet: Gianni Letta is both "Secretary of the Council of Ministers" and "Undersecretary delegated to the Authority for the Security of the Republic", he should be listed as below:

Office	Portrait	Name	Term of office	Party
Prime Minister		Silvio Berlusconi	8 May 2008 – 16 November 2011		The People of Freedom
	Undersecretaries Gianni Letta (PdL) – Delegated to the Authority for the Security of the Republic Paolo Bonaiuti (PdL) – Delegated to Information, Communications and Publishing Carlo Giovanardi (PdL) – Delegated to Family Policies, the Fight Against Drugs, and the Civil Service Gianfranco Micciché (GS) – Delegated to the Inter-ministerial Committee for Economic Planning Rocco Crimi (PdL) – Delegated to Sport Michela Vittoria Brambilla (PdL) – Delegated to Tourism (until 8 May 2009) Guido Bertolaso (Ind.) – Delegated to the Solution of the Waste Management Crisis in Campania and to the Coordination of Civil Protection to a European and International Level (until 11 November 2010)
omissis
Secretary of the Council of Ministers (Undersecretary to the Presidency of the Council of Ministers)		Gianni Letta	8 May 2008 – 16 November 2011		The People of Freedom

Letta is listed among the Undersecretaries and then as Secretary of the Council of Ministries. In this case the repetition is justified, Letta has a double task. Instead, In the Draghi Cabinet, Garofoli is only the Secretary, so he should only be listed once. Honestly it seems like a common sense solution.

About the tables: I would prefer to keep only one table (or replace the two current tables with the format in my infobox). If we keep the first table with the Secretary, its title should be changed in "Cabinet", because it would no longer only concern the Council of Ministers. The title of the second table may remain the current one or change to "Full composition of the government".--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I will answer first on the second issue, the scope of this specific thread. Again, I would keep both tables, the first one in a section named "Council of Ministers" ("Cabinet", synonym of "Government, would be incorrect, while "Council of Ministers" is OK as the Secretary takes part to its meetings) and the second one in a section named "Full [or Detailed] composition" ("of the Government" would be redundant as the article itself is about on the government"). As I have written multiple times, I like having a short list and a detailed list. If that is not possible, I would keep only the short, more readable list, and I could also accept your compromise version.

On the other issue, in the detailed list, I have to say that, generally speaking, Garofoli and his predecessors have two roles: undersecretary and Secretary of the Council. Thus, they can be listed twice. However, to be blunt, the issue is not a big deal to me: your proposal is quite acceptable. --Checco (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Checco: Actually I believe that "Cabinet" actually has a narrower meaning than "Government" (which is why I would change the names of the pages) and can be considered a synonym for "Council of Ministers". But there is a difference: the secretary is not a member of the Council of Ministers, but by attending the sessions he can be included between the members of the cabinet. For this reason, with the presence of the secretary in the first table, the currennt title for that table is substantially incorrect. About the matter of the Secretary: Garofoli doesn't have two roles, it's not true. Garofoli is only the "Undersecretary of State to the Presidency of the Council acting as Secretary of the Council of Ministers", he has no other roles, in this case the office of undersecretary corresponds only to that of secretary. There is not only the role of undersecretary per se: every undersecretary has a task in the government. Garofoli does not perform duties as undersecretary and duties as secretary, because they are the same office. Instead, in Berlusconi IV government, Letta had two tasks: he was secretary and had the delegation to the Authority for the Security of the Republic. However there has already been a discussion regarding this issue, therefore I cannot make changes without consensus in the talk.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You are unapologetically, again and again, switching the topic of discussion to something that suits your purposes. You even added another example of a table with modifications about the Secretary, in this section!!! I think this is crazy. Why can't you talk about the Secretary in another section? There are actually three more sections in this talk page about that issue. It is really difficult to find a solution if we keep adding conditions related to different issues. Let's discuss one thing at a time: here we need to decide whether to have one table or two tables. Then later we can decide how this table can look like. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I have already expressed my opinion: I don't like repetitions, so I prefer only one table: which one? the second table if corrected, otherwise I prefer the first table or better the solution of my sandbox. If both tables were kept, the title of the first one would have to be corrected or the secretary would have to be removed (in my view). There is another discussion above but no one had really responded to my proposal, which is why I have re-proposed it here with the graphical representation. With these corrections I could accept both tables. It's all connected, it doesn't seem difficult to tackle the subject as a whole; after all, there were no other interventions. For me, the second table, in its current state, can be deleted, but it's my opinion. With this I have said it all.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey about possible solutions

Hi all, I would like to attempt to rationalize this discussion, hopefully to reach a conclusion among the interested editors. Therefore I ping the ones which already participated in this discussion: Reywas92, Impru20, Scia Della Cometa, Checco, Nick.mon. Please ping other editors that could be interested. And also, please, keep the replies short: this is not meant to be for discussion but for checking the possible solutions and exclude the less popular ones. If you have an order of preference, that would also be useful to know.

This survey is a general one and is just about the number and scope of the summary tables in the article. This is not about possible errors currently in the tables like the issue with the Secretary of the Council or the ordering of the Ministries. As a matter of fact, errors in the tables do not justify their complete deletion, so please do not use existing errors as a motivation for your choice: the errors will be solved. This is really about the general idea for the article structure. Imagine that there was no article and a new one had to be created from scratch: how many tables would you like to have, and with which information?

So there are, in my opinion, the following options:

• A. Keep the two summary tables as in the current status quo, one which is condensed, and another with more detail (e.g. the full dates, the pictures, the deputy ministers and undersecretaries for each Ministry). Nothing much more to say about this solution. Possibly the section titles will need to be modified, but this is another subject.
• B. Keep only one summary table. This would solve the main issue raised by the OP. This can have two ramifications:
  • B1. Keep one short-form table, like the first one currently in the article: only with Ministers (no deputies or undersecretaries), and surely without pictures. This solution implies that the information about the deputies and undersecretaries must be moved somewhere else, so it involves the creation of multiple tables/lists, one for the Ministers, one for the deputy Ministers, and one for the Undersecretaries.
  • B2. Keep one long-form table, like the second one currently in the article: with details about the hierarchy of each ministry (i.e. deputies and undersecretaries, when applicable), possibly with pictures also. Specifics about how much detail to have (e.g. pictures or not) in this table can be discussed later. This solution would condense all the information that is currently given in two tables into a single one.

If I missed some possible solution, I will add them to the list. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• I support option B2, because it is the one that provides the most information in the least space, and provides a table that is easy to navigate. This would be my main choice, I really see problems in both solutions A and B1: in particular A has the issue of basically repeating the same table twice, and B1 has the issue of separating the schematic order by Ministry to a order by hierarchy, which is extremely weird to me, and also the "aesthetic" issue of having the deputy and undersecretary tables/lists which will look incomplete (not all Ministries have deputies or undersecretaries). --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• B2 then B1, there is no reason to have content duplicating itself twice in a row. If there are concerns about spacing, having an image-free list on an overview article may work. Reywas92^Talk 17:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• I strongly support option A. I could accept, as a compromise, B1, while I strongly oppose B2. --Checco (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Government, not Cabinet

It is quite awkward that all the articles about Italian governments are named "Xxxxx Cabinet". Most articles on governments are named "Xxxxx government". Moreover, the Italian official naming is Governo Xxxxx: governo is perfectly translatable into "government", while "cabinet" would be gabinetto (an obscure synonym). It is not a priority, I understand, but I would move all the article on Italian government to the "Xxxxx government". --Checco (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I support this change, however I also think it should be part of a larger cleanup (and probably definite general guideline) over all the governments' articles on WP. An attempt to produce a general guideline was made more than a year ago here. It might be worth to revive that discussion and start a properly organized RfC on Wikipedia talk:Article titles to get larger visibility. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Mario Draghi in 2022 (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2022 (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)